"The Village"- No Spoilers
 

Hello,

Saw the movie "The Village" today.. I am a big fan of M. Night Shyamalan.. (he lives in the county I grew up in) It was a very good movie, but certainly not a great movie..
Moved a little slow in the first hour..One thing that puzzled me especailly in the first half hour or so,and made me question the movie was the lack of firearms, especailly considering the timeframe established on the tombstone.....Of course later it becomes more apparent why the lack of firearms..I think Ron Howards daughter played a terrific role..M Night did a good job of building tension, and except for the first hour, the pacing was good.He does a lot with very little..The only other criticism I have was the bahavior of Adrian Brody in the woods late in the movie, (trying to not give anything away here) was really not at all consistent with his earlier behavior..
But overall the movie was enjoyable, and even after several hours since seeing the film, i am still thinking about the movie..
3.5 stars out of 5


My 2 cents,,

Mike M

This is just my humble opinion folks, nothing more nothing less..

The major newspaper here gave it 1/4. Says it "treats us like idiots" and the ending "is an enormously stupid twist that's calculated to keep us from counting the plot holes until the drive home".

I guess he didn't like it.

I also saw it and have to say I thought it was terrible.

joaquin is a great actor. imho he's up there with ed norton, pitt, newer generation of 'greats' =).

anyway re: M Night's films. i always though his films were too slow for their own good. sixth sense was nice pace. there was always something happening. unbreakable and night's later films suffers from too much self importance. it's so damned slow like night's trying to show you something, a mood maybe? i don't know what but it just ain't working. there's no POINT to some of the uber-slow scenes. most of unbreakable can be condensed, but then it'll be merely a 15minute movie... which is what night does best. taking a 15minute idea and stretching it into 2+ hours!!!! it's a rental for me just out of curiosity's sake.

I actually liked it, but the only part I didn't like was the final "reveal" lasted to long afterwards. It dragged after we found out the truth.

Although, I must say this...the scene in the woods where that thing is standing there and charges her? Damn, that was goooood....everyone jumped to the roof at that one.

Murph

I enjoyed it. Spoiler : click and drag to reveal my spoilage! :D

What I got from Night's movie is that in every place people try to go, they will always find misery. Sure this was done in other movies before. But yet the movie still kept my interest.

There's a lot of subtle things that are right there before you to pick out. Such as how the Elders spoke in a modern tone when they were alone. They would use contractions like "Won't" and "Isn't" yet when around they younger generation, they would switch back to the old English Victorian language of the late 1800's.

I also like how the game warden placed the pocket watch on the rear view mirror. A vision of the past?

Many people will dog this movie but ironically, most converstations will be a hell of a lot deeper than those who came out from Spiderman 2. I hear people talk about the Village's cinematography, acting, pacing.....whereas Spiderman 2: guys are like "Did you see Kirsten's boobies!" and the ladies will say "Toby McGuire is sooo cute!"*winks*

I had high expectations going into this movie. I had heard much about this great "twist." To my own surprise I figured out the first twist early on in the film. As for the major twist, it was easily expected once the movie got going. I remember thinking, "Man if this happens (insert twist here) this movie is going to be rediculous."

Night could have taken the movie in several directions. I credit him as a great user of suspense - some points reminded me of Hitchcock. He also seemed to be building quite a love story between Ivy and Lucius, which isn't a genre I usually enjoy. Maybe Night has potential in putting together a good love story in the future. But in this film he didn't spend enough time on the romance, moreover it didn't have much of a place in the film.

After the movie another friend of mine and I made a pact to tell everyone what a great movie it is and not to pay attention to any negative things they hear about it - then they can witness first hand how stupid it is.

I still have an urge to see it again to determine hints of the twist, just like the 6th Sense.

It was stupid to a point, but he's getting a bad rap. The poor guy has that success burden happeing. He's gotten successful from a few specific things...twist being the main one.

