…and this is a 
Not even tempted
Category: Entertainment
Posted on: June 14, 2008 11:34 AM, by PZ Myers
I can't believe people are actually going to see Shyamalamadingdong's new movie, The Happening. Just as George Lucas ought to be hogtied and gagged anytime he tries to write a single line of dialog, Shyamalan needs to be slapped silly next time he tries to invent a plot. The man has some artistic talent, but unfortunately, it's imbedded in a brain that is simply not very bright, and sees Portents and Significance in inanity, which really gets in the way of composing a good story. What makes it even worse is when he starts pontificating on his version of Science — it was disastrous stupidity in Signs, and his new movie seems to be in the same vein.
Now I've read a review (warning: spoilers therein), and my worst suspicions are confirmed. The review claims the movie is about intelligent design, but I have my doubts about that: I think it is just vacuous and muddle-headed, which gives it a strong family resemblance to ID. But yes, they are at least in the same phylum, in which ignorance is promoted and vaguely wishful thoughts pining for a heavenly sky daddy are treated as evidence.
Oh, and Shyamalan and Wahlberg are jesus kooks? That's disappointing, but I suppose it isn't surprising. ERV seems to be unhappy with the prospects, too.
Comments
I was listening to Shyamalan on Science Friday promoting the movie and it was an utter disaster. Ira Flatow was respectful, but you could sense his sense of awe at the man's ignorance throughout the interview. Shyamalan was spouting so much pseudoscience about Gaia and Einstein's fictional conversion from atheism to theism that it was just sickening. I had to stop about 2/3 of the way through. I can only stomach so much new age nonsense. And on my science show. *cry*
Posted by: Stan Ferguson | June 14, 2008 11:49 AM
Here's what jumped out at me:
Okay. A science teacher asks his students for "possible explanations." In other words, he asks them to speculate. And then he chides his students for doing so, and praises the student who replies to the "Speculate on possible explanations" question with the answer, "I don't know, we can't understand"
You didn't ask them what the answer definitely was, you dolt. You asked them to speculate. When asked to speculate in a science class, "Gee, I don't know, nature is such a mystery, we can't possible understand it" is not the "best answer." (And if you think we can't understand nature, what the hell are you doing studying science?) It's a total cop-out.
What a moron.
Posted by: Greta Christina | June 14, 2008 11:54 AM
SciAm's Science Talk podcast featured the release of this movie in their latest episode too, including running a 15 minute interview with M. Night. His grasp of science is... mystical, to say the least.
Posted by: Steve C | June 14, 2008 11:58 AM
Shyamalan's recent movies have been so torpid and pointless that I can't imagine who'll be watching this one other than the usual airheads who use movies like this to give them a feeble jolt.
Posted by: fyreflye | June 14, 2008 12:03 PM
Real knowledge is hard work. Faux knowledge is child's play. Here the child grew up and now makes children's stories for other aging children. Where's the mystery?
Posted by: Nelson Muntz | June 14, 2008 12:03 PM
Well, going by the 2nd linked page, Shyamalan isn't exactly a Jesus kook. It looks like he prefers a more vague and ill-defined belief or group of beliefs than that.
Not all "ID" proponents are from the monotheistic faiths. I suspect that while Shyamalan would avoid specifying what he believes, it might be something like a universal energy field, or something else that is very, very generalized.
Or in other words, in "woo".
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 14, 2008 12:07 PM
Shababiloninonabon made a film about god's death cloud? Brutal... like his last 4 films...
Posted by: Michael Edmondson | June 14, 2008 12:07 PM
"Act of nature"? It's not an act -- an act implies an actor. It's not something that's done. It's something that happens.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 14, 2008 12:12 PM
So, according to the reviews, Wahlberg plays a character who drops out-of-context quotes from "authorities" speaking out of their field, says "we just can't understand that" and spouts the infamous "just a theory" line. Said character is a science teacher. Did Shyamalan set out to film a fundie utopia?
Posted by: Andrés | June 14, 2008 12:27 PM
Well, I might have defended Shyamalan by arguing that it's only a film and meant to be enjoyed purely as entertainment no matter how vacant-drool-inducing the thinking behind it might be. After all, suspension of disbelief is all part of the fun - I love good zombie movies, for example, despite the daft, vaguely Biblical "dead shall walk the earth" woo behind some of them. But given that Shyamalan hasn't made a watchable flick since Unbreakable, I can't bring myself to care very much. I see dead film directors' careers...
