Batman In The Movies - When BAM, WHAP, POW saved Batman...

Please pardon, as this site may start to resemble the 'all Batman all the time' blog for the next two weeks. I'll do my best to have some variety.

Here is a fun article by Lorenzo Semple Jr. about his memories creating and maintaining the classic 1966-1968 Batman television show. Although the show gets a bad rap from comic fans, there are three things everyone should know...

1) Batman the TV show saved Batman the comic book from cancellation. It was 1966... Batman had not been relevant since 1945 and sales for the comic book were declining and hovering on cancellation. A creative rejuvenation by Julius Schwartz helped a little, going back to earthbound detective stories and bringing back the rogues gallery, in 1964 (in Detective Comics 327, with the 300th issue of Detective Comics featuring the caped crusader). It added the yellow oval and helped bring the title back from almost twenty-years of science fiction, time travel, and harmless nonsense, the books were still not terribly popular (Schwartz also temporarily killed off Alfred and brought in Aunt Harriet, to dispel rumors of Bruce and Dick's homosexuality). Only the explosion in popularity that the series caused during its three-year, 120 episode run, allowed the comic book to stay alive, stay competitive with the newly emerging Marvel, and allow it to hang in there until the 1969 Dark Knight Detective revival by Denny O'Neal and Neal Adams. Without the campy TV show, the Dark Knight likely would have never returned.

2) The TV show was completely faithful to the comics of its period. In fact, many of the episodes of the TV show, especially in the first two seasons, were directly based off of existing comic book adventures. Detractors now decry the show as making a mockery of comic books and making it harder for the characters to be taken seriously, but when the show aired, the Batman comic books were not exactly a place of dark menace and psychological introspection. They were goofy, quirky, well-written detective stories where a happily deputized Batman and Robin did battle with devious but never murderous rogues like The Joker, The Penguin, and Catwoman. If you wanted introspection and human drama in 1966, you were likely reading Spider-Man.

3) The TV show was and remains a pop-culture time capsule and a brilliantly subversive social satire. When you think of visual entertainment in the 1960s, you probably think of Star Trek, The Beatles, and Batman. Visually, the show was one of the first to really use the advancement in color television to its potential. Even today, there has never been anything as creative and joyously buoyant in its use of colors and pop art (the closest modern comparison in this area would be Pushing Daisies). The acting was pitch perfect for the material and only Frank Gorshin ever got the credit he deserved. In terms of writing, the show remains a subtly subversive satire of the overly puritan fifties. In its campy, slyly kid-friendly manner, the entire show sends up the overly authoritarian morals and codes of proper conduct that are now synonymous with the 1950s.

The absolute authority of the police, the chaste nature of the romantic entanglements (in one episode, Bruce invited a woman upstairs for milk and cookies), the complete lack of shading in regards to the villains, the no-harm no-foul manner in which the violence is depicted (no one ever got hurt and with two freak exceptions, no one ever died), the completely 'aw-golly-gee-gosh' morals... these were all things that would have been taken quite seriously in the 1950s. But, now, in the 1960s, these very same concepts and values were being presented as fodder for broad, ridiculing comedy that only young children would take seriously.

The show truly worked as a one-of a kind masterpiece, especially in its first season-and-a half. It may have inspired forty-years of cheap Batman jokes (Pow, Baff, Holy 'whatever' Batman!), but it also was an inspired comic adaptation, a terrific artistic creation, and the vessel which allowed the Batman character to survive and grow for the next forty years. Without Lorenzo Semple Jr and co, we would have no Dark Knight Detective, no Dark Knight Returns, no Batman Returns, no Batman: The Animated Series, and no Batman Begins.

Scott Mendelson

Review: The Dark Knight (2008)

The Dark Knight
2008
152 minutes
Rated PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and some menace.)

by Scott Mendelson

The Dark Knight is above all an emotionally and physically draining roller coaster ride and morality play. In most circles, expectations are nothing short of all-time greatness, but writer/director Chris Nolan makes a few tactical blunders that prevent the picture from achieving the mythical status that it so craves. Rare is the movie where declaring that it isn’t a masterpiece almost qualifies as a pan. It’s aspirations are so high that its flaws and concessions to commercialism are that much more apparent. Yet while this obscenely entertaining Batman film is not perfect, but it’s still a towering achievement.

