The Village

[Jon Lyrik]

http://nexbase.net/albums/Village%2CThe/Village_The.sized.jpg

Run. The truce is ending.

Plot: 'The Village' depicts the thrilling tale of an isolated town confronting the astonishing truth that lies just outside its borders. At first glance, this village seems picture perfect, but this close-knit community lives with the frightening knowledge that creatures reside in the surrounding woods. The evil and foreboding force is so unnerving that none dare venture beyond the borders of the village and into the woods. But when curious, headstrong Lucius Hunt plans to step beyond the boundaries of the town and into the unknown, his bold move threatens to forever change the future of the village.--From IMDb

View trailer #1 (http://imdb.com/title/tt0368447/trailers-screenplay-X24684-10-2)
View trailer #2 (http://imdb.com/title/tt0368447/trailers-screenplay-X23353-10-2)

This movie looks great. I love M. Night Shymalan's movies (they are kind of mixed in reception, but there is something about his method of direction that makes my testicles tingle) and the trailers and TV spots are very creepy. Looks to be spooky fun.

And I have managed to skip any kind of spoilers about the twists. Is it true they changed the ending, though?

[Ted Pikul]

"there is something about his method of direction that makes my testicles tingle"

William Castle already perfected that directorial technique 40 years ago ;)

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by Ted Pikul
William Castle already perfected that directorial technique 40 years ago ;)

The gimmick thing? Shymalan's gimmick is a twist ending, but that's not what I like about Shymalan. I think he is an excellent director with a great psychological style and who really knows how to use sound. Maybe it's just me...

[Ted Pikul]

Shyamalan may know how to use sound but how good is he at dangling skeletons in front of the audience?

That takes real skill & ingenuity.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by Ted Pikul
That takes real skill & ingenuity.

Nope. I know Pimpin' Gandhi's love child, he's like 4 and he entertains some people at Pimp Conventions by dangling skeletons of whore thieves and telling the stories of their demise. The storytelling part takes talent (especially at his age), but dangling skeletons? He just uses some old rope and a latter.

[Fisting Ackbar]

Here's hoping that the ending will be better than the ones from Shyamalan's last two films, but I am looking quite forward to it.

[go2]

this movie looks so creepy.i cant wait to see this fucking terrifying movie.m.night.shymalan is the master at making PG-13 movies so creepy.it's definetly a must see.

[Moviefan1234]

The Village is my most anticipated movie from now until the end of the year. Shyamalan is a complete genius, and I have extremely high hopes that it won't disappoint.

[Adornado]

Looks great, although I hope the leaked ending isn't the actual ending. I'll be seeing this one in theaters for sure.

[Lazy Boy]

I'm definitely looking forward to seeing this...

But for now, I'm gonna avoid all message boards or any topic pertaining to the movie, as I don't want anything spoiled. I'm just gonna plug both fingers into my ears and say "La la la la la" if anybody mentions plot details. I'm avoiding the ending for that reason (even if it does eventually suck like people have said).

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
But for now, I'm gonna avoid all message boards or any topic pertaining to the movie, as I don't want anything spoiled. I'm just gonna plug both fingers into my ears and say "La la la la la" if anybody mentions plot details. I'm avoiding the ending for that reason (even if it does eventually suck like people have said).

Good idea, as I want to really avoid spoilers to the movie. No posting here from me until 7/30...

[Ted Pikul]

Judging by those trailers it looks like a bunch of amish encountering modern day paintballers out in the woods.

Now those bastards definitely show no mercy so I'd be afraid ... very afraid.

[MadsenOMC]

I think Shyamalan is extremely talented, but I also think he's incredibly overrated. I haven't been completely satisfied with a movie of his since The Sixth Sense. Unbreakable was uneven throughout, and I absolutely hated the last 10 or 15 minutes of Signs, after loving the first 90 minutes. The Village is definitely promising. It's an interesting concept.

[TheGodSon]

Am I the only one not excited about this movie? It better get damn good reviews for me to see it, honestly. The trailer did absolutely nothing for me.

[Jerk Shapiro]

This movie looks fucking ace. I can't wait. Shyamalan hasn't missed yet, in my books. I'm there July 30th.

[daddiefatsacks]

since every Shyamalan movie has to have some 'surprise' ending, this will be my only post, and the only time i check this thread until i see the movie....i don't want anyone to really spoil this for me since that might be all this movie has going for it.

[Benny]

Can't wait for this movie, it was my #2 most anticipated this summer after Spidey 2. Shymalan has already proven that he is a great director, and his last 3 movies have been great, and this one looks very promising- dark and scary- so July 30 I hope to be there.

[sharkstank]

ever since the teaser, i have been highly anticipating this. definately there i am

M NIGHTS FILMS
'The Sixth Sense'- ****
'Unbreakable'- **
'Signs'- ***1/2

WWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[EDsoulsurvive*]

this movie looks amazing, Shymalan's films keep getting better, IMO. There haven't been any horror movies in theaters for a while, I hope this will hold me over for a couple of weeks.

[Sigur509]

Unbreakable(9/10)
Signs(8.5/10)

Cant wait, great director, great cast. Hopefully the ending will be as good as people are saying.

[blankpage]

Let me put it this way:


I. CAN'T. FUCKING. WAIT.


Man, this film looks stunning. It think it looks like M's creepiest flick yet. And since I'll be in Montreal, down the street from the big movie house, I'll be there at the first showing July 30th. :cool:


P.S. - I hope that leak ending isn't true. It's interesting, but man...I'd hate to have been spoiled to a great ending.

[Lynn7]

I can't wait to see this one- I'm afraid that someone is going to ruin it for me so I'll try to see it the first day out.

[Poeman]

BRING THIS FUCKER ON!!!!!!!!!

this will be one helluva film, even with the crap ending if theys till leave that one in.

[Strider]

I'm looking forward to The Village, however, a rush of excitement still hasn't come over me yet. I really hope the film blows my mind away. In my books, M. Night Shyamalan is 2-1 right now, so I hope this film makes up for the feeling of unsatisfaction that Signs was.

PS: I hope this flick has a killer twist ending!

Strider

[bondish]

I saw this last night. I enjoyed it, even if it was quite slow at parts, but the twists aren't those that will leave you amazed.

[MovieDragon]

Originally posted by bondish
I saw this last night. I enjoyed it, even if it was quite slow at parts, but the twists aren't those that will leave you amazed.

Dude, what the hell?!!!?!?!?:eek:

Come on, give us a review...give us a hint about the type of story it is. I don't want any major spoilers, but when I say "type of story" I mean, is it a traditional creature feature with Shyamalan style? or is there more to the Village?

[Harry Warden]

We all want to know...........is THE ending we all heard about the one used in the film.....?

[SiriusTJMackey]

I definitely can't wait to see this movie. So far, as far as I'm concerned, M. Night is 3 for 3, and this one looks as good as his previous entries. I will without a doubt be there opening night, hoping for the very, very best!

[TheGodSon]

I think M. Night Shymalan is the most overrated director of this generation. Thank you for your time.

:D

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by TheGodSon
I think M. Night Shymalan is the most overrated director of this generation. Thank you for your time.

:D

I could not agree more. Talented, no doubt, but overrated. And he's made more than three movies, just for the record.

[adamjohnson]

Look at the eclipsed moon on the poster. Thats why I still think its werewolves.

I mean check out this list. Ghosts, Superheroes, Aliens, Werewolves. That seems pretty much in line.

[slasherfan]

Originally posted by TheGodSon
I think M. Night Shymalan is the most overrated director of this generation. Thank you for your time.

:D
You not alone, I can't stand his movies.

[MovieDragon]

This is a rough idea of the ending. While I don't know the details, I gathered some facts from IMDB posts and such that let me know the ending. If you don't want the movie spoiled, don't read on. It won't spoil the ending completely, but the basic idea behind the endind will be exposed.

SPOILERS.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well, it's confirmed that Shyamalan has a cameo at the end of the movie. IMDB credits list him as a security guard. According to posts from people who saw the movie, you see his reflection in something. This pretty much confirms that there is some modern day aspect in the movie. Someone also mentioned a museum, so I'm suspecting it's similar to the Truman Show scenario.This isn't a confirmed ending, but its the basic idea behind it. (Note: The IMDB credits, and the fact that the people who saw the movie gave valid enough proof leads me to believe this is true, it may or may not be. If not...good scam)
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
Spoilers END

[RobertPaulson]

Why do people want to spoil the movie for themselves? I just don't understand it. I'd much rather go in not knowing.

I've heard the score is awesome and I know Deakins is the cinematographer so it sould be quite a sensation for the senses (all 6 of them ;) )

[chinton]

sounds like we have false advertising. the two early reviews on ACIN that hated it said that it has been mismarkted. That its more of a character piece than thrille

[SIREN30]

I am so excited about this one. I loved all three of the aforementioned movies. I actually like Unbreakable the best of the three, being a closet comic book fan. I just loved Bruce Willis' character and the 'they call me Mr Glass' segment gave me the chills.

Anyway, I, for one, want to know what the creatures are in this flick before going in...if it's witches or werewolves or something I know I'll be dissapointed. So if anybody finds out what the creatures are, I really want to know. :)

[Jas]

Yay!!! I'm going to a screening of 'The Village' next tuesday!
Here's hopin that the movie rocks my socks!!!
I know most of you will have seen it before me, but I live on an island so screw you :D

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by chinton
sounds like we have false advertising. the two early reviews on ACIN that hated it said that it has been mismarkted. That its more of a character piece than thriller
Yes... but that's Aint it Cool News...

Here are a few critics' reviews....

Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie?id=6388162)

The Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000588958)

Nice to finally hear SOMETHING. Both reviews are positive, but not overly positive.

[Hannibal21]

Originally posted by TheGodSon
I think M. Night Shymalan is the most overrated director of this generation. Thank you for your time.

:D

I agree. The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Wide Awake range from bad to downright awful. Signs is his only good film, but it isn't all that special either.

I'll see The Village, but I'm expecting nothing more than a solid Shyamalan esque thriller.

[chinton]

well i think i can bet now what the twist is keeping in mind some choice phrases from the reviews.

Still I like the idea of a polotical allegory. Of course internet fanboys mos t notable on ACIN will never look deeper than the surface of this or any Shamalyan film as it would probably kill them to admit they like something

[adamjohnson]

Originally posted by chinton
sounds like we have false advertising. the two early reviews on ACIN that hated it said that it has been mismarkted. That its more of a character piece than thrille

How is it mis marketed??? Thats how ALL of his films are. Sheesh!

[Sigur509]

Originally posted by adamjohnson
How is it mis marketed??? Thats how ALL of his films are. Sheesh!

Agreed. I have enjoyed the films of his I have seen, they are all mostly character driven.

[bondish]

SPOILERS WITHIN:


Yes, the modern day ending is true. Personally I never minded the thought of such an ending in the first place, but I think that some people may feel a little bit ripped off. The twist that there are no creatures isn't revealed at the end, but during. The bit where Hurt says 'Do your very best not to scream' is where he shows Ivy the creature costumes hidden in 'the forbidden shed' and that is when we know there are no creatures, but it is instead a ploy to keep the young people in the villages and away from the outside world. The black boxes themselves contain secrets of the villagers' pasts, and reasons for why they set up the village, away from the modern world.

[bankholdup]

I think it's a fairly clever ending, and I wish I didn't find out the ending ahead of time, but...

I'm not a big Shyamalan fan like alot of Schmoes (getting ahold of Unbreakable this weekend though, don't worry), so I'm not expecting a whole lot. I'll see it eventually, but sure as hell won't be rushing to the local theater tomorrow night.

[SIREN30]

Thanks for that. I wanted to know myself. It will make me pay more attention to the details now...thanks.:D

[BananaDancer]

I'm def going tomorrow night, I liked his last 3 films and this one looks really good.

[chinton]

I know thats how all his films are marketed. Im just saying young teenagers are going to go in expecting a horror filom and instead get a character druiven drama. I cant wait t o see it

[RobertPaulson]

Shyamalan is definitely a talented filmmaker - and I am sure The Village will likely demonstrate that he is getting even better. Deakins did the cinematography - and he is amazing, so that pairing should be great. The score is getting a lot of notice - apparently it is mostly a single violin and is relaly haunting.

I'm sure when people see the film the second and third times they will discover a lot of layers of meaning and subtext that they might have been distracted by the first time because they went in just looking for a plot twist.

Anyway - this is a MUST see for me- maybe even multiple times this weekend

[Moviefan1234]

It seems from the few reviews that are online that the ending is an extremely love it/hate it type of ending. Some laugh at it while others are amazed.

[anakinsrise]

Some critics are calling M Night a 1 trick pony i guess i will see for myself tomorrow.

[MovieDragon]

Originally posted by bondish
SPOILERS WITHIN:


[then the guy continues to spoil the shit out of the movie]


Dude, if you are gonna spoil the movie, why not space out the fucking warning and the content. You guys all get on my nuts about giving a vague and insignficant spoiler of an older movie, but this guy almost blatantly spoils a new and much awaited movie and he gets no flak.

[PuggyD]

So I saw "The Village". To summarize, don't go see it. Or rather, do go see it so I can bitch about it with you.

I am getting sick of movies that aren't actually scary, but trick you into jumping due to sheer volume. Movies that are really quiet then have unexpected loud noises are just weak. Try being actually scary instead of just exploiting a physical reflex.

They really mismarketed the movie as well - lots of people are going to go in expecting horror when it's barely even suspense. More of a period drama. So while it wasn't terrible for what it was, it sets itself up for angry audiences expecting something entirely different.

Anyways, the movie had some potentially interesting ideas, but nothing new to say about any of them. It takes far too long to say nothing in particular. In the end it comes off as a waste of time and just plain hokey.

But yeah, very glad I didn't pay for that, fairly upset I may have to see it again tomorrow night with some friends. 4/10 , and that's being generous.

I'm going to go slightly more in depth here, so while I don't spoil anything major, you prolly don't want to read on if you haven't seen it yet and plan to.



***SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS***






Three and a half Lessons I learned from "The Village"
1. Don't befriend the retarded; it's deadly.
2. Don't bother seeing M. Night Shamylan movies anymore.
3. The Amish are neither scary nor all that interesting.
3 & 1/2. Well, Adrien Brody was kind of spooky, but he can't help that he's ugly.



***END SPOILERS END SPOILERS END SPOILERS***

[Wildbilld]

Classic 4 Star Rating:
http://wildbilld.brinkster.net/pics/star.bmphttp://wildbilld.brinkster.net/pics/star.bmphttp://wildbilld.brinkster.net/pics/star.bmphttp://wildbilld.brinkster.net/pics/emptystar.bmp

Letter Grade:
C+

1-10 Scale Rating:
http://wildbilld.brinkster.net/pics/6.5stars.bmp

[Mog]

All right, just got back from a private screening of The Village. And I have to say, I'm very pleased as an M. Night fan.

Spoilers.









































Okay, so the ending leaked out on the internet was true. Yes, it is the modern world, and yes the creatures are actually the elders.

I'm very disappointed in the people who leaked this information, and they should really be ashamed of themselves. The ending could've had greater impact, whether it was good or bad, if the ending wasn't leaked. I think it's completely stupid that people would go to such extremes to do such a thing. In fact, I rank it up those people up their with the paparazzi. Is there no passion? Why does everyone have to act as if they're better and smarter than others?

Okay, that was a bit of a rant. On to my review.

I liked this movie. I thought it was wonderful. Forget about the ending of this movie...I really don't think M. Night wanted to focus on it, and the movie has so much more to offer than it's twist. The movie's real treat is the lead Bryce Howard Dallas, who put on an AMAZING performance that whole-heartedly DESERVES recognition. This woman is strikingly beautiful, and fills every line with believable passion. I can honestly say that I would marry her in a second. Yes, she is THAT good. Joaquin Phoenix did an excellent job as well (as expected) and the rest of the cast was just great. The cinematography was spot on, giving us shocking breaking-the-fourth-wall images and hand-held shots that aren't to be expected in mainstream films. That's one of the reasons why I love M. Night. He doesn't give a shit about all of these guidelines set up by douche bags like Robert McKee. The world of film needs more innovation, which M. Night is full of. I for one am sick and tired of people calling him a Hitchcock hack, because it just isn't true. After attending In the Director's Chair With M. Night Shyamalan, you can tell how much the man respects Hitchcock, and if he ever gave any kind of allusion to the man's work, it was him giving credit where credit is due...not by means of "hacking." Compare M. Night's movies to What Lies Beneath. M. Night tries his hardest to be original, while the filmmakers of What Lies Beneath boast the fact that they made it Hitchcockian. THAT is hacking.

It is my opinion, that the elders turning out to be the creatures isn't a twist at all. It's to be expected. "How" you ask? Just look at how much actual screen time M. Night gives the creatures. It's almost as if he's trying to make you feel like you have a chance at knowing what the twist is so audiences can make their little snide smirks and say "Ha! -I- know the ending! I'm SO AWESOME!"

People should not go into this movie looking for a twist. There's so much more it has to offer. The love story, though somewhat brief, is still very engaging and believable. It's a very touching subplot that even made me go "awww." The cinematography was great. It stilled offered the usual unneasiness I feel when watching his movies. When a character looks straight at the camera, then looks down and realizes there's something in his stomach. One of the most brutal on-screen stabbings I've ever witnessed. Half the theater gasped with each thrust of the knife. I've never seen an audience react that way.

And I can't forget to mention the score. What a beautiful piece of work. It is very haunting and should go down in film history as one of the great scores.

That's my review. Take it or leave it.











END SPOILER










I highly suggest that you don't go into this movie wondering what the twist is. Please, please, please! The twist will have a greater impact on you if you lose yourself in the story and its' characters...the one thing that M. Night Shyamalan does VERY well is add that one element to his stories that sooooo many are lacking these days, even in Oscar pictures. That element? The human element. This movie isn't about creatures or twist endings...it's about love, courage, the will to do what is right in spite of maintaining any kind of tradition. And Bryce Howard Dallas's performance is well worth your 7-10 dollars.

[Mog]

I just realized I fucked up Bryce's name...it's Bryce Dallas Howard. My bad. It's late.

[APzombie]

Just came back from the midnight showing and I have to be honest in saying that I really loved it.

I know many people who see the film are not going to like it because, off the bat, they are getting something different form M. Night. The stroy is imensly thought provoking, its the sign of a filmmaker willing to take risks, and I for one appluade the result.
It's most definately a love/hate movie, Night knows that, he isn't taking easy routes giving us exactly what we expect, if he did, we wouldn't be on the edge of our seats the entire way through.




********SPOILERS********

an answer for people who have seen the film.



A friend of mine was kinda confused about why the council would create the "fear of red" idea for their creatures. It wasn't really explained but i think i understand why; they wanted to create the most peaceful society they could, and to prevent the villigers from hurting each other they came up with the idea that red is something the creatures hate and that they will attack anyone who has it. Thus nobody in the village would have the courage to hurt each other (and spilling blood) in fear of their own safety. This was the case until the one person in the village who is incapable of controling his fear laughs and the bad color and sees it as a game. This makes him obviously more dangerous.

[EvilComesHome02]

I just got back from seeing this movie, and I have to say that I flat out hated it. It had some good scares, and a lot of potential to be a great movie, but sadly the ending ruined the whole movie. I can only tell people to see it for themselves to see what I'm talking about. But I honestly have to say that it was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I was actually enjoying it til the ending. Unfortuantely this was the first time an ending has ruined a movie for me. It was horrible.

[rushmore beauty]

Alright, well I just got back from this flick, and I'll state right off the bat that I did not hate this movie the way so many others seem to be....but I wasn't blown away either. I hadn't really heard too much about this flick before hand, and had only heard rumors of the twist ending being that they were living in modern times, but I thought they were only rumors. Anyways, what really got to be about this flick (in a bad way) was the totally wooden and corny dialogue. I mean, it was brave of Shyamalan to try it out, but about 75% of the time, it just came off as sounding anything but natural...to me anyways. Sigourney Weaver was the worst for it actually. On the upper side of things, Bryce Dallas Howard was just awesome here, especially towards the end, and when she was in the woods by herself (those were my favorite scenes). Adrien Brody too...nice job there. And the movie was just about as beautiful as movies can get.
So basically, I just couldn't stand the dialogue most of the time, and yeah, for me that's a major part of the movie, especially with a character-driven drama like this one.
7/10, and that's because this movie was like a painting come to life...just gorgeous.

By the by...I'm a big Shyamalan fan, loving The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable (both 9/10s) but having been greatly disappointed by Signs (6/10).

[flowrchild]

Well, looks like Ebert wasn't too impressed....

http://www.chicagosuntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-village30f.html

My favorite part is:

To call it an anticlimax would be an insult not only to climaxes but to prefixes. It's a crummy secret, about one step up the ladder of narrative originality from It Was All a Dream. It's so witless, in fact, that when we do discover the secret, we want to rewind the film so we don't know the secret anymore.

And then keep on rewinding, and rewinding, until we're back at the beginning, and can get up from our seats and walk backward out of the theater and go down the up escalator and watch the money spring from the cash register into our pockets.

I'm seeing this tonight. I'm beginning to realize I am really excited about seeing a movie that will most likely suck. But I'm still going to see it and hopefully my gut feeling will be incorrect.

[Squid Vicious]

Yes, it's official: Ebert has lost his goddamn mind.

Van Helsing -- three stars. The Day After Tomorrow -- three stars. Dodgeball -- three stars. Garfield: The Movie -- three stars. Anchorman -- three stars.

Okay, okay, I haven't seen The Village yet. But I'll be extremely surprised if it's worse than the movies listed above.

[PuggyD]

***SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS***

















Ok, for those of you who have seen it, I have some questions that are bugging me. Mainly, the skinned animals and the marks on the doors. What was up with that? It was never explained, except in a throwaway comment that "oh, we think maybe one of the elders is doing that." I mean, that was supposed to be such a huge deal for them, and we never get any resolution on it? Not a single scene with like, a rogue elder admitting that he doesn't think they're being strict enough or anything? If they'd done that, then the monster at the end could have been one of the elder's freaking out and trying to stop her, possibly even her oWn dad, which I think would have been more interesting and powerful than the whole "Of Mice and Men" rip off with Adrien Brody.

And also, when Ivy's dad decided that the medicine was necessary, why did he send the blind girl for it? I mean, honestly, it'd be so much safer and easier for him to go himself, since he could actually see. I mean, pact or no pact, by the end it's pretty clear that nothing in particular was stopping him from going himself, which would make a lot more sense, you know? So why make the blind chick go on this epic quest when for him it would have seriously been a casual walk? Is it just that she's more photogenic?



***END SPOILERS END SPOILERS END SPOILERS END SPOILERS***

[C-Desecration-]

I haven't even seen the movie yet, but I'll bet I can answer your question, puggy . . .
SInce I've accidentally run into fifty thousand spoilers . . .

SPOILERS










well so he sends his daughter to get medicine from the outside world, something like that? Well aren't these counsel members terrified of the real world, and that's why they set up this "village"? So wouldn't this guy be scared of going out? Going out to the real world? So he sends his blind daughter . . .



END SPOILERS


But maybe I'm wrong. We'll see . . .

[Common Sense Man]

Spoilerific!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Okay here are some of the answers to peoples questions who have seen the movie.

The color red, well I do buy the fact that they wanted to associate blood with evil so people would not hurt each other but also M. also uses red or bright colors such as orange in Unbreakable to signify evil or the antaganist of the movie, all his movies are like this.

The elders, they explained this very clearly. The elders ran the hoax.

But Noah was the one skinning the animals. The reason they did not see one of the monsters come thru the lines is because he was not in costume but just going around being a freak.

The elders marked the doors, and possibly skinned the group of animals found that night. But Noah started it all.

They sent a blind girl because they did not want her to see the modern world.

If by some great chance she got there and back the hoax would remain intact as it did.

I agree that one of the people in on the secret could have gone just as easily but they had their honor to protect, and saying a blind person could make it becuase they were blind and could not see the monsters fits in with the story.

I agree that this is not the best M. Knight movie.

I rank it 3rd under Unbreakable and 6th Sense followed by Signs in last place.

I did not feel mislead by the trailer at all, all the parts in the trailer were in the movie.

I wonder if too many people are expecting too much from Mr. Knight. It is by no means a crappy movie. Compare it to Catwoman, nuff said.

But I will admit I figured out the secret before it was revealed.

I will have to check it out again but overall I enjoyed it.

As of now I give it a 7/10.

Out............................................... .

[mr_gamecube]

was anyone else blown away by the ending?!

[Mog]

Wow. No words can express how much I hate Ebert right now.

SPOILERS





















"Let us say that it takes place in an unspecified time and place, surrounded by a forest the characters never enter. The clothing of the characters and the absence of cars and telephones and suchlike suggest either the 1890s, or an Amish community."

The tombstone on the fresh grave said 1897. We're supposed to think it's 1897. Stupid moron. This whole paragraph pretty much spoils the entire movie if one reads between the lines. It's like all of the marketting and interviews about the movie ruin any chance of misleading people about what the movie is truly about, which I learned is a great way to experience an M. Night movie after seeing Unbreakable.

"His daughter Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard), is blind but spunky. "

What a douche bag. Bryce practically carried the film, and VERY well I might add. And all he can say is "she's blind and spunky." Putz.






















END SPOILERS



Worst review ever.

[Cunning Visions]

Wow this film really seems to be dividing a lot of people. For those who have seen it, what was the general audience response after the film was done?

[mr_gamecube]

when I was leaving, people were saying how bad it sucked and some were going to get their money back. I have mixed feelings on the film, overall I give it 6/10

[Mog]

Originally posted by Cunning Visions
Wow this film really seems to be dividing a lot of people. For those who have seen it, what was the general audience response after the film was done?

I totally agree. The same happened with Unbreakable. The audience reaction at my screening was great, despite the three people behind me that were practically rolling in their seats every time a creature appeared and continued to call them "gay."

Other than that, once the credits rolled everyone stood, applauded and cheered. It was a great experience. I might be seeing it tonight with my cousin...hopefully the general public will be as enthusiastic, but I doubt it.

[PuggyD]

When I saw it everyone was pretty upset with it, except for one guy who said it "blew his mind" but he also said that there's "no way they *can't* do a sequel", so go figure.

Hey, wait, something else just occured to me that bugs me about the movie.