Posted by: MPG | June 14, 2008 12:37 PM
I dunno, if the review is what we're going by, then the reviewer seems to be reading a heck of a lot into things. People wanting to get pregnant, and that as a symbol of renewal, is hardly some arch-religious right concern for human characters.
How many horror movies feature disjointed bands of people hooking up at the end and forming new families?
The science room discussion is stupid, but unfortunately, it's no more or less stupid than most of the drek we see from TV and movies when script-writers, who know nothing about science, try to drama things up with glasses and test tubes.
Honestly, the movie sounds stupid. But a big ID film? Sounds like hyping things up too much to attack a film that's already a destined to bomb.
Posted by: Bad | June 14, 2008 12:39 PM
I think this is an example of a reviewer who is more clever than a director giving the director credit for his own insights.
***
I'm not one to romanticize the "good old days" or lament our supposed decline, which is why I wasn't calling out yesterday for a new Sagan (good science communicators abound, including here on Sb, and programs to help scientists and others to develop this skill are vastly preferable to pinning our hopes on another "genius"). However, it's hard for me even to think of Shyamalan and his ilk as practicing the same craft as, say, Godard, Antonioni, or Pontecorvo.
Posted by: SC | June 14, 2008 12:42 PM
Andres said:
"we just can't understand that" and spouts the infamous "just a theory" line. Said character is a science teacher. Did Shyamalan set out to film a fundie utopia?"
Maybe Shymalamadingdong is actually working up a reality show.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/creationists_in_the_american_c.php
Posted by: Bunk | June 14, 2008 12:44 PM
Wahlberg is apparently quite a lot worse than just a Jesus kook. He apparently committed a string of racist hate crimes in his thug youth. Not borderline hate crimes, but felony assault hate crimes. His rehabilitation seems to have been partial.
Posted by: John Emerson | June 14, 2008 12:51 PM
Old post on The Smoking Gun about Mark Wahlberg:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/markymark1.html
Posted by: Colugo | June 14, 2008 1:01 PM
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
I'll never forgive him for "Signs". Not only did the ending infuriate me, I went to see it with my mom; so afterward we had a big blowup regarding religion. Way to cause family strife Shyamalan! *finger wag*
Also, "The Village". Probably one of my worst theater experiences ever. Bored me to tears, and I didn't so much as GUESS the ending but rather ASSUMED that it was the case throughout the movie. I was like "Wait, that was the twist? We weren't supposed to think that it was an isolated Luddite society in modern times? Whoops."
END SPOILERS
Posted by: kaje | June 14, 2008 1:04 PM
I didn't get the "intelligent design" aspect, but that might be because I was groaning so often. I did pick up the "just a theory" comment, and it was another of many groaners. Still, the essence of it (spoiler ahead, although it's telegraphed very early) is that plant life seems to have identified man as a threat and has rapidly evolved a mechanism for warning mankind to back off destroying the planet. The science, such as it is, is pretty wacky. But what really ruins the movie is the laughably stupid dialog and some minor plot excursions that make even less sense than the central premise. The things people say and do are so stupid one's jaw literally drops. M'knight is gone looney and tone-deaf. He needs to go back to his designer for a new set of plugs.
Posted by: Sid Schwab | June 14, 2008 1:13 PM
So in the last four tries, he's given us Signs (with the aliens at the bad guys), The Village (with people in monster suits as the bad guys), Lady in the Water (with fairly tale monsters as the bad guys), and The Happening (with no bad guys at all)... And this guy is supposed to be "reviving" the art of storytelling? It seems to me that he's just putting not-so-pretty clothes on the same old shit we've seen time and time again. Seriously, aliens, monsters, fake monsters, and...PLANTS?? He really has quite an ego on him, doesn't he?
Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | June 14, 2008 1:15 PM
Never saw a movie by this hack. When "The 6th Sense" came out, a co-worker told me I had to see it, and that the ending was a mind-blower. I shocked her by guessing the ending in a second- he simply took the central conceit of Ambrose Bierce's "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" and padded it it with hours of "woo".
It's easy to appear highbrow in our not-so-literate culture.
