M KNIGHT's The Happening

I like Night's style as a director. As for the ending gimmick.... I don't mind it when it's done right.

Sixth Sense was fantastic.
Unbreakable is probably my favourite film of his. I love that flick.
Signs was great.

The Village and LITW are both failures in my eyes.

Still, I'm looking forward to The Happening after seeing a bit more of it. That coupled with the R rating has me wondering.

I'm also very happy that he's not acting in this one. He really can't act.

Mike
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Just watched the trailer, and it's cut like every other trailer of his films. Some ambiguous event that seems to defy all scientific logic, which ends up having a really simple solution. Can this guy do anything besides Macguffin movies?

I have no desire to see this, it's like Signs and War of the Worlds with a sprinkle of The Village thrown in. This stuff gets old, and if I want to see it done well I'll pop in some Hitchcock.

And Lady in the Water was unwatchable. I don't understand what the fascination is with M. Night and his poorly written films. Sixth Sense was good, and it had a logic to it. Signs was fine, except at the end you felt jerked around because it was setup as something else than it was. I'd like to see Night do a romantic comedy or something else. This material just seems worn out.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU. Couldn't agree more.
 
i read a review for the happening. i can't remember where but the person who reviewed it said it was mark wahlberg's worst performance ever. EVER.

usually i don't take critics opinions. had it just been a bad review i'd slide it off, and go see the movie anyway. that review though sewed up my decision of NOT seeing this movie.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
His films don't have a very similiar relation other than they fall into 'fantasy, horror, sci fi'
Click to expand...

Here's where I disagree. Every one of his films has setup a Macguffin. He works like a magician. Magicians work by deflecting the viewers attention and Night is doing the same thing. My problem with this is that I go into his films expecting him to deflect, and it detracts from the experience. Instead of going in and being seduced by the film, you go in, you get the familiar sense of watered down Hitchcock suspense, and then you're given the simple solution in the end. I don't have a problem that this is what he loves and might only be capable of doing. My problem is when it's not done well, and the fact that he has baggage in the form of an audience expecting to be fooled. When I say I want him to do something else, it's really kind of like I want him to take some cinematic mouthwash and try something different. He's repeating himself, and it's getting a little stale.

Scorsese is the godfather of mobster films, but he's also done great documentaries and diverse work like The King of Comedy, After Hours, Life Lessons, etc. Scorsese, Spielberg, these guys are great, and they can work in other genres and bring their own stamp to it. Night isn't in the same league, not by a longshot. When I think of the term auteur I think of a very clear visual stamp that is brought to a film. I feel that with Spielberg, Kubrick, Scorsese, but I don't see that sense of distinction from Night.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
I like Marky

He was awesome in The Departed.
Click to expand...

Wahlberg's awesome. The Departed, Shooter, We Own The Night (I only liked Wahlberg's performance, hated the movie), Four Brothers. Which is why I'm disappointed that the review was so bad.... I'm still looking for a link to it
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Here's where I disagree. Every one of his films has setup a Macguffin. He works like a magician. Magicians work by deflecting the viewers attention and Night is doing the same thing. My problem with this is that I go into his films expecting him to deflect, and it detracts from the experience. Instead of going in and being seduced by the film, you go in, you get the familiar sense of watered down Hitchcock suspense, and then you're given the simple solution in the end. I don't have a problem that this is what he loves and might only be capable of doing. My problem is when it's not done well, and the fact that he has baggage in the form of an audience expecting to be fooled. When I say I want him to do something else, it's really kind of like I want him to take some cinematic mouthwash and try something different. He's repeating himself, and it's getting a little stale.

Scorsese is the godfather of mobster films, but he's also done great documentaries and diverse work like The King of Comedy, After Hours, Life Lessons, etc. Scorsese, Spielberg, these guys are great, and they can work in other genres and bring their own stamp to it. Night isn't in the same league, not by a longshot. When I think of the term auteur I think of a very clear visual stamp that is brought to a film. I feel that with Spielberg, Kubrick, Scorsese, but I don't see that sense of distinction from Night.
Click to expand...
Agree 100% with this. I never like it when a director sticks to one style or genre. It's better when they branch out and try other things. The ones you listed are masters of that. They take something old and apply their style to it and make it new.