Long Dark Knight's Journey Into Day... (no spoilers)

There is officially an embargo that, although it's being broken left and right, I intend to uphold for the moment. I called in favors to get into tonight's IMAX screening and I don't want to burn bridges. Besides, I need a day or two to digest everything. This is a long, potent, physically draining movie (the IMAX effect is almost overpowering). A full review will come closer to the opening day.

But, know this... The Dark Knight is the worst movie of the year, and the worst comic book movie since Ghost Rider. Heath Ledger gives the worst comic book performance since Halle Berry in Catwoman and I have a newfound appreciation for Superman Returns and Spider-Man 2.

I kid...

It's not perfect. It's too long, and there is much that should be been cut or held until the inevitable third film (two 115 minute films would have been ideal). The habit of Nolan's in Batman Begins to over-expositorize and monologue rears its very ugly head here. The need to combine R-rated content and sensibilities with a PG-13 format leads to an obtuseness to the violence (lots of quick cutting and obscure angles), to the point where it's occasionally difficult to discern what happened. And the voice that Christian Bale uses for Batman sounds cartoonishly menacing, far more so than in Batman Begins. This is fine for uttering quick threats, but Batman has several mini-monologues and the obviousness of his vocal put-on hurts their effectiveness.

As for the million-dollar question - Heath Ledger is terrific and terrifically fun as The Joker, but this Oscar talk is irrelevant unless sentiment overpowers and the Oscar bait movies of fall really underwhelm. Countless actors could have given his read on The Joker, since his performance is pretty similar to the better comics stories (stories which I won't name here since that would constitute spoilers), almost to the point of mimicking.

This is The Joker that Mark Hamill would have played if Batman: The Animated Series aired on HBO at 10pm. And, frankly, in many of his quieter scenes, Ledger reminded me a lot of Jack Nicholson's take back in 1989 (his laugh is almost identical as is his mouth work). THAT was groundbreaking work for its time. Ledger gives a terrific comic book performance, just a notch below Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino, and Willem Dafoe, and completely in service of a very good, morally complex movie. I just don't think it's as overpowering as others seem to, and I believe that the reviews would be more reasonable had Ledger been alive to read them.

Dial your expectations down. This isn't the best movie ever, kids. I'm not even sure if it's better than Batman Begins, or even a proper sequel in the traditional sense. But it is pretty darn great adult entertainment, it's different than any other comic book film every made, and it's a hell of a ride.

Scott Mendelson

Michael Bay presents Batman - good for a chuckle or two...

A satirical look at Michael Bay taking a crack at writing Batman. It's slightly amusing and worth your two minutes or so.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Batman Gotham Knight (2008)

A slight detour in my intended series of essays on the original Batman film series (the first one is here). Since I'm seeing The Dark Knight tomorrow evening, I thought it best to review the direct to DVD anthology film that ties into the sequel before I see said sequel. This review deals only with the quality of the feature and not with the quality of the DVD packages.

Batman: Gotham Knight
2008
75 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

At its core, Batman Gotham Knight is an anime-styled series, with six 12-minute short cartoons dealing with Batman in the world established in Batman Begins. All six stories are underwhelming in the story department and even the art leaves a little to be desired. The animation is more conventionally realistic than Batman: The Animated Series or The Batman, but the caped crusader himself never looks terribly imposing or convincing. The stories do have the thinnest of connecting tissue, but really they work better when viewed as six separate stand-alone tales.

