Village, The [Vista Series]

Thank god I have been wanting to know when this was coming out for a while. This was an extremely misunderstood movie that (hate me not) I loved!!! Go M. Night!!

Not for me. I had it figured out about half way through. I found it too obvious, too predictable, and way too far-fetched to be believable. It was well directed and had a creepy atmosphere, but overall it was his most disappointing effort. I really like M. Night's other films but I think he jumped the shark on this one.

Tim,

Remember when you got mad at me for "pre-judging" the movie?

Eddie

That's funny Eddie. Yes, I do remember that. I generally get tired of so many people that jump on the "M. Night Hate Wagon" that I end up defending the guys work when I really don't need to. However, on this movie, I can see their point. ;)

I can think of three directors who I wish would agree to director's commentaries on their movies:
Shyamalan, Paul Thomas Anderson, and Tarantino.

It must suck to have a name like Paul Anderson, if you forget to leave out the initials I mean. Wonder how many times he's been confused for a bad director?

One of the strong points of the Shyamalan movies is the surprise ending (remember Sixth sense and Unbreakable). But in the Village, he really screwed up, and that pisses me off! I loved it until the ending, but then...:.(

I think he needs to stop depending on the 'twist endings' and move on. Combining his ability to create heavy atmospheres with a great story could be killer.

I thought this to be absolutely the worst movie so far this year. It was advertised as scary when, in fact, the scary parts were but two, each about 20 seconds long. It was advertised as a thriller but I found it predictable. But mostly I was outraged because the movie was not believable one bit, which is my No. 1 criteria for every motion picture or a book.

I weep for the 5 euro wasted on a ticket.

"the movie was not believable one bit, which is my No. 1 criteria for every motion picture or a book"

How does that work out when over half the movies out there aren't believable to begin with? I can understand how that would be one of the points of criteria, but the basis of it?

"How does that work out when over half the movies out there aren't believable to begin with?" --Depression

It may have to do with what the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge called "the willing suspension of disbelief." Most literature is based on experiences both common to and yet uncommon among all of us. Fictional characters are "believable" if an author creates a consistently believable world for them, no matter how fantastic that world may be. It's why people enjoy good sci-fi or horror or fantasy. If an author can create a world well enough, he makes us want to forget that it's all make-believe; he makes us willingly suspend our disbelief in the unreality of the situation or the characters and willingly go along with it.

But this isn't an easy job. Most hack writers don't bother to create worlds that are consistent enough for us to believe in, so we just say, "Oh, that's so phony." For me, "The Village" started out well, and then it fell apart entirely as the characters began acting in ways that were wholly inconsistent with what we were lead to expect of them. And the ending totally shattered my own willingness to suspend any disbelief.

John

Well put. I was going to say something along those lines but I don't think I could have summed it up quite as well as you John.

I guess I am just curious how having that as your primary focus when reviewing works out. But movie reviews are subjective to begin with.

What ever happened to the rumoured musical dance number where John Hurt and Sigourney Weaver jump on a table and dance in red with Adrian Brody screaming and biting his foot in the back singing backup? I miss that scene. I hope it's on the DVD...

And there's a man with the last name of Hurt, and there's Weaver, but no chest-burster. I feel so let down.

John,

At least they had perfect windows and dinner settings.

Eddie

I liked this film very much, and am happy that it is coming out on DVD fairly soon.

The only thing I am unhappy with is the fact that Shyamalan, like, for example, Steven Spielberg, does not record audio commentaries for his films. And with a movie as misunderstood as The Village, a commentary would be a great way for Shyamalan to "set the record straight," so to speak.

Ken

M NIGHT IS THE COOOOOOOOLEST 8)

"...with a movie as misunderstood as The Village, a commentary would be a great way for Shyamalan to set the record straight,' so to speak." --KenKong77

Do you mean that if I didn't like it, it's because I didn't understand it?

John

I feel a cyber brawl is about to take place.

It certainly is not a hard movie to understand. The plot is about as simple as it gets; I had it figured out 30 minutes into the movie.

Understanding it is not the hard part, the film simply is a major let-down.

Tim

samara from "the ring" should give manoj a phone call. (y)

What?

What crack-pipe have you been smoking from?

Tim

John,

When I said that The Village was "misunderstood," I meant that most of the people who saw the film (and I include myself in this group) were more-or-less hoodwinked by the movie's marketing campaign, which led 99% of the its audience into thinking that they were going to see a horror picture about monsters that stalk the woods.

I was not making a personal attack on your, or anybody else's, intelligence. Initially, ALL of us who saw The Village misunderstood it because of the horror-focused advertising campaign.

I was not being elitist about "getting" the film. In fact, I dislike "elitist" people who claim to "get" films (which is okay) but then degrade others who didn't appreciate the same films for "not getting it" (which is NOT okay).

Now the record has been set straight.

Ken

Tim,

Oh, crap... He got a hold of mine...

I don't know, I liked this one. For me, it's less a movie and more a metaphor for fear in our lives. Blatant metaphor? Yes. One we actually confront much? No. If we fear something, we often build walls to keep that thing out, but we let more fears take its place where yet even more fear festers.

Simplistic, yes. I had this one figured early on just like I did with Unbreakable, but it's the way he told the story that I liked the most. Shyamalan's idiosyncratic dialogue and earthy performances add great enjoyment for me.

Sean (course, what me likey others no likey...)

"When I said that The Village was "misunderstood," I meant that most of the people who saw the film (I include myself in this group) were hoodwinked by the movie's marketing campaign, which led 95% of the film's audience into thinking that they were going to view a horror picture..." --KenKong77

Thanks for the clarification, Ken. I wasn't trying to "assume" anything; sorry you took offense. I was just trying to determine what you meant.

So, basically, it's the ad campaign that mislead people, not the movie. I agree; the ad campaign and the director's first three movies.

Certainly, "The Village" itself isn't hard to understand, as Tim said. In fact, the problem I had with the movie is that it's too direct, too simple, too understandable, even for metaphor. I can't imagine what Shyamalan might say in a commentary that would make it any clearer.

John

John,

I agree with you that The Village is, to sum up what you said, a straightforward film. The metaphors are quite blatant. For some reason, however, that didn't seem to bother me.

This is not to say that your opinion isn't valid, but I myself must have been drawn to a different aspect of The Village. When I think of why The Village hold a curious allure for me, I'll let you know. But until then, I'm going to have to wait for the DVD.

Ken

Ken,

Yes, there was an allure for me, too. I love Shyamalan's storytelling abilities. For the first, maybe, third of the film he had me involved. Having liked the director's first three films, I was looking forward to this one, too. Then things started to get a little too oddball in the middle, and finally the whole thing fell apart for me just before and during the concluding part.

The more I watched this movie, the more my mind was distracted by the perceived mystery of what it was all about. Then, when it was over, I was annoyed not just by the ending but by the film's internal inconsistencies leading up to the ending.

Still, films affect different people differently. For many folks, as we've heard here already, the film held its charms, which is why DVDs are made.

John

John,

You state that you did not like the film as much as you might have had there not been "internal inconsistencies." How do you mean?

Just out of curiosity, what specifically was "oddball" about the last two-thirds of the film?

I think (and I may be wrong here, correct me if I am) that you went into The Village thinking about how Shyamalan was going to "twist" the ending of the film. Therefore, you may have been left feeling hoodwinked, so to speak, by the lack of a "credible" suprise finale.

I myself have never been a fan of M. Night Shyamalan. The Sixth Sense is loved by many, but it just didn't work for me. Unbreakable was too weird (this is where I would use "oddball"), and I was left with a "is that all there is?" feeling.

I liked Signs enough to buy it on DVD, but I haven't watched it that much, mainly because I just don't have the time but also because it is a fairly vapid film.

Don't get me wrong, Signs does have some of the best character development I've seen in a suspense thriller, and I greatly appreciate Shymalan's penchant for dialogue (something movies could use more of these days, in my opinion), but, in the end, it didn't seem like much of anything had happened. I felt the same way after I saw Kill Bill Vol. 1.

I did not enter into The Village (no pun intended) with the expectation of a surprise twist ending. I wasn't hoping that Shymalan would "outdo" his other surprise finales, because frankly, I didn't (and still don't) care for his other films, and the one movie of his that I did like (Signs) did not have a "twist" ending other than the discovery that the alien could go the way of the Wicked Witch in The Wizard of Oz and be melted via water. (which, in my opinion, isn't all that deserving of the label "twist ending").

Without any expectations of being surprised, I was instead riveted by the film. For me, The Village was an excellent and meditative thriller, and I really mean it. It was very well paced, well acted, well shot, well scored, well edited, and, most of all, well directed. It is obvious, to me, at least, that Shyamalan really puts his heart into every movie he directs. Even the films of his that I don't like are preferable to the bile released by studios every other week. For example, even though I don't like The Sixth Sense at all, I'd rather see it than, let's say, Torque or Walking Tall.

