The Village--Hit or Miss?

[Dragon Warrior]

Yeah, [spoiler]I'm guessing most people didn't (I don't know why since it was said as clear as day XD). I dunno if that was M. Night giving away who had the dead animals or just trying to make us think it was them or maybe someone else or possibly Noah or what? I personally think it was Noah's parents.

Poor mother. She lost her Noah.[/spoiler]

[Arcadia]

[size=1]Honestly, this movie was just awful. I was really, really disappointed because I was expecting something with more depth and more thought and instead I got this flimsy thing that only really skimmed the surface here. I think that the idea behind the film - [spoiler]the idea that a few warped couples decide to exile themselves so that they can seperate themselves from violence and sorrow[/spoiler] - was a fairly interesting one, and it could have been well done. But it wasn't. [spoiler]From the very beginning, you see that death and sadness is inescapable, which is probably the major point of the entire story. And yet, at the end, they decide to continue with the false existance? They're just a bunch of cowards.[/spoiler] Maybe [i]that[/i] was a point as well, but whatever it was, it sucked, lol.

The beginning of the movie was possibly the worst part of it. I've always understood that in the beginning, you've got some primary characters to introduce and, one way or another, you've got to get the audience to care about what happens to them. It doesn't matter if they love them or hate them, just as long as they care. Watching the beginning of The Village, I realized that I simply did not care what happened to any of these people. Like the entire story itself, I feel like I could have liked these characters had they had a little more depth. But everything felt so forced and rushed, like MNS (to borrow Alex's abbreviation ^_~) was just trying to stuff it all together in time for his big surprise twist, which wasn't actually a surprise at all because a lot of what happened was ridiculously predictable.

The Noah discussion. If anything, I'd have to go with the ideas that [spoiler]he was the one who skinned the animals and put them in various places. Like somebody else said, we already saw that he was a violent character (when he was hitting the other guys with sticks), and he probably got locked in that room hundreds of times before. He obviously wasn't afraid of the creatures and he laughed while everyone else was busy pissing their pants. It was all just a big game to him. If anything, Noah was just a child. He did what he wanted, took what he wanted, and when Ivy was taken from him, he retaliated. He may have that "child-like innocence" thing going for him, but also remember that children can also be incredibly cruel without actually meaning to be. They don't know any better.[/spoiler]

Okay, I so got distracted there. Anyway, The Village was a definite miss for me, which really doesn't happen that often. The last time I actually despised a movie is when I went to see King Arthur. I even liked Unbreakable and Signs.[/size]

[Mitch]

[size=1][color=red] Miss.

This movie was like having a gun put to my head, at point blank.

And it missed. It. .. missed.

At its centerfuge, it is a love story yarn. It is about love and how it will drive the individual to do things which one would otherwise not do.

And at its subterfuge it is about groups of people who escape from society because they have been wronged by it in incompensateable ways.

The main problem with the film is its pacing. It is slow, from the very beginning.

I've had this problem with Shyamalan's other films to a point--most notably with [i]Unbreakable[/i]--but up until this point, it's been bearable. It wasn't bearable this time.

The slow pace makes you care less about what you're watching. You don't care about the characters. You don't care about the insipid love story. And above all, when the movie [i]finally[/i] picks up some pace at its very end, you're just too tired for the drill and dull ride to give a damn.

The idea has some novelty, but it didn't blow me away, when I found out what the movie was really about. Society itself, and how it works, and what it does, is something I've thought over for a long amount of time.

Although there's good acting performances--most notably the beautiful actor who plays Ivy--it still isn't enough to pull this through.

It's just too slow paced. And the story itself, once you've finally got it all revealed, isn't anything too amazing.

A very disappointing movie.

I think the main reason most were disappointed was because there was such a false advertising to this movie.

Many would see the trailed and consider it is a horror flick, of some nature, like Night's previous voyeur was--[i]Signs[/i]--but it is not. Although it does have horror elements in it, don't expect to be scared at all in the film.

Where the film does try to scare you, it doesn't succeed because you're not drawn into this movie from the get-go.

I came to this movie expecting a lot more, knowing what Shyamalan is capable of. I left rudely disappointed with it.

