tvthatdoesntsuck

Like I did with the Katherine Heigl Emmy business (read: bulls–t), I’m going to occasionally comment on tv/film things I see going on.  And today is one of those occasions.  So I’ll leave you hanging for one more day about what my final “TV To Watch in F’08-S’09″ will be and instead talk about one of the worst displays of ambushing a film I’ve seen in… well, just a sec, let me think.  Ever.  I’m talking about The Happening.  I’m talking about how every critic except Roger Ebert is doing their best to make sure no one sees M. Night Shyamalan’s most recent film.

WHAT THE CRITICS ARE DOING:  No matter how good a trailer looks, no matter how big the names in the cast list are, the biggest vehicle for box office sales is WORD OF MOUTH.  Positive word of mouth could turn a slumper movie into a sleeper hit.  Positive word of mouth could do the Junoeffect and pretty much show everyone how great that movie-they-never-gave-a-chance really is.  Negative word of mouth, however, gets the idea in potential mover goers heads that this movie sucks. Those people, even though they haven’t seen the movie, will be extra scared about spending $10 to see a movie that just might sucks.  And, as we all know, people as a rule tend to exaggerate, so it turns from “I heard this wasn’t so good” to “See The Happening?  Yeah, right, that movie sucks.”  So in generating negative reviews at the start of The Happening’s stint at the big B.O., the critics are ensure that Shyamalan’s movie will see a second week slump on opening night.  Why do I think these critics are doing this?  Am I conspiracy theory dude?  Nah, just read the next category.  Or, better yet, read three of the most scathing reviews.  Then read Roger Ebert’s more balanced, unbiased, and true review.  Then see the movie.  You’ll see what I mean.

WHY THEY’RE DOING IT:  He got a bit pretentious in Lady in the Water, to the point where he sort of lashed out at critics for panning his previous effort, The Village.  Read about it here.

WHY YOU SHOULD STILL SEE “THE HAPPENING”: Oh, many reasons.  First of which to show critics that they can’t control what we’re going to view because of a personal agenda they have against a director.  Second, it’s a good movie.  A damn good movie.  Check out my initial thoughts after watching:

“There is no reason that “The Happening” should be getting one- or two-star reviews.  The writing and directing in this movie, as well as the acting, is strong and some of the best we’ve seen so far in 2008.  Shyamalan consistently makes five-star, 10/10 movies, though he stumbled a bit with 2006’s “Lady in the Water,” which wasn’t as bad as the critics said it was, but wasn’t nearly as good as his previous hits.  I don’t know if the critics are just biased against him because of his portrayal of movie critics in “Lady in the Water” or if he’s just one of those guys that everyone loves to pick on, but it really says something when the most experienced and intelligent critic—Roger Ebert—is the one critic to give the movie the rating it deserves:  a good rating.

Seeing this movie is a guttural experience.  The scenes of mass suicide—that were often spine-tingling but never felt gratuitous or SAW-like—tapped into base human fears about the environment turning on us and about society losing its order.  Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel (especially her) give top performances and the main characters, a married couple dealing with some problems.  They bring this couple to life with quirks and unusual yet effective performances, humanizing two characters that could have been the clichéd arguing married couple with lesser actors and a lesser writer.  The cinematography is astonishing in some parts and a bit off in others, but the sheer experimental nature of Shyamalan’s direction leaves the audience visually on their toes. 

What a lot of people found fault in was how “The Happening” didn’t shy away from comedy or showing people who are less than normal.  From the “hot dog guy,” to the military man saying “Cheese and crackers,” to the crazy old lady, the heroes of “The Happening” run into many colorful types.  I can understand why this would throw people off, but I found this to be an attraction for more scathing reviews, which I think is silly.  The crazy side-characters in this movie keep it from being boring.  Because, in actuality, we do run into many, many normal people.  In the world we live in, even the regular world, how could there no be people out there with more colorful quirks?  In fact, the only scene in the entire movie that didn’t work for me at all was when Wahlberg’s character was repeating the scientific method to himself while trying to figure out what action to take.  Everything else in the film is superbly done, especially the “coming together” near the end that is just scored so beautifully that it sort of pulls on your heart.

When I saw “Signs,” M. Night Shyamalan pretty much had me hooked for life.  I got a bit weary after “Lady in the Water,” but “The Happening” only served to convince me of what I’ve already known: Most critics, as a rule, are biased to the point of ridiculousness.  “The Happening” is a great movie with high, high re-watchability that I will certainly be buying on DVD the day it comes out.

9/10“

So, if you’re interested in forming your own opinion instead of letting critics write off a movie as junk before giving it a chance, watch The Happening.  If not, maybe you’ll likeYou Can’t Mess with the Zohan* better.

* You could argue that I’m doing the same with “Zohan” that the critics did with “The Happening.”  Only difference is that “Zohan” truly does suck, I know because I saw it last night.  I’m not biased in any way, so– Scratch that.  I am biased.  I freaking love Adam Sandler.  I freaking love Judd Apatow, and recognize him as one of the best new screenwriters and the best producer in the film game right now… but there is no excuse for a movie like this.  When two stars collide, there should be stardust but this movie just stank like straight up poopie.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS