The Prague Post Online: Night & Day: Not much happening

Reader's comments:

[19:17 19/06/2008] : Every time M. Night Shyamalan releases a movie, there's a critic who decides Shyamalan's career is over. That same critic will always--always--hark back to The Sixth Sense and how brilliant that movie was compared to the latest Shyamalan offering.

I must be out of touch, but as much as I demand a well-done, well-thought-out, original idea, I found The Sixth Sense to be my least favorite Shyamalan movie. It's the most commercial, as in, you get the cheap thrill of the twist ending, and it's relatively easy to figure out. There's no need to look deeper. There's no need to actively watch. Instead, you can sit back and be entertained. That's what we live for, right? We want our movies to do all the work, then we wash ourselves clean of it once the credits roll.

But, as grown-ups, shouldn't we be weary of that? If movies are an art form, then art used as mere entertainment and distraction is (merely) prostitution.

The Happening inspires thought, not just about thrill subjects like global warming or terrorism, but about human's relationship to nature, the endless possibilities of nature, and--yes--our duty to be in awe of something we don't fully understand.

It's also frightening. The gore is there for shock value, but the true horror comes later in the movie, in the form of a woman who's spent too many years cut off from the world. Here's where Shyamalan shines as a master of horror, in the quieter, subtler moments.

The Happening is entertaining, but it also demands more. It demands we actively participate in the movie, suspend our disbelief, and THINK. That's a bit like reading a book, but who does that anymore?

People are cheap, and they want cheap movies. But M. Night Shyamalan isn't a prostitute. He's attempting to tell stories, not sell you 1.5 hours of easy distraction. But in an age of remakes, sequels, and endless comic book revamps, is there's a place for storytelling?

Coyla Coblentz
Geneva

[23:39 19/06/2008] : The movie was horrible, the story was bland, and even the Einstein quote about the bees and mankind was inaccurate.
Einstein never reportedly said that quote.

Vito Re
west babylon

[02:54 20/06/2008] : I agree with Coyla's comment.

Marj Gutierrez
Richmond

[05:43 20/06/2008] : I loved this movie. Nowadays you don't come across films that actually require you to think. The American audience demands spoon-fed movies anymore, and I'm relieved to see a smart one. Shyamalan didn't disappoint this consumer.

Shannon
Monessen

[06:04 20/06/2008] : I also agree. Of course I like all kinds of movies, including cheap ones. And I can't say I thought The Sixth Sense was predictable...or the worst of M. Night's movies. But overall what you are saying is right. Of course if people just don't like these kinds of movies that's fine. It's when they try and sound all sophisticated and get all film criticy and think they are genius film makers themselves.....that's what gets me.

Chris Pasquini
Hampshire

[08:01 20/06/2008] : This movie only requires thought if you've never read a science book. The affects of such a potent neurotoxin only seem to require small dosages indicated by the scene where the car has a minor cut in its roof. However, in such a dreary house where the old lady lived, these toxins would have found there way in long before the couple even reached the home.
The exponential rate at which the toxin was distributed over the course of 24 hours cannot simply vanish in half an hour's time. This movie was inconsistent and most certainly required the viewer to suspend his common sense in order to procure the parallels between the plant's pain, and the gruesome suicides of the people afflicted. Furthermore, the movie's dramatic events were necessary to the climatic rekindling of romance between our heros.
This essence of love for life, and humanities' inability to extend that gift beyond our own relationships was clearly his point. He wants us to respect our nature because it has continued to provide us with the elementary components that sustain all life. He wanted to demonstrate the backlash of our indiscretions, as portrayed with Alma's desire to separate herself from the marriage she sees as meaningless.
However, such distance leaves us vulnerable to the other side of nature, its wrath fueled by our inability to recognize the problem at hand.

Having conveyed an appropriate sense of what that douche bag was going for, it failed miserably in all accounts as a film. Dialogue was weak and did not help develop either plot line. If he wanted to be so damn preachy he should have just written a novel and stuck it on a shelf next to "environment for dummies," just so you'd know how incredibly far-fetched his tale is.
As I said earlier, M. wants us to suspend our common sense so that we can sink into his meager world of crappy parallels and unsubstantiated theories. The only "science" in the movie was the plant's reaction to human presence, which has been documented. Plants are indeed capable of perceiving human emotion and motivation.
I would encourage anyone interested to do further Internet reading on the matter. However, plants are evolutionarily bound to their genetic component and cannot spontaneously produce isolated cataclysmic events, ever. It takes millions of years for any creature to respond adequately to the threat of predatory behavior, and as humanity has only recently been able to produce the pollutants necessary to eradicate life on this planet, it is impossible for an entire flora to react identically in warding off such a predator as man.

