Forums Horror Movie Reviews
THE HAPPENING - Could This Really Be Happening? (Review)

Alright so I went to the store the other day to see what horror movies would be on sale and stuff to get low and behold The Happening was on sale for $5, so I picked myself up a copy not fully knowing what I was getting myself into and hoped for the best.



Here is the storyline brought to you by IMDB "A strange, horrible and unprecedented cris begins in Central Park. A high school science teacher, his wife and a young girl do what they can to survive it."

By the way people this is an M. Night Shyamalan film...

One minute into the film the acting already reeked beyond belief... In fact through out the rest of this movie the acting stunk. M. Night really shot himself in the face here with this film; it seems like it was rushed when being made... which should never be done.

Continuity is key but apparently the audience won't seem to notice that the two women of the group following the lead characters in the spilt up turn into guys in the next scene... The she now hes as seen in this picture below...

Air born illness comes what do you do?

A. Runaway to the next town B. t it out and hope for the best C. Get ahold of a f*cking gas mask and put the thing on!!!

If you answered C. you are correct....

These ladies definitely know how to survive an air born epidemic.

One thing I will say is I do appreciate the concept of this film; for some reason I enjoy epidemic films and another thing... now I want a mood ring because those things are just too epic and fun to play with...

Rating? I give this film a 4 out of 10.... this film desperately needs to be remade with better actors and directing.

I agree with you that the concept is fun! It's a pity it failed so badly. I did really like one scene though - when they're holed up at the old lady's house and she starts smashing her head into the windows. That was kind of creepy!

someone probably should have given you a heads up in advance here: the acting is wooden intentionally. Shyamalan wanted to shoot a throwback homage flick that had a 1950's feel, so he straight up had his performers attempt to deliver their lines with a vintage "stiff" feel. It actually worked quite well, as there's DEFINITELY a "Golly geeze!" element to the acting. The problem is, Shyamalan REALLY needed to make it better known that that's what he was going for - he stated it a few times, but when you're attempting something so bold, you better have your face everywhere, telling EVERYONE and their mother that is your intention, otherwise, it's really easy to just go "holy shit, how did every ngle one of these actors forget how to do their job for this flick?"

I don't love this film by any stretch of the imagination. I would certainly conder it Shyamalan's weakest effort behind that POS kid movie he just did that looked like a bad cartoon.

Still fucking LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEE Zooey Deschanel. She could probably stare at a wall for 90 minutes and I'd watch it. There's something crazy sexy about hot "nerdy" girls.

By the way, the R rating is a complete joke, and Shyamalan shouldn't have folded under the pressure from the producers - he fought tooth and nail to keep it pg-13, but the studio pushed for an R (believe it or not) hoping to draw a new field of viewers in, as Shyamalan's movies had statistically been faring worse with each new offering. It didn't work obviously, and there was nothing to this movie that even warrants pretending it's an R film. It was honestly barely a PG-13 flick.

Talk about a buness backfire. i'll bet somewhere inde, Shyamalan got a little laugh out of it, despite the films obvious failing.

someone probably should have given you a heads up in advance here: the acting is wooden intentionally. Shyamalan wanted to shoot a throwback homage flick that had a 1950's feel, so he straight up had his performers attempt to deliver their lines with a vintage "stiff" feel. It actually worked quite well, as there's DEFINITELY a "Golly geeze!" element to the acting. The problem is, Shyamalan REALLY needed to make it better known that that's what he was going for - he stated it a few times, but when you're attempting something so bold, you better have your face everywhere, telling EVERYONE and their mother that is your intention, otherwise, it's really easy to just go "holy shit, how did every ngle one of these actors forget how to do their job for this flick?"

I didn't find the acting to be particularly stiff at all. I thought John Leguizamo in particular did a great job - he is so good and so overlooked in nearly everything he does, it's pathetic. Something just felt off about the whole thing, however. I don't think it's as bad as it's often made out to be, but the dialogue can be a bit stodgy at times and I've always had trouble buying Wahlberg as the hero in anything outde a comedy.

someone probably should have given you a heads up in advance here: the acting is wooden intentionally. Shyamalan wanted to shoot a throwback homage flick that had a 1950's feel, so he straight up had his performers attempt to deliver their lines with a vintage "stiff" feel. It actually worked quite well, as there's DEFINITELY a "Golly geeze!" element to the acting. The problem is, Shyamalan REALLY needed to make it better known that that's what he was going for - he stated it a few times, but when you're attempting something so bold, you better have your face everywhere, telling EVERYONE and their mother that is your intention, otherwise, it's really easy to just go "holy shit, how did every ngle one of these actors forget how to do their job for this flick?"

I didn't find the acting to be particularly stiff at all. I thought John Leguizamo in particular did a great job - he is so good and so overlooked in nearly everything he does, it's pathetic. Something just felt off about the whole thing, however. I don't think it's as bad as it's often made out to be, but the dialogue can be a bit stodgy at times and I've always had trouble buying Wahlberg as the hero in anything outde a comedy.

I certainly found it stiff (and in certain spots I actually love just how far they took it), but then, I knew to look for it from early interviews with Shyamalan, so I may well have had my eyes open for that from the jump.

Wahlberg a lead in comedy? Isn't he only supposed to be funny in like two movies? The other Guys and Departed?

He was fucking awesome in the Lovely bones, Shooter, Boogie Nights, The Perfect Storm, The Fighter and Three Kings. I actually think the guy is one of the most undeserving of the hatred he gets. The guy can act (all films listed are pretty damn fine examples of that IMO), but you'd swear he's one of the worst in the buness when you read a lot of generalized opinion about him.

Wahlberg a lead in comedy? Isn't he only supposed to be funny in like two movies?

Rock Star, The Big Hit, Renaissance Man (supporting in a drama, ok, but comedic as well), etc.

I've just never been terribly impressed with the guy. Opinions, they are allowed. There are a lot of people who get laid into for whatever reason and with this guy, I think a lot of it comes from his perceived attitude. I think we're all inclined to see or not see films if they're starring people we "like" or not, and public image helps to shape that a lot.

So bad its good. Also, i agree with @Matt about Deschanel.

I actually love this movie. Sure it's flawed but I love the overall feel of the flick. James Newton Howard's score is incredible and the whole building mystery and creepiness of the first half of the film is great!

And I agree with Matt, the acting is intentional. It's exactly like a 1950s B-flick!