And the voice work leaves much to be desired. Yes, Kevin Conroy was dubbed in at the last second as Bruce Wayne and Batman, but it's downright awkward hearing this fifty-three year old voice actor voice a twenty-seven year old Bruce Wayne, especially when Conroy employs his more arching, over-the-top, and older sounding Batman voice that he started using on Justice League (it's far less effective than his subtler readings from Batman: The Animated Series). Dare I say it, but if they wanted continuity from the animated worlds, they should have gone with Rino Romano, who plays Bruce Wayne on The Batman at the same age as he is presented here (Romano may never be Conroy in his prime, but he steadily improved as the show ran its bumpy course). To be fair, Batman Beyond: Return Of The Joker suffered the opposite problem when they were forced to replace Stockard Channing with a much younger Angie Harmon as the voice of fifty-something Barbara Gordon. Harmon did what she could, but she just sounded too young.

The other voice work fails to stand out, despite the use of various voice veterans in the Andrea Romano catalog (Rob Paulson, Cory Burton, George Newbern, Kevin Michael Richardson, etc). Jim Meskimen lacks the gravitas to measure up to previous incarnations of Jim Gordon, be it Gary Oldman, Bob Hastings, or Mitch Pileggi. Much of the voice over suffers from a stilted, unnatural delivery, which seems partially the fault of the stilted visuals. The animation seems to not be completely animated (something like every other frame) and it most resembles the three-season Spawn cartoon that HBO aired back in 1994.

As for the much advertised PG-13 rating, it's purely for the dark and gloomy atmosphere and character models. There is periodic bleeding and occasional fisticuffs, but nothing that wouldn't be out of place in the PG-rated Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm. And this certainly isn't 1/4 as disturbing as Batman Beyond: Return Of The Joker (truth be told, I'll be shocked if Heath Ledger does anything approaching as horrifying as what happens in that direct-to-video shocker). Oh, and Batman Beyond: Return Of The Joker was rated PG-13 when it was released in its original uncut form in 2004, so the sticker on the Batman: Gotham Knight DVD claiming that its 'the first ever PG-13 rated Batman animated movie' is blatantly false.

Now, onto the actual stories...

1) Have I Got A Story - Very similar the much-heralded Batman: TAS episode 'Legends Of The Dark Knight'. In that episode, two kids told their differing views of Batman, which in turn were presented as different versions of the character over the years (the first segment was modeled after Bill Finger and Dick Sprang of the 1940s and the second was a riff on Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns). At the conclusion, they encounter the real Batman who is a little bit of both versions. This is the same exact concept, except it's closer to the 1973 Batman comic story 'You Shoulda Seen Him'. In this version, the kids tell more surreal versions of Batman (one imagines a Man-Bat, for example) and yes, they eventually encounter the real thing. It's a good idea, but it's easily the third best version of this story, a fact highlighted by the fact that the episode Legends Of The Dark Knight is included on the two-disc DVD and Blu Ray special editions of this title as a supplement (I would have preferred 'Almost Got Im', but that's me).
Grade: C

2) Crossfire - Detectives Crispus Allen and Anna Ramirez (not Renee Montoya, no absolutely NOT Renee Montoya) get caught in a gang war while transferring a prisoner to the Narrows. This one, written by Greg Rucka, deals with Allen's resentment of Batman and his issues with trusting a freelance vigilante. Fair enough, but the dialogue is simplistic and Ramirez is forced to play the role of helpless hostage at the climax for no particular reason (since Allen is the one who doubts Batman, shouldn't he be the one in peril?). For what it's worth, this one gives us a preview of just what happened to the Narrows after Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow released their toxin at the climax of Batman Begins. Anna Ramirez is featured in The Dark Knight, and I have no idea why she wasn't named after her comic book counterpart.
Grade: C

3) Field Test - Bruce Wayne tests a new bullet deflection technology with mixed results. This is one of the best segments, with solid dialogue, good interplay between Bruce Wayne and Lucius Fox, and a slightly surprising and suspenseful climax.
Grade - B+

4) In Darkness Dwells - Batman encounters Killer Croc in the sewers and gets doused by Scarecrow's fear gas. An entertaining action-filled episode, but it fails to have much of a pay-off.
Grade: B-

5) Working Through The Pain - As Batman struggles to find safety after being seriously wounded, we see flashbacks that show how Bruce Wayne learned to control pain and pain management. An interesting piece of Bruce Wayne's past, but no more than that.
Grade: C+

