Register a SA Forums Account here!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Post
  • Reply
Apr 18, 2006
When he strikes... you'll know


Saw the opening tonight in Australia, and I've got to say, this was the first M. Night movie that actually didn't like

The premise is excellent- seemingly normal people just suddenly lose it and start killing themselves. No warning, and you have no idea why. The killings are very realistic and many times I sat flinching in my chair as people gruesomely chopped, stabbed, sliced themselves to death. The best was the lawn mower scene.

The acting was superb. I couldn't have come up with a better cast, and they played it really well.
The screenplay, camera work, lighting, and general production value was exactly as you'd expect from Night- extremely good.

So if you like a puzzling, yet frightening thriller then watch the first 3/4 of this movie.

But the ending... when the credits rolled, my expression went from:

In my opinion I felt that all that good work, went to waste, due to the fact that it failed to wrap things up.
What starts out great turns into an eerie, "ooooo what if.. you know... it was this.. like... isn't that spooky?"

You will either leave very dissatisfied, or thinking very deeply about the meaning & logic behind the story.

It's amazing how a movie that does everything right, can go so wrong. M. Night's lost some credit in my book for this one.

I give this 2/5


Anonymous Zebra
Oct 21, 2005
Blending in like it ain't no thang

Cross posted from the discussion thread:

I just saw the midnight showing for this atrocious piece of poo poo. This is actually the first time that a movie somehow managed to offend ALL of my sensibilities in a single sitting. Today I now know what people who know about computers feel when they watch lovely movies with made up computer facts, or how people with knowledge of physics feel when they watch lovely space movies.

This movie doesn't just poo poo on the basic tenets of biology, botany, and, it actually specifically goes and cites a paper written about wasps being attracted to insect attacked plants, the area where I specifically do research. This is not the whole reason that this movie is poo poo, rather its poo poo because of its lame acting, horrible script, retarded plot and comedic sucides (the best part of the movie). The fact that they mention the "talking trees" papers that came out in the 80's (but get it totally loving wrong) was just felt a personal touch where M. Night just dropped a deuce specifically in my own little lap.

I don't think that he was looking to have a theatre of people laughing the entire loving movie, but thats all that happened in my theatre. The R-rated deaths were so over the top they were funny, and the CGI was absolutely wretched. This movie made The Village look good, and I'm not just saying that in a fit of rage. I hated The Village so much that I can't remember a movie that pissed me off more before or after seeing it. This movie was worse. The Indiana Jones movie that just came out was more loving plausible, and had less retarded lines.

Marky Mark was poor casting choice for the character of "generic biology teacher w/ no understanding of basic biology" and his wife with her lovely blue contacts and pupils that never changed size just looked like some kind of stoned set piece following him around. I can't see how anyone working on this movie didn't just stop this rear end in a top hat and tell him that it was horrible.


Jan 10, 2006


I went to see this today with no expectations, and I liked it quite a lot.

To those wary about the acting, it's honestly no better or worse than your standard horror movie. You've got your awkwardly delivered lines here and there, but nothing that hurts the movie. When it comes to me, I like laughing at a stupid line here or there as long as it doesn't take me out of the movie. The asian teenager's voice in Lady In The Water was distracting. There's nothing like that here in this one.

The deaths are very original. Some are absurdly funny in a monty python way, others are as disturbing as they are beautiful. Anyone complaining that the film isn't scary is missing the point. There aren't any of your typical big scares, so if you're looking to be on the edge of your seat, see something else. If you want to see simple, unsettling acts that'll stick in your mind, you'll enjoy this.

The cinematography is often great. Tak Fujimoto has always been very good at letting the viewer feel comfortable in a visual style, then shaking the snow globe so to speak. If you liked his work on Signs and Sixth Sense, you'll like it here too.

This isn't a particularly environmentalist movie, at least, environmentalism in it's current form. There isn't a 'Go Green! TM' or a 'corporations are evil' message behind this. I admire that it didn't go that route, which it easily could have, given how hot a topic that is these days.

If you go into this movie expecting to hate it, there's tons you could nitpick about probably. Chances are though, you're the same type of person who does that with any horror or sci-fi movie they watch, or with any M. Night film you watch. I'm not opposed to finding faults in movies at all, but anything that doesn't take you out of the film just ain't a fault. If you're looking to fall out of the film at any chance you can though, that's an attitude you went in with, and you didn't really watch the movie.


Captain von Trapp
Jan 22, 2006

I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.

In my opinion, focusing on the scientific problems with this film is missing the point. Of course the science is ridiculous - evolution does not work that way. Plants do not work that way. Heck, shotguns do not work that way. But it's a horror movie, and I wouldn't criticize The Birds for getting avian behavior wrong.

The acting was quite good, sparely acted largely against a quiet and serenely windy environment punctuated by suitably disturbing death. There's been thousands of films about horrifying death, from mass chaos and murder to introspective and brooding psychological self-harm. This film synthesizes those extremes in a fairly effective way. Millions of people die, hundreds on camera; but there are a total of two deaths caused by hands other than their own. The rapidly dwindling survivors behave realistically, with an inwardly directed fear. Many films portray survivors of disaster as turning on each other, which certainly does happen in real life. This one mostly does not. There's little danger to anyone except for the self-inflicted, with one sad (and avoidable) exception claiming the above two lives.

There's a little bit of moralizing, though some of it's tongue in cheek.

By the standards of this director's films, it's definitely an improvement on his previous two rather poor efforts. I'd say it's about on the level of quality of Signs. If you liked that, you'll probably enjoy this one. If not, you probably won't.


Oct 18, 2003

Download Geared - FREE
(17 Million Downloads)

Windows 8
WinPhone 7

I haven't seen acting this bad in a major motion picture since the last Uwe Boll film I viewed. And I'm not sure Uwe Boll films should count. Zooey Deschanel is so poorly miscast as the overly emotional (yet hates-to-show-her-emotions) love interest it makes my head spin. Mark Wahlberg's talent goes to waste as he struggles the entire film with poorly written dialog. In one such instance an, "Oh no," escapes from his mouth, so uncommitted, and so terribly acted that it feels more like Walberg's first realization that he's in a terrible film than his character's reaction to the "terrifying" events around him.

The movie begins in a great place with characters in the dark, and then the writer/director tears that to pieces by supplementing them (and us) with constant information and exposition through television, radio, and word of mouth. We even cut away from the main characters to others we've never seen before in locations we've never been to in aid of learning about what is going on. The entire "fear of the unknown" element is completely destroyed before the middle of act two. I have to wonder if M. Night Shyamalan's first treatment of the screenplay left the characters in the dark, but when everyone laughed at the cause of the events he moved that information into Act 2. No suspense, please.

The film was shot beautifully in the worst possible way. The whole Cloverfield/Blairwitch/Quarantine camera gimmick is almost a cliche at this point, but The Happening really could have benefited from a voyeuristic approach. The only instance that comes close in the film is the lion attack which is so poorly executed, the unmotivated tilting up of the camera to hide the gore was groan worthy. Instead, we get the big budget crane and steadicam treatment. Wide crane shots follow the action for the sole purpose of indicating to the audience the group's population at the sacrifice of emotional conflict/drama in the frantic chase moments.

Everything in this "B Movie" is polished and as a result comes off as completely false. This may be the first time I've ever felt that a movie was made worse by having a larger budget. (Scratch that, Equilibrium vs Ultraviolet). If this had been a much lower budget straight to DVD horror film (and there's no reason it couldn't have been), it might have been terrific.

Pros - Awesome suicide sequence involving a vehicle coming to a stop, and then speeding up. Subtle, and then OH poo poo.

Cons - Acting. Writing. ...Acting. Uh, The writing. And that ridiculous scare-moment of the old lady finding Walberg with her doll. What genre is this film Mr. Shyamalan? You don't seem to know.

1.5 out of 5

numeric_atrophy fucked around with this message at Jun 14, 2008 around 15:15

Nov 18, 2002
Wake up bitch, you're my new best friend.

What a pile of poo poo this movie was. I went into this expecting to be dissapointed... like The Village dissapointed. But this was a cut above anything I've seen before. Mark Walberg seemed lost the entire time and he was in the loving movie. I didn't know anyone could act that poorly. His lines were delivered in a way that made me question whether he had a copy of the script or not.

I never felt suspense, I never felt scared, I never identified with the characters. I found myself chuckling at the movie the entire time picturing M Night holding his script, reading it and thinking what a genius he was for coming up with this.

I expected a twist ending where everyone was killing themselves because they sat through a showing of The Happening.

If you want a better way to spend 11.50 I would suggest finding a hooker and paying her to kick you in the nuts, then buy a bag of ice to put on your bruised peices.

.5 out of 5

Great Whitenoise
Oct 19, 2005

by DocEvil

The premise - an unknown force causing a suicide epidemic - had the potential to be the answer to all of M. Night's critics since The Sixth Sense. Or, egos laid aside, he could have just scared the holy gently caress out of everyone.

In execution, writing, direction, M. Night flounders like an unremarkable blade of grass in a breeze>TERROR<.

