The Happening (2008)

For months, this film was hyped up to be one of the big event films of the summer. Boasting a talented lead actor and a decent supporting crew, this was M. Night Shyamalan’s first R-rated film. After a pair of films that received lukewarm receptions, it seemed that Shyamalan was laying it all on the table. That could only be a good sign right?

A wave of suicidal behavior, beginning in Central Park, sweeps through New York City, causing mass hysteria. Soon enough, more major cities in the northeast are affected. Is it bio-terrorists? Chemical warfare? Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg), a science teacher in Philadelphia, isn’t going to wait around to find out. He shuttles his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel), along with his colleague Julian (John Leguizamo) and Julian’s daughter Jess onto a train headed for Harrisburg. He hopes that moving away from the urban center will eliminate their risk of exposure to whatever is killing people.

The train stops mid-route because all radio contact has been lost with both Harrisburg and Philadelphia. Julian hitches a ride headed for New Jersey to see if he can find his wife, who is stuck in Princeton. Elliot, Alma, Jess and the others find little time to relax as people start succumbing to the mysterious ailment. It seems nowhere is safe, forcing the trio and a few others to flee across suburban and rural landscapes in an attempt to stay one step ahead of certain death.

The mystery behind the killing phenomenon in The Happening is really quite good. In fact, the idea is brilliant- have people running from something they can’t see, hear, touch, taste or smell. Shymalan did wonders with delivering terror from unknown sources in the past, so I can see why he returned to this theme. The problem lies in the execution. When the only thing a film has going for it is its gorgeous scenery, you know there’s a problem.

Less than a week before the film premiered, M. Night Shyamalan stated in an interview that the film was an excellent B movie, which was his intent. This was probably news to the marketing department at 20th Century Fox, because they were putting out very serious-toned advertisements. Perhaps if it had been marketed as a B movie that shouldn’t be taken seriously, moviegoers would have responded more kindly. That strategy worked for Snakes on a Plane and the recent Piranha 3D but those films didn’t even take themselves seriously, let alone expect the audience to. The Happening sends out mixed signals that don’t mesh with the director’s prospective damage control comments.

The biggest disappointment is the reason for the killing phenomenon. Plants, which can evidently produce toxins to eliminate threats in more isolated environments (science, please!), gang up on the human race and unleash a wave of neurotoxins capable of mass extinction. This is proposed as a solution early on and is adopted pretty swiftly by Elliot, so I have no shame in revealing it here. Besides, if spoiling the cause prevents you from seeing this film, you can thank me later. This leads to a lot of ridiculous worried glances being cast towards any number of plants for much of the film.

Almost as disappointing as the chlorophyll-composed killers is the acting. Mark Wahlberg was nominated for Best Supporting Actor in The Departed, so his performance here boggles the mind. His delivery is like that of a hopeless wannabe not even fit for the Z-List of acting talent. Zooey Deschanel dispenses her typically vacant performance except this is not a film where that will work. It seems like she can only portray awkwardness, rather than fear and sadness. The chemistry between her and Wahlberg is paper thin at best, making it hard to buy into the rebuilding of their strained relationship.

There are also a lot of things that don’t make any sense. For instance, people take refuge inside homes and other buildings to escape the neurotoxins in the air. Correct me if I’m wrong, but won’t those neurotoxins find their way into the air ducts of that house? It’s not like the angel of death passing you by because there’s blood on your doorjamb. But hey, if an everyday household air filter can put the brakes on the end of the world, I’d like to buy some stock in whoever makes those things.

If the film had been played up for laughs rather than being unintentionally funny, I could buy into the B-movie bit. The Happening could have been an amusing romp through 50s and 60s era paranoia-film nostalgia. Too bad for everyone involved that the film starts out acting all serious and dramatic. You can’t put up that kind of front and then yell ‘psych!’

I’ve enjoyed all of M. Night Shyamalan’s films on some level up until now. It’s sad to see a once-bright star go dim but I’d like to think this is just a momentary flicker. In a few years M. Night will be back on top again, stunning us all.

RATING: 1.25 out of 5

The Sixth Sense* (1999)

In a cinematic world that was all too tightly embracing slasher gore for cheap scares, M. Night Shyamalan came out of virtually nowhere and reeducated us all in the art of fright. In his major motion picture directorial debut, Shyamalan crafts a nearly perfect mystery thriller that knows all the right strings to pull. The depth and range of emotions that he manages to pull from his actors and the quality product that he produces with this film leaves little doubt as to why he was being hailed as the next Alfred Hitchcock.

Bruce Willis stars as a child psychologist trying to help a young boy with a peculiar dilemma. The boy, named Cole (brilliantly played by Haley Joel Osment), has a secret that he is too scared to reveal to anyone. Slowly, Willis earns the boy's trust and he begins to help Cole conquer his demons. Along the way, there are plenty of jolts and classical scares.

