Eric D. Snider
The Happening
Movie Review
"The Happening"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: D
Rating: R
Released: Friday, June 13, 2008
Directed by:
Cast:
When you make a movie about a killer whose identity is a mystery, it is common to have the actual killer be a suspect at some point early on, only to have him exonerated and other avenues pursued. Then, when it turns out he really was the bad guy all along, the audience is surprised. It's a neat trick. "Law & Order" does it all the time.
I will do my best to avoid huge spoilers here, but M. Night Shyamalan's "The Happening" takes a more straightforward route -- so straightforward that there's never an ounce of suspense, mystery, or surprise. Someone theorizes about the culprit early on. After a while, everyone accepts it as the most likely explanation. And then in the end, we learn that ... well, again, no spoilers, but let's just say it's disappointing. I haven't seen a movie that spoiled so much for its audience so early since "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford," which managed to do it in the title.
(The working title of "The Happening," which I won't tell you but which you can easily find on its IMDb page, might have spoiled it too, or at least would have given the audience too big a hint. But when a character gives the same hint 30 minutes into the film, you've kind of shot yourself in the foot anyway.)
The scenario: Starting in New York's Central Park and spreading throughout the Northeast, people are being stricken with what is apparently an airborne toxin. It causes confusion first, then catatonia. Then it makes you kill yourself in whatever fashion is most convenient. Construction workers atop a skyscraper find it very easy to off themselves. A man at a zoo must take more drastic measures and feed himself to lions. So it goes.
In Philadelphia, a high school science teacher named Eliot (Mark Wahlberg) and his wife, Alma (Zooey Deschanel), flee the city with Eliot's co-worker Julian (John Leguizamo) and his young daughter, Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez). Eliot and Alma's marriage is strained lately. This proves to be the least interesting aspect of a plot that is altogether uninteresting.
For reasons I cannot fathom, Shyamalan has directed the entire cast to deliver their lines in a flat, affectless manner. Everyone is stilted and blank, like they're reciting something they've memorized -- which I guess is technically what acting is, but it's not supposed to sound like it. The sole exception is Wahlberg, whose delivery is earnest and whiny, like he's impersonating a naive little boy. But he, too, always sounds starchy, never natural.
Why has Shyamalan done this? The style is clearly intentional, as it's universal throughout the cast. As written, the dialogue is often goofy in its over-seriousness. Having everyone recite it so that it never sounds like real conversation anyway only draws attention to that.
And then we have the matter of the story. It is never scary. Moderately tense once or twice, sure. But it's barely even engaging -- I started tapping my watch at the 45-minute mark and couldn't believe we were only halfway done -- let alone frightening. It has no twists or turns or unexpected diversions. Shyamalan has surely squandered whatever clout he had left after "The Village" and "Lady in the Water" by convincing Fox to bankroll this disaster. If it were his first screenplay, it never would have gotten produced.
Shyamalan's strengths as a visual filmmaker are still in evidence, with several nicely composed shots and a few eerily effective images. I encourage him to seek work as a cinematographer and leave the writing and directing to someone else. "The Happening" is even duller than its title.
Grade: D
Rated R, a little profanity, a fair amount of violence, some of it rather graphic
1 hr., 31 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 34 comments
June 15, 2008 at 11:09 am
It's so sad that this movie is going to do 30 million in its opening weekend. I didn't see it, but it's obviously terrible- yet it is doing much bigger numbers than expected.
June 15, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Eric, I saw your brief comment in your Friday wrapup that you were disappointed by this movie but a friend and I had already decided to go, so we went anyway. Sixth Sense is one of my favorite movies of all time, so I thought we'd give EMS the benefit of the doubt on this one. Huge mistake. This has got to be one of the dumbest movies I have ever seen.
I could tell that EMS was trying to scare the audience with several scenes showing the graphic ways in which people react to the toxin but these scenes are invariably funny rather than scary. My friend and I laughed out loud, uncontrollably at times, especially during the lawnmower scene. That was supposed to be funny, right?
One level higher on the stupid meter was the existence of the young girl who Walberg and Deschanel drag around with them for half the movie. I kept thinking that she was going to play a pivotal role somehow (perhaps her odd introspective nature would give her the power to communicate with the mystery assailant), but no. I have no freaking idea why this character existed in the movie.