There is nothing remotely engaging or disturbing about this film. If you've seen the red-band trailer, you've seen absolutely everything it has to offer. It doesn't build on any of that. There's nothing left but a gust of wind>TERROR<.


Aug 2, 2004

bonk bonk

Where the hell do I start?

The acting, as people have said, is terrible - Deschanel is continuously awkward, Wahlberg sounds like he's reading from a card half the time, and none of the characters have any sort of depth whatsoever. Their relationship has no backstory, and the trouble they have is so awkwardly written in that you hope one of them dies just to loving end it all. The dialogue is clumsy and forced, with foreshadowing that is so out of place and noticeable there is nothing that can surprise you. Wahlberg repeating the important parts of a science investigation while in the field trying to work out what to do, "it's an act of nature, we'll never fully understand", the old woman randomly describing the slave house during dinner...all of it is horrendously written, and signals exactly what's going to happen next.

The pacing of the story is also poorly handled. From the adverts, the cause of the suicides seemed like a complete mystery, and the story would involve a suspenseful mission to try and understand what is happening. Actually, you immediately know that everyone is killing themselves. 10 minutes later, for no apparant reason, someone suggests the trees are doing it. And they're right. Then the same events happen over and over again, until a completely out of place cottage horror sequence comes in, without any kind of meaning or resolution.

What could have made the film better? There are plenty of sucides that could've been funny, in a similar style to the Final Destinations. Watching 3 or 4 people shoot themselves while the camera shows only their legs down is one of the most pointless scenes you could imagine. It isn't scary, it isn't funny, and lasts far too long. Most other suicides cut away at the moment of death, and the jumping workers look ridiculous. The possibilities were there for some hilarious, over the top scenes that might've added something to a film that failed in every other department, but no.

And the point of the film? Is there one? It isn't trying to portray a real possibility. It isn't funny enough, or intelligent enough, to be any sort of parody. After the event, people are living just like before. The rest of the world doesn't take any notice? Christ. If it's really trying to push an environmentalist agenda, why does the old woman get killed? At least have some corny ending where people change their lifestyle to live at one with the trees or something. Hell, it showed that trees are a bunch of dicks - they could have at least given some warning. Maybe the reaction should have been mass deforestation. Anything would have improved it.

I'm not even going to start on the science. Or the fact that about 20% of the film is made up of whistling noises and moving leaves.

Seriously one of the worst films I've ever watched. It gets a .5/5 because I really enjoyed the Fanta Ice drink I had while watching it, and I wouldn't have had one otherwise.

Jan 17, 2004

"Serve the Hive.....
Feel the groove.
I control....
the way you move."

I got sucked in thanks to the trailer. It seemed spooky and surreal, and had high hopes it would tickle my post-apocalyptic funny bone; after the first 10 minutes I wanted out. Pacing was horrible, and the acting was some of the worst I've ever seen; forced, overdone and laughably bad.

*First 10 minutes is errie as poo poo.
*Little girl does not scream at all.

*Cheese and crackers!
*Everything else.
*Worst acting i've seen since Ghosts of Mars.


Kotaru fucked around with this message at Jun 16, 2008 around 03:00

Mein Kampf Enthusiast
Jul 30, 2003

happy birthday mega man

God, what a waste of time. The high point of the entire movie, for me, was the 30 second scene involving Brandon from Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Every way this movie could have failed, it did. The characters did absolutely nothing to make me care about them, to the point that when John Leguizamo cuts his wrists, there was zero audience reaction. Ditto for the crazy plant couple, or really anybody in the big group. Personally, the only character I gave a poo poo about was Zooey Deschanel's, and that's only because she's so dreamy . As for cinematography, I appreciate what they were going for, but unfortunately, it is really hard to make wind blowing through grass and trees look like a scary or ominous thing. Finally, the one thing that would have given the movie some sort of redeeming value would have been a good twist worthy of the name M. Night Shyamalan, but apparantly the twist was nonexistent. OK, it was maybe the plants, and maybe it was triggered for a reason mentioned for about 30 seconds halfway through the movie (the high concentration of nuclear power plants), and yet nobody does anything about it, the cities seem to be pretty normal, with not a noticeably lower amount of people, and then it starts happening again in Paris of all places? What the gently caress?

Also, why make such a big deal about bees at the beginning and then never mention it again?

0/5 Apparantly one of the extras in the movie (the girl who gets freaked out in the jeep that John Leguizamo calms down) was sitting in front of me, and I just congratulated her for a role in such a big budget movie, when what I really wanted to say was "sorry your first big-screen appearance was in such a lovely movie."

Dec 12, 2007

Superior Trash Talk!