All in all, a boring lackluster film. I wouldn't run out to see it. It might be worth a rental, just for the sake of seeing it if you like Night, but other than that, this is definitely Shyamalan's worst movie. Especially if you've seen all his other movies, and know what he's capable of.[/size][/color]

[Transtic Nerve]

Anybody who knows anything about M Night Shaymalan knows that each trailer he produces to each of his movies is not what the movie is about. The Sixth Sense trailer is about a boy who sees dead people... but the movie really isn't all about that in the end, it's about Bruce Willis's character figuring out he's really dead.... the Unbreakable trailer deals with what you think is a man who cannot get hurt no matter what... a miracle worker, but thats only a small element of the movie, it's really about Samuel L Jackson's character finding his opposite and essentially coming to peace with himself... completing himself... Signs... the trailer for signs mislead you to think it was about aliens and their crop signs, when in fact it was about signs from God. The reason the girl left the water around, the reason Merryle had his baseball bat up on the wall, the reason the boy had Asma (sp?)... the aliens attacking was part of the film, but the underlying meaning was not that. The village does the same thing. The trailers make you think that there are these monsters in the woods... when in fact, as you all know, it's something totally different.

If you are upset because the trailers for this movie mislead you, then it's all your fault. You should have known from the start that this movie would have a surprise ending. That it would not be anything like the trailers suggest.

Some of you are looking too deep into the movie, other aren't looking deep enough. [spoiler]It was Noah who planted the dead animal bodies. He was retarded, he didn't know any better for one, which would explain why the animals were skinned and not eaten or torn apart or anything. You'll also notice that when whats her face mentioned it to her father when he told her it was all fake, he seemed really surprised about it and honestly didn't know.[/spoiler]

The movie was really indepth if you look passed your biased for it. If you actually listened to what the people in the movie said, put two and two together, you'll see that this movie was an indepth movie. Many of you missed it cause you were expecting a horror flick, which usually aren't in depth to begin with, and when you saw this and realized it's not that kinda of movie, you now had to make yourself see the depth in the movie, which you've already missed because you weren't paying that much attention in the first place. It's quite obvious why they are out in the middle of the woods, why they did it, who they are as people, and everything else. This movie explains everything, I don't have any idea how any of you missed all that information.... well yes I do, like I said, you were expecting a simple horror flick. So don't be dissapointed with the movie, be dissapointed with yourself for not being able to understand the movie. Night is not easily understood to begin with, but you can understand his weird motives. It all makes sense in the end. It always does.

[Semjaza]

I think everyone understands the underlying motive of this film. It's plain as day and it's right out explained before the ending. If anyone couldn't figure that much out, I doubt they'd have the mental capacity to even post on here.

Considering that, I really don't see what is so deep about this development in the story. [spoiler]They wanted to escape modern times for various reasons, basically all involving violence.[/spoiler] That's about it. Perhaps one can think of the different psychological affects this may have and what led to it, but there's no reason to in the context of this film... and even then it's not complicated at all.

I didn't have an biases going into this movie, but I simply didn't like it and I don't see what is so intelligent about that twist in the story. What more is there to think about, honestly? One can go on and on about what the film is "really" trying to say, but in the end it is all the same thing that could be adequately summarized in one simple sentence. I didn't have an epiphany at the end of this movie that our world is a crazy, horrible place. It doesn't lead to anything.

I didn't like it not because I was suspecting a horror film (something this man has yet to even make as far as I'm concerned), but simply because I thought it was dumb, plodding and poorly paced. In fact, I doubt I'd really even enjoy it if it wasn't for the actress who played Ivy, as I felt she was the best aspect of this film (Noah's actor was okay, as well). If other people love it, that's cool. People hate half the movies I love, so what can do you? lol

If this guy wants to make movies about the underlying themes in his films, than I think he should just make those movies. Instead, we wind up with Signs trying to tell us about a man finding his faith and peace with god, with aliens interjected for basically little reason at all in the scheme of things. Just because a theme is underlying does not make it intelligent or complex. There's nothing complicated about what Signs or this film try to do in any sense, as far as I'm concerned.

I bring up the water not because it's a plot point in Signs, but because it is [i]thrusted in your face constantly[/i]. Hey, there's water. Daddy, I want more water. Camera cut, twenty glasses of water. [spoiler]The idea of the alien weakness[/spoiler] is thrusted in your face so often that by the time they actually come out and say it it doesn't even have an effect anymore. It also makes me feel like I'm being pandered to, as if I couldn't figure out anything for myself. The Village has a lot of the same effect... much like Unbreakable (which I personally enjoyed quite a bit), the entire plot is explained for you point blank at the end as if you are too stupid to put it all together. I feel like this guy doesn't respect his audience's intelligence in the slightest.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']The trailers make you think that there are these monsters in the woods... when in fact, as you all know, it's something totally different.[/quote]
This one sentence invalidates your entire argument of The Village being some deep and profound analysis of the human existence.

Anyone with half a brain realizes that our society is not in top form these days. It's so blatantly obvious. All we have to do is turn on MSNBC, and we are bombarded with graphic images of violence.

The Village is the exact same thing as MSNBC. How, you may ask? Simple.

When you strip away all of the...window dressings of The Village, you are left with a cold-hearted fact:

Violence is inescapable.

Just because MNS decides to force that idea into The Village, suddenly we are supposed to praise The Village as art? It doesn't make sense, because if that's art, then CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, are all art, as well, because they show and say the exact same thing that MNS does in The Village.

What's the difference between news programs and The Village?

For the most part, newscasters aren't muddled and blinded by the conception of "high art." O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, they know what they are, and they know their role:

Entertainers.

[Mitch]

[size=1][color=red] Amen to all that that Tony said.

I didn't have a bias to this movie. I just didn't know what to expect, what with the trailer and all.

I thought it would be at least a bit scary, like [i]Signs[/i] was, but it isn't. It's still false advertising no matter what you say TN, and it's cheating people.

Usually, a trailer is meant to give you a brief sense of what a movie is about, and what it'll be like--will it be scary? will it be funny? but this film falsely advertised to me that it was going to be at least somewhat scary. . .which it wasn't.

Instead of that, I'm given some moral story that's a waste of time and that could've been executed so much better than it was.

Transtic, there's nothing deep about this movie. It's all explained to you if you pay attention. Just because I thought this movie was going to be a horror film in some sense doesn't mean I didn't come looking for what might be deeper.

I didn't come to this movie with any biases. I simply came expecting what I've expected in the past from M. Night, and this time I didn't enjoy the ride at all.

There is nothing deep about this movie. We've already explained what it's all about, as deep as we can go, and that's it. And what this movie says does nothing. It doesn't really bring you to an epiphany, it doesn't give you a sense that you've learned something. It gives you a sense that the real reason for this movie was just to tell you violence is bad and so is society, which are both blatantly obvious to anyone who's been alive long enough.

None of M. Night's films have been deep. [i]Signs[/i] was not deep, [i]Unbreakable[/i] was not deep, and [i]The Sixth Sense[/i] was not deep. Although I did enjoy all those films, I didn't enjoy this one.

I think mainly it's just that I'm tiring of this guy using the same forumla in his movies. But most mainly, I didn't like this story because it was so slowly paced (worse than his other movies), the real core of the movie was a waste of time, and all in all it was just about an hour and a half of a bore fest, and only at the end was it somewhat interesting, and even then I was so sick of the movie I didn't care.

Again, the only thing I really liked about this movie was the actor who played Ivy. I think she's a very beautiful, attractive woman.[/size][/color]

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='Siren']This one sentence invalidates your entire argument of The Village being some deep and profound analysis of the human existence.[/quote]


I don't know if you got me mixed up with someone else or you just didn't read my post, but I never said it had anything to do with being deep and profound analysis of our existence... In fact I said nothing to that extent at all, my whole post was pointing out that the people who feel "left out" because they thought this movie was going to be something that it wasn't are at fault by themselves, not by the movie. Like I said before, anyone who knows anything about Night's movies knows they are never what they seem to be, so it's not the movie's fault they wasted their money, they should have known better. Then I said that the movie is in depth. There was a post saying something about how this person felt the movie was just a flat work, when in reality, if they were paying attention, the movie goes into great depth. Not meaning it had any profound meaning, I never said that. I simply meant it explained everything that happened well enough to understand the movie. I dunno where in your head you got the silly idea that i was talking about soem analysis of our existence... thats your fault for thinking that. Perhaps you should read my post again.

Tony, I'll agree. I wasn't much focusng on all that. I understand some people won't like it just because they won't, but I don't think the reasons like "the trailer mislead me" or "this isn't a horror flick" should be any sort of reason. Cause thats not what the movie is about, anyone who knows anything could have told you that.

About Signs, I find Signs to be Night's worst movie in my book. I don't think it lived up to the other 3. It had no real surprised, it had no quick twist in the end... it was simply an alien flick. Which is something Night has been wanting to do since he was a kid. Also if anyone has the Signs DVD, they should check out Night's first alien movie and see the resemblence between the alien and the "monster" in The Village...

Mitch... I don't even know what to say... How can you KNOW this film was made by Night and still even THINK that the trailer had ANYTHING to do with what was actually going to happen? Thats just stupid on your part. It's not being cheated out of anything, it's not false advertisement... it's the way Night has ALWAYS done his movies. Always, everyone of them has been the same way. Go watch the trailers for Sixth Sense and Unbreakable... Signs was a little different, but even then, go watch the trailer for Signs... you'll see....

