The Happening (2008) Poster

(2008)

User Reviews

Review this title
1,555 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Nature fights back
Prismark107 January 2019
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.
57 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
It's not happening
hall89530 January 2009
Who keeps giving M. Night Shyamalan money to make these movies? Seriously, what studio executive read this script and thought that making this movie would be a good idea? After the disaster that was Lady in the Water Shyamalan comes back with a movie which unbelievably, almost impossibly, may actually be worse. Lousy acting, laughably bad dialogue and a story which is just downright stupid combine to make one terrible movie.

Anyhow the story here is that starting in New York City and then quickly spreading through the Northeast everyone is suddenly killing themselves. Everyone drops what they're doing, seemingly goes catatonic for a moment and then offs themselves anyway they can. Fling themselves off the top of a building, shoot themselves in the head...whatever. What could possibly make people do this? Obviously it must be some kind of terrorist attack or so everyone thinks. There certainly is something bad in the air and people need to flee. And here we meet our main characters, a Philadelphia high school science teacher and his wife along with his friend and his friend's daughter. They get out of the city, inevitably get stuck in the middle of nowhere, the characters begin to do and say things which make no sense whatsoever and the whole movie falls apart as we watch people try to run away from the wind.

Mark Wahlberg has the central role here and his performance is truly awful. Certainly he isn't helped by the hideous script but it really seems as if Wahlberg can do nothing right. He seems rather emotionless for a guy trying to figure out why everyone's engaging in mass suicide. As his wife, Zooey Deschanel goes through the film with a blank stare on her face. Some of the corpses show more life. Most of the other characters we meet make a bad impression if they make any impression at all. Some truly bizarre people wander in and out of this movie. And all of them are forced to spout dialogue which is so bad it often becomes unintentionally funny. Somebody wrote that? Really? Ha-ha. But as bad as the acting and dialogue are it's the story which is the biggest problem. Once the movie reveals what actually is happening it becomes impossible to take the story seriously. Stupid. So very, very stupid. The premise makes no sense, doesn't work at all, and thus the movie is doomed to failure. I really can't fathom that after reading the script anyone actually encouraged Shyamalan to go ahead and make this movie. The Sixth Sense sure was a long time ago.
191 out of 289 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good enough to watch
royhectorkabanlit7 November 2020
It's not as bad as the Professional Critics say it is, but I can understand why they hated it. The Characterization of basically everyone in the Movie is pretty poor, although Zoey Deschanel, Mark Wahlberg and John Leguizamo does work hard with Material they have and sort of work to a certain degree.

The premise is also a bit problematic, Plants are everywhere and there is no avoiding them if they are releasing Toxins unless you wear some sort of breathing filter and almost none of them got to that in the Film.

But it is a fairly effective Thriller, certainly good enough to watch.
31 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
"Awful" doesn't cover it.
bytesmythe_4214 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I haven't seen an M. Night Shyamalan movie since "Signs", although I've heard each was worse than the previous ones. Strangely, this gave me hope that "The Happening" would be a turning point for the director that had won so much acclaim with "Sixth Sense".

Sadly, this isn't the case. "The Happening" is easily the worst movie I have ever seen in a theater, and is a strong contender for the worst I've seen altogether. I've never even written an IMDb review before, but felt compelled to write one for this movie.

1) The acting is horrible. Sometimes you go to a movie and the cast has one lousy actor in it. This was the opposite. The entire cast is uniformly bad, with the possible exception of a construction worker in the beginning watching his buddies plummet to their deaths. These performances are a hallmark of poor direction. I know that Wahlberg, Deschanel, and Leguizamo can actually turn in good work under the right director.

2) Almost no one seems to react to what's going on around them in a realistic way. Only one person (practically an extra) ever really freaks out. Everyone else just kind of bumbles along until the wind catches up to them.

3) The premise is ridiculous. Supposedly, the plants are tired of us polluting the environment and mowing the grass, so they decide to start releasing toxins that cause humans to go insane and kill themselves. There are a few massive problems with this.

First, the movie presents evolution as something that occurs within the lifetimes of organisms, when it actually takes many thousands of generations. Trees haven't had any time at all to evolve that kind of defense mechanism, and grass isn't particularly concerned about being mowed. Otherwise, it would have evolved a toxin to kill off grazing animals thousands of years ago.

Second, the movie makes it seem as if the plants can somehow consciously communicate with each other. Although plants do indeed send out chemical signals, these signals are not under any kind of conscious control.

Third, the movie mixes up plant defenses with ecological phenomena such as algae blooms. Algae blooms occur when a variety of factors all converge to provide an ideal environment for overgrowth of algae. The algae population cannot sustain such large levels and eventually the excess dies off. Plant chemical defenses are not remotely similar. If a species of plants evolves a defense mechanism, all future descendants will have it, and it will continue working indefinitely. If such a mechanism appeared in grass, it would eventually make its way across the country. The effect wouldn't magically stop working just in time to save the protagonists of the story.