The movie was boring, unintelligible, and lacked any convincing reason to support Marky Mark's tribulations of a doomed relationship.
Without any facts to back up this claim, it must have been easy to shoot this movie on a nice spring day in bumble---- USA.
I would never watch this movie again, nor see another one of M. night's abysmal films.

He is in his own little world, and I suggest we leave him there.

Ed
Boston

[09:08 20/06/2008] : I too like movies that make one think. Movies like Signs, the Village, and Unbreakable. But all The Happening made me think about was how could a genius like Shyamalan make such a poor rendering of man's disregard for the mystery of nature. I'm sorry, maybe I'm dense, but I can't connect with a movie about how important human relations are when there are no true representation of deep human relations. Sure, there was some sort of sad attempt with the relationship between Eliot and his wife, but it left much to be desired. And what is up with Mark Wahlberg? It almost seemed like he meant to act in the most obnoxious and untalented way. I've seen a lot of movies, and this has got to be one of the worst.

Richard Carpenter
Coppell

[16:47 20/06/2008] : I have to say, there are many good things about Shyamalan's movies. He picks out wonderful people to film all of his movies and they all have a different style and a different feel to them. How many Spielberg movies feel exactly the same? Same Shots, Same, Same. To me any way. Also, Coyla has some interesting points. I felt I talked more about the story of this movie then any other of his others, because ultimatly it is the unknown. The only things I can say I didn't care for were the awful moments of dialogue, which is where I think Shyamalan needs some help. His other stories, like the Unbreakable, The Village and Lady in the Water, suffered from this too. If he had had a co-writter. Maybe those moments you think are so bad, would have made this movie completely awesome. Verse... "Aww well I really liked it but..."

Irene Carroll
New York City

[21:06 20/06/2008] : I did a lot of deep thinking and soul searching during this movie. Unfortunately, it involved how I could get my money and time back.

Steve
OKC

[21:41 20/06/2008] : The movie wasn't spoon-fed?
The plot told you near the beginning who the villains were, and after that, talked about hot dogs!
What's worse, the acting was spotty at best, what with Mark's "Bill Nye" impersonation, and overall naive nature, while bit characters were nothing more than a one-line description. Even trying to tie the movie in with bees was pitiful.

What's more, the suspense is in the "quiet, LOUD NOISE" section.
The old, crazy lady was more of a hinder than a help in the movie, just randomly blurting out the whole slave hiding hole.

So maybe I am one of those easily entertained movie-goers. But at least I demand somewhat believable acting. Or at least a more coherent plot than, "Oh no! The plants are out to get us!"

Connor Plas
Reynoldsburg

[21:57 20/06/2008] : I enjoyed this movie. I was tense throughout the entire flick, and I cannot stop thinking about it.
I get so irritated with critics. My friend had read some reviews prior to seeing the movie and then moaned throughout the entire film, basically repeating the same thoughts that critics have been saying.
Think for yourselves, people!
Although I was a bit disappointed that it wasn't wrapped in a nice little box at the end, I still think it was a success.
I agree also with Coyla.

Marc
Rockford

[00:30 21/06/2008] : This movie makes me want to never go to the theater again. The only thought it provoked was why I spent $9.75 to watch this garbage. I was ripped off.
The point being made in this movie, if any, was discarded because of how bad the script and acting were.

JIM CLEM
PORTLAND OR

[12:15 21/06/2008] : I think Julian is Joey.

Richard Anderson
New Hope

[15:54 21/06/2008] : This movie may have sounded the death knell for two careers: Shyamalan and Walberg. Aside from the painful dialog the movie was preachy. Plants attack? Come on...

The shame of it is, this could've been a good movie. It was a little bit 'War of the Worlds' and a little bit 'Legends'. Too bad Shyamalan couldn't reproduce the magic from Sixth Sense and Signs.

Cat G
Raleigh

[21:24 21/06/2008] : Grades
Action: C
Dialogue: D
Screenplay: C
Plot: C+
Verdict: Depress fest for the bloodthirsty population of boredom. This movie can be added as Al Gore's "or else" backup to the Global Warming DVD (which was more interesting than The Happening by the way).

This movie is a Class A gorefest for all who love to see blood gush and limbs get shredded right in your face.

The Happening can be related to The Mist. After watching The Mist and how wretched it made me feel, I can say that The Happening movie succeeded in that as well.
The Happening is a movie that does make you think, but it never gives us a solid answer as to what went on.
The only credible evidence the movie gives us was from the scientist on the news. His statement was along the lines of "we know everything about it, but actually don't know anything about it."
Is that good or bad? You decide. I found it to be bad, because I kept wondering, what if this movie was just a film of a worldwide flash mob (not a serious statement)?
This has to be the 10th recent movie this summer that in some way bashes American society.
I applauded movies for calling out America to open our eyes to greater issues. But I think by now I understand that there are a lot of issues going on; one more movie is not going to change people's minds about much, especially not this one. The only decision I am making after seeing this one is not to go see another one of Shyamalan's movies.
But I found Signs to be a pretty good movie.
In The Happening, I found the dialogue to be very poor, and in a few scenes, you could see the microphone at the top of the screen.
If you want to see a bunch of morons get owned by a bunch of plants and teenage boys get blasted by bitter rednecks, watch this movie. I'm not a fan of movies that show every inch of detail on how someone has just been killed. The party of 10 that I went with all found the movie to be very random at various moments. One scene the couple and the little girl were in the house hiding, and the next minute it says 3 months later, and the kid hops on a school bus like it never happened. EVEN after that, it shows a European atmosphere of people walking in a park, as the same horror is about to strike there.
I am aware that we as humans are not doing a good job in taking care of the planet, but I don't think seeing a man throw himself to the lions is going to encourage me to "go green". I don't recommend that anyone see this movie, just because of the horrible images it leaves in your head after you walk out. It sure did ruin a good Friday night for me, after the movie, I didn't want to do anything, but freeze and mumble random things to get a laugh out of my friends.

Cedric
Silver Spring

[22:56 21/06/2008] : Either this was a pathetic attempt to lure us all into being better stewards of the earth or join MOVEON.org, or this was Shyamalan's expression of disdain toward the subject. In his other films, he wowed us with inventiveness and his ability to capture us with the land of make believe.
One could suggest, then, that Shyamalan is suggesting that the earth's response to man and this kind of idea is equally preposterous as the idea of mythical underwater girls with magical powers.
One of the explanations is smart and imaginative: the other, unfortunately, is worthy of praise only from the likes of Al Gore and the rest of the extreme left-wing eco-fanatics.

John Rice
Knoxville

[08:29 22/06/2008] : "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man."
Albert Einstein

Quoted 04.12.07 23:37:24

Einstein did say that quote. i think this movie had a good message -- we as humans ARE destroying the planet, and we should learn to love the planet. It is a gift to us, but obviously not many people care and yet no one will understand the meaning of the movie.
I believe it was a bit bland as for there was no logical background about why all of a sudden the killing took place, etc., but then again, it portrayed a message -- be more kind to the earth.

Tany
UK

[09:46 22/06/2008] : This is not his best movie, but it's not quite the horrible mess the critics are saying it is either.
I am still disappointed, though. I think it could have been done better. I think that the concept is extremely compelling and thought-provoking.
And it had the potential to be so much more than we ended up with.
While Night did quite well with some of the suicide scenes and building suspense and all that, it just plain wasn't acted that well. It was as if the people in the film were trying to escape the chicken pox or the flu as opposed to certain death.
If something like this really happened, my godness people would FLIP OUT.
It would be so much more chaotic, confusing, and desperate in real life. The script really kept things in a weird place, sort of like they were running away from a swarm of bees -- scary, but as if there was no risk of dying. I kept thinking of the Village, at the end; one guy was dying, and there was so much passion and angst in the actors' faces. I would expect at least the same amount of emotion in this film, but it didn't ever happen.
But it was still not too bad in the end.

