Print Page | Close Window

M. Night is Back...and BAD As Ever?!?

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FORUMS on 29th ANNUAL RAZZIE® NOMINEES
Forum Name: M. Night Shyamalan's THE HAPPENING
Forum Discription: Nominated for 4 RAZZIES® including WORST PICTURE
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2738
Printed Date: September 19 2014 at 9:10am


Topic: M. Night is Back...and BAD As Ever?!?
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: M. Night is Back...and BAD As Ever?!?
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 5:52am

THE LAST TIME http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0796117/ - WROTE and DIRECTED SOMETHING, IT WAS NOMINATED for FOUR RAZZIES® (INCLUDING http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452637/awards - ) and "WON" TWO of THEM (SHYAMALAN as BOTH WORST DIRECTOR and WORST SUPPORTING ACTOR).

SO, DID OL' M. LEARN HIS LESSON from the DEBACLE THAT WAS http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=129 - THE ANSWER IS DECIDEDLY...

NO.

WHILE http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=284 - MERCIFULLY DOESN'T FEATURE THE DIRECTOR CASTING HIMSELF in a CHRIST-LIKE SUPPORTING ROLE, IT IS YET ANOTHER "UNEXPLAINED PHENOMENON" CONCEPT -- THIS ONE with a "SURPRISE CULPRIT" THAT, with THEATRES AUDIENCES ACROSS AMERICA, DREW GALES of DERISIVE LAUGHTER.

LOOKS LIKE SHYAMALAN's STILL a DING-DONG...

WAHLBERG: "Oh, my God...It's the critics! They're 

coming for us!!  It could be LADY IN THE WATER 

all over again..."  





-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: Nasty Man
Date Posted: May 28 2008 at 5:58am

This one looks like a case of someone hiring an Emperor with No Clothes after everyone had alaready figured out the guy was "naked as a jaybird." Why anyone would risk a big budget on Shyamalan after the disaster of "Lady in the Water" is beyond me.

My guess is, if this one's as bad as it looks, he'll wind up directing Sci-Fi Channel direct-to-cable movies by 2010... 



-------------
Everything SUX!


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 9:26am

Well, if you want to know the mystery, which many people already knew way before anything was released from the film, here it is:

SPOILERS AHEAD!

 

It's the plants. The plants are causing people to kill themselvs by releasing toxin.

 

END SPOILERS...

 

ANYWAY, you can all say it sounds stupid but you didn't care how stupid a 2 feet tall doll serial killer, a girl coming out of a tv, a monster attacking NYC, etc. AND, there's no twist ending in this one, like Lady in the Water.

So yes, I'm a huge M. Night fan and he has yet to disappoint me. Lady in the Water is an underrated gem because people expected an action packed, effects filled, heavily budgeted fantasy film like Harry Potter but they instead got a family film (I still have no idea why this is PG-13). I'm so looking forward to this movie!!! M. Night is probably one of the few directors out there actually making up original movies.



-------------


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 2:02pm
Dear M. Night, get your head straight. Return to "The Sixth Sense".

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles


Posted By: moat
Date Posted: May 30 2008 at 11:41am
This guy really needs a new technique.
I'm curious as to what he would do outside of a supernatural "mystery," if he's capable of doing anything other than that.

Maybe he should try doing comedy. I mean deliberately.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 31 2008 at 10:48am

You guys have made an enemy. He's a brilliant director!



Posted By: hastymanic
Date Posted: May 31 2008 at 2:08pm
The extended train sequence that I saw was as awkward and inept as anything he's ever done. I simply can not imagine any major studio giving him another chance if (when) this one tanks. Wait, I take that back. Major studios churn out loads of crap all the time. Oh well!


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 31 2008 at 2:23pm

And you too. Really, you guys act if he's the worst director ever, which is completely false. Like I said, he's one of the few directors out there that are doing original movies. What, you would rather watch another remake, spoof, superhero movie, and sequel? You guys are sad.

And why would studios not want him? His films made tons and tons of money! That rarely happens! His movies have made over half a BILLION in the box office and Uwe Boll still continue making movies even though his movies make little to no money. In the Name of the King has a budget of $70 million! I'm sure M. Night will be miles from going away. You people need some sense in your brains.

Here is what I said in a post on IMDb:

People wanted horror elements and scary action in The Village but they got a romantic thriller instead. People wanted a CGI, action-packed violent fantasy in Lady in the Water but got a movie with little to no action that was great for the family. People wanted a heavily effects filled alien invasion movie in Signs but got no alien violence until the very end of the film. People didn't know about M. Night when he did Sixth Sense so that's why people liked that movie. Now people will want a lot of gruesome scenes and action violence in this film and I'm sure there will be plenty but please, people, don't get your hopes high.

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Please explain to me how "he's a brilliant director" gibes with "don't get your hopes high"...

 



-------------


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: May 31 2008 at 4:49pm
We're (or at least I'm) bagging on him because he did three great movies - Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs - and he's been going downhill in a sadly comic way ever since.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 01 2008 at 1:44am
Well, in YOUR opinion. I loved The Village, Signs, 6th Sense, and Lady in the Water. Have yet to see Unbreakable.


Posted By: moat
Date Posted: June 01 2008 at 11:33am
Okay moviewizguy, you seem to be off in your presumptions  of why a lot of us are put off by Shyamalan's recent work. I can't speak for everybody else, but I'll give you my personal take.

I liked The Sixth Sense and despite its flaws, I also enjoyed Signs. I found the films to be atmospheric and effectively suspenseful. Even The Village managed to pull this off to an extent, but that film also is when I (and many others) began to grow weary of Shyamalan's film-making methods. The main issue for me is how the film is completely built around its twist denouement, which felt contrived and anticlimactic. I'd almost be willing to overlook it if the entire film wasn't contingent upon its ending, but it doesn't offer anything else. Every personality in the film is at best a stock character, and the story is structured to where the unknown factors to be revealed later on are the only thing that holds the audience's interest. As a result, there is no emotional payoff, no provocation of any kind, and nothing satisfactory. It comes off seeming artificially (mis)calculated and unnatural in the context of the events. Everything rests on the revelation of the unknown, and that discovery is not something that has any impact. Anything effectively scary about the film is completely undermined, as a result.

So the man had a misstep in his direction--it happens. I didn't really like Unbreakable, and Shyamalan came back and entertained me with Signs. Let's see what he has in store next.

Only things got exponentially worse with Lady in the Water. Shyamalan no longer was able to hide the fact that he wasn't writing stories with any kind of aim or purpose outside of misleading the audience only to bring up an arbitrarily unexpected plot point in what devolves into a futile effort to compel an audience. He wasn't building to something of any kind of substance or emotional evocation, and he still failed to draw characters with any dimension outside of what is needed to keep the story twisting.  Only to further hamper the film, he delivered the story through large amounts of exposition and directly tells the audience how they should be feeling, instead letting his material do that work for him. He wasn't showing us something, he was telling it to us, which is purpose-defeating in a film. That's something that should be left to books-on-tape (a medium better suited for Lady in the Water), not a motion picture. He seemed to try to force the audience into buying into the film, when he should have let the story do that for him, but he couldn't go that route because he had no real story to tell. He instead opted for an aimless series of plot points that didn't culminate into anything other than a series of plot points. There was no emotional payoff, no deeper meaning, and no entertainment value. It was just jerking the audience around from one point to the next, loaded with contrivances and exposition along the way.

And I would contend that his movies aren't original. Maybe the main idea that they're built from is something new, but the way the films are executed (twist, twist, twist) is nothing worth writing home about. Contrivances have been in cinema for a long time.

That is my opinion.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: June 03 2008 at 9:07am
M. Night did make a superhero movie. It was "Unbreakable". As for this, it'll, problably, suck

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 03 2008 at 9:29am
No, I'm just saying, don't expect this film to have a lot of action and death scenes or else you'll only disappoint youself.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: June 03 2008 at 11:03am
I'm not expecting action and death scenes, I'm expecting another "Lady In The Squater".

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 03 2008 at 4:28pm

Okay, M. Night needs to stop writing and direct ONLY. "Lady" was a bad script, but every actor tried his or her best with what they had to work with. And Uwe Boll was robbed of his Worst Director Razzie that year. Sure, "Lady" was dumb, but "Bloodrayne" was just plain unwatchable on ALL levels.

And what annoys me about this movie, the poster's taglines: "We SENSED it ... we saw the SIGNS ... now is the time for the Happening!" Yes, plugging the few good movies you had will make us want to go see a movie about ....

SPOILER AHEAD!

Plants that kill?



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 03 2008 at 4:42pm

If you haven't read anything about this movie months ago when a script titled The Green Planet was being bounced around, let me tell you this:

Yes, there will be deaths.

 



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 04 2008 at 5:22am

Well, the things that make people kill themselves is actually revealed early on in the movie. Someone on IMDb said it was in the train station, which is about 30 minutes into the movie. Also, they aren't screening this movie to the critics to keep the "mystery" but I don't get all the secrecy when it's going to be revealed early on in the movie.

 



-------------


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: June 04 2008 at 8:38am

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Yo, moviewizguy, you're so naive you're actually buying the line that Fox isn't screening the movie to "keep the mystery"??  I'd guess it's not being screened before release for the usual reason -- IT SUX!! 