6) Deadshot - The best episode is saved for last. Written by Alan Burnett (one of the pioneers of Batman: The Animated Series, along with Bruce Timm, Eric Radomski, and Paul Dini), this tale contrasts the sheer obsessive professionalism of Batman alongside master assassin Floyd Lawton (aka - Deadshot). This briefly deals with Wayne's fear of guns and provides a terrific action climax. Batman is at his most bad-ass in this segment.
Grade: A-

Overall, Batman Gotham Knights fails to engage even half as well as lesser episodes of Batman: The Animated Series (or The Batman for that matter). The writing is often simplistic and the action is so stylized that it never gets your adrenaline pumping. In the realm of recent direct-to-DVD DC cartoons, this falls short of silly but fun Superman: Doomsday, the flawed but ambitious New Frontier, and is about even with The Batman Vs Dracula. It is, however, far superior to Superman: Brainiac Attacks (the low-water mark for anything related to DC animation in the last twenty-years). If you're a Batman junkie, it might be worth a purchase just for the documentaries and bonus Batman: TAS episodes included. Otherwise, either rent it or skip it.

Overall Grade: C+

Note – The Extras are actually superior to the feature itself. Included is a crowded cast and crew commentary, and two documentaries running about 35 minutes each. One of them focuses on villains in the Batman canon and the other deals with Batman co-creator Bob Kane. We also have the mentioned four bonus episodes of Batman: The Animated Series (Heart Of Ice, I Am The Night, Over The Edge, and Legends Of The Dark Knight) and a ten-minute preview of the next direct-to-DVD DC comics film, Wonder Woman. It also looks better than this feature.

Wait a minute...

Speaking of The Brave One, I did finally see it when it came out on BluRay early this year. It's not very good, but it does have one priceless scene about forty-minutes in.

Jodie Foster's fiancee has been murdered, and she's desperate to get a gun. So she walks into a gun store. Alas, the gun store owner won't sell her a piece right away because of a variation on the Brady Bill. She leaves in frustration and another customer follows her out and offers to sell her an illegal gun for $1,000. Two things of note...

A) Unless the gun store owner is in cahoots with the black market gun dealer, I'd imagine that scheme would only work once or twice. After all, surely the owner would notice this guy who stands around his store, never buys anything, and then follows any disgruntled customer out of the store and comes back happy. Suspicious?

B) In this scene, we have Jodie Foster being upset and outraged because she can't buy a handgun right away. She can't buy this handgun right away because of The Brady Bill. Jodie Foster plays a character who gets upset over the Brady Bill. Think about that for a minute...

Scott Mendelson

Final Weekend numbers...

Sorry for the delay...

The List

With a summer where the well-reviewed movies were big hits (Iron Man, Wall-E) and the few bombs or disappointments were more or less panned (Speed Racer, The Love Guru, The Happening), it pays to remember that more often that not, critics do not affect opening weekend for the general masses. Opening weekend is about marketing, awareness, and blind interest in a particular movie.

On that note, Hancock gave a giant middle-finger to critics and pundits by grossing a more than solid $62.6 million over the Friday-Sunday portion of the long weekend, closing out it's opening 5.5 days with just under $104 million. This is the fourth-largest July 4th opening behind Spider-Man 2 ($88 million 3-day, $150 million five-day), Transformers, and War Of The Worlds. Even if word of mouth is toxic and the competition proves too heavy, the film is still a lock for $200 million domestic. In general, July 4th releases do anywhere from 22% to 29% of their total in their opening Friday-Sunday portion. Even if Hancock did 30% of its final over the opening weekend, that's still $208 million (25% = $250 million, which is not likely).

This is also Will Smith's second-largest three-day take, second only to last Christmas's fluke I Am Legend, which made $77 million off a perfect storm of factors that should not be considered the norm (good reviews, terrific trailers, best release date of the year, no competition, curiosity surrounding The Dark Knight trailers). I Am Legend eventually ended up with $257 million. If Hancock comes anywhere close to that, Will Smith could be setting himself up as a target in the future when his grosses return to their normal levels ($140-170 million). Come what may, this is a terrific number for an unfairly maligned film.