I could go on and on, but I'll just say that having the step-mom from "Eight is Enough" play a crazy lady was sheer (albeit unintentional) comedic genius. I was laughing so hard that I had to put my head between my knees and compose myself.
I think the Shymalan's "Writer, Director, and Producer" schtick has grown weary and his movies have gotten progressively worse from Sixth Sense until now. On the bright side, he would have to work really hard to make a more wooden and laconic movie. Since that's clearly his goal, I would recommend he collaborate with George Lucas.
June 15, 2008 at 2:38 pm
This movie is not happening. It is made-for-tv. And you ought to wait for it there.
And be nice next time you cut the grass, or it might get you. With your own lawn mower.
June 15, 2008 at 9:08 pm
This is probably the saddest thing ive ever seen. and im not talking about this borefest, im refering to the messy demise of Shyamalans career. I really wanted this movie to be the one that brought him back from the brink. Unbreakable is an remarkably undervalued peice of work, whilst Sixth Sense and Signs are enjoyable when not taken too seriously. (the same goes for Unbreakable now that you think about it...)
The Happening admittedly has a mildly engrossing opening twenty minutes where the sense of ignorance as to the reason for 'the event' renders you and the blocks of timber on screen powerless as to what they can do.
From there on in however, the audience finds that the most effective thing it can do is to either walk out of the theater (as a few people did in our screening), or try to gouge their eyes out with the nearest sharp object available. meanwhile, the blocks of timber onscreen continue to be blocks of timber.
The premise once it is revealed is ridiculous, the characterisation of the dull protagonists and largely uninteresting supporting characters is lifeless and occasionally hilarious in an unflattering way, and the payoff is probably one of the dampest squibs you are ever likely to see in any film. Period.
Unless he can produce the next Shawshank Redemption, Shyamalan's rapid rise to stardom and equally rapid and fiery plummet will be a classic cautionary tale about what happens when you believe in your own legend to the extent where you compare yourself to god. look at what happened to King Charles I!.
June 15, 2008 at 10:01 pm
When M. N. Shyamalan first went to Hollywood with his script to get financing they rejected it.
He then decided to go to India and try. There he received $30 Million.
Hollywood then matched that amount with another $30 Million.
That's how he got away with making one of the worst films ever made.
June 16, 2008 at 1:22 am
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. If M.N. Shyamalan was attempting to make people laugh, then he achieved his goal. In the theater that I was in there was never one scream, but there were mulitple times where the entire audience laughed out loud. There was only a few parts that got your hearts racing, and that was simply caused by the music changing tones. Also, I excpected much more from Mark Whalberg, due to his impressive performance in Invincible, but his acting was just TERRIBLE!! I would have to say that the best part of the whole movie was when it finally ended. To wrap it all up, I DO NOT reccomend that anyone see this movie. Congragulations M.N. Shyamalan, The Happening will forever go down in history as one of the worst "scary" movies in history.
June 16, 2008 at 4:23 am
Sounds to me like Eric was describing Star Wars Ep2: Attack of the Clones. Wooden acting, whiny acting, and poorly done and often boring story.
June 16, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Are you kidding me? This movie was great, possibly best of the year. Brilliant on many levels. Actors properly portray characters. Storyline has a point.
June 16, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I must be one of the only people who liked this movie. I didn’t mind knowing what was going on from the beginning. I still wanted to see who would live and how they survived. I liked the characters and cared what happened to them. I thought the performances were understated and introspective, not flat and affectless. I agree that M Night’s strength is as a cinematographer and I think he is brilliant. But I also like his writing and directing. I like the way he thinks and presents his vision. This is certainly not the scary movie they tried to advertise. I knew it was in trouble when the ads touted the “R” rating like it was an Oscar nod. But I found it well worth my time and money. It’s quiet and thoughtful and gives a few nice tense moments.
June 16, 2008 at 2:00 pm
"For reasons I cannot fathom, Shyamalan has directed the entire cast to deliver their lines in a flat, affectless manner. Everyone is stilted and blank, like they're reciting something they've memorized -- which I guess is technically what acting is, but it's not supposed to sound like it."
