First Trailer For Shyamalan’s THE HAPPENING

Reader Comments

1. Airchinapilot 02/06/2008 @ 2:37pm

   I hope they make sure to take lots of water with them. It’s important to be hydrated.

   Especially when aliens might invade.

2. Garth 02/06/2008 @ 2:43pm

   For the most part, I like the trailer and I think the flick should be good, but the use of the word “happening” twice in the trailer is effing cheesy.  Especially the first time… “There seems to be an event happening.” I don’t think that sentence has ever beent uttered.  Ever.  SO goofy, that dialogue.  But overall, I think it’s cool and I’ll definitely check this out.

3. Swarez 02/06/2008 @ 4:15pm

   Isn’t the word “Happening” used for art performances?

   Anyway this trailer looks damn good and I hope he’s on track after three HUGE letdowns in a row.

4. kevin 02/06/2008 @ 8:05pm

   I think they should have stuck with “The Green Effect”.. Anyway, i love Zooey Deschanel and she’s forced me to watch some pretty boring movies. If this is entertaining in any way it’s just a bonus.

5. Simon Abrams 02/06/2008 @ 8:13pm

   This contain spoilter but only if you consider reading a plot synopsis to be full of spoilers.

   The repetition of “happen” bugs me but more so is the fact that the catalyst to all these mysterious suicides is something about the energy crisis. I don’t disagree with the politics of finding economic sources but using it in such a cheap way to make a political statement from a film where only Americans are committing suicide (I read this off of the wikipedia plot synopsis). It makes me think he’s trying to commit career suicide and this is from a guy that almost tolerated “Lady in the Water.”

6. The Visitor 02/06/2008 @ 8:34pm

   Shyamalan’s definitely better than JJ Abrams or Mike Reeves.

   The Happening’s going to be a grown-up’s disaster movie, unlike that kids’ movie called Cloverfield.

7. Simon Abrams 02/06/2008 @ 9:22pm

   Its Matt Reeves, not Mike and what exactly are you basing this opinion on?

   Why was Cloverfield a “kids’ movie?”

8. Garth 02/06/2008 @ 9:41pm

   I definitely think The Green Effect is a better title.

   What’s this about Cloverfield?  I’m sorry, did you want a grown-up, adult-oriented monster movie?  Instead of destroying New York, should the monster have debated Bloomberg?  I maybe joined the NY political scene and destroyed it from within?

   Jesus, that has to have been one of the most asinine complaints I’ve ever read.  You’re pissed because a fucking MONSTER MOVIE wasn’t grown-up enough for you?

   It was a monster movie, for crying out loud.  If you can’t enjoy it because you’re too “grown up”, then that’s YOUR own damn fault, not JJ Abrams and buddy “Mike” Reeves’ fault.

   Tell me this...what about the trailer, plot synopsis, 20-something casting, viral campaign involving ‘secret recipe’ soft drinks, etc made you think it was going to be anything more than a monster movie?

   Jesus…

9. Garth 02/06/2008 @ 9:42pm

   Or maybe it was the comparisons to Godzilla that made you think it would be more “grown up”.

10. The Visitor 02/06/2008 @ 9:56pm

    hee hee hee.

    now now, like Alfred Hitchcock said, it’s only a movie!

    seriously, have you actually considered what the point is of having the monster in the movie?

    none! it could have been replaced with a major earthquake or an alien invasion. or some other big threat.

    and i could have replaced the actors with ants or termites.

    i do apologise though, for getting Matt’s name wrong. see? i can’t remember his name, let alone his movie!

    (waits for more backlash ... ouch!)

11. ChevalierAguila 02/06/2008 @ 10:03pm

    It’s easy to poke fun at Shyamalan for the simple reason that he makes poorly written-crappy-one-trick-pony disasters of films.

    This one just looks like his usual bag of tricks.

12. Simon Abrams 02/06/2008 @ 10:20pm

    I’m not trying to criticise you for saying you didn’t like “Cloverfield,” I just didn’t think it fair for you to try and dump and run without an explanation.

    With regard to that, I’m still a bit confused as to why “Cloverfield” is a “kid’s movie” in your opinion and I say that with a desire to earnestly understand your claim. What do you mean that it could’ve been anything else other than a monster? What does that mean.

13. The Visitor 02/06/2008 @ 10:25pm

    i don’t know, Chevalier. personally i find his work extremely well-written, his characterisations really great, and every one of his movies have been different.

    what i like most, and look out for in his films, are the big emotional moments, like the conversation in the car between mother and son in The Sixth Sense or the porch scene in The Village. scenes like these are what’s largely lacking in Hollywood movies today. few directors in Hollywood today have the ability, or even dare attempt, such old-fashioned romance or drama.

    like Todd said, Shyamalan never forgets the importance of story and character. so, even when his twists are predictable, or the fantastical elements aren’t too hot, his characters and the emotions always save the day.

14. The Visitor 02/06/2008 @ 10:35pm

    well, Simon, i’m just making a comparison between Shyamalan and other disaster movies, mostly the ones of late like Cloverfield. and put side-by-side with these other movies, Shyamalan’s story and character appear far more complex and developed, for reasons i stated above in my response to Chevalier Aguila. eg, in Signs.

    why the monster could have been anything else? like i said, just replace the monster with any other big threat ... it will be of no consequence to the characters or what happens to them. Godzilla was closely tied to atomic developments and society at the time. the Cloverfield monster, i don’t know.