Jay Lambert
Phoenix, Arizona, USA

[17:22 22/06/2008] : This movie was terrible. The whole audience laughed at the stupid dialog the whole time. When people actually died, you couldn't take it seriously. The movie was centered around global warming in the most idiotic form of propaganda. If you think about it, hints to global warming are spread all thoroughout the movie besides the plot; in the background of a farm is two big silos pumping out exhaust. At the very beginning, the teacher asks about dying bees. When the main character turns on a radio he only listens to "you know, it might be caused by nuclear power plants, they have those everywhere in the backeast"

This movie did not require you to think. It gave away the plot minutes into the movie, and there were no surprises. It sucked. The acting was horrible, the script was too corny, and the overall plot was unbelievably stupid.

Tom Richard
Why

[17:54 22/06/2008] : I enjoyed the film. I don't feel it's ever fair to be over critical of one man's perceived threats, which this film is clearly about and is trying to awaken us to.
I enjoyed the idea as well, and that is usually the concept which appeals to me most in terms of enjoyment. I feel there is still a future for Shyamalan.
Perhaps Miss Shimp is being a little over-critical because he has never lived up to the perceived hype of the Sixth Sense. I feel it is unfair to repeatedly compare people to previous successes, as people will want to try different things and ideas.
Good film, which was overly criticized.

Andrew Jenkin
London

[18:30 22/06/2008] : I loved this film. I think it was a great interpretation of the rapture. Very creative.

Chad I. Coleman
Tennessee

[18:53 22/06/2008] : Good overall movie. Coyla's comments are true -- to enjoy it, you have to think.
I did think some parts were too much like King's movies. It could have been done without the gore and blood. The twist was not as dramatic as other Night movies.
To have a quick flash or taste of what the people saw would have been interesting if done right, but now we all have to use our own minds to fill that hole.

David Lewis
South Bend

[19:25 22/06/2008] : The movie did not really require any thinking on the part of the audience. The entire plot was very predictable.
It also moved at the pace of a snail.
I do not recommend this movie. It is reminiscent of a late-night horror rerun.

Shayla Adams
Columbia

[19:52 22/06/2008] : It's a great movie!! Thought-provoking!!

Pooja Dev
Bangalore

[22:57 22/06/2008] : DISTANT AND BIZARRE, BUT GREAT..
OK, OK, enjoying this movie requires a little bit of an open mind.
The opening scene can only be described in one word, I guess two words, but hyphenated words -- bad-boy.
It was well done, and the style of dialogue carried out through the whole movie was so strange and distant. People would often make some random comment,like "You'd better not be eye'in my lemon drink" and then make awkward eye contact, then just stop.
So much of what was said seemed so unnecessary and random, but it just made the movie so much more mysterious and kept me guessin'.
Everyone seemed so distant. So many times, I just wondered, "What is that??"
A joke? Poor script-writing?
Does Shamalan intentionally do this? The Sixth Sense or Unbreakable was nothing like this, but wait, wasn't SIGNS??!.
Maybe the worst part was waiting unsuccessfully for Mark Whalberg to start bustin' faces, and instead we just got him talkin' in a little baby voice.
I didn't know breaking the type-cast meant being a little sissy.
Anyways, maybe it's not for most people, but this movie is worth checkin' out.

Johnny Fishsticks
Nowhere

[05:15 23/06/2008] : I completely agree with Shannon: "Nowadays you don't come across films that actually require you to think.
The American audience demands spoon-fed movies . . ."
Unfortunately, this one doesn't require you to think either, and it doesn't spoon feed you mindless entertainment either.
I am a big Shayamalan fan. His movies are some of the few that appear as if a bit of thought went into the writing and producing. They actually engage your mind, not just dazzle you with special effects or shock you with gore.
This movie however, required no thought. It required nothing but the patience to actually sit through the blandly written script. And the gore -- it just seemed cheap and over the top!
It was like those pathetic shows that use an over-abundance of sex or nudity because the producers know that is the only thing that will keep anyone interested. Shayamalan is above having to use such measures, and yet he cheapened himself and the movie by stooping to include such gruesome violence (the shotgun and the kids in particular).
Overall, I found this movie to be nothing but a propaganda piece and a huge disappointment. The script was dull, the plot was bland, and the overall effect left much to be desired.
I expected so much more from such a talented man.

