"The Village"

I admit that I haven't seen it yet, but I know what the ending is. I'm serious when I say that people might actually riot when they see this movie. Advance-screening audiences have laughed outright through the entire second half, and it's also a pretty long movie to have that kind of ending. I could deal with "Signs" because it was relatively brisk and short. In fact, it's my favorite Shyamalan movie. "The Sixth Sense" was a little long for me, and the twist ending ruined an otherwise decent drama (the twist ending actually makes a lot of things illogical because of what the Bruce Willis character can/can't do). "Unbearable" was really damn slow (I know that John thinks that "deliberate" is a better word, but really, the movie was just really damn slow, lol).

Well, I'm planning on seeing it on opening day. Sixth Sense was great but overrated, Unbreakable was sweet and very original, and Signs is also my fave M. Night film. The previews and plot for this look good, but I really hope that M. Night eventually steps out of the thriller-with-a-twist-ending formula. It started great, but it will get old if he keeps it up too much longer. Plus that sci-fi channel special on him was a fuc*ing JOKE, it was an obvious publicity stunt for "The Village". Plus, I heard that M. Night reworked the ending after it leaked all over the internet. This may not be true, but I think I heard about it from this site. Anyway, I still have high hopes for the film, with a talented cast and director. I don't know how it could be better than Signs, because I REALLY like that movie. Actually, The Sixth Sense is my least favorite of his...

The twist thing is M. Night's style and obviously its been working for him. He will eventually try new things, but why stop something hes so good at? I bet most people will think his style is getting old but it will be just as good as watching Signs or Unbreakable for the first time. He knows how to please the audience and hes not going to ruin the whole movie with the ending like a few of you are saying. And if thats to hard to understand then all you have to do is simple, dont go see The Village and stop complaining about a movie that looks really good and you havent even seen it yet.

Sorry, if I sound like an ass or something Im just speakin my mind :D

Oh, and that Sci-fi channel thing was all bogus, none of it was true.

- Nick

It's not that I have something against twist endings. I do have something against BAD endings. For example, Coppola's "The Conversation" is considered to be a really good movie. However, I thought that it was boring and stale, and the ending totally threw out everything that we had learned about Gene Hackman's character. In fact, I laughed out loud when he started doing what he did. I've seen "The Conversation" twice, and I laughed at it both times.

The same goes with "The Sixth Sense". It's really moving how Bruce Willis and Haley Joel Osment manage to develop a rapport, and Osment even began to look at Willis as a father-figure. Willis helps Osment, and in a sense, comes to terms with his past inability to help Donnie Wahlberg. Then comes that ending, which unnecessarily distracts attention from the fact that the rest of the movie was a good drama, plain and simple. Instead, we are left with a movie that dares us to find mistakes--and you know what? It is filled with them based on the fact that it violates ITS OWN RULES about ghosts.

"The Village" may well be something like "The Sixth Sense"--creepy, effective, and moving until we find out what the real deal is. However, that means that the movie would have the same exact problem as "The Sixth Sense" and "The Conversation"--the ending throws away the rest of the movie's accomplishments. That'd be a waste.

Anyway, it's about looking at movies as cohesive wholes. I'm not a religious or superstitious person at all, but I admire and like "Signs" through and through. That is a movie that has unity.

Man, I was so pissed at watching that Sci-Fi special because it was obvioulsy a publicity stunt and it was all bull. I definetly wasted a couple hours watching that. I guess I thought it was going to be a documentary or something...

As far as the Sixth Sense, you're right, there were a few mistakes. I didn't think it ruined the movie, but it stretched credibility. But think about Signs... that movie had a LOT of mistakes regarding the aliens yet it is still my fave M. Night film because the aliens weren't the focus of the film. Signs was about one man's power struggle with his faith and God. The aliens were merely a tool to further the progress of that story. I mean, why would aliens that are killed by water come to planet Earth, which is 80% water? Little things like this don't matter because they are not the focus of the story. In Sixth Sense, the focus was Osment coping with his "disorder" and his connection to Willis, who had his own problems dealing with his strained relationship. The whole ghost angle was also a tool in telling the story. That's how I picture it, maybe I'm wrong.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the problems some people seem to have with "Signs" and the "water" issue. For one, you need to be able to use your imagination. When you read a book, you don't expect the author to spell out every little detail for you, do you? The author will usually describe things that need in-depth description, however will usually only give you as much information as is necessary to keep the book "flowing". The same can be said for movies. You can't expect the director to spell every little detail out for you like you're a toddler. Some things are left ambiguous so you use your imagination, and come up with your own explanation. As Eddie has mentioned many times before, often it's what "isn't" said that makes a movie great! In the case of "Signs" I assumed that the reason the aliens chose a planet composed largely of the very element that could kill them is because maybe Earth was their oasis in their search through the desolate desert of space for resources? Maybe they can "tolerate" a certain level of moisture in the air, but when it comes to direct contact with large concentrations like condensation, or a "glass of water", it's too much, and can kill them. Similar to the human tolerance for heat. As for the alien not being able to get out of the pantry, they explained that in the film. "They seem to have a problem with wood". I don't think it's too far fetched to think that in another galaxy, there might be different elements we haven't discovered yet, and beings that evolved in that galaxy might have a problem with our elements herein, just as we might have a problem with theirs. I think this same logic could probably be applied to "Sixth Sense" as well... I'll have to go back and watch it again.

How about the movie "Cast Away", at the end when the character "Chuck Noland" is standing at the cross roads (symbolic) just after "the girl" has given him directions... then he looks at the "wings" symbol and smiles while looking in her direction... do you need the director to take you by the hand and show you that he went back to the girls house and knocked on the door? Come on people!! Use your brain! Fill in the gaps! That's what the directors/authors want you to do! :)

- Josh 8)

For me, that kind of in-depth explanation is not necessary. Signs was NOT a sci-fi film, it was a drama with aliens. If sci-fi was the focus than the aliens would've been fleshed out in greater detail. The whole alien story was utilized in telling a greater story. I don't consider those plotholes, I think they were unexplained because they were unimportant. M. Night didn't want to accentuate the aliens so much that they became the primary focus of the film, so he pretty much just made vague references to them, which is fine. And you're right, it's good when directors do films that leave many things to the imaginations or interpretations of the viewer. That's why I like horror/suspense films that don't show everything (Signs, Alien, Frailty) and mystery movies that let you solve it and find your own clues (Donnie Darko, Memento).