Instead of overusing blood and gore that teen horror flicks had come to rely on for chills, Shyamalan crafts a genuinely creepy tale that knows what scares us most- the unknown and the unseen. Some of the scariest moments in the film come while we’re anticipating something to happen. Shyamalan really has a handle on how to manipulate the subtle surroundings that cause our own minds to scare ourselves silly when we’re alone in the house.

And not enough can be said about Osment’s Oscar-nominated performance. It must be psychological, but seeing a child frozen with fear is itself terrifying. Had the film been about an adult suffering the same problems as Cole, it wouldn’t have been nearly as successful. The inclusion of children as an element of terror works almost like clockwork.

If you can’t tell, I’m being very protective of the film’s big secrets because I don’t want to spoil it for anybody. Sure, it was made nearly 10 years ago, but this film is so ingenious that I’m not willing to risk spoiling it. It’s seriously that good.

The fantastic and shocking story makes the film worth watching. The symbolic and significant use of color, camera angles and imagery that you’re likely to miss the first time through make it worth repeat viewings. The chills and thrills may not work as well your second or third time through, but it’s unlikely that you’ll ever forget the first time you saw The Sixth Sense.

Unfortunately, Shyamalan had hit-or-miss success with his later films. His unparalleled success with his first major film really set the bar unfairly high and few have been able to give him a fair shake since, but no one can take away the greatness he accomplished with this film.

RATING: 4.5 out of 5

Lady in the Water (2006)

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

I absolutely love M. Night Shyamalan’s work as a director and a writer. His films have all been intriguing and well made, so I was dismayed when I heard so much negative press about this film. The critical consensus was that Lady in the Water was a dud and an ‘exercise in arrogance and self-indulgence’ on Shyamalan’s part. I went into this film with mixed feelings, hoping that one of the more brilliant filmmakers of our time hadn’t truly blown it.

Fortunately, he hasn’t. I can see why people may not have been impressed with Lady in the Water, as it is a departure from Shyamalan’s twist ending thrill fests. Yet I see no reason for the critics and moviegoers to slam the director in the way they did. It seems to me that most critics responded with viciousness to Shyamalan’s depiction of a film critic character as a cold, unfeeling jerk who thinks he knows everything. It was tongue-in-cheek and I got a good laugh out of it, because it is in fact largely true. Film critics, for the most part, do not live in this plane of reality. Something about film school and “proper training” ups the ego on some of these folks, and it is apparent that many of them couldn’t take a joke.

As for the movie, it isn’t as good as any of Shyamalan’s previous major releases (though I have yet to watch Unbreakable). That much is true. But it’s not bad, and I shudder to declare it Shyamalan’s worst film. I look at it as his weakest film, because I still enjoyed it. It’s based off of a bedtime story Shyamalan wrote for his children, but this version is more detailed and more frightening than the bedtime version.

As it is based off a bedtime story, intended for children, Shyamalan takes a unique approach by moving the players and events of the story in the same manner of innocence, naïveté and simplicity that story book characters always possess. This means that the viewer has to figure out that they should be approaching Lady in the Water with a sort of childlike view, hearkening back to the fairy tales and Disney movies that filled our younger days. It’s challenging, because people are used to these kinds of stories being animated kid stuff. The live action adult actors and PG-13 setting makes you want to assume it’s supposed to be a standard-issue thriller. However, if you are able to put yourself into the proper and intended mindset, you will get this film.

So I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to see how many people are incapable of thinking like a kid again, now that the current generation of computer animated “kids” films incorporates adult humor so the parents don’t have to think like a kid again to enjoy it. It’s really kind of sad. The story is about a water nymph who is on a mission to meet someone, but whom exactly she does not know. Once meeting this person their life will change and they accomplish great things, leading to future restoration of the long-severed ties between human and water nymphs. The nymph in question happens upon a troubled apartment superintendent. He and eventually many of the folk living in the apartment complex end up being players in the puzzle to allow the nymph to accomplish her task and return home.

Shyamalan took heat from critics because he plays the important character the nymph is supposed to meet. I thought he was fine in the part, because while the character is important in the grand scheme of things beyond the end of the film, he doesn’t really do much during the course of the film. Shyamalan wouldn’t have been a fit for any of the other supporting cast and it makes sense for him to play a struggling writer trying to make sense of his place in the world. Critics just need to lighten up.

The visuals are decent, though there is some not-so-good-looking CGI involved. The biggest problem is that the action is all confined to one set piece- the apartment complex. We’re trapped there, and never get the sense that there is a world outside of this one, but that is also part of the storybook nature of it all. When all is said and done, my appreciation for Shyamalan is still strong. With Lady in the Water he dares to be different. While many critics and moviegoers couldn’t appreciate his craft, I could.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5