The Happening Spoilers aplenty.
#16
Posted 14 January 2009 - 12:56 AM
WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE DEAL WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND? Like, what, she's secretly evil or troubled or......... something? Was this plot point ever resolved? like, that OTHER loser guy kept looking at her like she was a hell beast and acted like she wanted to eat his daughter (right before he left his daughter in her care????)
Also, I passed my science classes in high school. Wanna know why? Because I didnt answer every fucking question with "its a mysterious phenomenon that we'll never be able to explain" And your loser science teacher accepts this as the correct answer? What the fuck is he, a cave man? He ENCOURAGES his students to spout shit like this? Maybe it sounds wise to admit that human knowledge is finite and fleeting, but that's for philosophers, not science teachers to say. Science teachers tend to teach science, which generally focuses on explaining natural phenomenon.
And he constantly jabbers about the scientific method or some derivation thereof. Are you aware that science teacher is a job, and not a life outlook? I do not picture my science teachers waking up before school saying "Identify the problem: I need to make a pot of coffee, present theory: I could try the coffee maker, but perhaps I should experiment just pouring coffee grains into my shoes and dripping hot water through them while I wear them. EXPERIMENT HOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!"
The fact that the main character talks to a plant, trying to convince it not to kill him, only to find out that its plastic, could have been an acceptable joke, but first of all its at the expense of the apparent savior of mankind, and second of all it drags on for what feels like at least two minutes. It feels more like someone was actually watching the painful scene and took pity on the audience by bringing it to an end.
Also, I love the fact that everyone who is in a house and old turns out to be bat fuck insane. I have to count out the guy who shot the two murderbait kids though, because he was spot on and they had it coming "You wont give us food, so we'll kick your house!" Haha, eat lead, bitches. And yet we're supposed to feel sorry for them? They acted completely in the face of all logic. Yeah, crazy old man holed up in the middle of a disaster area, lets kick him.
The old lady was probably worse since she was just crazy for no good reason. Maybe she had that weird disease that makes you blurt out exposition totally at random.
"So what would you like for supper? By the way, theres a pipe leading to a spring house so that you can talk to your girlfriend when she gets trapped ther... I mean so that escaping slaves could......... do something.... youre stealing from me, rar!"
Oh, and why didnt you just name the main character Jesus H Christ. That would explain why everyone, including the goddamn military, looks to him as their personal savior. I was expecting him to borrow some hags cel phone to field a call from the president at any moment.
All of this amateurish crap could have been forgiven if not for one glaring flaw: It was not in the least bit scary. A lot of it happens in broad daylight, when satan tentacle raping emperor palpatine under a blanket of spiders wouldnt be scary. And on top of that the apparent villains weren't scary in the first place. They were a bunch of plants. I don't give a shit if they were blowing in a slight breeze that does not help. And you told us they were plants from the start. I mean, at least make it the little girl or something. It might be nonsense but at least its a twist.
And as for their rather indirect method of dispatching people, forgive me if I sound sick, but it was as humorous as it was impossible. People randomly killing themselves is the solution to all life's problems. Wouldnt it rock if your boss was in the middle of complaining about your work when they suddenly stapled their larynx together? And what if the people infront of you at the check out line suddenly just stopped standing there and walked off a building. ( a scene which prompted me to laughingly hum "its raining men") see, there are definately advantages to this.
The mechanics of it are also mind boggling. Are there little electrons in our brain that keep us from doing dumb shit? Sure. Could they be blocked. Yeah, why not. Would blocking them make us immediately kill ourselves? No. That is not an instinct that needs to be blocked, and I highly doubt that there is any chemical that would make people immediately, and sometimes elaborately, kill themselves. Why would we even need a section of our brain set aside to prevent us from doing that? And wouldnt it be one of the sections that was particularly secure if it existed? I'd love to have a brain specialist's comment on this. I just can't imagine that somewhere in my hypothalamous there is a chunk of grey matter in charge of making me not stab myself in the face.
I would venture to say that this area is called "logic" and that a movie where plants totally broke down peoples ability to think logically has already been made, and it is by Oliver Stone, and is called W.
Quote
#17
Posted 14 January 2009 - 04:41 AM
I know some pretty stupid people, but I don't think anyone is stupid enough to do that.
#18
Posted 14 January 2009 - 02:53 PM
Quote
#19
Posted 12 February 2009 - 08:27 PM
Humerous and insightful J m HofMarN, very well written.
I agree with most people that Shyamalan's movies have slowly (or quickly depending on your point of view) been taking a dive lately. I however don't agree that it took place before the Village. I do believe that "Signs" was his best movie, followed by the criminally underrated "Unbreakable" and then probably "The Village", which was disappointing but I don't think was nearly as bad as most people think. I will say I think it hilarious that "The Sixth Sense", while though scary as can be when first watched, is most people's favorite movie by him even though it suffers from one of the largest plotholes in movie history.