**************SPOILERS**********************




















So these people decided to move to the middle of nowhere to start over and raise their kids in captivity, right? So why bother with all the little details? Like I can understand not wanting to have any kind of communication or media, but why bother telling the kids it's 1897 when they really have no frame of reference as to how 2004 is supposed to be? Why bother talking in an old dialect that they might slip out of and screw up when talking normally wouldn't have made any difference? I can understand not wanting any brand name clothing, but why make it all so outdated. I'll also accept that they wouldn't have elctricity out there. But it just seems like they overcompensated. If these kids have never seen the outside world, they wouldn't question the historical accuracy of any of it - it's clearly a cheat to fool the movie audience. It's all just too many lies to keep track of; if they actually wanted to do this just to prevent crime and keep their kids pure, they wouldn't bother with the stilted old English and all that other crap. The basic concept of the movie is flawed.



********************SPOILERS END*********************

[The Prowler]

Brilliant fucking movie for all I am concerned. I just got back from an afternoon showing and I can't stop thinking about this flick. After all the brainless flicks like I Robot this movie is nice break from those movies. The acting was really damn good and there were some really good dramatic moments especially between Lucius and Bryce Dallas Howard. Joakin Phoenix is definately an underrated actor. The ending was kind of neat I thought and makes you want to see the movie again to find out all the clues along the way. My only gripe is that they revealed the ending way too early. With that being said, I thought the cinematography was truly gourgeous and should win an oscar. The sets were awesome too. The violin score was awesome and just added to the creepiness. This is definately my favorite movie of the summer and M Night just continues to amaze me, the guy is truly gifted and doesn't deserve the criticism since a lot of his colleagues are coming out with some generic crap that is getting praised (ie- Bourne Supremecy)

9/10

Spoilers***




















My favorite scene was when Adrien Brody stabbed Lucius, what a great camera technique.

[Strider]

Wow.

I think these reviews, from the schmoes and critics respectively, are getting me excited for The Village now. It seems like this is dividing everyone. Some people love the film, some hate the film, and some cannot make up their minds about the film.

I'll probably watch the film tonight. However, I think my overall reaction may be affected, since I already know the ending and other key plot events. I'm not sure I care, it's not like this is the first time I've spoiled a film for myself.

PS: For those who have seen the film already. Just out of curiosity, was the Batman Begins teaser trailer attached to the prints? Of course, I don't want to see the film for that alone, but it would be a nice bonus.

Strider

[Scarface98.9]

Originally posted by Squid Vicious
Yes, it's official: Ebert has lost his goddamn mind.

Van Helsing -- three stars. The Day After Tomorrow -- three stars. Dodgeball -- three stars. Garfield: The Movie -- three stars. Anchorman -- three stars.

Okay, okay, I haven't seen The Village yet. But I'll be extremely surprised if it's worse than the movies listed above.
Why are you comparing those movies? They have nothing in common, and it's not like Ebert's comparing them by star rating. He's not saying Anchorman is better than The Village since he doesn't compare

[Sigur509]

I swear, every movie I have seen that has a twist ending, I had it spoiled for me. But this time I told myself not to look at the ending, so I will like it better, so far I have kept strong, and will see it tonight or tomorrow.

[ANavissi500]

I expected a good movie and I got a good movie. While admittedly, this is my least favorite M. Night movie (The Sixth Sense - 10/10, Signs - 9/10) I still give The Village - 8/10.

Now for the spoilers....










Be warned.....






It takes place in 2004 and they made a 1800s communtiy to escape the suckiness of modern day America!!!

I know some people learned this fact ahead of time, but I went into the film blind and was really pleased when I got to the ending. I had an inkling that something like this was the "twist" but if you are observant, you could pick up on this while watching the film.

- It starts at a scene that very clearly points out that it is 1897. I thought that the lingering of the date was odd kind of.

- They speak of the outside world in very nonspecific generalities. "towns," "medicines." etc. It made me feel that the twist definitely lay outside the boundaries of the village.

- Only a blind girl could be allowed to make a really dangerous journey.

- They showed the monsters very early on in the film, thus making me realize that the monsters were a sham.

- The way that the characters talked made it seem like it was a group of recreationists talking as opposed to 1890s people.

So that's why I had a clue that it may be a present day situation. When my vague notions were confirmed my jaw still dropped and I was still blown away. Kevin's expressions nearly copied my own.


SPOILERS ARE NOW OVER







NO MORE SPOILERS NOW




On to the merits of the film...

The actress that played Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard) was a FANTASTIC actress. She really was. The film was largely her by herself acting as a blind woman on a journey. She cried convincingly, she was blind convincingly, etc. She was superb.

The film looked beautiful. Great cinematography.

My biggest problem with the film stemmed from the very weird dialogue. I think part of it fits with the whole point of the film, but part of it seemed to be some sloppy writing. If the dialogue has been better, I could have seen myself giving it a 9/10.

[The Prowler]

Originally posted by Strider
Wow.

I think these reviews, from the schmoes and critics respectively, are getting me excited for The Village now. It seems like this is dividing everyone. Some people love the film, some hate the film, and some cannot make up their minds about the film.

I'll probably watch the film tonight. However, I think my overall reaction may be affected, since I already know the ending and other key plot events. I'm not sure I care, it's not like this is the first time I've spoiled a film for myself.

PS: For those who have seen the film already. Just out of curiosity, was the Batman Begins teaser trailer attached to the prints? Of course, I don't want to see the film for that alone, but it would be a nice bonus.

Strider


Yes, the trailer for Batman Begins was before my movie so get there early so you don't miss it. Judging by the preview it takes the series in a totally different direction.

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by Scarface98.9
Why are you comparing those movies? They have nothing in common, and it's not like Ebert's comparing them by star rating. He's not saying Anchorman is better than The Village since he doesn't compare

Yeah, true enough. I posted my above post early this morning when I had just found out that Ebert had only given The Village one star, and I was kind of shocked. Perhaps I just need a life.

But I still do think Ebert's losing his mind.

[chilli pepper]

Well, coming out of the theater amidst the ocassional comment of "that was so GAY! OH MY GAWD" (which was probably made by the dicks five rows down who wouldnt fucking shut up, by the way) I was pretty perplexed as to what rating I was going to give this film and i've decided to give it a well deserved 8.5/10 and heres why.

SAY IT WITH ME NOW S
P
O
L
I
E
R
S
SPOILERS!


Anyway.About the "twists" I avoided the spoilers like the plauge and thankfully ended up pleasently surprised by the 2nd twist, but the first that on the other hand is a different story. The first twist (the fact that the entire creature thing is pure bullshit and is just a ploy to keep the younger folks in the village from leaving and finding the bigger twist which lay outside the woods) should have came more at the end because with it being in the middle it took a huge element out of the picture and instead of making me feel scared for the villagers (life threatining monsters etc.) it made me feel sorry for them.The second twist(the fact that the elder's are just a bunch of disinchanted city folk (in the year 2004 by the way) who in being so depressed with the city they live in decide to live life in a wild life preserve as if it were the year 1897 and raise all other offspring as so) on the other hand THAT I like alot because it was done quite well and was only (like all other M.night flicks) lightly hinted at. Moving on... the cinematography is done quite well (would expect any less from M.night) with great handheld work with it all being accented by fantastic set dressing. The story as well is done rather nicely with a very real love story between bryce and pheonix. Which brings this jarbled and rambling review down to newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard, who delivers a fantastic performance amongst a large group of seasoned actors (specificly in Hurt and Weaver) and holds her own and then some( I suppose being cute helped her as well). Overall like I said its a 8.5/10 and now that I think about it with a rewatch that could move up to a nine.

[MovieDragon]

TO THE "EBERT LOST HIS MIND" GUY:

Ebert is smart enough not to rate a child's movie on the same scale as a mature adult flick (not porno...sheesh). He is smart enough not to rate a goofy comedy on the same scale as a serious drama. He rates movies on how much he enjoys it. He apparently enjoyed Garfield, Day After Tommorow, etc., but he hated this movie...and I can see why.

[Fisting Ackbar]

SPOILERS AHOY, DO NOT PROCEED OR M. NIGHT WILL SWALLOW YOUR SOUL!!!

















Have to admit to being genuinely creeped out at times and Bryce Howard was great, but even though I had the "modern times" twist spoiled for me, I was still pissed when I saw the ending. It's not so much that it doesn't fit in with the story, it's just so "out there" that you'd almost forget the rest of the movie. Shyamalan is a great director but a weak screenwriter in the sense that he feels the need to add some shocking ending that you will remember more than the actual movie. I also thought his cameo at the end was way too drawn out and just there so he could grab attention.

Some of the actors were also wasted in the process (Brody in particular didn't do much other than laugh) and the dialogue was wooden at times, though I didn't mind while watching the movie. I did find it funny that the elders decided to speak as if they were in the actual 1890's even though everybody else wouldn't really have a way of finding out how they really would speak, that was just like that to fool the audience.

But I disgress, and in the end I'd give it a 7/10. Not sure how I'd compare it to Shyamalan's precious genre outtings: that would be something I'd have to sleep over.

If they'd done that, then the monster at the end could have been one of the elder's freaking out and trying to stop her, possibly even her oWn dad, which I think would have been more interesting and powerful than the whole "Of Mice and Men" rip off with Adrien Brody.

That was my original interpretation when I saw the creature.

Originally posted by Strider
PS: For those who have seen the film already. Just out of curiosity, was the Batman Begins teaser trailer attached to the prints?

Yup, although someone else already said it, I feel like confirming it as well.
















SPOILERS END HERE, YOU HAVE SURVIVED THE SWALLOWING

[MovieDragon]

SPOILERS.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
The idea of the the Noah Monster being replaced with her dad would have been brilliant. That would have been the type of twist suitable for this type of character drama. Of course, they would have had to work around with the plot...but that type of ending would have made this movie a lot better. Especially considering how much relies on the ending (the rest of the movie was exceptionally boring).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
Spoilers End.

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by MovieDragon
TO THE "EBERT LOST HIS MIND" GUY:

Ebert is smart enough not to rate a child's movie on the same scale as a mature adult flick (not porno...sheesh). He is smart enough not to rate a goofy comedy on the same scale as a serious drama. He rates movies on how much he enjoys it. He apparently enjoyed Garfield, Day After Tommorow, etc., but he hated this movie...and I can see why.

Yes, I understand, and I addressed this in my previous post.

[The Other]

I'll be seeing this Monday, probably, but all the mixed reviews I keep seeing are disheartening.

[PuggyD]

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS













Yeah, the more I think about it, I would have liked it a lot better if the monster at the end had been either Ivy's Dad or even Lucius's Mom instead of Noah. That'd be so much more interesting, them choosing to defend their way of life in the village even though it meant killing someone they had a huge personal investment in. That would have made the first twist a hell of a lot more satisfying, and would have even distracted from the idiocy of the second twist. The whole Noah thing just turned out to be such an "Of Mice and Men" rip off, very uninspired. I mean, he had no motivation that helped develop things, he was just very much a one note character. I say that the monster should have been one of the parents, and maybe they even should have succeeded in killing Ivy. That would have been upsetting, but undeniably powerful, memorable, and actually scary.

And I really don't know why they didn't plan ahead and bring medical supplies along with them to begin with. Their children have no frame of reference, none of them would be like "Hey, it's 1897, we can't have pennicillin!" Why didn't they pick and choose certain necessities for their way of life? They objected to violence and crime, not medical supplies. Did they think that bringing a hypodermic needle into their town would inadvertantly help one of their kids invent the telephone?



END SPOILERS END SPOILERS END SPOILERS

[bankholdup]

Uh...were those boom mics? Nice touch, Shyamalan.

This movie is just a gigantic mess from start to disappointing finish. True, I did know the ending going in, but I was curious as to how they got there. And when I got there, I wasn't pleased. The screenplay is dreadful, the acting is pathetic (even Brody got on my nerves). I really wish Pheonix would have died after the stabbing from Brody...would have been alot better (although the blind girl wouldn't have had much of a reason to enter the forest, it could have been done a different, and better, way). Shymalan has done nothing that impresses me so far...


But I've seen less boom mics in Ed Wood films!

There was an unnecessarily noticable one before William Hurt sends the blind girl to the woods, and right before they walk to the shed...I'm still baffled.



5/10.

[t3h Qster]

Originally posted by Cunning Visions
Wow this film really seems to be dividing a lot of people. For those who have seen it, what was the general audience response after the film was done?

what the fuck (in so many words) was the response by my friends and people sitting near us...

I for one loved the film immensly, I guess Im just wierd, the performance by Bryce Dallas Howard was bloody brilliant, this will be the first M. Night movie I buy on DVD :) it was just so wierd that it worked for me, and the flow of the movie was superb!

8/10

[bankholdup]

The audience, for the most part, was not pleased. They were pissed at the ending, and they were pissed that they spent money on such a film. The only good thing I heard was "It was great!", "What was so great about it?", "It was just great!" So, ya know...

[Basco]

Like every M. Night fan, I had been strongly anticipating this film. In my book, his films got better as they went:

Sixth Sense- 7/10
Unbreakable- 8/10
Signs- 9/10

I had always loved the trailers to Night's movies, because they were creepy and well made, and never gave away any crucial plot points.

I wish this one had. It would've saved me the trouble of seeing it.

M Night claims he has nailed the formula to make a great movie. It has been noted that all his films started off with the troubled characters placed in some kind of supernatural situation, and the whole movie building to the climax, in which a huge twist occurs. This twist leaves the audiences minds blown, and have them rushing out of the theatre to tell their friends.

The difference between the Village and his other movies: the others had twists that were very good, and the movie (for the most part) held up. The Village has neither of these things.

Let me begin with the characters: the characters have no dimension whatsoever. Especially the Adrien Brody character. He seems to be there only to give the audience a few cheap laughs, and to be the centerpiece of some of the most important plot points. His motivation: well not really needed, because he is somewhat retarded (though many reviewers pointed out he was the "town drunk", I don't believe anyone is this perpetually drunk, especially since there really is no reason to have this much alchohol in this town).

This time, carrying the film is Joaquim Phoenix, who I liked in Signs, but his character couldve been played by anyone. He brings nothing to the character, for there really is nothing to the character. Also, we have Bryce Dallas Howard (Ron Howard's daughter), as the love interest (though Shyamalan has no interest in love apparently), who is blind. Now, I only realised she was blind around the middle of the movie, because there were no real reason to believe she was, besides her cane. When I was asked by a friend why she had a cane, and was running freely, I expressed that the movie might break out into a musical (which would've been more entertaining. Finally, we have William Hurt, as apparently the leader of the bunch (he always seems to be giving the orders), sounding eeriely like Donald Sutherland. Bottom line, there is no character to identify or care for in this movie.

No time is specified at the start of this movie, but we are led to believe it is sometime in the 1800's by the clothes and the manner of speech. Well, not so much the manner of speech. I found the way they spoke sounded like a seventh graders attempt to emulate the speech of the old days: all I have to do is twist around the sentence, and it'll sound perfect. They end up sounding like Yoda most of the time.

The movie lingers along, using music to keep the movie "suspenseful". We have a riveting score being played at full tilt, during key moments as people walking around. Masterful Mr. Shyamalan. I don't know what he was going for, supernatural thriller or art film. Most notably, around the end, during some kind of "chase" or something, shots of the tops of the trees appear frequently, usually followed by the audience thinking, "what the fuck?"

But in your mind, you're thinking to yourself, don't fret, the ending will be great, and leave you satisfied. If only. This is one of the worst, and most implausible endings I've ever seen. The twist makes you wonder why they made this film in the first place.

Through all this ranting, I failed to mention how many plot holes there are. I cannot really get into them without giving things away, but there are enough major, huge plot holes here to have the film collapse on itself.

But most importantly, it just isn't entertaining. Not suspenseful, fun, or anything. It is a bore for the most part, especially the ending, which kept going. I even heard someone behind me say loud enough to hear, "are they going to wrap this up?" And I can hear people reading this thinking, "is he going to wrap this up?"

If I had to compare the Village to a movie, it would probably be Swordfish: started out intriguingly enough, and made with such style, that I just kept going through the movie thinking, "uh huh", until the final act, which is completely ludicrous, leading you to think back at the movie, and think about all the things that made no sense. And the final voice over of the Village (essential in twist endings), and the last words spoken, were apparently placed for no reason whatsoever. Those who have seen it know what I'm talking about. And when you look back at both movies trying to pick out something good, you usually end up with nothing.

This time Shyamalan's tricks didn't work. I hope now he will try to think of an original premice, instead of re-using his same formula, which were so better presented in his earlier films. We're wise M., the gig is up.

2/10

[beastieben21]

Blah, SPOILERS:






M. Night should learn a valuable lesson from The Village: Don't insult your audience. First of all, one scene alone should dispell this entire film for people. When Sigourney Weaver and William Hurt are speaking about how "coyotes couldn't place those skinned animals on doors, it had to be the creatures." They both KNOW the creatures don't exist. This conversation would NEVER happen. Night uses it to merely trick the audience into believing the Elders know nothing, before the big reveal which nullifies most of the film.

You can't do that! Anyone can make a movie with a big twist if things just don't add up. I REALLY hope there's a huge backlash for this film. How anyone can ignore such glarring and insulting plot holes is beyond me. You're telling me these 8 people mutually agree to give up their lives, as they exist, to form a community!? None of their relatives question this, the government is fine with it? Plus, what others have added, why speak like this? Why adopt this language? All Shymalan did was fuck with his audience. It wasn't a clever twist, it's merely misleading. I'm willing to accept some plot holes if it's well executed, but not scenes that completely contradict events that occur a mere 30 minutes later.

And, for being retarded, Adrien Brody is one clever motherfucker. Not only does he break out of confinement, he also steals a monster suit (Why was that hidden in the 'silent room' anyway? Why not at HOME, where only your FAMILY is?), manages to put it on, TRACK DOWN Blind Girl (I'm done with using Night's given 'names'), GRUNT like a beast instead of merely speaking, and attack her, all while being mentally ill? Kudos to you brotha, Forrest Gump isn't the only retard-cum-genius.

Add to that a very less-than-subtle message, along with the most gratutious cameo I've seen in years (you had to work yourself in there, didn't you Night? Love the reflection, very nonchalant).

This movie could have been awesome. It could have delivered on it's creepy promise and just been a thriller about creatures in the wilderness. The only thing that ended up scaring me was Brody's monster nose. Cast THAT thing as your creature next time, Night.

[Adornado]

The Village (7/10)

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1134441/TheVillage-photo_08.jpg

There's one word that describes The Village to a tee -- undercooked. The romance, the characters, the story, the ending...all undercooked. However, the acting is good all around (I would have liked to see more of Joaquin Phoenix though) and I was into the whole mystery even though the "big" twist was spoiled on me it was interesting seeing it all come together. What makes me mad though is the fact this movie was sooo secretive that they weren't allowed to show clips of the movie on talk shows but somehow, the ending got leaked all over the internet. How'd that happen Night? This movie could have been great if the script had been tighter and although the twist is somewhat clever, I would have scrapped it all together. I hope Shyamalan's next movie has no twist ending and focuses more on character and storytelling then a quick "gotcha" before the credits roll. Anyways, I'm still not 100% sure about my thoughts but for now it'll get a "not bad" 7/10.

[Common Sense Man]

First off bankhold up,

There are no boom mikes, it must have been a framing error on the part of the projectionist. I have seen the movie several times and I have yet to see one.

It does indeed seem that many are pissed about knowing the ending because it was leaked.

Well too bad. I didn't know the ending and I have a computer and internet access. I simply didn't read about it, a little self control and you would not have known the ending.

So no one can complain about it being spoiled for them, they spoiled it for themselves.

And I have no sympathy for the people that feel it should have been a straight out horror flick. I never felt it was going to be like that, he has never made flicks like that before.

I know many may hate it because it is character driven, well I say it is about time we had a good character driven movie and not one that relies on explosions and cheap one liners.

I thought that several of the scenes were very powerful.

And you have to give ole M Knight some slack. Everyone expects him to make the best movie of all time, no one can live up to that.

I really liked the movie as well as all the people that went with me.

If you hate the flick simply because it was not what you expected than that is again your fault. We all know that trailers often depict movies incorrectly or show scenes that are not even in the movie. But they didn't do this with the village.




Now on to some spoiler info.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

About the medicine or lack of it.

Didn't you see that their original kids, the ones that went with them to start the community were only infants or not even born yet.

So that means they have been living in isolation for at least 20 to 25 years. And who is going to stock pile 20 years worth of medicine.

And the reason they stayed in character and pretended to be from the 1800's was for the audience!

If the village looked like a suburb of L.A. the movie would kind of loose it's impact.

I do agree that the stupid conversation between the two elders about the coyote should have been left out. There was no reason to show that.

And I don't feel the movie would have been better if an elder would have tryed to kill Ivy, what was the point in that.

They let her go because they knew she would make it, that is why they wanted the boys to stay at the road and not go all the way.

I actually felt that reveling the elders as the monsters then showing her being attacked worked really well as it made you rethink all you had previously thought you knew.

And yes hiding a costume in the quiet room was dumb, when noah could have easily got one from the shed after he escaped from the room.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

End Spoilers.




I think just like his other movies it will be hated and loved. But when it hits DVD it will sell like crazy and people will come to see it for what it is, a great character driven story.

And hell I thought his cameo was fine, he had a bigger one in signs so stop your bitching about him wanting to be in HIS movie.

I still feel positive about this flick and stick with my 7/10 rating.

Out............................................... .............

[Cliche Guevara]

I dont know how to feel about this movie. It wasnt terrible, and the ending was pretty unexpected for me, but something just doesnt click about it. The film moved at a slow pace, there were a few letdowns with (highlight for spoilers)the monsters not being real, just the elders, but if you can get around that, then you'll dig this movie.

M. Night Shymalans Films:

1.) The Sixth Sense (9/10)
2.) Signs (8/10)
3.) The Village (7/10)
4.) Unbreakable (3/10)

[Kim_EZ]

Predictable, silly, and a waste of two hours. Perhaps the original ending is better. Felt like a bad Outer Limits episode with somewhat better performances. It was just the dialogue that was really awful as well.

And these people were scared of a porcupine mutant that looked like it was straight out of a Power Rangers episode?

I also had a problem with Bryce Dallas Howard's keen sight despite being blind. She didn't semm very blind to me if at all. Bad acting on her part.

Overall, not recommended. Shyamalan phoned this one in.

2/10

[The Heart Collector]

Cliche, could you try and edit that spoiler? It's pretty visible, to be honest.

[MartinGPB]

Originally posted by Mog

Other than that, once the credits rolled everyone stood, applauded and cheered. It was a great experience. I might be seeing it tonight with my cousin...hopefully the general public will be as enthusiastic, but I doubt it.

Oh come on-- that did NOT happen-- people almost never stand, applaud, and cheer at the end of a movie-- and I highly doubt they would for a movie as uneven and divisive as "The Village"--- maybe a few people clapped sarcastically as they were getting up to leave

[PuggyD]

*************SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS**************
















"So that means they have been living in isolation for at least 20 to 25 years. And who is going to stock pile 20 years worth of medicine."

Well, considering that they planned NEVER to return to civilization and also that they had billions of dollars from greedy Grandpa Walker's inheritance, enough to buy a wildlife preserve AND pay the government not to fly planEs overhead, you think they could have also invested in some friggin' Band-Aids.


"And the reason they stayed in character and pretended to be from the 1800's was for the audience!

Exactly. It's a cheat. It's manipulative and it destroys the "reality" of the movie. These people don't have genuine emotion or motivation, they're clearly only doing the things they're doing because the screenwriter is puling the strings, rather obviously. When M.Night leaves gaping holes of logic like that, it's a big F.U. to the audience, like admitting that he's been lying to us for the whole movie until this point. That's not tricky, that's not clever, that's just shoddy work.


And I don't feel the movie would have been better if an elder would have tryed to kill Ivy, what was the point in that.

With the Noah storyline as is, he was just a disturbed but very resourceful handicapped guy. There's really nothing to be drawn from that except "being friendly to tards ends badly." If it had been one of the elders, it would have had more emotion. It would show how much they were willing to defend their way of life from the outside world, even at the cost of a loved one. It would show that in the process of pursuing this utopia that *they* had become the real monsters, the violent criminals. I think this would have been infinitely better. Then the movie would have actually had something to SAY, a purpose, something to bring it all together and unify the half-abandoned themes.



*************** SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS******************

[Jerk Shapiro]

Good God I loved this film. And if I'm the only one on Earth who did, I don't care. I thought the film was amazing. It was deep, thrilling, had some great twists, great acting, and direction. Shyamalan is the best out there, now, in my opinion.

And my audience hated the movie as well. Some comments were like: "That was waste of 2 hours of my life", and, "That's it!"

And oddly enough, I didn't spoil the ending for myself, so it was still pretty tense throughout the whole thing.

I don't know how I rate this movie.

Maybe a 10/10...maybe a 9/10...I need to think more.

[t3h Qster]

Originally posted by Jerk Shapiro
Good God I loved this film. And if I'm the only one on Earth who did, I don't care. I

dont worry Jerk, Im right there with you, the movie was awesome indeed, despite what all the dislikers say, great flick!

[b-girl]

I would probably give this a 6/10.
This film was entertaining, but not groundbreaking. None of Shyamalan’s films are actually “groundbreaking”. I found it pretty weak in the allegorical department, seeing as it was being billed as post- 9/11 allegory.


******************SPOILERS*****************















ending:
Changing the ending to have Ivy’s father or Lucious’ mother be the creature is intriguing and would be ironic, but it wouldn’t agree with the rest of the story, because the reason Mr. Walker allowed her to go was both because of the pact, but also because he said that he expected her and Lucious to carry on as future elders, meaning they would find out anyway, and the fact that the villagers thought Noah was thought to be “killed” by one of the creatures allowed their secret to continue. I suppose it could have gone the elder route, but the rest of the story would have to change as well.

audience reaction:
I didn’t notice much of any reaction, except for laughing in the wrong places, like the part where Ivy goes into the quiet room and starts slapping Noah (cringe!) It reminded me of when people laughed at Jim Carrey in the Truman show in some of its most dramatic moments! :mad:

You could tear up a lot of the elements of the plot in this movie, but one of the things I wondered about is the size of the village. These people must have been reproducing like rabbits! Especially, seeing as many of the Elders had lost their spouses either before or after going into the village.














**************end of spoilers*************

[tcopen]

Spoilers






Personally i feel really bad for Night. I think he's getting a bad rap for a brilliant movie.

One of the ladies sitting in front of me at the theater last night stood up after the credits came up and said:

"I paid money to be scared."