You saw Signs, right? It was the same deal in that movie. Mel Gibson was catatonic. A lot of the actors in The Village did the same thing as well.
June 16, 2008 at 4:15 pm
That part with the lions was so stupid. I don't care how hard a lion pulls on your arms, he will not pull them off. Tear them up a bit, yes, but not rip them off your body while you're just standing there.
And I find it unlikely that a zoo animal that's been fed lifeless meat chunks for years would go for a person that quickly, although I guess it's possible.
This was one of the many sad aspects of a very stupid movie.
June 16, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Yes, the zoo scene had me laughing... I couldn't help myself, I said, mid-scene, here kitty kitty, here's din din eat me, half the theatre was laughing uncontrollably. He didn't even provoke the animals and they were able to just rip his arms off like that... hhahahahah
June 17, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I made a huge mistake. I always read Eric's reviews before seeing a movie and didn't have a chance to do it. I looked at the home page and thought I saw a 'B' instead of the D that Eric gave the movie, and I stupidly went to the theater.
I've been a fan of M.N. Shyamalan for a long time and even endured some of his lesser movies, but this one is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. What happened? Did he sniff glue over the past two years? Did the American Express commercials convince him he was 'Invincible?'. There was nothing frightening, suspenseful, or even Hitchcockian in the entire movie. Eric, I will never make this mistake again.
June 17, 2008 at 9:45 pm
There is just too much to write on how TERRIBLE this movie is it is, it is my #1 worst movies I have seen. I have never written a review or comment in the past about a movie. I had to go buy happeningsucks.com because of it. Please, don't go see it unless you want to laugh in the wrong way. Here is one part of the movie that I decided to write about. It was the last 30 minutes or so.
The married couple with friends little girl find a house with a crazy old women owner. She ends up making them dinner, and not wanting to talk about the outside world and what is happening. She was not a person I would want to be around with my wife and a child during this time in their life. They all go up to their room after a weird dinner and talking about how crazy the owner is...Well she hears their conversation and freaks out. Telling them how terrible they are because they were talking about how crazy she was, which is totally understandable. It's her house and she is living alone. I would be crazy to. The problem is this was right before they go to bed with the little girl. After something like that I would just leave with my family and go sleep outside in the shack, or make sure I lock the door and stay in that room till morning keeping myself awake, watching them both. Of course that is not what happens, he end up sleeping all night and wakes up without the wife and child next to them. What's ridicules is they are playing somewhere and laughing about it. You cannot tell if they are inside our outside. He gets and goes to look for them, well he finds the old women through the window out in the garden with the wind/plants attacking her. She because a real nut ball, and she comes over the windows and puts her head through them. Of course he watches the whole thing. She is not coming after him, he is just killing herself. Sadly I started laughing so hard I could barely breathe. So after he watches it happen he runs around to find his wife and the child who are still laughing and enjoying themselves. This is when you find out they are in that shack playing with a frog, and laughing about it. He hears them through the pipe and realizes they are in the shack. He tells them to shut all the doors and windows, so the wind and plants don't affect them. This is when it gets really exciting they start talking through this pipe about there past and why they love each other. It was for maybe for about 10 minutes this happened, then for some reason the husband decides that he needs to get up and walk out the door and into the wind and plants to see his wife. Why in the world would anyone do this? Now, maybe I'm weird, but I think I would wait at least a day to find out if the wind passes through. Why the hell would you even come close to going out and possibly killing yourself, and having your wife watch? Well she says please don't do it, when she should of yelled, DON'T MORON, YOU WILL KILL YOURSELF, AND POSSIBLY US. Well anyway he just gets up and walks out. At least hold your breath and run across! Now the problem with running across holding your breathing and making it is that you will open their door and let the wind in. Then you end up killing everyone.
Now of course in the movie he does not run he opens the door and walks out. He looks across and his wife and the little girl opens the door and walks out as well holding each others hands. Well of course they don't die. Sadly I wanted them to, it would have been a good ending, but that is exactly when the wind and plants stop effecting people. To end the movie they show us three months in the future and it looks as if they still live in New York! The city that has to be full of bodies still, you can't clean up a city in three months, and let children go back to school. Why the hell would you want to live there again anyway? Get away from a city that did this to you
Please! Don't go see this movie, just sit and home and write your own story, or go see The Hulk.
