Why So Negative?

Rating: 6/10 (5 February 2009)

I think people are so harsh on this movie simply because they raised their expectations through the roof. This may sound obvious but consider the trailer. It just shows you people dying (seemingly) everywhere, literally just dropping dead, no one knows what's going on, hang on to your hats kiddies its the apocalypse! There are SO many things you can do with that. I read somewhere that this should've gone the way of Andromeda Strain (extraterrestrial bacteria for those in the know) but really, if someone came up to any of you and said "the premise is people everywhere are dropping dead. Make a story. GO!" I guarantee you'd lose count of all the ideas that spring forth. Aliens, terrorists, government experiments, some kind of doomsday weapon, take your pick. Moving along, the idea that it's nature itself that's responsible (and is out to get us) isn't directly obvious and let's face it, not among the most exciting. If instead of the theatrical trailer, Fox came out and said "look we're making a movie about killer trees and it's got Mark Wahlberg" how many people would get excited? Not very many. So instead you've got one of the most kickass trailers released that summer but instead of a proper apocalypse, you've got some creepy scenes and and a Greenpeace message. So yes, if you were expecting Dawn of the Dead sans zombies that sounds lame as hell. So put aside Body Snatchers and I am Legend for now, and I'm fairly positive The Happening will start to shine better.
That being said, I won't deny they dropped the ball. I'm not going to get into debates on how good/poor the acting is. I've found that critics (both professional and the parent's basement type) use that as a first-stop shop on the road to flick bashing. Yes some people are abysmal at emotional portrayal and should leave the business but for the most part actors don't usually place on the extreme ends of the spectrum. Bottom line is, people who hate the movie will bash the acting, while people who enjoyed it (or are fans of the actors involved) will defend it. Thus it may be a waste of time debating it.
No I want to focus on the story itself. I felt it was well done until about the middle. Yes as many reviews have already pointed out the whole problems with the plant neurotoxin and the wind and also the immediate (and often creative) suicides that followed exposure detract from the overall atmosphere of the movie. It's scarier when you believe people just stop moving and drop dead, as opposed to seeing the suicides and going "wait a minute, what just happened?" If you want to scare people, you don't want them to question your horror creation. You may want them to beg and plead that it can't be true sure, but stopping to debunk it scientifically? Not the way to go.
If that was just a fumble however, the final clumsy toss-up comes in the scene where Elliot and Alma and Jess leave the relative protection of the houses and meet on the field. Bam! There goes any credibility the characters and the movie had left. No more marriage insecurity, no more concern for the kid, no more concern for personal safety, just grade A corn and cheese at its finest. Then I guess they remembered they had a movie to finish and decided to reset everything back to normal a mere three months after how many million died? Not to be accused of a Hollywood ending, the final scenes may have well been tacked on at the beginning because nothing was happening. Just boring everyday life. The France scene tried to re-establish the fear and the message of the movie but by then it was too late.
So what's the point of this rambling post? This movie had an awesome premise and unbelievable potential, but instead dumbed down into a decent, fairly creepy start with a terrible ending. Is it amazing? Not really. Is it the ultimate mess-up, the most idiotic thing to happen to the movie industry since Batman and Robin? Probably not.