Now, as far as a killer-plants movie goes, I think a remake of "Day of the Triffids" is in order, but instead of having an eye-injury, the hero misses the meteor shower because he's cooped up in his parents' basement playing conservative concern troll on a science blog.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 14, 2008 1:16 PM
As usual, I'll wait for the dvd and rent it. It's a damn shame, really. The guy is a talented director, and an imaginative writer. But not all that imaginative. Most of his stories drip with woo. My girlfriend loved Signs, and while I liked a lot of it, the rather silly plot twists and hammering on pointless "belief" just got in the way for me. I actually liked The Village better, just on it's Twilight Zone style weirdness.
My favorite is Unbreakable. I've noticed that this is also true of some other skeptics, and I think I know why. While the plot is still fairly woo-ish, all the woo is in the character's head, where it belongs!
I think people may be reading a little much into this one. All of his films are so much about "belief" that, minus the subtle catch phrases, this one doesn't seem much different.
Either way, given my history with his movies, I'm not going to drop $20 to find out!
Posted by: Neil | June 14, 2008 1:19 PM
I also get the impression that Shyamalamalama is over-rated.
For some reason, though, reading Cordova's drivel on UD about The Happening reminded me of a superb BBC TV mini-series from the 1980's called Edge of Darkness which is now being made into a movie with Mel Gibson in the lead.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | June 14, 2008 1:19 PM
This is exactly the kind of stuff that keeps the masses so deluded with the supernatural.
It may look stupid and innocent to some, because, "it's just a movie", but it still has some of the most pernicious and detrimental effects, especially if it's good entertainment.
Posted by: negentropyeater | June 14, 2008 1:27 PM
Two friends of mine saw the Happening last night. myself and two others saw The Hulk instead. The ones who saw the Happening gave it a so-so review. The Hulk, on the other hand, was freaking awesome. reading these links I am doubly sure my cinema choice was the right one.
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | June 14, 2008 1:28 PM
While many lament his movies I can't totally rip on Shyamalan. At least he's trying! It seems that all we get out of the rest of Hollywood these days is crappy remakes of old favorites. There hasn't been a new idea in Hollywood since the 80's.
Posted by: jeff Lestina | June 14, 2008 1:29 PM
"Shyamalamadingdong"
Oh no you didn't!
Posted by: Niobe | June 14, 2008 1:32 PM
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
I took a gang of kids to the Megaplex yesterday and between movies we ducked into The Happening for awhile. I was hoping to catch some of that really creepy Mayhem like in the trailer. But we only caught the last schmaltzy "Here Comes the Sun" last 12 minutes.
It did however explain the plot mechanics while wrapping up.
A 'neuro toxin' sweeps the northeastern US on the wind, it was compared to a Red Tide (which is not a neurotoxin)only on land instead of sea. I guess it's a gas.
I makes people confused then crazy then violent, we missed that part DARN!!.
Somehow, by the end of the movie a 'scientist' figured out it is not a man-made but natural. The movie spans a very short period. A goofy talking head scientist is trying to explain on the TV that it is essentially an anti-biotic being produced by nature, or the planet or whatever, because hyoomans have become hazardous to nature, so nature has evolved this.... whatever it is.
It is definitly along the GAIA lines of thinking, however I caught no suggestion of intelligent design, or Christard alerts.
Of course, the scientist is being pooh-poohed, and then there is a twist at the end, that I assume is designed to affirm the worst, and the scientist is correct.
As far as Hollywood plot devices, it is far less ridiculous than most movies of this type, nothing to get excited about, and I must admit, the guy really knows how to use a camera, which is quite unusual these days. I will probably rent the DVD some day.
The kids picked ZOHAN, much to my disappointment, I can't stand Adam Sandler movies.
I was shocked, that movie is REALLY funny, I'd give it 4 stars for a comedy, I laughed my ass off.
It doesn't take itself seriously for even one minute of screen time.
Defintly a must-rent, and is anti-Zionist safe for the most part.
We were going to hang out for THE HULK but it was too long to wait, so we didn't see it.
Posted by: scooter | June 14, 2008 1:34 PM
It's well known that there's only one thing Shyamalan can do.
Posted by: Andrés | June 14, 2008 1:43 PM
Shyamalan is without a shadow of a doubt one of the greatest thinkers of all time. His films are -- each and every one of them -- deftly built repositories of jaw-droppingly profound insights. He has taken human thought to spectacular heights that were previously undreamt of.
