The Village--Hit or Miss?

[PiroMunkie]

[quote name='Dagger IX1][spoiler']It doesn't make much of a difference whether it was people or monsters who skinned and mutilated those baby animals. We never learn which Elder had that particular task, and frankly I think anyone who would willingly perform it must possess some serious psychological problems.[/spoiler][/quote][size=1]Actually, what I inferred was that [spoiler]it was Noah. At the end they were talking to all the elders, they said to his parents that their son had helped make the stories of the creatures real to the village. Since they said earlier in the movie that is had been a long time since the creatures had crossed the boundaries, the fact that he would prance around as a creature and commit those heinous acts helped tell the people that they creatures still do "exist."

When Ivy got him in trouble in the movie and threatened to put him in the quiet room, you could tell he has spent time in there before, and probably had previously discovered the costume beneath the floor boards.

I think the only time in the movie when the creatures were actually the elders was when they put the marks on the door. When the elders spoke of it, they said the creatures were "acting as though threatened," threatened being when Lucious entered the woods and removed the berries. He was challenging the myths.

You even say, "I think anyone who would willingly perform it must possess some serious psychological problems." Which only helps support the theory that it was Noah, heh.[/spoiler]

... Spoilers make posts look funny.


I shall also comment, building off of Dagger's comment, that anyone who goes to see this expected some kind of horror film is going to be disappointed. After seeing "Signs" and then this, I realized the M. Night Shyamalan is more of a story-teller than he is a "frightener." There are some unnerving aspects to his stories, sure, but nothing is actually scary. I jumped a couple times throughout the movie, even knowing what was going to happen, but it is just the suspense that is built up.[/size]

[Harry]

I didn't like the movie that much. Especially the scooby doo factor that it had. I didn't feel cheated out of 7 bucks but I wouldn't even consider seeing it again.

[Dagger]

[spoiler]But didn't they specifically say there was an Elder assigned to that job? *shrugs* I was actually thinking that it might have been Noah when the animals first appeared, but.... eh. I interpreted the remark about him making the creatures real as having to do with his death (since the Elders were going to attribute it to Those We Don't Speak Of, and TWDSO had never "killed" anyone before).[/spoiler]

The film would have worked better as a pure love story, with less of an emphasis on things that go bump in the dark.

~Dagger~

[Dragon Warrior]

I'd first like to start off that this movie was just as good as I expected--if not better! I've been awaiting it for ages and was very pleased to have seen it this very day :) I also enjoyed how they made the environment. Though it's got that 19th century feel to it or whatever it was, it also had a medieval fantasy way that you'd expect out of LOTR of whatnot. The druid robes only helped make this image possible.

Spoiler on something :P
[spoiler]Dagger said there were things that weren't explained that needed to be. I'm not sure that's all entirely true with who killed the animals and stuff. It's not important and not necessary to know. They mentioned it was an elder, let's leave it at that, right? I have to disagree with Piro here about the Noah theory. Though the old Walker dude in the end said Noah helped make the whole creature thing possible, he was referring to when Noah died as a monster and made everyone believe the monsters did exist still. And the fact that they choose to say that Noah died by a monster killing him only supported this. But one thing that bugs me (and I might have missed it in the film, I'm not sure) is why the hell was red forbidden? Did the elders just think it was something to throw into the urban legend or what? It seemed out of place and I'm not too sure why it was there. I liked the idea, but I'm just curious about it.[/spoiler]

Also! Here's a fun fact about the movie I noticed while watching:
[spoiler]Remember the guard named Kevin that helps Ivy? Good. Now do you recall the guy reading the newspaper in the Guardhouse that Kevin talked to? Guess who played him :) It was M. Night himself! You can see his reflection on the medicine cabinet when Kevin slyly opens it to get the medicine out. It's fun to see, but I forgot to check the credits just in case. But I'm sure it was him. It sounded like him too. Yay![/spoiler]

