www.411mania.com
|  News |  Film Reviews |  Columns |  DVD/Other Reviews |  News Report |
SPOTLIGHTS  SPOTLIGHTS
MOVIES/TV
// Star Wars Episode I Brings In $1.1 Million in Midnight Showings
MUSIC
// First Official Pics of Beyonce and Jay-Z With Blue Ivy Posted
WRESTLING
// Impact Wrestling Rating
POLITICS
// Obama Showing Strongest Poll Numbers In Months
MMA
// Click Here To Join 411’s LIVE XFC 16: High Stakes Coverage
GAMES
// Star Trek Sequel Game in the Works


MOVIE REVIEW  MOVIE REVIEWS
//  The Grey Review
//  Underworld: Awakening Review
//  Haywire Review
//  Red Tails Review
//  The Devil Inside Review
//  My Week with Marilyn Review
 HOT MOVIES
//  The Dark Knight Rises
//  Captain America
//  The Avengers
//  Iron Man 3
//  The Hobbit
//  Spider-Man Reboot
SYNDICATE  SYNDICATE



411mania RSS Feeds





Follow 411mania on Twitter!




Add 411 On Facebook
 



 
 411mania » Movies » Film Reviews



Advertisement
The Happening Review
Posted by Jeremy Thomas on 06.14.2008



Directed By: M. Night Shyamalan
Written By: M. Night Shyamalan

Starring:
Mark Wahlberg - Elliot Moore
Zooey Deschanel - Alma Moore
John Leguizamo - Julian
Ashlyn Sanchez - Jess
Betty Buckley - Mrs. Jones
Spencer Breslin - Josh
Robert Bailey Jr. - Jared
Jeremy Strong - Private Auster
Alan Ruck - Principal
M. Night Shyamalan - Joey



Running Time: 91 minutes
Rated R for violent and disturbing images

You have to feel bad for M. Night Shyamalan. The writer/director, who burst onto the movie scene in a $672 million worldwide way with the 1999 thriller-with-a-twist The Sixth Sense, has been widely viewed since then as a man who peaked with his first film. Unbreakable, his second film, got decent if not great reviews, and didn’t even touch the success of the Bruce Willis starrer that began his career. Although 2002’s Signs was far more successful then Unbreakable, the next two films showed that audiences were getting tired of Shyamalan’s self-importance and reliance on his gimmicky twist endings; The Village was critically drubbed and commercially disappointing, while 2006’s fantasy-oriented The Lady in the Water was a complete and utter failure on any count, bringing in a paltry $42.3 million dollars domestically and earning the most scathing reviews of the director’s career. Now, two years later, Shyamalan tries to salvage his critical and commercial darling rep with his first R-rated film, The Happening.

The set-up of the film is admittedly intriguing. It opens in New York City’s iconic Central Park (in my mind, the worst place to be EVER, considering how often it suffers from disasters in Hollywood) on an idyllic summer morning. Suddenly, at 8:33 am, several pedestrians freeze, going dead still. Carnage then unfolds as people start killing themselves off using anything handy, resulting in some truly bizarre and interesting deaths including implements such as knitting needles, lawnmowers, guns, tossing themselves off buildings, or whatever they can most easily find. Of course, the easiest explanation is quickly jumped upon by the media, that the mass self-slaughter is the result of some neurotoxin released by terrorists. The epidemic quickly expands out, encompassing Manhattan and then expanding to other Northeastern cities. The fast start quickly shifts gears, as Shyamalan goes back to his roots of basing his films in his hometown of Philadelphia, with science teacher Elliot Moore (Wahlberg). Elliot takes his wife Alma (Deschanel), his best friend Julian (Leguizamo) and Julian’s daughter Jess (Sanchez) out of the city just in time to escape the outbreak, and wind up stranded in the rural Eastern parts of the state. They set out to escape the disaster and find a place to survive as things steadily get worse and worse, and it becomes obvious that it’s not a terrorist attack as was first believed.