We gotta give the guy a break - he actually put together a GREAT movie compared to some of the CRAP Hollywood dumps on us all the time. Myself personally, I didn't know the twist until later in the movie...so, I was excited until then. The only thing that bugged me a little was the dragging of the ending...it should have wrapped up quicker.

Also, I have to give it to M Night for making such American type movies. He has grasped Americana quite well...look at Signs and now Village. They both have an American breathe to it. Am I the only one who sees his insight? It's not a big deal, but he's doing a great job for being Indian. I don't know any Indian directors myself, so he's someone I am keen to watch grow. (I know, I should rent some Bollywood movies!! Yeah, whatever...we should all do something or other!)

By the way, did anyone read Roger Eberts review? I read it after I saw the film - of course! But, it's plain nasty....he gave it a 1 star and ripped it to shreds. It was a little unfair, I thought...go read it if you have time.

Murph

this isn't directed to joe but is directed to those that think the movie is great. you guys keep saying "it's better than the crap, like spiderman out there, bla bla bla." but thus far i haven't read any specific thing that he did to deserve that praise. in retrospect, would you say the same words you are saying here,, say.... 6 months from now? i mean i remember saying that 6th sense is a classic right after i came out of the cinema... but... i don't feel that way today.

oh and regards to pace... if you think what he does is great... then all of us could just setup the camera, let it roll for 1/2 hour just having the actor walking around reciting so-so lines without cutting at all and proclaim that as the greatest thing before the 2nd coming. i dunno about you but i like when a director uses (like hitchcock) purposefully does it. but when night does it he just does it to show off. that's th problem. also if you look at hitchcock, he does cut for th most part to maintain a sense of pace. look at north by northwest's field scene. lots of cutting there!


<<<-- Originally posted by Joe Calalang : I enjoyed it. Spoiler :
Many people will dog this movie but ironically, most converstations will be a hell of a lot deeper than those who came out from Spiderman 2. I hear people talk about the Village's cinematography, acting, pacing.....whereas Spiderman 2: guys are like "Did you see Kirsten's boobies!" and the ladies will say "Toby McGuire is sooo cute!"*winks* -->>>

First, apologies to anyone who saw this movie and liked it.
I judge a movie based on what it's aiming for. The Village tries to achieve a certain level of profundity and falls way short. Yes, the cinematography and score are great. But if you want to see truly amazing cinematography watch something like Winged Migration. And in a 60 million dollar movie like The Village the least I would expect is a decent DP and composer. Unbelievably pretentious, boring, and ridiculous- these are the three things that I think best sum up The Village. This was the film that finally revealed to the general public that M. Night Shyamalan is no genius. A competent filmmaker perhaps- but no Hitchcock. Shyamalan needs to put down the pen and maybe adapt someone elses screenplay for a change. His script had so many holes I found it laughable. It's just a bad- really bad film. Edited to say I criticized Shyamalan for being pretentious but I just realized my post is pretentious. Did I actually use the word "profundity"! Sheeeeeeez, I need to get some sleep.

Just to add to the noise here.. I just got back from the theater.

I tried, honest to God I tried to like this movie.
But, it wasn't just me, the audience wouldn't let me...

People were laughing throughout the film, at points that obviously were not meant to be humerous.

All I heard were complaints as we walked out.
And, I can say, I was one of the ones complaining as well.

What frustrates me the most is that usually when I see a bad movie, it is bad at the core. The Village actually has a concrete idea that could have made a very interesting and engaging story.
But, unfortunately, now we'll never see that movie... because we're stuck with the one that was made.

Save you 8 dollars, rent it.... or, better yet, get a friend to rent it.
I regret paying for this one.

Here's my review from amazon.com:

"a strong political commentary."


Come on Tony. Really?

I'll give you that there is an allagory going on there, obviously.
But what sort of commentary is the film giving us?

