Page 5 of 7
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:35 pm
by Fletch F. Fletch
Kim Newman
defends the film also.
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:36 pm
by colinr0380
oldsheperd wrote:MNS reminds me of that Family Guy episode where they show Stephen King talking to his publisher and King doesn't have any new book ideas so he grabs a lamp and says, "My next book is about a haunted lamp" Just replace King with MNS.
I would have found that joke funnier ("*sigh* - when can I have it?"), if the idea hadn't already been
used, to hilarious effect, in an actual Amityville film!
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:03 pm
by flyonthewall2983
I actually put a YouTube link up to it on the thread for The Mist, but that damned pirate (thank you, Keith) Rupert took it down.
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:46 pm
by Galen Young
I am embarrassed to say I saw this. Ashamed that I got suckered by that damn tease of a trailer. Have only seen
The Sixth Sense on disc and hated it, so I don't really know any of Shyamalan's other films. Went to the Friday opening night show, with only about twenty to thirty people there, most of us laughing for all the wrong reasons I'd say. That ending! Sacré bleu! I thought for sure it was going to be a "it was all a dream" cop out -- but this one is just as hackneyed.
Was this really supposed to be a comedy send-up of disaster films a la
Airplane! ? Because it sure played like one. Poor Betty Buckley. I really felt bad for her -- sincerely hope she got a handsome paycheck for the shit she had to endure in this thing. When I got home, I immediately watched H.G. Lewis'
Blood Feast as a necessary corrective to flush this crap out of my system. At least Mal Arnold makes that wide-eyed stare far more frightening than Zooey Deschanel's perpetual deer caught in the headlights look. (I guess her "look" reminded of that guy, so I had to calm down by watching it again...)
Barmy wrote:And I can't get Wahlberg's furrowed brow out of my head.
While talking to a plant, that he slowly realizes is plastic! I'll admit, that was pretty fucking funny! (Funny on purpose, right?)
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:58 pm
by cdnchris
Shyamalan calls "The Happening"
the best B movie you'll ever see!!
With his endorsement of his own movie and the Stalker comment, I'm sold.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:50 pm
by margot
Barmy wrote:After looking at the imdb reviews, I'm changing my grade from C to B. I've never seen such a divided reaction--the film is either utter tosh or an improved version of Stalker. And I can't get Wahlberg's furrowed brow out of my head.
RUN DON"T WALK TO SEE THIS FILM!
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:54 pm
by Barmy
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:55 pm
by tavernier
And of course there's Zooey's eye-popping eyes.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:15 pm
by Barmy
OMG FURROWING IS CONTAGIOUS
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:17 pm
by domino harvey
M. Night wrote:I put that stuff about the bees in the movie to clue the audience into it being a 'B-movie'!
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:28 pm
by cdnchris
domino harvey wrote:
M. Night wrote:I put that stuff about the bees in the movie to clue the audience into it being a 'B-movie'!
I thought that was especially genius!
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:57 pm
by a.khan
lol, Night is one crazy dude! I totally love him now!
Here's another treasure, about how he got the idea for the movie:
MNS wrote:I was driving down the highway from Philly to New York, which is about a two-hour trip and the highway, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, you know, basically goes through farmland for a lot of the trip. And you're just seeing beautiful greenery for as long as you can see on either side and trees hovering over the highway and it's just going by the window.
And then I had the score going for movies, like this dark score, and the trees and dark score and said, "Oh my God, what if, what if it turned on us?"
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:08 pm
by wattsup32
domino harvey wrote:
M. Night wrote:I put that stuff about the bees in the movie to clue the audience into it being a 'B-movie'!
I know if I had been creating a string of films that had all been described as terrible, and then, with my last shot made my worst film yet, I would also claim that it was bad on purpose. In fact, I'd say it was the best intentionally bad film ever made. Then, by dafault, I am a genius.
If only he'd be as clever in making his films as he has been in creating reasons his films are so terrible...
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:15 pm
by a.khan
Love him or hate him, it has to be said that "The Happening" is much more interesting to discuss than a slew of commercially and critically successful films of the past few months. This does not give the film or its maker a state of grace, but "The Happening" was clearly never meant to be taken seriously.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:17 pm
by domino harvey
a.khan wrote:"The Happening" was clearly never meant to be taken seriously.