 



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 04 2008 at 1:58pm
....I wasn't buying it at all....but there are already some screenings, so I don't know.

-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 05 2008 at 5:40am

Nevermind, they are screening it:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/06/04/fox-to-hold-happening-pr ess-screenings-after-all-m-night-afraid-of-blogs/



Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 11:55am
Even worse, it's opening against The Incredible Hulk, which looks 10,000 times better. I agree with most of the fanboys that the first movie was a little bit of a bore and didn't deliver the goods, but early word of mouth said that this new version directed by Louis Letterier (who directed two good Jet Li/Jason Statham films) is up there with Iron Man as a satisfying comic book adaptation.

From what I hear, it's supposed to be more in tune with the TV series and comics than Ang Lee's arthouse take, the cast members do a great job (Tim Roth is getting the most praise), and the final showdown between the Hulk and the Abomination (apparently, they're gonna keep the name of Emil Blonsky's alter-ego) rivals that of Transformers' final showdown in the city (say what you want, I thought Michael Bay did a terrific job with that film, and I'm saying that aware about his previous failures - ::cough:: Pearl Harbor ::cough::).

Back to the topic of The Happening, HeadRAZZBerry has laid it perfectly clear about Lady in the Water AND this film. National Treasure 2 had LITW's same style of storytelling by cramming in an overwhelming amount of exposition and flat-out telling the story as if we're stupid. All of that film was like that. 'Nuff said.

So, basically, I know what I'm seeing coming the 13th of February.


-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 06 2008 at 1:00pm

I THINK, from reading throughout the Internet, that people are looking forward to The Happening more. I don't even know anyone who knows that The Hulk comes out on the same day. Anyway, I assume that people are getting tired of superhero movies, thus wanting to see The Happening more. But that's just my opinion... 



-------------


Posted By: JoBloMovieGoer
Date Posted: June 09 2008 at 2:49am

Below is an excerpt from an article on the fansite Fantasy Moguls ( http://fantasymoguls.com/ - LINK ) predicting that "The Happening" will be only a middling success (if not an outright bomb like "Lady in the Water"):

"Opening on Friday, June 13, M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening (20th Century Fox) does not appear to pose any real threat. The mercurial filmmaker, whose last film was the dreadful Lady in the Water, faces an uphill battle with this movie, which has been (badly) shrouded in secrecy. (The problematic screenplay has been rather completely shredded by Internet movie mavens.) I do not know anyone who has seen it, and it remains unclear whether there will be advance screenings for critics. That is not a good sign.

Starring Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel, The Happening has virtually no buzz with just 2 percent Un-Aided Awareness, and the movie, which may be Shyamalan’s take on global warming, has only 54 percent Awareness. It trails The Incredible Hulk in Definite Interest with a mere 30 percent, and Happening has only a 4 percent First Choice score 18 days out.

The bottom line may be that moviegoers do not trust the Indian-born, Pennsylvania-raised auteur after a less-than-satisfying twist in his 2004 movie The Village and the disastrous Lady in the Water. It is a very safe bet that The Incredible Hulk will easily win the June 13 weekend, and Shyamalan will need positive word-of-mouth to parlay The Happening into becoming a modest hit." 

If you're interested in reading the entire article (which also predicts the remake of "Incredible Hulk" will top $60 million this weekend) here's a direct  http://news.fantasymoguls.com/originalcontent/2008/05/early-trackin-3.html - LINK ...



Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: June 09 2008 at 6:11am
My friend wants to see this, so hopefully when we go to the movies next
week, Kung Fu Panda won't be sold out and I wont have to see this one
*fingers crossed*.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 09 2008 at 3:24pm
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/zooey_deschanel/ - Zooey Deschanel has been in two lowly rated movies that had next to no distribution so far this year -- http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/flakes/ - Flakes and http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10007912-gogetter/ - The Go-Getter .  Sad thing is, she's a good actress.  Her talent lately is being squandered in second-rate movies, Bridge to Terabithia and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford being two exceptions.  I saw bits of the SciFi series Tin Man, and that actually looked interesting.


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: June 10 2008 at 7:05am

This movie is officially "Not Screnned For Critics" but does have a review somehow, and yes, it is negative:

The Happening is at its most ridiculous when Mark Wahlberg's logic-driven science teacher, Elliot, starts talking to a pot(ted) plant in a bid to negate a potential attack of poisonous toxins.  Never mind that the plant is plastic or that it sits in one of the rooms of a model home in the middle of nowhere.

I put the (ted) in because I don't think he meant marijuana, although the wording is hilarious.  And that part of the movie itself may be hilarious...unintentionally, of course.

"You azaleas.  Why are you doing this?  Please stop spewing toxin and killing us!  I'm begging you!"



-------------


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: June 10 2008 at 8:14am
I told some of the kids about this being held from the critics. While their opinion of the movie is mixed, they agreed on one thing: that "Lady In The Water" totally sucked. One girl, even, named it her least favorite movie ever.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 1:28am
Woooohooo! 25% in RT! YEAH! I'm just so happy that this movie is getting negative reviews that I don't even care anymore! Yeah!


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 2:56am
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Whoah -- http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10007985-happening/ - 75% DIS-Approval ! Even I didn't think http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=284 - THE HAPPENING would sink so low so quickly on RT. Looks like maybe Fox should've stuck to their gunz, and refused to pre-screen it after all!

-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 7:39am

Make that 88% DIS-Approval now (based on 17 reviews).  There is still time for change, so it could go back up to 20-30%...or maybe under 10%!



-------------


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 7:46am
Well Razz, I think you are right on target with this one, It is definitely not "Happening" with the critics. After this, no major studio is going to want to take a chance with him again.

-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: JoBloMovieGoer
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 10:03am
WOW! As of 6pm/EST the day before it opens, this thing is down to a 13% Approval Rating at RT -- About twice as bad as "Lady in the Water," which rated 24% favorable reviews -- And was still a Worst Picture nominee and the "winner" of two Razzies (M. Night as both Worst Director and Worst Supporting Actor)... 


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: June 12 2008 at 12:30pm

Originally posted by JoBloMovieGoer

the "winner" of two Razzies (M. Night as both Worst Director and Worst Supporting Actor)... 

Beating out Uwe Boll for Bloodrayne.

I think the Toilet Boll just might have another Razzie dodge this year.



-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 13 2008 at 1:27pm
Originally posted by Berrynoia

This movie is officially "Not Screnned For Critics" but does have a review somehow, and yes, it is negative:

The Happening is at its most ridiculous when Mark Wahlberg's logic-driven science teacher, Elliot, starts talking to a pot(ted) plant in a bid to negate a potential attack of poisonous toxins.  Never mind that the plant is plastic or that it sits in one of the rooms of a model home in the middle of nowhere.

I put the (ted) in because I don't think he meant marijuana, although the wording is hilarious.  And that part of the movie itself may be hilarious...unintentionally, of course.

"You azaleas.  Why are you doing this?  Please stop spewing toxin and killing us!  I'm begging you!"

 Wow, and M. Night is expecting this movie to be taken seriously with a scene like that? Okay, there's the shoe-in winner for Worst Screenplay (unless "Meet Dave" is worse). Uwe Boll is getting Worst Director no matter what.



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 13 2008 at 2:45pm

Finally back from vacation, and I'm not even going to attempt to catch up. I hope you are all well.

However, if someone is going to make a movie called The Happening, wouldn't it make sense for something to happen?

And sorry as I am to have to disappoint you, moviewizguy, but The Village blew.

It did give me an idea though. The movie was essentially about a group of people who were trying to shelter themselves from the big bad world outside, until they actually ended up believing their own nonsense and ultimately imprison themselves willingly.  Maybe we could plant that sort of idea into the heads of another group of people...it would be a novel solution to what most of the country has come to call, "The Nebraska problem."



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: June 14 2008 at 9:45am
The Village wasn't scary, but I didn't think it was too crappy. I found it interesting how the movie did not have any supernatural elements to it.



Originally posted by Berrynoia

I think the Toilet Boll just might have another Razzie dodge this year.



I really, really hope not...




-------------
Seltzerberg is back?

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

http://www.disastermovie.org
http://www.vampiressuck.org/


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 14 2008 at 11:24am

I saw both Happening and Hulk. Hulk was a disappiontment, compared to the amazing Iron Man. Pacing was way off and the action scenes were video-game like. Happening, well, here's my review:

This film is about a family on the run when things start to happen:
People are committing suicide all along the north-eastern area of the
United Sates. What's causing this? Toxins from plants? Terrorists? The
US government? Well, if you don't know what this film is about, or
what's happening, I'll tell you. It's revealed within 10 minutes into
the movie anyway: Toxins from plants. So, right now, think about it: If
you think that sounds ridiculous, make a decision. Watch it or not.
This film isn't for everybody. It's basically you'll love it or hate
it.

No doubt is this M. Night's most funny film (not in an unintentional
way). Think of this as a B-movie as M. Night intend it to be. The film
really doesn't take itself seriously, in a way. There are some really
funny scenes in here, including one with Mark Wahlberg apologizing to a
plastic plant. So don't expect it to be all serious because of the
trailer. From the beginning credits, the film pulled me in. I was with
it. My heart was pounding. The score used in here is surprisingly
cheesy-like.