I mean, you pretty much nailed everything the film had to say,
and you did it in a few sentences. That's not much 'commentary'

I didn't see anything in it that couldn't be condensed down to a
30 minute twilight Twilight Zone episode
(and that's only about 20 minutes with commercials).

That was exactly my problem, here had a good idea, and just
didn't exploit it or explore it for any sort of real depth.
The 'message' of "The Village" can fit on a bumper sticker.

Unless I'm missing something.

like i said earlier, m's "substance" from 6th sense on to village has always been 15-30min episodes of a TV plot. he just stretches it all out to 2 hrs! it's ridiculous! took me til signs to realize his trickery, but by the looks of the box office not a lot of people have unveiled the truth yet.

That's what's great... if you recognize that this story is an allegory, then you can sit back and think about what M. Night Shyamalan is trying to say with different scenes and characters. Personally, I think M. Night Shyamalan is trying to say that we are innocent and our system is built upon good intentions and the "monsters" that the government uses to scare us aren't real... and I think the whole movie is a major crique of the system.

"I didn't see anything in it that couldn't be condensed down to a 30 minute twilight Twilight Zone episode" That's exactly what I thought. Only you could take the worst Twilight Zone ever made and it would still be better than this debacle- and it wouldn't have cost 60 million to make. And you wouldn't have to shell out $9 to see it.

I've always said it's important to rent Shyamalan movies on VHS that way you can watch them in fast forward.

This is one of those times when I find I'm completely out of touch with most everybody. I didn't just kind of like this movie -- I loved it. Everything about it. But then, I came in late and missed nearly the first half. I may see it again, and who knows, maybe I'll change my mind, but so far, I think it's brilliant. I don't even understand why people say the twist is so silly and anti-climactic. But then, I think "From Dusk to Dawn" is brilliant too, so maybe I just lack taste. Everyone else seems to think that movie sucks.

Marco,

I'm with you, I liked it. You have to know going into one of his movies that three things are certain:

It will be a slow paced film.
Red means something.
He'll do a cameo.

All three, every time, like clockwork. If you go to a superhero movie and then complain about the movie being unrealistic, well duh! If you go to an M. Night Shyamalan movie, and expect it to be quick, you'll be disappointed.

If he directed a 30 second commercial it would run for 48 seconds. But it would probably make brilliant use of light and audio to make you gasp about something even though you knew it was going to happen.

Years from now film students will study the "M. Night Shyamalan Genre" like they do Hitchcock now.

Just to be clear, I don't want to sound as if I was complaing
about the pace. I loved Sixth Sense, and Unbreakable...both
slow paced films. My problems with 'The Village' were more
based in the plot and the (lack of) character development. It had
nothing to do with the slow pace of the film.

By the way, I'm with you on 2 out of the 3 that you listed...but the
color red? I must have not paid much attention in the other 3
movies, but what significance did the color red have in his other
movies?

Just curious.


And as a side note, my 2 cents, people have compared M. Night
to Hitchcock from the beginning, and they still do so now. Unless
he changes up his style, I doubt we'll ever be studying the "M.
Night Shyamalan Genre." At least, not as long as he's viewed as
'another Hitchcock.' To define a genre I think you really have to
break new ground, and don' t think he's quite there.

Rewatch the Sixth Sense and notice the red doors and door knobs.

Rewatch Unbreakable and notice who is wearing red in the train station scene. Notice that the only folks not wearing grey/black/brown are the people who brush his hand.

well people compared brian depalma to hitchcock, but brian is no hitchcock. neither is night...

OK guys, I just got back from watching The Village so I'll join in the party here...

I went to see the film with my director friend Kay, and the fun thing was she'd never seen one of Shyamalan's films but I always thought she'd appreciate his style. When we got to the theatre at 8:30 we found that it was sold out, so we sneaked into Collateral and watched the last hour waiting for the next showing of The Village. This certainly provided a nice contrast as I can't imagine two films farther from each other in style.

