ecwaenigma

Krasinski painted himself in to a corner with the "fix" for the creatures, but I feel pretty confident he'll figure it out. Thrilling but not scary, which is what I expected. My 8 year old loved it and didn't see the first one. That's not a prerequisite since there's a lengthy "Day 1" prologue. Good stuff, but hope loose ends are tied up in Part III.

I refuse to write a synopsis of the film in my comments as, if you are reading about this film, already know what it is about.

First off, I like M. Night. "Unbreakable", "Signs", and "Lady in the Water" are all excellent movies that are the work of a truly unique voice in American film-making. I've never seen "The Sixth Sense", as the ending was ruined for me the day after the film came out and I realized there is no sense in seeing a film that, knowing a huge spoiler like that, would have me watching the movie the whole time thinking "Of course he's dead, it's obvious." "Unbreakable" is an amazing piece of film-making that is the best comic book movie not based on a comic book (of course, "Hancock" isn't out yet...). It's a great story about human beings and the father/son relationship in the movie reminds me of me and my father - he'll always be a superhero to me. "Signs" is the best sci-fi - very low tech and character driven. "The Village" was entertaining, but I saw the ending a mile away. "Lady in the Water" is probably one of the most under-appreciated films in modern cinema. It's going to be like "Blade Runner", 10 years from now, people will call it a masterpiece. It's an adult fairy-tale. What's wrong with that?

After seeing the trailers and the R-rating for "The Happening", I was excited. Mark Wahlberg is a good young actor, as are Zooey Deschanel and John Leguizamo. It looked like the apocalyptic thriller I always felt that M. Night had in him. I was wrong.

The first half hour or so of the film are excellent. M. Night knows how to build tension better than most directors out there. He's a great director and this film is directed extremely well. The direction is not the problem here. Wahlberg is terribly miscast. Leguizamo's role could have been played by anyone. The plague is mysterious, but the reason behind it is given about a third of the way into the film and that reason is ludicrous. It seems like Wahlberg's character is talking himself and everyone else in to that theory for the rest of the film. When it is finally revealed at the end of the film that that theory is the actual reason for the plague, my jaw dropped. Where's the twist? Where's the dark tone that an idea like this requires for a coda? The epilogue in Paris is just plain silly.

I did learn a few things from this movie, though. First, I'll never look at a tree the same way again - I'll just point and laugh. Two, maybe living in the desert isn't such a bad idea after all. Or Alaska. And lastly, a great director and a bad script do not make a good match. I love ambiguous films where crazy things happen for no good reason. Nature run amok films especially. Check out "The Long Weekend" or "Who Can Kill a Child?" instead. Those are horrifying films with similar, and more effective, results. But don't blame poor M. Night. He's just a regular guy who can't hit home runs every time. Maybe he should take his own advice and "Swing away." He'll hit another one out of the park eventually. Unfortunately, "The Happening" is like grounding out right to the pitcher.

Not nearly as bad as other people have claimed, it's still not a very good movie. I love the original, and have soft spots in my heart for "Creepshow 2", even though it's severely flawed. "Creepshow III", isn't a "Creepshow" movie. It's more like a Sci-Fi Channels original picture. Some of the stories make absolutely no sense whatsoever and are merely there to fill time. Out of the five stories, two were legitimately enjoyable - "Professor Dayton's Wife" (in an H.G. Lewis kind of way) and "The Radio" (actually had an E.C. comics ironic ending to it). This review probably sounds like it was written by a 10 year old kid, and that's how my brain feels after watching this. It's the cinematic equivalent of Taco Bell - somewhat tasty but ultimately not very good for you.

The Good - All the stories link together. Cheesy gore effects. The Creep actually appears at the end of the movie (for all of about 2 seconds).

The Bad - The acting. The very obvious Universal back-lot sets. The music does not fit the movie at all. Most stories make no sense and have non-endings. The TERRIBLE computer animation that introduces the first story.

The Worst - The title. This isn't "Creepshow III". This is more like "Monsters: The Direct-to-DVD Motion Picture".

If you were looking for a continuation of the horror comic series "Creepshow", keep looking. If you're looking to waste 99 minutes watching something that actually has a few bright spots, watch this movie. But, in the end, it comes down to two things: 1) The producers made this movie for one reason - to cash in on the brand name of the series, sell it to Warner Brothers, and earn themselves a producing credit on the upcoming remake of the original film (if it happens). 2) Warner Brothers got the rights back to a series that they shouldn't have dropped in the first place and can now make the remake of the original (or other inferior sequels).