Within a few scenes into the movie, the film is quite eerie and
chilling. This film is also character driven and I liked the
characters. Obviously, the film has an environmental message. Preachy
or not, I liked the idea of plants killing humans off because we're
polluting the environment, but that's just me. You don't usually see
original ideas like these. As a Night film, it's the worse but it's
still a good movie. And no, there is not twist ending in this film so
don't expect one.

Rather than CGI effects, mindless action scenes that does nothing with
the plot, and the usual characteristics of a summer movie, "The
Happening" shifts over to the other side: It's slow paced and character
driven. The performance, whatever people said about them, were actually
good in here. Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, and John Leguizamo all do
a good job. See, most people expect them to act like people in every
other apocalyptic thriller: Scared, terrified, etc. Well, they do act
like that but not in the way you expect them to be.

People usually don't like M. Night movies because they have the wrong
expectations for it. Well, I'll tell you this: Expect a B-movie
inspired by "The Birds." Some people will go along with the idea. Some
will not. It depends the type of person you are that determines if
you're going to enjoy this film or not. As for me, I enjoyed it much
better than the usual summer fare. 7/10



Posted By: Criss808
Date Posted: June 15 2008 at 4:15am
I saw "The Happening" last night...

And I have to say...

It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.

Pretty decent.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 15 2008 at 5:27am

Critics are smoking too much crack right now. I wonder: If nobody knew that M. Night directed this, would people like it?

 



-------------


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: June 16 2008 at 2:00am
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Apparently the public is turning away from http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=happening.htm - THE HAPPENING in droves -- Opening weekend numbers saw a steep 44% drop off in attendance from Friday to Sunday, meaning word-of-mouth on the film must be vicious. It's also reasonable to assume that the overwhelming majority of those who attended opening night were seeing it either because of M. Night's involvement or in spite of it. Yet these same likely Shyamalan "fans" obviously told everyone they knew that the film sucked -- meaning moviewizeguy's argument does not hold water...

-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 17 2008 at 1:39pm

However, in Variety's article, the title was something along the lines of:

'The Happening' outperforms expectations

Here it is: http://www.variety.com/article/VR11...egoryid=13&cs=1 - http://www.variety.com/article/VR11...egoryid=13&cs=1

The Happening costs $57 million to make and has already made $62 million world wide. Also, it was facing huge competition against the PG-13 Hulk and the family friendly Kung Fu Panda, both opening well over many theaters than Happening and the fact that Happening was an R-rated flick.

I'm not saying that box office = how good a movie is but this is basically a "You'll love it or hate it" type of film. The factor that determines that is if you'll go along with the "why" part of the film. If you don't like the idea, you'll probably not like it as much as if someone who liked the idea of it.

ANYWAY, Ebert and Roeper both gave the film positive reviews.



Posted By: Budgieboy
Date Posted: June 17 2008 at 7:00pm
Razzies: Official members of the F*** M Night Shaymalan Bandwagon since 2006.

I have seen in recent interviews with M Night and he has stated that movie is a B movie. Correct me if I'm wrong but since the movie is a B movie, shouldn't it contain some woeful dialog and also some of those cheesy, unintentionally hilarious sequences?



-------------
A friend in need is a bloody nuisence


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 18 2008 at 2:21am

Originally posted by Budgieboy

Razzies: Official members of the F*** M Night Shaymalan Bandwagon since 2006.


I believe you are loading up and taking a shot at the messenger there, Budgie. And M. Night's efforts to dismiss his own films as B-movies strike me as FBSIA (Frantic Bull Stuff In Action). 



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 18 2008 at 2:22am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Critics are smoking too much crack right now. I wonder: If nobody knew that M. Night directed this, would people like it?

 

No

But allow me to elaborate. I'm willing to bet that most of the people who have seen it DON'T know that M. Night directed it.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 18 2008 at 5:49am
I really want to discuss about this film but people aren't seeing it...


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 18 2008 at 9:31am

Me thinks that you protest too much, Moviewiz. The critical consensus is pretty overwhelming. Eight out of 10 gave The Happening bad reviews, while the 20% that reviewed it positively seem to have appreciated it for either light entertainment value or campiness. I'm not sure what you are finding in this one that is really worthy of discussion, but everyone else has evidently missed it.

Incidentally, Roeper's review is highly qualified, and precisely in line with the tone of most who gave it positive reviews. Ebert's review is rather baffling. He seemed to like the idea of the film, but I find it difficult to figure out just what he liked about the film itself, apart from M.Night's use of settings. When anyone is praising a film for that, there has to be some suspicion that some real effort is being made to find a reason to praise it.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: June 18 2008 at 2:41pm
I think if anyone other than M. Night was writing and directing this movie, no one would have cared about it. People are just seeing it to find out if Night is back to his "Sixth Sense" goodness, or if it's strike three for him. Based on the word of mouth, it's the latter.


Posted By: Budgieboy
Date Posted: June 18 2008 at 2:49pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

I believe you are loading up and taking a shot at the messenger there, Budgie.



Naww, C'mon Saturn. It took me all day to think of that one.


-------------
A friend in need is a bloody nuisence


Posted By: marketoc
Date Posted: June 19 2008 at 6:00pm
This is officially the worst movie ever.

I would like someone to respond and tell me what movie compares to be as bad as this one please.

I am so angry I can't type.

If you see the movie from his perspective you are an idiot. 

Pathetic...


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 20 2008 at 1:18am

Around here, many of us enjoy a movie that's so bad, it makes our brains freeze, makes our jaws drop, makes us laugh in all the wrong places, and affords us opportunity to mock the film as it goes by.  The only time we may get, probably not angry, but perhaps irritated, is either when we watch a movie that's neither bad enough or good enough but merely mediocre, or when we consider we spent $10 on a first-run movie ticket plus gas to the theatre, or, like in this case, when an actor or director who had impressed us so much has let us down so badly.  Even then, though, once we've recovered, we resume our brain-freezing, our jawdropping, our laughing and our mocking. . . .

If this movie is so bad that it makes you that angry, may I suggest that http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ - you visit Rotten Tomatoes every Friday morning, look at the movies that are opening and avoid any movie that registers 30% or less on their Tomatometer.  You may miss some movies that you would like, but you'll probably avoid most of the ones that will make you angry.

 



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 20 2008 at 1:43pm
Can you tell us why it's so bad? There's no point in discussing if you just have "This movie sucks." Yes, I still would like to discuss it but now that I've recently saw "The Mist," I would love to discuss that movie. Fantastic movie! Really, really, really loved that movie! It was emotionally draining for me and really hard to endure!


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: June 20 2008 at 4:01pm
I haven't seen The Mist, but I heard it was one of the extremely few horror movies released last year that was actually decent. 


Posted By: moat
Date Posted: June 20 2008 at 6:09pm
So, I saw it. It started out okay, some fairly atmospheric scenes where ordinary events are laced with suicide. And then came a scene where we see Wahlberg in his teaching environment, and the movie never recovered from then on out. The scene in question showed us what a happenin' cool guy that science teacher is. Man he's cool.
 
Anyway, my problem isn't so much with the stupid way the character is drawn, but it is with Wahlberg's unconvincing performance. I like that he was trying a new thing with playing a sincere, nice-guy......but it was just unreal. And it only got worse when he went from calm, cool-guy to the range of emotions he would display throughout the rest of the film (and by "range of emotions," I mean he acts worried the whole time). And whoever (Shyamalan) wrote the cliched and stilted dialogue didn't help. It would take a lot from any actor to make the lines they were fed seem real, and naturally none of the film's players were especially successful.
 
Which brings me to Deschanel, and her equally inept work as the even more worried and guilt-ridden wife. None of the drama among the characters' relationships rings true, thanks in no small part to the lead performances and poorly-written dialogue. And since both Wahlberg and Deschanel can be seen giving superior performances in recent features, some of the blame must lie with whoever (Shyamalan) it was directing them. And did I mention it has Spencer Breslin?
 
At least Leguizamo was okay.
 
But enough about the acting, because that was not the only issue. I mentioned that I found a couple of the early scenes atmospheric (it helped not having Wahlberg or Deschanel in those scenes), and unfortunately it doesn't hold up for the rest of the film. There's a lot of plant-swaying and shots of ominous shots of landscape, which is about as suspenseful as it gets. The rest of the thrills come from gratuitously gruesome scenes that are needlessly repeated throughout the film. There's some shock-value, but nothing really viscerally resonates. The thrills are cheap and largely ineffective.
 
Finally, the film goes from lacking impact to downright feckless in its last act, where the tastelessly repellent bloodletting is combined with events that have little-to-nothing to do with the film's narrative. Why are these scenes here? Just for more of those immediate shocks. It's another example of the secondary nature with which the actual story is treated in a Shyamalan film.
 
All that and the film's moral isn't supported very well. But that didn't really bother me as much as the complete lack of scares.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 21 2008 at 2:51pm
Well, watch The Mist because I thought it was brilliant. I was traumatized after viewing the movie but felt a lot better the next day. Don't go in there just thinking, "It's another horror movie" because it isn't. Like one critic stated, "Another level of horror." I found it similar to Lord of the Flies. It's a warning.


Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 4:47am
Maybe M Night should have brought the Supremes back together to sing the
title song. Might have helped...


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: July 12 2008 at 12:17pm

I'm beginning to wonder if M. Night is a hack. "The Sixth Sense" is the closest thing to perfection. "Unbreakeble" and "Signs" were good, but the had several flaws. Then, "The Village" came along and was filled with more holes than Spencer Breslin in his (SPOILER!) death scene (END SPOILER!). "Lady In The Water" had me wondering if M. lost his talent. Then, I saw "The Happening" and it all became apparent; M. never had any talent and "The Sixth Sense" was a fluke. Deschanel was, surprisingly, annoying, considering how she's usually a talented individual. Mark and John, barely, escape with their dignaties intact. The audience in the (markdown) theater was laughing at nearly every scene. And I couldn't help but notice that the "plant attack" angle was ripped-off from "The Ruins" (Which was actaully better!) and the people killing themselves seemed similar to the creation of the Reavers from "Serenity". This is easily the worst film of the summer, but not the year; "In The Name Of The King", "Meet The Spartans", and "One Missed Call" are still worse. Worst Picture, Director, Actress, Screenplay, Screen Couple, and Rip-off.



-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 12 2008 at 1:25pm

It's laugh-out-loud funny that movies that are supposed to be serious like this turn out to be funny as hell by accident...while "comedies" like "Strange Wilderness," "Meet Dave," and "Love Guru" get zero laughs!! 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: Budgieboy
Date Posted: July 25 2008 at 2:16am
I think if were going to take a shot at anyone about this film, it would have to be the marketing department. The marketing made people believe this would be an apocalyptic horror of the summer and when the reason has been laid out, it is quite a mood killer. I bet if M reduced the budget to 5 million and made the film a true B style movie (eg: Planet Terror and Evil Dead) praise would be flowing from everywhere.

The movie is very 50's in its approach, and this ultimately leads to its demise. It appears to be taking itself too seriously -- with scenes like lions ripping off a guy's arms and a man being run over by a lawn mower -- it just seems out of place

I'd give this 3/5 overall.


-------------
A friend in need is a bloody nuisence


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: July 26 2008 at 2:33am

I would shoot the marketing department for reminding about The Sixth Sense and Signs in the buildup to The Happening without really talking about this movie itself, a sure sign that this movie is going to suck.

The Happening is such a sucky title, anyway.  It would have been better if they called it The Plants Are Mad As Hell . . . .

 



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 26 2008 at 12:58pm

Originally posted by cvcjr13

The Happening is such a sucky title, anyway.  It would have been better if they called it The Plants Are Mad As Hell . . . .

Or "Plan Nine From Underground!"  



Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: July 26 2008 at 3:05pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Well, watch The Mist because I thought it was
brilliant. I was traumatized after viewing the movie but felt a lot better the
next day. Don't go in there just thinking, "It's another horror movie" because
it isn't. Like one critic stated, "Another level of horror." I found it similar to
Lord of the Flies. It's a warning.


The Mist wasn't all that scary, it was creepy and spooky, but not
terrifying, but it was one of the better horror movies of last year.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 27 2008 at 11:19am

I didn't mean that The Mist was scary. I meant it as, like VERY DEPRESSING and hard to sit through, especially the end! 

Originally posted by movieman

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Well, watch The Mist because I thought it was
brilliant. I was traumatized after viewing the movie but felt a lot better the
next day. Don't go in there just thinking, "It's another horror movie" because
it isn't. Like one critic stated, "Another level of horror." I found it similar to
Lord of the Flies. It's a warning.


The Mist wasn't all that scary, it was creepy and spooky, but not
terrifying, but it was one of the better horror movies of last year.

 



-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: September 04 2008 at 11:28am
Anyone like to talk about this movie again? I want to...


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: October 11 2008 at 1:48pm

I can talk about Mark Wahlberg. He has another movie coming out next week called MAX PAYNE, based on the video game, and NO, it's not directed by Uwe Boll, but by John Moore, director of the Razzie nominated film THE OMEN (2006). It will also star Mila Kunis (Forgetting Sarah Marshall), Beau Bridges, rap artist Ludacris and singer Nelly Furtado.



-------------
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: October 12 2008 at 1:42pm
This movie was a hysterically inept "dramatic thriller", that has brought more
laughs from me than Over Her Dead Body, The Love Guru, and
Made of Honor combined! If you don't laugh at at least one scene that
is supposed to be dead serious, like the scene where Mark Wahlberg talks to
a plant, or where everybody is running away from a gust of wind, I am going
to be amazed. Not to mention everybody is giving wooden performances
that wouldn't get them into an ammeter improv class at the learning annex.

Worst Picture, Worst Director, Worst Screenplay, Worst Actor, and Worst
Actress, and (If they use the category again) Worst Excuse for a Horror Movie



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: October 12 2008 at 2:02pm
 Yes, running away ... from trees! old M. Night needs someone else to write his movies from now on. That or he needs to stop smoking the wacky weeds before writing.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: October 13 2008 at 1:19pm

Originally posted by Michaels

 Yes, running away ... from trees! old M. Night needs someone else to write his movies from now on. That or he needs to stop smoking the wacky weeds before writing.

Actually, someone brought a very interesting point on IMDb: In the beginning of the movie, Wahlberg said that sometimes things cannot be explained. Wahlbergs character THINKS it's the plants (which isn't so far-fetched, in my opinion) but we will never know what caused this event.



Posted By: Stumanji
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 8:00am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Critics are smoking too much crack right now. I wonder: If nobody knew that M. Night directed this, would people like it?

I, like movewizguy, enjoy M. Night Shyamalan's films.

Until I saw The Happening.

It definitely deserves a dozen Razzies, and even a new category (if it doesn't yet exist) "Worst Director Excuse" for Shyamalan claiming it to be a B-Movie.

B-Movies do not have Zooey Deschanel, Mark Wahlberg, and $50 million dollar budgets. No one of Shyamalan's "skills" as a director/writer would want to make a B-movie when they've been atop the A List.

This movie KILLED my trust for solid filmmaking from Shyamalan. I enjoyed Lady in the Water, The Village, and especially Signs and Unbreakable. My brother, a fellow movie geek, looked at me during the film and said, "What the f*** happened to M. Night Shyamalan?"

For those that haven't seen it, yes, you will laugh at the absurdity of this film. You will get bored of it. You will reach for your phone to text people about how bad it is. You'll blog about it. You'll register on a forum like this and make your first post on the subject of how bad it truly is.

This film deserves to top I Know Who Killed Me for Razzies.

Also, can we remove the collective film over our eyes and stop casting the most overrated actor in Hollywood? Mark Wahlberg is as wooden as they come (though not quite on par with Paul Walker) and his exhaling dialogue thing drives me crazy.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 3:40pm
Originally posted by Stumanji

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Critics are smoking too much crack right now. I wonder: If nobody knew that M. Night directed this, would people like it?

I, like movewizguy, enjoy M. Night Shyamalan's films.

Until I saw The Happening.

It definitely deserves a dozen Razzies, and even a new category (if it doesn't yet exist) "Worst Director Excuse" for Shyamalan claiming it to be a B-Movie.

B-Movies do not have Zooey Deschanel, Mark Wahlberg, and $50 million dollar budgets. No one of Shyamalan's "skills" as a director/writer would want to make a B-movie when they've been atop the A List.

This movie KILLED my trust for solid filmmaking from Shyamalan. I enjoyed Lady in the Water, The Village, and especially Signs and Unbreakable. My brother, a fellow movie geek, looked at me during the film and said, "What the f*** happened to M. Night Shyamalan?"

For those that haven't seen it, yes, you will laugh at the absurdity of this film. You will get bored of it. You will reach for your phone to text people about how bad it is. You'll blog about it. You'll register on a forum like this and make your first post on the subject of how bad it truly is.

This film deserves to top I Know Who Killed Me for Razzies.

Also, can we remove the collective film over our eyes and stop casting the most overrated actor in Hollywood? Mark Wahlberg is as wooden as they come (though not quite on par with Paul Walker) and his exhaling dialogue thing drives me crazy.

I, too, once enjoyed Night's movies, but as of late, each movie has gotten more far fetched than the last. I have asked many people what they thought of the movie, and for the most part, they have replied that they think it was one of the most funny accidental comedies in recent memory.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 10 2008 at 9:02am
I just bought this and enjoyed it even more the second time I watched this. I still don't uinderstand the hate. I guess the fad of bashing every single flaw in every Shayamalan movie will end soon.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 10 2008 at 3:24pm

Given the track record of his last THREE movies, the only way the "bashing" will end is if he makes a movie on par with "The Sixth Sense". It can still have a sci-fi twist, but maybe not so over the top. "TSS" proved he can do a simple, character driven movie with a plot twist at the end. He needs to drop the gimmicks and go back to that more simple, character driven style... 

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I just bought this and enjoyed it even more the second time I watched this. I still don't uinderstand the hate. I guess the fad of bashing every single flaw in every Shayamalan movie will end soon.