-TGP (I wonder what Dr. Bimboo would have to say about all this? :p)

I have to agree with Eddie wholeheartedly. I think the movie will be fantastic, but the ending is bad, I'm afraid it ruin the film. i loved Unbreakable to death, and enjoyed Sixth Sense and Signs. I have confidence that Night will entertain me, but if he kept the ending I fear the worse...but like AVP, I will give it the benefit of the doubt. I havent seen the movie, so that doesnt give me the right to just have a bitch fest about it, but I do have the right to voice concerns. The best thing about Night is he writes characters we care about it, and that's why his films are so suspenseful, because we are invested in them. I think "The Village" has the same promise, but with the ending I am so cynical. But I will find out soon enough...

I don't want to hear the ending, but it is widely chastised on the internet from leaked copies of the script. Is it really THAT BAD? My least fave ending is Time Bandits. GREAT movie with a pretty weak ending. Luckily, the rest of the movie was good so I can't complain...

All concerned,

I hope no one thinks that my comments were directed at any one person, or to chastise anyone. I just wanted to make a point to the poeple pointing out the "plot holes" in Shyamalan's and other movies, that they may not necessarily be plot holes.

I'm with TGP... I don't want to know the ending no matter if it's a real "leak" or fake. I'd rather experience the movie untainted.

- Josh :)

I didnt mean to sound like a jerk, I just want to get the point across that yes the ending really is that bad!

Tony,

No worries, you didn't. I think TGP and I just want to experience the movie first hand, versus what has been leaked to the net. You never know what information you can trust out there. There are a lot of people with too much time on their hands that like to mislead people. The "Revenge Of The Sith" script is also supposed to be out on the net. I'll wait for the theatrical release on that one as well. It's sort of like opening your Christmas presents early, or reading the end of a book first... there's no fun in that. You and Eddie seem pretty convinced on what you've read and the source you've gotten it from, and that's fine... I just tend to need to rely on my own opinion from first hand experience. I've listened to critics in the past and missed out on seeing what were great movies in the theater, all because "critics" were giving snooty reviews, as well as I've seen what turned out to be rubish based upon their praise. I tend to agree with TGP in that what you see on a written page versus what's presented on screen may be apples and oranges. Granted what you've read may not be relevant to what appears on screen, and may be it's content as a whole... but who knows. As I said, I don't want to know what it is. I would however be interested to see if what is released to the theaters tomorrow, is the same thing you read on the net. :)

I may have to stay away from this thread tomorrow if you guys are going to talk about any spoilers after you see it. Unfortunately for me, my work keeps me from seeing "Friday" or weekend releases, so I won't be able to see it until Monday. :D

Yeah, I mean Will Smith said "no" to The Matrix because when you read about a bunch of hackers that plug into the real world that isn't the real world and beat up programs in suits with kung fu, it sounds REALLY stupid. But the presentation can greatly differ from what's on the written page. I never read leaked internet scripts, and I try my best to avoid spoilers. I also try to avoid posting spoilers, or I'll post SPOLIER ALERT in caps so I don't ruin it for everyone else. I hate it when people post spoilers without warning. It has ruined some movies for me.
I think The VIllage will be great. I'm seeing it tomorrow, and I'll post my thoughts tomorrow afternoon. Catch ya later! :)

Tony,

Sorry about the AVP mention, I was just using it as a referance to try and show that I wasn't trying to be a hypocrite. I too am still miffed at the idea, but am willing to give it a chance.

TGP,

I'm sure Shyamalan won't stick to the exact same format forever. I think he's too smart of a person to do that. As I mentioned, I think he'll realize it sooner or later. I would love to see him move on to something off the wall for him.

Well, if anything else Shyamalan has given us something further to passionately yack about! ;):)

- J8)sh

Sorry TGP, read your post too fast. I thought you said "I gave up on Spike Lee, when 25th Hour..." But you said "I gave up on Spike Lee, until 25th Hour..."

Thing is, I think you guys are jabbing at him for the wrong reasons. It’s been a long time that we’ve had a director that can do so much with little special effects that we have all been so accustomed to.

I like Shymalan for the way he produces, edits, and writes his films. The guy has an amazing eye for the camera, and Eddie, you of all people should appreciate that Mr. film college dude! In all my studies of movies, he does them in the classic element much more than directors and writers we have today. If I was to compare his efforts I’d put him close to Hitchcock and Spielberg. He’s the new guy on the block and no wonder people want to pick on him. Fact is, when you’re on top of the game everyone wants to take you down.

In my opinion, “Unbreakable” is his best effort. I just watched it a couple nights ago with my daughter. She’s never seen it but she was amazed how true and real it felt. And, this is an 11 year-old kid who is used to high action like “Spider-man”. It’s a crying shame if you can’t see that, and you only see it as a film that is too slow. It’s slow for the reason of bringing it down to a “real” level. It still remains as my favorite super-hero film just because of that!

I’m sorry guys, but I think the guy is the best thing to come around in ages. He’s had a hit record of satisfying films so far, and I hope his new effort does well. Granted, every decent director has his/her flops; it’s the nature of the beast. But to come in here and pass judgment on something to come is just ludicrous. Give the guy a freaking chance! After all, his films have been far better than a lot of crap we’ve seen over the past five years.

I agree Tim.

Actually I saw an interview with Sigourney Weaver the other day about this movie. She said that when she first read the script, she had nightmares the following nights! That should say something about the film right there! Sigourney has been through all of the Aliens movies, and the Village script gives her night mares?! I'm sorry, but that alone gives the movie merrit in my book! Sigourney is an accomplished actress, and quite the veteran by now. She's been in movies all across the spectrum. I lend considerable credence to her opinion. Shyamalan hasn't let me down yet. I only ever saw "Unbreakable" once in the theater. I don't remember that much about it, but I remember thinking it was a very strange movie when I came out of the theater. I have loved every other movie Shyamalan has done so far. It's quite an accomplishment today to make a PG-13 movie LEGITIMATELY scary! Shyamalan doesn't seem to have a problem with this. That's talent folks! Why don't we reserve judgement on "The Village" until after we've seen it.