Though beautifully shot and scored, the film lacks in every single other essential area, managing to rank amongst the likes of Uwe Boll himself.

It goes to show in M.Night's ability to un-direct typically decent actors. Mark Wahlberg manages to perfectly play an incompetent twelve year old who poses every statement as a nervous question.

At best, the movie is so bad it's entertaining. Beyond that, it's a great way to study typically great actors sinking under the weight of a terrible script. As a student in Philadelphia, the movie did a great job of making me a bit homesick. It was also great for some unintentional laughs.

No real resolution, tension or scares here. Just M.Night loosing it.


Apr 16, 2005

my names barry! you may know me as the better one of the chuckle brothers! we are the greatest comedy act ever and if you disagree we'll come and do your plumbing!

I have nothing against Shyamalan but the script and acting here were awful beyond anything I've ever seen in a professional movie. I remember laughing especially hard at one really awkward dialogue with Leguizamo's character, where it almost seemed he was ordered to ad-lib in extra dialogue to pad out the movie, and the camera was zoomed in to his goofy face the whole time. I was in hysterics at the shotgun scene and when after the lion attack, the woman exclaims "What kind of terrorists are they?!". Not to mention Wahlberg's homoerotic comments to a student near the start. And the construction workers falling down one after the other which felt like something out of a dark comedy. And that military bloke! I'm not joking when I say that some of the acting in this movie reminded me of Doom House.

1.5/5 because it wasn't horribly boring or anything. I won't add marks for it being unintentionally humorous, but if you like watching terrible movies for laughs then this recommended. The acting is so bad that it's surreal at times, like an uncanny valley for bad acting.

BARRY CHUCKLE fucked around with this message at Jun 19, 2008 around 22:14

TheArtist 314
Dec 25, 2004

What is your purpose?!

I just wanna rock!

I went to see this with a group of friends, and every one of us walked out thinking this was a total waste of $10. I'm a fan of Mark Wahlberg, but he dropped the acting ball big time. Sadly, there was no one else willing to pick it back up.

I remember when the concept of the movie was leaked a while ago, and most people reacted negatively. Seeing the movie did not help that reaction. It failed to create tension, the R rating was completely wasted (I really think this could've been PG-13, no problem), the acting was poor, the movie dragged on, and the ending was incredibly predictable. The resolution of the conflict is nothing more than a slapped together deus-ex-machina event, as if Shyamalan was writing and suddenly said "Goddamn, I have to end this immediately" with no exit plan.

I say avoid, unless you want to see how a man can go from The Sixth Sense to this waste.


Feb 17, 2006

Most of the death scenes in the movie were executed pretty well. There, I said the one good thing there is to say about this movie.

Everyone's acting in this movie is awful. Normally I like Wahlberg, but the role he plays doesn't fit him at all and he sounds really awkward the entire time. His girlfriend displays about as much emotion as cardboard, and the little girl they travel with is way too loving calm.

Pretty much nothing happens after the first ten or fifteen minutes; I walked out twice and didn't feel like I missed a thing when I came back to my seat. The ending is incredibly lame and doesn't reveal anything new...they pretty much say what they believe it is about halfway through, and that doesn't change by the end.

Don't see this movie. Don't even rent it months from now when it'll be availble in those $1 rental machines.


catch22 fucked around with this message at Jul 4, 2008 around 06:53

Sep 1, 2001


OK, first off, how loving arrogant is that movie poster?
We've "Sensed it", we've seen "The Signs"?
A guy making movies this lovely is that conceited?

So, onto the review:

I saw this movie for free, and had to walk out because it was so god awful.

That means this film ranks up there with Dreamcatcher and The Bone Collector, two other free movies I couldn't endure. This is the worst of the three, somehow.

I actually feel gross even bothering to write a review on this movie, but I need to get it out of my system, in much the same way as you tend to vomit after being poisoned.

That's how I feel, poisoned. Especially as a filmmaker, and film student. I think I just watched every rule of classical storytelling poo poo on simultaneously by M. Night howeverthefuck-you-spell-it. I remembered how to spell it when he made the Sixth Sense, but at this rate, let's hope he never touches another script.
Porn is too ambitious for this hack.

I love the fact that every other god drat line is about terrorism. Very subtle, champ! You are clever by criticizing the fact that America is terror obsessed.

Let's move on to the acting, because it was atrocious. Zooey Deschanel not only took me out of the movie, she made me gawk in disbelief. Mark Wahlberg has been in infinitely better films, but shame on you for picking this script, what were you thinking?

I didn't care about any character in the film, in fact, the deaths reminded me of the senseless killings in Final Destination. At least that film acknowledges what it is. This film had the arrogance to make me sit through a melodramatic, childish mess of a script.

