# The village, Yes, it really is that bad



## frankthedm (Jul 30, 2004)

yahoo movies said:
			
		

> Drama, Romance, Science Fiction/Fantasy and Thriller



I thought the acting was good.  But other wise was a let down and falsely advertised. Save your money.





Spoiler



Too bad there was no fantasy or scifi to this movie

The mentally [edit]deficienct[edit] male stabbing the male lead was a VERY good scene. 

The thing in the red cloak is a costume befitting scooby-doo.

The director's self insert wasn't bad. quick bit part, nothing major like in signs.



My gaming group will never forgive me taking them to the midnight showing.


----------



## eris404 (Jul 30, 2004)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I thought the acting was good.  But other wise was a let down and falsely advertised. Save your money.
> My gaming group will never forgive me taking them to the midnight showing.




I was disappointed, for other reasons. Rather pay attention to the story, which is quite good, I found myself looking for clues as to what was really going on, trying to figure it all out - and it isn't hard to guess what it is. The first half is very good, the acting is excellent, and I think he is able to establish a sense of mounting dread. The film visually is gorgeous. Adrien Brody, Joachim Phoenix and Bryce Dallas Howard are wonderful. There is a genuinely shocking and unexpected moment in story that had the audience gasping (it was very well done). I also think Shyamalan poses interesting moral questions in this movie. 

But the second half is clunky: the revelations (such as they are), come too quickly and I kept wishing he had (not a real spoiler, but just in case I'll put it in spoiler tags) 



Spoiler



just made a simple monster movie


.

I'd say rent it or go to a cheap theatre if you want to see it. It isn't a terrible movie, and better than a lot of garbage Hollywood puts out, it's just flawed.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 30, 2004)

Yeah, early press from the critics have the movie as pretty mediocre too.  I was excited to go see it today, but maybe we'll pass and see _Bourne Supremacy_ instead.


----------



## buzzard (Jul 30, 2004)

I was never sure if I wanted to see it in the first place, and when the Wall Street Journal tore it a new one, that confirmed the skip. 

buzzard


----------



## wizardneedsfood (Jul 31, 2004)

Started off strong, nice slow build. Even the good early part was slow, but I can live with that. Then once the first revelation happened, the collective audience let out a loud groan and basically the film was not entertaining anymore. Like a really bad and long episode of the Twilight Zone.


----------



## Krug (Jul 31, 2004)

Ebert gave it one *... oh oh.


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 31, 2004)

wizardneedsfood said:
			
		

> Like a really bad and long episode of the Twilight Zone.



Closer to scooby doo IMHO


----------



## Tokiwong (Jul 31, 2004)

Fun movie, I enjoyed it... not what you think though...


----------



## Kai Lord (Jul 31, 2004)

I have to say I too was underwhelmed.  I guessed the main twist about halfway through, but only because it was Shyamalan and I _knew_ there'd be a major twist.  Its funny, just his involvement with a movie is a major spoiler nowadays.  Didn't much care for the twist, particularly because its the kind that gives a movie absolutely ZERO rewatch value.

Some very nice "filmmaking" and outstanding performances, but the story was lacking.  In many respects, it was a very slickly polished tease.


----------



## wizardneedsfood (Jul 31, 2004)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Closer to scooby doo IMHO




The concept was Twilight Zone. The execution was Scooby Doo. And we're talking bad episodes of both.


----------



## MythosaAkira (Jul 31, 2004)

eris404 said:
			
		

> The first half is very good, the acting is excellent, and I think he is able to establish a sense of mounting dread. The film visually is gorgeous. Adrien Brody, Joachim Phoenix and Bryce Dallas Howard are wonderful. There is a genuinely shocking and unexpected moment in story that had the audience gasping (it was very well done).




I completely agree. If that scene is the one I'm thinking about, given the nature of what was involved, I think that made it even more horrific in its delivery (man, that wasn't too vague, was it?  Trying not to spoil anything...)

Personally, I figured out the ending twist about half-way through or so, and I was really hoping that what I was thinking _wasn't_ going to be how it turned out.

One thing I noticed (spoiler warning): 



Spoiler



At times it seemed like some of the characters slipped out of their "period" speech into a more modern style. I'm used to this in many "period" movies, but I'm wondering if this was actually intentional in this film. In retrospect, I recall noticing this with some of the elders, but not with characters like Ivy. If this happened *only* with the elders, it might have been due to their having come from the "modern" world (as modern as the 70's was). I might be off here but if this was the case and it was intentional, it was a nice subtlety.



Anyway, it was a fun movie but not quite what I was hoping for.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 31, 2004)

Wow. I'm surprised at the reactions here. I and part of my game group went to see it last night, and we all enjoyed/liked it. 

And from what I could tell, hearing the laughter at the proper spots, and gasps at the proper spots, I thought the audience was enjoying it too.

I sometimes wonder about this forum -- LOTR is over the top great, and everything else sucks. <shakes head>

Quasqueton


----------



## wizardneedsfood (Jul 31, 2004)

No, it's not that. I like a ton of other movies as well besides LOTR. Then again, the vast majority of people I've talked to on several different forums covering widely varying topics disliked the film. The first half bored me and the second half was just dumb almost to the point of insulting my intelligence. 

Then again, I'm the guy who liked Troy and Van Helsing, so what do I know?


----------



## aurance (Jul 31, 2004)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I sometimes wonder about this forum -- LOTR is over the top great, and everything else sucks. <shakes head>
> 
> Quasqueton




Uhm... no? What forum have _you_ been reading?


----------



## MarauderX (Jul 31, 2004)

It was pretty good, but as others have said the second half kinda strings along.............



Spoiler



At the very end, I couldn't help but think M. Knight stole the ending from Monty Python and the Holy Grail


----------



## KChagga (Aug 1, 2004)

Ugh.   I guess the movie was ok, but I am severly disappointed in it.  I can't believe that this movie will do much business once word of mouth gets out.  Definitely Scooby Doo does Twilight Zone.  I kept expecting them to come across old mr. Withers.  :\ 

I say to hell with you M. Night Shamalamadingdong.  All movies don't have to have twists and this one would have been much better without your crappy twist.

One big thumbs down to this movie.


----------



## Dr Midnight (Aug 1, 2004)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> ...The retard...



Yeah, ha ha, the retard! 

I have a family member with Down's Syndrome. You wouldn't use that word if you understood what it feels like to hear or read it in reference to the likes of someone you care about.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 1, 2004)

Signs was a good movie. But, at some point, the guy has to stop using the same formula. The more we expect a big twist, the less effective it is.


----------



## EricNoah (Aug 1, 2004)

Dr Midnight said:
			
		

> You wouldn't use that word if you understood what it feels like to hear or read it in reference to the likes of someone you care about.