Wall-E took a surprising tumble, losing 48% (a lot for a cartoon), taking in $33 million for a ten-day total of $128 million. The good news is that Wall-E's first ten day gross is still ahead of Kung-Ku Panda (which should cross $200 million next weekend), Cars, and Ratatouille. So, again, even in the worst case scenario, and this large drop isn't a fluke due to competition and July 4th falling on a Friday (always a bad thing), this should still out gross Ratatouille and should squeak past Kung Fu Panda. It has no chance of making Finding Nemo or even The Incredibles/Monsters Inc numbers, but it should get close to if not surpass the $245 million that Toy Story 2 and Cars ended up at. Considering how offbeat and challenging this cartoon is, that's gotta be a huge win for Pixar.

In the catagory of huge drops that deserved it, Wanted plummeted a delightful 61% to about $21 million. Darn shame, that is, really. Anyway, I must conceed that this soulless, stupid, and condescendingly terrible film is a decent hit, crossing the $90 million mark after ten days. This $75 million picture will likely struggle to equal the $131 million that Tomb Raider grossed back in 2001. It sure isn't coming anywhere near the $187 million that Mr. And Mrs. Smith grossed (off a nearly indentical $50 million opening). Ironically, with $193 million, Kung Fu Panda just passed Mr. And Mrs. Smith to become Angelina Jolie's highest grossing picture to date. Anyway, expect this to be another textbook 'quick-kill blockbuster' and do over 40% of its final total in the first three days.

Get Smart ended weekend three with $98.1 million (couldn't Warner found an extra $2 million somewhere?) and is still holding steady. This one cost $80 million, but some of that and alot of the marketing costs were paid for by product plugs and various tie-ins.

The Incredible Hulk... ok, you know where I'm going with this. One more time -
-Current gross - $125 million.
-Probable Final Domestic gross of Hulk 2.0 - $140 million. Budget of Hulk 2.0 - $160 million.
-Actual Final Domestic gross of Hulk 2003 - $132 million. Budget of Hulk 2003 - $130 million.
-Inexplicable decision to spend more money for a sequel than the massively disliked original grossed, then being astounded as said sequel loses more money than the original. Priceless! Nice work Marvel.

The only other major development is the bombing (relative to expectations) of Kit Kittridge: An American Girl. After two weeks of terrific limited release business, the well-reviewed family film went wide with over 1800 screens over the holiday weekend... and no one cared. A $3.2 million opening. $5.6 million gross thus far. To be fair, at a budget of $10 million, Warner Bros. will eventually make money off of this, especially with DVD sales.

Still, I wonder if the only reason that Warner Bros. spent the money for the wide-release was to deflect (false) charges of studio sexism leveled by Deadline Hollywood's Nikki Finke Late last year, WB honcho Jeff Robinov made statements basically blaiming the failures of The Reaping, The Invasion, and The Brave One on the lack of interest in female-driven movies. Whether that was a fair assessment (not really, all three movies were terrible with troubled production histories), and whether the executives harbor sexist attitudes (certainly probable), the WB slate speaks for itself. Yes, that's right, the studio that brought you The Brave One, The Invasion, The Reaping, Sex & The City, Kit Kittredge: An American Girl, Sisterhood Of The Traveling Pants 2, He's Just Not That Into You, and The Women is sexist at the core!

Scott Mendelson

How the opinions of 'they' affects the opinions of 'me'.

Here is a nice little piece by The Los Angeles Times' Kenneth Turan and the even better response by Dave Poland about how the effects of other critics often infect your/our/my own criticism of a given movie. Although it's more noticeable this summer (witness the instant mass lynching of Hancock and Speed Racer, vs the trip-over-themselves adultation of Iron Man and Wanted), there has always been the 'gang' aspect of film criticism. Whomever sees the movie first often sets the tone for the criticism to follow, and often that is the only reason to be first. Although I hope to god that they are right, want to bet that if Peter Travers had panned The Dark Knight two weeks ago, that the reviews from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter would not have been quite so positive?