As soon as you've muted the impact of death, you don't really give a poo poo that people are dying. There's no suspense, no plot development, no feeling of tension or a connection with the characters.

This rear end in a top hat should watch WALL-E and learn a thing or two.

The line that finally made me leave was when Zooey Deschanel was desperately apologizing to Mark Wahlberg for having Tiramasu with a co-worker one night, fearing that she must confess this sin to her husband before they die to the ominous, TERRORIST, deadly mist.

As I left the theatre, I said to myself, it isn't the air that's going to make me kill myself, no, it's this loving script.


And I own Feeders 2.


I just read everyones' reviews of this film, and a few of you are claiming it was well shot. Of course it's well shot, it's a Hollywood film. The DP and his camera crew must be exceptionally technically skilled. Any piece of poo poo Hollywood churns out is going to "look" pro.

Jedah fucked around with this message at Jul 1, 2008 around 23:54

Dec 28, 2003

Crescent Fresh

Pretty terrible. My M. Night scorecard is Unbreakable good, Village was average, Lady in Water sucked, Signs sucked, Sixth Sense was ok.

I think by now everyone just expects a big twist at the end to make the movie worthwhile, but like others have said the plot gets spelled out in the first half and that's pretty much it. I was thinking at least the bees being missing would have something to do with it, but nope. I didn't think the idea itself was terrible, but the acting was so bad it made it painful to finish. Wahlburg was just poo poo. Pure poo poo. I'm hoping that M. Night directed him to act that way, because I've seen him act many times better in other movies so I know he has it in him.

I also thought the ending scene with the news broadcast didn't make much sense. So it could be a warning, but that only makes sense if it happened in other places too? It wasn't weird enough for you in the first place, you're gonna assume a gov't conspiracy on top of it?

Pros: Decent story...

Cons: that doesn't really go anywhere
Terrible acting


ChesterJT fucked around with this message at Jul 14, 2008 around 07:07

The Gunslinger
Jul 24, 2004

Do not forget the face of your father.

Fun Shoe

Where to begin with this trainwreck that I just finished?

It doesn't really matter if you like Night's films or not. I went into this having fond memories of Signs, Unbreakable and The Sixth Sense but he hasn't done something that I've watched in a long time so I was still relatively objective.

The idea of the movie itself has promise and I didn't mind the idea of the plants as as a cause of the event. With the promise of big Hollywood bucks behind it you would think they could manage to execute something better than a 70's b-flick. Well trust me, this is one film that no one person or editing room could have saved.

In the past even when his movies had weak dialogue, Night could always rely on high caliber talent to help make up the difference or even improvise as Gibson reportedly did a lot of in Signs. No such luck here, you've got a thoroughly mid-range talent cast in Wahlberg and crew. The acting by literally every main character and even extras is atrocious to the point of being offensive. There is no single piece of decent acting in the whole mess. Every line is delivered with lackluster effort at best and half of the script is entirely unrecognizable as language that real human beings would use. You can't even really blame the actors, this is a paycheque movie at best and you can see everyone involved just threw in the towel.

The movie is filled with ridiculous conversations that make no sense, lines delivered far too long after pauses and the whole mess is generally godawful. Frankly there is no way this thing should have made it to the screen, the script needed several rewrites and it's blatantly clear where the blame lies. Written, Produced and Directed by M. Night - this is the first problem here. I don't know the man personally but this movie is akin to reading a recent Tom Clancy book; who needs an editor when you think you're above such things?

So we have worthless characters with little development followed by terrible dialogue for them. There must be something good about this movie somewhere though right? Zooey Deschanel is nice on the eyes surely? Not really here, she sits around with a vacant look in her eyes that reminds you of a doll. Mark Wahlberg is also terribly miscast to say the least. I looked and looked to find something positive to say about this to no real avail. The one redeeming thing that some people have mentioned is the deaths which were over the top and had no impact whatsoever with me.

This is a horrific effort, M. Night needs to be sat down by someone with influence in Hollywood and be told that he clearly can't keep doing things on his own anymore. This is truly one of the worst abortions I've ever watched and my biggest regret is that I am now an hour and a half older and will never get that time back. Seriously, avoid this movie. I know you're thinking that it can't possibly be as bad as people are posting here. Trust me, drop the dvd and return it.

Pros: The scenery looks alright I guess.
Cons: Awful script, wooden acting, poor editing, etc etc.

Rating: 1/5 - This is one of the few movies I wish I could rate lower than 1.

The Gunslinger fucked around with this message at Jul 4, 2008 around 03:27

Combat Pretzel
Jun 23, 2004

No, seriously... what kurds?!