Agreed ... folks, this isn't a term we like to have used around here; it's rude and insensitive at best.


----------



## Pielorinho (Aug 1, 2004)

Saw it Friday night, and I agree with most of what was said above.  If you want to go see it, you can actually far improve the movie, IMO, by reading the spoiler below:



Spoiler



it takes place in modern times


 
I was guessing that that was the case during the first couple of scenes, and as the movie progressed I was hoping that wasn't going to be a big twist, because it was so freakin' obvious, and when it was the twist, it was really disappointing.  If he'd just come out and made it clear from the beginning, I wouldn't have been so distracted by it, and the later events would've been that much MORE mysterious and interesting.

That said, there was one humongously stupid hole in the movie:



Spoiler



We've got a strong, violent, mentally ill member of our village!  We've got a prison for him!  We've got these scary monster costumes!  I know--LET'S KEEP ONE OF THE COSTUMES IN HIS PRISON!  

Sheesh.  The movie would've worked just as well if Noah had escaped from his prison via the floorboards, broken into the shed, and snagged one of the costumes there.  This was really dumb, IMO


 
Daniel


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Aug 1, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Saw it Friday night, and I agree with most of what was said above.  If you want to go see it, you can actually far improve the movie, IMO, by reading the spoiler below:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Haven't seen it yet, but I'll try this "Pielorinho Technique" to enhance the movie.....


----------



## Andrew D. Gable (Aug 1, 2004)

Personally, I liked it lots.  Rewatch value?  Maybe not, but it was cool.  Anyhow, I did get a neat idea for a DnD monster from this.  I'll spoiler it since, well...



Spoiler



When the blind girl was saying about seeing colors for people and stuff, I had this idea that that was how the creatures were, mayhaps the whole race was blind and the reason they disliked red was because they could sense something else, and it was *more* than red to them.  So I'm thinking of some sort of monster that can see synaesthetically.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 1, 2004)

Don't waste your time or money on this.

I am so angry at this thing I can't see straight. I've anticipated this film for months, but as I usually do I've paid no attention whatsoever to spoilers. No, I've not built it up in my mind to the point where no movie would have ever satisfied me.

I don't mind twists, esp. of the kind this director does. Face it: I'm just not the type to figure out anything beforehand, so to me all the twists he's done have been completely out of left field. 

That's not why I feel I wasted $5.00 and two hours of my Sunday. 

It's because I was actively lied to by the trailer. This is no monster movie, no SF or fantasy within it at all. More akin to the vague classification of 'psychological thriller' without much psychology or thrills in the offing, save the vague horror at a group of people so deluded and self-possessed that they'd let someone die rather than use the means they have at their disposal to save him. A _good_ but stereotypical twist would have been to have the elders kill someone every now and then to 'protect the secret' as it were. That at least could have brought it off as a 'horror' movie.


----------



## swrushing (Aug 2, 2004)

i saw it and liked it. I too stumbled onto the twist less than halfway thru and really only because my mind was looking for "whats the twist?" all the while i was watching. 

"The scene" was great and surprisingly shocking. 

I do agree it has little to no rewatch value, which makes repeat business and legs at the box office a non-issue.

A question for those who saw it tho


Spoiler



one of the people i saw it with mentioned a subtitled date presented at the beginning of the film, something like "the 1800's". I did not see it. Was it there? If so, that is annoying because its feeling like cheating on the twist." Do any of you recall it?


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Aug 2, 2004)

swrushing said:
			
		

> A question for those who saw it tho
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...






Spoiler



It wasn't a subtitle, it was the dates presented on the gravestone of the child they were burying in the opening scene. It listed his birth and death dates as "1890-1897".


----------



## Pseudonym (Aug 2, 2004)

Just got back from seeing The Village with my fiance and a few friends.  I left the theater with the same feeling I got when I finished sitting through Contact.

I'll echo the sentiments of others who felt a little decieved by the trailer.  It's not that I expect trailers to be complete giveaways, but it clearly wasn't as advertised.  Much as I imagine I would feel if Alien vs. Predator turned out to be a buddy movie.

Anyhow, I was into it until 



Spoiler



the shot of the first one of Those We Do Not Speak Of running underneath the watchtower.  I thought, The bad guy is Santa Clause?


 
As a side bit of annoyance, for 



Spoiler



something called Those We Do Not Speak Of, they sure spoke about them an awful lot.


  Maybe petty, but it annoyed me.

I'm not sure if the film was intended to have comedic moments, but there were scenes when the whole theater laughed.

I can appreciate the Sci-Fi network's fake documentary in a different light, given that 



Spoiler



the blind girl running from the guy in the outfit had a very Blair Witch vibe to it.


 
Oh well, there are worse ways to spend a Sunday evening.  That being said, I would definately recomend this as a rental.


----------



## Tewligan (Aug 2, 2004)

Well, phooey, this is really disappointing. I've been looking forward to this movie for a while now, but I'm not seeing many positive things said about it anywhere. Crap. Maybe I'll go see it when it hits the cheap theaters - doesn't sound like that'll take too long.


----------



## The_lurkeR (Aug 2, 2004)

I'm really surprised by the reaction here, I thought it was an excellent film.   
The audience I saw it with reacted well throughout the movie, and heavy chatter began as soon as the credits started rolling.

If it was done by anyone other than Night, I think peoples reactions might have been different. He's a victim of his own fame in that people now walk into the theaters trying to figure it out, instead of enjoying the movie experience. Rather than feel betrayed by "the twist", I would think people should congratulate him for making them feel and believe like the characters in the film.

I also have to call B*S* on the people who "figured it out from the beginning". There is nothing in the film which telegraphs the end, before Night begins to reveal it. If you happened to guess it, it's nothing other than lucky meta-gaming.

The film was beautiful, well acted, well directed, and with deeper themes than just "the twist". I feel sorry for people who can't see and enjoy it for that.


----------



## mmu1 (Aug 2, 2004)

I haven't seen the movie yet, but had it spoiled (and have to say I don't mind, I won't go see it now and end up annoyed). Having said that, here's one point I was thinking about:



Spoiler



Considering that these people are just living on some nature preserve in the modern day, and don't tell the truth about the outside world... Why do they bother to pretend that it's the 1890's, wear the quaint clothes, etc.? Why not use the real date, and make homespun t-shirts instead? It's not as if they're going to teach their kids the real world history and geography circa 1900 anyway, because their little world is slightly behind the times even by 1900 standards, and the true US history could potentially raise a lot of questions / stir up curiosity. 

I can see saying no to technology, but that's completely different than specifically pretending to live 100 years in the past. Hell, the Amish let their children rollerblade - they don't care that it's a modern invention, as long as it doesn't break any of their rules.

The world in the movie is not really internally consistent because of this - it's just designed to be the way it is to trick the audience into making certain assumptions, which seems rather lame...


----------



## Gunslinger (Aug 2, 2004)

I was really disappointed by this movie.  I went in expecting a horror movie based on the trailers, and that isn't what I got at all.  Its funny how in every thread about this movie at every board I visit someone has mentioned the resemblance to Scooby Doo, which is exactly what I was thinking as I left the theater.



Spoiler



One thing I didn't get though, was why was the government protecting them by diverting flight paths from going over the reserve and such?


----------



## Pielorinho (Aug 2, 2004)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> I also have to call B*S* on the people who "figured it out from the beginning". There is nothing in the film which telegraphs the end, before Night begins to reveal it. If you happened to guess it, it's nothing other than lucky meta-gaming.



Maybe--but I'm normally pretty awful at guessing twists, and this one was so obvious to me that I was really hoping I was wrong.  And I was partly wrong:  



Spoiler



When Ivy was taken to The Shed That We Don't Use to be shown something, I was half-expecting dad to show her a motorcycle .


 
I do believe the movie would've been better if this had been clear from the beginning, as follows:



Spoiler



The people in the village had to have excellent tools, right?  After all, they had no source of metal beyond what they brought with them, so their tools were going to have to last many decades.  If there'd been some shots in which we saw that their hammers, their saws, their cooking pots, and so forth had modern names stamped on them; if we'd seen rubberized seals for the water pumps; if we'd seen other incontrovertible signs of modernity, then that would have _increased_ the mystery for me.  Instead of thinking, "oh, please, don't let this be set in modern times," I would've been thinking, "This is set in modern times?  What the heck's going on here?


 
The mood was great, the acting was superb, the visuals were breathtaking.  The story, IMO, was awful.  I credit Shyamalan for doing many things right, but I desperately wish he would team up with a writer who would rein in his worse impulses, who could give him a plausible and non-hokey story to tell.

Daniel


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Aug 2, 2004)

Pseudonym said:
			
		

> As a side bit of annoyance, for
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I said the exact same thing to my friends when we left the theatre. Ugh.



> I can appreciate the Sci-Fi network's fake documentary in a different light, given that
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Again, going to have to agree with you on this one. 



Spoiler



Even the camera movements seemed "Blair Witchy".

Just wasn't that impressed at all, sadly. And not just because I'd figured out the "plot twist" months ago, when the news of the picture first started to come to light. (Not trying to brag, because it really wasn't all that intuitive of me, necessarily- just the name of the movie, "The Village"- shades of "The Prisoner", as well as the early advertising screamed "big conspiracy by the elders to shelter us from the outside modern world" to me. Also had the elements of the Morlocks/Eloi thing. 

And there was a tv show that was similar- I want to say it was an episode of "The Outer Limits", where the people are survivors of an alien attack and oppressed inside of a town, and they finally rise up and open the doors, only to see that the outside world is lush and beautiful and has recovered from the war and the aliens are gone. Does anyone else remember the show I'm talking about?

I did think the Elders were going to be more actively malicious in their oppressiveness than they turned out, though. Got me there, Night!


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Aug 2, 2004)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> I also have to call B*S* on the people who "figured it out from the beginning". There is nothing in the film which telegraphs the end, before Night begins to reveal it. If you happened to guess it, it's nothing other than lucky meta-gaming.




I don't know about "lucky meta-gaming", though I would say that there isn't anything in the film itself that telegraphs the ending. As I posted above, I figured out what the likely story/ending would be months before it ever came out simply based on my observation of early info about it, and comparison to similar movies/stories, such as 



Spoiler



The Prisoner- ie, the title of the film, 'The Village'; Morlocks/Eloi comparisons; and some tv movie or something that was similar- an episode of "The Outer Limits" IIRC; not to mention just similar things I've probably seen/read and just can't recall.


 Couple that with Night's reputation for "surprise plot twists" and it all added up to me.

Still, there were moments when I thought maybe I was wrong, and- towards the end- moments when I hoped that maybe there'd be additional twists that I hadn't seen coming.

In the end, though, I just don't think it was as strong as "The Sixth Sense" or "Unbreakable". I'd have to watch it again to pinpoint exactly what I felt was off about it, but just offhand, I'd say the pacing was too slow. That's the only criticism I can really make without looking at the movie more in depth.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Aug 2, 2004)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> I haven't seen the movie yet, but had it spoiled (and have to say I don't mind, I won't go see it now and end up annoyed). Having said that, here's one point I was thinking about:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I wondered the same thing. The only thing I could think of is this: 



Spoiler



Walker mentions he was an American History teacher in the "real world." Presumably, then, he is using old texts for his teaching, and therein they probably mention dates and things, so in order to explain the dates away to the students, they pretend they're living in the past.



However:



> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The world in the movie is not really internally consistent because of this - it's just designed to be the way it is to trick the audience into making certain assumptions, which seems rather lame...




I suspect this theory of yours is closer to the truth.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Aug 2, 2004)

Gunslinger said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I didn't get though, was why was the government protecting them by diverting flight paths from going over the reserve and such?




I think it has something to do with: 



Spoiler



Recall that Walker's brother who was shot and killed was a billionaire. That is, presumably, where he got the money to buy/maintain the Walker 'Wilderness Preserve' that they live on, and to pay for the guards who patrol its borders. Presumably, then, some of that money goes to directly finance the government to keep flights from passing over the property, or maybe to pay lobbyists in the government to press legislation that would keep the airways free.


----------



## wizardneedsfood (Aug 2, 2004)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> The film was beautiful, well acted, well directed, and with deeper themes than just "the twist". I feel sorry for people who can't see and enjoy it for that.




The acting was decent, the directing was solid but questionable at times. I've seen a lot more beautiful films lately, ones that are more hack fests than true dramas. Maybe their were deeper themes, but they were so lost in a horrible and contrived plotline that I surely didn't notice them. The utter lack of sense the movie made seriously made my head hurt. This has nothing to do with the movie being made by Night. I disliked it because the only redeeming quality about the whole film for me was the score.

But yeah, that's all opinion. I was expecting something different than what I got, but that's not why I disliked it. The whole thing was just extremely too contrived to me, and this coming from a guy who loved how everything worked together perfectly in "Signs".


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Aug 2, 2004)

Sounds to me like the problem wasn't with the movie, rather it was with the trailer.  I'm hearing lots of "it's not what I expected" or "I wanted it to be scarier" from y'all.  I do agree that the trailer was misleading.

