Re: Nope.

The story starts like this: I was ready for the bastard! The bastard not being the fool who made it, but rather the film itself. I've long since established my thoughts on the "filmmaker" and the various depths of confusion he so regularly engulfs himself in. To prep The Happening, I re-viewed both Unbreakable and The Village, for my memory's recollection of the two were minimal at best. Damn (for his sake), he almost had me. I've yet to see The Sixth Sense in my adult years, which would surely nail the coffin shut, and Unbreakable, well, she spoiled herself. One's second outing will allow such inevitable fault. Nice try, nonetheless. Everything Signs and on reeks of foundational flaw. A house built on sand sells an embarrassing view. He must be blind.

So on to The Blathering. Roger Ebert called it "thoughtful" because "it reminded him of some of the things that had been on his mind." Move over pillow-man (which is an oxymoronic term in itself) and read the fucking news. You wouldn't know "thoughtful" if it hit you up side the . . . well whatever, you just wouldn't know it if you deemed the world's dullest roller coaster ride "thoughtful." The film starts with 5 minutes of hyper-teen-shock, then gets straight to the intellect — a false Einstein "quote" about the food eater's dependency on the surviving abundance of bees, which in turn read like a bastardized hodge-podge of every made up what-if "fact" concerning the issue for AT LEAST 5 years now. So you know, sure, a good idea never dies, but why in the hell are we making up Einstein quotes — and regurgitating ones at that? Sure enough, pulling back from the chalk board we meet the film's (on-screen) star, Mr. Wahlberg, who appears to be teaching science to monkeys. Or maybe that's just as far as the film's scriptwriter made it in his own educational quest for intellect. The film then begins to steer its way through utter confusion with its ass in the air, slapping it with a horrifically sexual tone like a double-deuced, "who's bad" hoochied bimbo. The fool tends to flaunt it's naivety with a flying color or two, but here we get three or four. So, at least we know M Night is a liberal man — hardly an effective approach for such exasperating filmmaking.

I'm not sure I understood the comparisons to his supposed contemporaries. Are Will Ferrell movies really contemporaries of "thoughtful" filmmaking? Serious filmmaking? Personally I think that entire formula of Big Budgeted Blockbuster Farts For Dummies should be disbanded. It spoils a medium that a select few still overwhelmingly excel in carrying. Do you truly believe M Night does NOT see himself as a part of this distinguished class? Do you truly believe M Night deserves the weight you've lent him?

You mentioned the relationship between the content of the film itself and the social environment it was delivered to. This is by all means a significant point of interest, and perhaps essential to the code of responsibility filmmaking MUST uphold. This is also where I believe we truly disagree. For what reason would M Night, or any respectable "artist," step DOWN to speak to THESE people in such extremely elementary fashion? I think that's the point right there. I don't believe M Night has the perspective you've granted him. His insight is poorly researched and drastically UN-realized. It's token FIGHT the FIGHT for the FIGHT is worth FIGHTING for. It's a wide-eyed yearn for enlightenment, the fruits of a process M Night simply does not understand. His sheer lack of taste is insulting.