Ignoring the silly science class at the beginning, the movie had a pretty decent beginning and was setting up nicely for the type of movie it tried to be. But not shortly after that, everything goes south pretty quickly.

Not sure what Shyamalan did to the actors, though. Both of the main actors can act pretty good when they have to play a normal person, or being in slight distress (but barring any deep dramaturgy). In this movie, they and the others feel like they had to act at gunpoint.

The conclusion was unsatisfying, too. Especially the ending. I guess when something affects half a continent, the rest of the world still won't care.

2/5 for effort, Zooey and silly deaths that rival Final Destination 2.

Aug 15, 2006

Affirmative. Yes. Yo. Right on. My man.

M Night Shyamalan couldn't possibly dine forever on the success of The Sixth Sense.

For years now, the man has gotten by solely on the best traits of Sixth Sense (atlhough his second film, Unbreakable, is better in every way but criminally ignored). Time after time, filmgoers either accepted or ignored such nonsense present in his movies as aliens who can leap onto roofs of buildings but can't kick down a wooden door. Then, the animosity twoards him started to build up when he cast himself as a martyred screenwriter whose work saves the world. The Happening, heavily marketed as his first 'R' rated movie, could have been his return to form. So, there's almost a kind of serendipity to the fact that there's a scene in which his characters outrun the wind.

The Happening commits that one fatal sin so many movies of its kind end up succumbing to - It takes itself far too seriously. With a conept so outlandish (plants are emitting a toxin that makes people commit suicide), it might have worked as a campy 'B' movie but sadly, it's in the hands of a writer/director who thinks himself as a visionary, so is presented with the kind of callous arrogance that has sunk superior efforts (Hulk, anyone?). Whereas The Happening is presented as a super-serious, character-driven supernatural horror movie, it instead frequently moves into the unintentionally hilarious, such as one scene in a bar in which a random woman barks "YOU MUST WATCH THIS!" and forces Mark Wharlberg to watch a home video of a man deliberately feeding himself to a pack of lions.

Mark Whalberg puts in a campy, embarressed lead performance that really is next to impossible to take seriously, Zooey Deschanel, who is normally more comfortable with comedic roles, always looks out of her depth and uncomfortable, especially during Shyamalan's hopelessly misguided attempts at comedy and John Leguizamo, who can be a charasmatic, attention-demanding supporting actor, is woefully miscast in a thankless role that could have been played by any of the numerous struggling actors in America without any noticeable difference.

The Happening is proof positive that Shyamalan needs to get over himself, hire a scriptwriter once in a while and pull his head out of the sand. The Sixth Sense's reputation can only go so far, after all.


Robert Analog
Feb 16, 2008

Saw this a few days ago, I was amazed at how atrocious this movie was. I've never been a huge M. Night fan and think he's pretty much a gimmick director, but he's a talentless void without his gimmicks. The movie starts out without a lot of unnecessary exposition which only serves to thrust the viewer into a world of the most uninspired 2-dimensional characters ever penned by someone who considers themself talented. Almost everyone was miscast. I like Mark Wahlberg but he was so feeble in this movie it drove me crazy. His wife in the film never stopped looking like a deer in headlights, I was praying that she would have some semblance of an emotional spark. There is some uninteresting backstory between the two but I'm amazed that M. Night (not gonna tackle his last name) actually expected viewers to believe in these people's naiviety and ignorance. They really rubbed me the wrong way, almost like innocence to the point it's pretentious if that makes any sense. Seriously though, does anyone believe his wife didn't plow some other dude? She's having some emotional breakdown because she had dessert with a co-worker? gently caress this.

Without M. Night Shamn'scams trademark (unispired) TWIST!! in the film this movie comes off devoid of any real point. Some stuff happens, then it doesn't, fin. Anyone with a third grade education can see what he was trying to say with this movie, where it fails though is in it's execution. It doesn't work as a disaster movie, Hitchcock thriller, or public service announcement. This movie is on par with An American Haunting and Dorm Daze, avoid at all costs.

.1/5 - I'm only giving it that because they succeeded in transferring actual people to film.

I wouldn't have been doing anything else with the hours I wasted watching it.
Horrible acting, flat uninspired characters, boring plot, cheap marketing gimmicks (ohnos R rating!), I haven't been this let down since I watched One Night in Paris.

Jan 10, 2003

Fratercula arctica

Fallen Rib

I hated this movie. I was so pissed off when I left the theater with my friends that we actually tried to come up with an idiotic premise for a stupid movie that we would rather see. Our winning entry was: Edward Norton giggling like a little girl and playfully splashing water on a dolphin's back for two hours straight. No dialogue until the very end, when the screen fades to black and you hear him say in a sing-song voice: "Silly dolphin!" I would rather watch that for two hours than sit through this movie again.