I think that a lot of the people who went to see this movie went with the wrong expectations. In fact the problem with people who can't appreciate a movie like this is that they have expectations period. You have to go watching a movie like this expecting to be surprised. As for the lady in front of me at the movie;

did you see Signs, did you see Unbreakable, did you see the Sixth Sense...can you not see a pattern. Night is not a horror film director, never has been and has yet to prove he ever will be. You have to realize that this is his style, just like Tarentino has a style, and Spielburg has his own, Night has a certain mark on his films that people have yet to get used to.

He put it best in his own words that i saw him say in an interview the other day. He deals with serious subjects like love, faith etc. and puts his characters in difficult situations because that is when our faith, or love, etc. is tested best.

The guy is never going to direct a crappy movie like Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Halloween so for those of you who only want to be spoon-fed a serial killer chasing after a bunch of stupid teenagers, then stop going to see anything that says Shyamalan on it.

HE'S BETTER THAN THAT!

I feel like this is Night's best work yet. But it wasn't only him.

There were so many little things about this movie that made it so great that the average person who "paid to be scared" wouldn't ever be able to appreciate.

His cinematography just gets better and better with each film and ...... wrote another beautiful original score. The costumes were fabulous, the sets were awsome. However, probably the best part of the film and the brilliant display of acting across the board.

Joaquin Phoenix proves yet again that he incredible. That man deserves more credit and i love how Shyamalan sees that and billed this move under him, he's great in it. Bryce Dallas Howard, makes and absolutely amazing debut appearance as a blind girl. Adrien Brody, what can you say about him except "the Pianist" he is awsome. William Hurt, great, Sigourney Weaver, great, Brenden Gleesen, I can't get enough of that guy.

I really believe this could be one of the better acted movies over all through the whole cast, i have ever seen. It's beautiful.

Shyamalan is everything i love about movies and i think that people need to cut him some slack because he's definately not a hack.

[tcopen]

Forget about the spoiler at the beginning of my Post, i decided not to say anything about the end of the movie.

[beastieben21]

I guess I'm just curious (and this isn't to attack anyones opinion on the film, if you loved it i'm very glad you did) of how it's manipulitive nature didn't turn you off? I ask this because I personally can't ignore it, but a lot of people really seem to love it. For instance:

-The way they spoke, which is ONLY used to throw the audience off, not because it could really happen.

-The coyote discussion, which again, would NEVER happen because they both know what's causing this problem, it's just to manipulate the audience.

-Why would there be a giant hole (obviously dug by someone) in the ground in the middle of this woods? Nobody goes out there except the elders, so why would they dig a hole they could fall into? To catch bears?

-The noises. Does William Hurt have a giant control room where he presses the 'roar' button to create the noise? Plus, when this Village was funded, in the 60's-70's, that's some pretty impressive technology to install in the middle of the woods. Where is this secret control room? How do they keep the noises form sounding all the same?

-How did a retard man get into that costume!? It looks pretty difficult to just slip on and go. Plus, if he's really that stupid, he couldn't form intent, especially malicious intent, it's why children aren't charged for crimes.

-Many topics are brushed on, but never even explained, as if scenes are missing. Blind Girl sees auras and keeps saying "I can't tell you your color" but that never comes into play nor does she touch on it later in the film. Also, the faux-romance between Weaver and Hunt, brushed on, but never comes to fruition. Pointless.

-Even with billions of dollars, you can't just say "Alright government, we're doing our own thing here, now don't bother us or check in." They could be sacrificing infants to Ra for all they know, but because of that 20 million Hurt gave them, they're willing to let it slide and turn the other cheek.

I mean, Night shows NO respect for his audience which is why I'm so startled by the reaction. Yeah, it's a twist ending, and one could argue it's merit, but he achieves that twist by lying to us. It's a lazy film, and althought some of my complaints are nit-picking, many of them are very obvious questions that M. Night either didn't want to take the time to address, or couldn't, and lied to his audience. The film doesn't hold up upon 2nd viewing, these holes in it are HUGE and these are just some of them. Again, I'm not attacking anyone for loving the film, I wanted to, and wish I shared your feelings. However, I don't understand how people can ignore these, nor the lack of respect Night has for his audience.

[ilovemovies]

SPOILERS!!!















I was dissapointed with it! The first 50 minutes of the movie are uneven with some interesting stuff but alot of dull stuff as well. Then ounce the Adrien Brody character stabbs Joaquin Pheonix it grabbed my attention and the movie started to get interesting. Alot of that may be because it focused more on Bryce Dallas Howard's character, by far my character in the movie and Howard's performance is by far the best thing about the movie. Plus once she sets out in the woods to go to the "towns" there is some geniunly creepy and suspenseful moments. Then came the ending. Dear lord, the ending was just crap. It makes the overall story lame. I mean the plot of the movie is lame. Not believable t me at all. Surely by now someone would have discovered the fact that there are no monsters and would come back to the village and confront those who knew. Or maybe someone from outside the village would come into and completely unravel everything. I didn't believe it for a minute. I did see the ending coming though. Once William Hurt takes Howard to the shed I started, oh god I hope the movie isn't heading in the direction I think it's going at. Which would make the internet rumor true. But alas, it was true.

Apart from Howard the film's other excellent performance comes from Hurt. Best role he's had in a number of years. Pheonix is ok but his character confused me. How the hell old is he suppose to be? He looks like his late 20's/early 30's yet acts like he's in his teens or maybe very early 20's. Pheonix was much better in Signs. Sigourney Weaver is wasted as Pheonix's mother and Adrien Brody is just not very good in this movie. It's not all his fault though. His character is thin at best to begin with.

The Village is well crafted and has two really good performances from Bryce Howard and William Hurt but the overall plot is lame, the twist ending makes Sign's ending (which really dissapointed me) look masterful by comparison.


I'm between ** and **1/2 for this movie. For now I'm going with **. But maybe I'll like the movie with a rewatch. I doubt it but it could be because the overall theme of the movie is a worthy one it's just that the plot of the movie is just lame.


** (out of ****)

[MadsenOMC]

HUGE MASSIVE SPOILERS!

What a huge disappointment, especially considering I was riveted for so long. I think the setup is fantastic. I don't need to go into a lot of detail about it. A nice, happy little village, with creatures in the surrounding woods. I like how Shyamalan establishes the truce and the rules, like the bad color, etc. I like how there's the game of seeing how long you can stand on the stump before getting too scared. I like that someone has to keep watch. Suspense is built. The brief glimpse of the creature in red. I was loving every minute of it.

Then, the big scene for me, Noah stabbing Lucius. What a brilliant scene. This is Shyamalan at his best. Slowly turning around, face to face, no sound. The knife slowly pulling out. Gasps from the audience. Then, the second stab while Lucius is on the ground. The way he shot that is really remarkable.

And from then on, I hated the movie. It went from being a suspense/mystery about the creatures in the woods to a love story. That's not what I wanted. I wasn't interested. I didn't care. My interest completely went away.

With the two big twists, I was 1 for 2 on guessing them. First I said that the creatures would be friendly, and obviously I was wrong. Second, I guessed that this was set in the present, which was correct. Regarding the first one, I hate it. I hate that the creatures aren't real. It's not that the idea itself isn't an interesting one, using fear to keep people contained. I just hated how it's used here. And then, after doing that to the audience, trying to trick them again with Noah in the suit?! Not good. I think it's a massive mistake. You're just fucking with people too much, not in a good way. It's stupid. And then, of course, the park ranger stuff. I was so pissed off and disinterested at this point. This is easily Shyamalan's worst movie since Wide Awake. He shits on everything he works so hard to establish. I can understand why some people like it. It's not like it's the worst movie ever made or anything. It just didn't work for me. I don't like the direction he takes in the second half. So, for me, I felt really mad. He sure is good at eliciting audience response. But I have zero interest in ever seeing this again. None. Could care less.

5/10, for the excellent first half

[b-girl]

spoiler










I read on another board that a lot of the plot of The Villiage is similar to a book called "Running Out of Time" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0689812361/ref%3Dpd%5Fsl%5Faw%5Falx-jeb-6-1%5Fbook%5F2138180%5F1/002-5290597-7080048)
From the Amazon description it does have some similarities.

[Fisting Ackbar]

SPOILERS










Originally posted by beastieben21
-How did a retard man get into that costume!? It looks pretty difficult to just slip on and go. Plus, if he's really that stupid, he couldn't form intent, especially malicious intent, it's why children aren't charged for crimes.


You could assume that he had plenty of time to put on the costume and escape before he runs into Ivy. And while he might have been retarded, he still could have been aware what was going on between people, which is why he went after Lucius and Ivy (especially after she slapped him up).

Originally posted by beastieben21
-Even with billions of dollars, you can't just say "Alright government, we're doing our own thing here, now don't bother us or check in." They could be sacrificing infants to Ra for all they know, but because of that 20 million Hurt gave them, they're willing to let it slide and turn the other cheek.

My interpretation was that they only paid the government not to fly over the wildlife refuge and that they weren't aware of the fact that people were living there. Also, you'd be surprised how much money can influence politicians/government officials.

Originally posted by beastieben21
-Why would there be a giant hole (obviously dug by someone) in the ground in the middle of this woods? Nobody goes out there except the elders, so why would they dig a hole they could fall into? To catch bears?


In case someone managed to slip past the security guards outside the fence and into the refuge, so they wouldn't reach the town.

But I agree with some of your other points though.










SPOILERS END

[Scorsese]

Originally posted by beastieben21
Blah, SPOILERS:






M. Night should learn a valuable lesson from The Village: Don't insult your audience. First of all, one scene alone should dispell this entire film for people. When Sigourney Weaver and William Hurt are speaking about how "coyotes couldn't place those skinned animals on doors, it had to be the creatures." They both KNOW the creatures don't exist. This conversation would NEVER happen. Night uses it to merely trick the audience into believing the Elders know nothing, before the big reveal which nullifies most of the film.

You can't do that! Anyone can make a movie with a big twist if things just don't add up. I REALLY hope there's a huge backlash for this film. How anyone can ignore such glarring and insulting plot holes is beyond me. You're telling me these 8 people mutually agree to give up their lives, as they exist, to form a community!? None of their relatives question this, the government is fine with it? Plus, what others have added, why speak like this? Why adopt this language? All Shymalan did was fuck with his audience. It wasn't a clever twist, it's merely misleading. I'm willing to accept some plot holes if it's well executed, but not scenes that completely contradict events that occur a mere 30 minutes later.

And, for being retarded, Adrien Brody is one clever motherfucker. Not only does he break out of confinement, he also steals a monster suit (Why was that hidden in the 'silent room' anyway? Why not at HOME, where only your FAMILY is?), manages to put it on, TRACK DOWN Blind Girl (I'm done with using Night's given 'names'), GRUNT like a beast instead of merely speaking, and attack her, all while being mentally ill? Kudos to you brotha, Forrest Gump isn't the only retard-cum-genius.

Add to that a very less-than-subtle message, along with the most gratutious cameo I've seen in years (you had to work yourself in there, didn't you Night? Love the reflection, very nonchalant).

This movie could have been awesome. It could have delivered on it's creepy promise and just been a thriller about creatures in the wilderness. The only thing that ended up scaring me was Brody's monster nose. Cast THAT thing as your creature next time, Night.


lol


good points man

[MovieDragon]

Tcopen,(SPOILERS!!!)













You have to understand that as a paying audience, we don't like being lied to. Shyamalan blatantly lied to us by representing this as a horror movie. Even after he revealed there was nothing to be afraid of, he STILL tried to milk it. If he was making a character based drama, hell, even a [somewhat dark] romance, he should have advertised it that way and stuck with it. It is his fault, and possibly the studio's for dissapointing us so greatly. If he didn't bullshit us so much (the tense and dark trailers, the Sci-Fi show, all that crap), then we wouldn't have gotten nearly as many people who expected horror.

I don't know much more that I can say...he lied and likely sold-out to studios on this project. As such, he's an asshole and deserves all of the criticism. I haven't lost all faith in him, and I'll go see his next movie...I just don't like being lied to like this. Not only does he falsely advertise the movie, but he STILL tries to play it as horror throughout the movie.

Now, aside from the "lying" aspect...it's not a great movie. Loose and unfocused plot; indecisive as to what it wants to be; weak ending. I don't truly believe a movie can be held together purely on the ending or the journey there. Neither aspect of this movie was strong...

Oh, and understand, we KNOW Shyamalan isn't a horror director. However, we've still been scared by most of his movies, and he does tend to use various horror or scary aspects. His advertising made this seem specifically like a horror film...in accordance with his other films, we expected to be scared. But, that isn't even the whole issue. It's just a bad movie.

[Scorsese]

Originally posted by beastieben21
I guess I'm just curious (and this isn't to attack anyones opinion on the film, if you loved it i'm very glad you did) of how it's manipulitive nature didn't turn you off? I ask this because I personally can't ignore it, but a lot of people really seem to love it. For instance:

-The way they spoke, which is ONLY used to throw the audience off, not because it could really happen.

-The coyote discussion, which again, would NEVER happen because they both know what's causing this problem, it's just to manipulate the audience.

-Why would there be a giant hole (obviously dug by someone) in the ground in the middle of this woods? Nobody goes out there except the elders, so why would they dig a hole they could fall into? To catch bears?

-The noises. Does William Hurt have a giant control room where he presses the 'roar' button to create the noise? Plus, when this Village was funded, in the 60's-70's, that's some pretty impressive technology to install in the middle of the woods. Where is this secret control room? How do they keep the noises form sounding all the same?

-How did a retard man get into that costume!? It looks pretty difficult to just slip on and go. Plus, if he's really that stupid, he couldn't form intent, especially malicious intent, it's why children aren't charged for crimes.

-Many topics are brushed on, but never even explained, as if scenes are missing. Blind Girl sees auras and keeps saying "I can't tell you your color" but that never comes into play nor does she touch on it later in the film. Also, the faux-romance between Weaver and Hunt, brushed on, but never comes to fruition. Pointless.

-Even with billions of dollars, you can't just say "Alright government, we're doing our own thing here, now don't bother us or check in." They could be sacrificing infants to Ra for all they know, but because of that 20 million Hurt gave them, they're willing to let it slide and turn the other cheek.

I mean, Night shows NO respect for his audience which is why I'm so startled by the reaction. Yeah, it's a twist ending, and one could argue it's merit, but he achieves that twist by lying to us. It's a lazy film, and althought some of my complaints are nit-picking, many of them are very obvious questions that M. Night either didn't want to take the time to address, or couldn't, and lied to his audience. The film doesn't hold up upon 2nd viewing, these holes in it are HUGE and these are just some of them. Again, I'm not attacking anyone for loving the film, I wanted to, and wish I shared your feelings. However, I don't understand how people can ignore these, nor the lack of respect Night has for his audience.

great post, I agree


This film has a great concept, but Night just didn't do it right this time. He is still one of my favs though.

[The Prowler]

Originally posted by Common Sense Man
First off bankhold up,

There are no boom mikes, it must have been a framing error on the part of the projectionist. I have seen the movie several times and I have yet to see one.

It does indeed seem that many are pissed about knowing the ending because it was leaked.

Well too bad. I didn't know the ending and I have a computer and internet access. I simply didn't read about it, a little self control and you would not have known the ending.

So no one can complain about it being spoiled for them, they spoiled it for themselves.

And I have no sympathy for the people that feel it should have been a straight out horror flick. I never felt it was going to be like that, he has never made flicks like that before.

I know many may hate it because it is character driven, well I say it is about time we had a good character driven movie and not one that relies on explosions and cheap one liners.

I thought that several of the scenes were very powerful.

And you have to give ole M Knight some slack. Everyone expects him to make the best movie of all time, no one can live up to that.

I really liked the movie as well as all the people that went with me.

If you hate the flick simply because it was not what you expected than that is again your fault. We all know that trailers often depict movies incorrectly or show scenes that are not even in the movie. But they didn't do this with the village.




Now on to some spoiler info.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

About the medicine or lack of it.

Didn't you see that their original kids, the ones that went with them to start the community were only infants or not even born yet.

So that means they have been living in isolation for at least 20 to 25 years. And who is going to stock pile 20 years worth of medicine.

And the reason they stayed in character and pretended to be from the 1800's was for the audience!

If the village looked like a suburb of L.A. the movie would kind of loose it's impact.

I do agree that the stupid conversation between the two elders about the coyote should have been left out. There was no reason to show that.

And I don't feel the movie would have been better if an elder would have tryed to kill Ivy, what was the point in that.

They let her go because they knew she would make it, that is why they wanted the boys to stay at the road and not go all the way.

I actually felt that reveling the elders as the monsters then showing her being attacked worked really well as it made you rethink all you had previously thought you knew.

And yes hiding a costume in the quiet room was dumb, when noah could have easily got one from the shed after he escaped from the room.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

End Spoilers.




I think just like his other movies it will be hated and loved. But when it hits DVD it will sell like crazy and people will come to see it for what it is, a great character driven story.

And hell I thought his cameo was fine, he had a bigger one in signs so stop your bitching about him wanting to be in HIS movie.

I still feel positive about this flick and stick with my 7/10 rating.

Out............................................... .............


I feel exactly the same as you do about the whole perception of the audience. Not once has his movies been a full tilt horror movie. I personally loved the movie and appreciate it for what it was.

[MovieDragon]

SPOILERS!












If I didn't already say this, I DID love the filmmaking and all of the acting. While I can't blame the actors for the plot and how their characters were written, I hold them responsible for doing a GOOD job. And they succeeded. Excellent performances.

Filmmaking was also beautiful. The best scene in the movie is the stab scene. I suspected it as I saw the camera close in on Phoenix's back, but then I thought, okay, he's fine when nothing happened. Then he turned around and looked down? Holy shit.

And when Noah stabs him again? That was a REALLY shocking and powerful scene...(including the "discovery" part)

But that's pretty much the highlight of the film, and I forget how awesome it is as the movie continues to throw stupid shit at my face.

[flowrchild]

Originally posted by beastieben21
I mean, Night shows NO respect for his audience which is why I'm so startled by the reaction.

I agree with your entire post and all of your points. This movie seemed to be thrown together with complete carelessness and disregard for having a purpose. It almost seems like he's not even trying to make a good movie anymore, because he just knows he's going to make a fortune regardless. There is so much wrong with this movie that it would take me forever to fully launch into, but you pinpointed a lot of the problems I had with it.

Here are a few random things that bugged me: ****SPOILERS****



Exactly how did the village get to be so large in the course of 20 years, if the elders were the only founders? Did they like, post a flyer over at the community center recruiting people to their new utopian amish village? And if they took new people to the village who were from the old world, what are the odds of NOBODY leaking the information of the modern world? And it was impossible that they birthed all the villagers themselves because some of the elders only had 2 or 3 kids. I didn't quite understand that.

Why would the elders put one of the costumes in the floorboard of a room that they send the kids to when they've been bad? If the kids contained in that room are misbehaving, it shouldn't be too far-fetched that they'd poke around and stumble across one of the costumes. Another very poorly thought out idea.

Why didn't William Hurt just go into the modern world for medicine, instead of sending the blind girl? I understand that it's because the blind girl couldn't see and therefore couldn't report back on what she'd seen, but wouldn't it be a bit easier for him to just go HIMSELF and then be able to keep the secret going?

If they wanted to create a peaceful village away from modern society, here's a thought, why not just join the friggin Amish communities! These things EXIST already, it's not an original idea. They've existed for many years now. It seems like an awful waste of time to create this little village when they could join a community that's been doing this already, clearly a lot more competently.

The other elements (the noises that would have no way of being made, storing medicine to save the people who were dying, etc) were all infuriating as well.

I think what bugs me the most about this movie is that everything seemed to exist solely to trick us into thinking it was clever, when it was anything but. Them speaking in old english leading the audience to believe they're amish from older times, the elders conversing (in private!) about how the coyote couldn't have made the mark when they knew damn well it wasn't the coyote, etc. It was uneven, incoherent, and had many things randomly slapped on without any purpose. Not to mention there was virtually no character development (did we truly know one person in the film?), dreadfully written dialogue, among other things.


*****END SPOILERS******


I know a lot of people were disappointed in this movie because it simply wasn't scary. I am not disappointed that it wasn't scary; I am disappointed that I paid to see a very bad movie. Period.

4/10

[NuclearMisfit]

I really liked it 9/10. Also what was the alternate ending?

[bankholdup]

Ugh...the more I think about this movie, the more I hate it. Rating officially changed to a 4/10.

[Rick-James]

This movie was just fuckin' awful.

2/10

[Scorsese]

From the moment I saw the first teaser I was hooked. My girlfriend and I planned far in advance to see this movie the day it opened. I had to work this evening so we caught the 5:10pm showing.

Going in I expected a creepy movie that would unfold in typical M. Night Shyamalan style. I figured that nothing would be as it seemed, and I was right.

As the film began, the scenery and the early character development intrigued me. The whole concept of the movie was full of possibilities that I could not wait to see unfold. As the film progressed I was incredibly impressed by all of the acting, especially Joaquin Phoenix as Lucius Hunt and Bryce Dallas Howard as Ivy Walker. William Hurt as Edward Walker was also great. I enjoyed the entire movie and never became bored; though I did feel it went in a lot of directions and seemed a bit unfocused. The story on paper, including the climax, was simply amazing and beautiful. However, the way that it played out on film was a bit disappointing to me, even as a huge M. Night Shyamalan fan. As others mentioned, there are many holes in this plot, and I found it hard to believe for many reasons. The concept, acting, cinematography, score, and other aspects of the movie were top notch, but the many holes in the plot and the fact that it never seemed incredibly grasping, left me disappointed.

This was a good movie that I recommend. I doubt anyone will be bored or unsatisfied by "The Village", but I'm sure most M. Night Shyamalan fans will consider this his worst movie. That isn't saying it's bad considering how great all of his films have been, but this movie truly left me scratching my head and wondering why Shyamalan couldn't give us more considering what a great premise this film had.

I want to see this again and I'm sure I'll get the DVD when it comes out, but at this point I would say this is a beautiful period film and a good drama with a cool twist at the end. However it will leave some disappointed. Do not expect horror or crazy suspense, and try to get past the plot holes and see the big picture. If you can do that you should enjoy "The Village"

*Update*



********Spoilers********












I still don't know what the dude would send his blind daughter in the woods instead of going himself. In fact, I dunno why they didn't set it up where they would bring some medicine or at least go get some when someone was dying..... but in any event, if they want to get supplies, sending your blind daughter into the woods where she could fall into holes, trip over logs, or get lost, is a dumb idea. But it did make for some cool scenes. That is the one problem I still have.... just didn't make a lot of sense to me.




********End Spoilers********






The Sixth Sense - 9.5/10
Unbreakable - 9.5/10
Signs - 9.5/10
The Village - 7.5/10

[Scorsese]

After thinking more and reading questions raised by "Flowerchild" and others.... I do agree the plot holes are to deep to ignore.

I cannot believe Night would be so damn careless. It's almost as if the film isn't done or some sh-t. Damn M. Night, step it up!!!!!



New Rating - 6/10


Great concept, acting, score, camera work, ect.

To many plot holes and parts that just don't make sense. As bad as I want to, I just can't ignore it. :(

[Moviefreek]

Looks like I'm in the minority with this one which usually doesn't happen. I usually tend to agree with what everyone sees to think. I think this film was very nicely done and one of his best.

The acting was great by everyone, great perfomances all around. The story was very good as well, I really enjoyed everything about it.

I, unlike everyone else, enjoyed this as a chilling movie. Not necessaraly a horror movie because that is not how the directer handles his films. I had a chill the whole time I watched it. Great stuff.

As for the twists, I enjoyed all that were thrown at me. I thought they were handled nicely.

The Village- 9/10

Where I'm comin from:

Unbreakable- 9/10
Signs- 8/10
Sixth Sense- 7/10

Oh, and as for the marketing. Everyone seemed to think it was good marketing. In all honesty, the trailer just felt awkward for me and Really did not intrigue me at all.

[ANavissi500]

I think one of the reasons I am increasingly liking The Village is because the more I think about it, once I found out the twist, I felt immense pity for the people of Covington Wood, like Ivy and Lucious. It ended very melancholily, despite the seemingly happy ending. My pity for these characters hasn't subsided all day so I think it takes a good movie to instill that emotion in a viewer.

[Rated R]

Possible Spoilers Ya'll


















The Village is a bad movie, pure and simple, and it's a shame. What makes me angry is how Shyamalan decided to throw a Scooby Doo twist at us and not expect us to realize how awful it really is. Oh neat, it's going to be a great payoff, a monster, or monsters are terrorizing this small quaint town...oh wait it's just the town tard in a suit, shucks he would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for that damn blind girl!

The film is set up so nicely that I was sucked into the atmosphere from the get go, and I was liking how quickly everything was being established. Then Joaquin is stabbed and is done for the last half of the movie, and the father and blind daughter go into the shed where the movie is slaughtered like old yeller. The monster suit dangling there and then the explanation that killed the uber-cool premise. Then I remember that the father had talked about the rumors of monsters in the woods from a textbook...maybe the rumors are actually true and even the elders are fooled...nope it's the tard.

My hope went out the window when I saw the "monster" in the woods chasing Ivy, because if there was a monster, it would not have looked exactly as the suit did, so I knew right away it was a crock. Since her journey was delayed it allowed me to think...oh man she's going to come out in modern time(and I did not hear read the leaked ending). I called the bullshit by saying, "It would really suck if this happened" and then it did.

The twists ruined the movie, I wanted a clever monster film, something I haven't seen in a while, or maybe ever. I wanted Shyamalan to shy away from twists and colors to tell his story. The colors by the way were overboard and less subtle in this one. Also he kept using voice-overs of things that were already established to remind us idiot viewers exactly what was going on so we would not regain our false hope that we were watching an intelligent and interesting film. Hey this is pretty decent, I like where he's taking it, response is "NO I'm taking it here! Where I treat my audience like a five year old with no attention span!"

Shyamalan's little guest appearance was also pretty pretentious. Giving himself the ominous voice of God presence at first. What a douchebag. This movie is nothing more than his very own self serving masturbatory horseshit. This is a bad movie, and I wish I hadn't suggested seeing it to my friends, because now I feel like the asshole.

3/10

[the humble narrator]

Well, well, well...

Honestly I can't believe how many people disliked this film. I am not one of them. While I can see their reasons I agree with the other schmoes that they had false expectations due to the misleading trailers but if they had seen any of Shymalan's films they knew he wasn't going to make a monster movie.
It is a period drama.

SPOILERS

It is a period drama that doesn't deserve that title because it does not take place in any past century. Anyway, I liked the movie for what it was. It was my least favorite of his films, but all his previous films get 9 or perfect 10 (for Unbreakable)

I liked the acting from everyone involved, especially Ms. Howard and William Hurt, as well as J. Phoenix.
The mood of the film was great, very haunting.
By having Noah stab Lucius, I thought for once that was daring on Shymalan's part as he is disabling his lead. It reminded me of Psycho, when Hitchcock kills Janet Leigh.
Also I thought that the twists made sense, even the last one.
What the movie made me think is through how much trouble will parents go to protect the future of their children.

I love Roger Deakins but I had some problems with the cinematopraghy in some parts. Like when we pan over to the the black box. It is justified in other places as he proves why he is one of the best dp working today.

The movie had its share of problems but it is not as bad as this whole board makes it out to be.

Right now, I would give it an 8/10.

[Strider]

The Village - 4/10 or **/***** stars

http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/touchstone_pictures/the_village/joaquin_phoenix/torchlight.jpg

M. Night Shyamalan blew me away with The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. However, I cannot say the same about Signs. While it was not a bad film, it was underwhelming and ultimately unsatisfying. Unfortunately, Shyamalan's latest film, The Village, is not only unsatisfying, but it's boring, dull, implausible, and upsetting. This is not even the worst of it. The biggest sin The Village commits is that it hardly offers any real entertainment, and it's devoid of any genuine thrills or scares. This film is being marketed as a horrific thriller, but it's clearly nothing more than a slow-moving drama. Joaquin Phoenix leads a talented ensemble cast, but they all deliver bland performances and play truly unlikable, wooden characters. The only exception would be Bryce Dallas Howard, in her debut film, who delivers the only standout performance, and plays the only slightly interesting character. Just as two of his other three thrillers, The Village does feature a twist ending. I will admit, I did know what the ending was prior to seeing the film, but I don't believe my overall reaction to the film was affected in any way by knowing this. As for the twist ending, it's one of the most implausible endings period. It makes no sense, its logic is absolutely perplexing, and the film shows no evidence to support the ending. Not to mention that the viewer must sit through a long and tedious film before the ending arrives. I'm not sure if I'm confused. I'm not sure if I know exactly what I'm rambling about. But I am sure that The Village is a total bore of a film. If anything at all, this film had absolutely no excuse to be boring. M. Night Shyamalan should be ashamed of himself for making a film with no thrills, scares, or entertainment.

Strider

[moviemuffin]

I don't know how else to say this, so...

Nobody is saying you can't like this film, but if a majority as large as the one emerging (even a lesser one) is finding this many flaws, it's flawed. It's really that simple.

People can still like it, but they are liking a seriously flawed film. That happens a lot. It bothers me that so many film goers are settling or don't bring a bit more to the theater with them in terms of viewing tools, but such is life.

It just never fails with a Night film... there will always be a small contingent of people refusing to admit mistakes everyone else is very clearly unified in identifying. Like it, dudes, just don't be ridiculous about it.

[NuclearMisfit]

heres a few plothole answers for you guys.




*spoilers*
The Elders conversation:

Since the elders had a council and organized everything, they didnt know who did the last attack, they figured coyotes would have been responsible for the livestock being killed after all they were on a animal reserve but making the building marks and mutilating the livestock was impossible for one to do they figured there was a killer amongst them (Noah)

Sending Ivy to Town:

Most of the town still believed that they lived in that time period and the Elders did not want to back to modern day and all the crime that came with it so they sent Ivy, remember she had 2 guides with her but they left her alone. Imagine if anyone else went who could see, the culture shock would be too much for them and would anyone else return with the medicine if they found out? Would they bring back more people who would mess up their eutopian society?

Noah in Da Woods:

Remember the Elders said Noah had went into the woods before and came back (well how would they know unless they found him out there) he seemed to really like the sound the Creatures made, this makes me believe he knew about the elders plans and wanted to "play" along.

Noah was about to be locked in the bad room at the start of the film but Ivy made him promise never to hit anyone ever again but she turned around and smacked him after he stabbed Lucious. Maybe smacking him sent him over the edge. He could have thought he was an elder too.

[Adornado]

heres a few plothole answers for you guys.

*spoilers*
The Elders conversation:

Since the elders had a council and organized everything, they didnt know who did the last attack, they figured coyotes would have been responsible for the livestock being killed after all they were on a animal reserve but making the building marks and mutilating the livestock was impossible for one to do they figured there was a killer amongst them (Noah)

What makes you think they suspected Noah was a killer? The private conversation between the elders is just a plothole

Sending Ivy to Town:

Most of the to wn still believed that they lived in that time period and the Elders did not want to back to modern day and all the crime that came with it so they sent Ivy, remember she had 2 guides with her but they left her alone. Imagine if anyone else went who could see, the culture shock would be too much for them and would anyone else return with the medicine if they found out? Would they bring back more people who would mess up their eutopian society?

Ivy's father didn't go because he took some sort of Oath.

Noah in Da Woods:

Remember the Elders said Noah had went into the woods before and came back (well how would they know unless they found him out there) he seemed to really like the sound the Creatures made, this makes me believe he knew about the elders plans and wanted to "play" along.

Wasn't it Luscious who told the elders he suspected Noah has gone in the woods before? How could Noah know about the creatures not being real? If everyone in the village who wasn't retarded had no idea I doubt he figured it out.

[jackson13]

Possible Spoilers...I guess.

The one thing I did not like about this film was that, for once, to much was explained to me.

Signs, one of my most favorite movies ever, did not have that. A ton of it was left up to your imagination (why were the aliens here, whats going on in other parts of the world....). This movie did not have that. And it disappointed me.


To this day, my friends and I still discuss Signs, like about what we feel was going on and whatnot....not with The Village.


In fact, on our way home, nobody even mentioned the movie other than me. Because I was the only one that semi liked it. My best friend told me on the way out of the theater that he downright hated it. His g/f said it was a big let down compared to his past films, and my other friend said he honestly didnt know what to think.


I liked that most of it did work. The one thing I can say I hated was the very end. It was just so cheesy. All the townsfolk are gathered around Lucious' house, Ivy grabs his hand and says "Im back" and the screen goes black. What the hell? I was waiting for a cameo of The Guvernator to pop up and say in his voice "Hasta La Vista Baby" since she totally ripped off Terminator 3 with that line.



Good camera work. Great acting. Excellent Premise.

Yet still a let down. Big time.

The Village 7/10
Signs 10/10
Unbreakable 8/10
Sixth Sense 9.5/10

[Adornado]

Originally posted by jackson13
I liked that most of it did work. The one thing I can say I hated was the very end. It was just so cheesy. All the townsfolk are gathered around Lucious' house, Ivy grabs his hand and says "Im back" and the screen goes black. What the hell? I was waiting for a cameo of The Guvernator to pop up and say in his voice "Hasta La Vista Baby" since she totally ripped off Terminator 3 with that line.

Yep, I bet the only reason that line was in the movie was because of Terminator 3.

[/sarcasm]

[adamjohnson]

Now, wait a minute! The "Coyote" discussion is NOT a plothole.

I dont recall them saying in that conversation "Well, its too high for coyotes, so it MUST HAVE BEEN THE CREATURES"

At first, they probably did think it was a coyote. But then when this shit happened (the dead animals etc) they began to think it was SOMEONE. And thats what they were discussing. In oither words "In couldnt have been a wild animal, it must have been one of the villagers"

Also, Hurt DID say that there were rumors of a real creature some time ago. Maybe that was also part of their convo.

Adrien probably found that costume long ago, he spent alot of time in that room from the looks of things! The creature attacking the town the first time we see it was HIM. Thats why the elders were still so confused.

[PuggyD]

I guess spoilers are implied by this point, but just in case

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS








You think Noah was the monster more times than just at the end? I doubt it. I don't think he'd be able to replace the floorboards so as no one would notice, nor would he have the presence of mind to do so. If a non-elder had been doing the monster routine before, they would have been concerned and gotten to the bottom of it sooner. Also, the first time we see the monster attack, wasn't Noah in the cellar with Ivy and all them? Or don't we clearly see him laughing about it, but clearly not in costume? Yeah, I think the costume was a last minute discovery on his part. Maybe he skinned the animals, but it was only him in costume at the very end.

[Murderous Squad]

****SPOILERS****???????? I don't really know if anybody cares about this detail because it doesen't ruin anything but I guess it's a spoiler:

did anyone else notice the damn microphone above the actors heads druing the WHOLE movie?? Everybody in the theater was laughing at that, now i'm not sure whether my theater is just a cheap piece of shit and messed up and cut the movie wrong or something or during editing they fucked up big time and no one mentioned the random mic that you can see above each actor while they speak.

[Murderous Squad]

Also I missed a lot of the movie so can someone maybe PM me and explain the ending or can someoen post it on here???

SPOILERS!!!
Really I just want to know why the blind girl was sent ot the city (for medicine??) and also why did that one guy get stabbed??? Also why was he there and asking for permission to go into the woods?? Who killed all the animals?? I missed about half of the movie and didn't liek it much so I'm not seeing it again I would jsut like to know what the hell I saw...i'd appreceate some help thanks

[bankholdup]

Originally posted by Murderous Squad
****SPOILERS****???????? I don't really know if anybody cares about this detail because it doesen't ruin anything but I guess it's a spoiler:

did anyone else notice the damn microphone above the actors heads druing the WHOLE movie?? Everybody in the theater was laughing at that, now i'm not sure whether my theater is just a cheap piece of shit and messed up and cut the movie wrong or something or during editing they fucked up big time and no one mentioned the random mic that you can see above each actor while they speak.

I had mentioned the mics in my post. I was beginning to think my theater was the only one who had it in there. It's ridiculously noticable.

[ChemicalRomance]

::sigh:: You know, the more I think about "The Village" the more I like it.

___________________________

*SPOILERS*

The Village all around was a good movie...but considering it was from M. Night it made the movie seem not as good.

(this big part of my post right here got deleted how annoying)
|
|
I basically said the: acting, characters, and cast were very well done. Especially the character Ivy (Howard) and Adrien Brody's character Noah.


Something that annoys me now, as JoBlo said in his review is that Night is depedning on good endings, or lots of plot twists too much in his movies now. I agree. While the acting and characters were good, and the setting was well done and creppy the movie just didn't feel right. A good ending doesn't make a good movie. A good movie, makes a good movie.

But...the ending was VERY GOOD. I must say. Won't spoil or leak anything though, for those who read the ending before they saw the movie, it's kind of a shame becuase I'm sure it will not feel the same. For some reason, the more I think about "The Village" the more I seem to like it, and I realize more and more things that took place during the course of the movie.

Something that really annoyed me is that the commercial's really were a bit misleading. They made the movie out to be a very scary thriller, when to me it was more of a mystery. There were no real "jump out of your seat" parts besides one or two which I won't say.

Not a bad movie...but...not Night's best work. A good ending and story can't save a movie completly. Still worth seeing.

7.5/10

[ChemicalRomance]

Originally posted by jackson13
Possible Spoilers...I guess.

The one thing I did not like about this film was that, for once, to much was explained to me.

Signs, one of my most favorite movies ever, did not have that. A ton of it was left up to your imagination (why were the aliens here, whats going on in other parts of the world....). This movie did not have that. And it disappointed me.


To this day, my friends and I still discuss Signs, like about what we feel was going on and whatnot....not with The Village.


In fact, on our way home, nobody even mentioned the movie other than me. Because I was the only one that semi liked it. My best friend told me on the way out of the theater that he downright hated it. His g/f said it was a big let down compared to his past films, and my other friend said he honestly didnt know what to think.


I liked that most of it did work. The one thing I can say I hated was the very end. It was just so cheesy. All the townsfolk are gathered around Lucious' house, Ivy grabs his hand and says "Im back" and the screen goes black. What the hell? I was waiting for a cameo of The Guvernator to pop up and say in his voice "Hasta La Vista Baby" since she totally ripped off Terminator 3 with that line.



Good camera work. Great acting. Excellent Premise.

Yet still a let down. Big time.

The Village 7/10
Signs 10/10
Unbreakable 8/10
Sixth Sense 9.5/10

I agree with this review for the most part. I don't think the ending was cheesy at all though. I liked it. However, the last line/scene...oh god, bad.

[ChemicalRomance]

Originally posted by NuclearMisfit
heres a few plothole answers for you guys.




*spoilers*
Sending Ivy to Town:

Most of the town still believed that they lived in that time period and the Elders did not want to back to modern day and all the crime that came with it so they sent Ivy, remember she had 2 guides with her but they left her alone. Imagine if anyone else went who could see, the culture shock would be too much for them and would anyone else return with the medicine if they found out? Would they bring back more people who would mess up their eutopian society?


If you remember, the main elder made sure that the guides didn't go with Ivy past the road. Remember? Something like "you will come upon a hidden road, once there, you will take the road alone."

[FerrellFan911]

What is the deal people?

"The Village" is one of the best films of the year.

Look at the characters and cinematography. Watch for the thematic elements. I just do no understand this under-whelming response.

My guess is that this is a M. Night Shyamalan movie, thus you have high expectations. If this film was made by someone else, you would probably love it more.

[ChemicalRomance]

Originally posted by FerrellFan911
What is the deal people?

"The Village" is one of the best films of the year.

Look at the characters and cinematography. Watch for the thematic elements. I just do no understand this under-whelming response.

My guess is that this is a M. Night Shyamalan movie, thus you have high expectations. If this film was made by someone else, you would probably love it more.
Like I said, the more I think about this movie the more I like it. I just keep finding more positive things about it. I just hate how previews made it out to be a horror film/thriller but it was a...drama.

[bankholdup]

Originally posted by FerrellFan911
What is the deal people?

"The Village" is one of the best films of the year.

Look at the characters and cinematography. Watch for the thematic elements. I just do no understand this under-whelming response.

My guess is that this is a M. Night Shyamalan movie, thus you have high expectations. If this film was made by someone else, you would probably love it more.

You're right, because Shyamalan did a terrible job with it. Somebody else could have easily done this film better...I'll be looking for who. And I don't like Shyamalan to begin with, so I had low expectations going in. I would have liked to like it, but just couldn't. I hated this film. And the characters...ugh, talk about one-dimensional.

[beastieben21]

Originally posted by FerrellFan911
What is the deal people?

"The Village" is one of the best films of the year.

Look at the characters and cinematography. Watch for the thematic elements. I just do no understand this under-whelming response.

My guess is that this is a M. Night Shyamalan movie, thus you have high expectations. If this film was made by someone else, you would probably love it more.

Characters? Night's dialouge is the worst of his career, and the characters are one-dimensional carrictures. William "Trying...to...be...Shatner....esque?" Hurt was one-beat, as was the dead pan Phoenix. The only glimpse of an actual character was Blind Girl, but she was underdeveloped.

Cinematography? That reminds me, Hannibal, Alien 3, Boat Trip, Gothika...Kangaroo Jack, GREAT cinematography! Sorry, that doesn't make a bad film good.

Thematic elements? You mean overtly obvious political jargon? These are thematic element that Michael Moore touched on a mere month ago, not exactly news nor all that awe-inspiring.

The reason people aren't liking it is for one reason; they think it's a bad movie, and i agree. It doesn't matter who directed it. M. Night doesn't have a flawless history, so we're not dealing with the holy grail of filmmakers. The film was poorly executed, lazy, contains huge errors, which all equals a lack of respect for your audience. But he's getting 10 million to write/direct, so I doubt it matters that much.

[Basco]

Originally posted by beastieben21
Characters? Night's dialouge is the worst of his career, and the characters are one-dimensional carrictures. William "Trying...to...be...Shatner....esque?" Hurt was one-beat, as was the dead pan Phoenix. The only glimpse of an actual character was Blind Girl, but she was underdeveloped.

Cinematography? That reminds me, Hannibal, Alien 3, Boat Trip, Gothika...Kangaroo Jack, GREAT cinematography! Sorry, that doesn't make a bad film good.

Thematic elements? You mean overtly obvious political jargon? These are thematic element that Michael Moore touched on a mere month ago, not exactly news nor all that awe-inspiring.

The reason people aren't liking it is for one reason; they think it's a bad movie, and i agree. It doesn't matter who directed it. M. Night doesn't have a flawless history, so we're not dealing with the holy grail of filmmakers. The film was poorly executed, lazy, contains huge errors, which all equals a lack of respect for your audience. But he's getting 10 million to write/direct, so I doubt it matters that much.

Can I get a hallelujah?

[pmac]

first of all i want to say that this was not my favorite shyamalan movie, but it is still one of the best movies of the year so far. i did know the ending going in because i have no self control and had to find out for myself months ago, but i was still scared enough to enjoy it. i am not mad that it may have been marketed as a horror and was not a true horror movie because at least it was able to have me on the edge of my seat and make me jump a few times, which is more than i can say for halloween resurrection and other recent "true" horror films.

**SPOILERS**




i was not bothered by the fact that they lived and spoke exactly like it was 1897 even though they did not necessarily have to, and i don't think it was done only to fool the audience. if you listen at the end of the movie you hear william hurts voice say "I am a history professor at the university of pennsylvania and i have an idea" after hearing this i figured the reason they did act like it really was 1897 was because it was kind of an experiment being done by the professor who obviously runs everything else about the town and a history professor might be a little anal about every detail like speech and other things. so in addition to getting away from the dangers of thier modern life, he was also trying to further understand life back then.

[ChemicalRomance]

Originally posted by beastieben21
Characters? Night's dialouge is the worst of his career, and the characters are one-dimensional carrictures. William "Trying...to...be...Shatner....esque?" Hurt was one-beat, as was the dead pan Phoenix. The only glimpse of an actual character was Blind Girl, but she was underdeveloped.

Cinematography? That reminds me, Hannibal, Alien 3, Boat Trip, Gothika...Kangaroo Jack, GREAT cinematography! Sorry, that doesn't make a bad film good.

Thematic elements? You mean overtly obvious political jargon? These are thematic element that Michael Moore touched on a mere month ago, not exactly news nor all that awe-inspiring.

The reason people aren't liking it is for one reason; they think it's a bad movie, and i agree. It doesn't matter who directed it. M. Night doesn't have a flawless history, so we're not dealing with the holy grail of filmmakers. The film was poorly executed, lazy, contains huge errors, which all equals a lack of respect for your audience. But he's getting 10 million to write/direct, so I doubt it matters that much.

I did like all the characters, unlike you did, but I do agree the best character was Howard's...aka Ivy or the blind girl. And yes she was undeveloped.

P.S.-Nice icon. "Why Bother" is on right now haha.

[adamjohnson]

There are some other 'plotholes' that people are talking about that is ridiculous.

About Ivy going to the town to begin with, and people wondering why Hurt just doesnt go himself, or send someone else: Well hmm, he made an oath to go, and in this context, my guess would be that theyd kick him the hell out of the village if he broke it. Wondering why he sent his blind daughter: BECAUSE SHES BLIND. She would be the least traumatized by the events in the city. She wouldnt have seen the car, or the strange clothes the nice guard was wearing. She would simply come back with a story of a strange man. She was the only logical choice.

About her slapping Adrien when she distinctly told him hitting was bad: Yeah, its called a character arc people, some way someone changes during the course of the film. But, its kinda new so most people dont remember it, its only been around for about 4 or 500 years.

One above post did mention that Adrien was in the cellar during the initial attack. Correct. My bad. I'd still wger he skinned all the animals though. I mean, did anyone else not notice the line of Sigourney's when she talked about whatever animal that did this musy have been filled with madness? That was some foreshadowing.

Still, the elders were confused ahbout who was skinning the animals. They dint think it was actually one of the creatuires, bc they know it doesnt exist, but they were wondering baout hwo it could have possibly been.

[Witchproject]

This movie would have been a terrific film if he had just taken out the twists. The director just relies on these, now. Twists aren't nearly as effective when you expect them, as did everyone and everyone will from now on since it's become the only thing that Shyamalan puts out..
If this movie had just maintained it's direction from the very beginning, it could have made something of itself.

[MovieDragon]

Anybody pissed about the "Ivy-Lucius beating" is missing the point. That is not a plot hole, it is simply a dynamic character. It was an expression of anger. Her not being mad (mad doesn't even begin to describe the emotion) would be ridiculous.

The coyote conversation has also made a bit more sense to me now. I still just thought it was a very stupid conversation. Did she have to spell out that coyotes couldn't paint on a door? No. While it is logical for them to be worried about WHO was doing it, it was a conversation designed purely to further mislead us.

But, there are still immense plot holes, and various huge signs that this movie was poorly and lazily done. The ENTIRE Shyamalan cameo and conversation was incredibly pointless and incredibly angering, especially after considering how bad the movie was. The only useful information he included was the airplanes comment, though I'm suprised he thought to even include that. :rolleyes:

Many have already covered the problems people have with this movie. It goes WAY beyond simple "wrong expectations"

[Scorsese]

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18067

THE VILLAGE review

I suppose I just don’t understand the seething dislike that some people have for M. Night Shyamalan. For some, it isn’t a hatred, but rather a vision… or a particular direction that they wanted him to take his career in. Some see him as stagnant. That he’s simply repeating the same formula over and over and how dare he.
For me, M. Night is a storyteller whose firelight is sprung from a projection booth behind me, and whose shadow plays of morals & lessons, simple truths and complex choices… and even his surprises, well, they’re resonating with me.
I had a hard day of trying to see this movie. The preview screening I was invited to, kinda got slammed in my face, and I was a tad annoyed at those involved, but as the night wore on and I was faced with possibly staying at home and writing my reviews for BOURNE SUPREMACY and MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, two movies that I liked, but that didn’t particularly light a fire of instant… I gotta write about it – passion. Knowing that those that kept me from M. Night’s latest would be victorious if I didn’t just find a midnight screening and go… I’d write those reviews on automatic pilot – or worse yet -- dedicate myself to my DVD column, which… yes I know must be done this weekend or Monday at the latest… but all of those things felt defeatist in nature, and I don’t go down, unless… whom, I kidding, I go down in a heart beat, but I don’t give up.
Once the decision was made, I decided to seek out which Alamo Drafthouse Theater was screening it. The natural thought was that it would have to be screening at the Alamo Village, but oddly, it wasn’t. Instead it was out to the far far far North Alamo Lakecreek, a gleaming bastion of cool in a suburban quagmire of yuppies and other scurvy characters. Sure enough, when I get there the big ol line of eager geeks awaiting M. Night’s special brand of storytelling were hopped up and ready to be dazzled. Many AICNers were there, having not seen the film earlier that night, and we were all hopeful and anxious.
Upon taking my seat, they began, what I can only assume was some of the Sci Fi Channel’s Shyamalan faux documentary / expose. After that the trailers unraveled including a great Shiner Boch documentary that looks damn interesting, the trailer for CELLULAR which I’m very anxious to see. The BATMAN BEGINS trailer, which didn’t do a thing for the audience or me – every shot seems underwhelming, the texture and depth of detail seems tragically lacking. And genuinely I hate the lighting package that they seem to be using. The MEET THE FOCKERS trailer played like gangbusters, but the best trailer was the vintage one for Disney’s WATCHER IN THE WOODS – that trailer rocked – and is the perfect reason why the Drafthouse, any Drafthouse is better than every other theater on the planet. That trailer perfectly put me in the mood to see a film fable, something that goes bump, just beyond the point of perception.
I loved THE VILLAGE, once again M. Night has seemingly tapped in to exactly my way of thinking. The first time was with ghosts, the second time was the way I think of superheroes, last time it was the design of the universe, faith in an order and reason to the way of things and just the night the aliens came. I loved that film. However, to talk about this film, what it means, why it works for me, well… It involves spoilers. I’m not going to spell out exactly what happens in the movie, but I’m going to talk about the out-lying and related metaphors and themes that are integral to what M. Night is playing with here. Personally, in advance of having seen the film, I wouldn’t have wanted to read these thoughts, but afterwards… well, it’s all I can talk about. So – I loved it – go with your personal deity or science book and enjoy the film… or not. What follows, would best be understood after having seen the film.
This time, the theme has to do with the bogeyman, that thing under the bed, the closet monster, the Easter Bunny, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, WMD and the other things that are created to pump fear into the minds of those needing fear.
The film is essentially about the need for mythology and legends, why the minotaur must feed on virgins, why the boy who cried wolf had to be eaten. Why is Santa Claus watching, making a list and ready to dish out joy or sadness with an even black gloved hand of merriment? Not only that, but why do parents partake in the various conspiracies of life. Or even at a larger level, why do we as a society fear monger our world, what will be the result of repression and an indulgence of turning our world black & white again and denying the light of color, that bite of the apple. How do we get back to Eden and what rights are we willing to sacrifice to preserve it? When do we sacrifice reality for our pretty delusions, when do we crack our shell of self-imposed simplicity and demand the truth and the knowledge that our minds thirst for as a thinking society?
We create stories and legends. In my room there is a closet, or rather… there was a closet. It’s now filled with items in storage, and walled up with two displayed original one sheet movie posters. Appropriately enough, they’re for William Wyler’s THE COLLECTOR and John Ford’s THE INFORMER – two damn good films, whose titles happen to describe aspects of my particular reality. Anyway… Sometime ago, I’m not sure when, THE INFORMER poster shifted, leaving a tiny gap about 2 inches wide at the top of the closet entrance – down 3 ft to a gradual close. Due to patent not giving a shit attitude, I’ve never straightened it.
About two years ago, my nephew was in my room wanting to watch cartoons on my computer, and decided to start pounding the keyboard on my desk (his random beatings at the keyboard is actually the origin of my BLADE 2 review, much to my astonishment) and being outraged at his instant tantrum, and not wanting to spank him or beat him, but wanting him to stop, and him being 2 years old not wanting to stop, I looked up in my dark room at the closet crack and I noticed something odd. In the darkness, incredibly faint was an inexplicable inhuman eye-shape… most likely a bit of cloth. In an instant I alerted my nephew with an exclamation, “Oh No Giovanni, Look, The Eye Is Staring At You!” and pointed to this dark crack into the unknown horrors behind the walled up Amontillado domain of hell.
Giovanni said, “WhatisitHawe?”
And somehow my brain said aloud, “It’s the Little Boy Eating Monster that lives in my closet named L.B.E.M.” Pronounced, “EL-BUM,” one word. Giovanni instantly stopped being bad and crawled up onto my bed and was quite scared, as he saw the unblinking hideous eye within. I told him not to worry though, cuz L.B.E.M. only eats bad boys. I explained that Good Boys were like Grapes, and L.B.E.M. didn’t like grapes, he liked dried up raisins of boys… BAD BOYS were his food. L.B.E.M. loved the taste of Bad Boys and he could smell them wherever they were.
The next several days, Giovanni was an angel. My house, his house, wherever he was, he knew that if he were a Bad Boy, L.B.E.M. would eat him. My sister was astonished, as Giovanni was right smack dab in the midst of the TERRIBLE TWOS – and seemingly in an instant he was minding and wanting to help. She asked what Father Geek and I had done. I explained, “L.B.E.M.” to her, and she loved it. She passed it on to her husband… and moreover, she told her best friends (with kids the same age) about L.B.E.M. but because they had little girls that were being bad, it necessitated the creation of L.G.E.M. (Little Girl Eating Monster). All of a sudden, the terrible twos were over and Giovanni was well on his way to learning the difference between Good behavior and Bad behavior. I generated images of L.B.E.M. – we recorded noises and dialogue and growls. We had a possum problem in the attic last year, and of course… L.B.E.M. was living in the walls and the ceiling (Gio’s invention, not mine) and around Summer of last year, Giovanni began actually drawing L.B.E.M. and just adding to the legend. When he’d go to the post office with my father (his grandpa) he noticed the pictures of kids on the wall, and informed his abuelo that L.B.E.M. got them.
Essentially – L.B.E.M. serves a great purpose… he’s the mythology that compels my nephew to be good. In the same way that his early rudimentary beliefs and lessons regarding Jesus, from his trips to Mexico have resulted in his own personal understanding of what happened to Jesus as he’s pieced together from displays and picture books. He hasn’t seen THE PASSION yet. But the results are quite startling. He’s an incredibly emphatic GOOD BOY. Always wanting to help and be a part of things, and never ever wanting to be a Bad Boy.
In the same way, M. Night’s “Ones we cannot speak of” are the same things. They’re a doom right out there. They’re the ones that need “crackers and milk” aka “sacrificed animals” as offerings. The stories inspire fear and good behavior. However, as you’ll learn over the course of watching this movie, any paradise is ruled and ultimately touched by human nature. Fear, jealousy and desire still root in the hearts of man, and compels a bloodlust and the scenes involving this revelation are heartbreaking and powerful.
The film is entirely relevant given the society of fear we live in and is being proliferated at every corner of our world. The constant alerts, the unseen, ever-present enemy. There are people absolutely phobic about not only the terrorist threat just down the street, but to an even higher degree… the fear of crime and incident. A belief that something will get them, because the news reports on murders, accidents, threats and travesty. Human suffering and wallowing in it only breeds an ever-evolving bitter and resentful class that will eventually walk outside and notice that the sky is indeed not falling. That there is no team of horses pulling the sun across the sky, and that… well SOYLENT GREEN is made out of people!
I feel that Manoj has once again crafted an exquisite story of simple beauty and scope. A small tale with universal strengths to touch and affect. I loved in particular the performances of Adrien Brody, William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver and the precociously beautiful Bryce Dallas Howard, the latest Howard to grace the screens. Also a special shout out goes to James Newton Howard’s wonderful score, again, this is a composer that has found his Director to do his best work with. Great work!
Shyamalan’s direction is again at his patient pace. Told deliberately and purposefully. Allowing the story to breathe, the actors to perform and the scenes to unfold. However, with all things… there will be different perceptions. After all, some of you still believe Daddy was hurting Mommy in bed that night, and that’s why she screamed. And you’re still confused why she was happy that next morning. Sometimes – you simply have to look and re-examine with better eyes than that! I love this movie.