Richard Roeper (Ebert's cohort), in an argument with his fellow movie critic, said this: "Other directors often don't put as much effort and detail into their pictures, and Shyamalan just brings so much more to the table." I agree with that statement.

The Village's surprise ending was actually surprising to me because I actually had bought the false premise that Shyamalan had set up. I did not feel "ripped-off"; rather, the ending made me think. I thought about the characters ("Elders" in the film) and what their motivations had been. For me, the twist ending that everybody complains so much about is one of the best parts of the film! It adds even more depth to already developed characters, and that is no small achievement.

I realize that this "response" has turned into a brief review of the film itself. Everybody, feel free to agree with me or not. And to those I've bored, I apologize.

Ken

"Without any expectations of being surprised, I was instead riveted by the film." --KenKong77

But, of course, (and I don't think I'm giving away anything here) the film DOES have a surprise ending. It's just one of the dumbest surprises I could have imagined.

To discuss the inconsistencies, however, I would have to give away the movie's surprise, and I don't want to do that here. Let it suffice to say that once the surprise was revealed, much of what went before it made little internal sense to me.

John

John,

I realize that you were disappointed by the film, but calling the ending one of the "dumbest suprises" you've ever seen is either wrong and needs to be rethought, or, if you really mean it (and I assume you do), it needs to be backed up by some information.

This information, I realize, will all be opinion-based, of course. The reason I ask is because, as I've noted previously on this message board, I thought The Village's twist added great depth and meaning to the actions of the characters, specifically the "Elders", that occurred earlier in the film.

Ken

I didn't find the twist or surprise ending at all surprising; it was just, as I said, dumb, but obviously I can't (and won't) discuss the details of the ending here because it would give too much of the film away.

Let's just say that if the ending was supposed to be for real (literal, truthful, could happen), it was next to ridiculous, and I found it laughable. If, on the other hand, it was supposed to be metaphoric, it had little or no symbolic meaning for me beyond the obvious, which I found was talking down to me.

Ken, I appreciate your liking the film, and I'm sorry I didn't enjoy it the way you did. I don't like having to tell you how much I disliked it and was disappointed in it (because I liked Shyamalan's first three films), but you keep asking. Forgive me; it's just a personal reaction, not a slam against your own good judgment.

John

I'm just amazed at how polite you two are about all this! Really nice to see two people have an intelligent (if somewhat lackadaisical and cryptic) conversation about a disagreement on the quality of a film. Really nice to see that there actually are some polite people out there who don't need anger management or grammar lessons. Keep on debating; I won't bother to read it anymore because I get the gist of what you guys are saying, but carry on!

John,

Thank you for your reply. As you know, I don't feel the same way about The Village as you do, but hey--that's the beauty of thinking differently. If every person all had the same opinions, there'd be no conflicts, and, thus, no discussions because everybody would be on the same side.

So I think it's safe to say that you and I ought to "agree to disagree", so to speak.

Ken

Roger Ebert put this film on his top 10 worst films of 2004 list.

"Roger Ebert put this film on his top 10 worst films of 2004 list." --Michael B2004

Yeah, and others have put it on their best lists. It's obviously a controversial film that strikes people both ways. As for me, I didn't particularly care for it, but it would be far from a worst of the year. In fact, as I've said, I love the way Shyamalan tells his story; it was just the story itself I didn't care for.

John

I loved this movie. I found it to be much better than the overrated Sixth Sense and the ending was excellent, IMO. So many ways you could take that ending. Now I will admit the first "twist" was sort of a bummer, but it was realistic. I will admit that I don't understand every little detail in this movie, but I don't understand every little detail in the Matrix movies (Especially Revolutions) and I still enjoy the films as much as if I fully understood them.

I think the best way to view this film is to just sit down and not worry about trying to figure it out or don't try to look for the twists coming. But just go into it with an open mind and just go along for the ride.

Highly Recommended!

I recommend this DVD as a nice coffee table coaster.

Tim.

Tim I feel the exact same way about one of your favorites (Dogma), so we'll call it even and chalk this one up to "Different strokes for different folks" ;)

Agreed. ;)

Tim

Walter Fisher coined a concept that he called "Narrative Probability." It means, essentially, that a story can work if it fits within the confines of its own world. "The Village" does. The acting is top-notch, the pacing superb, the tone is appropriate, and because I wasn't "looking for the twist," able to enjoy the film as it unfolded as I did Signs and Unbreakable. There were some logical leaps that were required of me as a viewer, but for the most part I thought it was a good movie.

