The Village

[radyk05]

ok, here is the drill: if you want your friends to still consider you their friend, if you don't want to see your mama cry her heart out, if you want to continue with your happy life, if you want ME to continue with my happy life or if you want to safe some money then DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE. it sucks BAAAAAAAAD. the worst $5 lost in my life.....

[escobert]

That bad huh?

[chu52]

I could see it being horrid, the story is kinda completely explained in the ads, and M. Knight Shavalon isn't all that great.

[fire_of_avalon]

Really? I'm going to see it tomorrow. I like Shymalon movies, usually. I'm going to see it, and if you try to stop me, I'll eat your pets.

[Rusty]

Wow, sounds bad, but I never even heard of it, lucky me :)

[Cid]

Do you consider it bad just because it is so scary? Cause then I still wanna see it.

[Meow]

You can't keep holding up the same bank and expect the cashiers not to recognize you.

[chu52]

Do you consider it bad just because it is so scary? Cause then I still wanna see it.

No its just that Shavolan's "scary" movies are usually long and boring, the only frighting parts aren't all that frightning because you're too tired to care, I tried to watch "signs" twice, yet couldn't make it through without falling asleep, I would rather watch *shudders* Matrix revoulotions than this movie. Oh and Long Live Quintion Tarintino!

[edczxcvbnm]

I will still see this movie because I like his movies. They are never scary and always have a good story and good characters. I may see it on monday here(4.50 mondays no matter what time of day).

I think his best movie was unbreakable by the way.

[-N-]

Can we at least spell his name right? M. Night Shyamalan? He's a far better movie director than any of you, so some respect is at least in order. And the story isn't explained at all in the ads - in fact, you know nothing about the movie other than its in a village and weird things are about to happen. It was deliberately done that way, because he's sick of people like Bruce Willis blowing his ends on late-night talk shows. He's able to generate that much buzz about his movies without giving away any details at all because he's gained that much respect.

And M. Night Shyamalan isn't just a suspense-movie kind of guy - you're not watching the movie just to be scared like a B-rated straight-to-DVD horror flick (or like an A-grade Hitchcock film, whatever :p). If anything, the suspense is a distant secondary detail to what is most important - the story and the characters. Ed is on the ball here, so that's all for that.

[The Captain]

POD raises many good points, but I too have heard that the film does not live up to his previous work. I suppose we can all see it and decide for ourselves though.

Take care all.

[-N-]

I haven't seen it yet either, so I reserve my judgement. In either case, I doubt the quality of the movie will affect the nature of my comments in my previous post, as they were meant to sidestep that very issue.

[fire_of_avalon]

Hi.

I saw the movie yesterday afternoon and I thought it was amazing. Honestly, I feel it's something different for Shyamalon, well different from what he's been typecast as. I found it to be a pretty powerful statement on a variety of different subjects. Love, hate, good, evil, innocence and experience are all pretty much included. I'm not saying you have to like it, but I would ask that everybody approach it with an open mind.

[chu52]

Hi.

I saw the movie yesterday afternoon and I thought it was amazing. Honestly, I feel it's something different for Shyamalon, well different from what he's been typecast as. I found it to be a pretty powerful statement on a variety of different subjects. Love, hate, good, evil, innocence and experience are all pretty much included. I'm not saying you have to like it, but I would ask that everybody approach it with an open mind.

For all that go read the Stand by stephen king, that is agreat novel

[Yamaneko]

I thought it was good. Much better than <i>Signs</i> and <i>The Sixth Sense</i>. The ads don't tell you anything. Although I did figure out what was going to happen during the middle of the movie. However, calling it bad is a terrible review for the movie. The plot device might not be original or anything, but it's much better than most plots, which are overdone a lot more than this one. I recommend it.