It is unfortunate that, as interesting as a set-up as Shyamalan provides here, The Happening fails the same places his previous disasters have: in exposing his weaknesses. While he's excellent at providing an amazing premise, when it comes to follow-through he more often then not falls on his face. This is exactly what happens here, as Shyamalan ends up focusing on the least interesting part of the story. Granted, it may be more identifiable to the majority of the population to see a small (and diminishing) group of everymen wandering through scenery that can substitute for most of rural America—something he seems to have learned from Signs--but it also forces the writer/director to resort to endless shots of trees and plants waving in the wind. While this may be ominous to some, it’s not to me, and even worse, it ends up being repeated to the point of being laughable. Shyamalan tries to get across a pro-environmental message that comes off as heavy-handed to the point of turning people off from it.

It certainly doesn’t help the movie that the characters Shyamalan has focused on are completely uninteresting. The Mist, another recent film about ordinary people in a world-changing crisis, was most interesting when it focused on the idea of these normal folks, stuck in a situation way beyond their ability to control. Even The Ruins showed how people could be pushed to the edge without civilization to protect them, in order to survive. Here, the film’s protagonist is Elliot, who spends most of the time confused, scared, and indecisive. His wife is emotionally distant, which largely translates into emoting as little as possible. Cast in these roles, the usually great Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel perform embarrassingly poorly. Wahlberg’s Elliot is a weak performance on par with some of his worst, such as Planet of the Apes or Rock Star, and he spends most of his time with his voice in that high-pitched voice he gets when his characters are scared. Deschanel essentially sleepwalks through the film, putting her previous performances in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and Weeds to shame. John Leguizamo is better as Julian, but his character disappears so quickly into the film that it could almost be called a cameo. The only true saving grace in the cast is Betty Buckley, who injects a bit of crazy into her role as Mrs. Jones, a woman who’s been living along a little too long by the time the group encounters her.

One of the biggest problems with this movie, like with other films, is that they seem to constantly be Shyamalan going back to what worked in previous films as he tries to say “See, I get it!” This film has the token creepy moments, a la Sixth Sense. It has the rural setting and isolation, a la Signs. It has the everyday Joe in an extraordinary situation, a la Unbreakable. And for once, it lacks the super-secret twist ending that has become his trope. Unfortunately, what Shyamalan fails to do is bring back what made those elements enjoyable. Sixth Sense creepiness worked because it built tension, where as here it is just for shock value. Signs built the rural isolation in a way that made the big picture personal and tied into the main character’s growth and development; here, it has no such context. And Unbreakable’s everyman had a truly interesting counterpart in Samuel L. Jackson’s Elijah Price; in The Happening there is no one nearly so interesting to offset Elliot’s dullness. As for the lack of a twist ending, well…without revealing what happens, allow me to say that he can toss out a predictable, “shocking” twist any time, if this is what he gives us otherwise.

Shyamalan has been called a one, maybe two-hit wonder by many a critic, and with each film, I can’t help but agree more and more. For all the amazing storytelling he gave us alongside seeing dead people, there seems to be a complete dearth of the same in what he has left. It’s a very sad story when someone with so much promise apparently expended it all on their first and second times out; perhaps it’s time for him to start seeing what he can do with someone else’s material, because his personal story well has run dry and is, much like the villain in this movie, blowing in the wind.


The 411: While M. Night Shyamalan has been going downhill for a long time, The Happening is the lowest he's hit yet. Packed with an interesting premise gone quickly awry, intensely bad performances, and constant shots of plants that are as boring as they are supposed to be ominous, it appears the director has little more to give us. The entire film comes off as completely artificial, and the ending--absent the director's usual "twist," leaves us with one of the greatest disappointments seen in theaters in a long time. Nothing here works great, and very little even works in a "good" capacity, leaving us with the worst in a string of bad films from the man once hailed as "the next Hitchcock."
 