One of my first reviews was of the 'bear whisperer' documentary Grizzly Man. Having not read any reviews, I entered into the 2005 movie relatively blind, and I absolutely loathed the picture. Imagine my astonishment when I banged out my review only to read nearly every critic and columnist I knew calling it a masterpiece, a classic, one of the best documentaries ever, etc. Did I change my opinion? Nope. I still hated Timothy Treadwell and have no wish to spend any time with the delusional fraud. Did I wonder if I had missed something elemental that precluding me from joining in the chorus? Of course I did. Especially as a novice film critic, it's tough being the only one.

Whether I'm the one guy who hated Spider-Man 2 and liked Fantastic Four, or you're the lonely soul who hated Almost Famous and Fellowship Of The Ring, there is and always has been a herd mentality. I had a film professor who once said (incorrectly) that if you don't like a critically praised film that you were missing something. No, it couldn't be that the movie didn't work for you, or that you weren't as approving as the critical masses, it must have been that you missed something that everyone else noticed and that you should see it again. He was wrong. Criticism is by its nature a subjective medium. No matter how much others try to persuade you, and the end of the day your feelings are your feelings in regards to any work of art. Yes it is absolutely possible to change your mind down the road upon reviewings (I now prefer The Mummy to The Mummy Returns, and I prefer The Living Daylights to Licence To Kill), but in the end it is your feelings that determine a piece of art's value, not how high the Tomato Meter is or whether your friends all liked it.

It's tough climbing uphill in the world of film criticism. It's tough being the only person to dislike Transformers, to dislike Iron Man, and to love Speed Racer. Doesn't mean I'm right anymore than it means they're wrong. And, if group-think really is the culprit, then history will judge these films in a far more fair manner than the current 'instant narrative' (Turan gives the classic example of Vertigo, widely panned in 1958, now considered one of Hitchcock's best). I firmly believe that Spider-Man 2 will suffer the same fate as the similarly plotted Superman II, an allegedly improved sequel that will plummeted in esteem compared to the original as the years went by. But don't let the early reviews color your appreciation of a movie. Just because Variety hated it, doesn't mean you won't love it. And it doesn't make you wrong.

Scott Mendelson

A trailer worth watching...

It's nice to see a good trailer about a seemingly worthwhile movie that you know nothing about. So with that, I won't spoil anything other than to say that Lakeview Terrace opens on September 14th. Enjoy...




If you want to download, try Movie-List.

Scott Mendelson

Review: The Happening (2008)

The Happening
2008
91 minutes
Rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Critics were wrong on Speed Racer, wrong on Wanted, wrong on Hancock. What about one of the alleged super-turds of the summer? Well... they aren't completely wrong, but there is hope. First of all, two very important things about The Happening...

1) It's obvious that M. Night Shyamalan had absolutely no interest in making an R-rated film. Despite my amusement about Fox's marketing campaign, and the extra interest that said rating probably garnered, this is easily one of the softest R-rated movies I have ever seen. No sex or nudity, no hard profanity that I can recall, and very little graphic violence. The television edit of this film will be maybe five-seconds shorter. M Night's previous films had a realistic, clinical take on the violence that made it more disturbing than the usual splatter. There are a couple scenes that capture that 'son of two doctors' visual (for example, a close up of a realistically broken body that has just fallen off a building), but most of the content is shot from far away and cuts away far sooner than you'd expect. My guess is that the subject matter itself guaranteed that the film would garner an R-rating, and that Fox asked Shyamalan to toss in a little gore for gore's sake.

2) Mark Walhburg should never, ever appear in a mainstream tent pole movie that requires him to play an everyman and someone of great intelligence. He couldn't do it in Planet Of The Apes, and he's quite terrible here. He's perhaps the least convincing onscreen educator in the history of celluloid. I've always preferred his brother Donnie, and even he would have been more convincing as a blue-collar science teacher. The film is plenty flawed aside from him, but his stunningly awful performance is probably 60% of the reason the movie doesn't work as well as it should. The majority of the acting has an odd stilted, quasi-realistic quality, like a cross between super-realism and surreal 1950s horror acting. It doesn't always work, but it keeps you on edge in a way that conventional performances might not have.

Most of you know the general plot at this point and I won't spoil much for those that don't, but the first forty-five minutes of this eighty-five minute movie are surprisingly compelling. There are enough scary, nasty jolts and clever violence to keep you just on edge (I particularly like the 'recycling pistol'). Again, the acting is odd, and the plot choices are a little off (when a train stops suddenly mid-journey and forces everyone to de-board, only our hero asks the train operators just what is going on), but there is a palatable sense of menace and dread. I like how the news reports are realistically panicked and confused, often giving out false information and wild theorizing.

Random note 1 - As I was watching the movie, it occurred to me, with no small amusement, that two places likely not to be affected by the incidents would be Mel Gibson's farm from Signs and the colonial town from The Village. Random note 2 - If you're going to have characters using the word 'happening' in a dramatic fashion a good dozen or so times, don't call your movie The Happening. It's a big pet peeve of mine when characters shoe-horn the title of the movie into the narrative, and it 'happens' a whole bunch here (the oddly named James Bond movies, like Tomorrow Never Dies, The Living Daylights, or Die Another Day, do this every time).

Zooey Deschanel seems to be playing a realistically screwed up person, to the point where it's (realistically) off putting at times. Still, I like that it's all but stated that she had a very screwed up childhood (did she see dead people as a child?), but that childhood trauma is never spelled out or even stated. The rest of the cast does what they can, even when the plot makes them make boneheaded choices. For example, John Leguizamo eventually leaves his daughter in the care of Wahlburg and Deschanel in order to find his wife. But, really, considering the nature of the calamity, his wife is either completely healthy and completely able to save herself, or she's already dead and there's no hope. Under those circumstances, you stay with your kid so she doesn't either end up an orphan or die alone.

There are genuine Shyamalan touches, especially in the eccentricity of the characters. The older lady that figures into the third act (Betty Buckley) is inexplicably crazy, but yet a symbolic explanation for her character is undone by the plot. She just seems to be batty for no particular reason (Wahlburg does his worst acting in his scenes with Buckley). Deschanel is cooky too, as is the gardener who is rather plausibly offers an explanation for the carnage while obsessing about hot dogs. It's actually the occasionally quirky dialogue, rather than the rote violence, that makes this feel like a Shyamalan film. For the record, I adore how the romantic subplot, Deshanel's guilt over having an almost-date with an attractive coworker, is dealt with. Wahlburg's speech involving cough syrup, as well as a brief beat involving him getting relationship advice from two kids, is the highlight of the movie.

Despite my praise of the above, the entire last third of the movie really drags and the movie just sort of ends, halfheartedly, without a real climax. Granted, the end of the movie is rooted more in character drama than in the thriller staples, but you need something, anything, to get a rise out of the audience in the end. Of course, this is the big problem with the movie. Quirky acting, odd pacing, weird plot choices... all of that would be manageable save for a threat that, once revealed, really can't be dealt with in any cinematic fashion. Again, avoiding spoilers, but once you know what's going on, you basically wait for the problem to ride itself out. This may be realistic, but it's not entertaining.

I stand by what I wrote last over the last month or so. Even a bad Shyamalan movie is more interesting than the bland, try nothing, accomplish nothing confections that make up the majority of the suspense/horror/thriller genre. I can't quite recommend The Happening, but it has enough quirky and intense touches to absolutely recommend a rental (especially those using mail order services). Shyamalan still has to discipline himself, he still needs to learn how to end a movie that contains no twist (of his pictures, only Signs avoids a twist AND ends successfully). But The Happening is not a complete catastrophe and it has more to like than 90% of the horror films so far this year. That's not saying much, but it is saying something. How's this for a pull quote? - "M. Night Shyamalan: Scott Mendelson still hasn't given up on him."

Grade: C