Finally, it doesn't make much sense for a "toxin" to cause suicides. That kind of behavioral alteration is usually seen in the reproductive cycles of parasites that infect their hosts' nervous systems. Plant defenses are either poisons (such as nicotine) or chemical signals that attract predators to hunt the plant's attackers.

4) By the way, the "antagonists" are plants. Although this could have been made to work somewhat like "Andromeda Strain", Shyamalan decided to add a bunch of foreboding shots of plant-life. It isn't easy to make trees and grass look evil, so wind kicked up each time people are about to die. The toxin would accumulate more in still air, so you'd be better off waiting for the wind to blow past you. Leave it to a science teacher to miss this point and make sure everyone "stays ahead of the wind".

5) The score is ham-fisted and overbearing.

6) So is the dialog.

7) There is no "twist". A random character we never care about reveals the cause of the mass suicides sometime in the middle of the movie, and he's exactly right. I was hoping the real cause would be the creepy lady at the end who hates the outside world, but alas no; she becomes a victim just like everyone else.

8) In a couple of scenes (at the very beginning and very end), we see one person who is not apparently affected by the "toxin". We never find out what happens to them, nor why they aren't affected. In reality, there would certainly be more people not affected, and the people who were would likely be affected in different ways. Psychoactive substances never affect everyone the same way.

9) Just before the final scene, we see Wahlberg, et al. back home three months after the attack. No one appears to have suffered any kind of psychological trauma. The little girl, whose parents are both dead, is going off to school, and somehow the Northeast is repopulated. I'd be very curious to know what they did with all those dead bodies. More likely, massive numbers of people who were not directly affected by the plants would have committed suicide due to depression. No one in their right minds would move back to the region, so the only living people in that part of the country would be clean up crews wearing Hazmat suits.

10) In the very beginning scene, the one person not affected by the toxin begins describing what she sees, but the camera never shows us. "Are those people clawing at themselves?" Where?! Sorry, you'll never see it. It's like watching a Bob Newhart phone conversation. In spite of the character's comment, you never see any of the victims clawing at themselves. Everyone who falls prey to the plant toxin freezes, then quietly (and expediently) commits suicide. It's a continuity error that occurs two minutes into the movie.

There are so many more things wrong with this film I don't think it's possible to list them all. The shortest list of the movie's flaws is, sadly, the movie itself. Hopefully this review will prevent you from seeing it, or at least prepare you for the inevitable disappointment.
486 out of 711 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is a joke, right?
ametaphysicalshark13 June 2008
Allow me to provide some background information on my relationship with the films of M. Night Shyamalan: I adored "The Sixth Sense" and still think of it as one of the best films of 1999 and one of the best supernatural thrillers in ages. "Unbreakable" was a fascinating take on the superhero genre. I loved parts of "Signs" to bits and consider the sequence in the basement towards the end of the film one of the finest examples of suspenseful build-up in recent film history. I even liked "The Village" and could easily dismiss "Lady in the Water" as a mere misfire. I was greatly anticipating "The Happening", especially as it seemed to be echoing one of my favorite guilty pleasures- the paranoid 70's sci-fi thriller.

Let's get one thing out of the way- "The Happening" is unbelievably, impossibly, ridiculously, hilariously, inconceivably bad. Normally I would refuse to rate any film that had any good scenes or that was well-directed less than four out of ten, but "The Happening" has to have one of the worst scripts among recent big-budget Hollywood films. It's absolutely shocking how retarded the logic behind this is and how poor so much of the dialogue is. This script began as "The Green Effect", a tremendously poor (trust me, I read parts of it) script by Shyamalan that was soundly rejected and eventually reworked into "The Happening". Having seen the critical reaction to "The Happening" prior to going into the film I found myself pleasantly surprised by basically the first thirty, forty minutes of the film. It was nothing special but it had something going for it, Shyamalan's direction was top-notch, and Wahlberg was playing the sort of goofy science teacher I'd loved (and loved to hate on occasion) in high school.

Then the descent began. The bulk of this film is some of the most hilariously awful crap produced by a talented filmmaker since Schaffner's "Sphinx". Shyamalan, who was using close-ups and steadicam shots to frankly brilliant effect early on, begins to use the same shots to comical effect. There is one painfully, painfully long close-up of Mark Wahlberg pleading for time to think and then calling for his group to 'keep ahead of the wind' that is up there with Nicolas Cage in "The Wicker Man" in terms of hilariously awful acting. That scene may very well be the turning point in the film, with Wahlberg's acting becoming more ridiculous by the second, culminating in a performance that essentially wipes from memory all his tremendous recent achievements as an actor. I don't blame Wahlberg for this, I blame Shyamalan. Wahlberg claims Shyamalan tried to force him into real paranoia so his performance would work better. What happens here (no pun intended) is that Wahlberg ends up looking amazingly uncomfortable for the last hour of this thing and struggles to deliver any reasonable line deliveries.

Okay, I do have to credit Zooey Deschanel for making this movie watchable. Besides being amazingly, ridiculously gorgeous she is a fine actress and creates a sympathetic character (and a fairly well-drawn one at that- one of the few pros in Shyamalan's script). There's also the score: oh my it's gorgeous. Seriously, ignore this film and just buy the score CD by James Newton Howard- it's brilliant.