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: November 20 2008 at 2:21pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by Michaels

 Yes, running away ...
from trees! old M. Night needs someone else to write his movies from now
on. That or he needs to stop smoking the wacky weeds before
writing.


Actually, someone brought a very interesting point on IMDb: In the
beginning of the movie, Wahlberg said that sometimes things cannot be
explained. Wahlbergs character THINKS it's the plants (which isn't so far-
fetched, in my opinion) but we will never know what caused this
event.



I personally think it's a cheat(and hilarious at the same time) that they want
us to point fingers at the plants when in fact it could be something else.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: November 20 2008 at 6:11pm

I see you're recommending this for a number of categories.  Well thanks to Disaster Movie, it's not that big of a favorite anymore (although it would win Worst Excuse for a Horror Movie).



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 21 2008 at 2:10am

 True. I wouldn't be surprised if the same 6 or 7 movies appear over and over in almost every catagory... 

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 23 2008 at 2:06am
Originally posted by Stumanji

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Critics are smoking too much crack right now. I wonder: If nobody knew that M. Night directed this, would people like it?

I, like movewizguy, enjoy M. Night Shyamalan's films.

Until I saw The Happening.

It definitely deserves a dozen Razzies, and even a new category (if it doesn't yet exist) "Worst Director Excuse" for Shyamalan claiming it to be a B-Movie.

B-Movies do not have Zooey Deschanel, Mark Wahlberg, and $50 million dollar budgets. No one of Shyamalan's "skills" as a director/writer would want to make a B-movie when they've been atop the A List.

This movie KILLED my trust for solid filmmaking from Shyamalan. I enjoyed Lady in the Water, The Village, and especially Signs and Unbreakable. My brother, a fellow movie geek, looked at me during the film and said, "What the f*** happened to M. Night Shyamalan?"

For those that haven't seen it, yes, you will laugh at the absurdity of this film. You will get bored of it. You will reach for your phone to text people about how bad it is. You'll blog about it. You'll register on a forum like this and make your first post on the subject of how bad it truly is.

This film deserves to top I Know Who Killed Me for Razzies.

Also, can we remove the collective film over our eyes and stop casting the most overrated actor in Hollywood? Mark Wahlberg is as wooden as they come (though not quite on par with Paul Walker) and his exhaling dialogue thing drives me crazy.

Actually, if you have the DVD, which I highly doubt, when they were still shooting the movie, they had some interviews with some people making the film and they said it was supposed to be a throwback on B-movies, like Invasion of the Body Snatches and The Birds. Keep in mind, this was said DURING the shooting of the movie so there's no more of those "he's just saying that because it got bad reviews" excuse. In fact, the DVD special features addresses a lot of questions, like who the old lady was or what was her point in the movie, etc.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 23 2008 at 2:17am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Actually, if you have the DVD, which I highly doubt, when they were still shooting the movie, they had some interviews with some people making the film and they said it was supposed to be a throwback on B-movies, like Invasion of the Body Snatches and The Birds. Keep in mind, this was said DURING the shooting of the movie so there's no more of those "he's just saying that because it got bad reviews" excuse. In fact, the DVD special features addresses a lot of questions, like who the old lady was or what was her point in the movie, etc.

It's okay if he's doing a throwback to "The Birds", which never explained why the birds were attacking humans in the first place. But if the DVD version is so great, then M. Night should have put this information into the actual movie instead of leaving plotholes the size of Texas. Most people laughed at the old lady's scenes because they were so random, so M. Night should have been telling some of her POV during the actual movie rather then putting it on a DVD extra when it's too late and damage is done.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 25 2008 at 1:36pm
Originally posted by Michaels

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Actually, if you have the DVD, which I highly doubt, when they were still shooting the movie, they had some interviews with some people making the film and they said it was supposed to be a throwback on B-movies, like Invasion of the Body Snatches and The Birds. Keep in mind, this was said DURING the shooting of the movie so there's no more of those "he's just saying that because it got bad reviews" excuse. In fact, the DVD special features addresses a lot of questions, like who the old lady was or what was her point in the movie, etc.

It's okay if he's doing a throwback to "The Birds", which never explained why the birds were attacking humans in the first place. But if the DVD version is so great, then M. Night should have put this information into the actual movie instead of leaving plotholes the size of Texas. Most people laughed at the old lady's scenes because they were so random, so M. Night should have been telling some of her POV during the actual movie rather then putting it on a DVD extra when it's too late and damage is done.

But why put it in the movie when it's already in the movie? It's just that you have to think harder to find the answers. And no, they didn't explain who caused this event to happen. Many people just assume that it was the plants because of what the main protagonists said in the movie. Watch the movie, especially in the beginning. Wahlberg said something in the lines of "We may never understand the laws of nature." In fact, one critic who hated this film said that he loved the fact they didn't point the finger directly to who or what caused this event. Throughout the film, there have been theories, such as plants, the government, and toxic wastes. Just because the plants had more support of evidence doesn't atuomatically make it the plants.

I mean, really. People have been complaining about The Village and Lady in the Water the most, excluding this film. First of all, the peoples' reasons to why The Village was a "bad film" were two words: TWIST ENDING. "I saw the twist coming from miles" to "The twist was just stupid!" Seriously, people! Is it really that important that you have to figure out the twist in the first five minutes of the film and not enjoy it at all or is it really important for you to watch Shayamalan's movies as a treasure hunt, to find clues for the twist ending?! For any rational human would know, you shouldn't be watching movies like that! You're just missing out on the whole movie! You're missing a beautiful love story with some fine directing and a gorgeous score playing in the background!

And for Lady in the Water...I have not heard ONE SINGLE REASON why people hated the movie so much! That movie didn't make as much money as Shayamalan's other movies so it's safe to assume Shayamalan fans were the only ones to watch it. Did it not hit you this film was supposed to be a fantasy for the family?! Did it not hit you that this has even less violence than Harry Potter movies themselves?! There's probably only one scary scene in the whole freaking movie and you whine because M. Night didn't make a gruesome fantasy film for the adults to enjoy?! This fairy tale was based off of Shayamalan's story to his kids, for Christ's sake! And did you not realize the ending credits in which is has an innocent little song ("Times Are A-Changin'" by Bob Dylan) sung by children?! It has almost everything a children's fable has! It has quirky characters, a moral lesson in the end, fantasy creatures that are filled with imagination! It's not violent and cruel like you guys wanted it to be! It's not the movie's fault that it was shown to be a fairy tale for the adults! It's the marketer's fault!

They always preview Shayamalan's movies as suspenseful, scary flicks because The Sixth Sense and Signs were so along the lines of that! Is it wrong for a director to move outside his genre?! Is it not ok for Shayamalan to make a B-movie and a fantasy for children?! My rant here is done.



Posted By: moat
Date Posted: November 25 2008 at 4:05pm
It's one thing to hold a dissenting opinion.

However, mischaracterizing opposing positions is completely uncalled for. You haven't heard of a single reason why people hate Lady in the Water? Then, you haven't read this thread, you haven't read any negative reviews for the film, and you haven't bothered at all to understand why people are discontent with the movie.

So what do you do? You accuse the film's detractors of wanting the film to be gruesome and slamming it because it wasn't. You do this after telling us you've never heard why people hate the film. But that doesn't stop you from asserting to know why people disliked it and proceeding to condemn them for it. Tearing down straw men is easy, it's fallacious, and it's intellectually dishonest. There have already been posts in this very thread explaining grievances with these films (I know because I wrote a couple of those posts myself). Do you address these at all? No, you don't. Instead, you criticize arguments nobody has made.

If you want to know why people don't like those films, read back through this thread, read some reviews, but don't presume to know why people feel that way without hearing them out. There's nothing wrong with being a Shyamalan fan, but there is something disingenuous about the way you address opposing opinions.

Also, if we didn't like Lady in the Water because it wasn't gruesome, then why is it we're bashing something as uncompromisingly gory as The Happening? Your logic here is deeply inconsistent.


-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 26 2008 at 2:06am

I have actually gone to the Lady in the Water thread on this Forum ( http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1159&PN=1 - LINK ). No one posted a good reason for why they didn't like it, or why it was  hated so much. I have read the reviews for LitW, and I know why people hated it. They hated it for all the dumb reasons! I'm trying to say that it was meant for the FAMILY. It wasn't meant to be scary and thrilling like his other films. So if people had taken that into consideration, and taken into consideration that The Village was supposed to be a romance, and taken into consideration that The Happening was supposed to be a B-movie, maybe people would have liked these movies much more.



-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 26 2008 at 3:40pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I have actually gone to the Lady in the Water thread on this Forum ( http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1159&PN=1 - LINK ). No one posted a good reason for why they didn't like it, or why it was  hated so much. I have read the reviews for LitW, and I know why people hated it. They hated it for all the dumb reasons! I'm trying to say that it was meant for the FAMILY. It wasn't meant to be scary and thrilling like his other films. So if people had taken that into consideration, and taken into consideration that The Village was supposed to be a romance, and taken into consideration that The Happening was supposed to be a B-movie, maybe people would have liked these movies much more.