Final Score:  3.5   [ Bad ]  legend


Post Comment (44)  |  Email Jeremy Thomas  |  View Jeremy Thomas's 411 Profile

  Send To Friend  |    Stumble It!  |    Digg It!  | 



Please add your comment below.
If you are registered, you can login and post under your registered name. If not, you can post as a guest or register.

* Please note that 411 moderates all comments. Your comment will show up on the site after it has been approved by an editor.
 
Name : 
Comment : 
Remaining Characters : 
2800
 

Comments (44)

 
reminds me a lot of the George A. Romero film "the crazies". I may pick this up on DVD when it comes out.

Posted By: xLx (Registered)  on June 14, 2008 at 12:36 AM

 
 
3.5 is being quite nice!

Posted By: Pat (Guest)  on June 14, 2008 at 12:38 AM

 
 
You completely missed the point on this movie. The name "The Happening" is the message. It isn't about the event thats occurring. It is about ANY event happening and how people within and outside the affected area react. It was Cloverfield esque in its vagueness. Catastrophic events in Nature are happening more and more and EVERYONE has a theory. This movie says not everything is what it seems and the only time you know for sure whats happening it is too late.....for most. Not his best film....but a good film. Not all films are fun "everything spelled out for you in an easy formula....you're welcome" popcorn flicks!

Posted By: dman (Guest)  on June 14, 2008 at 01:03 AM

 
 
Hmmmm...you know what dman? SHUT THE FUCK UP FAGGOT(no offense to gays, there cool people). I hate when people try to rationalize a bad movie by saying "you just didn't get it" or "not every movie has to be spelled out to be good". Well, you know what, fuck that. The movie sucked, and it was easy enough to understand ya big douchebag. Why can't a movie just suck? Looks like you missed the point dman. And by the way, Shamalamaham(or whatever the fuck) IS a good director when it comes to atmosphere. His ideas start off great. He just can't follow through, or just comes off as WAY too prententious in his "messages". I think if you were to let someone else do the rework the scprits of his movies a bit, he'd be great. But lord knows the man is a bit too full of himself to let that happen. Anyways, fuck off dman, the review was actually being way to fucking nice.

Posted By: StrykersWeaponX (Guest)  on June 14, 2008 at 02:21 AM

 
 
Some sort of vague faux-superiority claims about others' alleged desires for pedestrian 'popcorn flicks' does not redeem this piece of shit. Try again.

Posted By: Jack (Guest)  on June 14, 2008 at 02:39 AM

 
 
The Lord shall not forgive thee Shyamalan! You're going straight to hell for this one. The only "twist" seems to have been that we actually paid money to see it!

Posted By: Jesus (Guest)  on June 14, 2008 at 09:30 AM

 
 
i havent seen it yet but the fact that you gave it a 3.5 and you gave the new indy movie like an 8.6 or something is just sad and shows that you people have no taste in movies

Posted By: 411 manias enemy (Guest)  on June 14, 2008 at 09:49 AM

 
 
"

i havent seen it yet but the fact that you gave it a 3.5 and you gave
the new indy movie like an 8.6 or something is just sad and shows
that you people have no taste in movies"

How can you possibly say that when you haven't even seen this?


Posted By: Daz (Guest)  on June 14, 2008 at 01:10 PM

 
 
I get the sense more and more that Shyamalan should really stop writing his own stuff...or at least stop writing it alone. His directing has never been his problem. He has a visual style that, while not genius, is definitely sharp and always interesting. He's great behind a camera...just not behind a keyboard. As was mentioned, he's good for ideas, but can never seem to follow through.

Even Unbreakable, which I loved, had the American Graphitti ending in the last ten seconds that felt completely tacked on and unnecessary. His dialogue is hit or miss...about 60/40.

I say take a Shyamalan idea, filter it through a good co-writer, hand it back to him to direct, and you'll get another masterpiece out of the guy. But he doesn't seem to want to do that, and that'll be what kills (is killing?) his career.


Posted By: BJC (Guest)  on June 14, 2008 at 02:01 PM

 
 
@411 manias enemy:

I didn't review Indiana Jones; in fact, I have yet to see it. You may want to get your facts straight before Commenting. Just sayin'.


Posted By: Jeremy Thomas (Registered)  on June 14, 2008 at 03:35 PM

 
 
damn, i was really looking forward to this one. i've liked everything he's done excluding the village. my favorites were signs and lady in the water, is there a slim possibility that i might still enjoy this film?

Posted By: hellboysetsfire (Guest)  on June 14, 2008 at 03:40 PM

 
 
this movie was an utter dissapointment, through and through. i'm not going to beat a dead horse here, but i really do want to vent for a moment. i can't remember the last movie i anticipated as much as this one. i think the real problem with this film, apart from the terrible acting, is that shaymalan didn't give the audience credit for being semi-intellegent. instead of letting your imagination try to piece together the clues and wrestle with the despairation, he basically starts explaining the twist via a hotdog loving wide eyed botanist. "plants evolve rapidly. plants harness super natural powers to defend themselves. plants talk to other plants and are aware of the presence of humans." come on M. Night, really? i'm starting to believe this guy might be a dendrophiliac. if any of those bullshit claims were remotely true, the fikus would be at the top of the food chain. i'm losing faith in the art of filmmaking.

Posted By: patrickjsmiles (Guest)  on June 14, 2008 at 03:44 PM

 
 
Hey StrykersWeaponX, I have a piece of advice for you. Learn the difference between there, their and they're. Three words pronounced the same, spelled different with different meanings...you used them wrong and you lost all your credibility! You ass!

Posted By: blank (Guest)  on June 14, 2008 at 04:16 PM

 
 
AWFUL Review. Stop thinking you are Roger Ebert going into every movie expecting Shindlers List quality cinema.

Posted By: natedoggcata (Guest)  on June 14, 2008 at 04:37 PM

 
 
I agree...and 3.5 is being generous. I was really disappointed with this one. I love his past movies, but there was no twist, no "ah-ha" moment, no resolution. The characters didnt even seemed convinced! Seriously? It was the plants??? Please...

Posted By: Nicole (Guest)  on June 14, 2008 at 06:35 PM

 
 
@natedoggcata:

Sorry. I have standards, and they're not going away. I have higher expectations of entertainment, and judge every film equally. I don't think I'm Ebert, I'm just a reviewer. Thanks for reading, though.


Posted By: Jeremy Thomas (Registered)  on June 14, 2008 at 07:24 PM

 
 
411 manias enemy, said the EXACT same thing in the Hulk review. And the reviewer said the exact same thing.

Posted By: will (Guest)  on June 14, 2008 at 11:27 PM

 
 
I saw it. You should've given it a 0.5 - worst piece of crap I've seen. Those waving trees... LOL.. I expect the spoof film shortly.

Posted By: Marcel (Guest)  on June 15, 2008 at 09:37 AM

 
 
3 The Happening $30,500,000

More than I ever thought it would make its opening weekend. It's going to make back it's budget during its theatrical release and will be considered a financial success.

Interesting.


Posted By: Shawn S. Lealos (Registered)  on June 15, 2008 at 05:37 PM

 
 
This movie sucked badly. I mean, c'mon, TERRORIST PLANTS! OH NOES!

And btw, Rock Star was a good flick for the true rock and rollers at heart...the soundtrack is awesome.


Posted By: Ramsey (Guest)  on June 15, 2008 at 11:20 PM

 
 
This movie was AWESOME.. You guys obviously just dont GET IT.

Its a smart complex film that explores the human soul within the context of an epic tragedy.

