The Happening

[Metro Gnome]

I think M. Night as a director is actually pretty good.

As a writer, however, he's as hack as they come. His scripts since the Sixth Sense run the gambit from hokey to laughable.

[Caged Great]

I enjoyed the Sixth Sense and Signs. Both were good movies for very different reasons. The movie though that ruined any ideas of ever watching another m. night movie was the village. I fully understood it's concept and it's broader message, but it was still stupid and pointless waste of time IMO.

I think M. should take a break from pumping out crap to actually write a good script, then come back and make another good movie. He does have the potential to do so in him, but we will have to wait and see.

[octothorp]

I haven't seen The Happening or even Lady in the Water, but I agree with those who think that his recent films are better than they've generally been critically reviewed. Looking at The Village for example, I figure out what the twist was going to be about a third of the way through; but if you forget about the twist and focus on it as an exploration of fear and belief, it's excellent. I love the fact that he's got these two primary themes that he works with, and finds new things to say about them with each film that he does. That said, I think it's time for him to stop directing his own screenplays, and do something based on someone else's writing. And possibly even write a screenplay and give it to someone else to direct. But I'm glad to hear that some people are enjoying The Happening despite the poor reviews. I'm pretty sure I'll go see it at some point.

[Winsor_Pilates]

I liked them all except Lady in the Water. I enjoy watching his films, and will likely rent this new one.

[Aeneas]

Thank you Octothorp, that's close to what I would have liked to say. I wonder how many people that are down on him actually watched Lady In The Water or The Village.

It's nice to see original movie ideas. We seem to see so many recycled ideas or re-makes of television shows. Maxwell Smart. All the comic book movies. Not one, but two Hulk movies! This is not an indictment of any of those, just a comment on the lack of originality.

As a further note, people like to say with his movies (as someone did above) that they caught the twist at such and such a time. Well, great for you. Most of the movies that come out these days guess what? I could tell you how they will end before seeing them. And give you a pretty good plot synopsis as well. So could most anyone, just solidifies my rambling point. At least Shyamalan (sp?) is making you guess for one minute, or a third or more of the movie.

Hey, if anyone made it this far: could you use a Cineplex/famous players night out pass? Valid for any movie any time. You get,

2 movie admissions
2 regular drinks
1 regular popcorn

All for $24.70. They expire March 2010. Wife just has a few sitting around.
Not sure how much that saves you, don't do math on weekends.

[Got Miikka?]

Originally Posted by Aeneas

2 movie admissions
2 regular drinks
1 regular popcorn

All for $24.70.

I think a regular drink on its own costs $24.70. Haha but seriously, that sounds like decent value.

I'll give Shamalama that he's original and I agree with the thematic through-points as well; that holds up to the old film-school classic "auteur theory", which has to be worth something. And the fact that Ebert liked this new one bodes well, because he and I see eye-to-eye fairly consistently.

I still think the ending to the Village was a big slap in the face. And Shamalama needs to get over his Hitchcock complex and stop putting himself in every one of his movies.

[Caged Great]

IIRC each movie pass is 10.50 (It's been 6 months since I've been so I might be off a buck or 2)
Regular drink is 3.50, and regular popcorn is about the same (again might be slightly off)

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by Got Miikka?

I think a regular drink on its own costs $24.70. Haha but seriously, that sounds like decent value.

I'll give Shamalama that he's original and I agree with the thematic through-points as well; that holds up to the old film-school classic "auteur theory", which has to be worth something. And the fact that Ebert liked this new one bodes well, because he and I see eye-to-eye fairly consistently.

I still think the ending to the Village was a big slap in the face. And Shamalama needs to get over his Hitchcock complex and stop putting himself in every one of his movies.

I read that he is hard to see in this one. Is that conceit on his part do you think? Or is he just having some fun?

I must say, I liked Signs very much, but didn't enjoy his acting part in it.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Got Miikka?

And Shamalama needs to get over his Hitchcock complex and stop putting himself in every one of his movies.

ha ha... true. In Sixth Sense it was cool 'cause no one knew he was. Now it's just vanity. Hitchcock never really had roles in his films though, just brief passings-through, no?

[koop]

So many people say that they had The Village figured out right away, but how much of that is from people looking for the twist? I'm willing to accept that I may just be an idiot, but I went in without looking for a twist and was very surprised by the ending. If you were looking for it I'm sure it would probably be easy to figure out the Sixth Sense. All that being said I'm probably just slow.

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by koop

So many people say that they had The Village figured out right away, but how much of that is from people looking for the twist? I'm willing to accept that I may just be an idiot, but I went in without looking for a twist and was very surprised by the ending. If you were looking for it I'm sure it would probably be easy to figure out the Sixth Sense. All that being said I'm probably just slow.

True. I did not figure out the Village at all. I was right in the period piece I guess.
Sixth Sense I did figure out, but only because a few people kept telling me that there is a huge twist and that they were curious to see if I'd catch it. I wish they had not. I am fairly sure I would have been stunned by the twist.

[fatso]

Ya same as me. I didn't get the twist to 'the Village'... Well, I guess there were two: I got the one within the town, but I didn't get the final one.

I did predict the Sixth Sense about 30 minutes in based on the way the scenes were shot. Although, to be honest, everyone had told me it had a twist, so I knew something was coming up.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by fatso

ha ha... true. In Sixth Sense it was cool 'cause no one knew he was. Now it's just vanity. Hitchcock never really had roles in his films though, just brief passings-through, no?

Hey! I loved Shyamalan and his role in Signs.