15. The Visitor 02/06/2008 @ 10:40pm

    oh, and all i said was that Cloverfield is a “kids’ movie.”

    i don’t know why everyone seem to think kids’ movies are not enjoyable or are immediately bad.

16. petcor80 02/06/2008 @ 11:53pm

    Cloverfield is more about a general threat (if you’d like to take it any further than it’s popcorn/kids roots ). People don’t know why they are afraid but they still are. It’s the media and government that that scare them and this is the beast that now haunts New York
    On the trailer: It looks like mass suicide, count me in!

17. The Visitor 02/06/2008 @ 11:57pm

    yeah i just realised The Happening trailer and people killing themselves remind me a lot of Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s Kairo (Pulse).

18. kevin 02/07/2008 @ 12:24am

    Kairo is the first thing i thought when i saw the trailer.. good call. One of my favorite movies ever

19. Garth 02/07/2008 @ 1:43am

    Funny, because my argument is much the same as yours.  It’s just a movie.  Why must it be anything more?

    And if we’re going by your complaint, why couldn’t the threat in signs be anything other than aliens?  Does the story only work if it’s aliens?  Can ‘Swing Away’ only mean something in the context of aliens?

    Either way, yeah, the trailer is very remeniscent (wow, sp?) of Kairo.  I have no expectations that it will be as good as Kairo, but it looks good anyway.

20. Swarez 02/07/2008 @ 1:50am

    I don’t think Cloverfield was supposed to be anything more than a popcorn flick. Abrams has said that he wanted an American monster like the Japanese have Godzilla and dozens of others. The difference is that Godzilla was an allegory for the atomic bomb and usually monster films from that era were allegories for something, the bomb or the commies. If you look at the websites created for Cloverfield you might think that it’s monster was an allegory for consumerism as the monster is woken or created as a result of commercial drilling on the ocean floor. Is it a jab at America’s dependence on oil? Or the need to own everything? I don’t know but you could read that out of it if you dug deep enough.

    As for M. Nights movies. While they look amazing and usually start out really well they have a tendency to fall apart in the later half (except The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable which are movies that I truly love). Only one of his “Twist” movies worked IMO, the Village was just too unbelievable to work, even more so than a ghost story.
    Signs was just inherently flawed story vise and I hated that he tried to hide the aliens even after the family stood in front of one, like he was trying to hide the fact that he was doing an alien invasion movie but felt ashamed to admit it. Sure the film was more about the family and how they coped with it but it was an alien invasion film and they fought one in the end and I wanted to see it.
    I haven’t seen Lady in the Water so I can’t comment but from what I have read and heard it seems that it’s all over the place.

21. The Visitor 02/07/2008 @ 3:06am

    re: Signs. Shyamalan wasn’t deliberately hiding the aliens because he was ashamed of an alien movie or anything like that. the clues are everywhere in the mvie, visually and otherwise, that he was making a “radio play movie”, ie. a tribute to Orson Welles’ legendary War Of The Worlds radio programme. that also explains the whole sequence that happens in complete darkness.

    and no, it could not be any othe threat except an alien invasion because it’s a story about faith. it’s essential to ask “do you believe in beings from outer space?” life on other planets, UFOs, have been a human contention and a question of belief for a long time now.

22. sarkoffagus 02/07/2008 @ 6:40am

    I think that’s the problem with creating a twist at the end of a film. Everyone expects it in a director’s subsequent releases, and if they’re waiting for one, they’re more likely to find it. That said, THE VILLAGE was too obvious, to the point where even if you weren’t anticipating a Shyamalan twist, you’d still see it.

    THE SIXTH SENSE’s twist is essential to the plot. In fact, if you take it away, you end up with a fairly bland ghost flick. Does SIGNS really even have a twist? UNBREAKABLE does, most certainly, but in that particular case, the movie works even without it. That’s why it’s my favorite of Shyamalan’s work. But I didn’t think LADY IN THE WATER was that bad. The end was cheesy, but as a character study, it was interesting.

    And in case I didn’t write “twist” enough in these comments, here it is a few more times: twist, twist, twist…

23. Plague 02/07/2008 @ 1:04pm

    Somebody claiming that Shyamalan’s characterisations are “really great”?
    Now I’ve heard everything.

    They are simple props and pawns to get to his trick ending. He came closest to actually developing characters in “Unbreakable”, but he botched the progression of that movie so badly it didn’t make any different. Same with “Signs”. Don’t let a decent story idea get in the way of a gimmicky ending. And don’t even get me started on “Lady In The Water"…

24. M@rc 02/08/2008 @ 4:10am

    I was pretty impressed by the trailer, but then Mark Wahlberg showed up. Why, Shyamalan, Why?!

25. Oldboy 02/08/2008 @ 1:19pm

    man, people love to bash the man. I for one LOVE Unbreakable. I can watch that film over and over. Same with Sixth Sense. I’m one of the few that also really enjoyed The Village. Not to keen on Signs though i didn’t hate it and same with Lady in The Water. I’m looking forward to the next release and hope it’ll be a little better than his recent output.

Post Your Comments

• Next Entry
• Previous Entry