This movie was so bad in so many ways. It teased us with hints of actually accomplishing something or saying something, but always veered off into super-serious absurdity. The acting was sub-par, the plot was outlandish and uninteresting, the "tense" scenes were ludicrous, the humorous scenes were sad, and the dramatic scenes were boring. This movie failed on every level.

I was not impressed with Mark Wahlberg or his love interest (I am never impressed with Mark Wahlberg; something about him just makes me think he's some ugly mutant clone of Matt Damon). The little girl really did no acting whatsoever, so I'm not even going to comment on her.

Possibly the worst part of the entire movie was the school kid at the very beginning who (when discussing beehive collapse disorder) says "It's an act of nature that we'll probably never understand." It is said in such a serious, dramatic tone that you know this exact quote will pop up again later, and it does. Stupid, ham-fisted writing. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Needless to say, I will never be seeing another M Night Shyamalan movie again.

0.5/5, rounded up to 1.

Jan 25, 2006

Whatever whateva.

The story starts out feeling like Stephen King's better stuff, and I was expecting a different style of movie than I'd seen in awhile. The first act of the movie is pretty great at getting you interested in trying to unravel the mystery of what's going on, but when it comes time for explanations the movie totally runs out of gas.

I didn't have any problem with the acting but the writing was a little hokey at times.

Movie started at a 4, and I was hoping, but ended a 2/5.

Sep 12, 2000
Forum Veteran

I loved Sixth Sense, and Unbreakable is one of my most favorite films. This movie deserves nothing more of a review than a "gently caress YOU!"


Jan 15, 2004

Honestly the single worst movie I've ever seen. There are certain terrible films that you kind of want to see just to see exactly how bad they are, then there are films like this that really make you want to kill yourself.

M. Night, you've really fallen a long loving way, and I don't think it's possible for you to fall anymore. You've managed to make a film worse than Uwe Boll ever could.

0 / 5

I wish I could actually rate it at 0, or even a negative rating, but I guess this movie gets a 1 which is still far too high for it.

Sten Freak
Sep 10, 2008

It's been said but Mark Walberg was horribly miscast, the science never explained, the plot poor, and the ending weak.

One star granted for the erie suicide scenes.

Jun 7, 2000

Last night, I had a free rental from the RedBox machine and I'd narrowed it down to three choices:
* Baby Mama
* 88 Minutes
* The Happening

In the end, I made my decision by thinking "If it really came down to it, which of these movies would I absolutely not spend a dime to watch?" And I picked "The Happening".

There just wasn't any part of the movie that even attempted to be mediocre...everything was completely ham-fisted, inappropriately acted or possibly even meant for different movies.

In the end, I'm glad I spent no money on this rental and the result of watching it will probably make Baby Mama and 88 Minutes seem epic, so all isn't lost.


Magic Hate Ball
May 6, 2007

ha ha ha!
you've already paid for this

I really have no idea what to say about this lump of a film. Everything about it is a misstep, the acting, the directing, the cinematography, the plot, the script, the editing, everything just adds to the terrific trainwreck that plays out in slow motion. And of course it's wonderfully bad, and that's the only thing, the only thing it succeeds at is being a wonderfully bad movie, because it's never really boring, and that saves it from being absolutely unwatchable. Even the gorgeous blue-eyed Zooey Deschanel can't save this, nor the usually entertaining Marky Mark. It's as if, instead of each other, M. Night had them acting and reacting to tennis ball marks.

As an actual, honest film, The Happening is awful, but still somewhat interesting. As fodder for people who like bad movies, it's wonderful.


needle exchange
Jul 3, 2004

Sweat. When it's hot, baby.

Never have I witnessed a film maker experience a total drop in quality with each successive work. The sixth sense was excellent, unbreakable was really good, signs was fatally flawed but tolerable, the village was bad, lady in the water was worse, and this, gently caress I don't even know what this was. The Happening as has been mentioned fails in every category in which a movie can be held suspect to failure. It's been covered so I'm not even going to get into it, I just wanted to point out the downward spiral M Knight Shyamalan has been on from day one and how amazing it is that they're still buying his scripts. From this pattern which has emerged, his next movie 'The Last Airbender' should be so bad it will make the Happening look like The Sixth Sense. If I've done my math correctly.

0.5/5 What the gently caress is this poo poo?

Johnny Got His Gunt
Aug 19, 2008

I can't stop thinking about Dr. House's huge, throbbing...diagnostic skills.