It is certain that Shyamalan's latest movie will stand as one of the great events in the history of science.
Posted by: J | June 14, 2008 1:45 PM
The you will LOVE this
Homeland Security Apocalyptic Zombie Attack Alert, 8 mins How to survive a Zombie attack, starts 30 seconds in.
"This is NOT a duct tape and plastic situation!!"
Posted by: scooter | June 14, 2008 1:58 PM
I really liked Signs (apart from the ending), when I first watched it it really scared me... and then he wrecked the whole film in the last 10 minutes.
Posted by: eyeofhorus | June 14, 2008 2:00 PM
Why do they escape from the city to the countryside if plants are trying to kill them? Is the toxin coming from potted plants?
Posted by: windy | June 14, 2008 2:01 PM
J -
You are being sarcastic, right? He had one good movie - The 6th Sense. I'll give him an A for creativity, but he fails to produce a truly thought provoking film because the logic and science runs into the realm of Comic Book thinking almost immediately.
Posted by: Steve | June 14, 2008 2:01 PM
Seems Shyamalan had only one good movie in him. It was a perfect series with the "5th Element" too.
This really jumped out to me:
Is he serious? Einstein was wasting the later part of his life in search of a theory that would replace QM's view of "shit happens" with another explanation.
Syamalan is just another religious nut who can't acknowledge his contradictions.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson. OM | June 14, 2008 2:02 PM
I saw this last night. The movie is all introduction. I kept waiting for something to happen, but nothing ever did. I was wondering what the Shyamalanic plot twist was going to be, but there wasn't even one of those --- his first movie without a twist. It is as if there was an editing mistake which cut out the last quarter of the film. Seriously, I don't get it.
Posted by: Jors | June 14, 2008 2:03 PM
I, unfortunatly, actually saw the movie last night. I previews had me pretty excited about it, and I managed to convince my bf to see it with me. Big mistake...I can without a doubt say it was one of the 5 worst movies I have seen in my life. My bf said that he had heard it was supposed to be B-movie-esque, but you'd never guess that from watching it. It was just horrible...the acting was over the top, the script was bad (although there were a few funny parts), and it was nothing like what the previews had me thinking. I give it a big D-.
Posted by: eric | June 14, 2008 2:06 PM
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
#31 - The plants are attacking large groups of people (cities), then smaller and smaller groups (towns, villages), so the safest places would seem to be the unpopulated areas...
Outrun the wind people, outrun the wind...
Posted by: eric | June 14, 2008 2:10 PM
"Shyamalan needs to be slapped silly next time he tries to invent a plot..."
---How would you know when to stop slapping him?
Posted by: Milo Johnson | June 14, 2008 2:14 PM
It's worse than I thought, but just as I've suspected, it's the goddam vegetarians that are going to bring about the endTimes.
Posted by: scooter | June 14, 2008 2:18 PM
While the plot is still fairly woo-ish
I'm a pretty hard core skeptic, but I don't use the term woo for works of fiction. I laughed out loud when Dawkins criticized The X Files for having actual paranormal happenings. Gee, I guess it's a good idea The X Files never touted itself as science fact. Duh. Seriously, I wanted to bitch slap him.
Fantasy is fantasy. All you should ask of it is that it is internally consistent because that's just good storytelling.
I shocked her by guessing the ending in a second
I guessed it from the trailer, but still enjoyed the film. I liked to watch how he obfuscated the state of the Bruce Willis character.
It's easy to appear highbrow in our not-so-literate culture.
Sadly, it's also easy for many people to *think* they are high brow, or that being high brow is more important than anything else.
ObHighBrow: Did you know the term "high brow" come from Phrenology, a pseudoscience? ;-) I'm just sayin...
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | June 14, 2008 2:20 PM
"Avowed Christian Shyamalan told us that The Happening is really about religious faith, and explained that he chose Mark Wahlberg to play science teacher Elliot Moore because of the actor's intense belief in Jesus"
Was that before or after he was pretending to have a 14 inch man hose, and snorting massive amounts of Coke in Boogie Nights?
I'm just sayin...
Posted by: T&A | June 14, 2008 2:23 PM
Saw it..terrible. I don't even know what anyone could 'read into' it. It was just a mush of...no actual plot or message or anything I could determine. People dying because they pissed off plants, or nature, or god, or something??? Maybe.