Dude, people didn't hate "LitW" because it was "meant for families". People hated it because it was just an excuse for Shyamalan to stroke his ego. Why else would he cast himself as the most important character of the piece, the one whose writing will change the world? Also, he kills a film critic in the movie; not a great way to win critics over (and how was it the critic was aware he was IN a movie right before he died?!) And then there's the gimmicks: a guy who only works out half of his body, a kid who can foresee the future by looking at ceral boxes, an Asian woman who, of course, knows everything about "fairy tale" that everyone is living through (also, the Asian daugther had the WORST fake accent ever!).

As for "The Village", simply put, Shyamalan can't write period piece dialog. He has to write current-day dialog. You can almost hear him at his computer trying to figure out how people phrased certain sayings two centuries ago as his actors and actresses are speaking. And if you're banking on your movie solely on its plot twist, you better make sure people can't figure your twist out within the first five minutes, otherwise it's just like a kid who already knows what he's getting for Christmas because he peeked while they were hidden in the closet.

I understand you're a fan of the man as a writer/director, but as of late, his works have been pale compared to his past works. You can't please all the people all the time. So instead of complaining until you're blue in the face, just accept the fact that not everyone thinks he's as good as he was 10 years ago.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 27 2008 at 2:11am

Well, I could probably guess why Shayamalan would cast himself, because it was cheaper to do so...but then, of course, you all say he has a big ego. I don't really care. As for the characters in the film, that's the main reason I liked the film so much. Every character in LitW is diverse and different. I love each of them in their unique way, and I just love every one of them because they had a sense of humor. Like I said, it's the funniest of M. Night's films, in an intentional way.

As for The Village, it's probably that M. Night can write a period piece. It's just that the elders TRY to speak as people in the past spoke. They don't know exactly how, but they tried, and it might come off as horrible to some. I can understand.

Originally posted by Michaels

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I have actually gone to the Lady in the Water thread on this Forum ( http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1159&PN=1 - LINK ). No one posted a good reason for why they didn't like it, or why it was  hated so much. I have read the reviews for LitW, and I know why people hated it. They hated it for all the dumb reasons! I'm trying to say that it was meant for the FAMILY. It wasn't meant to be scary and thrilling like his other films. So if people had taken that into consideration, and taken into consideration that The Village was supposed to be a romance, and taken into consideration that The Happening was supposed to be a B-movie, maybe people would have liked these movies much more.

Dude, people didn't hate "LitW" because it was "meant for families". People hated it because it was just an excuse for Shyamalan to stroke his ego. Why else would he cast himself as the most important character of the piece, the one whose writing will change the world? Also, he kills a film critic in the movie; not a great way to win critics over (and how was it the critic was aware he was IN a movie right before he died?!) And then there's the gimmicks: a guy who only works out half of his body, a kid who can foresee the future by looking at ceral boxes, an Asian woman who, of course, knows everything about "fairy tale" that everyone is living through (also, the Asian daugther had the WORST fake accent ever!).

As for "The Village", simply put, Shyamalan can't write period piece dialog. He has to write current-day dialog. You can almost hear him at his computer trying to figure out how people phrased certain sayings two centuries ago as his actors and actresses are speaking. And if you're banking on your movie solely on its plot twist, you better make sure people can't figure your twist out within the first five minutes, otherwise it's just like a kid who already knows what he's getting for Christmas because he peeked while they were hidden in the closet.

I understand you're a fan of the man as a writer/director, but as of late, his works have been pale compared to his past works. You can't please all the people all the time. So instead of complaining until you're blue in the face, just accept the fact that not everyone thinks he's as good as he was 10 years ago.



-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 27 2008 at 11:37am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Well, I could probably guess why Shayamalan would cast himself, because it was cheaper to do so...but then, of course, you all say he has a big ego.

He could have cast any no name actor for the role and it would have been just as cheap. He could have played any one of the other minor roles, but the fact he went with the most important character of the story spokes volumes about his intentions.

One last thing: again, not everyone reviews movies based on their "expectations", in fact, that's regarded as the wrong way to review movies. When I saw "The Village", all I was expecting was a period piece movie with monsters in it. With "LitW", all I was expecting was a story about a hotel manager finding a supernatural girl in his pool. With "The Happening", all I expected was people being scared of an unseen killing force. That's all. I don't hate movies because I expected certain things out of them like big CGI effects or what not, but they didn't deliver. I'm looking for quality of filmmaking, whether it's in the direction, the writing, the acting, or other. As a director, I like Shyamalan's style, but I think it's time he steps back and directs a movie that someone else wrote, because his gimmicks are ruining his stories.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: December 29 2008 at 2:03am

So, HeadRazz, what's your opinion on this movie? I'm curious.

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: In a year also including Uwe Boll's http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=246 - IN THE NAME OF THE KING and  http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=274 - POSTAL , http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=258 - HOTTIE & THE NOTTIE , http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=292 - MEET DAVE , http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=198 - RAMBO and more, I am not entirely convinced THE HAPPENING is one of the five Berry Worst of 2008. Although I must say, when it's "big twist" is finally revealed, though it's obviously meant to be portentous, it comes off comically pretentious instead. Mark Wahlberg's cluelessly over-the-top lead performance also adds to the film's woes. And as the Hermit/Hag Lady, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000990/ - Betty Buckley  (an actress whose stage work I have admired greatly in the past) certainly deserves consideration as Worst Supporting Actress...

 



-------------


Posted By: wolfee37
Date Posted: January 04 2009 at 8:47am

One of the Worst films of the year for sure. Wahlberg and Zooey are two actors that I like (and are both awful here), but the sceanery was perfect. M. Night needs to quit writing. Talented director, but the script for this film was brutal!

 

Oh and HeadRazz - Totally agree about Betty Buckley. Trying to figure out why the critics said she was the best part...



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 04 2009 at 11:44am

Originally posted by wolfee37

M. Night needs to quit writing. Talented director, but the script for this film was brutal!

Agreed! The man can direct, but he needs to step away from his laptop and let someone else write a script for him. He's becoming as bad as the line from the Movie Preview Critic's parody in which every time he needs money for a budget, he storms into a studio head's office and rants "Do you know who I am?! I'm the guy who made the "Sixth Sense"! Did you know that Bruce Willis was dead since the first five minutes of the film?! No, that's right, you didn't! So just sign this blank check so I can make my damn masterpiece!". 



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: January 04 2009 at 12:16pm
Originally posted by Michaels

Agreed! The man can direct, but he needs to step away from his laptop and let someone else write a script for him. He's becoming as bad as the line from the Movie Preview Critic's parody in which every time he needs money for a budget, he storms into a studio head's office and rants "Do you know who I am?! I'm the guy who made the "Sixth Sense"! Did you know that Bruce Willis was dead since the first five minutes of the film?! No, that's right, you didn't! So just sign this blank check so I can make my damn masterpiece!". 

Actually read the script before you go bashing on it. It's really different and you can see the changes that were made.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 04 2009 at 1:57pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Actually read the script before you go bashing on it. It's really different and you can see the changes that were made.

Well, that's great that one of the final drafts was good, but the shooting script that was used and was the end result that we saw on film was a different story. There shouldn't have been changes and if there were, Shyamalan should have done something about it in the final cut of the film, rather than saving the explainations for a DVD extra feature. I don't care who you are, that's poor storytelling.



Posted By: Hollywood Z
Date Posted: January 20 2009 at 4:43pm

I have to say, that this does deserve a Razzie nomination in so many categories: Worst Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor (Leguizamo), Supporting Actress (that crazy lemon drink lady), Screenplay, Worst Excuse for a Horror Movie, Worst On-Screen Duo (either Mark Wahlberg & Zooey Deschannel or Wahlberg and that Plastic Potted Plant). There were so many thing about this movie that were such failures on every level that it just defies logic and good sense. While Shyamalan may not be the worst director of all time, his last three movies aren't doing much to catapult him to iconic atmosphere.

The Happening is just another in his latest trend of audience insulting, carelessness towards humanity and ignorance towards likeable characters. But this time, it achieves a level of cornyness that the likes of Ed Wood and Roger Corman could only dream of achieving. It takes actors with proven talent and reduces them to lifeless slugs, it takes an implausible situation, but takes itself too seriously to ever be seriously taken and it shows that while a director, who was once concerned with human emotions and clever direction, has gotten so lost in himself that he forgets how to tell a basic story. The movie exists as such a contradiction of everything around it that it is probably the most appropriate title to come out in years because nothing truly does happen in this movie.

This gets my vote for one of the worst movies of the year.



Posted By: Monsieur Hulot
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 9:41am
Thank the Lord for the existence of the  Raspberry Brigade!
I hired the film from my local Blockbuster in the UK. I didn't know much about it.
I started watching a film called The Happening and by the end it should have been called The Happening That Just Didn't.
I felt I must have missed something,expected too much. What a total and utter stinker of the first order.

But there are enough wooden performances to stock a deep forest Wahlberg - what were you doing - I didn't care!!!!
The little girl that the leads took in tow was shootable for the number of screaming/crying fits through the film .
Ultimately, I didn't care whether any character lived or died and not/caring is the mark of engagement with any film/theatre/book/etc
Sixth Sense - memorable for 15 seconds of  pure and true brilliance for the reveal at the end.

 


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: February 05 2009 at 10:55am

My favorite quotes from the IMDb's message board.