As for the plot...
[spoiler]It's true. I dunno how anyone could guess that ending. I was completely oblivious until the two people opened that black box and started talking about their "accidents" back home. This wasn't scary, as many said it would be, but I'm not disappointed. I'm not easily scared by movies (everyone said Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a real fright, but I just thought the dude in it was a bit disturbed XD) so I wasn't expecting too much from it. The most I got out of it in the genre of fright was the things that make you jump and I suspected a few of those so I only jumped one during the film.[/spoiler]

I don't care what any critics say, this movie was great. I can't believe it was getting bad reviews. Critics these days are all stuck-up buttmunches who are way too cranky from just sitting on their ***** and watching endless movies that they can't tell good from bad anymore. I tend not to listen to critics. They don't know anything anymore (or did they ever?) :<

[Semjaza]

[spoiler]The skinner was Noah, in my opinion. Other than the Elder's planned scare tactics when Noah was onscreen, it was implied that Noah knew what they really were. I think it's made clear because of his incessant laughing any time the "creatures" actually appear, which I didn't personally attribute to his obvious mental problems. He doesn't act quite like that in any other situation. Mr. Walker doesn't know which Elder did the skinning because none of them actually did it, and so the connection to Noah is made clearer. The kid has a penchant for violence, in any case, and the Elders had ZERO reason to do such things because everyone beyond Noah (and arguably Lucius) was scared of the woods.

It has nothing to do with Noah "Making the creatures real." Ivy was brought up with nothing but tales of Those. Even after being shown they were fake, getting rid of that fear doesn't happen instantly. Especially when her father tells her that there were tales of creatures in the woods anyway.

Noah only makes the creatures real because he dies. That is it. Nothing to do with the skinning of the animals because no one in the film manages to make that connection. Ivy kills Noah and assumes he's a creature because she doesn't know any better. Mr. Walker makes references to how much of a leader she and Lucius are. People trust her. If she claims to have killed a creature that they all genuinely believe in, it just furthers the myth.

And that was the director in the Ranger cabin. He appears in most of his films in some way.[/spoiler]

I didn't really like the movie. It was by no means horrible and I liked it more than Signs, but I don't know how much that is saying. I'm wondering what in the world some people here mean by "There's a lot to take in and think about." It's clear as day and hardly complex in even the most basic senses.

The concept is interesting, but I don't think it was pulled off that well. I don't know why the director feels some insistance on putting his tales of morality within "scary" films. I put that in quotes because it's not scary in any sense of the word. I feel like he does this just so when people ***** about how unscary his movie since The Sixth Sense are, his fans can just go "You didn't really understand the underlying concept of the film!!" This guy isn't Alfred Hitchcock, people.

I left the film with two thoughts: "What was the point of all of that?" and that I thought the girl who played Ivy was pretty. She was the highlight of the fillm in every respect, in my opinion. I honestly couldn't care less for most of the other characters in the movie... especially because most of them beyond Noah, Ivy and Lucius were really hammy.

It was well directed, though. I am not usually too big on his writing, but he is a good director overall.

[Dragon Warrior]

Noah's my favorite character. [spoiler]I'm not sure if he did the animal killing because what I always thought his giggling was was him liking the creatures. You must recall he always entered the woods unharmed (and for obvious reasons, the humans wouldn't kill their own) and he might have liked the creatures because they were friendly to him. That's why I thought every time he heard or knew of the creatures, he giggled. Like at the start of the film at the dinner table. He stood up and innocently laughed when the creatures moaned in the woods. But I dunno.

But wait... then again... when the mother of Noah opened the door to the house and Noah was missing with the costume, she said that he ran off with the monster costume and the dead animals. I dunno if that relates to anything, but maybe that shows that the mother was the one who had the dead animals and planted them in various places?

Also note that the father of Ivy spoke of her grandfather who was very rich. This also ties in with the plot, but you have had to notice the sign that revealed the name of the protected park they live in. The park was called "Walker" and therefore meant that the wealthy grandfather's money was used to buy the park so they could live without worry (and the planes). That's probably obvious to you folk anyways, though, right? XD[/spoiler]

Oh, and Adrien Brody did an excellent job with Noah, even if it was the part he didn't want to play (he stated this in an Entertainment Weekly).

