Phénomènes

Yes, there are of course bad things about this movie, don't get me wrong. Specifically, the line delivery and script were pretty dumb and much of the acting was wooden and unconvincing. There was only one good performance (Mrs. Jones). Some directing choices weren't that good either, but other than that I thought the tension built well and the premise of the story was interesting and original, and the beginning of the movie for the most part was captivating. There were some well-executed emotional and scary scenes as well! I don't believe that this is a bad movie and I was surprised to not be completely dissatisfied!

I'm a Shyamalan fan. He's not afraid to take chances. And he believes in himself and his story. Most of the time, that helps. Gems like Unbreakable en The Village would never have seen the light of day if someone other than Shyamalan came up with it. His direction always makes sure his story gets the maximum effect. I like his screenplays because they always consist of two things: originality and well written characters. His new feature has neither. It's that simple. As a Shyamalan fan, I felt this disappointment a little with Lady in the Water. But now, it's twice in a row.

In a nutshell: Beginning in Central Park NYC, people are effected what is first believed to be a neurotoxine causing people to behave irrational, even to the point of suicide. But then the survivors start to uncover signs that it's not terrorists, but nature itself spreading this virus: yes, it's nature against men. And nature is winning.

I thought Wahlberg was a very poor choice. His range as an actor is far too narrow to play in any production that needs a little nuance. In other words: he shouldn't be in anything else than a movie about cops or (ex-)marines. Also the rest of the cast is surprisingly aloof. This includes Zooey Deschanel, who looks like she's a live-action version of a Manga character. Can those eyes be any wider?

The way the information is brought to the viewer is simple. There is a hinge of a critical message about massmedia, how we get our information and how we as a society are depended on TV, mobiles phones etc. to get in touch with each other. But it's nothing major. Because there really isn't much to tell. The first 15 minutes are the most interesting. Although the very first scene with the two women on a bench in the park (in hindsight) is telling. I really had my doubts about everything: the acting, the actions taken by the characters, the total mood and feel of the film. Once it goes into the 2nd act, the movie becomes more and more (non intentional) laughable and silly.

After seeing this I read that Shyamalan intended this to be an expensive B-movie, in the tradition of Romero etc. If that's the case, then my original rating of 5 (outta 10) should be a 3. Because nowhere in the movie does this become apparent. If you want a good homage, take a look at Zach Snyder's Dawn of the Dead (although that's really a remake.) I don't like a these talented filmmakers who want to take $100 million budgets, to make movies who look like they've been made for $10.000. But at least someone like Tarantino or Rodriquez adds originality and a real love for the genre.

The Happening is really bad as a serious film. As an homage it's boring and without heart. Take your pick. But you will be disappointed either way.

Allow me to provide some background information on my relationship with the films of M. Night Shyamalan: I adored "The Sixth Sense" and still think of it as one of the best films of 1999 and one of the best supernatural thrillers in ages. "Unbreakable" was a fascinating take on the superhero genre. I loved parts of "Signs" to bits and consider the sequence in the basement towards the end of the film one of the finest examples of suspenseful build-up in recent film history. I even liked "The Village" and could easily dismiss "Lady in the Water" as a mere misfire. I was greatly anticipating "The Happening", especially as it seemed to be echoing one of my favorite guilty pleasures- the paranoid 70's sci-fi thriller.

Let's get one thing out of the way- "The Happening" is unbelievably, impossibly, ridiculously, hilariously, inconceivably bad. Normally I would refuse to rate any film that had any good scenes or that was well-directed less than four out of ten, but "The Happening" has to have one of the worst scripts among recent big-budget Hollywood films. It's absolutely shocking how retarded the logic behind this is and how poor so much of the dialogue is. This script began as "The Green Effect", a tremendously poor (trust me, I read parts of it) script by Shyamalan that was soundly rejected and eventually reworked into "The Happening". Having seen the critical reaction to "The Happening" prior to going into the film I found myself pleasantly surprised by basically the first thirty, forty minutes of the film. It was nothing special but it had something going for it, Shyamalan's direction was top-notch, and Wahlberg was playing the sort of goofy science teacher I'd loved (and loved to hate on occasion) in high school.

