gone_fishin
Member
- :
- One of a Kind '99
I feel compelled to write this. This was by far the worst movie I have seen in years. I had a feeling I would walk out of this movie feeling like an absolute sucker, and truth be told, I got exactly what I expected. With the vagueness of the trailor and the joke of a production this was, it honestly makes you wonder if his intention was to see how many idiots he could dupe into giving him ten dollars. Needless to say, M. Night Shyamalan owes me $20, and 90 mins of my life back.
What is wrong with this flick? Without spoling things for those who have not yet seen it, I've made a quick (ok, not so quick) list of why this movie was horrible:
1.) While the idea behind the primary plot (of world disaster) is intriguing, it is completely unrealistic and implausible. How far-fetched it is takes away any element of fear to be had.
2.) After discounting the idea of terrorism, the concept behind "the happening" becomes completely ridiculous, lame, and downright corny. It starts out with potential, but loses every ounce of steam after the first 5 mins.
3.) While I realize Mark Wahlberg is no Daniel Day Lewis, this is one of the poorest jobs of acting I have ever witnessed by Wahlberg. Not a word out of his mouth was evenly remotely believable.
4.) His wife, Zooey Deschanel put together one of the most lack-luster performances I've ever seen from a film actress, period. It was sub- 'made for tv' quality. It was as if she was reading her lines directly from a Cue-card. Together, they make the secondary plot (a problematic marriage) completely worthless and unbelievable.
5.) Sadly, John Leguizamo, having a relatively minor role put forth the best performance out of the whole cast-- and that is saying something given his track record of B list movies.
6.) The editing and cinematography was attrocious. On more than one occasion, you can see microphones bobbing above the casts' heads.
The movie consists of about 4 relatively disturbing scenes-- each of which was essentially shown in the previews. These are far too spaced apart to give the film any sort of sustenance whatsoever. To make matters worse-- that which Shyamalan has prided himself on over the years (that is creating the element of fear by telling not showing, or not revealing the monster behind the curtains so to speak) was kicked to the wayside in an effort to show gratuitous gore. In my opinion, the idea of someone laying down underneath a moving tractor is much more effective in terrifying if the scene is shown up until the moment the inevitable happens. Showing it happening leaves less to the imagination and cheapens it in many ways.
Overall, M. Night Shyamalan was not in this movie mentally... or even physically (no cameo). It was if everyone on the set and behind the scenes thought this was a joke. Shyamalan's movies have been progressively worse since 'Signs' in 2002. If this is an indication of what we can expect in his next flick, count me out.
Do yourself a favor and save your ten dollars and ninety minutes. This will be out on DVD within the next month, I guarantee it.
What is wrong with this flick? Without spoling things for those who have not yet seen it, I've made a quick (ok, not so quick) list of why this movie was horrible:
1.) While the idea behind the primary plot (of world disaster) is intriguing, it is completely unrealistic and implausible. How far-fetched it is takes away any element of fear to be had.
2.) After discounting the idea of terrorism, the concept behind "the happening" becomes completely ridiculous, lame, and downright corny. It starts out with potential, but loses every ounce of steam after the first 5 mins.
3.) While I realize Mark Wahlberg is no Daniel Day Lewis, this is one of the poorest jobs of acting I have ever witnessed by Wahlberg. Not a word out of his mouth was evenly remotely believable.
4.) His wife, Zooey Deschanel put together one of the most lack-luster performances I've ever seen from a film actress, period. It was sub- 'made for tv' quality. It was as if she was reading her lines directly from a Cue-card. Together, they make the secondary plot (a problematic marriage) completely worthless and unbelievable.
5.) Sadly, John Leguizamo, having a relatively minor role put forth the best performance out of the whole cast-- and that is saying something given his track record of B list movies.
6.) The editing and cinematography was attrocious. On more than one occasion, you can see microphones bobbing above the casts' heads.
The movie consists of about 4 relatively disturbing scenes-- each of which was essentially shown in the previews. These are far too spaced apart to give the film any sort of sustenance whatsoever. To make matters worse-- that which Shyamalan has prided himself on over the years (that is creating the element of fear by telling not showing, or not revealing the monster behind the curtains so to speak) was kicked to the wayside in an effort to show gratuitous gore. In my opinion, the idea of someone laying down underneath a moving tractor is much more effective in terrifying if the scene is shown up until the moment the inevitable happens. Showing it happening leaves less to the imagination and cheapens it in many ways.
Overall, M. Night Shyamalan was not in this movie mentally... or even physically (no cameo). It was if everyone on the set and behind the scenes thought this was a joke. Shyamalan's movies have been progressively worse since 'Signs' in 2002. If this is an indication of what we can expect in his next flick, count me out.
Do yourself a favor and save your ten dollars and ninety minutes. This will be out on DVD within the next month, I guarantee it.