It looked awesome, on the commercials.

I was so psyched to see the movie.

I didn't realize it was an M. Night movie until it was too late, and I've already paid for my ticket.

Trees? Honestly? Trees are pissed off? And what was the point of her being pregnant at the end?


fishing with the fam
Feb 29, 2008


I heard this was a bad movie, but I made the mistake of thinking it was an entertainingly bad movie. It delivered on bad, but not for one instance did anything remotely entertaining. This movie is a colossal failure on every conceivable level. The acting, dialogue, story, [insert ANYTHING else] is atrocious. Even the deaths were bland.

Even watching this with my family and insulting it as a group as much as possible could not make this movie watchable. This is the worst movie I have ever seen, as I could not find any humor is horridness. Worse movies manage to at least deliver some form of amusement in being very bad.


May 16, 2007

The world no longer makes sense, but it is far more interesting.

Fun Shoe

The Happening is crap. I expected at least a tense horror-ish movie, since M. Night had proven with Signs that he can do tension extremely well. The Happening seems like some really bad earlier attempt to do Signs.

The actors really do seem to have little idea what they're doing there. Mark Wahlberg, while a bit B-grade, really does have acting talent, but none of it is visible in this movie. Mild-mannered and mild-voiced through everything the movie throws at him, his character never becomes believable. Zooey Deschanel isn't cute enough to gloss over the fact that her character has nothing to drive her, and the puppydog manner in which M. Night tries to create intrigue between the two falls flat utterly.

The dialogue is particularly terrible, which again makes it seem like this would be one of M. Night's earlier movies, since it's much less prevalent in his other work. From the moment poor Alan Ruck first utters the stinker "there appears to be an event happening", every mention of EVENT or HAPPENING becomes groan-inducing. Bad enough that the movie fails to find proper language to talk about what's HAPPENING (the EVENT), worse that it completely throws subtlety to the wind (haw) by having each meant-to-be-tense scene be set in motion by huge gusts of wind. My suspension of belief does not stretch to the point where I'm willing to swallow that common trees can somehow CREATE WIND. That, and people running from airborne kill-yourself-compound were giving me flashbacks of people chased down a hallway by killer cold in The Day After Tomorrow.

In Signs, subdued moments of humor were mixed in really well with the overal suspense. In the Happening, each of these moments is insanely out of place and undesired.

Finally, one of the last scenes is so stupid, I wish the movie had ended right there (fade-out while standing in a field, piece of dialogue obviously added after test screenings: "the EVENT must have ended right before I came out!"). As it stands, the ending is pointless and bland.

The only thing worth watching the movie for, as mentioned, is the Final Destination-esque suicide scenes, some of which are good and brutal. Also the wavery-voiced soldier who seriously sounds a bit like Fragmaster's Doom House character (and should have been voiced and indeed played by him instead).

Dec 27, 2008

If you don't have anything good to say, say it on the Internet.

I liked The Sixth Sense, Signs, and The Village. I didn't like Lady in the Water or this movie.

I recently watched The Happening and was highly entertained, but not in the way intended by the creators. Rather, I found myself laughing the whole time at how terrible the film was. My friend and I couldn't stop mocking the characters or the film's events.

The Happening is just garbage. The acting is awkward and abysmal, the scenes often don't have a clear sequence (with some just being absurd theater - like the scene with the old lady? WHERE DID THAT COME FROM??), the science is bullshit, there are ridiculous cliches, and the alleged 'profound' themes are nonexistent and pretentious.

Roger Ebert actually gave the film a good score, which surprised me. He claimed the film was thoughtful and described the impending death of man, but I disagree - I found no message even remotely resembling that.

It's like you're writing or working on an art project, and you suddenly feel that sense of inspiration - so you create something while in this very emotional state. But after you've finished you need to go back and refine what you just created with a clear head - you need to analyze what your subconscious purpose was at the time, and you need to intellectualize the concept, add depth to it. To me, basically, this was what The Happening was, only without the latter. It was conceptualized in a flash of animus, but it was never fleshed out, and substance was never given to it.

The Happening had immense potential, but it was not met. The film is garbage; don't waste your money on it unless, like me, you can get a good laugh out of a lovely movie.



Feb 29, 2008

I am an awesome guy and I love to make out during shitty Hollywood horror movies. I am a trendwhore!

Awful on every level. The only thing that salvages this movie is the fact that it falls under "so bad it's good territory". Just a complete waste of talent. I know there's a saying that "good editing" can make a movie. I don't think it's possible in any way to make this movie good- because it CAN'T work. You can't make the audience share fear with people running away from the wind.


  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply