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