This review from "Ain't It Cool" added some positive stuff about the film. After all of this thinking I know I'm gonna have to see it again.

I will say that the entire concept and underlying message was great. I'm just not sure if Night handled it as good as he could have.

[NuclearMisfit]

*possible spoilers*



I thought the cameo should have been a little cooler, maybe on the newspaper they could have made a little news reference to the other movies like: Train crash 1 survivor or "Mr Glass" Terrorist finally caught

[Rated R]

Originally posted by FerrellFan911
What is the deal people?

"The Village" is one of the best films of the year.

Look at the characters and cinematography. Watch for the thematic elements. I just do no understand this under-whelming response.

My guess is that this is a M. Night Shyamalan movie, thus you have high expectations. If this film was made by someone else, you would probably love it more.


Nope, if someone else had made it, I'd have hated it just as much if not more. I think because it is Shyamalan I went easy on it. Technically well made, but it's just an awful movie.

To respond to the posts about having false expectations, "it's a period piece" and that garbage. I have seen Night's other films, and I enjoyed them all because the twist was not the backbone of the films. With The Village, the twist is the film. It's a period drama...of modern society's outcasts! You're just trying to justify a bad movie. You can like it all you want, but don't tell me why I don't like it...I don't like it because it failed in every aspect that I was looking for. Hey if a movie is going to take a complete U-Turn from what I expect, great I am all for it unless it's as ridiculous and awful as this. The Village is a bad movie, and that's why I don't like it...no other reason needed.

[syxxpac]

Originally posted by adamjohnson
Adrien probably found that costume long ago, he spent alot of time in that room from the looks of things! The creature attacking the town the first time we see it was HIM. Thats why the elders were still so confused.

Yeah, maybe I'm forgetting details here, but weren't there numerous animal bones under the floorboards in there?

[Adornado]

Originally posted by Murderous Squad
Also I missed a lot of the movie so can someone maybe PM me and explain the ending or can someoen post it on here???

SPOILERS!!!
Really I just want to know why the blind girl was sent ot the city (for medicine??) and also why did that one guy get stabbed??? Also why was he there and asking for permission to go into the woods?? Who killed all the animals?? I missed about half of the movie and didn't liek it much so I'm not seeing it again I would jsut like to know what the hell I saw...i'd appreceate some help thanks

Ivy (the blind girl) was sent to get medicine for Luscious (the guy that got stabbed).

Noah stabbed Luscious when he found out Ivy and Luscious were planning to marry. Noah loved Ivy.

Luscious wanted permission to go get medicine.

An elder killed the animals.

[syxxpac]

Originally posted by Adornado
Noah wanted permission to go get medicine.

An elder killed the animals.

It was Lucius who wanted to get medicene, to prevent what happened to Augustus's son happen to anyone else in the future.

From what I gathered, it was Noah. None of the elders knew who it was until the end.

[Adornado]

Originally posted by syxxpac
It was Lucius who wanted to get medicene, to prevent what happened to Augustus's son happen to anyone else in the future.

Oops, that's what I meant.

As for Noah killing the animals, I'm not sure.

[XvoorheesX]

The first time the creature came out it was one of the elders acting as a warning, because it was right after Lucious talked about going into the woods.

My theories as answers to the plot-holes:

The coyote conversation: If I'm not mistaken, the character accents the word "coyote", meaning that he's just suggesting one of the elders must have done it, still just sticking with the code. And there was a legitimate reason to talk about coyotes, because they still didn't know who was killing the animals, and someone mentioned how at one time there was a real creature in the woods.

The period-piece: This one bothered me at first, seeing how there was no reason as to why these people would dress up and adopt a different form of english, but then my sister the history major pointed out what should have been obvious. The man who made this society (forget the character's name) was an American history professor, so he obviously new all about the puritan era and wanted to emulate it. This period was actually dedicated to remaing pure and rightous, so it would appeal to him, and the others when he explained it to them.

On the Noah stabbing Lucious, it was my favourite scene of the film, not just because it was unexpected and incredibly well executed, but it was one of, if not the, most important theme-specific scenes in the whole movie. These people have created a society with the intent to demolish crime, murder, and hate, but they failed to do that because that's all part of human nature.

Ivy slapping Lucious was my second favourite part of the film. Sure, she told him not to hit anyone.... But she didn't tell him to try and kill people... Anyways, I don't want to get into that, just read everything Adamjohnson posted, it's pretty dead-on.

The characters weren't one dimensional at all.
I'll admit that Lucious was the weakest of the bunch, but the others were fantastic. Ivy's arc was evident, her father was willing to break an oath that stood for everything he loved and feared for twenty years, just to do the right thing. That's more depth than seen in most main characters these days. Noah was my favourite, because his whole character was symbolic of the "human nature" kind of thing. They do everything they can to build a perfect society, and he's the natural glitch in the machine. He ventured into the woods constantly because he couldn't understand to be afraid. And when the "creatures" let him live out of pity, the adults didn't kill him because that was never they're intent. They knew they couldn't teach him, so they just let him be. This is the reason as to why he almost feels a connection to the creatures. When they come, he laughs at their sounds, he wants to see them. He wants to play adult.
So then, after the woman he loves marries another man, he attempts to kill him. This same woman attacks him after making a truce with him for non-violence (symbollic of the other truce that has been broken) he's confused, and he takes control because he can become the thing that everyone else fears.

His intention as to what his reason for getting into the suit is can also be questionable. Watch the scene again, he could have attacked her any time he wanted. One time he ran straight past her. I don't think he wanted to kill her, he just wanted to keep playing adult.

Anyways, I thought it was a great movie, and if you're so clever that you need to cite "plot-holes" without putting so much as a thought into the explanation, you're robbing yourself of one of the summers best movies.

[syxxpac]

Originally posted by Adornado
As for Noah killing the animals, I'm not sure.

It's not stated explicitly, but it makes sense to me.

I guess we'll never know, so it is open to interpretation.

[Jerk Shapiro]

I think that in getting people to examine each and every aspect of this film, and get angry, and get defensive, and love it and hate it, and etc. etc...I think Shyamalan's accomplished something there.

[Adornado]

**Spoilers**


Originally posted by Jerk Shapiro
I think that in getting people to examine each and every aspect of this film, and get angry, and get defensive, and love it and hate it, and etc. etc...I think Shyamalan's accomplished something there.

Indeed he has. I think, much like The Butterfly Effect, when this movie comes out on DVD there will be alot of 7s,8s,9s and 10's coming about in the "What film/s did you watch today" thread seeing as how alot of people may be put off from seeing it in theaters due to the poor word of mouth.

I'm still not sure what I thought about The Village...but I know I didn't hate it and I know I didn't love it. It's definitely going to need a second viewing. I'm hoping there will be alot of deleted scenes on the DVD especially an alternate ending. I think the movie should have shown the the village fall apart and have that trooper discover the village and the elders telling everybody there are no creatures etc; That would have been a much better ending then "I'm back"..."A film by M. Night Shyamalan".

[edonline]

Saw it last night and really enjoyed it -- I would give it a B. I think some people are going into the theater thinking that the movie is supposed to be a full-blown horror film, which its not. Also, I don't necessarily think that the twist is supposed to be shocking. If the movie hadn't been hyped as much by the studios, I think people would have enjoyed it better. As I said, the studios marketed The Village as a thriller / horror while its more of a love story / gothic.

As for the audience at last night's show... one of the things I found bothersome was that people were often laughing during inappropriate scenes (e.g., when Ivy slaps Noah in the quiet room). But other than that, they jumped or gasped at the right moments and after the credits, I heard most saying that they liked it.

[gspawn]

Why do people think this is a horror movie:
*random network special on the movie*

Announcer: "Shyamalan's newest intense thriller..."
Shyamalan: "(something like) I like making scary movies."
Star: "My hair was standing on end from the beginning."
Other star: "This is such a horror movie."
Other star: "People are going to jump out of their seats."

Hm. Wonder why people think this is a horror movie...

[FerrellFan911]

Originally posted by beastieben21
Characters? Night's dialouge is the worst of his career, and the characters are one-dimensional carrictures. William "Trying...to...be...Shatner....esque?" Hurt was one-beat, as was the dead pan Phoenix. The only glimpse of an actual character was Blind Girl, but she was underdeveloped.

Cinematography? That reminds me, Hannibal, Alien 3, Boat Trip, Gothika...Kangaroo Jack, GREAT cinematography! Sorry, that doesn't make a bad film good.

Thematic elements? You mean overtly obvious political jargon? These are thematic element that Michael Moore touched on a mere month ago, not exactly news nor all that awe-inspiring.

The reason people aren't liking it is for one reason; they think it's a bad movie, and i agree. It doesn't matter who directed it. M. Night doesn't have a flawless history, so we're not dealing with the holy grail of filmmakers. The film was poorly executed, lazy, contains huge errors, which all equals a lack of respect for your audience. But he's getting 10 million to write/direct, so I doubt it matters that much.

Perhaps the characters do come off as one-dimensional carrictures. I have a theory why: Shyamalan has created an unspecified time and place. We don't know much about their society and communtiy. We do however get an idea how they act. Hurt's character is the stern and wise leader. Howard's character is the outgoing and colorful one full of life in a dull world. Brody's character is there for, well, let's leave him at comic relief. Phoenix's character is silent but says it all with his features. The acting ensemble rocks, beatieben21.

As for the cinematography, you know as well as I that Shyamalan is a master at this in his films. Look at the way the camera cuts to avoid revealing the truth too early. Or the way an ordinary object comes off as weird or out of place. You can see the suspense.

Thematic elements...too many to name. Yes, there are creatures of mass destruction that plays on the villagers' fears. That is the foremost theme. Yet, look for innocence and love. These people are kind to one another. And honest, for the most part. This is a near utopian society. Understanding the humanity of it all becomes clear if you allow it too.

So, what did I not like about it. The twist ending was a bit rushed and the thematic elements, although there are plenty of them, make the short-attention span audience walk away going...what the heck? "Signs"' had a theme that people locked onto immediately and I know Shyamalan could have told it better. Instead, he makes it complex and thought-provoking although not on the level to make it great.

[systemdwn]

I saw the movie about 3 or so months ago at a screening on the Disney lot so I am not sure how much has been changed since than.

However, from watching the movie, The Village is not about the monsters, the village, the twist. M. Night wrote a movie about fear, fear of the unknown.

Even though the blind girl knew the monsters were not real, she was still freaked out in the forest! Fear of the unknown/darkness plays terrible tricks on your mind!

How many times have you guys gone hiking, told ghost stories around the fire place and have been scared to death even though you know that you are perfectly safe?

And, it is also important to note, that M. Night wrote the treatment of this screenplay when he went camping by himself in the forest! He wanted to play with darkness (girl being blind) vs. fear....


As for the twist, during the first screening of The Village, half of the audience started laughing because the approach of the ending was really kitschy! In the box, the elders pulled out a pair of old Gap jeans (shot very dramatically!) ... before cutting to the scene where the blind girl almost gets run over by a truck.

I thought the twist was really predictable and I traditionally am the worst at guessing the endings of films! However, this film was so predictable. When I was watching it, for some odd reason I was thinking of the original planet of the apes...and that is when I figured out all the twists!

[chinton]

To me I went into this film looking at it is a parable and therefore I really liked it. To me this was a movie about how fear can be used to control a society. I thought it had some interesting applications to today. looking at it that way then I not only didn't mind the twist but thought it was appropriate. Also while Lucious was a bit underdeveloped I loved the Ivy character. Bryce is going to have a major carrer as she was phenomenal here. Also I didnt have a problem with the dialogue. I thought it was appropriate to the time and very clever. I think this will end being one of this films that will cause a major split between audiences. Still I loved it and audiences should realize this is not a horror film eventhough the few suspense scenes are handled amazingly well. By the way the stabbing scene is very powerful as well as the end forrest scenes and the first invasion scaene.

8/10

Also Im gald with Ivy's line "I'm back we see she has taken up the family secret








Spoilers!!!!!!!!

To me the werent as many plotholes as people complained about. The color of red was bad to discourage violence. Clever if you think about it.


Also it made sense for Noah to pop up in the forrest at the end. We knoe his love for Ivy has turned sour as he found she was really in love with Lucious so I think it makes sense that he would scare her like that. Also we knoe form the first scene that he knows everything is fake as he laughs when we hear the sounds in the forrest.

[Murderous Squad]

GOD NO ONE ELSE NOTICED THOSE MICS?!?!?!?!?!? seriously I couldn't take this movie serious just because of those mics...just plain horribel and the creatures looked way too fake

[syxxpac]

Originally posted by Murderous Squad
the creatures looked way too fake

Um....there IS a reason for that.

:p

[Mog]

I saw this again with my cousin, and I've noticed a lot of things upon my second viewing. So here are some answers to your questions.

SPOILERS




































"some questions that are bugging me. Mainly, the skinned animals and the marks on the doors. What was up with that? It was never explained, except in a throwaway comment that "oh, we think maybe one of the elders is doing that."


It was Noah. It was all Noah. Notice that during the wedding, the only core character that isn't there is Noah. All of the elders are there. That's why they performed that ceremony where they threw the meat on to the rock, so that all the elders could be present. At the end when they realize he took t he suit, note all the skinned fur and bones on the floor, and his mother says "The animals!"

"And also, when Ivy's dad decided that the medicine was necessary, why did he send the blind girl for it? I mean, honestly, it'd be so much safer and easier for him to go himself, since he could actually see. "

He didn't send Ivy. He sent Ivy, and two people to protect her. But they pussied out and left. And if you're concerned about THOSE two being there, ruining everything they created, note the quote "Whatever happens...happens." In other words, they were risking it for Lucius's health and safety. They took this big risk because what Noah did to Lucious was a crime, the one thing that drove them to building this society.


"So these people decided to move to the middle of nowhere to start over and raise their kids in captivity, right? So why bother with all the little details? Like I can understand not wanting to have any kind of communication or media, but why bother telling the kids it's 1897 when they really have no frame of reference as to how 2004 is supposed to be? Why bother talking in an old dialect that they might slip out of and screw up when talking normally wouldn't have made any difference? I can understand not wanting any brand name clothing, but why make it all so outdated. I'll also accept that they wouldn't have elctricity out there. But it just seems like they overcompensated. If these kids have never seen the outside world, they wouldn't question the historical accuracy of any of it"

That's a good question. Why don't you ask the Amish?

And the whole idea about one of the elders dressing up as the creature to attack Ivy in the woods would've been a BAD IDEA. They escaped our world to avoid CRIME.


























SPOILERS END

Sorry if these have already been answered...didn't want to read every single page.

[Adornado]

**Spoilers**

Does anybody else think Night screwed up by telling the audience the creatures weren't real before the part where Noah was chasing Lily through the woods? That scene would have been waaaay scarier if we still thought there was actual creatures in the woods.

[FerrellFan911]

Originally posted by Adornado
**Spoilers**

Does anybody else think Night screwed up by telling the audience the creatures weren't real before the part where Noah was chasing Lily through the woods? That scene would have been waaaay scarier if we still thought there was actual creatures in the woods.

No, Shyamalan played that out well. It's about the characters and not us. You see, Ivy knew the creature(s) weren't real after her father told her and she was walking out in the woods. But she was still frightened.

It isn't scary to us; in fact, this is the part the simple-minded audience will laugh. To them, it's just the retard Noah running around in a suit. But think about Ivy's character and the culture of fear she has lived in her entire life. That is what Shyamalan wants us to think about.

But no, the audience majority will go to be entertained and thrilled.

[FerrellFan911]

By the way, I was still scared during that sequence. Great costume.

[syxxpac]

I thought that was a good twist. We're told that they don't exist, but then this creature shows up tailing Ivy while the Elders are all in the village, making the audience think that the rumor of the creature (that Hurt brought up earlier) was in fact true, and the creature was real the whole time despite Hurt's explanation that they weren't.

[Mog]

A few more answered questions.

SPOILERS















"And these people were scared of a porcupine mutant that looked like it was straight out of a Power Rangers episode?"

Can you really blame them? Put yourself in their shoes. People who have never watched a TV, a movie, read a comic book, etc. These are SIMPLE people. Of course they would be afraid.

"Oh come on-- that did NOT happen-- people almost never stand, applaud, and cheer at the end of a movie-- and I highly doubt they would for a movie as uneven and divisive as "The Village"--- maybe a few people clapped sarcastically as they were getting up to leave" (referring to me explaining the audience reaction at the theater I saw it in at the private screening)

If there's anything I hate more than little kids, it's people calling me a liar. Yes genius, it DID happen. Why the fuck would I lie about it?

"how it's manipulitive nature didn't turn you off?"

If you ask me, a movie being manipulative is one of the best kinds of movies. Look at Birth of a Nation. If one really watches it, and is really into it, the person all of a sudden has sympathy for the protagonists' actions.

"The coyote discussion, which again, would NEVER happen because they both know what's causing this problem, it's just to manipulate the audience."

You're right. It would never happen. Unless of course, it wasn't the elders who skinned all of those animals and painted the stripe on all the doors. Remember the wedding. Which core character is missing? Noah. All of the elders are present.

"Why would there be a giant hole (obviously dug by someone) in the ground in the middle of this woods? Nobody goes out there except the elders, so why would they dig a hole they could fall into? To catch bears?"

It looked to deep to be dug by someone. Here in Florida, "sink-holes" form all the time. In the middle of a street, even. And they get huge. It could have been a sink-hole, or something like a sink-hole. Maybe there was a cave or something beneath the ground, and the rain (which I hear happens a LOT up North) caused it to cave in. Just look at how Ivy fell in. She walked up to the edge, and the edge collapsed. This happens with sink-holes.

"How did a retard man get into that costume!? It looks pretty difficult to just slip on and go. Plus, if he's really that stupid, he couldn't form intent, especially malicious intent, it's why children aren't charged for crimes."

I'm not an expert on the mentally ill. And you haven't really proven to be an expert either. But from what I've -noticed- from many mentally ill people that I've met, not everyone is a drooling idiot who stares at the wall all day. You can actually have a conversation with someone that is considered retarded. Or even play a game of checkers.

"Many topics are brushed on, but never even explained, as if scenes are missing. Blind Girl sees auras and keeps saying "I can't tell you your color" but that never comes into play nor does she touch on it later in the film."

She doesn't see auras. She says "Most people, just a handful, have a distinct color." I'm guessing, that since she wasn't born blind, that maybe there is some faint light that finds its way into her vision. Her eyes weren't totally whited out, like say Ben Affleck in Daredevil. It was her way of flirting with Lucious, if you ask me. A playful romantic term of endearment.

"Also, the faux-romance between Weaver and Hunt, brushed on, but never comes to fruition. Pointless."

I wouldn't even call it a romance. First of all, Hurt's character was married. Second of all, they don't show any kind of mutual fondship for each other except for Hurt "not touching her." Sure, he may have some kind of infatuation with her, but it isn't apparent from Weaver's side. It's just something she notices.
























SPOILERS END





Hope this helps some...more.

[edonline]

Originally posted by Adornado
**Spoilers**

Does anybody else think Night screwed up by telling the audience the creatures weren't real before the part where Noah was chasing Lily through the woods? That scene would have been waaaay scarier if we still thought there was actual creatures in the woods.


If you recall the scene in the shed, Ivy's father tells her that the creature is a farce but that they are mentioned in the Village's history, which he teaches in school. I thin one of the reasons for having the creature chase Ivy though the forest is to raise questions of doubt in the audience -- Is it actually a creature mentioned in the history? Are they real after all?

[Mog]

SPOILERS


































































" Is it actually a creature mentioned in the history? Are they real after all"

I for one think you're spot-on. While I didn't exactly think that when we saw more of the creature (because toward the end of the sequence it really did look like a suit), M. Night did keep me guessing throughout Ivy's ordeal.














































SPOILERS

[XvoorheesX]

Mog, I posted my theories as to what a few of your questions and explanations are, plus a few more. You can check that out if you're interested.

Does anybody else think Night screwed up by telling the audience the creatures weren't real before the part where Noah was chasing Lily through the woods? That scene would have been waaaay scarier if we still thought there was actual creatures in the woods.

One of the main themes is that as human beings, we're naturally scared of what we don't know or don't understand. That's why the youngin's are terrified of the woods, and that's why the mentally insecure elders were so terrified of the real world and the loss it's brought to them that they went to the extremity of creating a new society. If you look at the pictures, they all met at group therapy.

[Adornado]

**SPOILERS**

Originally posted by edonline
If you recall the scene in the shed, Ivy's father tells her that the creature is a farce but that they are mentioned in the Village's history, which he teaches in school. I thin one of the reasons for having the creature chase Ivy though the forest is to raise questions of doubt in the audience -- Is it actually a creature mentioned in the history? Are they real after all?

I can't see too many people thinking that since if there really were monsters they wouldn't look the exact same as the monster suits.

[beastieben21]

Originally posted by Mog


"how it's manipulitive nature didn't turn you off?"

If you ask me, a movie being manipulative is one of the best kinds of movies. Look at Birth of a Nation. If one really watches it, and is really into it, the person all of a sudden has sympathy for the protagonists' actions.

"Why would there be a giant hole (obviously dug by someone) in the ground in the middle of this woods? Nobody goes out there except the elders, so why would they dig a hole they could fall into? To catch bears?"

It looked to deep to be dug by someone. Here in Florida, "sink-holes" form all the time. In the middle of a street, even. And they get huge. It could have been a sink-hole, or something like a sink-hole. Maybe there was a cave or something beneath the ground, and the rain (which I hear happens a LOT up North) caused it to cave in. Just look at how Ivy fell in. She walked up to the edge, and the edge collapsed. This happens with sink-holes.

"How did a retard man get into that costume!? It looks pretty difficult to just slip on and go. Plus, if he's really that stupid, he couldn't form intent, especially malicious intent, it's why children aren't charged for crimes."

I'm not an expert on the mentally ill. And you haven't really proven to be an expert either. But from what I've -noticed- from many mentally ill people that I've met, not everyone is a drooling idiot who stares at the wall all day. You can actually have a conversation with someone that is considered retarded. Or even play a game of checkers.

"Many topics are brushed on, but never even explained, as if scenes are missing. Blind Girl sees auras and keeps saying "I can't tell you your color" but that never comes into play nor does she touch on it later in the film."

She doesn't see auras. She says "Most people, just a handful, have a distinct color." I'm guessing, that since she wasn't born blind, that maybe there is some faint light that finds its way into her vision. Her eyes weren't totally whited out, like say Ben Affleck in Daredevil. It was her way of flirting with Lucious, if you ask me. A playful romantic term of endearment.

"Also, the faux-romance between Weaver and Hunt, brushed on, but never comes to fruition. Pointless."

I wouldn't even call it a romance. First of all, Hurt's character was married. Second of all, they don't show any kind of mutual fondship for each other except for Hurt "not touching her." Sure, he may have some kind of infatuation with her, but it isn't apparent from Weaver's side. It's just something she notices.


Hope this helps some...more.

If there's one thing that frustrates me more than children, it's people who come up with fantastical ways to cover up plot-holes. You can defend the film all you want, but to say that the hole in the ground is just a 'sink-hole' that was naturally formed? She fell into the side of it, but the hole was dug. It's a cheap ploy on the part of Night's to create tension out of something that wouldn't, in reality, be there.

Also, she doesn't see auras? Hmmm, well, she sees "colors" that are "around people" despite the fact that she IS completely blind. Doesn't sound like "light shining through" to me...

Sure, retarded people aren't drooling idiots but you find it REASONABLE to believe that one could:

-Rip boards off the ground and find a monster suit.
-Realize it's a costume and proceed to put it on.
-Escape out a window without anyone hearing/seeing him.
-Decided "what the hell? I'll go in the woods and pick some berries with this sweet new outfit of mine." Again, without anyone noticing.
-JUST SO HAPPEN to find Blind Girl's exact location, despite the vastness of this forrest.
-NOT SPEAK TO HER, merely grunt and growl like an animal.
-AND THEN attack her.

Look, it's one thing to like a movie. You like it, fine. But don't cover up for what are obviously HUGE lapses of logic. You can't. To say "Well...it's not a plot hole...I heard once that..." No, the story has to be somewhat logical. The fact is, this isn't. It's sloppily put together, insults it's audience, and contains huge holes that, if Night had respect for film-goers, would have accounted for. You can argue all you want that a retarded guy got ahold of paint and drew marks on every door with not so little as a sound, or you can accept that red slashes were a great way to market a film.

Same with the wedding scene you're trying to defend and the conversation that follows. Who's the only one not present? Not just Noah, because SOMEONE is in that suit besides him. If it were him in the suit, don't you think the Elders would say "hey, if none of us were dressed up last nite...who was it?" It WAS an elder, thus, the conversation between Hurt and Weaver would never happen. It'd be like you and I stealing a car in a film and then 10 minutes after we do it, when the cameras are on us, going "hey, I wonder who stole that car?" We trick the audience momentarily, until the big reveal that WE DID IT! Sure, we tricked them, but that conversation wouldn't occur. We know who did it, we wouldn't play coy when only the two of us are present. Look, you can't defend these holes of logic. They're not opinions, they're facts.

[The Heart Collector]

There's retards in this movie?

I'm SOOO watching it next week.

[syxxpac]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
There's retards in this movie?

I'm SOOO watching it next week.

Yeah. A big one.

[FerrellFan911]

Will people stop posting "SPOILERS". If someone is reading this thread, they know we're going to spoil the movie.

[The Postmaster General]

beastieben21 -- The hole was created becase there used to be a tree there. The tree was fallen over next to the hole. That was where the roots and stuff used to be.



Did anyone see the extra scene at the end, after the credits? The elders are going out to give Noah his proper burial. When they get to the hole, William Hurt looks down at Noah and says, "Oh, cool. We just need some dirt." Then everyone laughs and it freeze frames.

:p

[Mog]

"If there's one thing that frustrates me more than children, it's people who come up with fantastical ways to cover up plot-holes."

How incredibly witty. Using my own quote against me. Especially a quote I used to defend myself from calling me a liar. :rolleyes:

Look, I wasn't coming up with fantastical ways to cover up plotholes. I gave unbiased observations that I noticed upon a second viewing. Alright, I get it, you hated the movie. That doesn't mean you have to cover up your own ignorance by saying the film had plotholes.

I find my observations to be very agreeable. Especially the wedding. It makes perfect sense. When the camera pans down to the floor boards after Noah escapes, you can see animal fur. His mother gasps and says "The animals!" Now, this could be debated that she actually meant "Oh my god he went out into the woods - he could be harmed by wild animals!" Fine. But it doesn't change the fact that there's animal fur blowing in the excess wind in the room. Also if you look closely, there's bones scattered. They could be animal bones, but THAT's just a theory since the skinned animals were found in tact.

You're half-right about the scene where Weaver and Hurt are talking about the coyotes at the door after the wedding. It's a good diversion from the fact that the elders could possibly be the creatures. But it works because Noah was the one who skinned the animals and put streaks on the doors. Notice how this second round of streaks AND the skinned animals happened after the elder dressed as a creature marked the doors in the previous scene? It differentiates the two.

You do realize there are different levels or retardation, right? Some retarded people are "educable" and if you ask me that fits Noah perfectly. I don't think M. Night just branded him retarded without any kind of research - it isn't like him, he's a perfectionist AND comes from a family doctors. Don't tell me he doesn't know his shit. I know if I were writing a screenplay that had a retarded person run a muck, I would most definitley look into it. And I just did and found out there are different levels. Google it. See for yourself.

And Bubba makes a very good point, which makes even more sense than a sink-hole.

I understand if you don't agree with my observations and hate M. Night for whatever reason, but don't accuse me of pulling shit out of my ass.

[beastieben21]

Accusing.

You might be right, and it could be that Noah did all of this on his own, and that there are different levels of retardation. That's not up for debate. What I questioned, and you failed to convince me otherwise, were the other points that you brought up.

If it were Noah, it raises more questions of logic. He replaces the boards perfectly everytime? He doesn't mention to anyone he happens to know this huge "secret?" He never once gets caught? Those are huge coincidences for a highly educated human, let alone a simpleton like him. Plus, we'll assume he dresses up as the creature because he's the only one "not at the wedding", they wouldn't question who did this or talk amongst themselves and realize that SOMEONE was onto their secret? Seems like a plot hole to me...

Cover up my own ignorance? How incredibly ironic. MANY people, even those that LIKED the film, realize it's full of errors. You can make up your own reasons for it (Does Hurt have a secret base where he controls the Monster Sounds? Why do the monsters growl, including when Noah is dressed up? How did the Village, started by 8 or so people 20 years earlier, grow so rapidly? Was there an open casting call? And these are just the tip of the ICEBERG), but the fact is, if anything, you're the one being ignorant. I mentioned the holes in what you brought up earlier, to which you offered no rebuttal, and there are even more lapses of logic in this film, but yeah, it's me who's being ignorant.

[t3h Qster]

perhaps beastieben and mog should stop the arguing and accusations before a mod gets angry....and they are so much scarier than the red hooded suit :p

[edonline]

I think many people are looking at The Village as if it were a copy of Sixth Sense and looking for clues where are there none. Not everything in a movie is supposed to represent something else (e.g. the hole in the forest; it might have been just that). There is also the suspension of belief; accept things as shown unless the plot tells you otherwise.

[beastieben21]

Originally posted by t3h Qster
perhaps beastieben and mog should stop the arguing and accusations before a mod gets angry....and they are so much scarier than the red hooded suit :p

Although I don't see any reason for a mod to get angry, we both have a definitive view and stand by that, which I respect, I'll agree with you and stop arguing. We've both made our points. Cheers Mog and I'm glad you enjoyed the film.

[Mog]

Originally posted by beastieben21
Although I don't see any reason for a mod to get angry, we both have a definitive view and stand by that, which I respect, I'll agree with you and stop arguing. We've both made our points. Cheers Mog and I'm glad you enjoyed the film.

Agreed, this argument could go on and on. Thanks, and I'm sorry you didn't like the film. Perhaps when the DVD comes out things will be cleared up, whether they be completely logical explanations or just "...it seemed like a good idea at the time." But until then I'll agree to disagree.

[ChemicalRomance]

Still in that mood of: "the more I think about this film the more I like it."

I think I may go see it again. One thing I know is, like a bunch of people here...I can't wait for the DVD. I'm hoping for a decked out 2-discer.

[The Postmaster General]

Did anyone else pick up any alagories about war and religion? I noticed they slipped references into the paper read i the guard booth.

I felt like there was some comment on how religion is used to control a society, and how we sometimes have to use war to maintain our beliefs.

[blankpage]

MAJOR SPOILERS!!!




Here's my take on "The Village", this is how I saw the film. If anyone who has seen the movie cares, then read away.


The way I took it after some thought is this basically...

"No matter what, there is always evil in the world"


The Village was "created" for the sole purpose to escape the world we live in. The elders, well, Walker, had the resources to do so. His idea was to create a place with simple values, and to honour each other. Really, the elders wanted to create a place that was almost perfect. A place that was simple.

I knew the ending prior, but it was interesting to see if maybe, maybe...it was a different ending.

Anyway, it's quite apparent that the whole idea of the Village is a lie. People blame the film for being one big lie.

To me, that was the point.

To live a simple life, and in this village, lies must be created. The fact that most people, besides the elders, think that they are in the year 1897 (according to the grave) is one big lie.

The monsters were a lie. They were created so people wouldn't venture into the woods, because, of course, there is curosity. It's human nature.

BUT, there is someone, Lucius, who does not fear these monsters as much as the rest do. He believes if his intentions are good, then he has nothing to worry about.

And since he ventured into the woods, this oath, another lie, has been broken...so, the elders must jump into their costumes and scare everyone shitless. This causes panic.

NOW...here where my point, all my babbling comes into play.

Like I said, no matter what, there is always evil in this world.

A lie was created to protect evil, despite there being some "just outside."

Now, in a village where violence and murder does not exist. A simpleton, attempts murder on Lucius. Why?

Well, Lucius plans to marry Ivy, arguably Noah's (the simpleton), best friend, and it's obvious Noah loves her.

Envy. Hate.

The two things that are led to this attempted murder.

Those two things were also supposed to be nowhere near this village, because of the values.


NOW, because of this, Ivy, one of the villagers, must venture into the real world to save her love.

I find that ironic.

I find most of the film ironic. I also find it deals a lot with human nature.

The whole film is a lie, but I think that's the point.







END SPOILERS!!!


Anyway, I thought M. Night created an engaging, harrowing, amazing film here. It has some taut, suspensful moments, but it is a human picture. It deals with human things.


Rating: 8.5/10

[HHH123007]

I'm in the "more I think about it, more I like it" club....even with plot holes or whatever, I was still really entertained and came out feeling really good and enthusiastic about it.

I think knowing all the twists in it made me like it more as it unfolded.

[Mog]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Did anyone else pick up any alagories about war and religion? I noticed they slipped references into the paper read i the guard booth.

I felt like there was some comment on how religion is used to control a society, and how we sometimes have to use war to maintain our beliefs.

SPOILERS




Yeah, I for one did notice the paper. Everything on that paper reports a crime of some sort, which shows the kind of state the world is in and why they're hiding from it. Did you also notice that the village is missing one very essential thing that A LOT of small towns in movies usually have?

A church. There's no religion...God isn't mentioned once in this village.

[notchreturns]

Wow, mixed reviews galore.

I wasn't espeially blown away and it won't be on my year end list, I'm sure of that. but it was still a good film, with some excellent acting and some very strong moments.

The story itself is VERY INTERESTING, though it could have been delievered better and gotten more under my skin emotionally.


7/10, for now.

[FerrellFan911]

Originally posted by blankpage



Anyway, I thought M. Night created an engaging, harrowing, amazing film here. It has some taut, suspensful moments, but it is a human picture. It deals with human things.




Thank you! Glad someone here agrees with me.

This film is about humanity, primarily. The simple-minded audience thinks it's about the twist and suspense. That's okay; it's just Shyamalan is a more complex and mysterious filmmaker than just incorporating "boo"s in the picture.

[Nachokoolaid]

Originally posted by beastieben21
Blah, SPOILERS:






M. Night should learn a valuable lesson from The Village: Don't insult your audience. First of all, one scene alone should dispell this entire film for people. When Sigourney Weaver and William Hurt are speaking about how "coyotes couldn't place those skinned animals on doors, it had to be the creatures." They both KNOW the creatures don't exist. This conversation would NEVER happen. Night uses it to merely trick the audience into believing the Elders know nothing, before the big reveal which nullifies most of the film.

You can't do that! Anyone can make a movie with a big twist if things just don't add up. I REALLY hope there's a huge backlash for this film. How anyone can ignore such glarring and insulting plot holes is beyond me. You're telling me these 8 people mutually agree to give up their lives, as they exist, to form a community!? None of their relatives question this, the government is fine with it? Plus, what others have added, why speak like this? Why adopt this language? All Shymalan did was fuck with his audience. It wasn't a clever twist, it's merely misleading. I'm willing to accept some plot holes if it's well executed, but not scenes that completely contradict events that occur a mere 30 minutes later.

And, for being retarded, Adrien Brody is one clever motherfucker. Not only does he break out of confinement, he also steals a monster suit (Why was that hidden in the 'silent room' anyway? Why not at HOME, where only your FAMILY is?), manages to put it on, TRACK DOWN Blind Girl (I'm done with using Night's given 'names'), GRUNT like a beast instead of merely speaking, and attack her, all while being mentally ill? Kudos to you brotha, Forrest Gump isn't the only retard-cum-genius.

Add to that a very less-than-subtle message, along with the most gratutious cameo I've seen in years (you had to work yourself in there, didn't you Night? Love the reflection, very nonchalant).

This movie could have been awesome. It could have delivered on it's creepy promise and just been a thriller about creatures in the wilderness. The only thing that ended up scaring me was Brody's monster nose. Cast THAT thing as your creature next time, Night.

Aparently you were so upset, you didn't watch the film, and you were too busy looking for plot holes that you missed the plot points.

Noah (Brody) was killing the animals and painting the doors, etc. and that is why the elders blamed it on the creatures. The elders weren't doing it themselves. That is why no one on watch saw any creatures enter the town and skin the dogs or whatever, because Noah was doing it. So in that scene, that's why they're so confused. They know they didn't do it, but who did?

Plus, the guy who set up the village, Walker (Hurt) was a history professor. That's why he chose to make the town in the late 1800s. It was probably his dream to live then, and when he saw the opportunity to make it happen, he did. Why this time period? It doesn't contain any of the things and temptations that led to his anguish, as well as the anguish of the other elders. Therefore, they're not masters of the speech from back then, and it sounds like history professors' guesses of what it would be like. I'd say that's all pretty well executed, so much so that you didn't even notice it. Mmm. Cheers.

[The Delfonics]

Im not a huge fan of M Nights films but this probably the worst of the bunch. I enjoyed the twister ending and the cliffhanger if possible but the film felt so blah, so slowly paced and so empty. It had potentional and a great idea but never fully took advantage of it.

6/10

[ChemicalRomance]

Originally posted by HHH123007
I'm in the "more I think about it, more I like it" club....even with plot holes or whatever, I was still really entertained and came out feeling really good and enthusiastic about it.

I think knowing all the twists in it made me like it more as it unfolded.

As said, I'm in that club. A movie hasn't done this to me in a while.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Mog
A church. There's no religion...God isn't mentioned once in this village.


But at the same time, everything was based on faith.

The people had to have faith that the monsters, which they would not speak of, were going to hurt them. They pracitced rituals for these creatures. It was religious in nature.

[The Postmaster General]

I'll also accept that they wouldn't have elctricity out there.

Yeah, it would be a bit hard to have the meters read wouldn't it?

[beastieben21]

Noah (Brody) was killing the animals and painting the doors, etc. and that is why the elders blamed it on the creatures. The elders weren't doing it themselves. That is why no one on watch saw any creatures enter the town and skin the dogs or whatever, because Noah was doing it. So in that scene, that's why they're so confused. They know they didn't do it, but who did?

Here's what I don't get: Why is everyone on here SO convinced it was Noah skinning the animals? Isn't it logical to think that the Elders would hide the bones and skin in with the outfit, thus, accounting for the "Oh, the animals!" reaction? Granted, he was gone at the time of the wedding, but was EVERY elder accounted for? Because I didn't keep track. For it to be Noah, he either had to know about the secret costume for some time, thus allowing him to hide bones and carcasses in this compartment(which isn't very logical to me), or, the elders WERE the ones skinning the animals, and hid the bones along with their costume.

[SkyNet]

SO SO SO SO SO SO SO Disappointed w/ M. Night on this one!


It just seemed like he wanted to have that SURPRISE ending so bad that he just threw something together!

[-THRILLTHRIFT->]

well...one thing's for sure.this is byfar one of THE MOST TALKED-ABOUT MOVIES this year.
i still haven't seen it.but my whole neghbourhood has(tht sux...i know!)
n the majority of them luvd it.the ones who dint lyk it were the "MANSON IS GOD,HOUSE of 1000corpses RULEZ" kynda guyz...so V as movie fans cant take them seriously.

another clear thing is:its a LUV IT or LEEV IT kynda flick.

but seriously guyz,i don xactly remember a movie which was talked bout soooo friggin much everywer lyk the village.wereva i go..."this" is the topic.even the non-movie buffs seem to b talkin bout this.

I CANT WAIIIIT!!!!!!!!

[brodeurnumber1]

Originally posted by -THRILLTHRIFT->
well...one thing's for sure.this is byfar one of THE MOST TALKED-ABOUT MOVIES this year.
i still haven't seen it.but my whole neghbourhood has(tht sux...i know!)
n the majority of them luvd it.the ones who dint lyk it were the "MANSON IS GOD,HOUSE of 1000corpses RULEZ" kynda guyz...so V as movie fans cant take them seriously.

another clear thing is:its a LUV IT or LEEV IT kynda flick.

but seriously guyz,i don xactly remember a movie which was talked bout soooo friggin much everywer lyk the village.wereva i go..."this" is the topic.even the non-movie buffs seem to b talkin bout this.

I CANT WAIIIIT!!!!!!!!

On behalf of everyone I would like to say, What?

I saw the hate towards the Village, but I loved it. I loved the slow feeling of the movie, and I loved the ending. It all worked for me, and I thought M. Night put together another great film. I would rate it an 8.5/10.

[Nachokoolaid]

Originally posted by beastieben21
Accusing.

You might be right, and it could be that Noah did all of this on his own, and that there are different levels of retardation. That's not up for debate. What I questioned, and you failed to convince me otherwise, were the other points that you brought up.

If it were Noah, it raises more questions of logic. He replaces the boards perfectly everytime? He doesn't mention to anyone he happens to know this huge "secret?" He never once gets caught? Those are huge coincidences for a highly educated human, let alone a simpleton like him. Plus, we'll assume he dresses up as the creature because he's the only one "not at the wedding", they wouldn't question who did this or talk amongst themselves and realize that SOMEONE was onto their secret? Seems like a plot hole to me...

Cover up my own ignorance? How incredibly ironic. MANY people, even those that LIKED the film, realize it's full of errors. You can make up your own reasons for it (Does Hurt have a secret base where he controls the Monster Sounds? Why do the monsters growl, including when Noah is dressed up? How did the Village, started by 8 or so people 20 years earlier, grow so rapidly? Was there an open casting call? And these are just the tip of the ICEBERG), but the fact is, if anything, you're the one being ignorant. I mentioned the holes in what you brought up earlier, to which you offered no rebuttal, and there are even more lapses of logic in this film, but yeah, it's me who's being ignorant.

And another hole in your logic...

Why would Walker (Hurt) need to be controling a "monster sound machine" :rolleyes: (I'm sure that's what it was. Nice idea). I'm sure vehicles and other modern day sounds would do nicely, and the creatures are once again just a way to explain things away. "Monster sounds." That's classic.

Noah doesn't have to be wearing a suit in order to kill and skin animals. The only time he probably wore it was at the end.

And what would you do if you were an elder (or Noah) in a costume trying to scare the crap out of someone. Growl and snarl? or sing them a lullaby? Mmm...

[Nachokoolaid]

Originally posted by beastieben21
Here's what I don't get: Why is everyone on here SO convinced it was Noah skinning the animals? Isn't it logical to think that the Elders would hide the bones and skin in with the outfit, thus, accounting for the "Oh, the animals!" reaction? Granted, he was gone at the time of the wedding, but was EVERY elder accounted for? Because I didn't keep track. For it to be Noah, he either had to know about the secret costume for some time, thus allowing him to hide bones and carcasses in this compartment(which isn't very logical to me), or, the elders WERE the ones skinning the animals, and hid the bones along with their costume.

The elders do kill animals and blame it one the creaures, but in the time at question, during the wedding, it was Noah, and that is the reason for the elders' confusion and the whole "coyote" discussion.

[ChemicalRomance]

Final Decision: I must see this movie again.

[sharkstank]

SPOILERS





i saw The Village today without reading anything about it as to not learn 'the twist'

PROS-
i liked the story
bryce dallas howard was great
phoenix was good
hurt is awesome as always. i love the way the dude talks
the message. i like how they kept talking about the evils of the outside. it was trying to say sumthing
the romance
the first appearance of the 'monsters'
brody was good
i was shocked when noah stabbed luscious

CONS-
the elders made up the monsters? crap
i knew they were living in modern times. all the talk of the towns, and the sad stories, gave it away immediately.
dragged in the middle.
lost steam during ivy's journey to the towns. the intense sequences werent intense, becaus ewe knew the truth already. this is the same problem i had with identity, i had no reason to be scared anymore
michael pitt was wasted
as was sigourney weaver

overal, the village was not bad, but not good. the bad part is that if this wasnt an M Night film, i would have liked it a lot more. but the twist was seen coming, and that was the basis for everything else. i really liked the story though. i found myself wondering how they would show us the modern times twist. maybe an airplane would fly overhead. i joked that wjhen hurt opened the black box, he would pull out a laptop. faint praise for the village
**1/2 out of ****

Sixth Sense: ****
Unbreakable: **
Signs: ***1/2
The Village: **1/2

WWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by beastieben21
Here's what I don't get: Why is everyone on here SO convinced it was Noah skinning the animals? Isn't it logical to think that the Elders would hide the bones and skin in with the outfit, thus, accounting for the "Oh, the animals!" reaction? Granted, he was gone at the time of the wedding, but was EVERY elder accounted for? Because I didn't keep track. For it to be Noah, he either had to know about the secret costume for some time, thus allowing him to hide bones and carcasses in this compartment(which isn't very logical to me), or, the elders WERE the ones skinning the animals, and hid the bones along with their costume.


I thought they were hiding the costumes in there, and Noah found them while he was being locked in there. As in he was in there so much he had to figure it all out.

That was what I thought was cool about it, was because it showed that Noah was the only one who knew the truth all along. It explained lots, like why he wasn't afraid of the woods, and why he was laughing when the creatures came.

Chances are, it was one of Noah's parents, who were also elders, that was the rouge creature. Noah was corrupted by their not sticking to the codes of the group.

I'll be seeing this flick again.

[ChemicalRomance]

Originally posted by sharkstank
SPOILERS

i knew they were living in modern times. all the talk of the towns, and the sad stories, gave it away immediately.

SPOILERS

When the guy was saying that someone got a gun and killed the man in his sleep all I could think was "Where exactly did he get this firearm from..?"

[sharkstank]

me too chemical romance. and the way they threw in the 'olde tyme' words like fortnight sounded forced.

i've read all the posts here and have some more thoughts
-there are holes (brillainat retard with the suit) but some that are mebtioned are not
-like adamjohnson said, ivy was sent BECAUSE she was blind and he expected her to carry out the town elder-ship
-hurt and weavers romance was forgotten
-phoenix's color (red) i believe just signified ivy's love for him. no one else besides her dad had the red color. nothing more or less
-the monster noises: i just tried to assume they had something in the suit to make the noise, but reading how the village was founded twenty years ago, i dont see how they made the noises. thats a plot hole
-ivy slapping the shite out of noah. yup, character arc (like adamjohnson said as well) not a plothole
-i believe at first the elders skinned an animal or two, then noah mimicked them
-the weaver comment on "a coyote couldnt have reached that high." i dont think that was to trick US as the audience, but to instill the fear into the rest of the village that the 'monsters' are evil. i didnt see that as manipulative
-the film was marketed wrong. this is much more a drama/romance than a horror/suspence movie. thats probably why alot of people were disappointed. i was expecting a scare fest rfrom the triler, but it wasnt that.

thats just my take though. and let me say again. bryce dallas howard is enchanting. i love her :D

WWWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[ChemicalRomance]

Originally posted by sharkstank

thats just my take though. and let me say again. bryce dallas howard is enchanting. i love her :D

WWWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Would you say shes the MAIN character? I was just thinking...this movie didn't really have a main character necesarilly. Maybe I'm just talking and thinking strange. It is 3:35 AM.

[moviemuffin]

How long do we think it's going to take the visually impaired and the mentally challenged communities to start screaming bigotry?

I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet, to be honest.

Just a quick aside... a few people have mentioned the Amish here and there and the community structure more closely resembles Moravian practices, beliefs, and social structure to me. Night would be aware of them as well; they are heavily settled throughout PA. The community feast, in particular, is a Moravian staple. They're kind of the official love-feast folks.

Just a blurb, I guess. Not that I am deluded into thinking Night has any regard for actual reliable narrative source. :D

[sharkstank]

Originally posted by ChemicalRomance
Would you say shes the MAIN character? I was just thinking...this movie didn't really have a main character necesarilly. Maybe I'm just talking and thinking strange. It is 3:35 AM.

i thought that she was the main character. phoenix and her were both, until phoenix got stabbed. she then took over

WWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[XvoorheesX]

About the protagonist:

Shyamalan has a thing for Hitchcock, everybody knows that by now. The big thing about the shower scene in Psycho wasn't just that it was surprising and well executed, but it was shocking because the main character had been killed, meaning someone else would become the main character. Noah stabbing Lucious was Shyamalan's shower scene.

lost steam during ivy's journey to the towns. the intense sequences werent intense, becaus ewe knew the truth already.

One of the main themes of the movie is that people are naturally scared of what they don't know and/or don't understand. So if we didn't know, it'd be scary: "Oh, that's the monster I've been hearing about for so long". But playing up the theme, it's even better: "What?! This doesn't make sence. Is someone playing a trick on me? Maybe the creatures are real!"

[lynchfan_714]

I haven't read all the posts but, I'm goona throw my opnion out there.

I thought the movie was a 8/10...

Unfortunatly though I was the only one in my group who though it was good. Everybody was looking for the next 6th sense. I hate that, if you want the 6th sense. GO WATCH 6th SENSE!

The way the movie was done was awesome, I loved the premise.

I won't do a spoiler only because it's already been done 100 times already.

Good movie over all!

[beastieben21]

Originally posted by Nachokoolaid
And another hole in your logic...

Why would Walker (Hurt) need to be controling a "monster sound machine" :rolleyes: (I'm sure that's what it was. Nice idea). I'm sure vehicles and other modern day sounds would do nicely, and the creatures are once again just a way to explain things away. "Monster sounds." That's classic.

And what would you do if you were an elder (or Noah) in a costume trying to scare the crap out of someone. Growl and snarl? or sing them a lullaby? Mmm...

The fact is, you don't know this. You don't know how they created these sounds, meaning it could be anything. You're telling me for the last 20 years (since they DO have an oath not to leave) they've had a few Crown Victoria's parked in the middle of the woods making these sounds? That in the 70's, they programmed some quasi-Night Rider vehicles to emit the sounds of a T-Rex? And they've last the better part of 30 years...? But please, scoff at my idea since yours is so brilliantly formualted. Either way, it's a stupid explanation for how these noises are produced, more proof (not holes in MY logic) that this idea wasn't fully thought out.