In short, we both really liked The Village. It's fascinating to see the comments from some of you who didn't. I personally admired the fact that he took the time to develop the story and give the film such a thoughtful, well grounded treatment. My real fear was that we were going to see some ridiculous monsters running around the woods (like the aliens in Signs). But instead I found this to be a much more mature and less gimmicky film and think it's a step in the right direction after his last two. Kay was really impressed with the direction and production. I don't find the film "pretentious" as someone else suggested. But I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder.

After sitting through an hour of Collateral it was a welcome change of pace to watch something with less of a Hollywood feeling. I'll be interested to see what he comes up with next.

I happened to watch this over the weekend. My friend and i found his cameo appearance (a reflection shot) a bit of a wank.

Found it to be a well-made movie as it should, with the budget and resources it carries. But disliked a lot of jarring/mismatched shots throughout the flick, didn't fancy his over-use of back-of-the-head shots and his cheap raising-of-volume to scare the pants off the audience.

Saw another movie that we shall not speak of which was more provocative.

Kevin...if we shall not speak of this film how can we all benefit from the potential enlightenment?

boyd, i'd like to know, what specifically did you (or k) like about the filck?

C C. Murphy
I risk not the bad colour of my cherished ones.
I bid u hush now. The towns people hear your words of curious bravado.

"I bid u hush now. The towns people hear your words of curious bravado."
That's hilarious.

[b]WARNING[/b] A few spoilers here
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Yi Fong Yu : boyd, i'd like to know, what specifically did you (or k) like about the filck? -->>>

Well I don't think I'm up for writing an in depth review, but will offer a few random comments. I liked the slow measured pace which others in this thread found boring. I liked the visual sense, although personally I found it a little too "designerly" at a few points (like the wedding party and multiple outdoor banquets).

I liked the allegorical treatment and think it was obvious that he didn't want you to take the film literally. I think he wanted to provoke some discussion and controversy with the subject matter. For example the title The Village immediately connected in my mind with Hillary Clinton's (in)famous "sometimes it takes a village" quote.

I liked the fact that he didn't rely so heavily on a plot gimmick in this film. Everyone now expects a plot twist towards the end of his films, and he managed to provide one, but in a less heavy-handed way this time. As others have pointed out, you have a pretty good idea of what is about to happen by the time you get to it.

I liked the treatment of the woods as a scary place where something horrible would happen to the villagers. This is an old theme in Hollywood that plays into urban/suburban America's fear of the unknown. The woods are dangerous and full of monsters and demented maniacs. How many horror/suspense movies can you think of with this premise? That's a topic which I have a personal fascination with since I live in the woods and spend as much time wandering away from civilization as I can. To me the woods feel safe and comforting, and this was especially topical when I saw the film last night. My friend lives in the city and we had to walk through some not-so-nice neighborhoods on the way to and from the theatre. Also a nice contrast to Collateral which had such a strong urban feeling.

I liked the symbolism of the blind girl and the guy who hardly ever spoke. And the notion that the whole future of the village was put in the hands of the blind girl who had to succeed in a seemingly impossible quest.

Now I don't know that I would argue that this is one of the "great" films, but I just liked it and was pleasantly surprised by it. This is one of those films that a lot of people will dislike because it is slow paced and doesn't fit the typical Hollywood summer genre very well. It's probably unfortunate that they released it this time of year; it made me think of the article I summarized in the following thread

Let me throw my two cents in, and take a different direction.

First off, I thought it was pretty decent. The twist, I kinda saw it coming, but that might have been 'cause I've read too many threads on other forums, even though I didn't THINK I was reading spoilers. A little slow in some places, but that's Shammy for you.

I did want to point out the zooms (I think) that were used. What's up with zooms? Who zooms? Zooms are the devil! Why not use a dolly? I'm speaking mainly of the opening shot of the film. . .that was a long, slow zoom, no? There a few others, in other places. Seriously. . .why the zoom? Did Shammy's cousin take over the camera for that shot? Maybe I'm just a rabid anti-zoomite. I'll go to sensitivity training, no really.