Dustin
June 18, 2008 at 5:40 am
The part where the guy is in the Lion's area in the zoo made me bark out laughter in the theater which, in turn, made some of the other people jump.
It reminded me of that Southpark episode where Token goes to the Lions to see if he can fit in but instead just finds out they're stupid too.
Like this movie.
I didn't mind it though. I like M. Night Shyamalan's work for the most part and I thought this movie was funny.
It made me smile.
I also liked Lady in the Water. I figure if a movie entertains you, then it's good.
June 18, 2008 at 10:23 pm
SPOILERS INCLUDED
I see why some people loathed this movie.
But I personally like it.
I used to be a fan of apocalyptic movies. But lately they had been zombie type of movies which I found boring because I'm not a gore fan.
So here it is a nice alternative to those boring stuff.
Perhaps because I never had expectation for a horror movie with scares and suspense, I was pretty satisfied with the movie. Some people hate the preachy quality of the movie, but I think Shyamalan had a good point there. We are like bugs to the trees...
There ARE some unrealistic details. But then again, they are just details. Whether a person' arm would detach or not when a lion yanks at it is not of big importance to me. And no, a person getting run over by a lawn mover is not funny (gore fans may think otherwise but i do). I rather like the various ways people kill themselves in this movie.
Not saying the movie is perfect. It's got unexplained parts too, maybe left for us to decipher or maybe they are just plain loopholes.
As for the last third of the movie described above by a reviewer...that description is certainly exaggerated. The woman was not that that dangerous looking. What could an old woman possibly do to a Mark Wahlberg anyway? She never did anything to them.
And it is NOT because she is a nutball that she drove her head through two windowpanes.
Now the scene where Mark and his wife decides to come out WITH the child, now that' was a bomb! Maybe they thought there's no running away from the toxins anyway so they decide to commit suicide together (there's no guarantee the house/shack is sealed anyway, with windows broken and a pipeline through the shack), but for goodness sake there is a kid with them!
Three months later they're back in NYC living normal life, that is strange too (but some did believe it was a government thing went astray). Though not as strange as going back to England 28 weeks after a zombie outbreak (now that's dumb).
No one would deny that character-wise and script wise, this movie is ridden with awkwardness and unnaturalness. Whether this was done deliberately or not, who can tell? But it is certainly annoying. Especially at the use of unnecessary dialog like: "Oh no!" "What 'oh no'" while it is clear what Mark was oh no-ing about....
Well, aside from those flaws, I think the movie is still worth watching IF you are not looking for gore and suspense. If you like to watch a movie as a whole, and want a different kind of apocalypse movie to watch for once, then watch this movie, provided you haven't been reading the spoilers....Duh...
June 19, 2008 at 7:19 am
Techguy - your comment is seriously annoying - if you said "here kitty kitty" or some other stupid comment during a crap movie that I was angry about paying for I would've beat you in the face.
June 19, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I saw this film yesterday, we were planning on seeing Sex & the City but decided to see a scary film, turned out to be a comedy! I nearly choked laughing when the old woman was walking into the wall at the end, and the lawnmower scene reminded me more of 'Shaun of the Dead'. Mark Whalberg simple acting was like the character Lenny off 'Mice & Men' & what was the deal with his wife? was she stoned? I can't say it was the worst film i've ever seen but its up there. I enjoyed the film for all the wrong reasons and it is a shame because this could have been a good movie if he had just passed the storyline onto someone who could write.
Give it up Shyamalan!
June 20, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Oh, c'mon, it wasn't nearly as bad as The Titanic or The Deer Hunter, both of which won a lot of awards. That said, it wasn't good either. Just 'meh'.
June 20, 2008 at 5:40 pm
An MNS movie without a twist. Whodathunkit?
June 20, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I agree with Diane. You know you're already in trouble when the only thing the previews can say about a film is that it's rated R, as if that automaticaly makes it superior to its predecessors.
It's been sad watching Shyamalan's career gradually go down the toilet. Too bad.
