*** Official THE HAPPENING Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[MikeRS]

I thought the Psycho riff/ripoff (and it is blatant) pretty damn effective. If Night had chosen to make a film at that level of tension, he might have had another "Signs" (in terms of boxoffice).

 

[Jari K]

.

Again, people saw this one scene alone very differently. It´s M. Night again..

 

[todd s]

I brought this up a few pages back and it got lost in the shuffle. Just wondering if anyone else thought the same thing?

 

[TravisR]

That makes sense to me.

I think the bigger question is if it 'happened' there once, why the hell would they move back there at all?

 

[Pete-D]

I finally got around to seeing this on DVD and I have to say -- this movie is almost shockingly bad.

And this is coming from someone who even enjoyed "Lady In The Water" to a reasonable extent.

The narrative just meanders aimlessly all over the place, and the casting is terrible. It's hard not to laugh at a lot of Mark Wahlberg's line readings and he's completely not believable as a school teacher (Paul Giamatti from LitW would've been much better for this role).

The romantic leads also have zero chemistry whatsoever between them and the much balley-hooed R-rated death scenes are quite honestly gratuitous and feel a bit cheap.

The cinematography and the oddly bright look of the entire film is bland too, at least LitW and The Village were interesting to look at visually.

 

[RAF]

Well, watching The Happening on Blu-ray after letting it sit on the shelf for a long time taught me one thing. Never let critical reviews sway me. I'm a big M. Night fan but I still listened to the non-hype and avoided this one. On a rainy Wednesday afternoon in March I finally screened it in my HT and was pleasantly surprised. I have to side with the silent minority who absolutely loved this film. No, it wasn't a summer blockbluster type of thing but it held my interest from start to finish. Well crafted, well acted, thoughtful and much, much better than I had expected. I guess I have to thank the panners for making my day with this one.

from this old timer.

 

[JediFonger]

maybe u just had an extremely low expectation so that when u finally caught it post hype u felt it was decent?

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I couldn't agree more, RAF. I thought it was a very good film. Criminally underrated. I'll never understand why so many people are down on M. Night Shyamalan, who I like to call my Savior of Modern Horror. I've only seen SIGNS, THE SIXTH SENSE (both exceptional) and THE VILLAGE (decent enough) but I love the way the man relies on tension and fear, trying to make you think a bit when telling a story, without blowing it up into mind-numbing action and special effects overkill. I am especially surprised when it's purists like me, who usually prefer the older styles of the genre and science fiction stories of the Twilight Zone variety, who are first in line to pounce. I just don't get that. The man is good at what he does (though I admittedly have yet to see LADY IN THE WATER, and I have trepidations reserved for when I do get to it).

This is a scary concept that works, though I'm a sucker for desperate end-of-the-world movies of this type which leave us no sure-footed understanding or way to escape the horror. The only things I could find mildly lacking here was that Wahlberg isn't a great actor, and he wouldn't be my prime choice for a film like this. Zooey Deschanel leaves something to be desired as well, but the events that are going on around these two are suspenseful, intriguing and frightening enough that it doesn't interfere with the intense experience. Some of the kill scenes are properly disturbing, and I liked the ominous music score. There are a few silly lines now and then ("cheese and crackers!"), but this is a quibble. I very much enjoyed Betty Buckley's eccentric old lady character, and she was also an asset to the film. John Leguizamo touched a nerve in his part as a loving father/husband, and good friend of Wahlberg's.

M. Night is a master horror/sci-fi filmmaker, and we need more of him and his work, especially in this present day and age of mindless cookie cutter genre films that rely on an over-abundance of CGI and chess piece characters. I am completely baffled as to why there's such an outcry against his movies after THE SIXTH SENSE.

 

[TravisR]

While I didn't like The Happening, I do agree with that. And I probably said it before in the thread but I'm happy that some people did like this movie because Shyamalan is a master and I continue to look forward to his next movie (even if I didn't like The Lady In The Water or The Happening).

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

M. Knight thinks he's a master, he wants to be a master but he lacks the modesty IMO.

Masters don't know they're masters and the moment they do realize it and say "hey, I can make any ridiculous film that I want and people will love me and it." it ceases to be genius and becomes pretentious, M. Knight has fallen victim to this.

My problem with him is he seems to have bought into his own hype and now tries too hard to fill his films with overly philosophical themes. He comes up with what is essentially silly premises but to him they are immensely meaningful and deep when most of the time they just come off laughable.

And The Village is in a league all it's own, it's rare that film struck me so negatively that it actually made me angry lol. Lastly, how exactly does one go about outrunning wind? I would love to know because I walk a lot and it would be nice if I could stay ahead of it like Wahlberg and Co. did.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

You mean The Happening. The Village was pretty bad, too, but not as bad as The Happening!

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

No no I meant The Village, The Happening was at least silly enough for a laugh here and there and it was a couple of notches more entertaining than TV.

Ohhhh look out! The trees are out to get us!!! Run for your lives!!

 

[Michael Elliott]

I'm still rather shocked when I see all the hatred thrown at THE HAPPENING. I really don't think the movie was meant to be taken so seriously.

THE VILLAGE and LAKE were downright horrid but THE HAPPENING at least has me willing to check out his next film.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

You'd never know it by M. Knight's direction, to him the situation is extremely serious and the consequences dire.

 

[Michael Elliott]

That true but many "B" movies become cult classics because the stories are silly yet the director's treated them like they were making CITIZEN KANE. Stuff like PLAN 9, HIDEOUS SUN DEMON and countless others tried to be serious and I'd hate to watch these movies in a serious manor.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

You don't think what goes on in THE HAPPENING with multitudes of infected people kiling themselves like that should be treated as dead-serious and dire? I think it's treated extremely seriously, as it should be. This is not a jokefest like RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD or EVIL DEAD 2. It's amazing that we've got someone who treats horror like true horror, and all people seem to want are tongue in cheek laughs.

 

[Pete-D]

I even found "Lady In the Water" to be interesting (though all over the place) ... but "The Happening" was just awful.

Mark Wahlberg isn't the best actor but his acting combined with Night's dialogue style was so bad that it became unintentionally funny. A really bad call, he is not believable as a high school science teacher even for a second.

At least "LitW" had Paul Giamatti and a decent ensemble cast going for it.

And honestly the movie isn't scary. I agree that Night is one of the few directors that can actually scare people, but "The Happening" is not one of those films.

The violence and gore was gratuitous and really didn't add anything to the film.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Okay - you combined mentions of The Village and Wahlberg so close together I thought you were referring to them as the same thing, ie Wahlberg was in The Village.

Indeed, The Happening WAS amusing, but unintentionally so. I cracked up when the guy let himself be eaten by a tiger - I don't think I was supposed to be amused!

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I certainly wasn't. But I guess I'm just weird that way.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

You certainly weren't what - laughing? Then you have a stronger will than I. I agree that Shyamalan didn't INTEND the movie to be funny, but it was. The flick was so absurd and poorly done that I'm astonished anyone DIDN'T laugh at those goofy scenes.

And I always want to like Shyamalan's work. I liked Sixth Sense and Signs, and I think I was neutral on Unbreakable - I should see it again, as it's been so long I can't recall my reaction well.

The others are varying degrees of terrible. That makes three straight crummy films from Shyamalan - not a good trend. I hold out hope he might rebound, but I'm not confident after three consecutive clunkers...