However, I enjoyed this movie a lot.  I enjoyed the idea of "how far are people willing to go to protect what they believe is right..."

I mean, it was pretty out there, yet reasonable enough.  I liked it.

But what do I know...


----------



## Delgar (Aug 3, 2004)

I'll have to chime in and say the movie was bad, very, very bad. Many people in the audience booed at the end of the movie.

Personally, I think the movie would have been better without the twist, what the director actually presented us with was false suspense and in the end the only people cheated are the audience. I think had the movie had no twist, and just told a story, it might have been interesting. But I think the big problem is, most people feel cheated by the twist, because he didn't really do it in a soild creative way, like he did in the sixth sense.

This movie is not worth seeing, spend your money on watching Spiderman again, or go see Harold and Kumar. I think it's about time we put Mr. Shaymalan out to pasture.

Delgar


----------



## Dr Midnight (Aug 3, 2004)

Delgar said:
			
		

> I think it's about time we put Mr. Shaymalan out to pasture.



That's right, one less-than-stellar film out of four means you need to be shut down. 

C'mon.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Aug 3, 2004)

I really enjoyed the movie, even though I had figured out part of the twist in the first five minutes of the movie (honestly). However, I didn't figure out 



Spoiler



it was really set in our modern day, mainly because I believed the tombstone dates


 until right as it was being revealed to the audience. 



Spoiler



But the fact that the elders were behind it all, and the monsters were just made-up -- yeah, I figured it out real fast


 
I think many of you are getting too hung up on the twist element, and not paying enough attention to the story. It was a well-done little morality play, and raised some serious questions about the steps people are willing to go in order to feel safe or to protect their children. But sometimes in going to those extremes, you can do as much harm as good, if not more.

Also, the woods are used as wonderful metaphor for the sexual awakening of the children raised in the village.

The acting was terrific. And the cinematography and the score were very good.

Some other spoiler-related comments to things posted above: 



Spoiler



Someone said the suspense was false. Yes, for the audience it ultimately was. But not for the characters -- at least the young people. The suspense was real, especially for the blind girl when she was in the woods. Just imagine if you were one of those children, raised in that environment, with fear of the woods and those creatures instilled into you every day. The fear exhibited by the young people was genuine, because it was genuine for them.

Some others posted that it seemed the village was needlessly 19th century. I don't think so. The elders were running away from the dangers of 20th century life. They believed the "good old days" of the 19th century offered less danger to them and their children. But they forgot that basic human emotions and instincts remain no matter what the technology level of the surrounding culture. Less complicated technology doesn't equal a less complicated lifestyle, nor less complicated emotions and feelings. These problems are as old as Adam and Eve, and Cain and Abel.

As for how they kept the airplanes from flying over the preserve -- yes, the Walker fortune funds a Walker Wildlife Preserve, and there are probably lawyers and directors and lobbyists and advocates on the outside -- all of whom have no idea what is going on inside the preserve -- fighting to keep the real world out. Setting it up as a wildlife preserve is pretty smart, because there are lots of laws, protections and guidelines set up IRL to protect such preserves.


 
One complaint I do have about the trailer: 



Spoiler



I remember in the trailer, either in a voiceover by a narrator or as dialogue spoken by William Hurt's character, that the pact between the village and the creatures had existed for centuries, or at least a century. When some of the characters started mentioning about living in the towns beyond the woods, before coming to the village, I was confused because from the trailer I had come to believe that several generations had lived in the village. So that was misleading.


----------



## wizardneedsfood (Aug 3, 2004)

Honestly the twist wasn't what made me dislike the movie. The twist was the final nail in the coffin that made it such a bad movie in my view. I can see where maybe he was trying to do a morality play, but it was so badly done that I'm still not certain exactly what his point was. I think it has something to do with a Utopian society, but I felt that Terry Goodkind's latest book did a much better job covering the topic even as heavy handed as it was.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Aug 3, 2004)

Not a Utopian society, but just people going to extreme measures to protect their children -- at least on the small scale. On the large scale, the dangerous measures people will go to in order to feel "safe" -- such as the Patriot Act and the establishment of Homeland Security after 9/11. I don't want this thread to turn into a political discussion -- since those are forbidden here -- but that is one of the points he is trying to get across with this movie.


----------



## The Serge (Aug 3, 2004)

I must confess that I'm astounded by the reaction _The Village_ is suffering from some of the more intelligent people out there.  Astounded and disappointed.

It's a mistake for people to go to a movie with an expectation of anything other than to see a good movie.  When this occurs, potential gems -- like _The Villgage_ or _Fight Club_ -- end up doing poorly because movie viewers want to be lead around by the nose.  It's to the point now that most trailers tell you everything you need to know about a movie without needing to see it.

This movie was excellent in that it covered so many issues relevant not just to our time, but to any.  Sure, it's obvious that Shyamalan is influenced by other "time-out-of-time" stories and such, but to the general movie going population, this is something new.  The problem is, so many went into this expecting something in particular at ended up with something far deeper than they expected.

The major problem Shyamalan faces in his films is people going to see it with the intent of uncovering the twist rather than doing the unthinkable:  WATCHING THE MOVIE!  It doesn't help that, since all of his films to date have a supernatural/fantastic element to it, that everyone expects the same in all of his films.

There are many gems in this story that, if people put aside their expectations and concentrated on the film, they'd appreciate it.


----------



## Quasqueton (Aug 3, 2004)

Fully agree with The Serge.

Perhaps the trailer for this movie should have been just 10 seconds - show the title, show M. Night's name, and show the opening date. Set up no expectations.

I went to see this movie based solely on the writer/director's name. I'll go see his next movie based solely on his name, too.

Quasqueton


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Perhaps the trailer for this movie should have been just 10 seconds - show the title, show M. Night's name, and show the opening date. Set up no expectations.




That would have been great...he's got the following.  People would have gone to see it, and not been disappointed, I'll bet.


----------



## Pielorinho (Aug 3, 2004)

*The Serge*, believe me when I say that it wasn't the movie's depth that turned me off .  I _got_ what Shyamalan was saying--how could I hnot have gotten it?  He wasn't especially subtle.

But that wasn't the problem.  The acting was great, the mood was great, the themes were interesting, even the basic dilemmas were interesting.  

The problem for me was twofold:
1) He was clearly setting things up to be a twist, and he flubbed the twist terribly, such that instead of being a delight, it was something I dreaded (and not a good kind of dread, either).  That was, for me, a failure on his behalf as a storyteller.
2) Similarly, characters at multiple points in the movie acted in mind-numbingly stupid fashions, without any motives for so acting --especially 



Spoiler



with keeping a monster-suit in Noah's prison


.  Again, this was sloppy storytelling.

These problems were so great for me that they really detracted from my enjoyment of the many things he did right.  It had nothing to do with the trailer, and everything to do with what I saw as structural flaws in the piece itself.

And these things could've been fixed. As I said before, if he'd removed the twist element, the movie would've been tremendously improved:  the twist didn't work at all and served only to distract from the other stuff he was doing.  And thirty seconds more film-time could've removed the biggest plot-hole from the movie, and another couple minutes could've removed several other plot-holes.  To compensate for this, they could've removed such unnecessary bits as 



Spoiler



Noah's long chase of Ivy through the woods


, or just made the movie a few minutes longer.

When intelligent people dislike something, rather than assume those folks have lost their intelligence, it might be worthwhile to look at what their concerns were.  Obviously intelligent people can like this movie, too, but there's no cause for disappointment in us for disliking something you like .

Daniel


----------



## ShadowX (Aug 3, 2004)

I have to ask, where are the major plot twists in Unbreakable and Signs?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 3, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> When intelligent people dislike something, rather than assume those folks have lost their intelligence, it might be worthwhile to look at what their concerns were. Obviously intelligent people can like this movie, too, but there's no cause for disappointment in us for disliking something you like .
> 
> Daniel



What he said.


----------



## Kai Lord (Aug 3, 2004)

ShadowX said:
			
		

> I have to ask, where are the major plot twists in Unbreakable and Signs?



Two twists in Unbreakable:

1.  



Spoiler



First, that its a super hero movie.  Trailers did't even hint at the genre, and suggested it would be more in line with The Sixth Sense.



and

2.  



Spoiler



And the second is that Samuel L. Jackson is really the bad guy.



The twist in Signs is that 



Spoiler



there is no twist, its a straight up alien invasion movie.


----------



## Pielorinho (Aug 3, 2004)

I kinda thought _Signs_ had the twist going on, inasmuch as 



Spoiler



all these random irrelevant things in the guy's life--his daughter's water glass obsession, his son's baseball obsession, his other son's asthma, his dying wife's crazy nonsense words--all came together in the end, stopped being random, turned meaningful.  Based on these events, the protagonist was forced to conclude either that there was a God, or that he was starring in an M. Night Shyamalan movie; for obvious reasons, he concluded the former


 
In any case, the last couple scenes of that movie had me reworking in my head much of what I'd seen previously, which is basically what a good twist accomplishes for me.

I was justa t teh dentist, where I read an interview with Shyamalan.  Boy's got ego, I can say that.

Daniel


----------



## Quasqueton (Aug 3, 2004)

The major twist in _Unbreakable_ is 



Spoiler



Samuel L. Jackson is the bad guy - the super villain to Bruce Willis' super hero.


.

The major twist in _Signs_ is 



Spoiler



everything bad that has happened to Mel Gibson's family (son's asthma, wife's death, daughter's "psychosis" about water, and brother's failure as a baseball player) was to set up his family's survival against the aliens


.

I, too, had "figured out" the twist of _The Village_ before half-way through the movie. But I had it figured that this village was "real", but because of their isolation, didn't know the rest of the world had evolved into the 21st century.

The only reason I figured anything about this movie was because everyone expects a twist in Shyamalan's movies. He's been cursed by his own success, in that everyone knows to look for the secret before they even should expect there to be a secret in the movie.

As I said, I'll still see any movie he writes and directs. I enjoyed _The Village_, and was not upset or "insulted" at all.

Quasqueton


----------



## The Serge (Aug 3, 2004)

*I'm not bothering with spoilder ques in this.  If you haven't seen the movie, you shouldn't be reading this far into the thread.  If you don't want anything spoiled, don't read any further.  See the darn movie.* 



			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> When intelligent people dislike something, rather than assume those folks have lost their intelligence, it might be worthwhile to look at what their concerns were.  Obviously intelligent people can like this movie, too, but there's no cause for disappointment in us for disliking something you like .



Not assuming that anyone here has lost his/her intelligence.  However, I have noticed that a lot of the comments here (and elsewhere) have not revolved around the characterizations or the story, but around the twist and genre expectations.  

Now, I disagree with some of your perspectives, but I don't have a problem with them.  I don't mind people not liking some of the things I like nor am I suggesting that his movie's perfect (I gave it a B- at a Dicefreak's review ).  What I find disappointing is that a lot of people are jumping up and down based upon what they wanted to happen rather than just watching the film and basing an opinion upon what it ended up being.

Frankly, I thought the twist (which I figured out half-way through the film) was fine.  It wasn't surprising, but it was nice to discover that there wasn't some kind of supernatural threat in this film.  Rather, the threat was in the decisions made by the Elders and the manner in which they allowed fear of the real world to affect them and, thereby, affect their children.  I loved that.  I loved how they discover that humanity is still violent and deadly regardless of how one tries to defend against it.  I though the cop out in this film was not because of questionable plot devices (like hiding the suit under the house), but the ultimate decision of the Elders.  These people intentionally ignore that their actions will not and cannot change some of the darker elements of humanity.  They rely on fear and superstition to keep people within boundaries.  In the end, despite this recognition, they continue to essentially live a lie.  There's no indication that anyone really learned anything here.  Hell, they actually rejoice in the death of a character, using the event to perpetuate their own lies.  That's where the cop out is...

This is not a perfect film.  However, I think it's a strong satire that still features troubled features.  Yet, I think there are some gems.  The clues we receive throughout.  The real twist (transferring the heroics from Lucius to Ivy was BRILLIANT) was totally unexpected to me.  I loved the acting as well, and the hyper formal language (which was so stiff that it had to be fake).  There's a lot going on in this film and it seems ashame that so many are focusing on what they wanted rather than what ended up occuring...  The limitation, IMO, is on the viewer in this case, not the director.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Aug 3, 2004)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Not assuming that anyone here has lost his/her intelligence.  However, I have noticed that a lot of the comments here (and elsewhere) have not revolved around the characterizations or the story, but around the twist and genre expectations.




I don't know. I admit to being less than blown away by the twist, but it wasn't that so much as the fact that I found the movie too slow-paced and boring that bothered me. I didn't even think the acting was all that outstanding, frankly, though I'd have to see it a second (or third) time to really develop a solid judgement on that score. 

I do think that if I hadn't already guessed the outcome of the movie, I probably would have been just as disappointed in how heavy-handed the resolution was as both of my friends that I saw the movie were, and as I see many people in this thread were, though.


----------



## Kai Lord (Aug 3, 2004)

The Serge said:
			
		

> There's a lot going on in this film and it seems ashame that so many are focusing on what they wanted rather than what ended up occuring...  The limitation, IMO, is on the viewer in this case, not the director.



