21. ". Mark Wahlberg gives the worst performance of his career, stilted and wooden"

That's good for a laugh. If Wahlberg were more wooden in any of his previous films he'd be a mannequin with a voicebox. I can't see how he'd be worse than his performances in everything else he's ever done.

Posted at 3:26AM on Jun 16th 2008 by YouFaceTheTick

22. I am his big fan and admire his work.

-------------------------
Sachin
http://qtp.blogspot.com

Posted at 7:55AM on Jun 16th 2008 by sachin

23. I am a fan of M. Night Shyamalan . i have favorites and least favorites of his work, and sadly his latest movie will be on the least favorite end.
i was excited to see the movie and it left me disappointed. its worth seeing but i would recommend waiting to rent it on DVD.

Posted at 8:44AM on Jun 16th 2008 by lainix

24. Part of my comment: "The environmental angle didn't work at all -- at heart, it's just too silly on a big scale to imagine a coordinated attack by plants."

Eugene's reply: "If by 'too silly' you mean 'too awesome,' then I agree. Seriously, since when is 'silly' a demerit for a genre film, even a political one?"

My reply: Good point. I've enjoyed many silly ideas in genre films, but, for me, this one doesn't work. First, I'd have to buy the idea that plants are striking back at humans as a means of defending themselves (self-preservation). There doesn't seem to be a precipitating event that pushes the plants over the edge; evidently they just decided one day that enough was enough. Uh, OK.

Next, I have to accept that the plants are controlling the wind so as to send their poisonous toxin at ever-smaller groups of humans. This is really silly -- is the wind intelligent as well? did the plants and the wind have some kind of secret meeting to discuss the human menace? Uh, OK.

(By the way, an interesting article in Wikipedia on 'biological dispersal,' which covers how plants use the wind.)

Lastly, I have to accept that plants watch TV, which is how they know that the humans didn't really heed their warning. Uh, OK.

Each of these points could be argued, of course, but my feeling is that we tend to overlook or minimize flaws like these when the movie as a whole is really enthralling. I really wanted to like 'The Happening,' but after it was over I was left shrugging my shoulders. If nothing else, a movie like this should make you contemplate your mortality, or be glad you're alive, or something ...

Posted at 11:05AM on Jun 16th 2008 by Peter Martin

25. I am a fan of M. Night, and I was slightly disappointed in this film. However, I do not criticize the acting because I really thing it must have been a purposeful and careful choice. It reminded me of old horror films with cheesy lines and acting, and I'm pretty sure that is the direction he wanted to go with this film.

I was trying to look for more meaning in the film than the environmental message because I refused to believe he'd make a film on this issue. I might have to accept that there was no other meaning, but I won't give up yet.

The thing that disappointed me most was that I caught the boom coming into the picture when they are in the model home around the table. I was horrified. Shocked. Really? Could that happen in one of HIS films?

I loved the music and there were beautiful images like in all his movies. I also loved that M. Night continues to try new things. His methods always seem to shock his audience. Most the time people respond negatively to his methods. His choice in acting style and dialog here may be different for us, but I'm not going to completely through them out. I have to see it again when it is released on dvd and think it over some more.

Posted at 9:50PM on Jun 16th 2008 by Jonathan

26. Wow... all these comments (and dozens of online reviews that I've read, both the positive and the negative) and only 1 other poster here seems to get it.

This movie is terrible. It really is. But it's so obviously intentional.

I just can't fathom why he would it's a good idea to make a really bad film (camp) but market it seriously. I feel for the people who've been duped.

For those who've seen it, proof is all over the place, but just consider the scene with the white truck in the field with the house in the background and the cut to the truck interior and then back to the wide shot and Wahlbergs line. All before that HAS to be setup for the line to get laughs. It has to be. Shyamalan is not an idiot. He's certainly made missteps but they were obvious that he as trying and just missed the mark. Here, he's playing in the tail on the donkey and if you take this movie seriously, you're the donkey.

I just don't know whether to praise him for making what will be a frat dorm kegger and weed cult movie or chastise him for wasting our time with what was a decent premise and completely misleading marketing.

Posted at 11:17PM on Jun 16th 2008 by Taylor Barratt

27. BTW, the first 10 minutes a lot of people and reviewers have actually be positive about in how effective it is, I found nearly laughable (reactions and dialog from the construction worker, or the girl on the bench, the walking backwards). And I have serious respect for this sort of thing. I'm one of the ones that gets and was effected by Blair Witch. Kairo (Pulse) I think is one of the most dread-effecting films I've ever seen and it creeps me out to watch it. Very effective in setting mood and tone.

That path of the gun, was soooo bad. This is one of the scenes where I can see why people are attacking Shyamalan's skill, because if he intended it to be as effective and shocking as some people seemed to take it, he's really failed through my eyes.

Consider this.. I don't know anyone who could laugh at the Omaha Beach scene in SPR. (if you need to compare apples to apples, then consider the whole of Texas Chain Saw) It should be universally shocking and horrible for everyone watching to the point where some have to look away. A lot of horror film makers can pull this off where they don't give you a second to breathe and you're simply caught up. That doesn't happen here. I know where the gun is going, the shots going off in the distance with the scene in the field have no effect on me... the classic horror adage that what you don't see is always scarier, does not even remotely work here.

Now is that because the acting is so bad you're pulled out of the film and therefore you're already watching the movie from the outside. I mean again, this stuff starts happening immediately and no measure of blue sky with clouds is going to set a dark tone for me.

As for the cinematography... really? All I saw was a insane amount of tight close-ups and wind blowing through trees. I mean that's deliberate right? If the white truck and house scene wasn't intended the way I said it was, then the man behind the camera would NEVER have 1/3rd of the picture consumed by said house.