Things you learn from "The Happening":

1. Despite nearly being destroyed by all of Earth's vengeful, angry flora, one does not hesitate to house several small plants on one's bathroom window sill.
2. Wind exists only in small, isolated patches. With determination, one may be able to run ahead of it.
3. Great moms will stop at nothing to buy their daughters a dollhouse. 4. Hot dogs get a bad wrap.
5. Old white ladies own gas masks. Military and police personnel don't. 6. Tiramisu DOES NOT equate to adultery.
7. If you paid me a penny on June 1 and doubled my salary every day thereafter, I would be a millionaire by June 30!
8. It is polite to offer stangers supper, even if you think they plan to steal from you, and then kill you.
9. Model houses come fully equipped with plumbing.
10. When plants get angry, you will lose contact with everyone, including unaffected areas of the population.

The REAL FAQ of "The Happening":

NOTE: M. Night Shyamalan's name will be abbreviated "MNS" since it's just too ridiculous to type repeatedly.]

Why is this movie called The Happening?
The title is vague enough to describe the events in the film that are never completely explained.

What causes this event?
The audience is asked to believe that plants and trees mutated overnight and gained the ability to emit an odorless, invisible gas that causes humans to commit suicide. The reason we're given for this is that plants and trees are angry/concerned about what humans are doing to the planet. The plants evidently set a date and a time and a location for their attack, because it is restricted to one general location (the East Coast) during one specific day. This event ends suddenly after Marky Mark and Zooey Deschanel realize that they love one another. (I'm not trying to be sarcastic here but I find it difficult to describe the plot without it sounding funny...)

Does anyone in the movie figure out what's going on?
Marky Mark breaks the code by realizing the plants only attack when people are grouped in significant numbers. Then for some unknown reason this theory falls to pieces with no explanation.

Why did this film suck? I was so excited to see it!
You decide whether you liked the film or not... personally I realized it was silly and began laughing about halfway through. I enjoyed the film as a comedy.

Did M. Night Shyamalan secretly intend this to be funny?
No. In the history of film no one has ever made a "secret comedy."

Did MNS intentionally make this as a bad movie?
No. No director would intentionally make a bad movie.

Was this intended as a "B-movie"?
"B-movies" got their name because they were not the "A-list" film at the theater. "B-movies" were often the second-half of double features and were quite often disposable sci-fi or horror films. Many were silly, goofy, or corny. To answer the question, no. Most people feel that M. Night got extremely negative feedback from studio execs and test audiences and then began to claim he had intentionally made a "B-movie" as an excuse for his work. The film is acted, directed & marketed as an ordinary thriller. It is never intentionally comedic or silly, only laughable in plot, performance and execution. Smart move by MNS to try and save face after the fact but I'm not buying it. You shouldn't either.

If this was meant to be a B-movie, why did Shayamalan state in an interview it was supposed to be scary? Why did the trailers show this being a serious film with horrific deaths and scary scenes?
See above.

This film has many good actors. Why were their performances so bizarre/terrible?
I honestly don't know. Clearly that was a decision made by MNS and the actors. Some MNS fans claim this was intentional. I would remind you, however, that no director anywhere at anytime would intentionally direct actors to a "bad performance." Think about it.

Is there any connection between this movie and the SNL skit "Mark Wahlberg Talks To Animals"?
Interesting question. I won't lie and say I have the answer but we can examine the facts: Mark Wahlberg does speak very differently in this film than in any of his other films. The reason why is unknown, but perhaps he or director M. Night Shyamalan made a conscious decision to change his speaking style. This information may have been the seed for the idea of the SNL sketch. One thing is for sure: you will not be able to watch "The Happening" the same way after you've seen the sketch. I recommend seeing it before you watch the movie.

Do you have a link to the sketch?
I don't... NBC often refuses to let their stuff go up on YouTube and they keep it on their own site... but I can guarantee you'll find it if you look around.

Why did the happening not affect some people?
This was not explained in the film.

What's with the mood ring? They never explained it!
This was not explained in the film.

What's wrong with that old lady?! She is one crazy person! What's with the doll?!?
This was not explained in the film.

What was with the zoo/lion scene?
This was a strange sequence in which a woman in a diner holds up her phone and shows a video of a man getting mauled to death by lions after breathing in the suicide gas. Most people find it awkward/comical/bizarre and it is definitely one of the highlights of the film.

What was with John Leguizamo saying "DON'T TAKE HER HAND UNLESS YOU MEAN IT!" to Alma (Zooey Deschanel)?
This was not explained in the film. Leguizamo's character mentions that Alma was unsure about marrying Marky Mark on the day of her wedding but that does not explain his apparent mistrust about leaving his daughter with her.

Why did the happening just end?
This was not explained in the film. Scientist and experts offer theories but we are left with only one vague statement, "It's an act of nature... that we'll never fully understand!" This line is spoken once in the beginning of the film by one of Marky Mark's students and once at the end by a scientist on TV.

Is this a terrible movie?
Depends on how you look at it. As a legitimate thriller I would give it an F. I did, however, enjoy it as a comedy... there was plenty to laugh at.

Should I rent this if I want to see a good thriller/sci-fi movie?
I would highly recommend against it.

I'm looking for a good movie to laugh at/make fun of with friends... is "The Happening" a good choice?
You have hit the mother lode.

And the best:

"The Happening" ... in a nutshell.

People walk around in the PARK while two unimportant characters have INANE DIALOGUE.

BORING CHARACTER 1:
That was weird. Suddenly all of the people in this park stopped dead in their tracks and started acting like brainless robots.

BORING CHARACTER 2:
Large groups of people behaving as though they have no personality whatsoever? That can only mean…

BORING CHARACTER 1:
Oh sh!t, we’re in an M. Night Shyamalan movie!

They both KILL THEMSELVES.

EVERYONE ELSE:
An M. Night Shyamalan movie! Our careers will be ruined!

EVERYONE ELSE kills themselves as well.

INT. PHILADELPHIA - CLASSROOM

MARK WAHLBERG teaches SCIENCE to a classroom full of middle school students.

STUDENT:
Hey Mr. Wahlberg, how come bees have been dying off in record numbers lately?

MARK WAHLBERG:
Well, you see, it’s an act of nature that nobody will ever understand. Those crazy scienticians will come up with something just to put it in a book, but ultimately they’re just chumps.

STUDENT:
What? Who wrote this script, Kirk Cameron?

MARK’S friend, JOHN LEQUIZAMO, enters the classroom.

JOHN LEQUIZAMO:
Hey, a there’s a suicide epidemic in New York. People think terrorists are releasing some toxin in the air that’s causing people to kill themselves.

MARK WAHLBERG:
Awesome, disasters in movies tend to serve little purpose other than to unite families with problems. Perhaps this can fix my rocky marriage.

JOHN LEQUIZAMO:
This is serious. This toxin doesn’t just make you stop breathing or anything, it makes you go far, far out of your way to kill yourself in the goriest, most dramatic way possible.

To illustrate this, JOHN and MARK watch a high-resolution video on top of a color printout of a hand holding an iPhone, which depicts a guy getting lions to rip his arms off at the zoo.

MARK WAHLBERG:
Holy sh!t, did I really just watch a guy perform Jax’s fatality on himself? Are we in Toxic Avenger 5 or something?

JOHN LEQUIZAMO:
We need to get out of the city. Go home and get your increasingly distant wife and meet me at the train station. We need to get on a train, because if there’s one place we know terrorists won’t attack, it’s a vehicle carrying hundreds of people.

MARK goes home to find his wife ZOOEY DESCHANEL, whose name is ZOOEY.

MARK WAHLBERG (yawning):
Hey honey, let’s go to the train station to awkwardly progress the story forward without any character motivation. Or whatever. Is it lunchtime yet?

ZOOEY DESCHANEL:
Alright, but only if I can pretend I have depth by illuminating a completely superfluous side story about a guy I met at work.

They meet JOHN and travel by train out of the CITY.

JOHN LEQUIZAMO:
I can’t get my wife on the phone. It’s probably because we have Sprint, but I want to make sure. I need you to take care of my daughter while I go look for her.

ZOOEY DESCHANEL:
No problem, I’d love to help.

JOHN LEQUIZAMO:
I wasn’t talking to you, you c*m-guzzling c/ unt

ZOOEY DESCHANEL:
My apologies. I’ll just politely ignore your rudeness and take care of your daughter anyway.

MARK WAHLBERG:
And I’ll go ahead and not even defend my wife like the whiny little b!tch I am.

JOHN LEQUIZAMO:
It’s a good thing you guys are such likable protagonists instead of, for example, completely uninteresting a$$holes that audiences would hate watching for two hours.

MARK WAHLBERG:
Good luck finding your wife. Make sure to drive everywhere with the windows down since we know that this is an airborne toxin, and doing so well help ensure the audience feels no sense of danger whatsoever.

He DOES, then listens to MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE and CUTS HIMSELF. MARK, ZOOEY, and JOHN’S DAUGHTER find themselves with a large crowd of random strangers.

MARK WAHLBERG:
Alright everyone, it looks like this toxin is somehow targeting only large groups. Stay in small groups.

ZOOEY DESCHANEL:
So if you’re by yourself, you’ll probably be alright?