That's just silly.  "Oh you didn't like Showgirls?  Well that's because you wanted a good movie!  If you didn't focus on what you _wanted_ as opposed to what occurred you would have seen that the limitation was on _you."_

Nobody is saying that the monsters had to be aliens, or ghosts, or mutants, or werewolves for them to enjoy it.  Just _something_ better than what they turned out to be.  Same for the truth about the village itself.  Its just such a let down, and a sadly lazy effort from such a gifted director.

Its like in writing the script Shyamalan's priorities were "what would make a surprising twist", "what would make a good trailer", and "how can I work in a personal cameo".  And that's it.  The story just wasn't there.  Note to Shyamalan:  If you're going to drop red herrings to lead people away from the real story make sure that the "fake" story the red herrings point to isn't a hundred times more compelling than the real one.


----------



## The Serge (Aug 4, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> That's just silly.  "Oh you didn't like Showgirls?  Well that's because you wanted a good movie!  If you didn't focus on what you _wanted_ as opposed to what occurred you would have seen that the limitation was on _you."_



I don't think it's silly.  I think you're being silly with this asinine example, though.  

_Showgirls_ was weak through and through.  Acting, plotting, pacing...  And this is an attitude across almost all markets.  

With Shyamalan's movies, I've noticed with each film since _Sixth Sense_ attitudes regarding his films have deteriorated because so many are _not_ paying attention to the story, but to the twist and to the implications offered by trailers and previews.



			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Nobody is saying that the monsters had to be aliens, or ghosts, or mutants, or werewolves for them to enjoy it.  Just _something_ better than what they turned out to be.



Like what?  Do they have to be real monsters for the point of the film to be conveyed?  Is that what you're interested in?



			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Same for the truth about the village itself.  Its just such a let down, and a sadly lazy effort from such a gifted director.



Be more specific.



			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> The story just wasn't there.



How was there not a story?



			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Note to Shyamalan:  If you're going to drop red herrings to lead people away from the real story make sure that the "fake" story the red herrings point to isn't a hundred times more compelling than the real one.



Okay, here I can agree with you...  Although perhaps for different reasons.  My major gripe with this film, as I said earlier, is that he cops out.  These people really didn't seem to learn squat in this film and that would have been the compelling ending needed to make this a very good movie IMO.


----------



## Kai Lord (Aug 4, 2004)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Be more specific.



No.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 4, 2004)

the real spoiler...The Village is really a hamlet!    

saw that on the Daily Show, got a kick out of it.


----------



## The Serge (Aug 4, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> No.




Very succinct response.  Thanks!


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Aug 4, 2004)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> the real spoiler...The Village is really a hamlet!




Is it really, though? Or is it a Thorp? (Anyone got their DMG handy?)


----------



## Shadowdancer (Aug 4, 2004)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Okay, here I can agree with you... Although perhaps for different reasons. My major gripe with this film, as I said earlier, is that he cops out. These people really didn't seem to learn squat in this film and that would have been the compelling ending needed to make this a very good movie IMO.



I actually like the fact that it didn't have the pat, expected, typical Hollywood-type happy ending, or at least positive ending. And maybe that's the ultimate twist -- it's more realistic this way. Not everyone learns from their mistakes. Or changes just because their plans didn't work out. Although I've read in interviews that William Hurt says the ending was changed to soften it; I wonder if the DVD will contain the original, alternate ending?

The great irony of the movie is that of the next generation, the young people who will take over when the elders die, the only one who knows part of the truth doesn't know the whole truth because she is blind and couldn't see what she encountered -- both in the woods and over the fence.


----------



## Mark Chance (Aug 4, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Note to Shyamalan:  If you're going to drop red herrings to lead people away from the real story make sure that the "fake" story the red herrings point to isn't a hundred times more compelling than the real one.




That sounds like real life to me. For example, the whackos that cook up all of the ludicrous conspiracy theories and "really true" histories tell much more interesting stories than stable academics who stick to the way things were. When people's imaginations run wild, the results are almost always more interesting then the real thing.

Just a thought.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 6, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Note to Shyamalan:  If you're going to drop red herrings to lead people away from the real story make sure that the "fake" story the red herrings point to isn't a hundred times more compelling than the real one.




Damn straight.


----------



## Krug (Aug 7, 2004)

Dr Midnight said:
			
		

> I have a family member with Down's Syndrome. You wouldn't use that word if you understood what it feels like to hear or read it in reference to the likes of someone you care about.




I quite disliked the movie. Oh yeah how revelatory:


Spoiler



The ***** amognst us will suddenly pop up in our houses to stick a knife into us! They want to dress in funny suits and murder us!Help! help!



The love story was unconvincing, and the lines were trite. And the story was.. well, dumb.



Spoiler



I also thought the dressing of some of the actors seemed pretty modern. Checkered shirts that looked like they had been shopping at Land's End.



Seriously, the disappointment of the summer.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Aug 12, 2004)

Well, I liked it.

Yeah, a bit late, I know, but I just got around to seeing it. And I enjoyed it, even though I was expecting a supernatural element that wasn't there. And, even though 



Spoiler



the monsters weren't real


, they were still threatening and creepy. Nice design, especially in middle focus.

Frankly, like many of the people I've read complaining about this movie, I expected a "monsters in the woods" movie and got, instead a "lengths people will go to to protect their children" movie. Oh well. Although some parts in the middle bored me a bit, I enjoyed the movie as a whole, especially since I didn't try to anticipate the twist ending. Although I would have, personally preferred if 



Spoiler



the twist was, the Elders are making the monster attacks, but there's really something out there.


 But that didn't ruin the movie for me, nor did the "big" shocker with 



Spoiler



it being set in modern times


.  

Demiurge out.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 12, 2004)

Krug said:
			
		

> I quite disliked the movie. Oh yeah how revelatory:




Krug, please refer to Eric's directive on the first page of the thread (posted when he was still an admin); I'd appreciate it if you could edit to comply.

-Hyp.
Moderator


----------



## Frostmarrow (Aug 12, 2004)

Andrew D. Gable said:
			
		

> Personally, I liked it lots.  Rewatch value?  Maybe not, but it was cool.  Anyhow, I did get a neat idea for a DnD monster from this.  I'll spoiler it since, well...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I haven't seen the movie but what Andrew writes got me remembering a thing. My wife's brother is autistic (is that the correct term?). This basically means that he is a wiz at tech but has trouble remembering people. He strongly dislikes change as patterns and clear cut schedules make his life easier. Now for the weird part: He can't see red. That's right he can't see it, so if you wear a red sweater he sees right through you. To him, your head and hands would appear as if floating independantly in the air.


----------



## WanderingMonster (Aug 13, 2004)

The best movie I've ever seen? No.