Bethany D.
Memphis

[06:10 23/06/2008] : I was delighted that this did not turn out to be a zombie movie, like I originally thought. In this movie, people were killing themselves, not each other. This is far from the typical slasher flick where people go crazy and kill a set group of people one person at a time. When people kill themselves, it's never for personal gain. Clearly. That's what makes this movie so scary, it's not so typical.

Anna Beaufort
Washington, DC

[18:53 23/06/2008] : I saw this movie last night, in hopes that maybe I could get a few good scared in, but seriously, I have never seen such atrocious dialogue in my life. I honestly thought that this movie was a spoof of global warming. And the randomness of the movie... hot dogs??... and the incapable plot line. I was just appalled by it. And what was up with the blank characters? Like they were zombies. Zooey Deschanel has so much more talent than this puppet eco-gore crap.

Taryn Evans
Loganville, GA

[20:36 23/06/2008] : I think this movie was great! It is a completely different view on the way we treat the environment! Shyamalan's movies are always a bit quirky, which I love! This movie does, though, make me wonder how far down the line will we truly be killing ourselves when we act as we do towards the earth. His (Shyamalan) take on things is very interesting.

Joshua Mossman
Santa Fe, New Mexico

[01:47 24/06/2008] : I have to agree with the ones who think this movie was anything but thought-provoking.
How can you say this movie made you think? Like the reviewer said, they reveal the mystery half way through the film, and the plot never deviates. No twist...no fun.
I dig M. Night, I really do, and was very excited to see this, but I have to say the movie fell short for me. Just my opinion.

David G.
Winnetka, CA

[15:21 24/06/2008] : The movie was just bad. The characters were horrible, the dialogue was garbage, and the gore was unnecessary. The entire plot was gift wrapped in the first few minutes, I don't see how anyone can say this movie made you think. It has been scientifically proven that plants react to human stimulus, but plants that can control the wind? I just can't take that seriously.

James Roberson
Greensboro

[17:40 24/06/2008] : Shyamalan: Can I have my hour and a half back please ?

Tash
London

[22:24 24/06/2008] : I agree with Coyla. I loved this film and the fact that it made me THINK about the planet and what we are doing to it.

Scott Mitchell
Atlanta

[23:28 24/06/2008] : More wooden than the trees that the Yankees were running away from.

And for those who think that Einstein said that nonsense about bees, see this: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/einstein/bees.asp

Simon F
Tulsa

[01:09 25/06/2008] : Truthfully, I went to this movie because it looked gristly and I wanted to see the guy get yoked by the lawn mower - really nothing else about it interested me, nor did signs, or the village, or any other crap this man spews out.
The movies do NOT make you think, just like most of Hollywood garbage.
It seems to me that some believe that because the man is a little dark and quirky he is also deep and intelligent - enough to produce poor one-liners, mediocre suicide scenes that weren't remotely disturbing, and the most ridiculous story line I've seen in a while about killer trees (it's almost like ending a movie with "it was all just a dream" because you can't come up with anything better).
This movie WAS spoon-feeding the American public, at its worst.
The movie initially was so over the top that it just seemed Halloweeny and was extremely disappointing - the movie never redeemed itself.
If I wanted a critique on the environment, I would read a book that studies it, not a fantastical, convoluted movie by some stupid director.
The characters were stiff and difficult to relate to. Most of the movie just portrayed unemotional, stiff, boring people, running away from something (as was said earlier) that wasn't really that bad.
Nobody had an emotional reaction (at least not a reasonable one) to dead bodies, loss of loved ones, or a general loss of pretty much everything they had known. This movie was indeed made for the masses, with no thinking required.
If you want to think, read a book, sit in on a lecture, think for yourself.
If killer trees get you thinking, you might be a bit simpler than your pseudo-intellectual ideas would have you assume.

If only the director had played the part of the actor lying under the lawnmower........... one can only wish.

Kat
Denver

[08:57 25/06/2008] : Ed from Boston, thank you.
Only thing i liked was the music

Bob G
Inkom

Note: Comments that include profanity, personal attacks or any other inappropriate material are prohibited.

Not much happening

Reader's comments:

Add your comment