June 21, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Saw it over the week end in san Francisco ;probably the worst ever 8.50$ have spent this year. And I wasn't the only one as few couples left during the projection. Dull, dull, dull .........
June 21, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I have discovered the Twist of this movie!
Every Shyamalan movie has a twist, and this is no exception.
The Twist in this movie is that you sit there, expecting a twist...
and....
then......
Nothing Happens!!
The twist is that there is no Twist! That's film making genius right there if you ask me.
By the way, question to those who have seen it, would this be a good movie to go see if you wanted to see a funny movie? or is it not even good for that?
June 21, 2008 at 11:50 pm
"...this wasn't nearly as bad as ... The Deer Hunter..."
Um... Greg, you're not talking about the movie with Christopher Walken and Robert DeNiro, I hope, because ... what?
June 22, 2008 at 5:54 am
I had to take a bath when I got home.......this movie stunk so bad!
At first I laughed...then I cried.....and that was just at the concession stand when I saw the new HIGH prices listed for popcorn and soda!!
SPOILER Alert!!
Stop reading now if you have not seen the movie and plan on seeing it...I might spoil it for you.
While I like some movies when they just jump into action at the very beginning, this movie needed more of a set-up before the dying/killing started. And maybe it's just me, but I like a movie where there is a clear hero and villain...where at least there is a chance of defeating the villain. Sure, you can say nature was the villain... but it was a poor villain because you could not see anything really happening. (wind blowing through the trees with a little scary music behind it is nothing) Lightning....scary....thunder....scary....tornado....scary...earthquakes...scary....wind-through-trees.....not scary. The only scary part of the movie was the part when the crazy house lady yelled all of a sudden when it was quiet. That's not scary.
And how unbelievable is it to have the news stations, within a day of this happening, already have the answer to what caused it...and/or to be able to predict when it will peak. And if they all seemed to realize that this was an airborne situation, why was it only the 2 old ladies watching TV in their house had masks on? Wouldn't people at least try to pull their shirts over their mouth/nose?
Special effects.... The car hitting the tree and the body flying out would have made a nice video for the Department Of Transportation to use in EMS training films. The people jumping from the building looked better on the TV commercial. The reaction of those on the ground made it funny, not eerie. The mower running over the person....the hairpin into the carotid artery....*yawns*
I would go on but I think I need to take another bath.
June 22, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Strife -
The part that had me laughing (careful, this might be a SPOILER) was when Eliot, Alma, Jess, and two other teenage boys take refuge in one of those 'sample houses.' The house is completely furnished with birthday presents and fake glasses of wine, etc.
Anyway, Eliot is in the study and he sees a potted plant. The plant twitches. Eliot begins apologizing to the plant for intruding and insists he will leave immediately if the plant agrees not to kill him. He approaches the plant, touches it, and says, "It's a fake plant. I'm talking to a fake plant. I'm still doing it."
Ha. M. Night Shyamalan made fun of his own movie. And even the joke was badly delivered.
My opinion is that if you walk into this movie intending to laugh, you definitely will laugh. If you come expecting anything else, you will be disappointed.
June 23, 2008 at 4:50 am
Eric ... you and I have been great friends for some time. We almost always agree on everything. But, I really enjoyed this movie. And, while watching I honestly believed M. Knight was trying to write/direct a paranoid, intentionally funny, B movie here and pulled it off tremendously. Those of you who laughed did exactly what he wanted, in my opinion.
He's not THAT bad as a writer/director to have done this to be taken seriously. The actors know how to act well. They all have before. They were directed to be like characters from Paranoia movies from the past. I laughed (and I think I was supposed to), I was creeped out enough and I had a good time. For me, the movie flew by pacing-wise. It was a fitting tribute to the paranoia movies of the 50s and 60s. And that lady ... "You're going to murder me in my sleep" and then Walberg's reaction. I do think the comedy was intentional. Awesome.
Perhaps some of the problem for an average audience is the way it was marketed. And in small inconsistencies in tone or in full commitment to the B movie style, if that's what he was doing. Because if the audience doesn't get what you are about to do from the start, it may be hard to convince them later. I decided within the first 10 minutes that it was behaving too much like a B movie that I set myself up for it to be a tribute to that for the rest of the film and I wasn't disappointed. Maybe it should have been in B&W.