Overall (regardless of LITW) the man is way too talented for all the problems in this film to be missteps. It has to be intentional. The misstep here simply has to be the decision to go in that direction.

Posted at 11:36PM on Jun 16th 2008 by Taylor Barratt

28. It was okay, but i didn't expect it to be this bloody and violent considering it WASN'T EVEN RATED in france. So my friends and i, and some bunch of other teenagers who sat behind us screamed in the theater (uhmm mrs. jones' suicidal scene).
However, my friends and i all agreed that the choice of actors wasn't the best.
It wasn't MNS' best film, but it's not a flop to me neither.

Posted at 9:13AM on Jun 17th 2008 by mademoisellef

29. I'm going to have to say that it was the worst movie I've seen so far this year. Indiana Jones wasn't great, but it was entertaining. Hulk; he was fun, too. Now comes this oddly placed "film." MNS is in serious need of a creative kickstart. As a writer, I found myself wanting to leave the theater and get to work on an alternate version of the film and put HIS name on it, just to save him from the embarassment that is "The Happening." Sitting here watching the Celtics win the Championship and I see Mark Wahlberg in the stands. His five seconds on screen just now were far superior than his 1:30 starring role in that movie. As you can tell, I'm not impressed.

Posted at 12:12AM on Jun 18th 2008 by Justin

30. There's only one way this movie makes sense to me: Mrs. Jones is a witch.

Remembering her sisters who were rounded up in the Salem witch trials (yes, she's that old), she now lives out in the middle of nowhere to prevent a potential witch-hunt. Unfortunately for us, she controls plants, and in an act of vengeance she orders them to kill the civilization she so clearly despises and shuns. When Elliot sees her standing outside among the plants, she is summoning their destructive force, aiming them at him.

You: But wait, she died!

Me: No, she just trashed the windows with her face to ensure that Elliot would die, and then, like all good movie villains, she left before finishing the job. The ending was an obvious set up for the sequel: Les Happening.

You: Why would she choose to attack the French next?

Me: Who wouldn't?!

But seriously, concerning her death, think about this. Everyone else who got "happened" immediately lost touch with reality and then sought to kill themselves (these were by far my favorite scenes, btw). However, after it appears Mrs. Jones has been happened, she doesn't just die, she stalks around the house and breaks the windows in an attempt to kill Elliot as well. Plus, exactly what happened to her body is left unclear. These were red flags for me.

Also, prior comments refer to the scenes at Mrs. Jones' house as some of the only ones with a palpable sense of fear and tension. You're in the witch's lair, of course they were scary!

Obviously, there are holes to my theory. Why did she wait 'til now to attack? If she has such crazy awesome witch powers, why attack only a small portion of the country...or the world? Just don't forget there were quite a few holes and short-comings throughout the film itself (which I think justifiably upset/disappointed a lot of people).

Overall, I enjoyed this misinterpreted witch movie.

Posted at 4:13AM on Jun 18th 2008 by Michael Gates

31. I couldn't believe this film made it to cinema. The acting was Poor as mentioned previously an example would be the faces of the characters when almost certain death seems to be upon them, the majority of the time they didn't seem fazed. To say this film was rated '15' i expected more surprises or gore, I think there was only one scene that made me slightly shocked and that was the deceiving opening where construction workers were jumping off scaffolding, making you think this film was going to be good. This way by far the worst film I have seen in the cinemas my whole life, it was humourus for all the wrong reasons, the lawn mower suicide for example. I found the social/political context 'The Happening' was pushing across to the audience useful however they could have done this could have been more suttle as the use of science every four minutes made me feel like I was back in school. I am extrememly disappointed I wasted money attending the viewing of this movie. If you haven't seen the film yet and wanted advice, save yourself time and money and Don't watch it.

Posted at 10:18AM on Jun 18th 2008 by Adam Smith

32. This is easily the worst movie I've seen this year, and one of the worst I've seen in a long time. I loved "Sixth Sense" & and liked a lot of "The Village". I hated "Lady in the Water, "Signs" & "Unbreakable"!

But when a theater all laughs at the so-called ominous pans across the countryside, the added gore from the R rating, and some of the most execrable dialogue in years, you know you're in trouble. I can't tell if Shyamalan is a good director who can't write, or a good writer who can't direct. Actors who have turned in decent performances in the past here turn in some of the most laughable acting (and laugh the audience did). Mark Wahlberg was terrific in "The Departed", but really needs a strong director like Scorsese. I liked Zooey Deschanel in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", but she looks and acts a little schizoaffective here, certainly more neurotic than a mild flirtation would warrant. John Leguizamo was pretty good, but did his character succumb to the "event" or did he just commit suicide because his wife might or might not be dead and he left his daughter with friends for no apparent reason? AND WHAT MOVIE IS BETTY BUCKLEY IN?

The Funniest Part:
Mark Wahlberg talkes to a Plastic Plant!! I couldn't stop lauging!

So far the Worst Films of 2008 are:
Funny Games
Be Kind Rewind
The Happening!

Posted at 7:39PM on Jun 18th 2008 by Christopher

33. "The Day of the Triffids" was better than this crap!!

A true waste of my $7.75!!!

LOL!! ROFL!

TALKS TO A PLASTIC PLANT...

Hello. My name is Elliot Moore. I'm just going to talk in a very positive manner, giving off good vibes. We're just here to use the bathroom, and we're just going to leave. I hope that's okay.

This is when the film lost any crediabilty!!!!

My partner yelled out (& the whole theater laughed).."The Oscar for talkig to a plastic plant goes to Mr.Wahlberg !

It was soo dman funny! It was like he was channeling Marlon Brando!!

Posted at 7:45PM on Jun 18th 2008 by Christopher