Comments on: ‘The Happening’ Is Somewhere In Between ‘Signs’ and ‘Lady in the Water’ http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/reviews/the-happening-is-somewhere-in-between-signs-and-lady-in-the-water.php A Website About Movies Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:16:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: TopDogHoncho http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/reviews/the-happening-is-somewhere-in-between-signs-and-lady-in-the-water.php/comment-page-1#comment-97917 TopDogHoncho Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:07:19 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=7545#comment-97917 This movie was terrible. Talk about over-doing it with the exposition. Because M. Knight is so know for twists that he has to hammer it down the audiences' throats that the plants did it, the plants did it. after the 5th time, my eyes rolled so much I became momentarily blind. This movie was terrible. Talk about over-doing it with the exposition. Because M. Knight is so know for twists that he has to hammer it down the audiences’ throats that the plants did it, the plants did it. after the 5th time, my eyes rolled so much I became momentarily blind.

]]> By: TopDogHoncho http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/reviews/the-happening-is-somewhere-in-between-signs-and-lady-in-the-water.php/comment-page-1#comment-193222 TopDogHoncho Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:07:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=7545#comment-193222 This movie was terrible. Talk about over-doing it with the exposition. Because M. Knight is so know for twists that he has to hammer it down the audiences' throats that the plants did it, the plants did it. after the 5th time, my eyes rolled so much I became momentarily blind. This movie was terrible. Talk about over-doing it with the exposition. Because M. Knight is so know for twists that he has to hammer it down the audiences’ throats that the plants did it, the plants did it. after the 5th time, my eyes rolled so much I became momentarily blind.

]]> By: efrain http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/reviews/the-happening-is-somewhere-in-between-signs-and-lady-in-the-water.php/comment-page-1#comment-97496 efrain Sun, 15 Jun 2008 06:58:35 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=7545#comment-97496 i don't think the environmental message is the only focus; shyamalan was also trying to convey the simple story of love - and the commitment, the "personal responsibility" that it must become when relating to each other and the environment. i also don't think that the plot has to be explained. Why must everything have a rational and logical explanation in movies? Sure most fantasy/horror/monster movies have some type of explanation for the phenomena, but why? Shyamalan hearkens to an era of filmmaking where the movies just told a story and gave a message to audiences without having to explain every friggin detail in accurate modern science. I mean, c'mon, there have been plenty of movies made in recent years that don't have scientifically accurate or adequate explanations, but people watch them and it doesn't really matter (Jeepers Creepers, The Mist, even Shyamalan's own Signs). Besides, it's a movie containing fantasy elements - why must it be confined to the limitations of reality? Okay I'm blabbing, but I liked The Happening, and I love how he isn't afraid to put blatant messages among the moviegoer-loving thrills. Because his movies are never really about the big unreal catastrophes or spooky elements; they're always about the very real human drama and personal conflict. i don’t think the environmental message is the only focus; shyamalan was also trying to
convey the simple story of love – and the commitment, the “personal responsibility” that
it must become when relating to each other and the environment.

i also don’t think that the plot has to be explained. Why must everything have a rational
and logical explanation in movies? Sure most fantasy/horror/monster movies have some
type of explanation for the phenomena, but why? Shyamalan hearkens to an era of
filmmaking where the movies just told a story and gave a message to audiences without
having to explain every friggin detail in accurate modern science. I mean, c’mon, there
have been plenty of movies made in recent years that don’t have scientifically accurate or
adequate explanations, but people watch them and it doesn’t really matter (Jeepers
Creepers, The Mist, even Shyamalan’s own Signs).
Besides, it’s a movie containing fantasy elements – why must it be confined to the
limitations of reality?

Okay I’m blabbing, but I liked The Happening, and I love how he isn’t afraid to put blatant
messages among the moviegoer-loving thrills. Because his movies are never really
about the big unreal catastrophes or spooky elements; they’re always about the very real
human drama and personal conflict.

]]> By: efrain http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/reviews/the-happening-is-somewhere-in-between-signs-and-lady-in-the-water.php/comment-page-1#comment-193221 efrain Sun, 15 Jun 2008 06:58:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=7545#comment-193221 i don't think the environmental message is the only focus; shyamalan was also trying to convey the simple story of love - and the commitment, the "personal responsibility" that it must become when relating to each other and the environment. i also don't think that the plot has to be explained. Why must everything have a rational and logical explanation in movies? Sure most fantasy/horror/monster movies have some type of explanation for the phenomena, but why? Shyamalan hearkens to an era of filmmaking where the movies just told a story and gave a message to audiences without having to explain every friggin detail in accurate modern science. I mean, c'mon, there have been plenty of movies made in recent years that don't have scientifically accurate or adequate explanations, but people watch them and it doesn't really matter (Jeepers Creepers, The Mist, even Shyamalan's own Signs). Besides, it's a movie containing fantasy elements - why must it be confined to the limitations of reality? Okay I'm blabbing, but I liked The Happening, and I love how he isn't afraid to put blatant messages among the moviegoer-loving thrills. Because his movies are never really about the big unreal catastrophes or spooky elements; they're always about the very real human drama and personal conflict. i don’t think the environmental message is the only focus; shyamalan was also trying to
convey the simple story of love – and the commitment, the “personal responsibility” that
it must become when relating to each other and the environment.

i also don’t think that the plot has to be explained. Why must everything have a rational
and logical explanation in movies? Sure most fantasy/horror/monster movies have some
type of explanation for the phenomena, but why? Shyamalan hearkens to an era of
filmmaking where the movies just told a story and gave a message to audiences without
having to explain every friggin detail in accurate modern science. I mean, c’mon, there
have been plenty of movies made in recent years that don’t have scientifically accurate or
adequate explanations, but people watch them and it doesn’t really matter (Jeepers
Creepers, The Mist, even Shyamalan’s own Signs).
Besides, it’s a movie containing fantasy elements – why must it be confined to the
limitations of reality?

Okay I’m blabbing, but I liked The Happening, and I love how he isn’t afraid to put blatant
messages among the moviegoer-loving thrills. Because his movies are never really
about the big unreal catastrophes or spooky elements; they’re always about the very real
human drama and personal conflict.

]]>