It's like a post-apocalyptic zombie movie, without the post-apocalyptic part and no zombies. Whoever paid to get this movie made needs rehab.
The new Hulk was great! At least the ending of that movie is worth watching. ;)
Posted by: KeaponLaffin | June 14, 2008 2:26 PM
"Wahlberg is apparently quite a lot worse than just a Jesus kook. He apparently committed a string of racist hate crimes in his thug youth. Not borderline hate crimes, but felony assault hate crimes"
Eh. Probably fairly typical considering where and when he grew up. Boston is, after all, the location where that famous photo was taken, which appears to show a group of young white thugs about to spear a black man in a suit with an American flag on a pole. (Actually, the flag pole was going to be used as a club, but it didn't really connect. The photo looks like the guy is about to be impaled.)
That photo was taken only ten years before these cases Wahlberg was involved in, so it should not be surprising that there'd be a lot of racial animus among poor whites. I bet plenty of his peers never moved past that, and may still be in jail.
Apart from his choice of films to work in, he doesn't seem to be a problem adult. He did some stupid shit as a teenager. Big deal, that was 20 years ago.
Sadly, it was his music career (and that of New Kids On The Block) that made it possible for him to get out of the 'hood and change his life, and I don't know if I can forgive *that*.
Posted by: Jon H | June 14, 2008 2:27 PM
A movie by M. Night Shabba-Doo, now THAT would be something:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml-UAhrS378&NR=1
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 14, 2008 2:27 PM
negentropyeater @ 22 -- If you're saying that supernatural-themed movies promote supernatural beliefs among their viewers, I disagree. That seems like the same logic used to ban Harry Potter books on the grounds that they lead children to the occult, and to claim music and movies and video games cause antisocial behavior. I'm not aware that there's any conclusive evidence of any of those things.
I haven't seen The Happening, and won't until it comes on television and I can mock it for free, but I suspect the most it's guilty of is being a hilariously bad movie. One reviewer said it was "so bad that I feel compelled to make a spoiler-laden list of its most laughably terrible parts rather than review it." There are eighteen points on the list.
I couldn't care less what Shyamalan's religious affiliations are. I just wish he'd make good movies.
Posted by: Julia | June 14, 2008 2:28 PM
I don't think there's been a film of Shyamalan's that I've had any interest in seeing since the reviews came in for The Sixth Sense. Sorry you'll have to see this, but it might provide unexpected amusement, and you'll understand the jokes in the next edition of Scary Movie.
Posted by: Cujo359 | June 14, 2008 2:37 PM
I thought he objected to the paranormal explanation winning over science every time, not to fiction about paranormal events as such.
But yeah, most of the time these objections just end up sounding ridiculous, I remember Carl Sagan objecting to Beavis and Butt-Head ;)
Posted by: windy | June 14, 2008 2:44 PM
Julia@44 - I think what negentropyeater was trying to say was that this sort of movie can reinforce the beliefs of someone who already believes in that stuff. If that's the case, then I agree with him/her.
I doubt it convinces people to believe who wouldn't otherwise.
Whether that's a reason to be concerned about such movies is an open question.
Posted by: Cujo359 | June 14, 2008 2:47 PM
Posted by: alex | June 14, 2008 3:07 PM
"Shyamalamadingdong"
Ah, come on PZ. Poking fun at people's names isn't very classy.
Posted by: JoshH | June 14, 2008 3:24 PM
The Happening was probably one of the worst movies I've seen in about three years. Only Shamawholelot could take Walberg and turn him into a corny, bumbling 1950s stooge posing as a high school science teacher to achieve his "aww, schucks" ending of peace and love. ALL of the acting was horrible, the plot was messy, illogical and absurd. The humor was out of place, especially after some scenes, like two little kids getting blasted away with a shotgun. The woes go on and on. I really, really wanted my money back.
Posted by: Keith B | June 14, 2008 3:25 PM
C'mon, The Incredible Hulk is out! This movie shouldn't even get any press. Anyway, I was walking past the theater (in Boston) Thursday, and Mark Wahlberg was there for this movie, but there wasn't that big of a crowd around him. I'd already met him once before, but if I'd known he was crazy Jesus, I would have tried to meet him again.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 14, 2008 3:29 PM
Well, there is at least one future movie he's gonna make that's gonna be good... hopefully. "The Last Airbender", an adaptation of what could be called one of the best animated adventure stories ever.