"The Happening" starts out well but ends up being an absolute embarrassment. I was prepared for a mediocre offering- perhaps a misguided effort such as "Lady in the Water". I was not expecting a disaster on the level of "The Happening". Its last forty minutes and especially its last ten minutes or so are among the worst I have seen in a long time.

Have you ever wondered if it was possible for a film to go from enjoyable to absolutely horrendous in the space of ten or fifteen minutes? "The Happening" is proof that it can, pardon the (intentional) pun, happen.

3/10
1,158 out of 1,758 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A terrible screenplay and poorly acted
jeffrey-goldberg11 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"The Happening", which was released here in France today is a terrible screenplay and poorly acted. The writer/director failed to make a complete film, which employs any semblance of cinematic language.

Normally well-written, taut and engaging screenplays, like good editing should be invisible. They should fit seamlessly into the film-making process, but unfortunately for "The Happening", the writing, construction of drama and dialogue are so bad that the awful screenplay is apparent from the very first scene. The introduction of the main conflict is visually well done, but the writers never bother to move the story past its main conflict, thus making the film flat line dramatically very early on. Essentially nothing ever happens except the main characters totally unbelievable reactions to "The Happening" (i.e. the main conflict).

We, the audience are not emotionally attached to the characters because the screenplay gives us no reason to be. The film's sub-conflicts are basically non-existent and the character conflicts (emotional relationships) are contrived and hollow. The screenplay provides no emotional outlet or connection at all. Simply said this is a screenplay that should have been better vetted for emotional connection between the audience and characters on screen. We don't care about what's 'Happening' because the people to whom it is 'Happening' mean nothing to us. Someone should provide the screenwriter with a copy of Aristotle's "Poetics".

The dialogue is over the top, simplistic, explicit and begs the question - does anyone really talk like that? Line after line the screenplay falls further and further apart. The characters tell us what we can already see. Therefore the screenplay doesn't trust that the cinematic language of images is doing its job. The beauty of cinema is that with moving pictures we can say thousands upon thousands of words with each frame and never actually employ dialogue. This screenplay obviously does not respect that logic and in many ways flies right in the face of it. The film would be a lot better if the characters just simply reacted to the events unfolding around them.

The acting is unwatchable. No one in this film gives a good performance. The acting, similar to the screenplay is devoid of emotion. No one is reacting like a real person. Each character seems to be emotionally empty. They don't seem nervous that millions of people are dying, they're not hysterical (which doesn't not mean they should yelling and screaming) or even realistic. They at no time in the film seem desperate with the desire and hope to live. At times they try to appear upset, but it is so shallow that the viewer is left flat. Each actor delivers their lines without any regard or reaction to the actor in front of them. It is so bad that it makes one wonder whether or not the actors were actually on set together or just acting with stand-ins.

The sub-text of the film, which is meant to lead us to the theme – mankind is destroying the planet, is blatant and lacks finesse. Pretty quickly into the first act we know that the plants are taking their revenge (I wish I was making this up, but this really is the plot of the film). The screenplay, dialogue and acting do nothing to merit the ending in which a professor on television is yelling about 'how we humanity are guilty for the recent horrors and need to pay better attention to our physical environment.' The films is just waving its fists and again telling us what to think rather than earning our trust. It tells us what its about. Basically the film underestimates us every step of the way.

The film never ventures into any kind of serious depth. It stays on the most basic, one-dimensional level. Plants are killing us - run away.

Blame for this film's failures should be squarely laid upon the director and producers. The director is guilty of writing and directing a very bad and unbelievable film. The producers are responsible for allowing the director to get away with this. Someone on the creative team and/or on the production side should have sounded an alarm when they read the screenplay. When the screenplay got into production one of the producers should have watched the rushes and pulled the director aside and said something.

"The Happening" is a failure on the most basic and important of cinematic levels. It does nothing to win, earn and deserve the audience's emotional and intellectual trust. It doesn't employ image as its main storytelling tool. It just tries to be clever, but is actually quite silly.

I for one don't care who the writer or director is, they must listen to their production and creative team. Film-making is a collaborative experience, but in the case of this film it is clear that no one bothered to be honest with Mr. Shyamalan.
492 out of 774 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Believe it...
heyuguys198812 June 2008
I hate this. I want to tell you guys that this was Shyamalan's comeback and that this film is just as terrifying as you've been promised. But, I cannot.

The film starts off actually quite well. Minus some less than stellar acting (in fact, its horrible) and some just as bad dialogue, I really thought that maybe this film could pull it off. Disturbing death scenes ensue.

Then, bring in Mark Wahlberg. What happened to this guy? Nominated for an Oscar for his turn in The Departed, Wahlberg seems like a safe bet, but in actuality, he's playing a role that just isn't made for him. This role was made for someone nicer. Walhberg has been typecast time and time again as the angry and bad-ass guy, and now I see why. He's good at that and god awful at being nice.