I finally saw the film and was surprised how null the suspense actually was. One feeble attempt to introduce doubt in the audience's mind about the already-revealed twist via a voiceover replay really stretched narrative's credibility.

I think it's interesting to mention that "Unbreakable" was actually only the 1st act of a 3 act work. The other acts were Bruce's character meeting other Heros, and then becoming a full blown Super Hero, and taking out villains (Glass). Night liked the 1st act so much that he thought he could stretch it out and turn the original 3 act screenplay into a full-blown trilogy. Obviously, it didn't do well enough in the theater to warrant the sequels.

I wonder with his usual pacing being so slow, if that was in any way a byproduct of slowing down "Unbreakable"s 1st act to feature length.

the problem with mns is he totally thinks he's the man now after 6th sense.

his style of writing and directing fits perfectly within the realm of a movie like 6th sense. in the end though i think it was the relationship between the mother and the son that had people coming back to the cinema or enticing other people to go watch it for the first time. yesh the scare was great. the audience i watched it with on opening night had ladies screaming top of their lungs... but that alones does not a movie make. it was the relationship between mother + son and also the 2nd story-thread invovling the dead husband and the still alive wife (in case anyone hasn't seen it yet =^). his slow buildup of the scare where he never cuts, instead he lets the cam roll and roll til it builds the scare and then finally releases it. i think that has to go along with a story/characters that people can identify with easily. 6th sense had that in spades. if you look at stuart little (adapted from the eb white book by mns) and wide awake (a bit melodramatic) you'll see what the man does have talent. the problem is that 6th sense got to his head too quickly. it is still his highest grossing (total) film of his career. i would like to his first feature, "praying with anger" on DVD (not out yet). i think it'd be interesting to trace his steps as an early filmmaker. hopefully he goes back to his own roots and finds himself again.

why do i say that fame+fortune got to his head too quick? well unbreakable and signs you can see the problems. though his style worked on 6S, it does not work with both unbreakable and signs. there was a lot happening with 6S (dual story-line, twist, supernatural suspense). there isn't a lot happening with unbreakable (comic book obsessor+mayhap hero) nor signs (family+aliens). the style of direction and pacing should have changed with unbreakable but did not. i saw unbreakable opening day and the there were many people that left during 1st 20min. it's simply TOO SLOW! though he had utilized that to great effect in 6S, i did not know he was going to continue to rely on and use that for ALL his following films! it's like he keeps the cam rolling for waaay too long.

unbreakable should have been more fast-paced and more action could have taken place. instead we have bruce willis and all the actors/actresses in the movie (even sam l) behave as life-less as the script itself. mns thinks that the words he writes is scripture and it is to be performed with extreme reverence and revelry so that audiences can try to decode all the screwy meanings behind it... the problem is... there AIN'T MUCH TO FIGURE OUT behind his shallow writings!!! no deep intellectual symbols, no ongoing themes of great catharsis. you can try to say that bruce's character in unbreakable is about the catharsis of him discovering to be a superhero, the prob is we dunno that he is one by the end of the film. if his own kid has shot him and he died... that ain't no superhero. did he ever have a cold? was he ever sick? we don't know that for sure. even if there is a epiphany, SO WHAT? what's the point of bruce being a superhero? and then what? ya see? nothing behind the veiled attempts at high concept. you can decipher all you want but behind all of that cryptic message, it's for naught.

same with signs, ok so the man of lost faith comes back to his faith... so NOW WHAT? what's next? better life? he gets new wife? what? nothing. besides "Father" indicates that it is Catholic, which means he could not have gotten married! and Protestant or non-Catholic Christians do not call their pastors "Father" unless it is a smaller sect or section of Christian division. all in all it was for nothing. the only redeeming thing about unbreakable is sam l's nice performance and for signs, joaquin phoenix continues to cement his status as one of the greatest young actors of his generation from the shadows of his brother's legacy.