- Josh

Tim,

Your words would be so true if only his movies deserved them. Like I wrote, I would totally dig "The Sixth Sense" if it had been a straight drama and not had that ending (which, again, ruins the movie because it negates a lot of what Bruce Willis did based on the rules that the movie itself establishes). "Unbreakable" just didn't do it for me. Something like "Jaws" is made in a similar fashion, and "Jaws" is way superior to "Unbreakable".

I dug "Signs" completely, so you'll get no arguments from me on that one.

However, in all seriousness, when you see "The Village" and its ending, you'll join the crowd of naysayers. :)

Eddie

Eddie,

I highly doubt that. Even if his new film is just mediocre in comparison to what the guy has accomplished, I will still see it as a favorable film.

Sorry dude, but you are dead ass wrong about “The Sixth Sense”! The ending was the coolest thing about that flick; just ask anyone who has seen it. And. If memory serves me, it was up for an Academy award for best picture, no? Think about it my friend, only five pictures per year make it into that category out of a few hundred that hit the big screen. I think this is enough precedence to give the guy a little respect.

Well, ya know Eddie, I love ya but sometimes I just want to slap the crap out of you! :D
I’m actually interested to see what script writing you come up with and would love to read it sometime. I just want to see where your thoughts are and what you feel is true film making. I mean, for the love of Pete dude, you’re the guy who has given the LOTR reviews a mediocre level it does not deserve to most people, including myself. I have a hard time understanding what you see as really good art in film. To me, all the LOTR films are masterpieces but you are the only guy I know that can rip it apart. I don’t get it? I have to ask, do your film colleges in class think like you do? :D Just curious. ;)

Fact is dude, why do you really want to rip on this film when it has not even hit the theatres yet? You sound like the people who ripped on “I Robot” before it hit the big screen and I ended up liking that film. You know, I just don’t trust anyone’s judgment anymore besides my own. I like Shyamalan’s films and I’m looking forward to his next effort. I really look at your opinion as being somewhat snobbish and ready to take the guy down because he’s accomplished so much in a short period of time. Good God man, you’re in an artist filed! Prove to me, prove to all of us on DVD town that you can do better. ;)

Eddie,

I know the ending too and it is rediculous. Stupidest thing I have ever read. If M. Night really plans on using it, I think it might reveal just what kind one note director he is. I like his movies so far, but seriously I am getting so tired of him. His arrogance drives me nuts. After only making 3 movies I remember him saying "One Spielberg and I know the secret to making sucessful movies." The secret? Universal themes in intimate settings according Night. Anyway, and all three movies end the same way: twist is revealed, montage going back to various scenes of movie showing us hints. Is M Night underestimating the audience and trying to spell it out for us? Or is he trying to remind us how clever he is? I agree he's talented, but the dude needs to make something different or I am going to sick of him realy quick.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I LOVE M. Night. Him and Christopher Nolan and a few others are the best new filmmakers out there. I just don't want to see him become a type-cast director like some many before him. However, it is nice to see his stamp on all of his films. For example, all of Tarantino's movies have his stamp, his style is intact, yet they are all different. M. Night's films are different thematically but stylistically they are starting to look too similar. With Nolan, he started doing thrillers like Following, Memento and Insomnia (which were all pretty different) and now he's doing the superhero film "Batman Begins", he is branching out. I have no doubt that The VIllage will be great and M. Night will continue to be a great director. But what if Scorsese had only done Mafia flicks. No matter how good they were, people would begin to lose interest if his films were so similar. You know what I mean? Hopefully, M. Night's next film after The Village may be a step out of the box he has put himself in. I had lost all hope in Spike Lee until he put out the 25th Hour, so anything is possible.

BTW, Unbreakable ROCKS. It was supposed to be a trilogy or a series but the commpany deemed that it wasn't successful enough to justify a franchise. Perhaps that is why it seems that the story is unfinished??? Signs is my fave M. Night film, and Sixth Sense is very good but not as phenomenal and groundbreaking as some have said.

Not to sound confrontational or anything, but my question would be, if you don't like the guy's style, and only like 1 or two of his movies, then why go see "The Village" or anything else Shyamalan has to offer? I mean, I might sound like a bit of a hypocrite here being that I'm a bit pissed at Paul Anderson making a PG-13 AVP, and I'm still going to go see that, but then again, I'm a fan of both the Alien & Predator franchises. I have to go see the movie from the fan perspective. I'm still ticked at the PG-13 thing, but who knows? It might wind up being well done.

Shyamalan may have a "type cast" (as TGP put it) now, and he might seem arrogant with his comment that he's "figured out the formula to making a successful movie". But then... prove him wrong! Since making that comment, he's made "Sixth Sense", "Unbreakable", and "Signs". ALL of which were the top grossing "opening weekend" releases!! People obviously love his movies. The numbers don't lie folks. One thing I will say conversely is that Shyamalan may need to switch things up a bit. Now that everyone is expecting a "twist" ending in his films, people may not flock to see them (after "The Village") the way they did with his past successes. Maybe it will take him seeing a degradation in box office sales to figure that out? I don't know. As it stands though (having not seen "The Village" yet) Shyamalan is still in good standing with me.

- Josh ;):)

Good point Josh, all I'm really saying is the guy is extremely talented, but why is he sticking to the same formula all the time? I know his films are sucessful, I just want to see him tackle other things, until I start praising him as one of the modern greats. I this point I just want to see "The Village" because I want to know if the original ending is still there.

TGP,
You didnt like 25th Hour? I loved it...

Josh,
I dont want even want to think about AVP having a "PG-13." It pisses me off to much.

Tony

Tim,

Winning or being nominated for Oscars is swell, but golly, do you know what beat "Raging Bull" for Best Picture? "Ordinary People", which isn't a bad movie but is far from great. Remember, members of the AMPAS are jut ordinary people like you and me. They simply happen to make movies, a profession that is no worse or better than any other.

I'm not really trying to be a snob; it's just that my tolerance level has gotten really, really low.

Besides, I'm not bagging on Shyamalan for being commercially successful. My favorite director is Spielberg, and he's about as commercially successful as one can get, lol.

Eddie

TWill,
No, I LOVED 25th Hour. I menat that Spike Lee's films were beginning to be very similar and then he released 25th Hour and blew me away. It's a great film.

Nachtkriechen,
To me, Shymalan is a fabulous director. He could continue to make twisty thrillers forever and I'd probably keep seeing them because he's so good at it. I just hope that that isn't all he ever does, and it probably won't be. I've heard lots of crap about the ending to The Village on the net, but they're reading a script. If you read a script to a lot of good movies it seems like crap because you can't see what it's going to look like. It's all in the presentation, and Shyamalan is very good at that. I think he will develop into one of the great directors of our time and I think he's great.

Posters5,
You're very right about Oscars. The past few years, the films I love either are nominated and don't win or aren't nominated at all. I thought Gangs of New York, Mystic River, As Good As It Gets, Lord of the Rings 1 and 2, etc. deserved more. But opinions differ, and peopel shouldn't make the awful mistake of thinking that the Academy is always right. There are lots of politics involved with their decision. For example, I highly doubt that The Passion of the Christ would get nominated or win for anything, not because of the quality of the movie but because of the public outcry if it did win. Some view it as a propaganda film or a "pornographically violent" (whatever that means) movie. Same with a Michael Moore movie.

"Pornographically violent" simply means that violence is being presented in a lurid manner. I would say that the "The Matrix" series are pornographically violent, as are most Bruckheimer and Bay movies. I wouldn't place "The Passion of the Christ" in that category, though, as it's really a different kind of movie.

I saw this movie this morning and I thought it was pretty good. Not the best of the M. Night films but worthy. I enjoyed watching it and thats pretty much all you need from going to the theatre. I can see why some people wouldnt be pleased with this movie, most of the common folks at the theatre would probably feel cheated with the ending, but if you are a movie buff (which I am assuming most of you in here are) you will have quite an opposite response. I would say this is my 3rd favorite out of the 4. I am already thinking of the DVD. Do you think it will be a Vista Series like the other 3 films he made?

Ebert couldn't have been more right...

Before the plot twists came around I was amazed at the visual style and atmosphere created. But after the twists begin there are almost no redeeming qualities. You are left with that "that's it" feeling by the time the credits come up.

He has such potential as a director but here his dependence on twist endings has really wore out it's welcome.

Tony,

LOL... no, it's no big deal. As I said before, I try not to listen to critics anymore, because more often than not their opinions don't match my own on films. I'll be interested in what you all have to say tonight, but PLEASE if you're going to give away anything about the film, post "SPOILERS AHEAD" or something of that nature.

Thanks much.

- Josh

Josh,

I just meant that sometimes after hearing so many bad things about a film it might skew you enjoyment of it while you are watching it. I have to say though, Ebert said it best about the Village. "Critics were enjoined after the screening to avoid revealing the plot secrets. That is not because we would spoil the movie for you. It's because if you knew them, you wouldn't want to go." Anyway, I'll stop insulting it until I see it, I'm starting to annoy myself. haha

Tony,

So far no specific information has been given about the ending, so no... so far it hasn't ruined it for me. :)

- Josh

I just read reviews of the movie and yes the ending is the same. I never had any intention of spoiling it for you. I sure hope that all this talk of the ending doesnt spoil the movie for you.

i think this is the wrong board for that comment. but the age comment is fine. no offense taken.

Something like controlled chaos Tony? Lol... I don't know, profanity and name calling aren't the actions of friends in my opinion. Tollerance seems a bit lacking lately is all. However, you're right Tony, most of us here are adults, and largely maintain the level of respect we've come to expect here.

Matt,

My "adult" comments weren't a poke at your age, so don't take them personally. Being an adult has largely to do with your maturity and wisdom, and weather you take responsibility for your words and actions rather than your age. ;)

- Josh

Josh,

Even when the arguments get heated here everyone still respects everyone's opinion and I like to think we are all still friends. And nobody resorts to the kind of profanity you see at other boards. Yes, things havent gotten a little more out of control than usual, but it's still civilized. :)

This movie is a can of worms when it comes to discussion. Much like Fight Club was in the comment section.

TGP pretty much outlined the story. Though I didn't find that much writing necessary... I think anyone reading the spoiler has seen the movie and pretty much knows everything pointed out ;) .

I disagree in saying this movie has a different tone than any of his other works. This is just as solemn as any of his other movies. This is probably the most lifeless movie MNS has put out. I know that is the atmosphere MNS is going for but this town is just plain dreadful.

He has such potential as a director but here his dependence on twist endings has really wore out it's welcome.

I think MNS could have a very successful career in magic. Ebert hit it dead on when he said MNS is masterful when involving the audience to the point in which they lose their sense of rationality. The genuinely creepy atmosphere and the immersive cinematography act as diversions covering up a mediocre story.

If you think about the concept on paper, it could have been brilliant but was executed very poorly. This leads me to think that the trailer was not misleading at all, this IS a horror thriller, just a poorly executed one. There are no redeeming qualities. There is no payoff, it's almost as if the movie doesn't even have a climax. When the plot twists are revealed you aren't floored, but left with a feeling of "thats it?"



>>>>> SPOILER AREA <<<<<<<



TGP,

I agree, I also believe it to be Noah who skinned the animals. If you look at the scene in which the floor boards were lifted (where they hid the other costume), you could clearly see feathers (from the chickens). Since it is suggested that Noah had been sent to the quiet room many a times before I am also under the assumption that Noah had known about the costume long before. This would explain his enthusiasm when they spoke of the creatures. He thought it was a game. When he attacked her in the woods with the costume on, I don't think he was trying to hurt her either. Due to his mental incapabilities he knows not from right and wrong. Which was demonstrated when he was playing with the kids. It was just a game.

There are a bunch of subtle hints given that the Elders were the monsters. This also ties in with Noah being the lead suspect for the skinning. Noah was not at the wedding. Now during the wedding attack after the kids told the lead elder of what happened did you notice how many times he asked for reassurance? As if it were an 'unplanned' attack he was unaware of. I also believe Noah was the one painting the doors red. Earlier on you see Noah painting yellow slashes on the posts.

If you look at the picture of them before they created the village, a few of the women were holding babies. I am under the impression that the village has not been established long enough for inbreeding to have taken place. I think however old Luscious and the other young adults were is how long they have been living there.

One thing that really bothered me were little things like the falsified date on the Tombstone. Clearly a tool used to fool the audience but makes no sense what so ever being placed within the movie. If you think about it, these kids are raised to believe the time in the village is now. They would have no concept of modern civilization or what century it was. Lame is all I can say.

When I think of thought provoking I think of Fight Club, Memento, Minority Report, 12 Monkeys. The Village imo is the far from it. It's as if he took the fun little endings of the MIB movies and ran with that idea in hopes that it would leave our jaws dropped.

John,

LOL... of course I meant present company accepted.

By the way John, let me know when you'll be receiving your Nobel Peace prize for refereeing... I'd like to attend. I appreciated it.

All,

It seems like everyone's gone strange! A lot of people are snapping at others, childish bickering is going on left and right. HAS DVD TOWN GONE MAD?!! Has our water supply been tampered with?! I'm starting to see the things in threads I've been so against, and that I thought we'd never have here! I'll admit that one of them was probably my fault, and appologized for it, but there's still more going on! Come on people!! We're above this kind of fracas!

Not that it's enough to make me leave or anything, it's just sad to see we've been "infected", and I don't think there's an innoculation for what we've got. Well... hopefully it will cure itself.

TGP,

On a lighter note, I'll come back and read the spoilers here, and write up a full report. I'm still very much so looking forward to "The Village".

- Josh 8)

Thanks for clearing that up for me Critic, sometimes on these boards its hard to know what people mean

"As I said before, I try not to listen to critics anymore..." --Josh

Hey, hey. That hurt.

John, would-be critic

TWill,

I didnt mean to offend. I just meant people that really appreciate M. Night Shyamalan will enjoy this film (well, most anyways). And When I meant common folks I meant people who on occasion go to movies and dont care for them as much as film buffs do.

Nachtkriechen,
After you see the film, read my spoiler section and see if you agree with me. Boy, you are in a for a great surprise, and I hope you like it! I love all of M. Night's movies as well.

TWill,
I totally understand why you hated the ending, and I'm sure some other people will, too. I think that the trailers were kind of misleading and may have brought the wrong type of audeince to the film, because it is not really a horror/sci-fi movie. I actually kind of thought that if you watched close enough that the ending wasn't really that big of a surprise.
SPOLIER ALERT:


I guessed just by seeing the previews that the creatures were either nonexistent or fake, and I was right. I also guessed that the one in the suit chasing Ivy was Noah. Everyone had all these traumatized lives and I knew that was no coincidence. Coincidences don't really exist in Shyamalan's movies (especially Signs, nothing was a chance occurence). The ending shouldn't have been a big shocker. Perhaps the ending didn't surprise you and you just thought it sucked, which is fine. People are so used to Shyamalan doing alien/ghost supernatual movies that when he makes a movie without them and teasing in the previews like there would be, then it won't be everyone's cup of tea. I salute Shyamalan for making a film with a different tone, story and theme while still retaining his awesome style.

I ended up seeing this last night. To answer your quote Critic, I am a movie buff and I thought it sucked, and I dont exactly understand your comment why common folks would not appreciating the ending and movie buffs would. I dont know if you meant anything by it, but it was a little insulting. The ending was just as bad as I thought it was going to be...





SPOILERS AHEAD











Personally, I am insulted by the ending. I love it how the towns people spoke in Older English. They must have brought over their copies of the Crucible.

TGP,

Thanks for your extra effort with the "spoilers ahead" part of your post! As I mentioned I won't be able to see the film until Monday. I'm glad I read your post (the non spoiler part of it that is). From your description, it sounds like I will enjoy "The Village" as much as I hoped I would. I'm a movie buff, and a big fan of Shyamalan's films so far, so it sounds like this will be a fresh step in a new direction for his style. I'll go with a completely open mind. However now I'm so enthused to see it, I can't wait until Monday!! :o

- Josh :D

Well guys, I saw The Village... and guess what... M. Night's streak of great films remains unbroken. Yep, that's right, The Village is a great film. One word of advice to those who haven't seen it: Throw out all of your preconceptions of what this film looks like in the trailers, they are misleading. See the film with an open mind. I can't believe that I was previoulsy complaining that M. Night was not branching out, that all of his films were supernatural thrillers with twist endings. This film is VERY DIFFERENT from M. Night's previous work. It still has his style, but the plot and themes are very different. The ending has been very much maligned on the net. Actually, if you are watching the film closely and you understand what's going on then the ending shouldn't come as a surprise. The film still has plenty of creepiness and scares. (In fact, there are a few scenes that made me jump and at least one in which the whole audience literally gasped in shock). That's what I love about Shyamalan, he makes scary movies with atmosphere, not gore and CGI. I don't think there was any CGI in this film at all. Anyway, I highly reccomend this, I'd give it a 7 or 8 out of 10. Great performances, direction, atmosphere, plot, ending... everything. How does it stack up to other M. Night films? Signs is still my fave, and the Village would probably rank as a tie with Unbreakabl and above Sixth Sense. I love all of M. Night's films, but for some reason the Sixth Sense is my least favorite. Go figure. On my final note, as i said, THROW OUT ALL PRECONCEPTIONS AND SEE THIS FILM WITH NO EXPECTATIONS REGARDING THE PLOT. I guarantee that this film won't be what you expect. What are you waiting for? GO SEE IT!