[Semjaza]

[spoiler]You'd have to be dense to not notice the family name all over all that crap near the end. I saw it about half a dozen times offhand. I'd hope everyone figured that much out, the film isn't vague about it lol.[/spoiler]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Dagger IX1']Methinks Alex is going to have a total field day with this movie.[/quote]
Hehe. :p

I've been reading up on The Village, both here, in this thread, and elsewhere on the 'net lately. I've not seen the film yet, but I'll probably go see it this weekend. I figure I'll put in my two cents based on what I've read concerning it.

One thing that strikes me in all of MNS' films is the so-called "twist" ending. In some of his films, the twist is breathtaking, and alters your entire perception of the film, like in Sixth Sense. The ending to Sixth Sense really changes the entire film's dynamics, both in terms of characterization, action, and audience reaction. The beauty of Sixth Sense was that MNS more or less subscribed to a theory best explained by James Cameron in the Commentary of T1: "Sometimes it's what you don't show them that drives them absolutely wild."

If this is true, and MNS hides certain things--rather, doesn't show them. There is a difference. When a filmmaker "hides" a scene/character/etc, we know there is something there; we expect there to be something there. We feel cheated when we're not given what we want.

Not showing something, like in the Sixth Sense, when we see [spoiler]Bruce Willis get shot[/spoiler] and then flash to six months later, with him sitting on the park bench, we immediately assume that he is sitting there because he had good doctors, as it were. We don't ask ourselves, "Wait, what happened there?" because it is implied, in a sense, that he survived the encounter.

If you compare Sixth Sense to Unbreakable and Signs, you notice a very distinct difference in approach, most notably in the "showing" quality.

In Unbreakable and Signs, we are constantly beat over the head with certain ideas: Bruce Willis as "Unbreakable," and Mel Gibson as...the Fallen Preacher. But where these films fail is that Unbreakable tries to show us too much--Samuel L. Jackson damn near explains the entire plot, as ifwe, the audience, were deemed too dense to figure it out, and Signs tries to hide too much, notably the aliens themselves, while simultaneously overdoing the wife and water. When I think about it, Unbreakable and Signs were incredibly uneven films, even though I enjoyed Unbreakable a hell of a lot more.

When I read about The Village, I get the sense that MNS knows his last two entries have been blase and nowhere close to the achievement of Sixth Sense. I think the inclusion--rather, re-introduction, of the "twist" ending from Sixth Sense supports this. The endings of Unbreakable and Signs were incredibly disappointing given Sixth Sense, and The Village's premise/resolution seems to be a bridge back to the twist that alters our perception of the events and reactions to the film.

Is this a bad thing? Honestly, I don't know.

From what I've read, The "Village" is nothing more than [spoiler]an artifical, secluded commune of sorts, created by a history professor and a few of his followers, who all believe the modern day world is utterly corrupt and the only pure and decent time period is America, circa 1890[/spoiler]. This would be fine and dandy, if it weren't for a little detail like 1890 America was chaotic at best, lol.

Granted, there was intense social, educational, and economic reform taking place, but even then, it wasn't perfect...far from it. In fact, you could consider modern day to be infinitely superior to the 1890s, if simply for medical advancements.

So, in "spoiling" the ending for myself, lol, and being somewhat versed in American History, as studying American Literature pretty much requires you to "bone-up" on it, as it were, I find myself chuckling at The Village's premise and set-up.

Someone would have to be a very twisted and reality-impaired individual to honestly believe that going back in time to an age where there still was no anesthetic other than alcohol, rudimentary medical treatment, and in an age where a single bullet to the arm could mean you could lose the arm, is somehow better than living in a modern day, with modern day conveniences.

The plot is incredibly silly, when you think about it.

In my time browsing the 'net, I came across this point on the IMDB.com messageboards. I think it's a rather astute observation, given the motivations and personal convictions of the Elders.

[QUOTE]Why would you leave civilisation because of the danger and to escape fear of harm, only to force your children to live in fear of harm and feel as if they are in constant danger? Counsellors who have seen their share of trauma and pain would create a place free of it, not one whose basic structure is ensured by its ever-present threat.[/QUOTE]

[Dragon Warrior]

[spoiler]Though what the quote from that messageboard is true, the fact about what you said that the 1890's is worse off than modern day is not totally true. If you watched the movie, you'll note that the reason most of the people left was because of modern technology such as guns wherein there aren't any in our 1890 small village. Most of the reasons for moving were death by modern technology. That might help in the reasoning of why they made it 1890. And as you can see, the children don't know it's 1890, so therefore they wouldn't know that the medicine Ivy fetched from the guardhouse of the park was actually 2004 medicine and not 1890. To her, it just seems like it'd be the medicine they'd get at that time. Plus, she's blind so what's the difference?[/spoiler]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Dragon Warrior][spoiler']Though what the quote from that messageboard is true, the fact about what you said that the 1890's is worse off than modern day is not totally true. If you watched the movie, you'll note that the reason most of the people left was because of modern technology such as guns wherein there aren't any in our 1890 small village. Most of the reasons for moving were death by modern technology. That might help in the reasoning of why they made it 1890. And as you can see, the children don't know it's 1890, so therefore they wouldn't know that the medicine Ivy fetched from the guardhouse of the park was actually 2004 medicine and not 1890. To her, it just seems like it'd be the medicine they'd get at that time. Plus, she's blind so what's the difference?[/spoiler][/quote]DW, you must keep in mind one thing here. America in the 1890s, especially in the New England/Northeast area, was not some idyllic, pure paradise. It just wasn't, lol. Like I said in my previous post here, the Elders were being blindly Idealistic by thinking just because 1890 didn't possess automatic weapons that it is somehow better than 2004? It's laughable, provided you know your history, lol. The 1890s were anything but idyllic.

And look at the guns issue in a relative sense. Today, we have miniguns, uzis, grenades, handguns that can fit into a purse; planes can be taken over with boxcutters, and all of these are incredibly lethal, when we lack the medical training and availibility of doctors. Today, if someone gets shot in the stomach, they have a fairly good chance of survival.

This same situation (gunshot wound to the stomach) in 1890 will not, and I mean [i]NOT[/i] result in the same chances of survival, if they are living in an exact, precise and total replication of the social, economic, and medical conditions of 1890 America.

The only way for them to be entirely 1890-ized would be to forgo [i]all[/i] modern day ammenities and conveniences, including 2004 medicine.

The medicine angle is interesting, if only to discuss what seems to be a glaring contradiction in character action/motivation.

If the Elders are so devoted to creating a "perfect" society, with absolutely no way for the outside world to violate and rape, as it were, their Idealistic view of a time period that was not perfect at all...if they were so devoted to living in 1890, they would not have had modern medicine, and instead would have adopted the medical practices and procedures of 1890, meaning many more people would have died.

But here's the contradiction. They want to avoid death at all costs. Create a Utopia, a place where everyone is healthy and safe (I suppose we, the audience, should just ignore the fact that everyone lives in fear in the Village), but the village Elders know that even with these rules in place, accidents happen, and they [i]know[/i] that the archaic medical procedures of 1890 will simply not be of use.

Because of this, we are shown that they do [i]not[/i] value 1890 as much as we are led to believe, because they are essentially "picking and choosing" what qualities they want to preserve, not showing much regard to the time period as a whole.

Simply, do the Elders [i]truly[/i] believe what they preach, given all of this?

Another interesting observation:

[QUOTE][spoiler]In the end we learn that the village will continue to exist as it has EVEN THOUGH the entire premise on which that society is based is proven to be flawed because of Noah's violent attack on Lucius. Noah's attack exposes the ultimate lapse of logic: despite their efforts to escape the violence of modern life, violence still touched them in their closed society. Violence is therefore proven to be not exclusive to the "outside world". Once this truth is proven, the foundation on which Walker's closed society was built is rendered null.

If Walker's village continues to exist then it is no longer because it provides a complete escape from violence. How unsatisfying.[/spoiler][/QUOTE]
EDIT: A more concise summation of my points regarding the modern medicine:

Because the Elders still used modern medicine, what does that say about their confidence in their abilities to survive in 1890?

Along this same line, the characters in The Village are nothing more than Christmas presents; you can change the wrapping paper, but the contents stay the same.

The Elders and the "Village" are nothing more than a superficial change. It's make-believe, even from the film's reality. There is no actual change that takes place, no magical transformation of human desire just because they happen to be [i]pretending[/i] to live in 1890.

[Semjaza]

[spoiler]I think the entire 1800s change was ludicrous in and of itself. This is a secluded village. What exactly would change if these people wore clothes from the 1980s? Would they magically have access to modern weaponry and technology? No, of course not, because either way the Elders would keep it away from them. Basing their lives in the current century would not have changed the effectiveness of the creatures or anything else because none of their children know any better.

Really, all it is is a thinly veiled plot device to lead you into the "surprise" that it's actually modern times. It has no reason whatsoever other than to try and trick you into thinking it's somehow intelligent and thought provoking. The only real argument could be that life was more simple in that century and so they wanted to stick with that instead... but I really don't see how acting like modern farmers would have changed a thing for them.

Another one of these twists that the director likes to feed into his films and subsequently beat you over the head with in case you're too dumb to figure it out. Instead of seeing a billion and one glasses of water like in Signs, I see a billion and one logos and signs proclaiming that the Walker family owns the surrounding forest.

Meh. I'd still like to know what it is exactly this movie is supposed to make me think about and take in like has been said in this thread. I still can't figure out what that may be lol.[/spoiler]

[Syk3]

To answer the original question: [b]Miss.[/b]

If you read my previous post, you'll understand that I was very excited about the movie. The trailers make it look like a very interesting film, but after finally watching it, I have to say that in my honest opinion that it didn't really live up to the hype. The acting seemed off and not very well done, and some of the speech made me feel like I was watching an intermediate, dramatic play. The person who seemed like the main character, whatever his name is from Signs, did have an important role but very rarely said anything at all, and my brother told me that he didn't want a very talkative position, which I think is just rediculous. I mean, if you want to be in a movie, you can't just whine until all you have to do is walk around and wave to the camera. *shakes head* The idea of the story itself was interesting, I suppose, but contrary to all of the trailers... well, I'll just say that the creatures weren't the main part of the story. Oh, and get this: when they were showing the credits at the beginning and the title popped up, someone actually screamed in the movie theater. XD

Now for the spoilers..

[spoiler]Like I said before, I like the idea of these people hating how cruel the world was on the outside due to money, and so they're trying to shield their children from it by creating a town free of this evil. And then, so they don't get curious about going outside of the village, they create the idea about these monsters that will attack them if they leave. I may not [i]agree[/i] with their opinions about shielding from reality, but I can see where they're coming from. I just didn't like the execution of the movie, personally. Things like how Ivy seemed like she could see, at first, such as when she raced to the rock and knew that Lucious was there, to the point where it took me a while to realize that she was blind. Steadily throughout the movie she seemed to act more and more blind, however. I also thought it was very strange that the parents would treat the kids, even as old as 30 or 40, as if they were 13, and they acted like it too. I'm still trying to figure out what the motive was behind this; is Shymalan trying to show that they never grew up?[/spoiler]

I haven't read any other posts, and I'll edit my post once I have. But for now, I'm tired, so I'm going to get to bed.

[Dragon Warrior]

I think we're all getting a little too into this here XD [spoiler]We're thinking too much about it. M. Night's whole idea may have been just to have them live in an olden days lifestyle with some modern conviences such as the medicine. Maybe he didn't even mean for it to be exactly the 1800's? The people in the village who aren't aware (I mean, the people who aren't Elders) don't even know about the world outside their village so therefore wouldn't know the history of our Earth as we would if we were living in 1890. Because they don't know any of Earth's history, the "1890" the people of the Village know might be totally different from the 1890 we know in the real world. Therefore, the idea of having this modern medicine in an 1890's environment isn't a bad thing. It may just be what the Elders wish to have the people believe is what the medicine is like in their world. I'm sorry if that's confusing.[/spoiler]

[Semjaza]

[spoiler]The Elders lived in the "real" world. Mr. Walker was a history teacher. I would think he, of all people, would know what he was doing with this situation and lifestyle. The only ones that have an excuse to be ignorant of the situation are their children who simply wouldn't know any better.[/spoiler]

I don't think a movie that portrays itself as an intelligent thriller should be free from being "thought about too much", personally lol.