 Do I want my $8 back? No.

 I rather enjoyed it.


----------



## Cor Azer (Aug 13, 2004)

I enjoyed it too myself. I did figure out the big twist within the first few minutes, but even with that there were still all the whys, so I wasn't disappointed.

The only thing I wish was different, was that the movie end right after Ivy (and the audience) discovers the "twist" - cut out all the exposition at the end, and I think people would have left the theatre with a lot more interesting questions.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 13, 2004)

I saw the movie yesterday (without reading this thread, thankfully) and thoroughly enjoyed myself.  I too figured out the twist partway through, but this didn't bother me, because I know enough to not go into a Shyamalan movie with specific expectations about what's going to happen, or what it is about.  Shyamalan's movies are _never_ advertised as what they're really about.  So unless you've not see his other big movies, you shouln't be basing expectations on the ads.  

I went in looking for a movie with symbolism and decent characterization, and found plenty of both.  

I honestly don't think Syamalan expects the audience to be terribly shocked and awed by the twist in this one.  The twist is there because it is driving the plot, and the emotions, actions and reactions of the characters are better understood and displayed by revealing things later on, rather than right at the start.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 16, 2004)

I thought it was fine.  Sure, the twist was a bit disappointing.  As Kai Lord said, what the movie asked you to believe before turning it around and twisting it was actually much more interesting than the actual story. 

But hey, it was a still a masterfully _crafted_ film.


----------



## ragboy (Aug 16, 2004)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> I also have to call B*S* on the people who "figured it out from the beginning". There is nothing in the film which telegraphs the end, before Night begins to reveal it. If you happened to guess it, it's nothing other than lucky meta-gaming.



I'll call B*S* right back at you. 



Spoiler



Early scene of the movie, two girls sweeping the porch. Both brooms are of the manufactured variety. Wire-wrapped and trimmed.


 That was my first inkling. 

I'm over Shamalamadingdong. He really wants to be Hitchcock and he just can't pull it off. Signs was his first failure. And Unbreakable has been his only movie with actual re-watchability staying power. 

I thought Village would have been a very touching and important movie if he'd just made the darn movie and not tried to retrofit the story into a 'surprise.' The relationships were well built, it was amazingly acted and filmed. The story, both the over-arching one and Ivy's personal story, were nicely constructed and had real depth. 



Spoiler



But, you sit through the thing waiting for someone to get their head bitten off and then get some homage to Blair Witch and Onibaba as the only 'horror.'


 And then you get 'surprised.' 

Blah.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 17, 2004)

ragboy said:
			
		

> I'm over Shamalamadingdong. He really wants to be Hitchcock and he just can't pull it off. Signs was his first failure. And Unbreakable has been his only movie with actual re-watchability staying power.



No, Unbreakable was his first failure.  Signs was his redemption.


----------



## Krieg (Aug 17, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> No, Unbreakable was his first failure. Signs was his redemption.



Ironically Unbreakable is my favorite of M's movies, and probably my favorite superhero movie.

Once you get past the fact that Signs is a movie about individual faith rather than a film about an alien invasion....it becomes far more watchable.


----------



## Psychotic Dreamer (Aug 17, 2004)

Saw the movie last night.  Thought it was ok.  It was nothing special, but not bad either.  It was just a decent movie with a twsit I saw coming.



Spoiler



I think the movie would have been better if the only "twist" had been that the Elders were faking the creatures.  To me the modern world being outside just seemed kind of silly.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 17, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Ironically Unbreakable is my favorite of M's movies, and probably my favorite superhero movie.



Oh, I liked it well enough.  It's hard to argue that it's not his first mis-step, though.  It wasn't nearly as well recieved.  And although I like it, I didn't like it as much as 6th Sense or Signs. 


			
				Krieg said:
			
		

> Once you get past the fact that Signs is a movie about individual faith rather than a film about an alien invasion....it becomes far more watchable.



True.  I guess I got that from the beginning; if you _really_ think about it, the behavior of the aliens is pretty irrational.  Not that aliens have to think like humans or anything, but really -- wandering around in farmhouses and gassing folks from jets on their wrists?  Seems like a pretty weak invasion plan.  But the aliens were really just a backdrop for a well-done story about a guy and his growth from an embittered and sad widower to someone who's moved on and accepted the loss of his wife.


----------



## Pielorinho (Aug 17, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> True. I guess I got that from the beginning; if you _really_ think about it, the behavior of the aliens is pretty irrational.



Aliens?  Those were _aliens_?  And here I was, thinking they were _demons_, sent by God to restore one fellow's faith.

Who (well, besides Shyamalan in copious interviews) thought they were _aliens_?

Daniel


----------



## Krieg (Aug 18, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Oh, I liked it well enough. It's hard to argue that it's not his first mis-step, though. It wasn't nearly as well recieved. And although I like it, I didn't like it as much as 6th Sense or Signs.



I don't really consider popular success as a measure of quality. Unbreakable was an well put together film. It just wasn't what much of the public was expecting at that point...not to mention an underwhelming ad campaign. 



> But the aliens were really just a backdrop for a well-done story about a guy and his growth from an embittered and sad widower to someone who's moved on and accepted the loss of his wife.



Of course Haley Joel Osment was nothing more than a backdrop in a story about Dr. Malcom Crowe's story of redemption as well.

Hmm, a common thread? 





			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Aliens? Those were _aliens_? And here I was, thinking they were _demons_, sent by God to restore one fellow's faith.
> 
> Who (well, besides Shyamalan in copious interviews) thought they were _aliens_?



Well according to Pat Robertson they are one and the same.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 18, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> I don't really consider popular success as a measure of quality. Unbreakable was an well put together film. It just wasn't what much of the public was expecting at that point...not to mention an underwhelming ad campaign.



True, there's plenty of anomolous good movies that don't get the credit they deserve, and plenty of mediocre to plain bad movies that are reasonably popular, but there's some correlation, in general, between good movies and popular movies.  In this case, I tended to agree with the crowd.

I don't remember the ad campaign being underwhelming; I saw plenty of TV spots, billboards, etc.  I was pretty stoked to go actually see the movie. 


			
				Krieg said:
			
		

> Of course Haley Joel Osment was nothing more than a backdrop in a story about Dr. Malcom Crowe's story of redemption as well.
> 
> Hmm, a common thread?



Quite likely.  Shyamalan likes to generally tell a story about a single main character and the changes he (she in the case of the Village) go through.  Although it's not as clear but in the case of 6th Sense when Osment's character went through some pretty major development and growth as well.


----------



## your father is (Aug 22, 2004)

Lots of interesting opinions here.  It's been three weeks and I'm still not sure whether I enjoyed it or not.  I've written my thoughts up at The Internet Review of Science Fiction, if anyone is interested (you may have to subscribe to see it).