No one else is particularly good either. Zoey Deschanel disappoints, John Leguizamo (Everyone in this movie has a name that's difficult to spell), and all of the extras are just as bad. There is not a single moment of good acting in this movie.

And all of that is because of how rushed this film feels. This is one of those movies that it seriously felt like the director was working on a very limited budget and then took the first take for every actor, none of them had a chance to get into their roles (or so I hope).

It's obvious who will get all of the blame for this (M. Night Shyamalan) and it's really too bad. I can't say that the plot is necessarily bad, it isn't, and with maybe one more draft the script would've been good. The faults of this film all land on Night's shoulders though. I hate to say it because I am very much not a hater of his (I love The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs) but I'm forced to say I hate this movie. Not so much for how bad it actually is (it's very bad) but because I really had faith in the director. The trailers almost felt promising and Shyamalan (am I even spelling this right?) promised me that I'd walk out shaking. Instead, I was shaking my head in disappointment.

One thing I'd like to add on though, I can tell that they were going for a Hitchcock vibe and the best way I feel that I can describe this is "a very bad version of The Birds." That is all.
831 out of 1,396 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I didn't think it was THAT bad.
SPZMaxinema31 July 2022
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!
25 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
It might be cliché, but it has to be said: The Happening is not happening.
shariqq12 June 2008
Shyamalan has proved to us earlier that he can be as good as the best with masterpieces of cinema with The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. Yet, since then, he has declined steadily. Signs and Village were good movies, but with Lady in the Water and now The Happening, he has touched a level of incompetence that could never have been expected of him.

The Happening is about a pandemic that is gripping north-eastern USA. It starts with a stunning sequence of events that show people succumb to an unspecified threat – the brilliance of this opening repeated only once more for a five-minute sequence towards the end of the movie. Unfortunately, Shyamalan's writing is a big let-down for the rest. As the focus moves from metropolitans to towns and from crowds to smaller groups, the sense of fear is lost – the biggest sin a horror movie can commit. In the oft repeated criticism for its director, this movie would have been best served as a half-hour episode of Twilight Zone to make it really work.

And to add woe, the actors do not do much to better the experience – Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel are grossly miscast as the protagonists. Any of his previous leading men (Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix and Paul Giamatti) can be imagined to have done a better job for the Science teacher that Wahlberg plays. The camera scrutinizes the performance to a degree that requires an actor with strength in emotions – Wahlberg instead brings a physical presence that the role does not need. Zooey, on the other hand, struts around like in a Disney movie, not for once threatened by the pandemonium.

This time, though Shyamalan humbles his vanity – you don't see him on screen. He now should swallow his pride and leave the writing to the writers. Armed with a better script, we can still expect Shyamalan to make his future movies worth waiting for. For now it is only the memory of the opening sequence, which can be proclaimed as mind-numbing greatness, which is really worth taking away from this movie.
498 out of 866 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Highly Under-rated
bensthoughts9 July 2016
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).
65 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The End of an Era (but not a career)
sro28-115 June 2008
Let me preface these comments by saying that I am a major Night fan. I look forward to news of his next project and love the stories of his supposed total control over his movies and carte blanche from the studios. If those stories are true, I have a feeling that era will be ending for Night with the release of The Happening. I ignored all the pre-release press I could before going to see this movie. I read none of the reviews, but one word I did catch was "uninspired." Unfortunately, that one word describes this movie perfectly. In the first ten minutes of the movie, I thought it was due to the acting and that maybe Mark Wahlberg was miscast. However, after another ten minutes I realized it wasn't the actors; it was the extremely lame script. Without giving away any details, this is a disaster film where the disaster "happening" starts with the first scene of the movie. Unfortunately, no suspense builds and there is absolutely no sense of dread or panic on screen and so none translates to the audience. Surprising, since the 21st century has provided us with too many occasions to study how we react in times of disaster, whether by nature or terrorism. It's as if Night ignored all this when writing the story. The characters sleepwalk through the scenes (and, no, it's not a symptom of "the happening") with no believable sense of the horrible events taking place. Granted, we don't need to see people running around in circles screaming and crying, but people do not stand in small groups after a disaster calmly taking turns talking one at a time. Without sharing in any of the horror that the characters are suppose to be experiencing, the film is a total bore for the audience and the source of "the happening" is laughable when revealed. I found myself repeatedly checking my watch, saying, "I can't believe how bad this is" – not something I'd expect to do in a Night movie. Looking around the theater, I could tell others were sharing the same feelings. Most were scrolling through emails or texting on their phones.