SPOILERS AHEAD: DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU HAVE SEEN THE FILM:













Okay, I'm sure that everyone saw this film expecting a great creature horror movie thriller based on the previews. I'm sure that lots of you were pissed after finding out that it was a social commentary devoid of monsters. I'm also sure that the film will not be well critically received, and some people will hate it based on their preconceptions of what they thought the movie should or would be. But that's what I love about M. Night: he never gives you what you were expecting. He wants to be original and surprising. Everyone else makes creature horror films, and Night wants to offer thought-provoking alternatives. I remember seeing previews for Signs and thinking it would be an Independence Day style blockbuster. Instead, it was an amazing story about a man's power struggle with his faith and God that used an alien subplot as a tool to tell the REAL story. You should know by now that previews for Night's films never truly show what the film is about.
My thoughts on the film:
This Village is a very sheltered, traditional society. The illusion of monsters is given so that people will not venture into the "civilized world" and discover that their realities are all fabricated. The film starts slowly, patiently, because it is important to see how these peopel live in order to understand the ending. All the people who started the society had sad, broken pasts and they decided to box themselves up to run away from life's potential problems. Hurt's character was trying to make his idea of a Utopian society devoid of greed and crime. He didn't realize that people weren't meant to be sheltered in this way, it's not natural. Notice in the photo he's holding in the end that they are all standing in front of a Counseling Center. These people were on an experiment to see if this old way of life without any other option would cure their problems. One theory I have is that Hurt's character killed his own grandfather/brother because he was a billionaire and he could use that money to make the "animal shelter" where they would live. How else did he have all the money to establish such a huge piece of land and to hire workers to make sure no one found out? If that's true, than he commited a heinous crime in order to make a society without crime, ironically, simialr to Lamar Burgess in Minority Report. I think that was the reason for the black box of newspaper clippings and photos, they wanted to forget the terrible act they did to make this Utopia. They knew that making these stories of monsters and of red as "the bad color" and spreading them at an early age that no one would try to leave with the red berries and suited monsters everywhere. They also know that this "Utopia" couldn't last forever. In all of their prayers, they said, "we pray for all the time we have left." Every adult generation would have to be made aware of the outside world to spread the monster stories, and eventually someone would say, "to hell with this" and they'd spread the truth and leave. The film is also a great commentary on dealing with fear and being boxed in. Adrian Brody's character Noah was locked in the quiet room for stabbing Lucius. Him being boxed in like that basically made him stir crazy and I think he tried to kill Ivy and Lucius because he was in love with Ivy and Lucius was taking her away from him. Even in this society, crime was still present. I believe that Noah was also the one who skinned all the animals, and that' why he was laughing when he first heard them because he knew it was fake and it was like a silly game to him. He went to the woods because he knew it was all fake, and he may have possibly been outside the shelter before. A perfect society is impossible, human nature prevents it. This knifing scene was one of the most shocking I have ever seen, it was the moment I was referring to above that made the audience gasp. The second stab just made me speechless, it was so real and brutal. I couldn't tell if he was really mentally ill or if that was a trick on his part. He could have been ill from inbreeding, since there are only about 50 people in the village that keep reproducing within families since there are no new people. Anyway, there are lots of possible morals that could be extracted from the film. As with all M. Night's films, they are meant to make you think and spark conversation. The ending shouldn't have come as such a shock if you were following all the clues. I think it's a great film that more people would enjoy if they didn't have all of their preconceived notions of what the film should be. Enjoy it on its own terms. I look forward to more future M. Night projects, and I have no doubt that he will become one of the best filmmakers of today.

Eddie,

Maybe we could strap Tim down to a chair, duct tape his eyelids open, and make him watch "Starship Troopers" until he did like it?

Come on Tim!! "na na na na na na na na TROOPERS!!"


- Josh

"Mmmmmm, One of uuuuuusss . . . " -- Homer Simpson.

Tim,

"ONE OF US... ONE OF US" ;)

- Josh

It's me, I hate that stupid movie! :@ lol :D

Eddie,

You can bring the movie over and force me to watch it as long as I can bring "Unbreakable" to your pad and force you to watch it until you like it. :D

Tim.

Someone doesn't like Starship Troopers??? Where is he? WHERE IS HE?

Tim,

Yeah, but what John and I really need to do is "visit" your house until you like "Starship Troopers". :)

Eddie

Well, I don’t feel it’s been that bad. We’ve had a recent incident in the chat room for “Fight Club”, but that’s about it. You have to realize there will always be some troll to make havoc of what we have here. Not to worry though, at DVD town we are always on top of it.

As I have said in the past, it is all right to have heated debate about films, and your passion towards certain movies you feel partial to. Look at Eddie and myself; sometimes I get so hot over his opinion that I just want to smack the crap out of him. However, Eddie is a very nice person and very intelligent with his feelings. I love the guy (not in a gay way) and at least we agree on “AI”. :D

Hey everybody!
Disregarding M. Night's first two only average films "Wide Awake" and "Praying With Anger", and his screenwriting credit on "Stuart Little", what are your favorite M. Night films in order? Here are mine:
1. Signs- I love everything about this movie. Great acting, scares, suspense, story, humor, subtlety, and religious theme. This film kept me grasping my seat, or laughing or nearly crying. It was just all around great. It also had a simple yet very effective musical score. I never saw the ending coming until it was already upon you, and it was breathtaking. Awesome.
2. Unbreakable and The Village- These two are about neck-in-neck. I think these two are M. Night's least conventional and most realistic. Both had great performances but slow, patient pacing. The endings to both I found were great, yet I figured out parts (but not completely) of the ending before the film ended. To me, The Village was his scariest since the Sixth Sense(but I never saw Sixth Sense or Unbreakable in theater). Both had bits of humor, but not as perfectly balanced with the drama and suspense as Signs. The Village is unique in that the audience knows the ending and the twist, but the characters do not (at least for the time being). Also, The Village is his first film completely grounded in reality, wothout ghosts, aliens or superheroes. Unbreakable is the thought-provoking and realistic alternative to Spider-man, X-Men or any other comic book film. While it is not a horror film, there were moments of true suspense (the convict spitting beer on the dead woman and the flashbacks to horrible crimes). Both were very different yet equally amazing in their own ways. I cannot place one above the other, so they're tied.
3. Sixth Sense- Yes, M. Night's breakthrough film that introduced him to the world. While this is an excellent movie, I didn't find it as great as some others said and I enjoys his other films more. This one was quite scary yet more conventional. The ending was surprising, but not all together unsolvable. It did make sense to me, but I don't know if it was entirely possible. Great performances once again and a sweet plot. The only problem is that there isn't much to interpret or decipher for the viewer. You have the story, and that's what it is. In Night's other films, he doesn't tell you everything and he lets the viewer decide what they think on certain elements, but The Sixth Sense is pretty spelled out for you. Don't get me wrong, I still love this movie, but not as much as his other work. It deserved more attention from the Academy, which snubbed all of its awards.

