M KNIGHT's The Happening

Wow, if it was supposed to be a 50's era B-movie, then ok. But I just dont understand what he was thinking making this thing. I am a big fan of his and have defended him for a long time, but when I saw this film I was dumb-founded. He knows that people are looking for any excuse to trash him and his work, so why come out with a film like this? I just dont get it. :(
 
Maybe it's just a really big "oops!"

I mean artists make mistakes when they try to do new things. He might have just missed the mark. I've missed it before. I like to think I've nailed it a couple times too, and certainly Shyamalan has.

I dunno, I'm all over the place. Part of me thinks Shyamalan has revealed something about his hubris and even some ineptitude; and part of me respects him as an artist who has done and continues to do things differently, which I appreciate. I guess I just won't know until I see something else.

There are other great filmmakers who have made terrible movies, and they're still great filmmakers. Spielberg made 1941 right? (Okay, bypass the debate about whether he's a "great" filmmaker). Any more such examples?
 
sean90291 said:
Maybe it's just a really big "oops!"

I mean artists make mistakes when they try to do new things. He might have just missed the mark. I've missed it before. I like to think I've nailed it a couple times too, and certainly Shyamalan has.

I dunno, I'm all over the place. Part of me thinks Shyamalan has revealed something about his hubris and even some ineptitude; and part of me respects him as an artist who has done and continues to do things differently, which I appreciate. I guess I just won't know until I see something else.

There are other great filmmakers who have made terrible movies, and they're still great filmmakers. Spielberg made 1941 right? (Okay, bypass the debate about whether he's a "great" filmmaker). Any more such examples?
Click to expand...

Well, that guy who directed THX-1138, American Grafitti and Star Wars, went on to direct The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith...Coppola made Jack...Kenneth Branagh, while never great, made the solid Henry V, Dead Again, and the excellent Much Ado About Nothing, then made one of the worst remakes ever in Frankenstein. And John McTiernan of Die Hard, Predator and Hunt For Red October fame made Rollerball...Oh, and let's not forget John Carpenter has been sucking hard for the better part of 2 decades now. Anyone see Ghosts of Mars?
 
Last edited:
Wow! I can't believe so many of you guys are criticizing the film, the writing, and the acting of this as if it were serious drama. The flick is clearly stylized, and IMHO well-done. And often really funny. This is one of the better films I've seen this year. Just not as straightforward as many people tseem to think it was trying to be...
 
ullanta said:
Wow! I can't believe so many of you guys are criticizing the film, the writing, and the acting of this as if it were serious drama. The flick is clearly stylized, and IMHO well-done. And often really funny. This is one of the better films I've seen this year. Just not as straightforward as many people tseem to think it was trying to be...
Click to expand...

Agreed!
 
Batutta said:
Anyone see Ghosts of Mars?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I have. What happened to Carpenter?

As for The Happening. I actually liked it. I didn't have high expectations going in due to all the negative word of mouth, even though I've been a big fan of M Night's past work. The film wasn't perfect, but I found it enjoyable. If I had to compare it to any of his other films in terms of the feel and momentum, I would say it is closest to Signs. The Happening is not as good as Signs or my favorite of his, Unbreakable. I would put The Happening at about the same level as The Village. I enjoyed both of those more than Lady in the Water which I did enjoy but felt had some problems with the second act.

I don't get all this outrage against M Night and his films. Sure, not everyone will like them and he hasn't come close to the shock of the twist in The Sixth Sense, but otherwise his films have for the most part been pretty darn good in my opinion. It seems that people feel personally offended when one of his films doesn't deliver the goods, but when any other big studio film is disappointing the audience and critics seem to just shrug it off with a"well, they don't make em like they used to" attitude. I don't mean to single anyone out who has stated that they didn't like The Happening. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course. It just seems that M Night is a particularly enticing target, especially for the critics.

Last night, when I was at the register at Blockbuster, the employee scanning my rental was talking to three of his friends about The Happening. The two that had seen it went on a tirade about how awful it was. Below are some quotes from the conversation:

"It was awful. Horrible. Don't see it."

"M Night should be fired from making movies."