[fire_of_avalon]

For all that go read the Stand by stephen king, that is agreat novel
Already did that :)

[-N-]

I saw it last night - I thought it was scarier than anything else he's ever done (or maybe I just wasn't as scared while watching the rest of his films). Unfortunately, I also felt it was a little underdeveloped compared to the rest of his films - and his message doesn't come through as clearly in this film as it has before in his other films. That's the only beef I have with it; otherwise, I thought it to be well done. Just calling it bad is just calling yourself bad. ;)

[fire_of_avalon]

I do see where you're coming from. There seemed to be alot of confusion for a long while, but I think that's because he was trying to convey SO very much with the film. But maybe I'm just hopeful :)

[Lord Chainsaw]

I thought the story was good. But as for the meat and bones of it -the horror aspect, well let me put it this way:

The scariest part of my movie experience last night was a preview of a movie creating a story around the one dollar bill.

[Yamaneko]

Haha, yeah. I agree, it wasn't scary, but was it really labeled as a "horror movie"?

[escobert]

I liked his other movies and I will watch it when it comes out on video most likely. Glad to see others liked it.

[fire_of_avalon]

Haha, yeah. I agree, it wasn't scary, but was it really labeled as a "horror movie"?
It's being marketed that way, because all of Shyamalon's other movies have that "suspense" quality to them.

And "National Treasure" does look pretty ridiculous :)

[Erased]

Overall radyk05, I think you just got burned, burn dude burn. Man, you just got burned. I think it looks good, and plan on seeing it... when I can.
>--Erased

[Trumpet Thief]

Could someone spoil it for me? After watching signs I made a promise to myself I wouldn't watch another movie made by him. Then again, the commercial was pretty good, I think...

[chu52]

No, be strong fellow anti-shamlion! Let our voice be heard! don't break down now, go see a Quinton Tarintino movie instead!

[escobert]

Quinton Tarintino is overrated.

[Meow]

Having seen it, i rescind my sarcastic comment earlier in the thread.

Shyamalan's trouble is that he's built his fame as a director only as good as the moment in his film when the rules change, when something happens that transcends the scope and structure of the film that leaves the audience dazed. While it's an impressive ability, it's by no means the only reason to appreciate his work, and i'm more disappointed by what i've seen to be the major response to the film than anything in the film itself.

No, he didn't pound us with a shocking twist. The movie did have a "Shyamalan Moment" in the vein of his others, but it climbed to it more naturally and clearly than usual. Perhaps even obviously or anticlimactically, if you insist, but to argue that it destroys the film is narrow-minded. It obviously wasn't *the* moment of the movie the way "The Moment" was in <i>The Sixth Sense</i>. What he's given us here is a concept sort of flick, an interesting open reflection on an idea with a decently clear message. He's still a master of suspense and has some of the most subtly unique presentation and framing of any director on the market these days. As already mentioned in this thread, he can certainly kick the stuffing out of Jerry Bruckheimer. To expect him to shock and astound with the same "massive twist" structure in every film is unreasonable.

And yes, Tarantino is overrated. i'll be as quick to say i enjoy his work as anyone else, but folks definitely need to back off on the absurd fellatio that is his fanbase.

[Miriel]

The Good:
*Great cast with standout performances by Joaquin Phoenix and Bryce Dallas Howard
*Visually stunning, just a beautifully shot movie

The Bad:
*DULL. I mean really, I was expecting something intense, something thrilling but gahhh, it was just so dull!
*The "twists" which half the audience I saw it with already figured out within the first 20 minutes of the movie.
*Flimsy storyline that unravels in a muddled clumsly sort of way.

The Ugly:
*Horrific, stilted dialogue.
*It felt like the only reason why the movie existed was for M. Night Shyamalan to show off the new "twist" he'd concocted but by the time you get to the twist, it's underwhelming and anti-climatic.
*The ending, good lord was it atrocious. I mean really really bad. :rolleyes2

As one reviewer said, "Every village needs an idiot -- and M. Night Shyamalan is hoping it's you."

[TheAbominatrix]

I loved it. I absolutely loved it. The characters, the little love story, the twist and turns, the really cool ending twist, all of it. I didnt really see any of the flaws pointed out, perhaps because I enjoyed it so much, and I cant nitpick on things I enjoyed.

