Has Night fooled ALL critics??


Author Topic: Has Night fooled ALL critics??  (Read 2737 times)

wiivo

  • Wide Awake

  • Offline
  • **

  • 28
    • Email
Has Night fooled ALL critics??
« on: June 24, 2008, 03:32:06 PM »
Call me stupid but I just realized a few things:

It is thought by most reviewers/critics that the movie is about plants releasing a toxin so I went and watched it with this in mind as fact but the whole event is summed up at the beginning by a handsome young man named Jake: "An act of nature, and we'll never fully understand it." Indeed we never will because it is never fully explained, and with good reason: "Science will come up with some reason to put in the books, but in the end it'll be just a theory." Theories are then what drives Elliot throughout the entire movie. It's just a theory about it been released by plants, that it travels by wind and that it only attacks people in groups. There's certainly holes in the groups theory.

I was also thinking about the title, 'The Happening'. A happening is exactly what it is. It cant be named because no body knows what it is going on. The Happening is a good blank canvas to use as a title.

So to summarize my main point, what reviewer that has been quick to slam this movie hasn't been fooled into thinking they know what the movie is about? Thus creating the question, how can a review of a movie be legitimate when the writer of the review does not know what the movie is about after seeing it?

DILinator

  • The Happening

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 211
Re: Has Night fooled ALL critics??
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2008, 03:37:04 PM »
I agree completely.  I really think that Night framed this movie as one thing (a fun, campy, B-Movie set to the whole plants releasing toxins plot device) for those that either like that, or are going to rip on the movie regardless (like most critics), but really had a much bigger message all along.  And I think that scene in the classroom, commonly referred to as a scene with horrible acting and cheesy dialogue, is actually the part that reveals a clue about the deeper intent of the movie.  Much like understanding the "happening", people like critics and those who bash the movie fail to realize there is much more going on in the movie than is evident at first glance. 
"See what you have to ask yourself is what kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs, sees miracles? Or do you believe that people just get lucky?"

I'm a "Signs" person.

Rohan

  • Global Moderator
  • Futuristic (After Earth)

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 2619
    • nightwriter22
Re: Has Night fooled ALL critics??
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2008, 09:56:11 PM »
I  agree with you.

jenga

  • Praying with Anger

  • Offline
  • *

  • 1
    • Email
Re: Has Night fooled ALL critics??
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2008, 12:05:32 AM »
I have to begin by saying that I have never posted a thread on anything and yet I felt the need to almost "defend" Night's "The Happening" from some of the negative feedback. I am with several of you on here that there is a bigger message/ meaning to the film.  My sister, brother and friends warned me that the film "wasn't happening" but I followed through and was completely and thoroughly happy with it.  Throughout the film there are numerous references to changes in the world that are taking place: i.e the honeybees disappearing, changes on the Australian coast, etc.  In summation, these are all warning signs of something far greater and so few of us as people are truly aware of these changes happening and/or aren't doing anything about it. I mean, some people don't even believe Global Warming exists, for goodness sake!! We have ignored those warning signs and it was time for the Earth to warn us on a larger level.

As is given in the film, the plants are releasing toxins. Is that just a theory? Sure. But I was down with it and it seemed plausible given how freaky the scenes with the plants were. Going on that hunch... it was said that the humans (people) were seen as the enemy.  There's a significant level of truth to that in regards to climatic changes happening on Earth.

Am I delving into this GW thing too much? Possibly.  But Night is a genius whether you love his fims or hate them.  He thinks outside the box and looks at the bigger picture.  What I thought was great and furthered my belief that the "bigger picture" in this film was in humans' effect on planetary changes was the ending.  Here we have a scientist speaking with a newscaster of sorts and explaining what had occurred.  After all of the mayhem and death that had occurred the newsdude was brushing the theory off completely and offering other notions.  We are in complete denial that significant changes need to be made in order to sustain our existence here on Earth. It is too much responsibility on our part and would like to blame it on the government and nuclear testing (also plausible theories, but it wasn't a recurring theme).  The Happening in France is in reference to the fact that the warning was not taken seriously when it occurred on the East Coast.

