I'm surprised there's no topic on this film yet. I do believe there was one in the past but I'm making this one anyway since the film is out as of today.


This is the latest M. Night Shyamalan flick, and for the first time it's not rated PG-13 due to the gore and violence (well, suicide) that it includes.

Here's the basic plot outline:

A pandemic of unknown cause is spreading across the northeast of the US, mysteriously within well-defined borders. Victims experience loss of speech and physical disorientation, followed by suicide. The protagonist, a science teacher named Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg), flees together with his estranged wife, Alma Moore (Zooey Deschanel) and the 8-year-old daughter Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez) of Elliot's best friend, Julian (John Leguizamo), while Julian tries to reach his wife. The rest of the film follows them on their journey.

I just got back from seeing it and while I don't think the film is as brilliant as The Village (yes, I went there... shut up) it stands up on its own and is bound to be redeeming in the eyes of people who started hating M. Night after Signs. If I had to describe the feel of the film, it's like Cloverfield - in that it takes a look at human nature when its survival is being threatened. Of course there are more gory scenes of self-murder in this film, which will make some people very uncomfortable. I think we've all been desensitized by people killing other people, but to witness so many people killing themselves in one film is kind of alarming - we're just not used to it.

I definetely recommend seeing it. The ending is not as good as I would have wished, but it does say what it needs to say.

So, if you're seen it, what are your thoughts? (Somehow I think you'll see how appropriate this topic's icon is.. eh?)

I haven't seen it yet but what is the plot twist this time?

Watch out for its acclaimed sequel, THINGS OCCUR

I haven't seen it yet but what is the plot twist this time?

Why do people assume that all his films have plot twists - because they don't. All of Night's films convey a deeper theme/message but they all don't rely on a gimmicky twist to do so. No wonder people are disappointed with so many of his films. People hated the Village because of them expecting it to be a horror thriller - instead they got a thriller that had the balls to change itself and evolve into a romance midway through. People hated Lady in the Water because once again they expected monsters but instead got a fairy tale about finding one's purpose in life. You'll never be able to satisfy people - especially critics of Shyamalan because they're all expecting the next Sixth Sense and fail to view each film as a separate entity, which is sad because they miss out on the deeper aspects of each film.

It's really best to go in with a clean slate for his films - that way your expectations won't cause you disheartment because the film doesn't play out the same way you intended it to in your mind. Regardless, I find all his stories original and refreshing, especially compared to all the drivel that Hollywood puts out with countless remakes, empty action flicks and cgi-fests.

or killer plants

or killer plants

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. People take what's been presented on the surface to them and then bash it for the ridiculousness they see in it without digging deeper. The film isn't strictly about plants fighting against humans by releasing a toxin. It is on the surface but this premise is a hyperbole used to illustrate how ordinary people behave when their whole life's structure and existence becomes problematic and they are left to confront an unknown terror. The characters are forced to look within themselves and think of the things that really matter to them. Julian's love and concern for his wife is greater than that of his love for his daughter Jess, and he abandons her to look for his mate even though he well knows that likely he will lose his life trying to be reunited. Elliot and Alma's relationship is ultimately strengthened through this whole ordeal as Alma realizes how much she loves him and comes clean about her date with another man. Ellliot is the one "chasing" her, but in the end it is Alma who realizes how much he cares about her and thus takes a more dominant role in further developing their strained relationship. At the end she is ecstatic at finding out that she is pregnant with his child - a large step to take for someone who was postponing childrearing for years due to fear of commitment and showing her emotions.

Also within the film is a social commentary on how we as a species are dominating the earth and ruining its resources selfishly. The film ultimately asks us to examine our thoughts on the apocalypse and ask how we might respond to a wake-up call from nature - whether it is global warming, sea levels rising, or some other natural phenomenon going astray due to our actions. Will we be able to treat the earth with more respect before it's too late?.

You know, I was kind of lukewarm on this film getting out of the theatre but now that I've looked back and examined it briefly I really appreciate it more for what it was able to convey, at least to me personally.

no mateui, this is why a lot of people disliked it.  you don't just TOTALLY CHANGE DIRECTION mid-movie; it's kind of dumb!  also regardless of whether or not his movies convey deeper themes, most of them are fairly gimmicky in the themes he chooses and how he chooses to convey them and the ones that don't have stupid plot twists tacked on are in the minority i think.  he's just not a very good director and having THEMATIC VISION doesn't automatically make a movie good if the theme itself is somewhat rote and the way you convey it is clearly a huge gimmick.

Why is that dumb? Who says that writers should stick to a defined formula? Why not bend the rules of convention and surprise people? Besides, he was foreshadowing this from the beginning of the movie so it wasn't a total change in direction - it was an inevitable point in the story.

because it is very inconsistent and provides for a disjointed experience that lacks cohesion where the viewer leaves sort of wondering what the movie was even about or trying to say.  it makes the entire thing feel DIRECTIONLESS i think.

Yeah, this is probably the big difference between a lot of arthouse cinema and most popular cinema. The two rarely interchange!

Why do people assume that all his films have plot twists

Experience.

Ok, I just got back from the movie and I do not recommend it.  I don't believe the whole "conveying a message" can save this film.  I am a fan of M. Night's work.  I've enjoyed all his movies that I've seen with the exception of The Happening.  This film didn't have the same feel to it that all his other works have had.  I felt completely disconnected the whole time.  I've read in other reviews that the movie starts out great, but to me there is no connection between the audience or the characters to really feel any sympathy for them.  Certain events that are meant to affect us feel overplayed.  The dialogue was atrocious at times.  For the first half of the movie I tried not laughing at parts that seemed funny because I thought it was supposed to be a suspenseful thriller.  At times it seemed that the movie was taking that direction but then it would reverse with some out of place comment by the characters.  The Happening felt extremely jumbled up, misguided, and outright laughable at confusing times.  I don't believe this is worth the price of a ticket, and anyone going to see this movie should wait to pay for the rental. 

I'm waiting for M. Night's next work because I'm not going to bail on him yet...

No, Mateui, this movie is about Intelligent Design.

No, Mateui, this movie is about Intelligent Design.

hahaha i knew this movie was going to be worthless

Just so you guys know, the intelligent design bit, and the bit about the plants IS NOT ADVERTISED and is therefore a SPOILER.

i disagree.

when the "spoilers" are intelligent design and killer plants it's called a WARNING


i don't really think there is a worse filmmaker alive than m. night shyamalan. i mean, at least when you have directors like michael bay, it's pretty clear that they don't try to really push very far past their creative and intellectual limitations. they're dumb people and they more or less come to terms with that. i'll give quentin tarantino props for STOPPING ABRUPTLY at that wall and not trying to be anything he's not.

shyamalan on the other hand really seems to think that he's an intelligent person, despite having exactly zero interesting thoughts in his head, and zero creative vision. he seems to really be striving for this STYLE of VERY POWERFUL DRAMA but he's a terrible screenwriter and apparently an even worse director because his characters ALWAYS manage to come off as artificial and painfully overacted. visually his movies are completely worthless and i find it VERY hard to believe that the man has ever formally studied film at a university. i mean, hitchcock was not really a fucking genius and it isn't hard to lift a fucking thing from him every once in a while to make it look like you're MAKING A FILM and not just RECORDING ACTORS READING SHIT YOU WROTE.

so yeah, hearing that now he's making movies about intelligent design does not surprise me. that's pretty much just what i would expect from the most underwhelming film maker alive. i could definitely see him teaming up with mel gibson and ben stein in the future for another JESUS SUPER ADVENTURE

this movie is really really bad.

like...really bad.

i am glad i did not waste money on it.