Why dont u just watch your dumbass BANG BANG BOOM BOOM flicks and stop reviewing REAL movies


Posted By: Shalaymanamanan (Guest)  on June 15, 2008 at 11:24 PM

 
 
@StrykersWeaponX (Guest)
'
That was uncalled

You my friend must have a had a bad homosexual experience

come over here and sit on my lap so we can talk about it and see what rises !!


Posted By: WTF (Guest)  on June 16, 2008 at 12:10 AM

 
 
@WTF

Man, my brother is gay, hence my comment about them being cool. It's just a good insult.


Posted By: StrykersWeaponX (Guest)  on June 16, 2008 at 12:37 AM

 
 
To anyone who hasn't seen this movie yet stay away from this I was tempted in walking out by my better half would of more pissed then she was after I stood up and loudly voiced how bad this movie was when it was over. This might be the worst movie of the year so far.

Posted By: Worst movie ever (Guest)  on June 16, 2008 at 09:16 AM

 
 
I am not the person that is going to say that this was a great film. Much better than Lady in the Water even though that is not saying anything. Don't you think though there was more meaning to it than at one level? Call me crazy. I thought it had to do with the plant, earth and atmosphere feeling threatened my human destruction to the earth. If you noticed, it ended with the husband & wife meeting in the field out of love and nothing happened to them. Of course then the question was why did is just happen in the north east PA. Ending in France meaning that there is a message that the whole earth is threatened by us.

In summary, this is a warning. Kind of like the whole global warming thing.

Ok I know it sounds like I am reaching. However, I would be curious to hear Night's commentary when the DVD comes out to see what his thought process was behind it. I am not a nutty person. I just think that Night is thinking more than just at this one level.


Posted By: Guest (Guest)  on June 16, 2008 at 01:20 PM

 
 
Re Guest:

Oh, I get that it's a warning. This is a "film with a message"...as I said, a pro-environmental message that is so clumsily delivered and heavy-handed that it's more likely to turn people off of it rather then enlighten anyone. And this is coming from a self-acknowledged, uber-liberal, sandals-wearing hippy tree-hugger.

"Message films" work best when they aren't cramming the point down your throat. Here's my message for Mr. Shyamalan: tone it down, and maybe you'll get the point across better.


Posted By: Jeremy Thomas (Registered)  on June 16, 2008 at 03:03 PM

 
 
I don't get Woody Allen movies, always thought he was over rated and his movies only appeal to a certain segment of the population. Same goes for M. Night's movies. I don't get the appeal of his movies - and I don't go to them.

Posted By: BobbyC (Guest)  on June 16, 2008 at 05:00 PM

 
 
I would give this a 5, but everything in this article is pretty much right. People were walking out of the theater midway through the movie. And some of the stuff just plain wasn't scary. I know 'The Strangers' got bad reviews on here, but it was WAY better than 'The Happening'.

Posted By: SS87 (Guest)  on June 16, 2008 at 05:32 PM

 
 
This movie was fantastic.

I'm going to give you the number one reason why people don't enjoy M. Night's movies. They go into the theater expecting one thing and get something completely different. The fact that THAT is his style may very well be pretentious, but it suits me just fine. I love the bashing of the 'no epic twist'. He had a shot at throwing it out there, but he did not. Why, because you were expecting it.

I have yet to see someone 'call' an M. Night ending verbatim, and that is what aggravates so many people.

And to the reports of people walking out of the theaters midway through. People walk out of movies they don't appreciate or comprehend. I saw theater after theater sit through Borat and Road Trip and The Ring and walk out happy. All three of those were horrendous in every possible way. But people can't sit through a movie that begs them to contemplate what the reasons or ending could produce, and they refuse, because movie goers nowadays want everything neatly labeled and shown to them before they go home.

And as far as 'the boring tree' shots go. Grow up and embrace actual art. It's a shame when George Lucas's CGI is labeled as brilliant and natural photography is labeled as boring. I'm certain Ansel Adams would agree...