That's my unpopular take. But I'm sticking to it.
June 23, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Smacky,
If it is true that he is creating a homage to paranoia films of some time ago, then I think because of his previous body of films (none of which are particularly funny), an audience needs to be informed how to interpret the film. I agree with you that marketing could have helped, but I suspect that there are other inconsistencies in tone, dialogue, and script, that add to that. I am also uncomfortable, in general, with bailing out films based on the fact that they are supposed to be tributes to a particular film genre. While allusions to other films may add geek/intellect/film critic value, a film should also be able to stand on its own. And again, to make the assertion that it is a tribute to the paranoia films of the 50's or 60's, I'd think there'd be at least some evidence somewhere outside of the film to support it (an interview from M. Night for example). Regardless, I think your assertion will need a little more support before I buy into it.
June 23, 2008 at 11:16 pm
I do think the tone of that type of paranoia film is there. And I do believe it stood on its own for me. I watch a lot of movies (who doesn't, right?) and have even reviewed movies in the past and pride myself on seeing through weak set-ups and critically examining intent vs. interpretation. Should a movie stand on its own without examining its intent? Probably. But in these discussions afterward I think it's fun to talk about an audience member's experience vs. what the filmmaker's intent might have been. I went in hoping to be entertained and I was. Someone else might have gone in only to get a good scare or see a typical M Knight story and been really disappointed. We all have expectations that are met or not met and that may have ultimately ruined this movie's chances because he did nothing to change his audience's expectations before hand (or during).
That said ...
His paranoia tone is not blatant in the Happening but M Knight has never hit people over the head with his tone, in my opinion. (His script and actors are blatantly B movie styled.) However, that does lead me to agree that if his intention was to really do a paranoia film that everyone catches onto that maybe he make it more obvious in tone to match the acting and script ... even if that isn't his normal style. Perhaps what is problematic is that he did a movie in his tone while firmly planting his tongue in his cheek and his intent is lost in translation to the majority of viewers.
After taking a few minutes to Google some stuff, I did find a few interviews where M Knight talks about wanting people to enjoy The Happening as a fun B movie. Here is one excerpt:
"Do you think The Happening may end up being unfairly reviewed by critics?
M. Night (MN): I hope not. I don't think so, maybe I am too naive. The tonality was carefully chosen in terms of approaching it as kind of a high-end B-movie and hopefully it will be taken that way and let them enjoy the storytelling.
The relationship is what it is, it's one of those that will only iron out with enough time."
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/m_night_shyamalan_interview_you_want_to_read
June 24, 2008 at 12:48 am
This film is great, the best iv seen in months, a must watch for all. watch out france or something!!
July 7, 2008 at 10:50 am
I like you analysis Smacky, I thought M Night might have been stating a corelation between the paranoia from the 50 and the post-9/11 paranoia. The movie also reminded me of The Birds, which was no mistake I'm sure.
I thought the movie was fun and had a nice rhythm throughout.
July 12, 2008 at 8:41 pm
I have NEVER seen such a terrible movie at the theater. I know alot of people say they would walk out of a movie if it was bad, this was my first time ever leaving during a movie. The sad thing was, I was with 4 other people who did the same. Mark Wahlberg you're still a badass...but this movie sucked.
July 16, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I am a big Shyamalan fan and so I tried hard to like this movie. I felt that a lot of the violent images were uncalled for, and would have been more effective if they were only alluded to and not shown. There seemed to be no plot; no active villain, but an abstract danger. The dialogue was forced and seemed unrealistic. I did find it eerie, and some of the Shyamalan trademarks, character development and cinematography, were strong. All in all, I was very disappointed.
July 29, 2008 at 3:50 am
what a pathetic excuse for a movie.....WATCH OUT FOR THE SUICIDE VIRUS OOOOOOO.
some scenes were patheticly unconvincing, like when mark wahlburg talks to the plant and it turns out to be plastic, are they trying to make us laugh or tyring to scare us?
anyway, im peeved that i wasted $12.00 on this peice of garbage