----------



## LizardWizard (Sep 28, 2004)

Quite a controversy here, but, alas, it's over.
I'd say that _ The Village _ ranks as one of my favorite films of all time.
And Shyamalan is definitrly one the most talented directors of modern American cinema.
Just my 2 kopeks.


----------



## Reynard (Sep 29, 2004)

I'm not entirely certain why I'm bothering, other than the fact that it is late and most of the posts in this thread stuck in my craw:

Just because you go into a movie expecting one thing, based upon the previous films by the filmaker, and that is not what you gte *does not* mean that the film is flawed.  Rather, your perceptions are flawed because you failed to judge the film on its own merits.

All the posters whining that they "got" the twist too early should watch the movie again.  guess what?  That isn't the point of the movie at all.  The twists is a very small part of the overall story and is there to make us, people living in the modern world, think about what would make us do such a thing, and what lengths we would go to in order to protect those we loved.

As to those that thought it was poorly directed, you're wrong.  And don't say that it is your opinion and therefore you can't be wrong.  You might not have liked it, and you might not have enjoyed the direction, but it is a near perfect example of solid technical direction.  MNS is probably the best damn technical director working today and I wish a lot of directors, the ones that can't stop shaking the freaking camera, would pay attention to his films and learn something.

If you didn't like the actors, the plot, or the theme: you are perfectly entitled to your opinion and while I think you are wrong, I can't say that you are.

/rant

By the way -- Unbreakable is a great movie and is indeed the best superhero origin movie ever made.


----------



## Keeper of Secrets (Sep 29, 2004)

I was not thrilled by the movie but I'll hardly say it sucked, either.  I suspect that one fo the reasons I was less than happy with it is because I was so fond of his other movies and this one did not impress me as much as say, _Signs_.  I thought it was a beautiful movie to look at but as I mentioned to the people I saw it with, I would have been much more impressed if it was a made-for-TV movie rather than something I shelled out 7 bucks for.


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 29, 2004)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Just because you go into a movie expecting one thing, based upon the previous films by the filmaker, and that is not what you gte *does not* mean that the film is flawed. Rather, your perceptions are flawed because you failed to judge the film on its own merits.



First, I'm glad you enjoyed the movie; I wish I had.

That said, no film is inherently flawed or inherently good.  It's *all* a matter of opinion.  _De gustibus_, the Romans say, _non est disputandem_.



> All the posters whining that they "got" the twist too early should watch the movie again. guess what? That isn't the point of the movie at all. The twists is a very small part of the overall story and is there to make us, people living in the modern world, think about what would make us do such a thing, and what lengths we would go to in order to protect those we loved.



I'll thank you not to characterize it as "whining."  It's a criticism of the movie.

I read interviews before the movie came out in which Shyamalan was bragging about the twist.  He did several things in the movie entirely for the purpose of deceiving the viewer, not least of which was misdating the tombstone in the movie's first scene (which served no explicable purpose within the movie's narrative).  The twist was central to the movie's structure.  I wish it had not been; I wish he had explicitly made the twist clear in the first five minutes, because it was uninteresting, as you point out.  He did not.  He built it up, and I therefore thought (based on this movie, not on his previous movies) that it was going to be something interesting.  It did not live up to my hopes.



> As to those that thought it was poorly directed, you're wrong. And don't say that it is your opinion and therefore you can't be wrong.



Sorry, but that's exactly what I'll say.  Claiming that it's poorly directed is a value statement; value statements are *by definition* opinions, and therefore by definition are neither right nor wrong.  I believe it was poorly directed in several ways.

In other ways, it was brilliantly directed, which made my attitude toward the movie all the more complicated.  If it had just been another _Independence Day_, I would've loved dishing on it.  But the acting was wonderful, and the cinematography was beautiful, and most of the scripted dialogue was interesting, and the movie's central conceit was a great one, full of potential.

With a quarter-twist of the Plot Wrench, it could've been one of my favorite movies of the year.  But it was just off enough that I left the theater wanting to wipe the bad taste from my mouth.

Again, I'm glad you enjoyed it.  The fact that I didn't does not reflect poorly on me, any more than the fact that you did reflects poorly on you.

Daniel


----------



## LizardWizard (Sep 29, 2004)

Reynard said:
			
		

> By the way -- Unbreakable is a great movie and is indeed the best superhero origin movie ever made.



And horribly _misunderestimated_ by the general audience, that's for sure.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Sep 29, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> _De gustibus_, the Romans say, _non est disputandem_.




I don't speak Latin. What does this mean?

Further, could someone give me some spoilers about _The Very Small Creepy Town_? Maybe then I can figure out why people are so polarized about it.


----------



## The Other Librarian (Sep 29, 2004)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I don't speak Latin. What does this mean?




There's no arguing taste, basically.


----------



## Keeper of Secrets (Sep 30, 2004)

I mentioned that I was less than thrilled yet I thought it was well directed.  See, three different opinions on the film's direction.

I thought the plot twist was OK.  I mean if I had not figured it out early on (or at least suspected) then it may have been more of an interesting twist.  It definitely won't hold up well with subsequent viewings.


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 30, 2004)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I don't speak Latin. What does this mean?



*The Other Librarian* got it right: "About tastes, there is no disputing" is a slightly more literal translation. "Hey, whatever floats your boat" also captures the sentiment . It's a Latin proverb that I like a lot.



> Further, could someone give me some spoilers about _The Very Small Creepy Town_? Maybe then I can figure out why people are so polarized about it.



Here goes: 



Spoiler



The movie looks like it's set in a nonspecific, highly religious community in some era before electricity or steam engines--maybe the seventeenth or eighteenth century America. The movie opens with a child being buried beneath a tombstone dated something like 1879; I forget the exact date. The village is menaced by scary hedgehogmen that live in the surrounding woods, so nobody leaves. 

But it turns out that the village is actually set in modern times, founded by a fantastically wealthy guy as a utopian community, and the monsters are just the adults in the village dressing up in order to scare the youngsters so that they never venture into the woods and discover the big bad evil world out there. 

The elders' decision not to bring any medicine with them when they founded the village plays a key plot role; their decision not to bring modern tools or supplies of raw iron ore, so that their current tools ought to be worn out by now, does not.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Oct 1, 2004)

I thought The Village was better than 75% of the movies out there... but I was still disappointed because I have come to expect so much from Night.

For what it's worth, I saw through the Sixth Sense even more easily than I saw through the Village. I still liked both. For one, they're different from most Hollywood movies. For two, they're thoughtful and deliberate. For three, they treat cool subject matter.


----------