I hope he doesn't totally butcher that story :-\
Posted by: Em | June 14, 2008 3:32 PM
Exactly. Just keeps the delusions well rooted.
What do you think happens when one who is already deluded views this movie ? How does he interpret the whole thing ? Does he think, oh this is just a movie, just fabulation, or does he think, oh, there's some "truthiness" in this ?
Isn't this one nice positive reinforcement ?
American TV & Movies are laden with these pernicious positive reinforcements. Way more than European ones. It's so obvious when you compare the two. I'm quite certain that this has a very significant effect on keeping these delusions so well rooted in the American society.
Posted by: negentropyeater | June 14, 2008 3:39 PM
I found the plot of The Happening far more believable than the Science Fiction Fantasy playing on all TV channels after returning home.
The preposterous premise was that....
.... you won't believe it,
"Tim Russert was a 'Journalist!!!!!"
And people call Scientology crazy.
I guess "being on TV" now means 'journalist'
Sort of like
Eternal Salvation or triple your money back
I'll say one thing about old dead Tim, he wasn't afraid to speak power to truth.
Russert --if it sounds like a potato, and looks like a potato, it's probably a potato.
Posted by: scooter | June 14, 2008 4:01 PM
John H-
"Sadly, it was his music career (and that of New Kids On The Block) that made it possible for him to get out of the 'hood and change his life, and I don't know if I can forgive *that*."
You seem to be confusing Mark with his brother Donnie, who was the one in New Kids. Mark strutted around half-naked in Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch. But he did it in a very Jesus-affirming way.
Posted by: Andrew | June 14, 2008 4:02 PM
American TV & Movies are laden with these pernicious positive reinforcements. Way more than European ones. It's
Yeah, yeah, Europe is Virtuous and America is hopeless all-around. We get it the picture -- there's no need to clarify.
Can we for a change have a thread in which people refrain from airing their dirty anti-American laundry?
Posted by: J | June 14, 2008 4:09 PM
Well I hadn't intended on seeing the movie anyway but I never thought it'd be so boring as all this. The science bull didn't help.
The twist I predicted ended up being far more interesting. I thought it would be something like "there is no disease or attack, everyone is killing themselves out of despair over the fear of the virus getting them next".
Posted by: Dark Jaguar | June 14, 2008 4:23 PM
Well I saw this last night.
Forget the crimes against science, the film is simply awful. The acting is atrocious, the dialog is awful. It was so bad, that people in the cinema I was at in Cambridge were actually laughing themselves silly.
@J: God you Americans are sensitive ;)
Posted by: Martin | June 14, 2008 4:25 PM
My bf said that he had heard it was supposed to be B-movie-esque, but you'd never guess that from watching it. It was just horrible...the acting was over the top, the script was bad (although there were a few funny parts),...
over the top acting, bad script, doesn't that define a "B" movie? Yes, Shamylan says he was trying to make a 50's style B SF/Horror movie. And BTW, not the first with no "twist" ending, Lady in the Water didn't have a twist.
Posted by: SteveM | June 14, 2008 4:27 PM
J,
it's not a question of virtous and hopeless. Many American movies are great.
Why do you need to always come with such ridiculous strawman ? Why do you always have to interpret positive criticism about your country as "America is hopeless all-around".
You need to seriously get rid of your anti-american paranoia.
Posted by: negentropyeater | June 14, 2008 4:29 PM
sorry meant constructive criticism (is that english ?)
Posted by: negentropyeater | June 14, 2008 4:34 PM
What I've found odd is that the ads for this movie trumpet "His first R-rated picture!" This is the first time I can recall hearing the rating used as a selling point.
Posted by: Nemo | June 14, 2008 4:59 PM
Yeah. Unbreakable was fun. Sixth Sense was dopey but visually fun. The rest are annoying crap.
Posted by: craig | June 14, 2008 5:11 PM
J: If you don't want people to think you're a right-winger (as I read in another thread), then stop throwing the term "anti-American" about. It's meaningless and silly.
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 14, 2008 5:27 PM
this film will perhaps be like cloverfield (which i saw last week) with many people looking for explanations, explanations far above and below the celluloid.
I saw 'that' bloody thing drop into the sea the first time round at the end of cloverfield and that was enough for me to think 'ah, an alien drops into the sea and hatches' and the rest is no more significant (though nicely done) than a dog strolling through a bug filled meadow but thats cool as the meadow was new york and all that.
Cloverfield has its viral marketing fetishists pummeling away with all manner of explanations for the craetures origin BUT like this film and many other the general populus is forgetting one highly significant thing.............its just a bloody film, its relevance to reality is pretty much zero.
Posted by: extatyzoma | June 14, 2008 5:29 PM
The last Shama-lama-ding-dong movie I watched was Signs, which my wife and I stopped at a theater on a hot summer day, driving back from vacation, and it was the only thing we'd sit through and regretted it. It was a horrible movie. His stupid "surprise twist endings" are really idiotic. Sixth Sense was good, although not as surprising as most people act like it was. Unbreakable was bearable. Everything beyond that is garbage and I'd never even rent one of his crappy movies these days.
But then, we all know most people are ignorant, stupid sheep, so...
Posted by: Cephus | June 14, 2008 5:30 PM
You may enjoy the Guardian review here.
My favourite part?
"Elliott superciliously drones that: "Science will come up with some reason to put in the books but in the end it'll just be a theory. We will fail to acknowledge that there are forces at work beyond our understanding." For this typically fatuous anti-rational, anti-scientific piece of smuggery, Shyamalan deserves a clip round the ear."
Oddly enough, this is precisely the bit in the trailer that had my girlfriend and I making V signs at the screen (note to Americans - in the UK the two finger V sign is the equivalent of a raised middle finger).
Posted by: Tim | June 14, 2008 5:32 PM
God you Americans are sensitive ;)
A totally unfounded assumption, probably betraying yet more anti-Americanism. I'm not an American.
Posted by: J | June 14, 2008 5:39 PM
I thought everyone had been calling him Shama-lama-etc. since at least "Signs". It's not exactly clever.
"Gotcha! I was M. Night Shymalan all along. Just kidding, I was a mascot! Just kidding, I was a forest fire!"
http://www.picnicface.com/videos.php?videoID=50
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 14, 2008 5:43 PM
Andrew wrote: "You seem to be confusing Mark with his brother Donnie, who was the one in New Kids. Mark strutted around half-naked in Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch. But he did it in a very Jesus-affirming way."
Nah, no confusion, I just assume that NKOTB's success helped pave the way for Mark's recording career.
Posted by: Jon H | June 14, 2008 5:44 PM
In the UK the most listened to film critic is Mark Kermode.... his BBC radio show covered "The Happening" in gory and funny detail on Friday.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/fivelive/kermode/kermode_20080613-1824.mp3
It's a must listen show for all proper film fans, great for the car.
Posted by: deviljelly | June 14, 2008 5:49 PM
Consider it butchered. Why does it need *adaptation* anyway?
Posted by: Kerry Maxwell | June 14, 2008 6:27 PM
Yo PZ! Credit where it's due! I totally scooped you on this one :-) -
http://acandidworld.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/m-night-shyamalan-science-is-just-a-theory/
Posted by: Ames | June 14, 2008 7:14 PM
The Happening is just the latest in, not only M. Night's string of failures, but Hollywood's assembly line of "cool trailers, crap movie".
Posted by: Martin | June 14, 2008 7:22 PM
J: I'm not an American
but you appear to be channeling an american neocon...
Posted by: tony (not a vegan) | June 14, 2008 7:32 PM
I saw it last night and while it was entertaining, I DID go into it with zero expectations. I was just pleased that nobody punched me in the stomach during the movie.
It really was stupid, though, and the acting was just bizarre. And there's the really groan-worthy line about science coming up with an explanation to put in the books, but it'll "only be just a theory."
*Sigh*
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | June 14, 2008 7:33 PM
I quite liked the first 95% of "Signs". The ending was crap, though.
The fun part was this: A friend and my wacky roommate and I drove the eight miles back home after the movie, late at night. Not a normally scary drive, but it was fun to continue being a little bit freaked out after the movie. My roommate suddenly said, "Oh! Look at the lights!" and we pshawed! him. However, we did look, and saw an incredible Aurora Borealis that night, the best I've ever seen in WA state. Eerie.