Keep in mind I haven't seen the film, but I reckon the studio, after realizing what an undiffusible bomb they had on their hands, instructed all principals to start selling any angle that would allow them and the studio to save face. It's my understanding that this film takes itself
very seriously, making M. Night's arguments all the more ludicrous.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:23 pm
by a.khan
domino harvey wrote:a.khan wrote:"The Happening" was clearly never meant to be taken seriously.
It's my understanding that this film takes itself
very seriously...
Based on the dead serious tone in the trailers, that was my understanding too, until I actually saw the film. You will be pleasantly surprised after the first-half. (Well, not anymore, I guess, because the word about its goofiness is already out.)
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:23 pm
by Barmy
I can't recall another film where it's so hard to tell how seriously it was intended to be taken.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:05 pm
by Mr Pixies
Barmy wrote:I can't recall another film where it's so hard to tell how seriously it was intended to be taken.
I can't tell if he intended anything, that's the problem. The film seems to be set up as more of a subtle dark comedy, but it doesn't embrace it.....I don't know, there's a lot of good here, but there's something that surrounds these good moments that suffocates them and leads to boredom and disdain. I put the blame on Shyamalan for not seeming to know his characters, but presenting them as if I should....heh I don't know,
Things I liked:
the construction workers jumping was amazing, the cop shooting himself, then someone picks his gun up, shoots, himself, then someone does the same, if only this kept on going till the gun ran out of bullets...John Leguizamo's car scene, with the hung tree trimmers shocked me, great image, and Brian O'Halloran (Dante from Clerks) was the driver! the old woman's lemon drink and when she slapped the girl, the ending pregnant scene was good conceptually, everyone goes on like nothing happened
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:16 pm
by miless
He was totally high when he thought up the idea... and then he stayed high to write and eventually direct it. It's a cartoon.
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:30 pm
by tavernier
Armond climbs down off his high horse to
trash the shit out of it.
As always, he saves his best (worst?) for last:
Blame all this ugly cleverness on Newsweek for crowning Shyamalan “The New Spielberg” in 1999. That’s what started the media hoax whereby the public’s shallow enjoyment of movies (and miscomprehension of Spielberg) was justified. Its impact was noticeable in reviews that trashed Spielberg’s War of the World, resenting its metaphoric/cathartic use of the 9/11 experience. Shyamalan’s movie—which is sheer exploitation—demonstrates the same banality that caused critics to fall for the cheap disaster-movie device of United 93. They’d rather profound experience be depicted lightly. It’s a form of moral, political and artistic retardation.
Shyamalan exemplifies the childish timidity that is the foundation of banal entertainment, movies that resolutely are not art. But it’s also a reflex of post-9/11 social shock and denial. Shyamalan is a perfect director for people who don’t want movies to disturb their comfort or ignorance. They complain that Spielberg had no right evoking 9/11, the same way dolts insist that Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center wasn’t political, that Hitchcock’s The Birds is trivial or that Godard’s Weekend went too far. Shyamalan aims and goes nowhere with The Happening, a title that dare not speak its fear.
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:42 pm
by Barmy
At this rate The Happening is going to end up in my Top 10.
And I can't wait for Armond's evisceration of The Love Guru, which shamelessly exploits Spielbergian tropes so moronically that it makes Scary Movie 3 look like Pierrot le Fou.
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:52 pm
by flyonthewall2983
I actually liked Scary Movie 3, but you couldn't pay me to watch the others.
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:19 am
by margot
flyonthewall2983 wrote:I actually liked Scary Movie 3, but you couldn't pay me to watch the others.
It's the other way around
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:27 am
by flyonthewall2983
I'm biased because I like the Zucker movies but loathe the Wayans stuff. Call me crazy for thinking Airplane! is funnier than their input (or most anyone else's).
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:32 am
by wpqx
Airplane is great, but other than I'm Gonna Git You Sucka the Wayans have made some crap.
Back to the promotion for this film, the same problem was faced with Lady in the Water. I'm extremely glad I didn't see any trailers for it before I went to the theater otherwise I would have hated the film. They made TLITW out to be a horror film despite it clearly being a fairy tale, and unless they want to market Snow White as a horror film then be my guest. The Happening may have been better received if the promotion for it had been better. Honestly the trailer is more interesting than the film and is successful in at least getting people curious to see it, unfortunately it's bad reputation is starting to precede it and the general public has grown tired of these pseudo-auteur crap fests. He should really invest in a co-writer the next time around, if anyone actually gives him money to make another movie.