Horrid review of a decent movie. If you don't want to take what M. Night is going to give as far as unpredictability, don't go watch his films. After The Village, you should know by now what you are getting yourself into.

Flame on.


Posted By: sigh (Guest)  on June 16, 2008 at 06:26 PM

 
 
I went to see the Incredible Hulk with my girlfriend then we sneaked into see 'The Happening'.

I'm a fan of Shyamalan's films & think Signs is one of the best thrillers I've ever seen (although not seen lady in the water yet).

Unfortunately we wasted a couple of hours of our lives watching this utter mess of a film.

Even though we didn't pay I still feel robbed by it.

As soon as you hear Wahlberg's character explaining about the bees near the beginning: 'Some acts of nature we'll never fully understand' you just KNEW they were gonna use this pathetic reasoning to do something interesting but couldn't come up with a reason for why or how it was happening.

The longer the film went the more I was coming to terms with the fact that no 'twist' could explain or redeem what was going on.

A disaster movie to be sure, but for all the wrong reasons.


Posted By: rhubarb (Guest)  on June 17, 2008 at 05:15 AM

 
 
I can't decide which was funnier, the lions or the standoff where the two brats get offed.

Posted By: Simpleton (Guest)  on June 17, 2008 at 09:20 AM

 
 
Did anyone notice the obvious boom mic hanging in quite a few scenes in the movie? I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned in the review. Terrible movie, no twist, and a waste of $10

Posted By: Dave (Guest)  on June 17, 2008 at 10:23 AM

 
 
I personaly thought this movie was a huge disapointment. The way they showed the "events" happening I thought it was goin to be some type of diease that spread world wide by the government kinda like the portal that came to be in "The Mist".

Posted By: Happening aint happening (Guest)  on June 17, 2008 at 08:35 PM

 
 
The only thing I can say about this movie is that it was ALMOST a good movie.

It had an EXCELLENT premise, and the set up scenes for the first third were absolutely incredible. (And chilling).

Unfortunately, its reasoning fell apart bit by bit by bit, and, by the end, I was saying "what the hell was that!?!"

I'd probably give it a 4.5/10 -- excellent premise, horrible acting, great kills (all about the tigers, the scene with everyone sharing the same gun, and the initial scene with the construction workers), and horrible resolution. I think it would have made a great 1-hour installment for the "Masters of Horror" series, but is definitely not a good feature-length film.

And why in the holy hell wasn't he ending the movie? Seriously, we waited for 7-8 minutes at the end of an already short film just to watch some pointless padding.


Posted By: Jimbob Jones (Guest)  on June 18, 2008 at 03:45 PM

 
 
This movie speaks of the unpredicatable future of human beings in an ever-changing world. Our society is going to shit (global warming, pollution, gas prices) and at least this film takes a shot at suggesting that we think about the many combination of factors that could ultimately lead to our demise. It clearly states the message that things can easily spiral out of control by forces we can't foresee (not trees tha emit toxins) but outside forces nonetheless.

I got more out of this movie than seeing explosions, oversexed characters and bad humor.

Stop and think what this movie means people or are you all that desensitized.


Posted By: We're all doomed (Guest)  on June 19, 2008 at 09:52 AM

 
 
A total waste. I was hoping for so much more. Bring on Hancock. :)

Posted By: Munsie (Guest)  on June 20, 2008 at 05:34 AM

 
 
I don't get why people say to look at the message. You don't have to. It was hammered into your face over and over and over. Heck, the whole reason was presented 1/3 of the way through the movie (with the hotdog loving botanist guy), you could walk out there an then and still get the meaning of the whole movie. It is a very simple basis, there's no deep hidden meaning about it. EVERYBODY knows the world is going to hell because of us. It's could even be called a mainstream idea now.

