You're absolutely right here. And there are good reasons for these choices, so the following criticism:For myself, the main reason the film was misunderstood was because, as critical audiences are wont to do, they took exception at implausibilities and absurdities in the narrative, thereby, however, and in my view, taking the film in the wrong way: as mentioned, it seemed to me that the movie is deliberately unrealistic, at both a narrative and stylistic level
can not be really a criticism to the movie.This makes the movie a little more interesting than it is given credit for, but for me, despite the intention, the script was insufficiently worked out and the nightmare logic tended to dissipate in the final section in favor of the rather simplistic message the film clearly intended to espouse, leaving audiences dissatisfied and in the mood to pick at all the other "faults" of realism that could be ascribed.
I will try to explain why (as logically as possible). Shyamalan clearly is a director who takes very personally any comment on his movies by anybody - and I mean he is personally insulted, when he reads a negative review to the point of childish reactionism. After he made The Village - his most complex and personal movie to date (I knew it is his favorite long before he said that explicitly in one recent interview for TLA) - the critics were disappointed, because for some reason they stayed on the surface, where you have unrealistic twist and a classical love story. Most of them bashed the film, not able to see that beneath this surface, you have extremely rich movie, both thematically and emotionally, and this tale is quite possibly the saddest and the most tragic comment on escapism in movie history. It was clear Shyamalan put enormous effort to craft not only technically stunning movie, but also one which genuinely can make you think and cry if you manage to pass beyond the usual weirdness (which I happen to actually enjoy). And I would guess Shyamalan was so disappointed by the simplicity of the main criticism toward The Village (the most common - "I've guessed the twist 15 minutes into the movie, therefore it sux"), that he felt his creative side is under attack.
This lead to the absurdity to cast himself as a creative genius whose writings will change the world and to kill a movie critic in his next movie - Lady in the Water. He clearly lost control and I would immediately start to hate this arrogant asshole if LITW was not a beautiful and truthful adaptation of a psychotherapy session (see the link above I gave), and only revanchist bullshit. Again, no one went pass the obvious superficial fairytale elements, the tremendous naivety in the script, and of course - the balls of Shyamalan to say so loudly "fuck you very much" to all his critics. Virtually everybody hated LITW and the suggestions varied from "he should never write a script again", through "he should never direct a movie again" and to "he should kill himself".
And here we go to The Happening. What he did with this movie was to show his critics what exactly would *happen* if he starts really listen to them and stop writing and directing. On some level The Happening is a movie where the director is absent. It is "badly" written, paced, acted... on purpose. Even the usual cameo by Shyamalan is of a man who is systematically isolated from the movie - he is the voice of Joey on Alma's phone. So The Happening in a way is a movie, where the creative force behind it is self-restricted. The plot itself can be interpreted in favor of this: without real direction the characters have no purpose to exist and what is left for them is to start to commit suicides. Note how in the core the tools Shyamalan's using are derived from B-movies - even the overall structure of the film, and especially the finale in Paris just scream B-movie. And by using these tools - "poorly" written dialogue full with absurdities, weird acting, over-the-top and ridiculous usage of violence... he is making a point. What I really like about The Happening, what actually saves it from being a disaster, and elevates it to one of the most clever films of 2008, is how this "weapon" is used to convey the narrative and to carry the emotional evolution of the two main characters. Essentially, by using tools which have nothing to do with his previous aggressively calculated and authoritative directing style, Shyamalan is making a very shyamalanish movie at its heart. It is a great experiment and it is a pity that is so misunderstood.
P.S. I am not sure to what extent this makes sense, but I could clarify specific points or add arguments where needed.