I love M. Night for his ability to use silence, atmosphere, his setups for a suspenseful moment, tidbits of humor in a serious situation, and subtle horror and moments when you can't see what's going on (like in Signs, when the characters were all freaking out in the dark while the camera was focused on the flashlight). I can't wait for his future projects, and I hope his string of great films goes unbroken. He may just be one of the greatest directors of this generation.
Make your list if your opinions differ. It's amazing to see how everyone has a different opinion on M. Night's film, and I would love to hear yours. See ya!

I personally liked this film. It falls last in line for me, which still says a lot since I greatly enjoy Shyamalan's films. The trouble is that I found the "twist" to be easy to figure out, but I also found that true in Unbreakable. My initial feeling toward Unbreakable was pretty tepid, but on additional viewings, I have come to love that film. I think I will have a similar reaction to subsequent viewings of The Village.

I think the whole deal here is that we expect a twist from Shyamalan. In this regard he has somewhat painted himself into a corner. If this film had come from another filmmaker, we might have a different take on it. I felt that The Village was a well-told story and allegory that is universally applicable. If the expectations we have relating to a twist can be downplayed and the focus placed on Shyamalan's storytelling, I think the experience could be much more satisfying. After all, the real "twist" in Signs is that there is no twist. Perhaps that was a first step in taking another road?

Like TGP said, preconceptions could ultimately hurt one's enjoyment of this film. If you take Shyamalan's name away and try to focus on the film itself, I think that the allegory is tight and the film is pretty solid.

Though a little too Twilight Zone-ish, The Village was definitely worth my time and money. Excellent cinematography, production design, acting, and dialogue; I love Shyamalan's idiosyncratic speech patterns for his characters. Shyamalan definitely imbues the film with a wonderful atmosphere and submerges the audience in the world he creates. The score was a bit too robust, but I can hopefully get past that.

Sean (on the other hand, my dialogue is more idiot-syncratic...)

I just saw "The Village" tonight. I haven't read anyone's spoilers yet, as to give an untainted take on it.

I think Shyamalan has done it again. I loved the movie, the twist was FINE! I actually thought of that kind of twist half way through the movie. It was an excellent film, well put together, good character developement, and quite scary moments throughout. I wish however that I hadn't seen some of the footage on the "tv spots". It gave away some of the scary scenes in the film. I still loved it however. It was VERY different than anything currently out there. The only problem with films of this type is their reviewability. Once you know the "twist" what's the point of watching it again? I absolutely loved Shyamalan's use of brilliant colors in this film. It made things a little more scary some how. What an amazing cast as well! I found myself infatuated with "Bryce Dallas Howard". What a beautiful girl! We see some cast members of Shyamalan's previous films return. Joaquin Phoenix returns (excellent actor) as Lucius, Cherry Jones returns as Mrs. Clack. There might have been others, but I was too caught up in the story to notice. I was surprised to see Sigourney Weaver have such a minor roll. Her performance was well done as per usual, but I expected (with her being an "A" list actor) to have a bigger part in the movie. Adrien Brody playing the part of Noah Percy FREAKED ME OUT!! Brody lended SO much to the anarchy and fear in this movie! Shyamalan is a genius in creating suspense and fear. I hope he continues to impress us all. There may be a lot of "nay sayers" out there concerning Shyamalan, but you don't out sell every other movie in the box office on opening weekend with your past 4 movies by putting out "flopps".

I haven't been disappointed with his films yet.

- Josh ;)

"The only problem with films of this type is their reviewability. Once you know the "twist" what's the point of watching it again?" - Nachtkriechen

ARE YOU KIDDING? Movies like these are BETTER when you know the twist! You watch the film again to find clues to how the ending worked, and you notice something new everytime! Plus, the journey in getting to the end is where these thrillers are great. Personally, I think "The Usual Suspects" has the best ending of all time, because it twists everyhting you thought you knew and basically makes the whole film merely speculation. But the plot is so fascinating, the characters so intriguing, the action so exciting... The ending is not ALWAYS the most imporatnt part or the only reason for seeing a film anyway. FOr instance, I HATED Memento when I first saw it because it made no sense to me, and it was slow and convoluted. On repeat viewings it has become one of my favorite mysteries of all time.
On a kinder note, I'm glad you liked the Village. I posted some theories and such above on my spoiler section, check them out if you get the chance and see if we agree or noticed the same things. If you liked this, or any great mysteries with cool endings, see the following: Memento, Donnie Darko, all M. Night films, Mulhulland Drive, Usual Suspects, all Hitchcock (especially Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window), Mystic River, Fight Club, Frailty, Dark City, Talented Mr. Ripley, Dolores Claiborne, etc. All of the above listed are fantastic films and I haven't even listed all of the greats.

TGP,

I suppose I should explain my "point of seeing it again" comment. You have to understand that when I was a kid and rented a movie, I would watch it over and over and over again, because being a "movie buff" started with me as a kid. I'm sure there are other factors that come into that as well, such as when you're a kid, you don't pay as much attention to "the details" of a movie as when you become an adult, and the reasons for that are largely that a lot of the concepts in movies are too mature, and or complex for you to understand as a child. Even as recently as Star Wars Episode I, watched probably 14 or 15 times in the theaters. Then another 7 or 8 times on DVD when it came out, before I laid it to rest in my DVD library. Occasionally I'll go back and watch the movies in my collection again, but it has to have been a while for that to happen. I suppose that's the main point I was trying to make. It doesn't really have to do with movies of this genre... it's all movies for me. I find that anymore, I don't like to see ANY movie more than once in the theater, so that I can enjoy seeing them again when they hit DVD. Even as much as I loved "Bourne Supremacy" I still won't see it again until I get it on DVD. There are a few exceptions... I'm thinking that if Episode III isn't a huge disappointment, I'll probably see it twice in the theaters. Moulin Rouge was another one that had SO much going on in it, and things happening so quickly, and such amazing singing, dancing, and bright colors, that the first time was just a huge flash to me! I HAD to go see it again! I guess I like to "save" the number of times I can re-watch a movie for "My" home theater. Otherwise, I'll be so bored with it by the time it comes to DVD, that I probably won't sit down and watch it again for a year or two.