MARK WAHLBERG:
It looks that way. All across the country, crazy loner shut-ins are probably doing just fine.

ZOOEY DESCHANEL:
Good news for Sony and Microsoft.

MARK, ZOOEY, and JOHN’S DAUGHER take refuge in an abandoned house for a minute, then for some reason decide to go back outside where the DEADLY TOXINS are.

ZOOEY DESCHANEL:
Look, I need to come clean with you. I… I had dessert with some guy I met at work.

MARK WAHLBERG:
Oh my God! Is ‘dessert’ some kind of euphemism for letting him take a sh!t in your mouth after he fxxks you or something?!

ZOOEY DESCHANEL:
Er, no. We had cheesecake.

MARK WAHLBERG:
Oh. Well I’m going to go ahead and act like it was the other thing!

MARK and ZOOEY sleepwalk their way through some more scenes as the plot progresses itself forward without their involvement.

ZOOEY DESCHANEL:
You know, for a movie called ‘The Happening,’ there is surprisingly little actually happening.

MARK WAHLBERG:
No sh!t. Alright, Shyamalan. Where does this painfully boring roller coaster take us next?

M NIGHT SHYAMALAN:
Let’s see here. The next thing that happened in “War of the Worlds” was Tom Cruise finding that crazy hermit guy. I guess we should do that for a few minutes, since I’m such a fxxking hack.

MARK, ZOOEY, and JOHN’S DAUGHTER try to outrun the air and eventually make it to a boarded-up HOUSE.

MARK WAHLBERG:
Hey! Let us into your fortified home! I promise that the completely mysterious toxin that nobody understands won’t come in and kill you!

RANDOM STRANGER:
Fxxk off! Here in this house, we done got a strict policy of not allowing entry to cast members from that sh!tty ‘Planet of the Apes’ remake, ya hear?

MARK, ZOOEY, and JOHN’S DAUGHTER locate a different CRAZY HERMIT and stay with her for a bit.

CRAZY OLD BAT:
Woohoo, tiger stream junket floating can purse lily munch! Turd fighter glass breaking eardrum turnip, John!

MARK WAHLBERG:
I wonder what totally unexpected twist will happen as a result of your wackiness!

NOTHING happens, and eventually the CRAZY OLD BAT dies.

MARK WAHLBERG:
Oh. I guess her only role was to illustrate that the deadly toxin is, in fact, deadly. Go inside and close the doors and windows, Zooey.

ZOOEY DESCHANEL (quizzically):
Why?

MARK WAHLBERG:
Why? Did you seriously just ask me that? Are you watching a different movie or something? Listen up…
(pause)
The fxxking air. It fxxking kills you. It’s fxxking deadly. Don’t fxxking breathe it. Was this script written by a fxxking monkey?

Suddenly, THE HAPPENING stops HAPPENING, largely because the audience members left to go get a REFUND.

An EXPERT comes on TELEVISION to explain the movie for the benefit of any RETARDED PEOPLE in the AUDIENCE.

TV EXPERT:
You see, it seems that plants became tired of the way we treat our environment, so they started releasing a deadly toxin.

TV ANCHORMAN:
Why didn’t they just stop producing oxygen?

TV EXPERT:
Well where’s the unwatchable pile of garbage of a film in that?

MARK WAHLBERG:
I don’t get it. We found out it was plants like an hour ago. Aren’t M. Night Shyamalan movies supposed to have some crazy surprise at the end?

M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN:
Surprise, I managed to make a movie worse than ‘Lady in the Water’!

END



Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: February 06 2009 at 2:14pm

That's pretty good, here's a  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0949731/board/nest/127628221 - LINK to a funny IMDb discussion of titles for a possible sequel...


 



-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: February 22 2009 at 3:05am
Thank God people have some sense not to make this a winner of any catagories.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: February 22 2009 at 4:52am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Thank God people have some sense not to make this a winner of any catagories.

"Sense" or when having to choose between the greater of two evils, they went with "Love Guru"?



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: May 24 2009 at 12:42am
Ok... Sorry to drag this demon back from the bowelest regions of Hell, but I finally forced myself to watch this. Wa-HOW. I figured it was just going to be some sort of corny attempt to get to a twist ending, but the real sense I got from it was that M. Night that wrote it, but left most of the actual directing to film students that were on set, or a better analogy yet, director http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1382072/ - Tommy Wiseau . In terms of actual moviemaking, The Love Guru was better, but wasn't as funny. I haven't seen acting that bad since Wiseau's http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/ - The Room . And the fact that they kept saying "happening" all of the time... Yea, I wasn't prepared for this. I was laughing a LOT.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 24 2009 at 2:05am

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

Ok... Sorry to drag this demon back from the bowelest regions of Hell, but I finally forced myself to watch this. Wa-HOW. I figured it was just going to be some sort of corny attempt to get to a twist ending, but the real sense I got from it was that M. Night that wrote it, but left most of the actual directing to film students that were on set, or a better analogy yet, director http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1382072/ - Tommy Wiseau . In terms of actual moviemaking, The Love Guru was better, but wasn't as funny. I haven't seen acting that bad since Wiseau's http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/ - The Room . And the fact that they kept saying "happening" all of the time... Yea, I wasn't prepared for this. I was laughing a LOT.

It was supposed to be a B-movie...it wasn't meant to be taken seriously.



Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 30 2010 at 12:13pm
I just watched it,and rated it with 5/10.Shocker,right?No.I've never thought his movies are between the best thrillers of all time.I just like them a lot individually.I have favorite movies,but since their directors don't make others very good,I discart them.The point is I can not like one of his movies.That has never hapenned though.

It's average in general,and compared to his other movies...not bad,but close.

It just wasn't very scary,and he always manages to scare.

The premise was interestin',but it just wasn't developed as one expects.

I was so angry when I heard he finally gave to all you haters by not using a twist ending(which doesn't really matter,but I just don't like when you push him)and by not casting himself...well,he did a voice-over,but I don't count it'cuz nobody did.

I understand that Mark Wahlberg did 2 movies with bad reviews,so you had to nominate him,but what about Zooey Deschanel?She wasn't awful,but she was just playing the same character as usual.That character is good for comedies,not dramas.In one scene,her character ALMA actually says so:"I also have problems showin'emotions".

B.T.W.,why was this R-rated?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 30 2010 at 12:57pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

It was supposed to be a B-movie...it wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
Then the studios should be sued for false advertising, because it was made to look like a serious movie, but turned out to be a campy, poorly acted, plot hole filled s***fest. And I feel sorry for you that you feel you have to defend it when there's nothing good about the movie to defend.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 30 2010 at 1:02pm
Originally posted by Vits

I just watched it,and rated it with 5/10.Shocker,right?No.I've never thought his movies are between the best thrillers of all time.I just like them a lot individually.I have favorite movies,but since their directors don't make others very good,I discart them.The point is I can not like one of his movies.That has never hapenned though.

It's average in general,and compared to his other movies...not bad,but close.

It just wasn't very scary,and he always manages to scare.

The premise was interestin',but it just wasn't developed as one expects.

I was so angry when I heard he finally gave to all you haters by not using a twist ending(which doesn't really matter,but I just don't like when you push him)and by not casting himself...well,he did a voice-over,but I don't count it'cuz nobody did.

I understand that Mark Wahlberg did 2 movies with bad reviews,so you had to nominate him,but what about Zooey Deschanel?She wasn't awful,but she was just playing the same character as usual.That character is good for comedies,not dramas.In one scene,her character ALMA actually says so:"I also have problems showin'emotions".

B.T.W.,why was this R-rated?
1. 5 out of 10 is still too high. I know people like his style, people liked the "green" message the movie had, and what not, but as an overall movie, it sucks.
2. Zooey Deschanel didn't so any really good acting in it. Not to mention the first time we see her is an extreme close-up of her HUGE BUG LIKE EYES!
3. I don't know why it was R rated, outside of a guy getting his arms ripped off by tigers and two teenagers getting their heads shot off at point blank range. Rather mild violence compared to other R rated movies.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 30 2010 at 2:49pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

1. 5 out of 10 is still too high. I know people like his style, people liked the "green" message the movie had, and what not, but as an overall movie, it sucks.
2. Zooey Deschanel didn't so any really good acting in it. Not to mention the first time we see her is an extreme close-up of her HUGE BUG LIKE EYES!
3. I don't know why it was R rated, outside of a guy getting his arms ripped off by tigers and two teenagers getting their heads shot off at point blank range. Rather mild violence compared to other R rated movies.
1)Nowadays people think that a movie with a message is good just because it has a message.My thoughts on the movie have nothing to do with that.
2)Please be serious.
3)The guy bein'attacked by animals wasn't shown.I know there was blood and heads showing their bullet holes,but is that enough to be R-rated?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 30 2010 at 4:15pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Then the studios should be sued for false advertising, because it was made to look like a serious movie, but turned out to be a campy, poorly acted, plot hole filled s***fest. And I feel sorry for you that you feel you have to defend it when there's nothing good about the movie to defend.

You act as if this is the first movie that has false advertising. I'm sorry but lots of movies do that these days. I thought "How to Train Your Dragon" looked like a horrible film and didn't bother to watch it until people started to say the trailer does no justice for the film.



Print Page | Close Window