I was actually okay with the premise. Plants evolving to me isn't all that insane. However the way it was presented, and how suddenly it seemed to happen made me cringe. As mentioned, acting was horrid. I usually don't notice bad acting, this time I did, over and over.

I can't help but feel though that the story is one that would be incredibly hard to carry out and make it good. But that doesen't make the movie any better.

I did enjoy it though, on a mild level. One thing I can't complain enough about is how everything was given away so fast before even the characters knew it.


Posted By: #4Rocket (Guest)  on June 20, 2008 at 06:29 AM

 
 
I went to go see this movie yesterday i had read reviews that the acting was bad and the movie lacked a decent plot. I quickly noticed Wallberg, his acting was strange however i wouldnt say bad, he just acted like a nerdy science teacher which is the character he played. I do see though how easyly it would have been to dismiss this as bad acting. The acting i think was decnt for a horror movie esspicaly one where everbody dies that isnt a main character. A review told me that this was M.nights worst plot,whoever said that was an idiot. This movie has enough plot to strangle a horse, and definatley one that has been untouched. The plot is strong, scary and supprisingly belivable, OH and not to mention it has truly unique horror moments. Unlike any movie i have seen before. Pepole if you go to see a movie exspecting it to suck chances are it will if you go to see it unjudgemental chances are you will like enough of it to enjoy it.Peace

Posted By: D-Sway (Guest)  on June 20, 2008 at 11:59 AM

 
 
this movie was one of the scariest movies i have seen in a long time. i was jumping in my seat! its hard to keep your eyes on. i went home and had nightmares about it. if you want a scare, and perhaps a small laugh, go see this movie.

Posted By: ra (Guest)  on June 20, 2008 at 01:29 PM

 
 
Coming from someone that wanted to LOVE this movie... bottom line, it wasn't good. I will say its worth seeing for the gorey moments and also so that you can join in on conversations with others about it. However, the whole theater was laughing at the parts that were suposed to be the scariest moments. Zoey and Mark are 2 of my all time favorite actors so I was excited to see them in a movie together but their acting.... no good. Zoey was decent, but Mark seemed as though he was reading his lines (I realize he wasnt people, I'm just saying..)
Everyone can form their own opinion I was just sadly disappointed.


Posted By: Stevie (Guest)  on June 20, 2008 at 03:30 PM

 
 
I can't believe that anyone can call anything about this movie artistic. Yes, the setup began decently, but it quickly took a dive. I have held out hope for M. Night's pictures since his first was so great, but each one dissapoints me more. I love to hear that those of us, which is most of us, that hated it just didn't get it. I wish that was the problem, but since it was given away so early and easily in the movie, that's not the case. The characters in this film had no depth at all. I could have cared less what happened to them in the end. Poor writing can destroy very capable actors. If you haven't seen it, don't waste the money.

Posted By: wow (Guest)  on June 22, 2008 at 01:55 AM

 
 
I just walked out of this movie. I have never seen a movie so bad I wanted that hour and a half of my life back! Did anyone else notice the sound mics coming down from the top of the screen in a couple scenes? Not only was the story a piece of crap, but it wasn't even edited for the most blantent of errors.

Posted By: Erin (Guest)  on June 22, 2008 at 03:09 AM

 
 
Worst casting ever, except for Mark Walbergh.

Posted By: Matty (Guest)  on June 23, 2008 at 03:27 PM

 
 
I believe the meaning of this movie was so clear: Nature rebelled the presence of Man. And by that I mean “bad” Man. In a large urban area, the presence had reached some critical mass, so everyone was affected, and it started with the one with a gun, probably the most evil of Man’s creations. In smaller groups, it was when anger or meanness showed itself. In the scene when they split into three groups, it was the soldier first (with a gun), then the group with the black man yelling about which direction they should go. It got all the way down to one, very mean woman.

Then it moved on to Paris.


Posted By: kelly g (Guest)  on June 26, 2008 at 08:33 PM

 


www.41mania.com
Copyright � 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.