"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 :)