"Tell everyone not to see it so that he (M Night) doesn't make a cent on it." (This was directed at the Blockbuster employee, implying that he tell everyone he knows as well as people that come into BB to not see The Happening)

There were more along these lines, but I can't remember them all. The thing that gets me is that sure, it is fine to not like a movie. The Happening was not perfect. Even though I liked it, I think it could have been more intense and a bit longer to give the characters time to develop. But after listening to the above comments you would have thought they had just watched Plan 9 From Outer Space or something equivalent.
 
I think you're giving the movie way too much credit. You should read this entire thread (I know it's long) but lots of people (including myself :) explain why this was such a poorly made film - from technically to storywise. Just the huge script problem of explaining what the problem is 20 minutes into the movie and therefore taking away all suspense. That's Storytelling 101 right there.
 
I'm quite sure M. Night had about 14 layers of deeper meaning underneath what was "happening" , which, had I been entertained, I might have tried to look into. But in my eyes a movie has to entertain first, and then it earns the right to have me look deeper. The earth was fighting back for all the damage we were doing it, right? Is that a metaphor for we should all get along? I don't know. What did you get from it?
 
Well, as you may well agree, the "plants are doing it" idea was pretty lame, and the reasoning (and reasoners) behind it were pretty doofy. (I haven't said doofy in decades!) So I didn't really put much credibility into the explanation. I frankly don't know what I get from it, other than a general sorta idea of how desperate we as humans may be for any stupid explanation that we can act upon, right or wrong. But I certainly wasn't intellectualizing that... I was enjoying the ride, and perhaps because of the particular small crowd in the theater I was in, we were all having quite an amusing "laugh out loud" time of it.

The opening scene was weird. In the early classroom scene, I was thinking the movie, writing, acting, were really bad. But from thwe moment Zooey's weird shifty eyes showed up I pretty much caught the groove and started enjoying it more and more.

I tend to like movies that don't lend themselves to one interpretation. I'm a fan of, e.g., David Lynch films, and find that this had something in common... something in the disconnect between the characters and their reality, the mix of the extraordinary with the banal. I dunno... it's something that works on the subconmscious rather than the conscious level. After that classroom scene I just gave up on expectations and sat back and really enjoyed the movie rather than analyzing it. And it was good.
 
casting was terrible, Mark walberg playing a character that's supposed to be nerdy does'nt seem right, that character should have been played by someone else. And that stupid face that Zooey Deshenal kept making, just seemed to stupid and it didn't seem real. I liek them both as actors but they just werent directed right thi stime.

And one thing I hated within the first few minutes was that their was to much indicating that just shows how terrible trhe writing was. there was this one line where that girl was sitting at a bench that just sounded so bad "What's that over there, it looks like people are clawing at themselves"

I like Night alot but this was really sad.
 
Well, I wish I could've enjoyed it as much as you. I really do. I don't think Night deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Lynch though (even though I'm not a Lynch fan, I acknowledge he's working on a different level) because with each movie, he seems to be getting worse. But this is all just a matter of opinion. Still, the numerous stilted dialogue scenes point to a director who has little understanding of his craft. You didn't have a problem with those? (One of my favorite ones - and this was also brought up in an earlier post - was when they're all at that intersection, and a woman listens as her daughter/friend kills herself, then Whalberg grabs the phone and says, "I hear wind.") As a screenwriter, I know the reason he felt he had to include this. To drive home the point that the *wind* is dangerous. He felt like he was revealing this in an interesting way. But it comes off so forced and awkward as to actually baffle you. That's it?? That's how you're going to inform me that wind is dangerous. "I hear wind." Anyway, some would probably say I'm nitpicking.

Ugh. Can anyone tell I didn't like this movie?
 
That's just it... ALL the dialog was "stylized" (if you liked it) or "unrealistic" (if you are sorta neutral) or "atrocious" (if you hated it). I can see all these viewpoints. But I don't see all this as a desperate filmmaker unable to get his point across any other way... I see it all as very deliberate and well-crafted. Like I said, it took me a little bit to get into the groove, but once my mindset was aligned with the films, it really worked. For me, at least!

I mean, forget "I hear wind." There were hundreds of "worse" lines than that... in fact, there may not have been any that werer "better". (It may be fun to make a list). The same for the facial reactions. The ubiquitous slightly-too-long-shots. The outrageously doofy (I did it again!) technical explanations. The hokey plot devices.