The scenes are exaggerated and apocalyptic, the characters strange and awkward.  These diversions are what mind numb us all into thinking a movie is very good or s*^t these days.  That's unforunate.  Night has impressed me again by allowing to look at the deeper meaning to the film and looking forward to watching it again to look for further themes.

Cheers!

LoveSexy

  • Praying with Anger

  • Offline
  • *

  • 2
    • Email
Re: Has Night fooled ALL critics??
« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2008, 09:29:00 AM »
I have to begin by saying that I have never posted a thread on anything and yet I felt the need to almost "defend" Night's "The Happening" from some of the negative feedback. I am with several of you on here that there is a bigger message/ meaning to the film.  My sister, brother and friends warned me that the film "wasn't happening" but I followed through and was completely and thoroughly happy with it.  Throughout the film there are numerous references to changes in the world that are taking place: i.e the honeybees disappearing, changes on the Australian coast, etc.  In summation, these are all warning signs of something far greater and so few of us as people are truly aware of these changes happening and/or aren't doing anything about it. I mean, some people don't even believe Global Warming exists, for goodness sake!! We have ignored those warning signs and it was time for the Earth to warn us on a larger level.

As is given in the film, the plants are releasing toxins. Is that just a theory? Sure. But I was down with it and it seemed plausible given how freaky the scenes with the plants were. Going on that hunch... it was said that the humans (people) were seen as the enemy.  There's a significant level of truth to that in regards to climatic changes happening on Earth.

Am I delving into this GW thing too much? Possibly.  But Night is a genius whether you love his fims or hate them.  He thinks outside the box and looks at the bigger picture.  What I thought was great and furthered my belief that the "bigger picture" in this film was in humans' effect on planetary changes was the ending.  Here we have a scientist speaking with a newscaster of sorts and explaining what had occurred.  After all of the mayhem and death that had occurred the newsdude was brushing the theory off completely and offering other notions.  We are in complete denial that significant changes need to be made in order to sustain our existence here on Earth. It is too much responsibility on our part and would like to blame it on the government and nuclear testing (also plausible theories, but it wasn't a recurring theme).  The Happening in France is in reference to the fact that the warning was not taken seriously when it occurred on the East Coast.

The scenes are exaggerated and apocalyptic, the characters strange and awkward.  These diversions are what mind numb us all into thinking a movie is very good or s*^t these days.  That's unforunate.  Night has impressed me again by allowing to look at the deeper meaning to the film and looking forward to watching it again to look for further themes.

Cheers!

brilliant post! i agree completly.

ive just been 2 watch it having stalled due to a few complaints from FANS and i was blown away...so many themes and meanings. loved it. night is a genius.

Mr_Glass.1

  • Futuristic (After Earth)

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 2942
    • Email
Re: Has Night fooled ALL critics??
« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2008, 02:42:33 PM »
First off, I want to say I absolutely loved this movie.  In fact I am going to see it for the third time tonight.  Can't wait.   ;D  For the most part I agree with what you people are saying.  However, I do disagree in a few points.  One, I don't think global warming is a problem, I feel like there is no evidence for it, just theories, but I don't want to get into a huge argument because of what I am going to say next.  I agree, throughout the movie, he's not talking about global warming, nuclear power plants, and stuff like that, that's why Elliot turns off the radio where the woman is talking.  One of the keys is at the end when the environmentalist is talking on tv.  The man compared what happened to a red tide.  I looked up the red tide online and in encyclopedias-a red tide occurs because of phytoplankton, which is eaten by zooplankton, which in turn is eaten by animals.  Phytoplankton is at the bottom of the food chain, it also just rides with the waves, it has no way of moving, unless acted upon by an outside force.  The same is with trees.  Now phytoplankton has some type of poison in it that becomes more powerful when there are more of them.  Now when they are attacked, if bad enough, they survive, but to survive another attack they create more, this results in a red tide because there are more of them.  So the same thing is with trees, they can't move, they feel threatened, they've lost a lot therefore they release the poison to warn us.  Also, another side note, notice only the east coast got hit, where there aren't as many trees as elsewhere.  Also, in other parts of the country the government is trying to plant trees and growth, to get some of it back, how come the plague didn't hit there.  Just some thoughts.
I see the world Lucius Hunt, just not the way you see it.


Ivy Walker to Lucius Hunt in The Village

GenPion

  • Unbreakable

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 58
    • Email
Re: Has Night fooled ALL critics??
« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2008, 01:59:03 AM »
In the scene at the Diner, when they turn on the TV, what do they see? A chart demonstrating how the "Happening" is continuing to increase, rapidly, but that it might "theoretically stop anytime".

That chart looked very similar to the chart demonstration given in An Inconvenient Truth. This was an obvious attempt from Shyamalan to draw a parallel here.

By the way, Mr. Glass, I strongly recommend that you watch that movie. It will more than likely change your mind on Global Warming.

But for those who think that this is the only layer to this film, I have to disagree. There is a lot to analyze. I think people be writing lengthy essays about this film twenty years from now.

Mr_Glass.1

  • Futuristic (After Earth)

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 2942
    • Email
Re: Has Night fooled ALL critics??
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2008, 03:31:02 PM »
I agree that there are multiple layers to the film, and this is just one of them, that's what I love about Night.  GenPion, if I get the chance I will watch it, it's just that I've read a lot of science stuff, and science books about global warming and if you go back for a while you'll notice that the temperature of the earth has only risen about 1/2 a degree.  Now, I'm very open to other possibilities, so please, send info my way, I love to study and learn stuff.
I see the world Lucius Hunt, just not the way you see it.


Ivy Walker to Lucius Hunt in The Village

Namaste

  • Futuristic (After Earth)

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3217
  • Personal Text
    The divine in me bows before the divine in you.
    • myspace
Re: Has Night fooled ALL critics??
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2008, 05:38:16 PM »
Yeah, Shyamalan said that people would not fully understand the Village for 10 yrs after it was released. That's why im going to write MY long essay on it :) well actually an analaysis since there is so much to it that multiple essays could be written on it without a connecting theme.
See the villain's larger eyes insinuating a just-off-normal perspective on how they see the world? I see signs Lucius Hunt; just not as you see dead people. I am so very happy we saw..each other, and no I will not tell you what color love is. Stop asking.

Mr_Glass.1

  • Futuristic (After Earth)

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 2942
    • Email
Re: Has Night fooled ALL critics??
« Reply #9 on: June 30, 2008, 10:50:19 AM »
I wrote an 18 page essay on Night's movies, but it was just an overarching short study on them, nothing in depth.
I see the world Lucius Hunt, just not the way you see it.


Ivy Walker to Lucius Hunt in The Village

Namaste

  • Futuristic (After Earth)

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3217
  • Personal Text
    The divine in me bows before the divine in you.
    • myspace
Re: Has Night fooled ALL critics??
« Reply #10 on: June 30, 2008, 11:24:50 AM »
yeah i figure my "The Village" will be about a good 10 pages ;x
See the villain's larger eyes insinuating a just-off-normal perspective on how they see the world? I see signs Lucius Hunt; just not as you see dead people. I am so very happy we saw..each other, and no I will not tell you what color love is. Stop asking.

Mr_Glass.1

  • Futuristic (After Earth)

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 2942
    • Email
Re: Has Night fooled ALL critics??
« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2008, 08:30:32 AM »
That's cool, whenever you get the chance, I'd love to read it.  I want to write other papers about his movies, but I just don't have the time right now.  :'( ;D
I see the world Lucius Hunt, just not the way you see it.


Ivy Walker to Lucius Hunt in The Village