So, tonight I saw M. Night Shyamalan's latest film "The Happening." I was left kinda confused. But more on that later.
This was the kind of movie that I really wish I could have seen with somebody else. It cries out for post-screening discussion (preferably with wings and beer). Like I said, I was confused by the film.
I couldn't figure out what exactly "the happening" was supposed to be. I guess it's just some natural/supernatural force which cannot be explained. That's what they allude to in the movie anyway.
So, what exactly was the message? Is it environmental? Is it spiritual/religious/quasi-spiritual & quasi-religious? Is it political? Is it scientific? Perhaps it is all of the above, since all of them intersect at some point.
As to the film itself: M.Night has gotten a bit weaker over the years. Is he this generation's Hitchcock, as some called him a few years back? That remains to be seen, after he builds up his body of work. I still think his best film to date is "Signs," though many disagree and make a good case for "The Sixth Sense." Plus,I actually loved "Lady in the Water." To be perfectly honest, Shyamalan is my 2nd-fave director (behind Woody Allen). But a true fan is always critical, not blinded.
The performances, I felt, were a bit weak. I've seen what Mark Wahlberg can do. If you doubt, check out "The Departed" for the performance he gives in that Scorsese-helmed dynamo. Maybe he just shot his load with that one. I don't know. I thought John Leguizamo's too-short performance was really good. He conveyed a sense of fear and intensity that should have permeated the whole movie. the little girl who portrays his daughter did a fine job of reflecting this as well.
I felt that Zooey Deschanel's performance was OK. But, she, like Wahlberg, demonstrated a clear lack of intensity, except for the climactic scene after "the event." That was actually a great scene in my book.
The cinematography and camera work was very good, as Night's films usually are. Especially good were the rural scenes.
One other thing which took away from the film for me was a personal thing. I got it from ESPN's website a few years back, when they rated sports movies. It's called the "That Guy Factor." It actually makes a lot of sense. It's the character actor who has a part in the film, either major or minor. They are actually and actively involved in the plot. Basically, it's more substantive than a cameo. It's the character who makes you go "Hey! That's uhh...that's uhh..that guy! What's his name?" Great "that guys" in movies today include Bob Balaban, Will Patton, etc. Long story short, there's no "that guy" in this movie.
It's worth seeing, if only for the discussion factor. Not for the squeamish (which I usually am), as it is graphic (but not gory) and intense in that regard. Overall, probably a C+ effort. Good writing and directing, but a better casting would have made this a much better picture.