I make no claims that this movie was great, or that I'll think back on it at all a year from now. But for me, at least... and the little art-house audience I saw it with... it seemed to succeed in whatever it was trying to do, and provide an enjoyable and thought-provoking experience. But certainly a lot of people thought of it as total crap also. I'm not trying to win anyone over - the nature of art is such that the experience is different for everyone.
 
c.g._eads said:
I don't think Night deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Lynch
Click to expand...

Well, hmm. I'm not much of a Night fan in general, and would tend to agree, but there are some similarities here... both in the style of the movie, and in the common criticisms. I mean, stilted dialog? Lynch invented it! Well, maybe not... but he did exploit such as a deliberate artistic choice in much of his work...
 
c.g._eads said:
I think you're giving the movie way too much credit. You should read this entire thread (I know it's long) but lots of people (including myself :) explain why this was such a poorly made film - from technically to storywise. Just the huge script problem of explaining what the problem is 20 minutes into the movie and therefore taking away all suspense. That's Storytelling 101 right there.
Click to expand...

I have read the entire thread. You're right. There have been explanations as to why some didn't like the film. I will agree with you that the film lost some momentum after the opening. I still felt as though the film was interesting and kept a level of fun and suspense after the opening.

As for the problem being revealed too early, I see the problem in the world of this film being the fact that large groups of people are suddenly killing themselves for no reason. This was revealed in the first scene as well as the trailer. If you mean that the explanation of the plants causing it with a toxin being released into the air, then he did reveal it early. However, I felt that the driving force of the movie was the fact that the characters needed to get away from the airborne toxin. I never thought that this movie needed to be as mysterious as his other films.

It is a disaster movie. Independence Day, Deep Impact, Armageddon, a large percentage of zombie flicks, etc. These films do not usually keep the major problem a secret through the whole movie. It is usually revealed sometime in the first act, or by the end of the first act. An exception to this rule is Night of the Living Dead. They don't get any kind of explanation until later in the film when they manage to get a TV working. Signs also defies this by never even explaining why the aliens are on Earth and what their motives for messing with humans are. I don't really feel that the Happening revealed the cause of the mass suicides right away. Wahlberg's character theorized as to why people are killing themselves. It is not directly stated until the news program at the end of the film that the plants were actually doing it. While it was not as subtle as his other films The Happening seems to fit into the mold of the disaster movie quite well in my opinion. I've always enjoyed the disaster movie, even if they are somewhat ridiculous at times.

I guess I am more interested in why M Night seems to be such a big target, more from the critics but also from the average viewer as well. I was pondering this after my last post. I think that due to the Village being a let down for a lot of viewers, people now are expecting him to make up and pay for his "sins against cinema" if you will. Then Lady in the Water was not a success with the public, thus causing many to either expect something amazing or atrocious with the Happening. People have been saying how horrible the Happening is going to be before it even opened. I'm fine with someone not liking the movie for logical reasons like many have stated, but those that anticipate and say it is going to suck before they even see the film or even see a trailer are not even giving the film a chance. Also, there seems to be this notion that he has failed since Sixth Sense in that he hasn't delivered something as good as that one.
 
ullanta said:
That's just it... ALL the dialog was "stylized" (if you liked it) or "unrealistic" (if you are sorta neutral) or "atrocious" (if you hated it). I can see all these viewpoints. But I don't see all this as a desperate filmmaker unable to get his point across any other way... I see it all as very deliberate and well-crafted. Like I said, it took me a little bit to get into the groove, but once my mindset was aligned with the films, it really worked. For me, at least!

I mean, forget "I hear wind." There were hundreds of "worse" lines than that... in fact, there may not have been any that werer "better". (It may be fun to make a list). The same for the facial reactions. The ubiquitous slightly-too-long-shots. The outrageously doofy (I did it again!) technical explanations. The hokey plot devices.

I make no claims that this movie was great, or that I'll think back on it at all a year from now. But for me, at least... and the little art-house audience I saw it with... it seemed to succeed in whatever it was trying to do, and provide an enjoyable and thought-provoking experience. But certainly a lot of people thought of it as total crap also. I'm not trying to win anyone over - the nature of art is such that the experience is different for everyone.
Click to expand...

Well put. I think that with M Night we all have to just accept the fact that we will never agree or even totally pin down why some liked or hated his films. For some reason his body of work is very "love it or hate it". I find the question of why he gets shat on in such large amounts, yet those who enjoy his work (I would include myself in this group) are very defensive of him and his films, fascinating and terrifying. Fascinating because a large aspect of his work is aimed at the masses. He even admits this in many interviews. At the same time he says that his films are of a personal nature as well. Maybe that is some of the problem with his films not playing well with audiences? Dare I say they are marketed in the wrong way? They are presented as big summer entertainment. Would his stuff play better in December when they are not sitting next to big tentpole films like Iron Man?

I am simultaneously sort of terrified by the notion that I, as an aspiring filmmaker, have really enjoyed the work of a filmmaker whose work is hated by so many. This makes me ask myself the question, do I just have no sense or talent for filmmaking due to my being able to enjoy M Night's films while the majority of the audience is so put off by his films?

I will admit that of all of Night's films from The Sixth Sense until now, the first three -- Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs -- are a cut above his past three -- The Village, Lady in the Water, and The Happening.
 
I'm sorry but the movie just sucked, there's no other explanation. M Night is losing his writing ability. I liked everything up to Lady in the water and that to was a little off but "The Happening" was just terrible he's capable of writing so much better, but it just felt like a first draft of a script, like he got lazy and didn't want to go in and really fix the script.

The Idea was good but he just really did'nt seem to care about it, he just wanted to get it done and it felt half assed. I want him to really sit down take his time do several re-writes and give us something like signs, who'se characters I thought were really well done.
 
Nektonic said:
I am simultaneously sort of terrified by the notion that I, as an aspiring filmmaker, have really enjoyed the work of a filmmaker whose work is hated by so many. This makes me ask myself the question, do I just have no sense or talent for filmmaking due to my being able to enjoy M Night's films while the majority of the audience is so put off by his films?.
Click to expand...

Heheh. I've felt the same way when I loved things others hated. It is sorta unsettling. But I also tend to believe you're probably a good filmmaker BECAUSE you're asking this question. The better artists, and even some of the most commercial, are are often inspired by work that is far outside the interest or accessibility of the artist's audience. The filmmaker might love Tarkovsky and then deliver you Alien vs. Predator. I don't think appreciating a film that others hate is a bad sign. I think TRYING to understand why they hated it, even though you appreciated it or even loved it, is valuable, and you're asking the right questions. Audiences do like films that are "different"--but if it's too different, and unexpected, they'll hate it, at least in the short term. In the late 1800s, Manet's paintings were removed from the salon walls in France because they were considered disgusting and ugly. You'd be pretty happy to own a Manet now, though, if only to pocket a cool $50 million. I bet if you showed an audience from 1920 a film like The Godfather, they'd think it was just a terrible piece of work with weird acting and bizarre dialogue (and I'm totally ignoring the fact that they'd be shocked that they could hear the actors talk).

Audiences are being hard on Knight because they're being told that they're getting another Sixth Sense. When they don't get that, people feel ripped off, and rightly so. Hey, every critic I read gave Flight of the Red Balloon (dir., Hsiao-hsien Hou) four or even five stars. I went to see it. Fortunately I was in the mood to meditate for two hours. But if I'd been expecting the Sixth Sense I'd have demanded my money back. And if Shyamalan had made Flight of the Red Balloon, I think he would have been lambasted. He's trying to do something too unconventional and personal, but it's being presented as an alternative choice to Iron Man or The Hulk. I think that's a mistake.

He should be more like Gus Van Sant. Van Sant knows when he's returning to his personal art projects and when he's making a movie destined for big audiences, and he fashions the movie and releases it accordingly (I'm sure he never intended "Gerry" to play in the multi-plex next to Iron Man--and I loved Gerry, but again, was not looking for a Sixth Sense experience from it because I knew it was experimental). Unlike Shyamalan, Van Sant doesn't make a film like Gerry and then say, "This is the best movie you'll ever see. You will not be able to forget this movie and you will be transformed forever, and if you're not you're stupid."
 
Last edited:
Nektonic said:
I am simultaneously sort of terrified by the notion that I, as an aspiring filmmaker, have really enjoyed the work of a filmmaker whose work is hated by so many. This makes me ask myself the question, do I just have no sense or talent for filmmaking due to my being able to enjoy M Night's films while the majority of the audience is so put off by his films?
Click to expand...
When Kubrick's 2001 came out everyone hated it. The critics tore it apart.
Now it's held as one of the most influential movies of our time.

Don't worry about it.

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top