[Vena]

Originally Posted by troutman

I have this theory about Signs. It's not about aliens at all, but it was all a dream, about Mel's loss of faith. Did anyone else think that? As an alien movie it is lame - on the other level, it was interesting.

That's always how I've looked at Signs. It's actually a beautiful film.

[kdogg]

Originally Posted by Aeneas

It's nice to see original movie ideas. We seem to see so many recycled ideas or re-makes of television shows. Maxwell Smart. All the comic book movies. Not one, but two Hulk movies! This is not an indictment of any of those, just a comment on the lack of originality.

Very well said.

I think a lot of people don't understand how Shyamalan makes movies. He comes up with an message or idea he wants to deliver, and tries to make a movie around.

For those of you who want to be cheaply entertained, go see Iron Man or the Hulk. For those of you who want something deeper (see Shyamalan's deliver a message), you might enjoy it.


I really enjoyed it. 7/10


The best part about Shyamalan movies is how they make you think about it afterwards. I find myself often talking with people afterwards about the deeper meanings many tend to overlook. That's what makes his movies great.
________
Live sex webshows

[Aeneas]

To call "Signs" lame seems odd to me, regardless of whether it is an alien encounter movie or not. As you say it is a beautiful movie. I think of scenes that were stunningly good. The death of his wife, the asthma scene in the cellar. Maybe also the first contact scene with handheld camera from the birthday party in Brasil. The Joaquim and Mel scene on the couch (things that sound dirty but aren't), etc.

Saw "Happening" tonight. Thought it was certainly weaker than his other films, but not awful. I do not claim to be an expert, but I thought the acting was sub par from the two leads. There were graphic shocking scenes, but none that stood out like others from his films.

There are scenes from Sixth Sense that I will remember all my life. How about the scene in the car with mother and son, when the female cyclist is killed. That scene, continuing into the conversation about the deceased grandmother is brilliant. There is not one scene from "The Happening" that I will take forward with me like that.

Perhaps M Night set the bar too high.

Popcorn was pretty good, someone kept kicking my seat, lots of closeups of Zooey, plenty of leg room...overall a so so evening.

ps I did not find M Night during the film, and I was looking for him. As warned, it took the credits for me to know who he was.

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by kdogg

Very well said.

I think a lot of people don't understand how Shyamalan makes movies. He comes up with an message or idea he wants to deliver, and tries to make a movie around.

For those of you who want to be cheaply entertained, go see Iron Man or the Hulk. For those of you who want something deeper (see Shyamalan's deliver a message), you might enjoy it.


I really enjoyed it. 7/10


The best part about Shyamalan movies is how they make you think about it afterwards. I find myself often talking with people afterwards about the deeper meanings many tend to overlook. That's what makes his movies great.

Exactly. We just did that very thing outside of my house for some time. Like it or not, I think if you are intelligent you will certainly discuss it for some time. Our discussion moved from his films to horror films in general. We were discussing The Entity, The Ring and The Grudge, when a horrible sounding wailing noise could be heard from the neighbors house...
Friend: What the hell is that?
Me: (doubtfully) Maybe it's the baby monitor? (they have 4 year old, 2 year old and a newborn)
Friend: That can't be a child (noise is continuing)
Me: (thinking about awful girl from The Ring) Not a human one.
Friend: What the hell is that? (noise combined with conversation and movie seen creates disturbing feeling)
Me: What the hell is that?
Friend: Is it ----- (names 4 year old next door)
Me: (Silently thanking friend for forever joining that delightful child with that devilish sound in my mind) I hope not (looking for a stake)

Finally noise stops, awful cat runs past us from neighbors front step. Yes, black cat. That's why I dont usually leave the house!

[flip]

For anyone who's seen the movie can you answer the below question.

SLIGHT SPOILER BELOW:




can anyone confirm that the secret villain is plants who are creating the toxic gas because they are mad at us for destroying the earth?? If so the Herald write up is right and this is a ######ed movie.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I saw The Happening two nights ago. I got up and said "I kinda like that, not a bad movie". However the more I think about it, the more plot holes and dumb connections stand out to me.

I do think it's a movie I'll have to watch again, as M Night Shymalan tends to have things in the background that you miss the first time. That said I was specifically waiting to see his character as in his movies it seems high character tends to speak the key to the movie (ie: The Village, Signs). I didn't see him at all, however he was credited for being "Joey". Which makes me think he was in the background of some scenes with Alma.

I also never understood why if the toxin makes you lose sense of what's dangerous/fatal why would you go out of your way to kill yourself? Wouldn't you simply die by living your life normally but without the self preservation instinct. What I mean is, why would a cop or solider take their gun out, shoot themselves, then have another person casually walk over pick the gun up shoot them self, only then to have another person start to move walk over, pick up the gun and shoot them self?

It makes me think there's something else, especially where when the group splits up in the field, wouldn't the toxin already be in the air? So what would it matter if there were 5 or 10 people?

The more and more I think about it, the more I can't justify it being evil plants trying to kill us all. Even though I do buy the premise on the surface.

[photon]

Originally Posted by flip

SLIGHT SPOILER BELOW:




can anyone confirm that the secret villain is plants who are creating the toxic gas because they are mad at us for destroying the earth?? If so the Herald write up is right and this is a ######ed movie.

SPOILER!!

Yes, that's the whole premise of the movie.. it's stupider than that even, they speculate that the plants evolved this ability to combat humans, which is dumb on many levels.

And it's not even creative, it's not like the idea is very original.