During the movie, since I wasn't paying much attention to the screen, I started thinking that there might be a good reason why most filmmakers do not have total control over their films. When they do, they can reach a point that it seems Night may have reached, where they say, "I'm going to make people scared when the wind blows" and actually believe themselves. Maybe other producers or execs can step in at that point and bring the filmmaker back to reality. I'm not giving up on Night, but I'll feel better if his next film is not "Written, Produced and Directed by M. Night Shyamalan."
526 out of 929 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Don't understand the hate
TMoneyDogVIP3 April 2017
I have watched this movie probably 15 times since it was released. I know I'm probably one of only few dozen people that enjoy this movie, but I don't understand all the hate that it receives. I truly thought that it had a good storyline (something different at least). I can agree with some people where the acting is kinda bad throughout the movie but I still found it enjoyable. If you haven't seen this movie before, I would recommend it. Its worth a shot, and I believe that the movie is actually pretty fast-paced. I'm one of those people that still hope someday they make "The Happening 2".
108 out of 146 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Shyamalan Delivers A Cinematic Masterpiece: An Analysis of the Film; TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS
Thesnake90814 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The film starts out with the big blue eyes of Alma staring at the camera. What is she doing? She is on the telephone with a man named Joey, without her husband knowing, Elliot. She isn't cheating on him, but, as Elliot explains a few minutes later, she seems, "distant." It is their growing distance that begins the "event." The colors on the mood ring, and their symbolic meanings, are as follows: Blue: Reserved, tranquil, calm, believed to keep the bad spirits away. Yellow: Sign of hope, happiness, unpredictable. Green: Life, nature, great intelligence, seen as a lucky color.

Elliot was extremely inward in his feelings about the relationship he shares with his wife. When speaking about the absence of bees, he exclaims to his students that, "there are forces at work in nature beyond our control," and in this there is a double meaning. He can't control what his wife does, in fact he feels powerless and unable to do so. If blue represents tranquil, he certainly symbolizes one who is too reserved to speak up, which prevents him from regaining his wife's love back. This is where nature must step in.

But killing everyone around him wasn't the only factor in nature's method, it needed a vessel, a prophet if you will. Yellow represents happiness, exactly what is absent from Elliot and Alma's life; and what color does the ring turn when Elliot tells Jess puts it on in the diner? Yellow. What color are bees? Yellow, and what does Elliot say at the beginning of the film when he's in his class of students? "The disappearance of bees is an act of nature, something uncontrollable." If yellow represents happiness, he basically just stated that happiness has been absent in his life. The meaning behind the bees is double, not only is it connected with the actual science aspect of the happening, it's literally happiness that has disappeared from Elliot's relationship with Alma. When Julian decides to leave Jess with Alma and Elliot, he says to Alma, "Don't you dare take her hand unless you mean it," Alma decides then and there to comply with nature's wish, to bring them together. When they approach the isolated, old lady's house, she says, " "Why are you eying my yellow drink?" Making it clear that he is eying, or yearning for happiness. The lady invites them inside, and they're sitting at the dinner table. Shyamalan uses great lighting to make a strange plate in the middle of the table stand out to the viewers, and only if you were paying close attention to the cinematographic details would have realized it, but the plate and the cookies were more significant than you think.

If yellow represents happiness, and blue represents tranquility and protection from evil forces, then you must have realized what the plate stood for. The plate was circular, obviously, and had a blue border. In the middle sat yellow cookies, and when Jess attempts to snag one, the old lady (who is wearing a shawl which has flowers and other nature-esquire features on it, indicating that she represents nature at that point) snaps at her, saying, "you mustn't take what isn't offered to you." The old lady, nature, is guarding the plate. The lady just told them that if they want happiness they're going to have to earn it, and work for it in their relationship, so they must admit to their mistakes and stop looking for ways out of it. But if you look closer, you'd see what nature is REALLY protecting on the plate: Elliot and Alma. Alma agrees to look after Jess, by taking her hand after Julian warns her not to unless she wants to commit, like one would take another's hand in marriage. The plate symbolizes blue surrounding and shielding the yellow from the outside. Think back to when the two boys were gunned down on the porch of the isolated house, what did Elliot say to Alma? "We have to protect Jess." And when does the event finally disappear? When Elliot says he doesn't care about dying anymore, and loves her, and wants her. So he walks outside, afraid but determined, and she meets him there. They've proved their love to nature, and they walk outside and come together in the middle of the two houses. Notice that there was a telephonic-like thing communicating between the house? That represents their distance. "I can hear you like you're right here," says Alma, just like their relationship. They were both physically present in their relationship, but in reality they weren't connected like they two people in love should be.

"What color was love?" "I don't remember." Again Shyamalan effectively uses double speak, they have forgot what their pure love was actually like, but moments later they realize it emotionally remember and they risk their lives by going outside, to meet each other and die together. They've learned that their lives don't matter if they die alone, and they have found the love and happiness they had been missing the entire film. So they go to each other and break the barriers separating them, and the event stops, "randomly." Great, but what does it all mean. Well, in elementary school art class, what color formed when you were painting and you mixed blue and yellow? Green. Green, the symbol for nature, the underlying force of protection and life, was the reason the "happening" happened. Nature takes drastic measures to make apparent to Alma and Elliot find happiness together. I hope this made some sense to those of you bashing the film, because frankly it was brilliant, and deserves much more recognition and appreciation than what 99% of critics have been saying. Look deeper, there's more to it than what was supposed to be a scary movie.
112 out of 185 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Happening: Woefully Acted, Barely Written and Just Absurd
imagiking8 February 2010
I suggested that my friends and I go to see this film in the cinema when it was released. As a result, I have never since been allowed to choose the film.

The Happening concerns a mysterious phenomenon which is leading to mass death and causing wide-spread panic around the world. Mark Wahlberg plays a high-school teacher thrust into the middle of this emergency situation with his girlfriend, played by Zooey Deschanel. They are journeying across the country to escape "the happening".

The premise is interesting to begin with, a message lying at the heart of the film. It is, however, taken beyond the point of redemption by Shyamalan. The script is simple, generic, unimaginative, boorish rubbish. Stupid, emotionless, and inhuman lines spoken by characters which might, with a degree of kindness, be described as two-dimensional. The relationships between them are entirely unbelievable and insincere. And the acting? Oh the acting... Wahlberg deserves a slap as the blandly irritating and vapid "hero" who appears to have only a single tone of mundanity available to him as a voice, and Zooey Deschanel is... well, simply, Zooey Deschanel isn't. Having Wahlberg speak to himself would have been less painful (oh wait, he does try that). The "expressions" of joy, fear, shock, and sadness upon Deschanel's face are entirely indistinguishable from each other, and indeed from emotion at all. Possibly the single worst "performance" I have ever seen. To make matters worse, both characters seem more attached to turning their heads to the side than they are to each other. You'll think they're trying to get something out of their ears. Perhaps its the sound of the dialogue, clunky and tacky as it comes.

Woefully acted, barely written, and just absurd, the only thing happening with The Happening is the steady flow of people leaving. Shyamalan continues his recent trend of awfulness, digging ever deeper his cinematic grave.
58 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The Not Much Happening
simonjauk14 June 2008
What can I say. This movie sucked. Not even Mark Wahlberg, whom I rate as a great actor, could save this turkey.

I don't intend to include any spoilers, unless you include the fact that nothing of any note goes on in this picture. Equally the script seems to be written from the perspective of a naive 10 year old for a U-rated audience. The details concerning the relationship friction between the central characters seem so childlike as to be pointless.

Zooey Deschanel, who I enjoyed in Failure to Launch, seems completely miscast or just terrible. Her principle role seems to be to appear as a giant doe-eyed girl stumbling from scene to scene as though awakening from a drug-induced coma.

Shyamalan made a great first movie and I also enjoyed Unbreakable. Other than that he's been sliding into an abyss of drivel and somebody needs to stop funding his crap so I can stop kidding myself into sitting through it with the idea that surely this time it'll be worth it.
492 out of 893 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The dialog is so bad I rewatch this and just am in shock every time.
walshb-0711630 April 2023
Warning: Spoilers
So many lines like when they are being deserted from the restaurant. There is nobody around and Zooey says "there's a car" as one pulls up 2 feet from them. The Walberg "let me think" was so cringe. The lequazamo math teacher stuff is so pathetic OMG.. Zooey's uncomfortably relationship with unwanted phone calls from her tiramisu date are so bad you just scream laughing. This movie is so bad I rewatch this periodically as a slapstick comedy. The hotdog lines?? The old lady slapping the kid was a good horror movie shock scene for sure. But if you haven't watched this you have to just please don't pay to see it. It doesn't deserve to make any of your money. The kid cursing out the people in the house?? Kendal Roy (Jeremy Strong) has a amazingly bad few minutes and forgettable lines. It's a masterpiece of incompetence!
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Terribly funny
Jeremy_Urquhart4 August 2023
I rewatched this for the first time in almost a decade. However, many years on, I still think The Happening is a spectacular failure that only has value if you watch it for the purpose of laughing at it. It is just shockingly inept and ridiculous as a horror movie, and the one defence of it (that it's a throwback to cheesy 1950s sci-fi/horror movies) I don't think holds up at all. Something like Mars Attacks feels like a throwback to that kind of movie. I genuinely don't think The Happening feels self-aware enough to be credible as intentionally funny. I think Shyamalan just dropped the ball in an unintentionally spectacular fashion.

I tried to give it a chance on a rewatch with fresh eyes, but I still feel as though it's a tragically inept horror movie that's trying to be genuinely creepy, with its premise about deadly toxins in the air that are influencing people to take their lives. The acting is terrible. The dialogue is atrocious, and I don't think I can take anyone who says otherwise seriously (Shyamalan is honestly kind of a bad writer when it comes to most of his output, with comically terrible dialogue in many of his movies, and that's a hill I'll die on).

If you like laughing at inept movies, The Happening is one of the best of the past couple of decades. If you want an actual scary movie, I'd say stay far away from this one, and it's probably Shyamalan's worst, at the end of the day.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not brilliant but it is worth a look
cosmic_quest13 June 2008
When I first saw the trailer for 'The Happening', I was quite excited at the prospect of another film by M. Night Shyamalan. After all, I enjoyed all his previous films, save 'Lady in the Lake', and was sure he would deliver another breath-taking blockbuster. Sadly, I was wrong and while the film was not a turkey, it was not of the excellence I had expected.

The film sees some sort of mysterious ecological event leading to people committing mass suicide, the phenomenon spreading first from large cities then to smaller towns until it is clear a huge chunk of the East Coast is affected. At first, it is assumed to be a terrorist attack but, as more and more people are spontaneously kill themselves, it is clear the cause may be something else entirely...

One of the problems with the film was the quality of the acting and the characters themselves. Mark Wahlberg stars as Elliot, the science teacher who is our main protagonist, and he does flounder in many scenes as if he forgets he's playing an intelligent but ordinary everyday guy, not a gung-ho military hero who is cool in all situations. He could have injected more emotion into his performance. Zooey Deschanel plays Elliot's girlfriend Alma and she too fails to make the audience care for her with the way she depicts the character to be some sort of an escapee from a teeny-booper romance flick. To be fair, it is not entirely Deschanel's fault as Alma is a weak, self-centred character with the emotional capacity of a young adolescent (for example, she puts Elliot and a child at risk a couple of times with her stupid decisions and, at the start, when it's clear people are dying, she is in a huff because Elliot and his friend 'hurt' her feelings).

When it comes to the actual storyline, the plot does start off intriguingly and there are many chilling moments when we see people are coolly committing suicide like mindless zombies. However, the finale doesn't deliver what the build-up promised. There are no real explanations or solid end result. In many ways, this film is similar to Shyamalan's previous project 'Signs' both in terms of a mass disaster and no real end resolution to the events but 'Signs' worked better because the characters were more effectively portrayed and their personal storyline was enough of a finale to compensate. This is not the case in 'The Happening' where the storyline fizzles out.

Overall, this is by no means a terrible film. It is enjoyable and fits nicely into the apocalyptic genre but 'Signs' has done this sort of idea before and did it better. That said, there was not only moments that had me on the edge of my seat but also lines which were quite humorous. And certainly, it does make one think about the state of the planet in regards to whether humanity does have it coming to them and how we would cope in such an event. It is worth a look, especially in a week when the other premiere is 'The Hulk, a film aimed at keeping twelve-year-olds' entertained.
314 out of 556 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
If it's intentional, it's still a bad film
supah7915 July 2008
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.
136 out of 249 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good in a Way and Really Enjoyable to Watch
xxltmoney5 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
When I saw this movie, I thought it was really good but then, I watched it again and realized it was only worth seeing once. Since I know that M. Night had made the film with the goal of getting an R rating, it was clear that the graphic violence was over the top and highly unrealistic. Although this movie was intended for adults, younger teens would enjoy this movie more. The movie also didn't have a great ending and wasn't a great moral to life but it was entertaining I half to say. M. Night has done better movies such as The Sixth Sense and Signs but this movie wasn't as bad as everyone said it was but it was one of those movie were you would sneak into the theater just to take a peek at what all the excitement was.
29 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Proof that a movie with such potential could fall so hard
TheLittleSongbird11 January 2012
As I have said before, I am not a M Night Shyamalan detractor, I just feel saddened that somebody responsible for a masterpiece such as The Sixth Sense and a great movie like Unbreakable could fall to lows by being responsible for a movie as strange as Lady in the Water and as horrible as this. For me, Shyamalan's worst film is between this and The Last Airbender.

The Happening did have a brilliant idea, but sadly this is living proof that a great concept could fall victim to such poor execution. The only redeeming values were the score that brims with beauty and intensity and Zooey Deschannel's sympathetic performance.

Everything else however is a failure. The film doesn't look so bad actually in the scenery and effects, but because there is no life to the film I could never properly enjoy it. Plus there is some camera work annoyances that were one of many flaws for Lady in the Water, such as the focusing on nothing and half-faces, not to mention the ridiculously long keep ahead of the wind close-up.

I wish I had better news about the story, script and characters, but I can't. The script is incredibly contrived and ham-fisted especially Mark Wahlberg's lunatic conversation with a plastic pot plant which is a contender for Wahlberg's worst ever acting moment, and Shyamalan's direction is either unfocused with the uneasy mix of disaster thriller or 1970s eco-horror or over-ambitious with again the trying to cram in too much notion that eluded a vast majority of his resume after Signs.

The characters are stereotyped, with Deschannel's the only one I had any sense of care or sympathy for. The story is a mess, it may have started off intriguingly but suffered from a lack of suspense, dull pacing, the sense that the film doesn't know whether it wants to be disaster thriller or eco-horror and one of the most hysterically awful last forty minutes I have seen of any film.

Mark Wahlberg I am not a fan of, but he has been capable of some good, even great, performances namely in The Fighter and especially Boogie Nights. But he is awful in this, one minute he is dull and the other minute he is overacting embarrassingly, it is painful to watch really. In conclusion, a mess of a film and considering the potential it should have been so much more than it was. 2/10 Bethany Cox
21 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An Important Message....
febangel3029 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Although, several people did not like this film, I have to say that I enjoyed it tremendously. From the beginning of the film, you become hooked. It was incredible to see that only a few minutes into the film, you witness the strange event happening so soon. When the people in Central Park become affected by the chemicals, they look like they are frozen in time. Then the real horror begins. As I watched it got me thinking about years back when sea creatures began "killing themselves" by beaching themselves. There was no explanation for this event in the first place and it created quite a stir. Many marine biologists theorized that there might been some type of bacteria or threat in the ocean that caused it to happen

In "The Happening", you realize that the whole cause of the horrific events is the plants themselves and their sole purpose is to exterminate as many humans as possible. You realize that the plants are pretty much fed up with the human race's neglect towards the environment. As this epidemic worsens, you see the ugly side of people emerge. This movie teaches us all a lesson, be kind to nature and remember to talk to your plants...or else...J/K.... Seriously go watch the movie for yourself, you just might like it. :-)
50 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Had some good points
bleat137 January 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this film several years ago (while suffering from food poisoning). While much was silly (why did people walk backwards before killing themselves?), it had a few good points. One is when Elliot speaks respectfully to what turns out to be a plastic plant (and notes that he's doing it). The other is the message that nature can turn on us if we continue to do as we want with it; consider all the changes noted, especially with regard to 2020's massive forest fires and unusually heavy hurricane season.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Truly awful
quieteidolon16 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
There is a lot to be said for a "thinking person's" movie, and that is clearly what was being attempted here. Just too bad it's not a "watching person's" movie as well.

The plot and resolution leave everything to be desired. People are killing themselves for no reason, the characters run, they recognize one single thing about the pattern of deaths, manage to survive one day, the suicides stop - again, for no reason - and a character completely unrelated to the rest of the film provides "resolution" by saying, once again, that no one knows why any of it happened.

In this sense, the title is perfect, since everything throughout the entire movie just up and happens, with no rhyme or reason behind it.

Now, all that might have worked out well if the actors weren't slightly less believable than flying pink elephants. Wahlberg and Deschanel were atrocious. Granted, Wahlberg is bad all the time, but he usually is surrounded by good actors that divert attention from his failure. Deschanel looked like a deer in headlights for 90 minutes, no matter the situation or the lines being delivered.

Even if you had good acting, there is still the trouble with the script. The characters don't speak in "movie-type" lines or even things that a normal person might say. It's glaringly obvious that the words coming out of their mouths are the product of bland, uninspired writing, much of which was simply thrown together to make things fit.

By the end of it all, you're left wondering why you should care about anything that just happened, how anyone could waste so much money on a clearly terrible movie, and if there's any chance you can get a refund on that hour and a half with which you could have done something useful.
27 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awful
globewriter14 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I read with amazement that some people actually thought this smelly pile of rubbish to be good. Far be it for me to question the sanity of others.

I found it strange that the film opened here in Trinidad before the official release date of Friday 13th in the US ( gosh what a clever release date) but I am sure once the critics rightly savage the film on Friday it will be thrown straight on to DVD. Actually, in my view that would be a waste of a DVD blank. The premise of this travesty, in a nutshell - and not to put too fine a point on it - is that the plants get annoyed and decide to kill us. But they don't actually kill us themselves, oh no, that would be far too simple and a bit too Day of the Triffids, what they do is release a "toxin" in the air that makes us kill ourselves in a variety of creative and colourful ways. We throw ourselves off buildings, shoot ourselves, slash our wrists, get run over by lawn equipment and even bash our heads into walls. Oh gee..I almost forgot...we also jump into lion cages and tease them until they bite our arms off as it is captured on iPhone video. If we take this incredibly stupid premise that the plant version of Google Labs suddenly figured out this clever formula and pair it with some of the worst and most stilted dialogue I have ever heard and then throw in some incredibly bad acting we end up with a recipe for an instant headache.

When I say bad dialogue I don't mean just bad dialogue I refer to the sort of dialogue that would make your eyes roll back into your head and never want to emerge again. We are talking lines such as "don't let the wind catch you" and "if I have to die I want to die with you" and I, of course ,paraphrase because I was having a hard time staying conscious. This sort of thing might work if it is done tongue in cheek but M N S takes himself so damned seriously with what I gather was meant to be a morality lesson about the environment that I have to assume it was unintentional.

The acting made me think they just rounded up a bunch of people and dropped them on the set. Mark Wahlberg makes a fine underwear model but i swear his range makes Keanu Reeves look like Larry Olivier. Zooey Deschanel, the female lead, seems to have been given some sort of pupil dilating drops and then pumped full of medication before being let loose on the set. The only person who seemed to have escaped this film with her career was Betty Buckley who at least managed a camp crazy lady performance.

So, to summarise, people start dropping like flies within the first 5 minutes, then for the next 6 hours..OK fine...1.5 hours ...we have to listen to bad dialogue as people try to figure out what is going on and "run from the wind". I am all for freedom of expression but I shouldn't be lured into having to sit through a grade Z movie. I can see no reason for this "film" other than wasting time and effort and making cinema enthusiasts feel ripped off. I read with alarm that M N S is about to embark on making another movie. Please M. Night do film a favour and put down the pen, fold away the director's chair and step away from the camera.
112 out of 215 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed