karlykins1967

As stated in the summary above, if you are watching because you like some of M. Knight's previous efforts and perhaps are ready to make comparisons with some of his other 'hits' then prepare to be disappointed. Thankfully there's no ghosts, creatures, or aliens present in this one - and all the better for it, says I!! I have to admit that generally speaking I am not a fan of the director's output. Personally I find "The Sixth Sense" far from being the 'modern day classic' as some describe it; thought the 'twist' ending in "The Village" could be seen a mile away, and generally find the man's movies overrated and trite. In his defence however, I did like the pairing of Mel Gibson & Joaquin Phoenix in "Signs", which was an enjoyable outing - so it's not all bad! With this film though, there seems to be a general air of disappointment elsewhere in the IMDb comments, which I think is unjustified. Perhaps people feel let down due to the overall lack of an overt 'entity' that threatens the characters. Conversely, I found the invisible and natural quality of the threat quite sinister indeed and considered the environmental elements in the plot to be a very believable master-stroke. For a film that is shot almost entirely in daylight, and with nothing dark or monstrous or other-worldly hot on the character's heels, there is a remarkably strong sense of dread and fear of the unknown that saturates "The Happening" and works really well in the film's favour. Mark Wahlberg turns in a very human performance, miles from his hardened Bourne 'identity'(!) and the young child in the story was well selected and played. The entirety did not feel either overlong or overwrought, and levels of reprehensible over-sentimentality are kept to a fortunate minimum. If this is a mark of Mr. Shayamalan's future direction, then here's looking forward to his next project. "Hats off" to you, sir - for an engrossing film well made!

For me, this was simply one of the best viewing experiences I have had in a long time, and believe me I watch a helluva lot of films! The cinematography was glorious, with astounding landscapes shot perfectly; also the score and sound effects track was simply out of this world, giving the film incredible ambiance and atmosphere throughout, and conjuring up perfectly a sense of esoteric mystery and making the unseen threat seem almost palpable in the desolate surroundings. In contrast to some of the other viewers' postings here on IMDb, I thought the acting was very realistic and believable, and the script well structured with good dialogue. Sure, the small company of soldiers here didn't have all the flashy catchphrasing and smart character interactions ("bughunt", "we're on an escalator to hell - going down!!") that we all love from "Aliens" (as has been pointed out in other postings) but that was because it wasn't necessary nor would have been appropriate in the scenarios in "The Objective". Also, more films than "Apocalypse Now" have utilized to good extent the voice-over narration technique, and this is one of them. There's no more dialogue here than necessary, and like the other soldiers in the company, the audience is given just enough information in the voice-over to allow them to piece together just what they "need to know". The main problem some viewers seem to have with this film is that the plot line leaves the audience thinking at the end, with no easy answers and nicely tied-up resolution. That is a great thing - it is not lazy film-making whatsoever. I feel sad for the person in the postings who had to ask such inane questions as to why the key character was shown at the end where he was and doing what he was doing and how he got there (note how I neatly sidestepped giving anything away then?!) The answer is: because it is a FILM and as such, constraints like time, budget and artistic convenience mean that not every single action needs to (or should) be shown to us. Many things in life itself are not totally explained or resolved to the individual - and just as here, it is up to each viewer to come to his own ultimate conclusion and piece together a few fragments of their own. Bear these comments in mind before viewing, and if you are a viewer who enjoys a neat and tidy happy ending, then please look elsewhere. Otherwise, enjoy a simply excellent piece of film-making and cinematic experience!!

Four people introduce themselves to camera then participate in a game-to-the-death for a large sum of prize money. It all takes place in a couple of small rooms (one of which is Red!) and there is much dialogue and characterisation over action. The entire effort is short and none-too-subtle, but well played with conviction by all involved. Obviously it would seem that budget was limited on "Red Room 2", so some of the effects do look a little low-tech, shall we say (if you watch, you'll know just when I mean!) That being said, my attention was held completely from start to finish and felt that ultimately the film was well worth the time spent watching (and now writing about it!) One thing I should mention, by way of explanation to some of the levels of gratuity contained in "Red Room 2", is that recently I subjected myself to possibly the ultimate in gratuitous shock-fest "cinema", having watched something called "August Underground's Mordum" (which I wholeheartedly do NOT recommend). I mention this in order to explain that after having watched (or perhaps words like "suffered", or "endured" may be more appropriate) the aforementioned effort, absolutely anything that can (and was) presented in "Red Room 2" seemed really rather laughable by comparison. The difference in the two films being that "Red Room 2" was a well -made, -scripted and -acted work of (admittedly bizarre) entertainment; whilst "AUM" was just utterly repugnant imagery for the sake of it, without merit and void of value. Yes, "Red Room 2" is indeed gratuitous, as described in an earlier posting here, but after one's initial revulsion at the scenarios the contestants herein find themselves, it actually becomes strangely engrossing. It also helps that being a relatively low-budget production in appearance (which can be a good thing, in my humble opinion), the viewer's repulsion obtained by any of the film's shock "effects" is soon replaced by mild amusement - well it was with me! All of that being said, I found the film very engrossing and well worth the effort. You could see what the makers were trying to express, and yes, it is something a frequent film-goer will have seen before - namely just what are the extremes TV programmers will go to in order to obtain a rating, and simultaneously, just what level of degradation will any participants stoop to in order to win. Also, it all begs the query of the viewer - how much depravity and humiliation will you watch in the name of entertainment? Again, not subject matter we haven't seen presented previously, especially in the super-dark humorous style of "Series 7: Contenders" (highly recommended, by the way), but nonetheless interesting and engrossing (if you can forgive the cheapish effects!) Now, if only Endemol or Channel 4 could get the layabouts in the Big Brother house to indulge in this form of extreme gamery, then at least that programme wouldn't be so devoid of any value, and the wanna-be housemates would know what it's like to really EARN their prize!! THAT - I would watch... meanwhile, give "Red Room 2" a spin!