The Happening

This movie can be summed up very easily, interesting but lacking plot. M Night spent too much of his budget on casting Wahlberg to afford sufficient special effects to give this movie a cleaner look. With as poor as the effects in this movie are it makes you wonder what they spent the 60 million dollar budget on, they clearly could not have spent anywhere near that The Matrix had a 63 million dollar budget...

This is a suspenseful thriller with a mediocre plot. By far it is M Night's worst movie. There is a reason why this movie was written, directed, and produced by him, because no one else was willing to take a chance with it and after seeing the film you will understand why.

After the hype created by Bird Box, it is worth revisiting The Happening which was critically mauled upon its release.

The reason might be M Night Shyamalan who wrote, produced and directed this film. His success in movies such as The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable meant that critics were just sharpening their knives and waited for him to fail.

It starts off shockingly as people kill themselves in New York, such as throwing themselves off a building. The mass suicides soon spreads and the authorities initially think it is some kind of a biological terrorist attack.

Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg) is a science teacher at high school in Philadelphia. When the school hears about happening in New York, it causes a mass panic.

Elliot, his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel) fellow teacher Julian (John Leguizamo) and his young daughter Jess try to escape Philadelphia on the train. The train comes to a halt and they are stranded in the countryside.

Julian goes back to look for his wife who could not make it on the train. Elliot tries to figure out what is causing this phenomenon as they witness more disturbing suicides. He thinks there is something in nature, especially the countryside that is causing the happening.

Shyamalan was let down by Mark Wahlberg, the most unconvincing high school science teacher. Zooey Deschanel was not much better. I know she is supposed to have marriage problems but there was no chemistry here between the actors. Leguizamo would had been better as the lead.

The film itself is much better than its reputation deserves. There is an environmental subtext to it. It is eerie, disturbing and mysterious. I can understand what Shyamalan tried to do and he largely succeeded with a psychological apocalyptic horror. It would had been better with stronger actors.

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).

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.