And as for the growling, it's more the fact that it couldn't happen. Humans wouldn't be able to make convincing noises like that, it's just another way to trick the audience into thinking they're seeing something they aren't.


The elders do kill animals and blame it one the creaures, but in the time at question, during the wedding, it was Noah, and that is the reason for the elders' confusion and the whole "coyote" discussion.


How do you KNOW that? It's NEVER explained, it's pure jest. Because of this fact, I don't believe it was Noah. It wasn't explained to me (and I'm NOT saying everything needs to be explicitly explained) which is sloppy filmmaking. Finding dead animals under the board in the quiet room doesn't mean it was him. Anyone of the elders could have put that there, and it's far more likely than the idea that he goes in there and replaces the board, stores his bones there, etc.

[Adornado]

Originally posted by XvoorheesX
One of the main themes of the movie is that people are naturally scared of what they don't know and/or don't understand.

I'd rather some real suspense over social commentary...I would have liked the movie alot more if the creatures were real.

[beastieben21]

Originally posted by Adornado
I'd rather some real suspense over social commentary...I would have liked the movie alot more if the creatures were real.

Same here. A lot of directors can do great social commentary, and I appreciate their skill. However, few directors living can illicit fear and suspense like Shyamalan. This, coupled with the fact that it was a bad movie, turned me off. It'd be like if Quentin Tarantino decided to include very little dialogue in a film, but instead make it a bloody, ultra-violent action film, something a TON of directors can do...Let's hope that never happens.

[Adornado]

Originally posted by beastieben21
It'd be like if Quentin Tarantino decided to include very little dialogue in a film, but instead make it a bloody, ultra-violent action film

Oh, your clever.

[ChemicalRomance]

Originally posted by moviemuffin
How long do we think it's going to take the visually impaired and the mentally challenged communities to start screaming bigotry?

I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet, to be honest.

Just a quick aside... a few people have mentioned the Amish here and there and the community structure more closely resembles Moravian practices, beliefs, and social structure to me. Night would be aware of them as well; they are heavily settled throughout PA. The community feast, in particular, is a Moravian staple. They're kind of the official love-feast folks.

Just a blurb, I guess. Not that I am deluded into thinking Night has any regard for actual reliable narrative source. :D

SPOILERS

Something everyone is forgetting is how well the stabbing was shot. You could not have seen that coming in a million years unless you had read the script or was told about it. Night shot the scene very well and everyone was really shcoked to see that Noah had stabbed Lucious.

[XvoorheesX]

I'd rather some real suspense over social commentary...
Again, this is why expectations kill what could be great movies. This wasn't a suspense/horror/thriller movie. It was marketed that way, and people assumed it be that way because of the names on the credits, but it's a human drama story. Most people that hate this film hate it for reasons stemming before the movie even started. They don't hate this movie for what it is, they hate it for what it isn't.

[beastieben21]

Originally posted by Adornado
Oh, your clever.

Thanks, although I have to disagree. It isn't my clever...I was just borrowing it. It's really YOUR clever. The clever isn't mine, as you stated, I'm gonna give it back to you. So you see, your clever.

[reciprocity]

Side note - beastieben - I am still chuckling about "your clever" - and after reading your little response.... you ARE clever - just thought you should know.

Spoilers

I liked it - I really did. I like any movie that keeps my attention and makes me feel like I am a secret observer, watching something unfold.

I was not trying to figure out the surprises (although I unknowingly figured out the present-day timing when Hurt was speaking about the towns being so bad - but it did not ruin the end for me) - I was just pleased when they came about.

I was not looking for holes in the plot and microphones in the sky. I am a big believer in suspension of disbelief. When the movie started - I was IN and I never let go. I watched the villagers with awe and felt the love between Lucius and Ivy. I loved the dialog. I loved Noah. I loved the setting and the sounds and the darkness. I went to a satellite interview session with M. Night Shyamalan and I got to see the scene on the porch before the movie came out. I loved it standing on it's own and I was completely taken by it in the context of the movie. I was IN from beginning to end.

Now, I will go again and I will notice the bits and pieces that I may not agree with - but the first time.... I will never forget it.

8/10

GO BRYCE! cannot wait to see you again - hope someone else's cameras love and respect you as much as Night's did.

[harpian]

I guess at this point I don't really need to say it... but,

SPOILERS AHOY!







I'm confused about something, bear with me on this....


Noah stabbed Lucious in the abdomen/stomach area... my first thought was, "okay, he's got a good chance of surviving that, if he can get medical attention, and a good surgeon right away... it's possible for him to pull through-- but I doubt if they have any highly skilled doctors or an ER in that quaint, rustic village.... so, fuck, he's gonna die... that's really surprising seeing as how he's the main character.... geez, that SUCKS".

Then, the part that made everyone gasp-- Noah stabs Lucious AGAIN... this time directly into the chest/heart area. That's it. He's dead. No question in my mind. Maybe he's got a minute or so of sputtering and twitching left in him, but he's a dead man... pure and simple. My heart aches at the thought of losing pretty Joaquin so early in the film. Sadness!

Anyways, Noah is discovered sitting on the porch, covered in blood, everyone freaks out... eventually the word gets to Ivy, she runs around in her blind fashion and finds unmoving Lucious. So how much time has passed since Noah stabbed him?
20 minutes?
30?
Noah was pretty settled on that porch, and he didn't exactly run out the door the second he got knife happy with Mr. Phoenix.... also, the girls who told Ivy about the incident -- and lord know how much time had passed since Noah had been discovered by his parents and word got around the village-- described Noah as being covered in "gallons of blood" (I could see that as well when he showed the "bad color" to his parents, that boy was blood-ay).

So okay, two extremely mortal wounds, left untended for about... oh, I'll be nice and say... an half an hour, with "gallons" of blood loss and probably a punctured lung, heart, and various other organs.... and he's STILL ALIVE WHEN IVY FINDS HIM?? More ridiculous than that, all the doctor says he did was "close up his wounds" and acts like that's all he needed.... er, blood tranfusion maybe? IV? What the hell? He's STILL alive?? And all he needs is a bottle of penicillin to put him out of danger?? Because of an "infection" that's more severe than his sliced up insides, and once again, "GALLONS" of blood loss??

I don't care if he has a "strong will to live" or whatever ass excuse they gave, if that boy was AIR-LIFTED the MOMENT he was stabbed those two times, to a hospital with a highly-qualified surgeon and supplies and nuns/lollipops galore, he would have maybe an 8% chance of surviving the journey TO the hospital.

You don't get to shock the audience to shit by confirming in their heads that the main character was killed 45 minutes into the movie, and then cheapen it and screw us over by having him SURVIVE.

LAME.

I guess if I ever get violently stabbed a couple of times, all I need is a few stitches, Sigourney Weaver to wipe the sweat from my brow, and a bottle of aspirin.

[beastieben21]

Originally posted by harpian
I guess at this point I don't really need to say it... but,

SPOILERS AHOY!







I'm confused about something, bear with me on this....


Noah stabbed Lucious in the abdomen/stomach area... my first thought was, "okay, he's got a good chance of surviving that, if he can get medical attention, and a good surgeon right away... it's possible for him to pull through-- but I doubt if they have any highly skilled doctors or an ER in that quaint, rustic village.... so, fuck, he's gonna die... that's really surprising seeing as how he's the main character.... geez, that SUCKS".

Then, the part that made everyone gasp-- Noah stabs Lucious AGAIN... this time directly into the chest/heart area. That's it. He's dead. No question in my mind. Maybe he's got a minute or so of sputtering and twitching left in him, but he's a dead man... pure and simple. My heart aches at the thought of losing pretty Joaquin so early in the film. Sadness!

Anyways, Noah is discovered sitting on the porch, covered in blood, everyone freaks out... eventually the word gets to Ivy, she runs around in her blind fashion and finds unmoving Lucious. So how much time has passed since Noah stabbed him?
20 minutes?
30?
Noah was pretty settled on that porch, and he didn't exactly run out the door the second he got knife happy with Mr. Phoenix.... also, the girls who told Ivy about the incident -- and lord know how much time had passed since Noah had been discovered by his parents and word got around the village-- described Noah as being covered in "gallons of blood" (I could see that as well when he showed the "bad color" to his parents, that boy was blood-ay).

So okay, two extremely mortal wounds, left untended for about... oh, I'll be nice and say... an half an hour, with "gallons" of blood loss and probably a punctured lung, heart, and various other organs.... and he's STILL ALIVE WHEN IVY FINDS HIM?? More ridiculous than that, all the doctor says he did was "close up his wounds" and acts like that's all he needed.... er, blood tranfusion maybe? IV? What the hell? He's STILL alive?? And all he needs is a bottle of penicillin to put him out of danger?? Because of an "infection" that's more severe than his sliced up insides, and once again, "GALLONS" of blood loss??

I don't care if he has a "strong will to live" or whatever ass excuse they gave, if that boy was AIR-LIFTED the MOMENT he was stabbed those two times, to a hospital with a highly-qualified surgeon and supplies and nuns/lollipops galore, he would have maybe an 8% chance of surviving the journey TO the hospital.

You don't get to shock the audience to shit by confirming in their heads that the main character was killed 45 minutes into the movie, and then cheapen it and screw us over by having him SURVIVE.

LAME.

I guess if I ever get violently stabbed a couple of times, all I need is a few stitches, Sigourney Weaver to wipe the sweat from my brow, and a bottle of aspirin.

Hah, another good point and large plot hole. I completely agree with you. It'd be tough to survive that with the finest medical care, let alone in a rustic village where you have to wait for 2-3 days. Granted, it was the only part of the me that actually surprised me, but at the expense of a giant leap of faith.

[Common Sense Man]

Okay just to make some quick comments about what I have been reading here.

Yes there are SPOILERS but by now if you really wanted to see this flick you should be there not here.

.

..

..
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..

First off why would blind people be pissed off at this movie, one of the main characters is blind and she kicks ass!

Plus they can't see the movie so I don't see much problem there, sad but true.

If anyone was going to bitch it should be the mentally challenge people. But hey they probably won't understand so again no problem.

And how would you expect a person with mental illness to behave! Is portraying a person with mental problems acurately, evil? If he was portrayed as normal then he would be normal, he is not, he is MENTAL, nuff said.

Some people need to get thicker skins.

And Hurt's and Weaver's romance was not dropped.

Hurt expressed his love for Weaver in the scene were he tells her that he has sent Ivy to the towns.

He tells her "This is all I can offer you" Meaning a chance for your son to live. And she says "I accept"

Then they almost kiss, so if that is not a conclusion to their romantic arc I am not sure what is.

Also the coyote conversation at the barn has really thrown some of you.

You have to remember M. Knight is all about being subtle! You have to look at the movie not just watch it.

During the conversation, Weaver is standing looking out into the village as if she wants to prevent anyone from hearing her.

She speaks softly and consipiritorily to Hurt.

She stresses the word Coyote to make you understand that it is being used in code for Elder.

And the reason she is so freaked is because they think they have a rouge Elder (coyote) who has commited a crime, something they have tried to run from.

She basically states this when she says the marks on the doors are too high for a coyote, the subtext meaning a man (Elder) had to do it. And she was not talking about the red slashes but the marks of someone breaking into the barn to kill the animals, as we see Hurt touch them.

But she is not going to say that out loud as if she is overheard the jig is up.

Don't confuse this with the speech she made in the town hall about the coyote. That was simply a ploy to keep the townsfolk confused and to make sure they didn't freak out.

As for the wounds that Lucious got. Who can tell if he would have died or not.

Obvioulsy, or at least to me, that one guy was a Doctor. And even in 1890 they performed surgery.

He said he closed the wounds, that does not simply mean he sealed the holes but went in and performed surgery to close off any bleeders, etc.

And who knows what else he did, they didn't show it!

And remember this is a MOVIE!

Noah was wacking the animals. And he did not find the suit until it was shown that he did.

And why do people think he was or anyone was storing bones in the hole under the floor.

The costumes are made up of feathers and bones, I am sure some come off from time to time. So to me it was simply a way to show that a costume HAD been there. More impact to show a few feathers and bones than an empty hole that no one would understand.

And when the chick said "The Animals" she was talking about all the skinned animals, and realizing it was Noah.

And I don't buy that the Elders killed any animals.

Ivy asks her father this question and he is shocked.

So it was Noah, there was no rouge Elder.

When Hurt talks about his father being killed by a gun. His father was in the TOWNS not in the Village. Plus they had plenty of weapons in the 1800's. But the point is why do you assume the father lived in the Village when one of the reasons they moved there was to escape the violence of the Towns, his father was dead before they ever moved.

Noises.

Well first if you have never lived in a forest you cannot grasp how loud they can be.

M. Knight did a great job of showing the forest in motion and how many of the noises were simply trees grating against each other and natural sounds.

But you are telling me that a Billionaires son from the 70's couldn't rig something up in the woods. Or in the suits. People say that they couldn't do that back then, how ridiculous. Did anyone see Star Wars!

So to me this is not a problem, the suits were made before they moved to the Village as was the preserve and the surrounding area, so before any of the people showed up everything would have been in place. And remember the people that were not in on it were not born yet or babies.

And enough with the film was marketed wrong crap.

I saw all the trailers and I thought the movie was basically what you saw in the trailers.

People where jumping in my theater.

But again M. Knight is not a horror movie maker, but a suspence movie maker.

And if you are pissed because a trailer misrepresented the movie, welcome to the real world. 90 percent of trailers do that. But in this case I do not agree they did.

Boom Mikes.

Well I never saw any. It is more likely that your projectionist misframed the movie, or the screen was not set properly to Flat.

Marks on the doors, never explained? Bull.

The Elders made the marks on the Doors to carry on the fear that Noah was generating with the skinned animals.

Why do they need to explain the obvious. Once you know the Elders are the Monsters, well the Elders made the marks.

Plus Hurt tells the Village they made the marks as as warning.

The hole in the woods.

It was a HOLE no one dug it, it was natural. It even looked as if it had erroded away like a sink hole. Really people you need to get out in to nature once in a while.

Creatures in the woods.

Hurt says in his research about this place that they were creatures here.

Well lets think. It is the WOODS!

He never said what the creatures were.

Plus lets think again.

I am sure a Professor of History would look back INTO history so lets be conservative and say oh the 17 or 1800s.

Tell me how many creature or monster sightings they used to have back then. Hundreds!

It could have been a bear but back then the people would have called the woods haunted, etc.

But the main point is he never specifies what it is, so why do you assume it was like the creatures they made, or not a myth dreamed up by some moonshine drunk oaky in 1750.

And in closing, it was a MOVIE!

Remember in Unbreakable Bruce had Super Powers, is that logical.

Also I feel that if you knew the ending before you went in you were not going to like it as much, period.

Seeing it before knowing the ending and after knowing the ending, was like watching two different movies.

So much more jumped out at me thru the characters actions and dialouge.

If you went in spoiled, you basically spoiled the experience.

Like most of M. Knights movies this one will only grow in popularity once it hits DVD and people can watch it a few times.

You have to look cloesly at this movie at times not just watch it. If you just sit back and watch you are going to miss many things.

After seeing it again and after all this talk I am bumping my rating up to 8 of 10.

Out............................................... .............................

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by ChemicalRomance
SPOILERS

When the guy was saying that someone got a gun and killed the man in his sleep all I could think was "Where exactly did he get this firearm from..?"

*** SPOILERS ***


Samuel Colt invented the revolver around 1836. By the film's tombstone at the beginning of the film, I believe they state that the year everyone believes it to be is 1897.

The "projected time" that these people left would have been close to around the Civil War of the United States, which took place from 1861-65. It is during that time period that the film "Gangs of New York" took place, and that was what I pictured when they talked of the violence in the towns.

[blankpage]

***SPOILERS***


Maybe I'm wrong, but when Ivy crossed over, wasn't the "other side" some kind of zoo, of wildlife preserve?

I thought it was, maybe I was seeing things.

If so, I can only assume the "noises" came from there

[blankpage]

Originally posted by Common Sense Man









Also I feel that if you knew the ending before you went in you were not going to like it as much, period.

Seeing it before knowing the ending and after knowing the ending, was like watching two different movies.

So much more jumped out at me thru the characters actions and dialouge.

If you went in spoiled, you basically spoiled the experience.



Not so, my friend.

I knew the ending way ahead of time, and the experience wasn't ruined. I mean, my jaw didn't drop, but it was still a fantastic film. Plus, if I didn't know the ending, I probably would've been able to figure it out anyway...there were enough clues to go around.

I got so much out of this film, and everything there was still great.

[XvoorheesX]

Walker was filthy rich, he owned the whole forest, that's why his name was on the uniforms and the hummer. He pays the guards to make sure people don't hang around and ask questions so that the village will never be disrupted, and paid to have planes redirect their routes so that none ever fly over the village.... For obvious reasons.

I agree with everything common sense man said, 100%. I have no problem with people not liking the movie, but it seems people here are just desperately trying to find anything they can to label a plot hole.
"A hole in the woods.... Jesus christ! I'm smarter than M. Night Shyamalan!!!"

Seriously, if you put half a thought into any of those alleged "plot-holes", you'll realize the logical explanation.

Oh, and I saw it again tonight, looked out for boom mics and boom mic shadows, didn't see a single thing out of place.

[notchreturns]

I didn't see any boom mics either. In fact, it would be kinda hard too, since, if my memory serves me correctly, the film was shot frequently with the characters talking quite far from the camera, ala an Altman film.

It's weird how people just seem to be searching for plotholes. A hole in the woods. Have you ever been in the woods? Kinda of a dangerous place. Trees fall over, sharp objects, creatures, strange noises, etc.

Joaquin surviving the attack. Um, watch the Discovery channel. People survive ALOT worse with less medical attention and are able to tell their story for us.

Noah escaping and finding the costumes and so on. Errmmm, it's my guess he's been in there before, the place was probably made for him. He's quite the trouble-maker. He's always going places he isn't suppose too, the woods, for example, which would obviously explain the red berries. He may be slow, immature and unable to communicate with most, but that hardly makes innocent and not a danger. His best friend, and the girl he loves, basically spits in his face. He was betrayed. Need I remind you how "normal" people react when they are.

The coyote discussion. That's been explained. No point going over it.

Where did the villagers come from? Again, it's not explained, but that's certainly NOT a plot hole. Hurt recruited the Elders and started the village with them. That doesn't mean they didn't find other people to come along, or they didn't bring their infant children and they had kids when grown up and so on.

It's not a perfect film, that's pretty rare, but it is a good one, as I said before and has it's moments of excellence.

[harpian]

Eh, I'm still gonna stand by the whole Lucious-shoulda-died thing. It was a great scene, I'm not contesting that, it's just that that 2nd blow was the death blow, pure and simple. He would've been dead before Ivy got to him, and WAY before she got back with some damn anitbiotics, which would've helped his infection, sure, but done nothing for healing his wounds.

Anyways-- my father's an orthopedic surgeon, I was a big enough dork to call him after the movie and ask if that had happened, if there is anyway someone could've survived it. He laughed and said you've got a window of a few minutes tops to stablize the patient, and with a blood loss that severe, there's no point of even operating without a blood transfusion because the patient will die anyways.

If anyone else is/knows a doctor, I'm willing to listen to them. Right now I'm waiting for my father to see the movie himself, so he can give me more specific feedback.

Yes, I'm a nerd.

The point is, I know it's a "movie", but it's the wrong kind of movie to have that sort of gaping plot hole. I can deal with something like that happening in a Die Hard movie, or a slasher flick... "oh, haha, he got an axe in his back and he's still alive.. wheeee... lookit them run", but this was a serious, humanistic drama-- you were meant to believe the characters' reality and their struggle. It's all thrown to shit if the story stretches the boundries of that reality so far that they can't even apply anymore.

I'm still waiting for a valid argument as to why his character should not have died.

*taps foot*

[adamjohnson]

Originally posted by sharkstank
[B]
-hurt and weavers romance was forgotten



No, it wasnt. Did everyone forget aboutt he scene where they were (Hurt and Weaver) in the empty house together. And Hurt kept saying "That is all I can give you." He was saying he cant love her!

But, hey, thanks for quoting me not once, but TWICE. Yes, I am a snowflake.

[adamjohnson]

Originally posted by harpian
Eh, I'm still gonna stand by the whole Lucious-shoulda-died thing. It was a great scene, I'm not contesting that, it's just that that 2nd blow was the death blow, pure and simple. He would've been dead before Ivy got to him, and WAY before she got back with some damn anitbiotics, which would've helped his infection, sure, but done nothing for healing his wounds.

Anyways-- my father's an orthopedic surgeon, I was a big enough dork to call him after the movie and ask if that had happened, if there is anyway someone could've survived it. He laughed and said you've got a window of a few minutes tops to stablize the patient, and with a blood loss that severe, there's no point of even operating without a blood transfusion because the patient will die anyways.

If anyone else is/knows a doctor, I'm willing to listen to them. Right now I'm waiting for my father to see the movie himself, so he can give me more specific feedback.

Yes, I'm a nerd.

The point is, I know it's a "movie", but it's the wrong kind of movie to have that sort of gaping plot hole. I can deal with something like that happening in a Die Hard movie, or a slasher flick... "oh, haha, he got an axe in his back and he's still alive.. wheeee... lookit them run", but this was a serious, humanistic drama-- you were meant to believe the characters' reality and their struggle. It's all thrown to shit if the story stretches the boundries of that reality so far that they can't even apply anymore.

I'm still waiting for a valid argument as to why his character should not have died.

*taps foot*

He stabbed him again in the stomach. Not the heart. ( I thought) And if that happened he could have defnitely survived. Hell I saw someone get shot in the head today on The Learning Channel's "Trauma" show. He survived. So dont say he couldnt have too.

[JCLC11]

***SPOILER***

Regarding The Elder Conversation:

The audience is entering the scene in the middle of the conversation, so, depending on one's view, the Elders could be realizing their explanation of coyotes no longer rational and attempting to devise another explanation ...

The Village - 10/10 ... The drama, romance, suspense ... Incredible.

[Mog]

SPOILERS


Okay, I'm not doctor but I'm simply stating what I've learned from my anatomy class.

He was stabbed in the gut, which looked dead center to me right below the belly button. I'm not exactly sure what organs he could've hit, but if there is anyone who knows that kinda stuff I hope someone sheds light. But I'm positive it was that specific region. If it was to the side, he probably would've had 20 minutes to live, if he stabbed the liver.

The second blow, however, according to memory, wouldn't really be a death blow. I don't particularly remember it being anywhere near the heart. I remember it being just below his right shoulder, which is nowhere near the pericardial cavity (<--anatomy class terminology - go me). See for yourself.

http://www.moxzii.com/images/albums/userpics/10001/bed01.jpg

[FerrellFan911]

***1/2

Don't worry. I won't give away anything important about M. Night Shyamalan's latest. Not that that is the point of his films. I believe, for the most part, audiences flock to the theaters to be scared and surprised. Those looking for that may get let down. "The Village" eventually is not scary and may even get funny. That's not saying a whole lot. "The Village" is a thought-provoking, suspense-thriller that will keep audiences scratching their heads until the end. As usual, Shyamalan mixes in themes of love, leadership, fear, and innocence to make it that more complicated. It is a very good film. One of his best.

There is a village of Amish-like people in the middle of the woods. Their leader is Edward Walker (William Hurt) who heads a group of elders that make important decisions for the village. The most important rule is not to stray into the outlying woods, for mysterious creatures (Those We Do Not Speak Of) dwell there. The village has a kind of truce with the creatures to keep them from coming to their village. Sentries are posted at night to keep the village safe. It's a big deal.

Many characters weave their sub-plots into the film. A young man, Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix) petitions the elders to go to the towns to get medicine braving the creature-filled woods. The blind and outgoing Ivy Walker
(Bryce Dallas Howard) is in love with Lucius. Noah Percy (Adrien Brody) is a mentally-handicapped man that walks around. And Lucius's mother, Alice (Sigourney Weaver), is a wise elder in love with Edward.

There are many other characters to be sure. It is very important to understand the characters in this film. More than a horror movie, this is a film about humanity. What we do in times of fear and innocence. Listen to the way they talk, passively and with kindness. Watch the way they treat each other, with honesty and respect. My praise goes out to Brody and Howard. The audience will love these characters despite their physical weaknesses. Do you know why? They are full of life and color in a world of dullness and terror.

Once "The Village" arrives at its conclusion, you will still be perplexed. This is a film that does not explain everything, because it does not have to. There is an ending, a good ending that fits all of the characters. This is a film that demands repeat viewings and time to understand the characters and unravel the cause/effect paradox. It may even move you if you do not look to be scared.

Also, once again, Shyamalan has enlisted the help of composer James Newton Howard and cinematographer Roger Deakins. Both of these men have helped the director pump suspense throughout "The Village". It works very well, and I hope I see these men on the Oscar stage.

M. Night Shyamalan has a resume any director would long for. Two years ago, when "Signs" was released, I thought that film was one of the greatest suspense-thrillers ever captured on film. It took us on a journey of faith in the face of death. What we do in a time of need. In "The Village", the overall theme is not that clear, although I could guess. Shyamalan has mixed effects as I had mentioned earlier. If audiences go in not looking to be scared or shocked, but go in looking at the humanity in it all, they will be surprised and moved at the thought-provoking film. They might not even be able to drive home.

[FerrellFan911]

Originally posted by JCLC11


The Village - 10/10 ... The drama, romance, suspense ... Incredible.

Wow, I hear you.

Is there anyone else out there that loves this film as much as me and JCLC11?

[harpian]

Originally posted by Mog
SPOILERS


Okay, I'm not doctor but I'm simply stating what I've learned from my anatomy class.

He was stabbed in the gut, which looked dead center to me right below the belly button. I'm not exactly sure what organs he could've hit, but if there is anyone who knows that kinda stuff I hope someone sheds light. But I'm positive it was that specific region. If it was to the side, he probably would've had 20 minutes to live, if he stabbed the liver.

The second blow, however, according to memory, wouldn't really be a death blow. I don't particularly remember it being anywhere near the heart. I remember it being just below his right shoulder, which is nowhere near the pericardial cavity (<--anatomy class terminology - go me). See for yourself.


Nice! Thanks for that! I actually only saw the movie once, so I could be very wrong about the exact locations of the wounds... hmmm....

but when I said "death blow" I meant "the blow that was meant to make the audience think he had been killed and had no chance of surviving", but that's just how I saw it. ;)

[XvoorheesX]

Where did the villagers come from? Again, it's not explained, but that's certainly NOT a plot hole. Hurt recruited the Elders and started the village with them. That doesn't mean they didn't find other people to come along, or they didn't bring their infant children and they had kids when grown up and so on.
The photograph that was locked in the secret box showed all the elders, twenty years earlier, standing outside of the therapy clinic where they all met. They were all so traumatized but what had happened to them, that "hey, let's start out own society without all this pain" didn't seem that crazy.