"The Happening" mainly suffered because of one thing and one thing only...the plot. I'm sorry but it had nothing to do with too much "focus on Wahlberg" or "unfinished character storylines", it had to do with the simple fact that plants becoming the environmental equivalent of Charles Manson is just ridiculous. Whether it was shot in the daytime or pitch black night, that's just not scary, nor believable. If I would have known that was the premise of the movie before I saw it, I wouldn't have wasted my time.
I do see a trend with Shyamalan's movies and I wonder if anyone else agrees. It seems since he has really started to inject political "statements" in his movies, starting with the afforementioned "The Village" the quality of his movies have really started to plummet. His last two movies are simply deplorable. I hope this is a trend that does not continue, I don't know how it can get any worse than "The Happening".
#20
Posted 13 February 2009 - 02:10 PM
Willis is good with delivery. He wa the only person in SIN CITY who didn't come across like a comic book character, and that's no mean feat. He even injected a couple of minutes of credible activity to that second CHARLIE'S ANGELS movie. So yeah, SIXTH SENSE and UNBREAKABLE are Shyamalan's better films, but they're no classics. Every other Shyamalan film is just awful. Again, I had thought nothing could beat LADY IN THE WATER, but THE HAPPENING has some of the worst dialogue this side of an Ed Wood film.
#21
Posted 13 February 2009 - 09:42 PM
Couldn't disagree more. The problem in his "bad" (this seems to be different for everyone) movies isn't the dialogue and I certainly don't understand the "first-draft quality" comment. Whether you like him or not, Shyamalan has certainly been able to get some of the best and most accomplished actors in holleywood to take up his projects...I seriously doubt he would have been able to do that if his drafts were really that bad.
I will agree that "Lady in the Water" and "The Happening" were both terrible movies. But you have to give Shyamalan credit in one department, he doesn't make movies everyone else does and at least his stories are original. I remember leaving the theater after seeing LITW and thought to myself "man that was disappointing, but at least it was something I haven't seen before". He is able to take risks with his stories (which has hurt him lately) and not care what anyone thinks. So what if he uses "parodies" of small town America? Who gives a crap? He is just using something most of America can relate to...his movies (well TSS, Unbreakable and Signs) are as scary as heck, creative and had unexpected twists and who cares what vehicle he uses to get there? I don't find anything in his movies to be insulting or disregarding common sense, aside from the plot in "The Happening". One thing is for sure, you would be hard-pressed to find a director who can scare so much while using so little.
I have seen a lot of movies worse than LITW, but not many worse than his latest...if any.
This post has been edited by Hoth: 13 February 2009 - 09:44 PM
#22
Posted 14 February 2009 - 01:01 AM
Quote
#23
Posted 14 February 2009 - 01:36 AM
Alfred Hitchcock. Every movie he ever made, utilized a notion of suspense apparently lost on the majority of directors in Hollywood, even though they teach his stuff in film school. I was NOT hard pressed to come up with that name by the way; it took me less than one second.
I can't PROVE the "first-draft quality" complaint. I suppose it's a matter of taste. I just think personally there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing everyone in a story to acknowledge that the protagonist is more important than they are. In this one it goes to the point that someone would give a complete stranger control of her phone while she is in the middle of a conversation with her own daughter. IN LITW everyone was on hand to help out our hero while he worked on some arcane problem. In SIGNS it's terrifyingly simplistic, and add to that we get old ladies complaining about skae punks and Lionel and the Wolfington brothers pulling pranks. Does he think people really talk like this ALL THE TIME? To be clear, when I say that his dialogue is a "parody of small-town America," I am not saying it like I think it's deliberate. If his plan were to parody, well, go nuts. You're in John Waters territory, so tread softly, but go. When I say it, I mean it's unintentional parody. He write dialogue not like a guy who ever heard people talk; he writes it like he read it in a book. His dialogue comes across as really unnatural, faux-folksy, like some of the worst stuff in Mamet (among Mamet's celebrated great dialogue is some remarkably bad dialogue; for proof of this watch STATE AND MAIN). So I was not using "parody" in the way you might have taken it, Hoth.
The argument that he gets good actors, therefore his movies must be good is facile. You could use that same argument for Kevin Smith, or for Woody Allen (you could use that argument in fact for every bad movie that has a good actor in it). The fact is, not all of their movies are good. I would say that Woody is hit and miss, Smith is a matter of taste (I can't stand his stuff but HE seems nice), and Shyamalan is not yet recognized as the worst "important" director in Hollywood.
This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 14 February 2009 - 01:42 AM
#24
Posted 14 February 2009 - 06:04 AM
My comment did not include directors who are no longer alive. I should have said "any current director". Of course Hitchcock would be one...that should kind of go without saying civilian_number_two. After all Hitchcock is who Shyamalan was much compared to in his earlier movies...
I don't think I ever said his movies are good because he gets good actors...read my post again and tell me where I said that? Actually I think what I said was he wouldn't be able to get top-notch actors "if his drafts were really that bad." I don't think that statement has anything to do with the finished product itself. Of course there are bad movies with high-quality actors in them...actually most movies made are complete crap, and I know of many that have actors who are well-respected.
#25
Posted 14 February 2009 - 05:42 PM
Knew you'd try to call me on the living versus dead director business; this is the usual game of changing the scope of the question after an answer is put forward. I named Hitchcock just to see whether you'd do that. I've been to the Internet before, and I know that this game can go on forever. I could name a Japanese director now, just to bait you to say "I meant American directors," and it would be SOOOOOO easy, but I won't. Instead I'll call you on something else in your statement: Shyamalan does not scare so much with so little.
His films actually use quite a lot; they rely on all the familiar tropes of horror. He uses music, slow reaction shots, periods of silence followed by bursts of sound, the very simplistic idea of a character not knowing what is outside the camera frame, darkness, woods, night, ghosts, aliens, mysterious creatures from beneath the sea, and THE UNKNOWN. His films are stereotypical horror, right up to the "twist" at the end of most of them. There are in fact quite a number of directors using all of this history and technique to great effect, and many of them put out product that people speak of favourably after they have seen them. Since you shit all over my Hitchcock example, I will not go down that dangerous road of naming living directors who are making great films in the horror tradition. There is no point of running the risk of the usual retorts: either they are not directors you like, or you will claim that they don't in fact do a lot with a little, or some other unspoken criterion will surface. I have spoken with people before on the Internet, and am accustomed to all the usual reversals.
Fact is, this is a question of opinion and personal taste. You like Shaymalan, and most everyone else does not. He does in fact get movies made and those movies have recognized actors in them, but you are not free to say that because of this fact the screenplays are therefore good (or to quote your argument directly, you doubt they could be all that bad). The screenplays are in fact hard to read; they contain dialogue that sounds like it came out of a classroom, before the workshopping and cast readings. The people do not talk like people, they talk like characters in a screenplay. The logic of your argument is flawed because one of its premises is not supported, being that any film with "good" actors in it must have had a good (or "not-that-bad") screeenplay. Your other points are also flawed, because he does not "scare" (his films are not scary) with "so little" (in fact he uses quite a lot).
This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 14 February 2009 - 05:47 PM
#26
Posted 15 February 2009 - 02:24 AM
This could have been done and left the viewer with a lasting unease which good scary stuff does, Stephen King as an example, the guy has nightmares about his own books. The possibility that at some point the people you love could inexplicably kill themselves is very, very real, and the fear of loss is something we all have to deal with.
Instead of being forced to deal with this, neither the evil girlfriend or the little girl he gets forced on him perish, and as if that didnt make it impersonal enough, its happening bloody everywhere anyhow. Life does not go on, normalcy is destroyed. This world is very clearly different from our own. Whereas if this had been an isolated incident, not only would it have been cheeper to film, but it would have been easier to internalize. Any horror director should know that one.
That's why it's Nightmare On Elm Street and not Freddy Takes Over The Entire East Coast. The Happening was more disaster movie than horror flick.
This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 15 February 2009 - 02:30 AM
Quote
#27
Posted 16 February 2009 - 12:18 AM
The actor, I don't care how good, cannot make up for a bad screenplay...they could have had the best actor in the world play Wahlberg's part in The Happening and it wouldn't have made a difference...why? Because the premise was as stupid as can be. Have there been bad movies that resulted from seemingly good screenplays? Of course...probably more than can be numbered. The point is, the draft or screenplay is not always an accurate indicator as to how good the movie will be. Just like in novels, they don't always translate to the big screen well, for a host of various reasons that I won't get into here.
That's just ridiculous. I said what I meant and meant what I said. Don't try and turn it into something it's not to make yourself sound more intelligent.
What the hell else is he suppose to use? There isn't a horror/suspense film ever made that doesn't use one or all of these to some effect. There's a reason this is the case, THEY WORK. The fact is that Shyamalan uses them to great effect better than any other (living, better clarify this for you) director I know of. What I meant (oh no I'm clarifying again) is that he produces great suspense by showing little of the monster/alien/antagonist in question, and he does it extremely well.
I will actually agree with your sentence here. This is a matter of personal taste.
I would love to see proof of this. I'll bet you don't have any. Because I know a lot of people who do (at least before his last two movies). Maybe most of the people you have talked to don't, but not most of the people I know.
Again a matter of personal opinion and I think it's funny how you say it's a matter of opinion and then rattle yours off like it's fact. I have never read one of his screenplays (I am assuming you have) and I don't really care to or have to. Why would I give a crap? The only thing I care about is the finish product, the movie itself. And he has made a couple of amazing movies, a couple of really good movies, and a couple that are complete garbage. But again, that's a matter of personal taste.
Quit getting so emotional with your preconceived ideas and prepared speeches. I never said that a movie that has a good actor in it means it must have had a good screenplay. (I clarified again, your eyes must be popping out of their sockets by now.) I "clarify" because you "assume". That simple.
I know a lot of people who were scared by a few of his movies, as was myself. Again a matter of personal opinion. If you don't like them, fine..don't watch them..and don't read the screenplays either. But that's just common sense.
This post has been edited by Hoth: 16 February 2009 - 12:22 AM
#28
Posted 16 February 2009 - 12:28 PM
Ridley Scott - Alien
James Cameron - Aliens
Steven Spielberg - Jaws, Jurassic Park
William Friedkin - The exorcist
Jonathan Demme - The Silence of the Lambs
And Hoth , if good actors cannot make up for a bad screenplay, and a bad screenplay is not an accurate indicator of how good the movie will be, then what the hell are you talking about?
#29
Posted 16 February 2009 - 02:15 PM
So There. YES, you DID say that his screenplays cannot be that bad because the films have "good" actors in them. You used the presence of the actors as a judgment of the screenplay. No, I haven't read any of his screenplays. But the thing is, you can hear the words the actors are saying, and those words come from a screenplay. And no matter how good the actors may be (again we're still talking about Wahlberg, right?), the words don't sound like things people say to other people. They sound like a screenplay (seriously, I had to take a few breaks during SIGNS, it was so cringe-worthy). The writing is bad.
You also said that his movies scared so much by showing so little of the monster, like this is something unique. In fact, this is another common horror trope. I refer you to THE RING, which a lot of people thought was really scary (I just thought it was an occult mystery, neither especially thought-provoking nor frightening). Until the very end, you don't see much of anything. Compare with all the dead bodies and ghosts of THE SIXTH SENSE; THE RING shows in fact much less than Shyamalan. And of course THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, which a lot of people swear to God is scary, showed literally nothing ever. Apart from the slasher films and the gorefests, EVERY successful horror director uses your definition of "very little" to make with the scary. Wes Craven is a master of this. So you can make a big deal about this re: Shyamaln, but he is doing nothing that isn't already common and handled much better by a lot of other flmmakers.
I am not sure how I could "prove" that the general public is not that impressed with Shyamalan. I am not going to start a survey, but maybe there's one already on the Internet? Perhaps telling you that imdb ratings tend to run fairly high even for the worst films, and that since SIXTH SENSE's 8.2/10 Shyamalan has had a gradual decline in approval from the masses (UNBREAKBALE 7.2; SIGNS 6.9; THE VILLAGE 6.6; LADY IN THE WATER5.9; THE HAPPENING 5.3)? Maybe you won't approve of imdb's public response engine and you prefer metacritic, which is a survey of all professional critical response (THE SIXTH SENSE 64%; UNBREAKBALE 62%; SIGNS 59%; THE VILLAGE 44%; LADY IN THE WATER 36%; THE HAPPENING 34%)?
#30
Posted 16 February 2009 - 03:47 PM
Ok, so this is pretty much brilliant.
They do?
I really can't remember the last time that I was scared of a movie, much less one of M. Night's. The problem is that filmakers use these because they THINK they work. So, instead of creating characters that people can identify with and putting these characters in scary situations, they throw in another somber note on the keyboard, and expect people to poop their pants. These elements CAN be used to make something scary, but are not scary in and of themselves.
So, my issue with the dialogue in M. Night's movies is that it feels "independent." I've watched more than my fair share of independent horror, and most of Night's dialogue feels like it could come out of ANY of those movies. It seems organic, but it tries too hard to be organic. It is like something someone would say, if they were in an independent horror movie.
As far as environmental horror, only one movie had genuinely scary plants: the Evil Dead. I haven't been in a forest since watching that movie, and I'm pretty sure the ficus in the corner of my office is eyeballing me. Yeah, not scary.
"Maybe artists shouldn't talk about their art."
"Well kids, I guess your father isn't a hermaphrodite."
"Izzy! enough with the rabid smootching!!"