M. Knight has not done that yet. I like his early films and the look to his films is always good but it is getting stale. He needs to change. And he is not the only director like that today. Not many take risks outside their comfort zone.
 
A point to consider, is that despite a directors body of work, most are known for a certain mastery of a genre.

The traditional use of a MacGuffin is using something that has nothing to do with the plot; see the WIKI article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

From the book 'The Alfred Hitchcock Story'

The term ‘MacGuffin’ was coined by Hitchcock’s Scottish friend, screenwriter Angus MacPhail, for something that sets the film’s plot revolving around it. It’s really just an excuse and a diversion. In a whimsical anecdote told by Hitchcock, he compared the MacGuffin to a mythical ‘apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands’. In other words, it could be anything - or nothing - at all.

I tend to disagree, even though I am see exactly what you are saying Isaac, I can't really recall NIGHTS use of a MacGuffin however.

I think Night uses more foreshadowing than anything else. His subtle hints that are dropped throughout his films. I can appreciate him doing something else and have long argued perhaps he should try someones Else's script.
Yes, I would like to see him do something else; but not a romantic comedy. :P But, he's doing his thing and it may be a bit premature to judge THE HAPPENING on a trailer.

Like many successful people, people seem to really gun for them critically instead of just sitting back and enjoying.

I wonder if "Any filmmaker' made SIGNS or THE VILLAGE, would it get the same 'sense of despise' as NIGHT gets from movie fans ?

I'll not complain about NIGHT; I love his work, think he is a rare talent in this industry and is still honing his mastery.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
I tend to disagree, even though I am see exactly what you are saying Isaac, I can't really recall NIGHTS use of a MacGuffin however.
.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm also not sure I agree with what Isaac is saying about M. Night's use of Macguffins. I don't see that they're part of his scripts.
 
his use of the egg mcmuffin, on the other hand... is unparalleled.

ive actually seen this movie and can't wait to see what you guys think of it. june 13th right? or is it july?
 
I'm a big M Night fan, I enjoyed most of his films I think my favorite is Unbreakable. Unlike a lot of people I actually really liked The Village, am I the only one? I am not going to judge The Happening by the trailer (which I don't really like).
I really hope this film is something special. It's his first rated R film but I hope that does not mean he is relying on blood and gore to scare people going the road of all too many so called horror films today.
 
Maybe I'm a NIGHT whore, but I really enjoyed THE VILLAGE; yes, despite the exposition NIGHT used at the end and his damn SUPER CAMEO.

I'm torn, I don;t think he is the worst actor ever, certainly not anywhere near god / great ... it's just distracting. Does it detract to a normal NON FILM JUNKIE audience ? Or just us ?
 
My favorite film of his is Signs. It holds up well to repeated viewing which 6th Sense does not. He is a talent; there is no doubting that. Personally I would just like to see him apply that talent to other forms of stories.

As for the Village and Lady in the Water, both were horrible films. Shot well yes but the stories were nothing more than a bad twilight zone plot and a poor children's tale. Neither had any great characters for me to get attached too and the films offered nothing in the way of interest. And, even though I don't go into his movies looking for twists, the fact that both of these, particulary The Village, had twists that were easily spotted within the first 15 minutes of the film ruined anything these films may have had to offer.

I hope he branches to something else soon otherwise he will no longer be a director whose films I look out for.
 
mjjason said:
I hope he branches to something else soon otherwise he will no longer be a director whose films I look out for.
Click to expand...

After The Happening, he's directing a trilogy for Paramount... "The Last Airbender" (aka Avatar) based on the cartoon.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
I'll not complain about NIGHT; I love his work, think he is a rare talent in this industry and is still honing his mastery.
Click to expand...

That's cool. I just wouldn't hold him in the same breath as Spielberg or Scorsese.

I think of Night as being in camp Guy Ritchie. He's shown us that he can do one thing and execute it well. But he needs to step outside that box.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
That's cool. I just wouldn't hold him in the same breath as Spielberg or Scorsese.

I think of Night as being in camp Guy Ritchie. He's shown us that he can do one thing and execute it well. But he needs to step outside that box.
Click to expand...

I agree also Isaac. I do see the potential for him to be a legend; maybe making something outside of his comfort zone will support that

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