Posted by: co | June 14, 2008 7:41 PM
I was gonna watch this movie when it came out on bluray, but just because I already ran out of good bluray or (sigh) HD-DVD movies to rent, so I'm just watching anything I wouldn't have seen otherwise (the Harry Potter movies were a nice surprise in this case). I refuse to watch any more standard-definition movies!
I didn't even like Sixth Sense that much. I saw Alejandro Amenábar's The Others and it was so much better done, but probably suffered from being released after Sixth Sense. I am a big fan of Amenábar's. That guy is what Shyamalan would like to be, y'know, but without the unwarranted hype.
Posted by: andyo | June 14, 2008 8:06 PM
> Consider it butchered. Why does it need *adaptation* anyway?
Apparently, from what I've read, his kids like the show, so he decided to make it into a live-action movie. The creators of the show are collaborating with him on the movie, so hopefully maybe possibly perhaps it won't get butchered too badly?
*naive optimism*
Posted by: Em | June 14, 2008 8:08 PM
YEA! I knew I wouldn't have to wait too long for you to hear about it!
Posted by: K | June 14, 2008 8:09 PM
If you don't want people to think you're a right-winger (as I read in another thread), then stop throwing the term "anti-American" about. It's meaningless and silly.
It's not silly and meaningless. Someone who uses a thread like this as an excuse to start denouncing America obviously has an anti-American bee in his bonnet.
Right-wingers use the term "anti-American" far too freely (e.g. by stamping it on those who are against the Iraq war). I, on the contrary, have good justification to use it.
Posted by: J | June 14, 2008 8:18 PM
I have only heard a little about The Happening. The way I understand it, there is an airborne neurotoxin that makes people commit bizarre suicides. It sounds like a poorly thought out, crappy knock off of The Andromeda Strain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Andromeda_Strain , similar to "Snakes on a Train" or "I Am Omega".
Posted by: MtotheJ | June 14, 2008 8:20 PM
You are being sarcastic, right?
Don't be absurd. Of course I'm not being sarcastic. The undeniable truth, plain for everyone to see, is that Shyamalan is one of the supreme intellects in history. His latest movie is nothing less than a collossal triumph of science and philosophy. This titanic genius has the analytical brilliance of Russell, the imagination of Einstein, the inventiveness of Newton, the mathematical legerdemain of Gauss, and the experimental tenacity of Darwin. Shyamalan transgresses the limits on what is humanly or even logically possible. The Happening has without question ushered in a new era of human thought.
Posted by: J | June 14, 2008 8:26 PM
Maybe we need Anthony Quinn, George Maharis, Michael Parks, Faye Dunaway, and The Supremes to get back at him!
Posted by: antaresrichard | June 14, 2008 8:57 PM
To repeat myself, DON'T YOU EVER SEE OR TALK ABOUT A GOOD MOVIE?
I'm all for entertainment, but why the exclusive focus on Hollywood "blockbuster" crap!!!! I mean, the fucking PooC3!!! IJ&tCS!!!
Let's talk about something interesting (The Thin Blue Line?), or moving (Ikiru?), or controversial (Battle Royale?), really fun (Singing in the Rain?), at least sometimes.
Why do the science bloggers and their followers have such crappy taste in film (and music too, usually)? I can only think it's because they don't know any better, (kind of like most creationists?).
Posted by: Sioux Laris | June 14, 2008 8:57 PM
I was caught by the twist in The Sixth Sense but I saw it early on and wasn't thinking about it - unlike, say, Fight Club where I was determined to pick it to prove a point.
A lot of movies would have been far better if part of the marketing hadn't involved giving away the twist.
warning: mild spoiler alerts
I liked Terminator 2 (though still prefer the first for originality and appropriate use of Arnie's skills) but would have jumped up out of my seat at the key point in the asylum breakout scene if I hadn't already known Arnie was the 'good guy' - which is how I suspect was intended. Unfortunately, they made that the selling point and it took away a valuable 'punch to the gut'.
Ditto The Island - if we hadn't known the key plot points and had had a revelation halfway through the movie might've been better received. That, and if Scarlett had been allowed to show more skin like she'd wanted to...
end spoilers
At least Shamalamadingdong (we've been calling him that for years, too) managed to keep his 'twists' from being given away in the trailers and promo material.
I won't see this turkey, though. I gave up on him after The Village.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 14, 2008 9:05 PM