[fire_of_avalon]

SPOILERS

The Good:
*Great cast with standout performances by Joaquin Phoenix and Bryce Dallas Howard Please please don't over look Adrien Brody. I thought he was quite possibly the best performance in the film, especially during The stabbing scene.
*Visually stunning, just a beautifully shot movie Agreed :)

The Bad:
*DULL. I mean really, I was expecting something intense, something thrilling but gahhh, it was just so dull!
*The "twists" which half the audience I saw it with already figured out within the first 20 minutes of the movie.
*Flimsy storyline that unravels in a muddled clumsly sort of way. I understand where you're coming from here, but what needs to be understood is that this movie is being marketed all wrong. It's not meant to be nearly as "thrilling" as his other films. I expect you'll agree, all of Shyamalon's films have over reaching "points". In many of his other films, the "point" is demonstrated by the superior plot lines. But plot is one aspect of story telling. Another, equally important aspect is our connections with the characters, which is what this film focuses on most of all. I find this to be a very interesting new movement in Shyamalon's career as a writer and director.

The Ugly:
*Horrific, stilted dialogue.
*It felt like the only reason why the movie existed was for M. Night Shyamalan to show off the new "twist" he'd concocted but by the time you get to the twist, it's underwhelming and anti-climatic.
*The ending, good lord was it atrocious. I mean really really bad. While I do agree the dialogue was off, I vehemently disagree with your final two points. Shyamalon's "reason" for the film, as I see it anyway, was to tell a story with characters the audience could connect with on a very human level. Like I said before, this film isn't about "the twist". What was the "twist" in Signs, if you really think about it? I don't understand why one of Shyamalon's films HAS to have a complete reversal in order to be good. And the ending did anger me, a bit. I want to know if The elders continued the village or told the truth to their children.

As one reviewer said, "Every village needs an idiot -- and M. Night Shyamalan is hoping it's you". :(

[radyk05]

miriel got the point.

[Rase]

I felt it was a good alternative to the recent comedy/action movies I've seen lately. The ending mad me a little mad, but all of his do that to me. Like in Signs, I wanted to know what happened after the credits. But I still enjoy all of his films as of date.

[BatChao]

I felt that it was a good idea, but executed very, very poorly. Being a big Shyamalan fan, I was really disappointed in this film because a lot of the things that made me love his previous films were missing from this one... especially the tension that he's so good at building. In both 6th Sense and especially Signs (Unbreakable wasn't really a horror/thriller movie, but was awesome anyway), he really built up the suspense, leaving you at the edge of your seat. In Village, he built up nothing, resorting to cheap pop n' scare tactics to make the audience jump, and even then, they were so predictable. The story seemed to lack any type of horror or suspense and seemed to end up like a melodrama with a monster thrown in. And as a drama, it was pretty dull. I'll also agree that the dialogue is extremely stilted, but I figured that since they were actually forcing it in since they weren't from that actual time period, it kinda made sense, but still... it was bit painful.

[Zell's Fists of Fury]

BatChao hit the nail on the head. Exactly how I felt about it.

[kikimm]

I jus saw it last night, and I loved it. I actually didn't see anything wrong with it. I never got bored once, I thought the dialogue was good....but I guess that's just me.

I think the movie wsa more about the charactres this time around. Or more human nature, maybe? It's different than his other works, and in a good way, I think. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of his, and I love all of his movies, but I don't think he made any mistakes here.

As for the ending, I loved it. I loved how he kept it so ambiguous. So many of these horrible american movies have these lame, fairy-tale endings, leave nothing to be imagined, and are far too predictable. Normally you wouldn't be scared that anyone was going to die, but this one, you weren't too sure, even at the end. I like that. It added more suspense, and you cared more for the characters. I'm tired of these cookie-cutter plots.

Also, I thought the music was beautiful. Just thought I had to add that in there. :)


:D