As for the age comment, I doubt it meant anything. Probably just a case of older people playing people younger than they actually look... like every single movie that involves teenage characters.

[spoiler]I had no problem figuring out Ivy was blind. She obviously knows the more traveled parts of the town because she's lived there all her life. She also has seen it in the past since the movie says she wasn't always blind. Her actions from a few minutes after she is introduced make her problem rather obvious, I think.[/spoiler]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Dragon Warrior']I think we're all getting a little too into this here XD[/quote]I agree with Tony on this point. An "intelligent thriller" should be able to be explored at-length, with no seams showing. The Village has too many seams showing, lol.

[quote][spoiler]We're thinking too much about it. M. Night's whole idea may have been just to have them live in an olden days lifestyle with some modern conviences such as the medicine. Maybe he didn't even mean for it to be exactly the 1800's?[/spoiler][/quote]When there is a tombstone marked 1897, and it's one of the first images in the film, when the official website for the film is bathed in the time period, when there is absolutely nothing shown to dissuade the idea that this film is set in the late 1890s, I think it's absolutely ludicrous to defend this plot premise by simply saying, "Maybe he didn't even mean for it to be exactly the 1800s." I'm not trying to target you, DW; I highly respect you. It's just that you're treading on thin ice. XD

MNS is one of the most deliberate filmmakers around today, and I highly doubt anything in his films was accidental, including plot and setting.

[quote][spoiler]The people in the village who aren't aware (I mean, the people who aren't Elders) don't even know about the world outside their village so therefore wouldn't know the history of our Earth as we would if we were living in 1890. Because they don't know any of Earth's history, the "1890" the people of the Village know might be totally different from the 1890 we know in the real world. Therefore, the idea of having this modern medicine in an 1890's environment isn't a bad thing. It may just be what the Elders wish to have the people believe is what the medicine is like in their world. I'm sorry if that's confusing.[/spoiler][/QUOTE]When a History Professor is so warped and twisted that he thinks 1890--at least, [i]pretending[/i] it's 1890 will somehow save those around him...provide salvation, if you will, and thus creates a commune out in the wilderness, something that really could be considered a cult, there is definitely a very half-baked plot premise here.

It violates every previously established documentation of the real 1890, simply because some neurotics can't cope with reality, and for me to accept The Village's premise, I am going to have to delete every bit of knowledge regarding American History from my brain.

That's all this movie really boils down to:

Weaklings who can't cope with reality...societal condition cowards.

EDIT:

Haha, Dagger, you're right. I [i]am[/i] having a total field day with this movie. :D

[Dragon Warrior]

Once again, Bean, you haven't seen the movie so obviously you won't fully understand what I meant by what I said :P We've already discussed this thoroughly in an AIM chat. I don't think I need to say anymore XD

Watch the movie. Then we'll have some good chats ;)

[Brasil]

DW, that's a total cop-out, lol. In our AIM discussions, you didn't want to discuss it anymore because you were worried that any further discussion, and you would start to hate the movie, lol, not because I hadn't seen it. :p

Though, you have to admit that [spoiler]Walker [i]does[/i] seem a bit cowardly in The Village, and is totally incapable of surviving in a real reality, instead being forced to turn to creating this...preserve out of an intense, neurotic desire to feel safe. But even in his neurosis, he is unable to feel safe, because he is so scared of the outside world and thus projects this fear unto others, controlling them with the same fear he suffers from. It's an interesting character, surely, but also a very weak one at the same time.[/spoiler]

[Semjaza]

I didn't like the movie at all, but I do honestly think you should see it before forming any more deep opinions on the film. Really, you're not going to approach this film with a remotely clean slate at this point. Even if you tried to ignore it, you already know all the twists, plot points, character developments contained within the movie. There's going to be a bias that is going to affect your judgement of the film... I think you should just see it and then complain, because really, you'll just be given more things to complain about once you see it (as I have lol).

[amibasuki]

[font=Arial][/font][font=Arial][size=2]I really enjoyed the movie. Ivy really was one of the best parts of the movie, [spoiler]along with Noah and his part in the movie, imo[/spoiler]. I think if I had gone into the movie thinking it was supposed to be scary I wouldn't have liked it as much; luckily the notion was fixed beforehand, so I wasn't disappointed at all. [spoiler]one of the parts I can think of that I didn't like was the whole scene with Kevin getting the medicine in the office. like the guy's not gonna notice him taking stuff from his shelves just because he's reading. :rolleyes: that scene was completely unnecessary; just a cheap excuse to get the director's cameo in.[/spoiler][/size][/font]

[Dragon Warrior]

[spoiler]Maybe the director's cameo is reallt stupid ;)[/spoiler] But I like your thinking, Ms. Steph :D Noah was awesome and Bryce Howard did very well for her first movie (though she played small extra parts in her father's movies previously and did stage plays). [spoiler]To tell you the truth, I was sad Noah died. I was also sad he did what he did to Lucious. He was such an innocent.[/spoiler]

[amibasuki]

[font=Arial][size=2][spoiler]I figured that Noah knew about the whole Monster thing, but I was sad to see he had actually played a part in it near the end. and even though he wasn't 'all there,' he still knew what he was doing wasn't right. like how after Lucius unknowingy turned into the dagger and fell to the floor, Noah was hesitant about stabbing him again, but did it anyway. not to mention how when he started laughing about the 'bad color' being on his hands, he started crying instead. [/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]about the whole 'bad color' thing, big complex guesswork I know :p , but it probably represented violence and of course blood (hah), something that all of the people who started the town had gone through (violence I mean, losing loved ones and such), so the red on the doors could have been a reminder to those who did know the whole thing was a farce about the life they'd go back to if anyone had wandered out of the woods and seen what the world was really like. to those who didn't know the secret, it'd just keep them scared enough not to go into the woods. I don't know why they would've bothered with the color yellow though.[/spoiler][/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]:EDIT: Bryce Dallas Howard was amazing. I was really impressed with her acting. I hate how when people try acting scared, they come off looking either not that scared, over-the-top, or really fake (*cough*Spiderman 2*cough*). but she did it perfectly, [spoiler]especially in the woods scenes. everybody had really good acting I think, except for Noah's mother in the end. her attempt at crying was hilarious. and that whole Kevin and Director scene. gawd, I hate that scene...[/spoiler][/size][/font]

[Dragon Warrior]

Well geez... I never thought of that. [spoiler]They don't want blood spilt so the Elders had them try to avoid it by avoiding the color red? Interesting ^_^

As for what you said on Noah, I'm not sure he knew about the monsters the whole time, but I'm sure he understood what he did to Lucious was wrong. When he was rocking back and forth in the chair and he looked over at his parents and cried "Mommy," that made my heart sink XD Poor guy. God I feel less manly for saying that :p[/spoiler]

[amibasuki]

[font=Arial][size=2][spoiler]well, maybe he didn't know about the monsters being fake earlier :p. he probably would've tried telling Ivy or something if he did know, anyway. I'm still a bit skeptical about the thought that he was the one who shaved the skin off of the animals. he felt badly after he stabbed Lucius, but he never looked like he felt bad about the animals being skinned, if that was him who did it. maybe he didn't think it was as bad to kill sheep compared to other humans, so it wouldn't have made him feel bad to skin sheep, if he did do it. if he did though, his parents would have had to know about it, since they'd have to have been the ones to clean up after him; Noah didn't even bother to clean the blood off his hands after stabbing Lucius. this is all rambling though, so....blah![/spoiler][/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2][/size][/font]

[Dragon Warrior]

[spoiler]That's why I think it's Noah's parents who planted the dead animals because, as I said before, when Noah was found missing by his parents, the mother stated that he had run off with the monster costume and some of the dead animals. If the parents were hiding the dead animals, that must mean they were the ones planting them. Savvy?[/spoiler]

[amibasuki]

[font=Arial][size=2]ohhhhh, okay! I missed that part. [spoiler]I only paid attention to her saying that he ran off with the costume; didn't hear her say anything about the dead animals, heh.[/spoiler][/size][/font]