Right on Justin. I watched it yesterday and enjoyed it very much. I was just watching it as a regular movie and not worrying but the twist. I don't think the movie has a twist thing to it. Whatever I found out in the end didn't susprise me. It is not at all scary like Signs or 6th sense. If you watch this movie looking for a twist you will be sorely disappointed. This movie was a result of bad marketing - for it was marketed as a hitchcockian twist! However this is not Night's best effort . A 7.4 for this one.
--Ranjan.

Just watched the movie last nite and thoroughly enjoyed. I think at first site I would have to agree with a large majority of the comments as this was an easy movie to get after the first hour or so. But on a metaphor level this movie rocks if you have ever grown up in a cult like religion where a small group of leaders try to control your life with their version of the truth. If you stay blind to the truth, you will always believe the words of the leaders especially when thy use fear of losing your life if you leave that group. For most I know they have not experienced a life themselvles but I can fully identify with...the bad color!!!

There were a lot of things that didn't work for me, like the so-called "Bad color" and why it was selected, why the blind girl could "see" certain people for their color, and other issues like that. Minor nitpicks, and sure it makes this feel like a piece of a larger story (like many of M. Night's films) but they were questions I wanted answered because they were featured rather prominantly.

I just have a minor disagreement with Ken's entry on 12/19. While the ending of Signs may not have been a twist in the Unbreakable or Sixth Sense..uh...sense, I think it was a twist in the way that it pointed to a connection among all these seemingly random elements. (I don't know that I can get any more specific than that.)

Judging by the number of replies and the varied reviews, I went into seeing this movie interested in what I was going to get. I had been told by friends to not expect a scary movie, and to not expect much at all in fact. I wonder if this helped me like it, because I did.

I think it is dangerous to view a movie with a preconceived notion as to the formula that the director is going to follow. Whether this is formed by the director???s previous work, or by what people tell you he/she was trying to do. It is not hard to see how Night has found himself within this dilemma, but I sat down to watch this movie not trying to think ahead of what was happening. I do think the marketing hurt the film, but I got exactly what I was expecting, a well directed character driven suspense story. This was my least favorite of Night???s films, but that does not mean that I didn???t enjoy it.

I agree with John???s review that the strongest aspect of the film is how it has been put together, not its story. This to me follows some of the Hitchcock tradition that seems very evident in all of Night???s films (music enhancement, cameos, twists, thrills/suspense, etc.). Not all of Hitchcock???s movies had particularly believable story lines (why would anyone use a crop duster to kill someone?) but through brilliant directing pulled the audience in to suspend their disbelief.

I am very glad that I didn???t listen to all of the negative reviews and viewed this movie. One just has to recommend it without making someone expect something monumental or even surprising.

You're right that people shouldn't expect a "twist" just because it's another Shyamalan movie, but that doesn't give the movie a break from being judged on its own merits. ;)

For me this movie was a snoozefest. I suspected what was going on about a third of the way. The movie looked good and the music was terrific. Adrian Brody's scenery chomping did not help (is he soon to join Halle Berry as an Oscar joke). Hello, tv commercials? Maybe I expected too much since I loved Signs and I did like Unbreakable. In any case M. Knight has many good movies ahead of him. I think he is held to a high standard because of his success. And since he films practically in my back yard I will be forgiving. ha ;)

**Possible spoiler alert**
The only scene in this movie that I even remotely enjoyed was when the creatures wander around the village and Joaquim (I can't spell his name, sorry) just steps out of the way every time. I liked it better when all you saw was the faint out line of the creatures and they were all blurred, they were much scarier then, because when you see them upclose they look really bad (which they should logically). The part at the end when the creature is in plain view and practically maul's the blind girl is so silly looking and I couldn't help but laugh. He should have left it with just the camera panning each time to see the creature coming closer and closer, not running after the girl in that silly and idiotic way, hell any scary movie has that in it! I can't ever see myself watching this movie again it's so dull. Watch it once maybe, it has some neat scenes, like the guy getting stabbed, and the village attack scene, but other than that: predictable and tame.

Well, I loved the movie. I don't care about the twist, plot holes or how far fetched it is.

I loved how the characters talked, the words they used, how the movie looked, how the characters reacted to things, how their personalities were shaped by the shadow of unknown truth.

I loved the fact that Ivy was blind because it can be a blatant metaphor AND an ironic coincidence inside the world of the village.

This whole movie is a big, modern take on Plato's 'cave allegory' and seen that way, it is delicious.

I loved the film too. The directing, production design, screenplay, etc... were all great. This film shouldn't have been marketed as a horror movie. It really is a love story- showing us how far someone would go for a loved one.