[MunkyFeet]

i feel this movie will never get the respect it deserves. i thought it was great and there were no plot holes. yes, i said NO PLOTHOLES. this is definetly one of the most clever movies i've ever seen. it took me a while, but you definetly have to get a second viewing to get ALL the details. the details were amazing i thought and was amazed at how clever m. night was.

first thing, i read people talking about the noises the monsters made. did anybody notice how strong ivy's senses were? during the wedding scene, she heard the boys scream before anybody else. everything went silent and she heard everything. same thing when she found lucious. noah was just mimicking what he heard, so the sounds he made were alot louder and more clear to ivy because of her strong sense. thats how she found her way through the woods, her strong earing.

and now the coyote conversation, you gotta realize m. night is smarter than that. they had no idea who did the marks ofcourse and who skinned the animals. even when william hurts character was explaining everything about the monsters not being real, ivy mentioned it and he said he didnt know which of the elders did it. this is because an elder didnt do it, it was all noah. noah knew where all the berrys were, remember the beginning? he marked all the doors with the berrys.

alot of people have said they didnt have any medicine. WRONG. remember when william hurts character (sorry i cant remember the name) first talked to ivy about going into the woods? he was approached by an older women who kept saying he took the oath not to leave. right before that scene, they showed a large medicine and talked about how they could keep lucious alive.

and last but not least (i know you might be getting bored reading this). the tree, and the way she trapped noah. you guys have to remember the bottom of the tree she touched and recognized. without that, there would be no way of trapping noah.another thing that played a very important role in this, was her wanting to play boy games. did anybody else listen to her when she said she was interested in the games the boy played about seeing how scared you could get until you ran? well thats exactly what she did, she found the tree and got to the very edge of the hole and spread her arms. her strong senses told her when he was right behind her so she knew exactly when to move.

theres way more but i'll leave it at that.

for all the people who simply watch this movie and spot all the "plot holes", you gotta think more about it and look into every little detail. cause i guarantee everything has an explanation and makes sense.

[uncle_el]

damn, so much to respond to, so little time, lol. SPOILERS ahead




Originally posted by beastieben21
-Why would there be a giant hole (obviously dug by someone) in the ground in the middle of this woods? Nobody goes out there except the elders, so why would they dig a hole they could fall into? To catch bears?

i thought the hole was supposed to be from the uprooted tree next to the hole :shrug:


-How did a retard man get into that costume!? It looks pretty difficult to just slip on and go. Plus, if he's really that stupid, he couldn't form intent, especially malicious intent, it's why children aren't charged for crimes.
-

children can indeed intend to do things. it is generally thought (at least before the age of 10 or so) that children do not understand death as permanent/irreversible. with that said, children are actually charged with crimes, but being that it is before their 18th birthday, there is generally technicality. also note that some minors have been charged as adults recently, somewhat negating the notion that children cannot act with malicious intent. :shrug:


Originally posted by gspawn
Why do people think this is a horror movie:
*random network special on the movie*

Announcer: "Shyamalan's newest intense thriller..."
Shyamalan: "(something like) I like making scary movies."
Star: "My hair was standing on end from the beginning."
Other star: "This is such a horror movie."
Other star: "People are going to jump out of their seats."

Hm. Wonder why people think this is a horror movie...

the power of suggestion. because someone said it, it must be so? [/slight reference to kerry's speech :D]

Originally posted by systemdwn
However, from watching the movie, The Village is not about the monsters, the village, the twist. M. Night wrote a movie about fear, fear of the unknown.

Even though the blind girl knew the monsters were not real, she was still freaked out in the forest! Fear of the unknown/darkness plays terrible tricks on your mind!

as the blind girl was blind, i doubt she knew it was a monster, but she did know she was being chased by someone/something trying to do her harm. enjoyed reading your thoughts on the movie btw


"So these people decided to move to the middle of nowhere to start over and raise their kids in captivity, right? So why bother with all the little details? Like I can understand not wanting to have any kind of communication or media, but why bother telling the kids it's 1897 when they really have no frame of reference as to how 2004 is supposed to be? Why bother talking in an old dialect that they might slip out of and screw up when talking normally wouldn't have made any difference? I can understand not wanting any brand name clothing, but why make it all so outdated. I'll also accept that they wouldn't have elctricity out there. But it just seems like they overcompensated. If these kids have never seen the outside world, they wouldn't question the historical accuracy of any of it"

it wasn't 2004 when the community was started. and i've never talked to someone amish, so i wouldn't know if that's how they would speak. again, power of suggestion, as we assume that's the dialect of old, and apparently the current amish. lol




Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Did anyone else pick up any alagories about war and religion? I noticed they slipped references into the paper read i the guard booth.

I felt like there was some comment on how religion is used to control a society, and how we sometimes have to use war to maintain our beliefs.
agreed. also of note is the reference to the war in iraq on the radio... don't remember the exact quote, but the announcer/broadcaster on the radio mentioned the latest casualties in the war.


Originally posted by Mog
Yeah, I for one did notice the paper. Everything on that paper reports a crime of some sort, which shows the kind of state the world is in and why they're hiding from it. Did you also notice that the village is missing one very essential thing that A LOT of small towns in movies usually have?

A church. There's no religion...God isn't mentioned once in this village.

well, william hurt's character (sorry, forget his name right now) did pray before eating on two occassions. also, perhaps it shows the elders lack of trust in god, considering the events we find they have witenssed/experienced.


Originally posted by harpian
I'm confused about something, bear with me on this....


Noah stabbed Lucious in the abdomen/stomach area... my first thought was, "okay, he's got a good chance of surviving that, if he can get medical attention, and a good surgeon right away... it's possible for him to pull through-- but I doubt if they have any highly skilled doctors or an ER in that quaint, rustic village.... so, fuck, he's gonna die... that's really surprising seeing as how he's the main character.... geez, that SUCKS".

Then, the part that made everyone gasp-- Noah stabs Lucious AGAIN... this time directly into the chest/heart area. That's it. He's dead. No question in my mind. Maybe he's got a minute or so of sputtering and twitching left in him, but he's a dead man... pure and simple. My heart aches at the thought of losing pretty Joaquin so early in the film. Sadness!

Anyways, Noah is discovered sitting on the porch, covered in blood, everyone freaks out... eventually the word gets to Ivy, she runs around in her blind fashion and finds unmoving Lucious. So how much time has passed since Noah stabbed him?
20 minutes?
30?
Noah was pretty settled on that porch, and he didn't exactly run out the door the second he got knife happy with Mr. Phoenix.... also, the girls who told Ivy about the incident -- and lord know how much time had passed since Noah had been discovered by his parents and word got around the village-- described Noah as being covered in "gallons of blood" (I could see that as well when he showed the "bad color" to his parents, that boy was blood-ay).

So okay, two extremely mortal wounds, left untended for about... oh, I'll be nice and say... an half an hour, with "gallons" of blood loss and probably a punctured lung, heart, and various other organs.... and he's STILL ALIVE WHEN IVY FINDS HIM?? More ridiculous than that, all the doctor says he did was "close up his wounds" and acts like that's all he needed.... er, blood tranfusion maybe? IV? What the hell? He's STILL alive?? And all he needs is a bottle of penicillin to put him out of danger?? Because of an "infection" that's more severe than his sliced up insides, and once again, "GALLONS" of blood loss??

I don't care if he has a "strong will to live" or whatever ass excuse they gave, if that boy was AIR-LIFTED the MOMENT he was stabbed those two times, to a hospital with a highly-qualified surgeon and supplies and nuns/lollipops galore, he would have maybe an 8% chance of surviving the journey TO the hospital.

You don't get to shock the audience to shit by confirming in their heads that the main character was killed 45 minutes into the movie, and then cheapen it and screw us over by having him SURVIVE.

LAME.

I guess if I ever get violently stabbed a couple of times, all I need is a few stitches, Sigourney Weaver to wipe the sweat from my brow, and a bottle of aspirin.

now, admittedly, i thought he was gone too. but, i have witnessed plenty of miracles in the hospital (i'm a 4th year medical student) and been in the trauma bay plenty of times to see people you would think wouldn't make it or sustained injuries that definitely would kill them, only to find that they didn't.

and with current medical techniques, it's still good ole sutures that are used to repair and close abdominal injuries, whether they be from bullet holes, stab wounds, or car accidents. of course, a couple of liters of lactated ringer's, and a type and cross for 2 liters of blood plus some, a tetanus shot, and prophylactic antibiotic coverage would also be done, but i digress...

Originally posted by Mog
Okay, I'm not doctor but I'm simply stating what I've learned from my anatomy class.

He was stabbed in the gut, which looked dead center to me right below the belly button. I'm not exactly sure what organs he could've hit, but if there is anyone who knows that kinda stuff I hope someone sheds light. But I'm positive it was that specific region. If it was to the side, he probably would've had 20 minutes to live, if he stabbed the liver.

The second blow, however, according to memory, wouldn't really be a death blow. I don't particularly remember it being anywhere near the heart. I remember it being just below his right shoulder, which is nowhere near the pericardial cavity (<--anatomy class terminology - go me).

pay more attention in that anatomy class (or maybe you guys/gals haven't gotten there yet) lol.
in any event, below the belly button, there's not much to hit... bladder and large intestine/colon are the only things in the region.

liver laceration, nasty injury... but the liver's high in the abdomen on the right side.

getting hit in the right shoulder, you're right, is nowhere near the heart, but it is near the right lung. getting a puncture wound there could cause a pneumothorax (air in the chest cavity as opposed to the lung itself) or a hemothorax (blood in the chest cavity, as opposed to inside the blood vessels)... both treatable (if you recognize them) with relatively simple means

and someone asked why not stockpile tons of medicines... they don't last forever, thus the expiration dates that are on the bottles. :D penicillin would be good for maybe 2 to 3 years tops.

[Mog]

Thanks for clearing up all the medical stuff, El. Awesome insight.

[TheDeadWalk]

*** SPOILERS ***


I felt that the noises were made by the elders in some way or shape, or at least Noah felt that they were. That was part of his applauding routine, as he was being entertained by their tricks it seemed.

Also, he wasn't THAT retarded. He was just stupid and mischevious. He even grasped upon the concept that Ivy was blind, and tricked her twice in the film before attempting his assault.

[Lazy Boy]

Rating: 7/10


**CONTAINS SOME SPOILERS**


M. Night Shyamalan is a terribly gifted director, in my opinion. In his prior films, he knows the exact shots he wants and films them on camera with precision. Nothing in the way that he structures his shots suggests anything less than devotion to the art of storytelling. Alas, he just has to include one scene in all his other films that scar the final product. The "Stuttering Stanley" scene from The Sixth Sense; the "son with a gun" scene from Unbreakable; or the mushy last supper between the isolated family in Signs. Three badly directed scenes, but all good and interesting, thought provoking films.

Interestingly enough, The Village has, IMO, zero bad scenes. I wouldn't have taken out a single one, and I was astonished that everything seemed to fit. What appeared like an absurd plot contrivance on the first viewing seemed like clockwork on the second viewing. Then, how come I am so equally frustrated and fascinated with this movie? The writing isn't his best. In fact, his scripts have generally become weaker since THE SIXTH SENSE. The phrase style over substance comes to mind. I loved the sense of tight-knit community among the villagers, a sense of innocence lost and a pacifist hope for the future of the village, but the film stubbornly wants you to believe its a spooky thriller when it isn't. Put all the red cloaks and magic rocks and hokum aside; I was absorbed by the tenderness and care involved in visualizing scenes of simple, damn the torpedoes, innocent love. It's about love overcoming harm and danger, and how certain types of love (protection against the things of our past) can seem idealistic and cruel at the same time.

I didn't want to read spoilers before the film came out, and I'm glad I didn't, even though I had an inkling of a theory concerning where the story was headed, but I'm glad I was right. Honestly, I don't know whether or not the twist was necessary (I'm more concerned of the placement of the revelation in the shed). But, as with THE SIXTH SENSE, I get an idea that Shyamalan is wanting to shy us away from being wowed at his big twists, and focus on it simply as a plot revelation, integral to the rest of the story. Here, I think it works. At first, it felt like a cheat towards the audience, making the first act seem discountable just as soon as they were getting involved. But, it worked for me.

Some have mentioned the deeper subtext of using fear to keep a group of people in a bubble, isolated from the horrors of the real world, a concept that Shyamalan seems to be very interested in (see: Bruce Willis not being a part of society in TSS or UNBREAKABLE, Mel Gibson and family isolated on their farm). This time, one could automatically see the parallels to the current fear-mongering our "leaders" have put the American public, or you could just see the film as a thought-provoking film, nothing more, nothing less. It's your choice, and I like how Shyamalan doesn't seem to outright tar and feather the elders for their actions (honorable in intent, sad in outcome). He's letting the audience add things to the movie, things they may get out of it. Once again, though, some of the writing is of the sermonizing, "tell instead of show" variety. William Hurt's speech impediment permits him to say...everything...slowly...as...if...he...has...s omething...grandiose...to...say...in a key scene. Despite the silliness of the dialogue at times, the movie sure seems to take a stand alongside a film like DOGVILLE for its portrayal of fear among a small village community, althought both films differ in how the villagers react to such fear.

Some quick notes:

-- Speaking again about the dialogue: the artificiality of its original intent seems forced and belabored upon initial viewing, but the reason for it and the lengths to which the elders would go to enforce it makes them either delusionaly or highly dedicated, take your pick.

-- Because of said dialogue, some performances are better than others. Strangely enough, this doesn't seem to help Sigourney Weaver, who gives the most stilted performance of the film. In turn, the veteran actors are somewhat upstaged by the presence of the younger actors, such as Joaquin Phoenix (strong but taken out of the game long before he can register as a character) and Adrien Brody (terrific in his first meaty role since THE PIANIST, although the character seems more of a one-note distraction, to stab Lucius and make his feelings known for Ivy in a tragic end). Speaking of the best acting in the bunch...

-- Bryce Dallas Howard. The last time Shyamalan hooked such a resonant performance was with the astonishing Haley Joel Osment. This is the second, and, like the tiny tike with the shuddery nerves, Opie's daughter should and could receive some year-end award merit. She's fantastic in this; for such a debut performance, she only falters once in my book (an early bit of blindness that doesn't make Ivy appear..well, blind). Tomboyish, full of innocence and inner strength even when she's trembling on the outside, Ivy is probably the meatiest female role written by Shyamalan. Even after the plot turns and Lucius ends up wounded and in need of medicine, what more can one say about the power of love than what she shows to him? "It is my burden," she replies to one cowardly villager who abandons her on the quest to seek the cure. When one realizes that Walker sent her to the outside world because her blindness would not allow her to see that, in fact, the village is a sham, a shell within a shell of a preserve within a shell of a nation larger than she could have understood, does one get as sad as I did? Is her strength enough to overcome that fact that, well, she was being used?

What a thought provoking movie, but also a frustrating one because of its weaknesses. It is not the movie it's advertised to be; when one person claims he/she wants his money back because he expected horror, I say to myself, "Well, if it didn't work as a horror film, couldn't you rate it for what it was and what it turned out to be, instead of what you hoped?"

Screw Mel Gibson and Michael Moore. This film is going to be the divisive polemic of the year, just as much as those films were, with a lot of people. Out of the three, I find Shyamalan's work to be the most mature and least finger-wagging, even with its unfortunate moments of pretentious pompousness.

If my original grade was a 6, and now it is a 7 after viewing number two, maybe the third time is the charm and it will become an even richer film than I can hope for.

[Lazy Boy]

...

[dannywalker17]

Okay I must respond to some things. First I will say that I loved this movie. I gave it a 9/10 because there were just a few minor things that didn't come together, but it is still an amazing film and Shyamalan's most mature to date.

Oh also, Common Sense Man already responded to alot of things exactly as I would have, but I must add to some things.

Luscious wounds.

I saw the movie twice already. I don't recall where the second stab was. The first time I was in shock and the second time I was completely distracted by a bunch of idiot girls who were laughing. My dad saw it with me. He is a doctor and he had no qualms with the fact that Luscious survived. Secondly, there were some medicines there in the Village because we see a CU shot of a bottle of clear liquid. We also did not see what kind of medicines Ivy brought back. We can't just assume it was pennicillin. We also can't assume it had been 30+ minutes before he was found. Noah stabs him twice, then goes to his porch, sits down, and his parents immediately come out and find him covered with blood. OBVIOUSLY, this would cause extreme panic in the Village. Word would have been out immediately, and that's when Ivy hears what has happened. The girl tells her he's covered with "quarts of blood" (NOT gallons). This is an expression. It means he's covered with blood. It does not mean that they started wringing out his clothes and measured how much blood was there and it was 3 quarts. It doesn't take much blood to cover someone's clothes. So Ivy immediately runs to Luscious house and finds him. It can't have been more than 10 minutes. Then the elder guy that obviously was a doctor in the Towns closes off the wounds, but Luscious has an infection. This is completely plausible and he would have only needed more advanced medicines to kill the infection and speed up the healing.

Boom mics.

As I said, I've seen it twice and I saw no mics or shadows.

None of the supposed "plot holes" lack a logical explanation, except maybe where all those 100+ villagers came from in 20 years. Thats the only one that bothers, me, and the main reason I don't give it a 10/10.

But all in all, completely contrary to what Joblo said in his review, I felt that this movie was huge step away from relying on plot twists, as was the case with Sixth Sense especially but also Unbreakable and Signs. With the Village, Shyamalan has really come into his own as a director, creating an extremely well made movie that doesn't rely so much on his script. It's still an amazing story, but the meat of it and the greatness of it lies in the characters, the romance, and the themes of fear of the unknown.

I wholly agree that people were too specific in their expectations. Do people REALLY want just another Sixth Sense, or can they be happy with something very different but very good? Way to go Night.:D

[general_taste]

Enjoyed it.

Anyone else laugh when Noah's mom cried at the end? A friend and I couldn't help it. Yes, we are sadistic bastards.

The setting twist was partially spoiled for me, and the friend suspected it.

Possibly Shyamalan's worst [I'm an UNBREAKABLE fan], but it quietly blows most of the movies this summer out of the water.

[sharkstank]

Originally posted by adamjohnson
No, it wasnt. Did everyone forget aboutt he scene where they were (Hurt and Weaver) in the empty house together. And Hurt kept saying "That is all I can give you." He was saying he cant love her!

But, hey, thanks for quoting me not once, but TWICE. Yes, I am a snowflake.

but how much time was given to the relationship in the first place? 20, 30 seconds?
maybe i should have used thrown together and useless in stead of forgotten. good point though

WWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[bskutle]

It's not for a lack of interest that the latest supernatural thriller from writer-director M. Night Shyamalan rates lower than his previous three ("The Sixth Sense," "Unbreakable," and "Signs" all rate 4 stars in my opinion)- "The Village" held mine. Nor is it a lack of craftsmanship- cinematographer Roger Deakins ("Fargo"), production designer Tom Foden ("The Cell"), editor Christopher Tellefsen ("The People vs. Larry Flynt"), costume designer Ann Roth ("Signs"), and especially composer James Newton Howard (who writes his most brilliant score for Shyamalan yet) make the production values of "The Village" every bit as meticulous as they were on the earlier films. Nor is it a lack of acting chops- though there is one significant weaklink (Adrien Brody's Noah is too cliched a case of mentally-challenged "wildchild" to merit casting such a fine actor, though he has two scenes of powerful merit), the major players in the cast- William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, Brendon Gleeson, Joaquin Phoenix, and particularly the radient Bryce Dallas Howard (director Ron's daughter)- inhabit their characters beautifully, and make you believe their motives.

So what's wrong with "The Village?" Besides Brody's character, there's the pacing. I can't see it needing to be shortened, and thank God it's not longer. The 105 minute running time is par for the course for Shyamalan, but boy did it not move, and I don't mean in the good, compelling Kubrickian or Tarkovsky-esque way I can stand. We're talking old-fashioned watch checking. Maybe it was because I just had to go to the bathroom really bad, and waiting till the end of the movie was not the easy way to go, but so little happens in each scene, I think I would have had difficulty sitting still regardless.

Also, there's the "big twist" we've come to expect from Shyamalan. Though I love that I didn't see it coming (though maybe I just wasn't perceptive enough), I'm not sure I love the actual twist. For those unaware of the story, here's a rundown- in 1897 Pennsylvania, a community- led by a group of "elders"- has isolated itself and established the town of Covington. Around the town is a forest, where mysterious creatures keep the town isolated from civilization. In exchange, the people of the town do not venture into the woods, nor do the creatures venture into the town. However, a series of events begin to fracture this fragile agreement.

Now, from that summary, can you see where Shyamalan is heading? If so, you're indeed smarter than I am when it comes to "The Village."

Without giving the twist away (I have too much respect for Shyamalan to do that), let me explain why it doesn't quite work- logic gets in the way afterwards. With every other Shyamalan thriller, it doesn't. Not for me, anyway, and not when you consider the story being told. After "The Village," you ask questions you shouldn't be asking. In keeping with the themes of "The Village"- faith, fear, taking care of you own- the twist, and the denoument, works. In its' ability to suck you in, and tantilize you to watch it again to work it out for yourself, "The Village" fails where its' predecessors suceeded. In short, by the end, "The Village" has shown its' hand to the viewer, and the viewer won.

It should be the other way around. Instead of risking your money on another game, you just want your money back.

Grade for "The Village"- B

[The Postmaster General]

One thing I want to say about the language in the film --

Would it really matter how the people talked? The people could have told the town anything they wanted, and the people only know what they know from that town.

They elders could have just as easily talked ghetto, and the next generation would only know that. "Yo' Lucious, me be thinking Ivy's ass needs to be tapped, yo!"

To me, that was the coolest part of the movie. It was a metaphore about the way cultures can be so easily controlled, and made to beleive anything.

[uncle_el]

lazy boy, you have great insight. very nice write up.

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
One thing I want to say about the language in the film --

Would it really matter how the people talked? The people could have told the town anything they wanted, and the people only know what they know from that town.

They elders could have just as easily talked ghetto, and the next generation would only know that. "Yo' Lucious, me be thinking Ivy's ass needs to be tapped, yo!"


lmao. i agree, it probably wouldn't have mattered how people talked.

however, people tend to have a fascination with all things old (hence the current love for old tv show remakes as movies, throwback jerseys, shoes, etc.), and romanticize/fantasisize older times as innocent and devoid of all the things wrong with current society.

with that said, you have a history prof with $ who has a bunch of friends/fellow patients/therapy members who all do not like the society there in... and we know what happens from there. i suppose the old language is used because of the romanticism of times forgotten and/or his need for historical accuracy.


To me, that was the coolest part of the movie. It was a metaphore about the way cultures can be so easily controlled, and made to beleive anything.

exactly (except for the i after e thing, for believe rather than beleive, lol). take that, with the newspaper the boss is reading adn what is said on the radio while reading said paper...

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by uncle_el
lmao. i agree, it probably wouldn't have mattered how people talked.

however, people tend to have a fascination with all things old (hence the current love for old tv show remakes as movies, throwback jerseys, shoes, etc.), and romanticize/fantasisize older times as innocent and devoid of all the things wrong with current society.

with that said, you have a history prof with $ who has a bunch of friends/fellow patients/therapy members who all do not like the society there in... and we know what happens from there. i suppose the old language is used because of the romanticism of times forgotten and/or his need for historical accuracy.


I agree it makes total sense why they picked the time period they did. It's one of the easiest to replicate. It would have been a bit unfeasable to have made the village appear to be in Ancient Rome, or Medevil Times. I think it's a weak criticism for others to complain about any inaccuracies connected with the choice in time periods, or choice of speak. It is impossible for this movie to have an anachronisms, because it wasn't really set in the time it is supposed to be set in. Any that are found, are actually clues.



exactly (except for the i after e thing, for believe rather than beleive, lol). take that, with the newspaper the boss is reading adn what is said on the radio while reading said paper...

Except for the "n" after the "d" thing, for "and" rather than "adn", you are totally correct. (same thing, check my earlier spellings) :p

The newspaper was one more clue as to the message in this film. The Village differed from The 6th Sense and Unbreakable, because it's story was more of an allegory than in the other two movies, which were straight up suspense stories with twists. This one was an alegory with a twist. I think it's hard for some people to appreciate, or see it like that, because there aren't many stories like this in the theaters. When people think of social and political commentary, they think of something like Dr. Strangelove, or Fahrenheit 9/11; movies that are more direct.

I had also figured early on that it was modern times. This is kind of funny, but for me what gave it away was that I was wondering how M. Night would have a camero, and since it would be unlikely to see an Eastern Indian roaming around rural America 1890's.... I was thinking about that and came to the conclusion. Maybe, I'm thinking, that's why I payed so much attention to the allegory part.

[Darth Dzikowski]

Very interesting, to say the least, how divisive this film is among the film going community. I had not read the script review when it came out last year because I didn't want to ruin for me, what the inevitable trailer would (because for the most parts these days -- all you need is a trailer to piece along a plot structure). However when the trailer and marketing came along, I was pleased that the trailer didn't give anything away. But, in every media piece I saw, two glaring thing stuck out in a a big way.

First off, every piece of literature about the movie stated in the first sentence "In 1890's......" Hint #1 given away if you've seen enough movies to know, especially with Night, where things are going. And the #2 dead give away was the way that Adrien Brody was almost nonexistant in any commerical, poster or Entertainment TV show. I mean look at Manchurian Candidate and they have their Academy Award Winners and Nominees in BOLD LETTERING grabbing your attention as too what kind of actors you're going to see in great roles. Now why wasn't the Best Actor from two years ago not even mentioned in the marketing? Maybe because he's part of the secret shit going on? Check on that one too.

Now knowing already these things, you might think I thought less of the movie, but you couldn't be farther from the truth. Not as good as Unbreakable, not as overhyped as The Sixth Sense and not as pretentious as Signs, The Village delivered on almost every level for me. The slow motion rescue of Ivy from the oncoming "elder" and the music accompannying it was masterful, as were the scenes of the stabbing and stalking of Ivy in the woods. Now all he has to do is move a little bit away from the Hitchcockian/Serling-esque type flicks and give me something gritty to sink my teeth into. I 've rread in the New York Daily News about a month or two back that Night was out and about town drinking Belvedere with Fish and Denzel. And hoped to sign them for his next movie.

Overall, 7.5/10

4th on this years movie list behind Bill, Sunshine & Azbakan.