As for the spoilers.... (((SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS)))

I had a little different take on some things than you did. Skipping past all of the things that are in the film to "keep you as one of the villagers".... Your comments on Hurt's character. He knew that humans weren't meant to be couped up. He was a college professor! The guy had a head on his shoulders... I think what happened with him, as well as the rest of the "council" is they all went a little mad because of the atrocities each of them had befallen in their individual lives. It's human to want to go into reclusion after a horrific event that you can't or won't understand, and you believe it's not just some "random event" but rather a fault at societe's base. This is a VERY old concept, one that stems back to when man first started "societies". When "villages" started becoming "towns" and then "cities". Hurt's character, and the rest of the council weren't completely insane, they had each just come to the end of their ropes, and one person's idea became a solution for all of them. An idea of a Village like that in today's society, and having it survive for even one generation, would take a highly intelligent mind like a professor, not to mention other like minds to keep the outside world from leaking in. I don't think they were in counceling as an "experiment"... if you remember, every one of the "council" members had had a horrific and tragic event happen in their lives... I think they were all just in "group therapy" together. People that have had those types of events happen in their lives are often encouraged to join a "group therapy" so they know that they're not alone in their struggle with what's happened to them, and in trying to cling to sanity. More than likely the "Village" idea came up in a therapy session by one of them as a whimsical and "utopian" ideal suggestion to all of their problems.

I don't think Edward Walker killed his grandfather. I think he probably just died (medical complications... old age.... take your pick) and left everything to Walker since he grew up "without a father". For Shyamalan to put yet another murder plot into the story would be confusing and ultimately detract from the point of the story.

The "Black Box" was no more complex than the explanation given by character "Alice Hunt". They stay locked in the box to serve as a reminder of the things that happened in their lives and in "society".

The monsters idea (and probably "the bad color" idea) more than likely came from Edward Walker... being the intelligent mind he is. "Monsters" are just an attempt by the human mind to make the fear of the unknown something tangible, as a way to allow us to understand it. Basic psychology... sound like something a professor might know? As well in basic psychology the color "red" refers to sex, and at it's base can be a scary thing, especially when described as "monsters". Historically sex has been blamed as the source of all evil, and evil acts. Look at the reason "Noah" killed "Lucius"... he was jealous, because he was infatuated with or "attracted" to "Ivy Walker". At this point we could get into all kinds of debates about what Shyamalan's obsession with "red" is about, and what he "really meant" with the use of the color red in this film, but I'll stick to the simplistic theories.

I believe your theory on their praying for "the time they had left" is probably spot on. It's probably nothing more than being thankful for what little time they've had in their "utopia", and for what little they most certainly have left, as it's almost certain that at some point it will end.

More than likely one of each "council member's" family member's would become the successors to the "truth", and continue the lies... although It would probably be suspicious to always have those families always become the council members. However, with that many people in the council, more than likely ONE of their descendants would have to think to themselves "this isn't right", and want to tell everyone... obviously you can't have that if the Village is to survive, so the council would have to threaten that persons life to keep them from talking, and in doing so they would have become the very society they tried to escape.

I think it was fairly evident that "Noah" wasn't right in the head which is what made the story even more FREAKY! I don't believe he got that way by going to the "quiet room"... I think he was born that way. He tried to kill Lucius because he was jealous. He tried to kill Ivy because he didn't have the mental capacity to understand what she was doing... he only understood that she was leaving him. So he was going to "hurt" her for leaving and hurting him. He had the mental capacity of a 3 year old in a man's body. A 3 year old with the pysical strength and knowledge of someone that's been around for 20 some odd years, is a DANGEROUS person and they have to be monitored at ALL times.

At first I had the same idea that you did, that Noah was the one committing the mutilations, however the clue to that is that Edward Hurt said one of the "council members" was doing it. Noah wasn't a council member. He wasn't much of anything really. He wasn't even a murderer, I don't think he really understood what he was doing when he stabbed Lucius. And then when he kept stabbing him, I think it was just a defensive measure for him, he didn't want to get in trouble for stabbing Lucius at this point, so he couldn't have Lucius "talking". What made that scene so scary and "made people gasp" was the lack of anger or any real emotion on Noah's face when he kept stabbing Lucius. He didn't fully understand what he was doing, and is why he acted without emotion. I think Shayamalan wanted us to think he was just "faking" being mentally disabled and he was really this emotionless killer behind "the creatures" to throw us all off.

I think Noah was an anomoly. Mental retardation, among other birth defects happen on occasion with no explanation, or family history of it. Inbreeding isn't a possibility. "The Village" hadn't been around that long. All of the original council members as well as 5 or 6 generations of their descendants would have to have all inbred for that to happen. They had enough genetic diversity in the village to keep inbreeding from being a problem for a long LONG time. Remember the meal scenes? There were quite a few people at all of those tables, and most of them young.

I thought the ending was fine. It was the only way it should have ended. As I mentioned before, we don't need Shyamalan to take us by the hand and wrap up every loose end he created.

Discussing the film in this manner however has inspired me to see it again. Maybe in a few weeks. ;)

- Josh 8)

Well, since the President of my company, and my entire QA department have been fired from my company, I've had little time to catch films or watch movies at home. I finally went and saw this film tonight before it had a chance to leave the big screen. I have to admit I had it figured out a couple months ago. Granted, I have never read any spoilers or have tarnished what I would have expected. I thought about the film over the last couple months, and, sure enough, my predictions were right! I knew all along what the outcome would be and it just ruined the film for me. I think it's M. Knights worst effort to date, but I will not differ that the acting and production were top-knotch. Good performances and good directing skills, yet the film was way too predictable. Let's face it, if you couldn't figure it out then you need to crawl away from that rock you've been hiding under.

I don't want to get into the whole "spoilers" thing, but I know what all you guys mean. It's not an awfull film by any means, it's just one that doesn't do the usual shock that we expect from Shamalananana . . . or what ever his name is. :D