I didn't say the movie was deep as in it had some big profound meaning, as I explained above. I said it was in depth. There's a difference perhaps in the two meanings. In depth means that it explains everything, that it makes you think, makes you figure things out, it put the audience into the film, insteadof just letting the film go on and on.

I'll agree with you that Signs was not an in depth film... but Unbreakable and esspecially the Sixth Sense go far in depth. Why do you think the Sixth Sense is still ranked very high with movie goers as one of the best movies? Because it's in depth, a new experience for movie goers. Unbreakale is not known as well through most movie goers, partially because it didn't stand out alot compared to his other movies. Nothing really huge in it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't in depth. Any movie that takes you through the whole movie before you figure out what is really happens has alot of depth to it. Not saying it's gonna be the greatest movie ever, but you can't say it doesn't have depth.

Let me just say one last thing. I'm not defending this movie on the basis of whether or not it was good or bad. Thats your choice, you make it, but I am defending this movie on the depth of characters and plot that it contains and on the way the movie was advertised. And if you were disappointed about this movie because you thought it was going to be about what the trailer presented it to be, then it's your fault for being disappointed. I would have been extremely surprised if it was exactly like the trailer made it out to be. But I knew it wasn't, because I know how Night does his movies. You should have known to before you went to see it. Because you didn't, you were ignorant to the whole movie and ofcourse you're not going to like it because you thought it was going to be some typical horror film.

And yeah, I though Ivy's character was well acted as well.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']I don't know if you got me mixed up with someone else or you just didn't read my post, but I never said it had anything to do with being deep and profound analysis of our existence... In fact I said nothing to that extent at all, my whole post was pointing out that the people who feel "left out" because they thought this movie was going to be something that it wasn't are at fault by themselves, not by the movie. Like I said before, anyone who knows anything about Night's movies knows they are never what they seem to be, so it's not the movie's fault they wasted their money, they should have known better. Then I said that the movie is in depth. There was a post saying something about how this person felt the movie was just a flat work, when in reality, if they were paying attention, the movie goes into great depth. Not meaning it had any profound meaning, I never said that. I simply meant it explained everything that happened well enough to understand the movie. I dunno where in your head you got the silly idea that i was talking about soem analysis of our existence... thats your fault for thinking that. Perhaps you should read my post again.[/quote]
I'll just re-quote what I quoted before.

[quote name='TN']The trailers make you think that there are these monsters in the woods... when in fact, as you all know, it's something totally different.[/quote]
That was the last sentence in that paragraph. Just to provide the pretext, I'll also quote the part before it:

[quote=TN]Anybody who knows anything about M Night Shaymalan knows that each trailer he produces to each of his movies is not what the movie is about.

The [b]Sixth Sense[/b] trailer is about a boy who sees dead people... but the movie really isn't all about that in the end, [b]it's about Bruce Willis's character figuring out he's really dead[/b]....

the [b]Unbreakable[/b] trailer [b]deals with what you think is a man who cannot get hurt no matter what... a miracle worker[/b], but thats only a small element of the movie, [b]it's really about Samuel L Jackson's character finding his opposite and essentially coming to peace with himself... completing himself[/b]...

[b]Signs[/b]... the trailer for signs mislead you to think it was about aliens and their crop signs, when in fact it was about [b]signs from God[/b]. The reason the girl left the water around, the reason Merryle had his baseball bat up on the wall, the reason the boy had Asma (sp?)... the aliens attacking was part of the film, but the underlying meaning was not that.

[b]The village does the same thing[/b].[/quote]
Let's just see what themes you've established?

In Sixth Sense, it's a realization of a man's own mortality, so that he can find peace in the afterlife.

In Unbreakable, it is a synthesis of polar opposites, to bring about balance. You describe Bruce Willis as "a miracle worker."

The implications of your assessment of Signs should be obvious: "Signs from God."

While you may not have explicitly been discussing the more profound statements regarding human existence, you touched upon them. I'm not terribly fond of Signs, but when you describe a film as showing signs from God, that film and its plot progression is a deeply religious experience, and is far more than just "in depth." I'm not saying you had any epiphany or anything, but the fact that you treat Signs as a religious picture should tell you that you do see a more profound message in it.

I still feel Signs is an utterly empty film, but if you see a "Signs from God" in there, then you treat it more than just an "in depth" film. I mean...it touches on Biblical happenings. Hell, Moses and the Burning Bush in the OT. A sign from God is a deeply moving and [i]profound[/i] experience that changes a person forever.

So, based on your interpretations of the films, there are definitely profound happenings and circumstances in them.

Now, you said that The Village "does the same thing." Your very next sentence in that paragraph dealt with what the trailers led the audience to believe, yes, but it also went into what the film was actually about.

If we think the monsters are in the woods, but throughout the course of the movie, it seems that the real monsters are much, much closer to home (in the Village), what is that saying about the human existence? I think it was in The Shadow, "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?"

Really, you could view The Village as an exercise in Original Sin, where mankind is forever doomed because he is forever "unclean," as it were. Original Sin is a Christian ideal based on Garden of Eden, and plucking the apple (though, the apple was not in the original story, instead later added through creative liberties), disobeying God, and being casted out of the Garden of Eden, into a life of sorrow, difficulty and pain, is certainly a learning experience. It's what I would call the Divine Bitchslap.

And when you think about it in that way, the Elders play God. They sought to create an "Eden," and established rules. If anybody breaks those rules, they will be punished. Further, the color RED, as the forbidden color in The Village, can also be interpreted as the red apple of GoE, tempting the characters, as it were.

Now, based on all of this that can be gleaned from The Village and a rather rudimentary understanding and background of the Book of Genesis and various literary works, and your acknowledgement of the film's themes of "Monsters in the [i]Village[/i]" being quite different than the trailers' theme of "Monsters in the [i]Woods[/i]," I'd be inclined to say that you aren't reading into the film enough.

And touching back on "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men," [i]because[/i] the Monsters [i]aren't[/i] in the Woods, and actually [i]in[/i] the Village itself, the Village they construct, the "Eden," fails because violence is an inherent trait of the human existence. Hence, when I said, "Violence is inescapable." Thus, the film [i]does[/i] become a statement...a message about the human condition...the human existence.

Then, after we break down The Village to that theme, we realize that it is incredibly simple and redundant, which brings me back to my other points regarding [i]why[/i] it is redundant, specifically, referencing violence seen on MSNBC, FoxNews, and CNN. Someone would have to be blind not to realize that we do not need to go to the theatres to be shown violence, or malicious human desire; all we have to do is turn on the TV.

[Mitch]

[size=1][color=red] I don't see a reason to even compose a reply, because all I've said is up above, you simply didn't read into it enough.

Mainly, I didn't come to the movie thinking it was going to be a horror flick. As is directly stated above, in my previous post, "I didn't know what to expect."

Anyway, it's pointless to try and say what I should when I've already said it all above and you're simply going to keep calling what I'm saying ignorant and whatever else. So oh well, basically I don't like this movie, and that's good enough for me.

If you like it, I respect that and I don't see any reason why you have to sit here and act like you have to set me straight on what I'm already straight on.[/size][/color]

[DetectiveMikeRS]

[QUOTE=Dark Serena][size=1][color=purple][i]Rrrrrrrrrrrgh![/i] *presses fingers hard against temples*

Well, my memory's inept, but I'll try.

The Village, judging from what I've seen, takes place in colonial times...like, maybe 1700's? Anyways, these settlers find a village (I think) and they have the 'perfect life.' That is, if they abide by the village rules. Rules that say things like "stay away from the woods; they live there" and "when the bell rings, stay in your houses and lock up." I think there's a third rule, but I forgot.[Quote]



Sounds like a rip off of an X-Files episode: Arcadia it was called. Mulder and Scully went undercover as a newlyweds to investigate murders in a perfect neighborhood, and if you break the rules, watch out.

[Semjaza]

[QUOTE=DetectiveMikeRS][QUOTE=Dark Serena][size=1][color=purple][i]Rrrrrrrrrrrgh![/i] *presses fingers hard against temples*

Well, my memory's inept, but I'll try.

The Village, judging from what I've seen, takes place in colonial times...like, maybe 1700's? Anyways, these settlers find a village (I think) and they have the 'perfect life.' That is, if they abide by the village rules. Rules that say things like "stay away from the woods; they live there" and "when the bell rings, stay in your houses and lock up." I think there's a third rule, but I forgot.[/Quote]



Sounds like a rip off of an X-Files episode: Arcadia it was called. Mulder and Scully went undercover as a newlyweds to investigate murders in a perfect neighborhood, and if you break the rules, watch out.[/QUOTE]

That sounds more like the Stepford Wives than what she wrote... not that her assumption is what the movie is about anyway.