so it is with the village. so what? what's the point of the movie? nothing. i bet it is just slow+boring as unbreakable+signs. the trailer make his movies look good cause everyone wants another 6S experience, being scared shitless but also want to feel and root for the characters. that's why his opening weekends are always massive! audiences weren't scared in unbreakable nor signs (for the majority of the film) like they were by signs nor were they rootin for any of the characters. so the 2nd weekend was less money, the 3rd even more. i bet the same happens with the village. i'm also going to bet that by his next movie, if he doesn't change his style of pace to better fit whatever movie he is making, his core fans/audiences will abandon him, even opening weekend. his fans will be more cautious next time and read reviews, etc. you can tell already by the drop in teh 2nd weekend of the village, 67% drop!!! that's massive for a mns film. then the 3rd weekend even more!

UFOs (and maybe some crop circles) are mysterious aspects to existence, half-legendary stories with unsatisfying explanations. The message of Signs seemed to be: Crop circles are real, they're made by alien invaders, but don't worry, so long as your wife was killed in a freak accident, you'll have been magically endowed with the riddle that can defeat them should one happen to get into your house, thereby restoring your wavering faith in the essential.

What?

You know, I like MNS's style of directing.- When i first saw The Village i was slightly disappointed, but that was because I was expecting to see a scary monster flick. After having gotten over what i thought the movie was gonna be, I liked it.-

The only part i thought was bad was Adrien Brody's Character when he didnt fit his character's profile. Other than that the movie was very interesting to me. I liked it.

Im starting to find that people in this world are so critical and have made expectations in all areas of life so high that few things- except what they hold personal- can actually impress them. Just like the debate with the xl2 and dvx, very few people seem to be able to just appreciate something for what it is- instead they tear things apart if they dont see some kind of divine life in it or unless they have a personal connection already involved.

It really sucks, because theres alot more things to appreciate in this world than many people seem to find. And I find movies to be a good example of this viewpoint which people hold.

When I was younger I could watch almost any movie and be entertained, but now since ive become "artistically educated", I find myself unable to appreciate as many movies as I used to. Criticism- unless it deals with things that really matter- SUCKS!

I'd love to enjoy movies the way i used to, but im seeking to get that back by simply looking for the good in movies now and just enjoy it. Because I must say- even when "educated art people" like a film, photograph, or painting, they seem like they are more involved with technical appreciation- which seems to create more pride than joy, because they "understand it"- than the people who can just simply appreciate something because of how it makes them feel.- That's the child-like happiness that creates joy in life.- Can I get an AMEN!!

Amen, brother.

But still. . .COME ON, WHAT'S WITH THE ZOOMS?

A lot of us here have chosen to understand filmmaking as a process, and you will inherently lose some of the magic that the average watcher experiences (especially when you can name the SFX programs used in different scenes!). Instaed you are given the ability to express yourself through the medium, which seems like a very good trade-off to me. Studying poetry decontructed some of the wonder I felt when I read poets twist language to serve their expressions, but alowed me an outlet as a writer to do it better myself.

Also, you can really appreciate a wonderful film, like "American Beauty" on an emotional and technical level, which is pretty magical.

I still find magic in the other areas of life too like the joy of driving a new car, eating cuisines I can't cook, etc...

I don't think this has been mentioned yet here, but I just read a nice piece on the filming of The Village in American Cinematographer.

Jesse, thats very true- definitely two sides to this argument.

well put.

kev,

i think it goes beyond "educated art people". easy example is citizen kane. no matter how much education in art, literature or any hyphalutin fakery i can always appreciate citizen kane on an intellectual and emotional level. if a film is so well made it can easily surpass the sum of all its parts.

another example. i just finished watching 'the kid' charlie chaplin today and though i knew most of the technical aspects behind it i still felt emotionally drawn/pulled and moved by it.

this "magic" exists merely in the hands of a few artisans.