Then the descent began. The bulk of this film is some of the most hilariously awful crap produced by a talented filmmaker since Schaffner's "Sphinx". Shyamalan, who was using close-ups and steadicam shots to frankly brilliant effect early on, begins to use the same shots to comical effect. There is one painfully, painfully long close-up of Mark Wahlberg pleading for time to think and then calling for his group to 'keep ahead of the wind' that is up there with Nicolas Cage in "The Wicker Man" in terms of hilariously awful acting. That scene may very well be the turning point in the film, with Wahlberg's acting becoming more ridiculous by the second, culminating in a performance that essentially wipes from memory all his tremendous recent achievements as an actor. I don't blame Wahlberg for this, I blame Shyamalan. Wahlberg claims Shyamalan tried to force him into real paranoia so his performance would work better. What happens here (no pun intended) is that Wahlberg ends up looking amazingly uncomfortable for the last hour of this thing and struggles to deliver any reasonable line deliveries.

Okay, I do have to credit Zooey Deschanel for making this movie watchable. Besides being amazingly, ridiculously gorgeous she is a fine actress and creates a sympathetic character (and a fairly well-drawn one at that- one of the few pros in Shyamalan's script). There's also the score: oh my it's gorgeous. Seriously, ignore this film and just buy the score CD by James Newton Howard- it's brilliant.

"The Happening" starts out well but ends up being an absolute embarrassment. I was prepared for a mediocre offering- perhaps a misguided effort such as "Lady in the Water". I was not expecting a disaster on the level of "The Happening". Its last forty minutes and especially its last ten minutes or so are among the worst I have seen in a long time.

Have you ever wondered if it was possible for a film to go from enjoyable to absolutely horrendous in the space of ten or fifteen minutes? "The Happening" is proof that it can, pardon the (intentional) pun, happen.

3/10

Love him or hate him, Shama has a quirky vision and some very interesting ideas in his films. He also works with some paltry budgets by Hollywood standards, and cares more about story than effects. Does it always work? No. But considering just how effective his best work is - - 6th Sense, Unbreakable, Signs, The Visit--it's a pretty great body of work. I predict there will be a reappraisal of his work in the future, and with some bigger budgets and some careful rewrites, his remakes will reveal what a brilliant guy he is.

The Happening is a small movie - - simple concept, low budget - - that doesn't try to be anything other than what it is, a cool spooky flick about a mysterious pandemic of suicide gripping the Northeast. Sign me up! Even if it comes across as lightweight by the end, like The Village, these armchair auteurs who trash MNS should try making even half an effective film as those two.

Good for a rainy afternoon, probably not much else. But that's fine with me.

I'm not sure exactly why this movie has been bashed and low rated so much, maybe it's just a bandwagon thing? I'll admit it's no movie of the year and was a little cheese at parts. However overall it was actually quite entertaining, the plot moves along steadily and it was a standard 90 minutes. Anyway long story short my last point is that I believe M.Night was attempting to do a sort of throwback to the 50's and 60's era of film making. I see many Hitchcock styling within this film and I think he actually did an excellent job of creating a modern version of "The Birds" I mean let's face it this is the birds re-done. and re-done fairly well. The color, the music, the overall atmosphere, quite similar and well done. Maybe kids these days just can't appreciate this type of film, maybe they would low rank The Birds as well. As for the claims on "confusion" or not being realistic enough I don't understand that either. I think it is fairly clear that the cause is not going to be understood but likely has something to do with the plants and some sort of biologically active chemicals they emit. This is actually completely within the realm of possible. Trees and shrubs release chemicals into the air that can have subtle and sometimes overwhelming affects on human emotion and behaviour. Example is essential oils (the oils in plants that give them their smells).