The Village [Archive] - Movie Forums

View Full Version : The Village

Yoda

07-29-04, 11:59 PM

I'm under instructions not to reveal anything until the movie's been released, so I'll have a review up tomorrow. :)

jrs

07-30-04, 12:03 AM

I'm seeing it tomorrow afternoon. I can't wait for your review Chris, and I'll let you know my thoughts too. :D

Garrett

07-30-04, 12:14 AM

I'm under instructions not to reveal anything until the movie's been released, so I'll have a review up tomorrow. :)

Who's instructions?

Yoda

07-30-04, 12:16 AM

Those who screened the film; Buena Vista Pictures Marketing, I believe.

jrs

07-30-04, 12:22 AM

Where did you see it/if you saw it... that Buena Vista Pictures Marketing is giving you these instructions?

Yoda

07-30-04, 12:25 AM

I saw an early screening at the Loews Waterfront Theater. The representatives there told each person admitted not to reveal anything about the movie until its release.

Mer De Noms

07-30-04, 12:38 AM

well that's lame!
like they would know who u are in cyber space.
come on man spill the beans i'm dying to know what u know =)

Escape

07-30-04, 01:18 AM

well that's lame!
like they would know who u are in cyber space.
come on man spill the beans i'm dying to know what u know =)

I'm seeing it tomorrow night and it better be good. So far M. Night Shyamalan's movies are 3 for 3 with me and I'm expecting it to be 4 for 4 around midnight tomorrow. :D

Madjoker

07-30-04, 01:45 AM

Well, I just watched The viallge and let me tell you that, this movie is not scary neither is very suspensful, it's more like a drama but; overall is good but not what I expected, can i say the big twist :rolleyes: ?

Garrett

07-30-04, 02:52 AM

I saw an early screening at the Loews Waterfront Theater. The representatives there told each person admitted not to reveal anything about the movie until its release.

At least, was it as good as you expected?

LordSlaytan

07-30-04, 03:47 AM

Saw it tonight...I'll keep my opinions to myself until more people have seen it.

Garrett

07-30-04, 03:50 AM

Saw it tonight...I'll keep my opinions to myself until more people have seen it.

You saw it too? Lucky bum. :)

sisboombah

07-30-04, 06:56 AM

i cant wait to see this movie, i love hedgehogs...they're so cute. especially when they are wearing clothes...

jrs

07-30-04, 09:03 AM

It started at midnight last night here. If I knew earlier I would have maybe gone.

Well, I just watched The viallge and let me tell you that, this movie is not scary neither is very suspensful, it's more like a drama

M.Night himself did say that The Villiage is "more of a" romantic/drama than anything else.
I'm seeing this later today so I'll judge for myself.

Yoda

07-30-04, 02:11 PM

It's up...discuss (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1081569-the-village.html). :)

Urban Cowboy

07-30-04, 02:48 PM

Yoda I agree with your take on the movie, for the most part. I'll say a major disapointment for me was the character of Noah. I think Adrien Brody did a good job with what he was given, but his character became unbelievable during the end of the film. I also thought the twist was foreshadowed too much. I had a pretty good idea about what it was about 2/3 of the way through the film. But all and all it was a good effort.

Sedai

07-30-04, 03:47 PM

well that's lame!
like they would know who u are in cyber space.
come on man spill the beans i'm dying to know what u know =)

Oh, so it's ok to do underhanded things as long as you get away with it... Something is lame alright....

Anyway, good review Yods!! We are seeing it this weekend, hopefully won't be let down to much....

Mandee

07-30-04, 07:27 PM

Hey, I'm new. :) The reason I joined because I have a lot to say about The Village.

I have to start by saying first that I am a huge Shyamlan fan. He grabbed my attention because I am from the Philly area, so it is really cool to see someone from the same area making great movies and in the Philadelphia area.

When the movie ended I knew people were either going to love it or hate it. Most of the people I saw it with didn't like it, and I said something similar to what Yoda mentions in his review - there is a lot of pressure of Shyamalan to out do himself, to make an even bigger twist to amaze the audience. If this movie didn't have his name attached to it, I think the reaction would be totally different.

I think the way the movie was marketed is misleading. It was made out to be a very horror-filled film, with Joaquin Phoenix playing a large role. I think that threw a lot of people off.

I found this movie to be unique. It may not have been as scary as people were expecting, but I think it delivers as a film that keeps you thinking. I read a review that said this was "hands down the worst film of the year." I think that is absolutely rediculous.

Shyamlan wrote a directed a beautiful film that, if anything, fell victim to misleading advertising but if the audience can get over that, they will see an intriguing film.

Mandee. :)

MovieMaker5087

07-30-04, 08:22 PM

Here's a quote from the film:

"Try your best not to scream..."

I need not try... hands down, this movie su-ucked! -1/10

I look at it this way... it's basically a scarier version of Scooby-Doo... minus Scooby and the gang and the word "scarier". The only good actor was Adrian Brody, who was in fact retarded. (Now I'm going to get lynched for saying "retarded") If you liked this film, you might as well like every bad movie Hollywood has produced... *cough cough* Caddyshack II...

jrs

07-30-04, 10:27 PM

What a piece of sh*t !!!

When walking in to see The Villiage, I automatically had a sense of discomfort. I sat down with my 44 oz. Root Beer and 8" Xtra cheeze pizza while the lights dimmed and got ready.
Noah (Adrian Brody) seemed to be somewhat of a waste of character for this movie. The character that really stood out , was Ivy Elizabeth Walker (Bryce Dallas Howard). She literally stole the show.
The Villiage dragged on too much in some places, it was very predictable, and as for the ending????? Please, don't get me started. The ending was terrible!!! I didn't see any "twist" ending people say this movie supposedly has.

The best part of the whole entire experience???? The Batman Begins teaser trailer of course :cool:

The Villiage 0_5 - for the teaser.

Tazz

07-30-04, 10:38 PM

I sat down with my 44 oz. Root Beer and 8" Xtra cheeze pizza while the lights dimmed and got ready.

They let you bring your own food to the theaters?

I didnt enjoy The Village it really disappointed me :(

jrs

07-30-04, 11:25 PM

They let you bring your own food to the theaters?

There's a restaraunt in Cinemark. You may eat in it, or bring food inside the theater. I chose the latter.

Tazz

07-30-04, 11:31 PM

Damn we dont have any of those thats why my town sucks

jrs

07-30-04, 11:35 PM

Damn we dont have any of those thats why my town sucks
:laugh:

Dick_Laurent

07-31-04, 02:15 AM

poeman

07-31-04, 03:22 AM

projectMayhem

07-31-04, 11:08 AM

There's a restaraunt in Cinemark.
Cinemarks are awesome like that. Even if they do take forever to make anything.

I was the only one of the 5 people that I saw this with that liked it. There were some big flaws (like every time Sigourney Weaver is on screen, seriously she was bad in this), but I felt the realtionship between Phoenix's Luscious Hunt and Howard's Ivy Walker was wonderful, and thought it brilliant of Shyamalan to make that such a central plot element.

led_zeppelin

07-31-04, 11:22 AM

Me and Garrett are seeing it today, and I for one hope it ends up better than what you've all said. If not, I've still got Signs.

dean

07-31-04, 11:40 AM

Saw The Village last night and I must say that it is an absolutely brilliant social and political commentary. That part didn't sink in until about 1/2 hour after the film, but its poignantsy is evident once M. Night Shyamalan makes his cameo. For this reason I can easily say The Village is one of the most important movies of the decade.

Aside from its cleverly-disguised messages, The Village was also a beautifully shot, funny, and scary film. Shyamalan's best work yet, and my favourite movie at the moment.

Escape

07-31-04, 02:07 PM

Well honestly, this is his first film that I'm dissappointed in.
To be frank, it was too darn slow and the parts that were supposed to frighten were far and few between. As I left the movie I never heard one good thing said about it amonst the crowd. I did catch someone say that signs was worst than this one which caught me by surprise. Of course his other friends said "no way" and a small debate had begun. Anyways, I wouldn't even watch this on the tele when it comes out. You'll fall asleep withing the first hour. Yoda was right in a way. Not bad if you're just starting out but for an M. Night Shyamalan movie, no way.

FrankTheBunny420

07-31-04, 02:36 PM

I'll be one of the few to say that i'm a fan of this movie. One needs to understand the style that he uses to create his movies. Stylistically this movie is right up his ally. He uses silence and slow motion when he needs it the most to create the creepy sensation of being watched or followed by the creatures from the woods. I noticed many little camera tricks in this movie that were remenescent of Signs. This movie had Roger Deakins on board, who is an academy award nominiee from the Coen Brothers movies such as O'Brother.

The creatures from the woods looks freakin cool as hell too. i might be the only one that thinks that. The ending scene where Shamyalan is the director of the walker preserve, where you see his face in the glass door of the fridge, straight up Shamyalan....love it.
ADMIN NOTE: please use spoiler tags around any comments that could give ANYTHING about the movie away.

FrankTheBunny420

07-31-04, 02:46 PM

my bad...

Caitlyn

07-31-04, 08:42 PM

It's up...discuss. :)

It Takes A Village
Amidst a hoard of rumors, alleged plot leaks, and even more hype, M. Night Shyamalan's The Village has some large shoes to fill, and an ambitious marketing campaign to live up to

Great review... :)

chro2112

07-31-04, 11:54 PM

I was dissapointed. The movie ending was too cliche.. besides the twist that the "town" is actually modern day and the "viallge" is purposely kept a secret and old-aged by the elders. The Elders also faked the entire "thoe who may not be spoken of" crap. Its hard to believe that nobody culd figure it out. I mean, even the mentally challenged guy had the power to almost murder lucius and steal the monster suits they use and he actually finds the girl in the woods. But hey she was blind so she probably went in circles for about an hour or two.
ADMIN NOTE: have some consideration, and don't post spoilers out in the open like that. It's rude as hell.

Equilibrium

07-31-04, 11:59 PM

Just saw it. Def a love or hate movie.......me loved it!

chro2112

08-01-04, 12:38 AM

Have some consideration?

The director didn't show any consideration when he tried to mess with my head. And make me think that it was actually in the past when it was really modern. And when nothing that happened was real. Red wasnt a bad color, and yellow wasnt good. He didn't consider that some people dont like being lied to damnit! And that the monsters are actually just the Elders in costumes.. well except for the last one who was actually the mentally challenged man.

Yoda

08-01-04, 12:47 AM

You were warned not to post spoilers without notice. Now you've been banned.

Your little rant about the director not showing you consideration is silly, but even if it wasn't, how in the hell are you getting back at M. Night Shyamalan by being a dick and revealing the story for those who want to decide for themselves?

Parting shot: it's beyond bizarre to refer to a plot twist as a "lie." Shyamalan may have made a movie you don't care for, but you make it sound like he's violated you. Get a grip, man.

Holden Pike

08-01-04, 12:49 AM

Chro2112, we hardly knew ye.

I miss it already.

Escape

08-01-04, 01:18 AM

You were warned not to post spoilers without notice. Now you've been banned.

WoW. That's got to be a record. 2 posts. :D

adri0611

08-01-04, 02:31 AM

Garrett

08-01-04, 02:33 AM

I think this is a spoiler so...

If anyone has seen the movie and wouldn't mind helping me figure something out, please read this and reply to it.

Thank you.

I hope I haven't messed up...

A microphone was shown in many scenes. Was this an accident or did it mean something?

I didn't catch any microphone but it was likely an accident.

Your spoiler tags didn't work on your post. Try [SPOILERS=The Village] instead of just [SPOILERS]

EveryonesACritic

08-01-04, 02:49 AM

:rolleyes:

Well, we've just gotten home from viewing The Village. ho-hum. The M. Night special featured on SciFi Channel last week was way better, so at least you can buy the dvd for that, and not the movie.

Lord knows I wanted this movie to scare the pants off of me, and I just knew M. Night was the guy to do it. I was scared in Signs, which I thought was a really great movie, for the "pants-scare" genre. The first half of the movie was great, although the dialogue was stilted and weak, but still, hey, I was at an M. Night film and I was prepared to wade through anything to get scared out of my seat. Pretty soon, in a scene where a young man is on watch in the watchtower, something scary happens. But that's pretty much where it ends.

I'm still trying to make myself like it, but I have to admit that it just did not live up to the advertising. How embarrassing for M. Night, and I hate it for him. I'll bet he's at home hiding and hoping his agents will buy up all the papers printing all the reviews.

In the end, of course, this whole Village is really a bunch of hippies who tuned in, turned on and dropped out in the 70's (judging from the photo shown)...and then pretended the red-cloaked, warthog-faced fake monsters were real, a plan to scare the young Amish-like young adults to stay in the commune.

Then they send a blind girl into the woods to retireve medicine...oh, puuleeeease, gimme a break!

Anyway, if I were you, I'd go see Bourne Part 2 and wait to rent Village on a five for one sale.

Just my two cents.

M. Night: don't let the studio get ahold of your next film...

adri0611

08-01-04, 03:14 AM

I can't believe that M. Night would allow the boom microphone to be seen at least five times, that I'm aware of.

He wouldn't make that kind of a mistake! He left those problems in there for a reason, darn it! And I'm going to get to the bottom of it!!! I refuse to accept anything else other than that!

EDIT: Correcting Spoiler Tags

Escape

08-01-04, 04:26 AM

Hey fellows, your content is still very easy to read.

You're opening tags should look like this
[ + spoilers=the village]
You're ending tags should look like this
[ + /spoilers]

I just don't want you to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, and when the words are in the open like that even with the "spoiler" word there, it can still get mighty tempting for the willpower weaklings like myself. :D

Gaia

08-01-04, 09:38 AM

Hi this is my first time talking to anyone other than my fiance about movies. :/ He didn't like The Village. Direct Quote: "This movie was another 'Beautiful Mind'." He was in agony through A Beautiful Mind. >.< So I went in search of others that would not keep changing the subject. =P

I was one of the many that were mislead by the marketing. Although the movie was not *quite* what was advertised, I still loved it. I also remember jumping about 5ft out of my seat a few times, but thats just because I am easily spooked. So the fear factor worked on me. Bryce Howard did a very good job with her character. I have only seen Signs and Th Village. I really want to see Mr. Night's other movies now... ^_^

Sorry if this was so long. I tend to ramble... o_O

dettwyler

08-01-04, 12:40 PM

I LOVED "The Village" -- I thought it was the best movie I've seen in years. It scared the **** out of me. I kept reaching over and grabbing my husband's arm and shaking him. I do NOT like blood and gore at the movies, and once towards the very end I became consciously "aware" that my emotions were being jerked around, but still, the whole point of going to movies like this one is to "suspend disbelief."

I also did not, in a million years, see the surprise twists coming. They made sense immediately, but I certainly didn't figure them out until they were revealed on screen. There are two surprise twists, both equally disconcerting.

I can hardly wait to go watch the film again, now knowing what I know.

I thought it was very brave of M. Night to have one of the major characters be someone who has autism and is mildly retarded. As the mother of a mentally retarded young man, and knowing several young adults with autism, I thought Brody's portrayal was really interesting and well-done, very true to life. Perhaps movie-goers who are not familiar with autism will be perplexed, but I thought it was great. This is true love story, and touchingly portrays the relationships among Ivy (Howard), Lucius (Phoenix) and Noah (Brody). A love story/tragedy on the level of "Romeo and Juliet".

I look forward to discussing the film with our friends you have an 18 year old son with autism, to see what they think about how this character is presented.

The "twist" at the end is also really really interesting, and provides lots of fodder for discussion among friends about the moral choices the characters make, whether it is better to isolate your children from the evils of the world or try to make the world better, how much you can sacrifice (your children's health?) for your ideals. Way cool movie.

Kathy

Beatlebug1966

08-01-04, 01:22 PM

i saw the movie 3 times, i am a shymalan buff.

The Film is amazing, but its marketing is the blame and is very misleading. The movie is not a horror film. It is a romantic suspense drama which i was hooked too. Whoever said Adrien Brody was a waste must be out of their minds. DID you follow his role and importance.
rating : 8/10

I totally agree with marketing being the blame for everyone thinking this is horror film. I have heard many comments from people dissapointed that it was not "scary or gruesome" enough for them. The reason I love M. Nights movies is he his able to stimulate your thinking process while thrilling you with his dark perspectives. The movie was intelligent, thrilling and humorous at times. I cannot say much more without spoiling it for people who haven't seen it. I would highly reccommend seeing the movie, but please do not go to the movie with expecations that this is a blood bath horror flick...you will be dissapointed. Use your creativity and your inner fears to let this movie thrill you. Rock on M. Night!!!! :cool:

Caitlyn

08-01-04, 02:51 PM

When posting your comments about The Village, please remember everyone has not seen this movie and use Spoiler Tags. Directions for using Spoiler Tags can be found HERE (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=1495)

Thank you.

jrs

08-01-04, 03:05 PM

The Film is amazing, but its marketing is the blame and is very misleading. The movie is not a horror film. It is a romantic suspense drama which i was hooked too....

...M.Night himself did say that The Villiage is "more of a" romantic/drama than anything else....

Holden Pike

08-01-04, 03:06 PM

I didn't catch any microphone, but it was likely an accident.

99% of the time if you see a boom mic in the theater, that's the fault of the projectionist at your local cinema. If they aren't masking it properly upstairs, the mics will sometimes be visible. That's not sloppy filmmaking, it's an inexperienced (or lazy) projectionist.

adri0611

08-01-04, 04:16 PM

99% of the time if you see a boom mic in the theater, that's the fault of the projectionist at your local cinema. If they aren't masking it properly upstairs, the mics will sometimes be visible. That's not sloppy filmmaking, it's an inexperienced (or lazy) projectionist.

Thank you. I live in the stupidest city known to man, so... I understand that explanation.

However...

The mic was so close to the actor's heads in some scenes that to cut them out you would have had to cut out a person's head at times. Is it possible that M. Night Shyamalan used the mic to represent an old phrase, "lowering the boom?"

Escape

08-01-04, 04:23 PM

I was recently reading in the reviews of this movie on another site and someone else was complaining of the microphones visible throughout the pic. I never saw it myself but it seem in this movie anyways that the village editors themselves screwed this one up. Whether it happened or not, now I'm curious.

Holden Pike

08-01-04, 04:27 PM

Is it possible that M. Night Shyamalan used the mic to represent an old phrase, "lowering the boom?"

I seriously doubt it. I haven't seen the movie, but that you're the only poster in this thread who saw the booms, that should tell you the problem is with your cinema. The film in the can that goes to the theaters is not formatted exactly like what you'll see on the letterboxed DVD. There is a framing chart and instructions for the projectionist to make it look that way. If they don't do their job correctly, there's always a danger of the matte being left open too much and the theatrical audience seeing things they aren't supposed to.

This used to hapen from time to time even with early commercial VHS transfers, as they obviosuly weren't doing any letterboxing then, and out of sheer laziness would sometimes do the transfers with an open matte, leaving the occassional boom mic exposed. Embarassing when the folks responsible for such things don't know any better. Or don't care.

And stylistically, if you watch movies carefully, you'll see tops of heads are often cut off by the upper frame, depending on the scene and the director. Movies aren't shot like family photos. Especially with somebody like M. Night, who has a definite visual style that incorperates harsh angles and such.

In the future, whenever you see boom mics creeping in, complain to the theater manager. The most embarassing instance I've experienced was at the Baltimore early premiere of Barry Lavinson's Liberty Heights. The projectionist left the matte open too much, giving view of boom mics four or five times. Levinson wasn't there, but a couple cast and crew memebers were in the audience. D'oh! Usually a good theater too, so I don't know why they blew it that night.

Anywho.

Garrett

08-01-04, 06:06 PM

Thanks for the info, Holden... How you know all of this is a mystery to me.

AboveTheClouds

08-01-04, 07:34 PM

I saw it.. I was mighty Dissapointed with it.......

Sedai

08-01-04, 08:10 PM

Two reviews from movies.com reader reviews:
http://movies.go.com/cgi/reviews/request.dll?MESSAGE&productName=45399&reviewId=30 :skeptical:

http://movies.go.com/cgi/reviews/request.dll?MESSAGE&productName=45399&reviewId=14 :laugh:

Movies.com? nononono, it's Movieforums.com....

;)

Just saw this and I must say I really liked it. More so than all the folks I went with, that's for sure. I'd like to see it again I think. Howard was captivating and the photography was wonderful!

Insanity Rulez

08-01-04, 10:36 PM

I have to say I really liked this movie.I hated the fact it was'nt the movie we were all expecting but the movie we got was excellent.Bryce Howard is one helluva actress who really deserves an oscar nod.I mean she was fantastic.You sensed every amount of fear she felt and the love she had for Lucious.

I certainly will look forward to M.Nights next movie,but I certainly will limit myself in reading and viewing all the hype that surrounds it.I would have loved the movie even more without all the hype that I ate up.Lesson learned I guess

Garrett

08-01-04, 10:49 PM

Bryce Howard was one of the things about this movie that kept me from hating it as much as it seems a lot of people do. She's great.

AboveTheClouds

08-01-04, 10:51 PM

AND she's not out there to ride on her fathers coattails. She also gains respect from me, for that.

staceyvanhecke

08-01-04, 11:07 PM

Okay, I could be totally wrong about this, but this is the message I got from "The Village". I just saw it yesterday and am trying to find out M. Night's intentions when writing the story....someone please direct me to any interviews with him where he reveals this! To me, it seemed clear, while most people in the audience just shook their heads muttering "that really sucked" under their breath. Here's my theory (I hope someone will agree with me on this!):

I think "The Village" was some sort of comment on 9/11. Maybe some people aren't seeing this because they're sick of hearing about it....? Maybe some people got the message, but felt like they had been tricked into it because of the way the movie was marketed. Anyhoo....

I think the movie showed us what can happen when people are taught to fear something that doesn't exist. These people didn't ask questions, they just accepted what was told to them by the elders. They were pretty ignorant, really. Some may call it innocence. I call it ignorance.

When I saw the ending I was all "Aha!" and my husband was all "What a stupid movie....let's go home." To me, the moral question posed was: If you were living a life that you thought was superior to most, because of the so-called "values" you upheld, etc. and you found out that that life was all based on lies, would you want to continue? If you could basically be told that you could have this life, but it was based on a lie, would you still want to keep and preserve it?....

I'm not being as clear about this as I had hoped because it's been a long day and I'm tired and, frankly, I think I need to think about the film a little more, but that was my reaction walking out of the theatre. It's like the whole deal with Bush: we know he's a liar and that innocent people have died because of his lies. These people died because they thought they were protecting their freedom, their freedom from the enemy. But what if, at the time, the enemy wasn't even really there?

Think about it and tell me if you agree. If that was, in fact, his intention with this movie, then I think it was a pretty damn clever way to bring it to an audience. HOWEVER, if that was indeed his "message", then I think it was lost on a lot of people, because most people I saw walking out were disappointed and confused.

Yoda

08-01-04, 11:14 PM

I think "The Village" was some sort of comment on 9/11.I believe Night said that he had 9/11 in mind while writing it, when asked if there was any connection. However, I don't think the film's message is as clear-cut as you do.

The film's message, in the end, is that you cannot avoid heartache. You can't isolate yourself from pain. The fact that fear is used as a tool in the film was pretty obviously a secondary point, and I think it's a tad paranoid to try to liken our current situation to that of the film. We're not fighting made-up enemies, and I don't see how the life of the average American was shown to be a "lie" when we were attacked in 2001, so I think the parallels are vague at best.

It's like the whole deal with Bush: we know he's a liar and that innocent people have died because of his lies.What's he lied about, pray tell? And if you say "WMDs," then you haven't been paying attention.

Escape

08-01-04, 11:14 PM

I certainly will look forward to M.Nights next movie

So am I since I believe this movie dropped his own movie making style down a notch. So now he's going to have to pick it up a couple and then some for his next flick. Then again that's just my opinion of the film so it's going to have to depend on the reviews of his fans. If the majority approve, then not much will change. If they dissapprove then change will likely happen. But then again his 4 movies were all very similar so mabe he will himself find it time to change. Am I making sense here or just rambling on. :p

AboveTheClouds

08-01-04, 11:19 PM

It wasn't a great film. It was bland and the ending was horrible.. But I guess it's all opinion.

staceyvanhecke

08-01-04, 11:48 PM

What has Bush lied about?....You ask me that as if you believe he [I]hasn't lied.

I will think about what you have said tonight. I agree and disagree with some of the points you brought up. I apologize if what I had to say seemed anti-American....reading over it, it does seem a little, but that wasn't my intention. I'm from Canada, so I can't help but have a different view on 9/11. If I were from America, I'm sure I'd be more sensitive about it. I'm not, though. To me, it was a terrible tragedy that may have been preventable. There's still a lot of unanswered questions, so, really, there's only so much I can say about it. I DO feel like the American people have been lied to, though, and I'm offended by this because Americans are like neighbours. Canadians may make fun of Americans sometimes (and vice versa) but when it comes right down to it, we care about them. I just think that Bush has somehow f***** up "The American Dream" for a lot of people. I hope they get it back, through honest means and a more honest leader. Not through lies.

I really don't want this to turn into some kind of political argument, though, I just wanted to see if other people "got" the political message of "The Village". If they didn't, it's rather unfortunate, because, standing on its own, the film is pretty weak and boring. It's marketed as being this chilling little thriller....I don't know about you guys, but the film didn't scare me at all.

Tolstoy

08-01-04, 11:58 PM

It's like the whole deal with Bush: we know he's a liar and that innocent people have died because of his lies. These people died because they thought they were protecting their freedom, their freedom from the enemy. But what if, at the time, the enemy wasn't even really there?

Next post could you perhaps refrain from telling me what I know? Seems a little ridiculous that you make a comment like that so matter-of-factly. Are you trying to say there are no terrorists?

jrs

08-02-04, 12:21 AM

Bryce Howard.... She's great.

:yup:

Yoda

08-02-04, 12:40 AM

What has Bush lied about?....You ask me that as if you believe he [I]hasn't lied. Given your comment about innocent people dying, I think it's safe to assume that these "lies" are war-related. And if they are, it's probably also safe to assume that you're referring to the non-existence of WMDs. And if so, I'd reply by pointing out that all evidence we have on the matter (and simple common sense, too) indicates that it's a simple case of misinformation, rather than a lie.

Not to try to hijack this thread, or anything.

I will think about what you have said tonight. I agree and disagree with some of the points you brought up. I apologize if what I had to say seemed anti-American....reading over it, it does seem a little, but that wasn't my intention. I'm from Canada, so I can't help but have a different view on 9/11. If I were from America, I'm sure I'd be more sensitive about it. I'm not, though. To me, it was a terrible tragedy that may have been preventable. There's still a lot of unanswered questions, so, really, there's only so much I can say about it. I DO feel like the American people have been lied to, though, and I'm offended by this because Americans are like neighbours. Canadians may make fun of Americans sometimes (and vice versa) but when it comes right down to it, we care about them. I just think that Bush has somehow f***** up "The American Dream" for a lot of people. I hope they get it back, through honest means and a more honest leader. Not through lies. Well, as an American (and someone who keeps abreast on our various economic indicators), I'm quite confident that he has not. And, as I hope goes without saying, I want an honest leader, too. I just happen to believe that we have one.

I should also make it known that I make fun of Canadia on a regular basis. Sorry, but you guys are ripe for it, eh?

I really don't want this to turn into some kind of political argument, though, I just wanted to see if other people "got" the political message of "The Village". If they didn't, it's rather unfortunate, because, standing on its own, the film is pretty weak and boring. It's marketed as being this chilling little thriller....I don't know about you guys, but the film didn't scare me at all.Well, it's hard to say how much there is to "get." Night's said there's something there, but how much is anyone's guess. Overtly political films are a big turnoff to most moviegoers. In my opinion, the messages are vague, and not highly partisan.

Yoda

08-02-04, 12:40 AM

And yes, Bryce Dallas Howard stole the show.

KittyJunkie

08-02-04, 01:04 AM

If you could basically be told that you could have this life, but it was based on a lie, would you still want to keep and preserve it?....
If that was the message behind The Village, the Matrix might've had a 9/11 implication as well :p Just kidding!

It hasn't come out where I am, but we're all gearing up to see it this weekend.

allthatglitters

08-02-04, 01:11 AM

What I happened to love the most about this film was the quiet way Bryce Dallas Howard had in her performance. All her lines were delivered as if she was truely just thinking of them just then in her head.

Holden Pike

08-02-04, 01:35 AM

As a sidenote, do you guys know how Ron Howard and his wife name their kids?

Their middle name is a nod to where they were conceived. Bryce in Texas, and her sisters (twins) each bare Carlyle for the hotel in Manhattan. But their son doesn't follow this pattern. Ron once explained it's because "Volvo" isn't a very good middle name.

'Tis true!

AboveTheClouds

08-02-04, 01:40 AM

Hahahahahah.

MysticalMoose

08-02-04, 02:30 AM

It is just too bad that some people cant see a good story when its right in front of their face (especially on a screen as big as one in a theater). The way it was shot, the acting, the editing...As a filmmaker myself, I can appreciate this work of shyamalan without comparing it to his past works.
-Moose

adrian

08-02-04, 08:28 AM

Essentially, I agree with Stacy.

As the movie ended, I was left with the feeling that the film didn’t really live up to what I wanted it to be. Expecting to be thrilled by another Signs, I was quite dissatisfied leaving the theater. That is, until I started to question the political implications of the film’s ending.

The newspaper is an obvious tie-in to contemporary issues and the mention of an attacked convoy is an even more obvious indication of the ongoing war. I began to think of the film as a commentary on American society as a whole using parallels with recent global events.

If you look at the Village symbolically, it is easy to draw connections to it representing America itself. Having studied early American Literature, I know that the isolation of the United States is a recurring issue that comes up throughout American History. Surrounded by two vast oceans, North America itself is isolated from the rest of the world. The Village too, is isolated on all sides by woods. In addition, America was founded by those who sought to leave the violent, feudal society of Europe. The Village Elders also sought to escape the violence of the outside world. Finally, innocence is something highly associated with America in the works of Ralph Waldo Emerson (arguably, the most influential of the early American authors). The virtue of innocence is defended at all costs by the Village Elders.

The connections that I see to modern day events are broader in scope than Stacy’s connection of the film to the events of 9/11. The issue at hand seems to be that the government of a nation WILL lie to its citizens if it believes that it is the best interests of the public to be left in the dark. In addition, as Michael Moore is very good at illustrating, fear is an excellent tool for social control. The villagers are compelled by fear throughout the film.

The fear instilled in the villagers by the creatures parallels the fear of terrorism that exists in the US today as a cause of 9/11. The threat of anthrax, although very real, only surfaced very briefly in the United States. Weapons of mass destruction were the primary justification for the war in Iraq. George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and Condoleeza Rice assured the public that there were in fact chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. The evidence behind this turned out in the end to be based on nothing more than “rumors”.

In fact, members of the intelligence community have come forward to say that Iraq never posed a military threat to the US. Philip Coyle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense, has said that Iraq never had WMDs and even if they did have them, they would never have the capabilities to deliver them. The United States and the Soviet Union spent billions of dollars on missile programs that would allow a nuclear weapon to be delivered intercontinentally (ICBMs). Iraq has never had any such program.

If you believe that the US decision to go to war was based on misinformation rather than lies, consider the rhetoric before the war. In the buildup to the war it was repeated time and again that nations that promoted terrorism would be punished. Bush linked Iraq to al-Qaida as a further justification for the war. Suddam Hussein’s Iraq was known for many terrible things, but terrorism was not one of them. Senior CIA Analyst Mel Goodman has pointed out that, “Osama Bin Laden and Suddam Hussein were enemies.” Their views are entirely different as Bin Laden was the leader of a terrorist organization and Hussein was the leader of a Dictatorship. Saddam Hussein made sure that no terrorist group could operate in Iraq, as terrorists are driven by ideological forces rather than political ones. Before the US entered Iraq, there were no links between these two enemies of the United States.

My point is, the government can and will lie to you. In the film, the elders lie in order to protect the innocence of the Village and believe that this is in the best interests of the villagers. Similarly, I am sure the Bush administration believes that any unethical behaviour that might occur is necessary in order to ensure the safety of the American people.

I have also been thinking that perhaps the character of Noah represents the danger that exists within our borders. The Oklahoma City bombings, DC Sniper John Allen Muhammad, and the previous attacks on the World Trade Center were all sprung from internal social problems. Noah’s disability is similar to the psychopathic and sociopathic behaviour of these elements of our society.

As it I see it, North American society is very similar to the Village. We live in what is a utopia in comparison to much of the rest of the world. Starvation is a reality throughout Asia and Africa and war is a way of life in the Middle East. Life is good within our protected bubble. If this is comes at the cost of deception, who’s to say what is right and wrong. In your interpretation of the film, do the Elders continue the Village, or do they end their project?

After inspecting the political messages in the film, I appreciate the film on a new level. I’m just sad there weren’t any hydrophobic aliens.

[edited for grammaticality]

Yoda

08-02-04, 10:55 AM

Lots of errors, and, as usual, I'm obliged to correct them.

The connections that I see to modern day events are broader in scope than Stacy’s connection of the film to the events of 9/11. The issue at hand seems to be that the government of a nation WILL lie to its citizens if it believes that it is the best interests of the public to be left in the dark. In addition, as Michael Moore is very good at illustrating, fear is an excellent tool for social control. The villagers are compelled by fear throughout the film. I'm not sure why you see Moore's illustrations as "very good" -- they contradict each other and often defy common sense. Fear can, indeed, be a tool of social control, but we don't need Michael Moore to tell us that, and he really hasn't done so very well. His films boil down to "people are trying to control your actions through fear...and if you let them the entire world will crumble! So do what I'm suggesting!" Ah, irony.

The fear instilled in the villagers by the creatures parallels the fear of terrorism that exists in the US today as a cause of 9/11. The threat of anthrax, although very real, only surfaced very briefly in the United States. Weapons of mass destruction were the primary justification for the war in Iraq. George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and Condoleeza Rice assured the public that there were in fact chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. The evidence behind this turned out in the end to be based on nothing more than “rumors”. Actually, it was based on two things: 1) somewhat outdated intelligence (he clearly had them at one point), and 2) Saddam's continued deception in regards to the matter (posturing as if he had them at every turn). This is mirrored in the fact that this administration, the previous administration, politicians from both major parties, and several major foreign intelligence services all came to the conclusion that Iraq possesed WMDs. The idea that this even begins to approach a lie or deception of some kind just doesn't hold water.

If you believe that the US decision to go to war was based on misinformation rather than lies, consider the rhetoric before the war. In the buildup to the war it was repeated time and again that nations that promoted terrorism would be punished. Bush linked Iraq to al-Qaida as a further justification for the war. Suddam Hussein’s Iraq was known for many terrible things, but terrorism was not one of them. This is out-and-out false. Hussein tried to assassinate a former President of ours and openly offered money to Palestinian suicide bombers. Saddam actively and willfully aided terrorism any way you slice it. Supporting Al-Qaeda is not the only means for supporting terrorism.

Senior CIA Analyst Mel Goodman has pointed out that, “Osama Bin Laden and Suddam Hussein were enemies.” Their views are entirely different as Bin Laden was the leader of a terrorist organization and Hussein was the leader of a Dictatorship. Saddam Hussein made sure that no terrorist group could operate in Iraq, as terrorists are driven by ideological forces rather than political ones. Before the US entered Iraq, there were no links between these two enemies of the United States.I'm not sure where you got the idea that Hussein "made sure that not terrorist group could operate in Iraq," because an Al-Qaeda camp WAS operating in Northern Iraq even before we invaded. This is pretty well-established.

As it I see it, North American society is very similar to the Village. We live in what is a utopia in comparison to much of the rest of the world. Starvation is a reality throughout Asia and Africa and war is a way of life in the Middle East. Life is good within our protected bubble. If this is comes at the cost of deception, who’s to say what is right and wrong. In your interpretation of the film, do the Elders continue the Village, or do they end their project? It's odd that you'd highlight the suffering of others, yet presumably oppose a war which brought about an end to that for many.

Exploring political meaning in such films is all well and good, and I welcome anyone who wishes to do so, but when you branch out to the point at which you're pushing an agenda as much as you're drawing cinematic parallels, I'm going to feel obligated to question it.

Sedai

08-02-04, 11:24 AM

I feel adrian hit on some good points but as Yoda pointed out, his post was rife with errors as well. It seems to be dangerous ground once the comparison of the village-to-society talk begins. The conclusions about the meaning of the village seem well thought out, while the comments about current events are pretty wild and scattershot...

Oh, and M Moore is someone who allegedly lies to society daily, I wouldn't use him as a shining example of truth....

adri0611

08-02-04, 12:45 PM

I really don't want this to turn into some kind of political argument, though, I just wanted to see if other people "got" the political message of "The Village". If they didn't, it's rather unfortunate, because, standing on its own, the film is pretty weak and boring. It's marketed as being this chilling little thriller....I don't know about you guys, but the film didn't scare me at all.

I'm surprised you weren't scared at all by the film. I found it to be terrifying. Especially when...

...Noah stabbed Lucius the first time and then came back to deliver more stabbings. I was scared to the point of vomiting. The entire scene chilled me to the bone. It's realism that I find more disturbing than a scary alien or ghost. Because... again I'm probably weird, but I don't believe in aliens or ghosts coming to get me, but I do believe that a human being is capable to do so.

And maybe I'm an unusual character, but from the first trailer I saw I thought...

...that the "creatures" weren't supernatural at all. I even speculated that they may be former inhabitants of the village who went astray and the villagers perceived them to be dangerous.

This was not the case however, but I liked the outcome of the film and I wasn't disappointed.

But I agree with the over-hype for the film. I'm not one to see a movie because of it, but it was over the top.

I went to see the movie because... #1 I love M. Night. #2 I love Ron Howard, and wanted to see his offspring do a movie because I believe he wouldn't let his daughter do a film that was awful. And finally #3 because I heard it was a good film despite the surprises.

Now that I've seen the film I have to say that Bryce Howard rocks! I also thought Adrien Brody was amazing and Joaquin Phoenix was beautiful... *sigh*

And as an afterthought...

Made some good comments, Yoda did.

This is probably unfortunate, but I didn't see a political statement in the film. I mean, there are a lot of comparisons to real life, and the tragedy of it all, but I chose not to look for 9/11 shout-outs. That's just me.

7thson

08-02-04, 12:47 PM

Sometimes you cannot see the forest cause the wmds are in the way.

adri0611

08-02-04, 12:52 PM

Sometimes you cannot see the forest cause the wmds are in the way.

lol, I don't think I understand what you mean... :goof: :laugh: :nope: :dizzy:

adrian

08-02-04, 10:43 PM

adri0611

08-02-04, 10:53 PM

:eek: Whoa! Are you sure you saw the same movie I did? Did it feature a corpulent, disheveled man with a baseball cap? If so, I think you may have seen the wrong movie.

I thought we were talking about "The Village." ;)

Yoda

08-02-04, 11:10 PM

Although I welcome the criticism of my previous post, I stand by my arguments that the case for the WMDs and ties between Iraq and al-Qaida were and are a deception.

Consider these quotes taken from press conferences featured in Robert Greenwald’s short documentary Uncovered: the whole truth about the Iraq war,

George W. Bush: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons.”

Colin Powell: “Everybody knows that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.”

Donald Rumsfeld: “There is no doubt in my mind that they currently have chemical and biological weapons.”

Hans Blix: “It is somewhat puzzling, I think, that you can have 100% certainty about the weapons of mass destruction’s existence and zero certainty about where they are.”

I can’t see any other government making such solid statements on outdated intelligence and posturing. Those quotes don't prove your point at all, because no one is disputing that the administration made false claims. The dispute is over whether or not they did so knowingly. Clearly, they didn't, for several reasons:

1) Too many other people were saying the same thing. Republicans and Democrats, large and small, present and past, ALL made claims about Iraq's WMDs. So did several major foreign intelligence agencies. For this to have been a "lie," they'd all have to be involved in a grand conspiracy. It's implausible.

2) The administration harped on the weapons at every turn. This is simply not something any campaign would ever do if they knew their claims would turn out to be false. No major political campaign is so incompetent as to underline and emphasize claims they know are false. My cat has more political savvy than that.

3) The intelligence services within the US really WERE saying that he had WMDs. As detailed in Woodward's book, Bush questioned Tenet's information, to make sure it was solid. Tenet assured him that it was a "slam dunk."

In other words, you have to be a world-class mental gymnast to convice yourself that any "lie" in regards to WMDs took place on Bush's part. It doesn't add up at all.

Furthermore, to take pre-emptive unilateral action without solid evidence goes against laws established in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. This is where several European countries, after nearly obliterating each other from The Thirty-Years war, agreed on certain guidelines that formed the first international laws. The WMDs were the justification for attacking before being attacked. Since there has been zero proof of even the existence of Iraq having the capabilities of creating such weapons, we must question US credibility.

I don’t disagree with the motivations for disarming Saddam Hussein and removing him from power, but a full scale invasion is not the only way to dethrone a dictator. It seems the US government has zero regards for UN policy on such matters and as the world’s sole superpower, will do as it wishes. Although the argument can be made that this war saved millions of Iraqi lives at the cost of a few. I’m not sure of the current death toll, but as of May 26th, 2004 the number was 803US troops. Naturally we have no way of knowing how many Iraqi troops have died. Nor do we count the Iraqi civilians, i.e. women and children. We all know this, and it is basically irrrelevant to the arguments being made, as far as I can see.

At this time, I’d like to point out the something that MIT professor Noam Chomsky has discussed. The Invasion of Iraq was an example of chemical and biological warfare. Although no chemical weapons were used specifically, the destruction of key water pumping stations, electricity stations, and sewage facilities caused widespread illness and thousands of deaths. Chomsky believes that the Bush administration should be tried for employing these destructive techniques. CNN does not run stories about this. Then perhaps you should question your belief in them. CNN is by no means perfect, but major news stations do not hesitate to run with news of a scandal, even in time of war, as the last 12 months have clearly shown us. Off the top of my head, my guess is that such deaths are not exclusive to the Iraq war, but rather, the horrors involved in any invasion.

As for the terrorist cells that were in Iraq, I believe you are referring to Ansar al-Islam. This is a terrorist group that was indeed operating in the North of Iraq near the Iranian border. This is only because Hussein did not control this part of Iraq. The primary reason Ansar al-Islam occupied this territory was that they were attempting to overthrow the Iraqi regime. These terrorists affiliated with al-Qaida were enemies with Hussein and he would have been glad to see them go. Hussein referred to Bin Laden as the “Socialist Infidel”. Your first claim is only half-true. The Northern part of Iraqi was a no-fly zone, but that doesn't have much bearing as to Saddam's control of forces on the ground. As for their aim: the point is not that they were in league, but rather, that they were there. Remember the doctrine of terrorism? Terrorists and those who harbor them. Cooperate, or else. Saddam made no effort to disarm, nor to help turn over the terrorists living in his country. He was defiant on each and every count, hence, he is harboring terrorists, presumably because they did share SOME aims (hence the mural of 9/11 found in one of his palaces).

I am unaware of Hussein’s assai nation attempt on a former US president as well as specific payoffs to suicide bombers, but I do not find it hard to believe. What I was talking about though was Iraq’s immediate threat to the United States and the non-existent collusion with al-Qaida. I know what you were talking about, but it's beside the point. Those two things qualify under even the loosest definition of the word "terrorism." Saddam doesn't need to have ties to Al-Qaeda to have links to terrorism. He had clear-cut, demonstrable ties to terrorism, and thus is a perfectly reasonable target, for that and a dozen other reasons.

Concerning Michael Moore, while I felt that many of the connections he makes in his films are a stretch, he points out much truth to support it. The theme of control through fear is apparent in both Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911. My conclusion that Moore is “very good” at pointing this out is an opinion and not an error. It can still be categorized as an error if we agree on certain things, such as hypocriscy and dishonesty being bad. Both of Moore's films decry controlling people with fear, despite painting fearful messages themselves in an effort to sway opinion. This is a rather blatant contradiction.

I do not wish to discuss the truthfulness of his films here, but let’s just say the Cannes Film Festival found Fahrenheit 911 truthful enough to give it the Palme d’Or.That's beyond the pale. The award is purely artistic in nature. Or, at least, it's supposed to be. If it wasn't handed out for artistic merit, the panelists publicly lied as to their motivations. If it was, then your point is moot. Either way, the award doesn't even approach any kind of empirical proof as to the film's accuracy.

I can point out, off the top of my head, a number of blatant, unarguable problems with the film's depiction of various events, all through matters of public record. Fact is, Moore's films are often for sheep who like to think that they're not (a couple MoFo regulars qualify, sadly...they know who they are).

If you read Animal Farm without any prior knowledge of the rise and fall of Communist Russia you would likely walk away very confused and upset that you wasted all that time reading about several pigs, a horse, and other various animals.I've probably read Animal Farm half a dozen times, at the bare minimum. It's a brilliant piece of political commentary, and while I enjoyed The Village, it really isn't in the same league.

KittyJunkie

08-02-04, 11:21 PM

You guys should move your Farenheit 9/11 discussion here - http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=178412#post178412 :)

adrian

08-02-04, 11:46 PM

That was an alrmingly quick reply, and I commend you on your knowledge of current events.

I agree with you that it does not make sense to outright lie about something as the WMDs, but the fact remains that the public was mislead into fearing Iraq by assocition of 9/11. Whether this is part of a conspiracy we may never know.

As for CNN, I was not vouching for them. I respect CNN as a news source, but I take it with a grain of salt in that there are certain stories that news sources simply cannot and will not make public. The reasons for this are often in the interests of the public, but it is a form of censorship nonetheless.

As for the Palme d'Or, I'm sure there was some consideration to the film's argument as a whole. A similar documentary that was based on complete falsity, but just as expertly edited and filmed artisically, would not have won. Not to say that the panel that awarded the film is a definitive source for seeking out truth. I pointed this out to show that there are many outside of the Untied States that support Moore and share his views.

I do not expect to change your position on US Foreign Policy Yoda, but I enjoyed the Village much more after considering its relation to current events. Althought the film is not in the same league as Animal Farm, I see a similarity in that they both mask a deeper political picture.

staceyvanhecke

08-03-04, 02:29 PM

Oh my God, look what I started....

Settle down, boys, and I'll give you a lollipop.

Remember, this is "The Village" forum....?

Talking about politics is like talking about religion....everyone has their beliefs which they are going to stick to no matter what. It can get a little too personal and both parties just end up talking in circles with one another, with no resolution.

I commend Yoda and Adrian for their knowledge of politics and of who-said-what-who-lied-who-didn't-what's-the-difference-between-misinformation-and-lies-yada-yada-yada....

Can't we all just get along? "Shiny happy people holding hands...."

I think we should all stop talking about what's wrong in the world and try to DO something about it. Better said than done, right? Maybe....

MysticalMoose

08-03-04, 05:47 PM

Some people need to realize that this film wasnt intended to be the next shinning. Shyamalan himself said it to be more of a love story. This is what happened with signs, everyone expects the next sixth sense and are oblivious to anything because of the advertising. Watch the film for what it is, not to be scared. I mean, its like reading a book to be scared, its pointless. You read it for the story, not to look pathetic and ahve your emotions stirred up over..a movie.

Moviez&Dvdz4life

08-03-04, 08:27 PM

i don't know what all you people are saying, but i thought The Village was an awesome movie! The acting was great and the storyline was amazing. The ending had that crazy twist in it. I thought it was a good movie and yes, the Batman Begins teaser trailer was pretty sweet too. Here are some pics of the movie:

Austruck

08-04-04, 12:43 AM

Gahh, please, no more politics! Those of us who waited to come to this thread till we'd seen the movie do NOT want to wade through pages of lengthy posts of political diatribes. I purposely avoid forums like that and would have thought THE VILLAGE thread would be PF (politics free).

ANYWAY... I have a question about THE VILLAGE that doesn't seem to appear anywhere in this thread. I just saw it tonight with Yoda but since we came in different cars, I didn't get to ask him what he thought once it dawned on me in my car halfway home. What do you guys think?

We all know the Elders are the ones in the '70s-like photo in Walker's black box. We also know they're the only ones who know the secret of the village. That was made clear many times.

We see dozens upon dozens of other adults meandering around the village and sitting at long tables full of people during celebrations -- and not all of them are young twentysomethings. Where did they come from? How did they get into the village without knowing its secret?

Seems to me this only makes sense if the Elders got together to build this habitat and secretly left real life and started their village, slowly populating it naturally among themselves.

BUT, there aren't enough of them to have populated the village THAT much. We see their families and children and they're normal-sized families. There is no implication that these people started interbreeding to beef up the population. Plus, most of the Elders aren't old enough to be parents of some of those other adults.

allthatglitters

08-04-04, 12:56 AM

I was wondering about that as well Austruck.

Walker was a billionaire so he could of done tons of stuff to get people. The elders of the village could of also possibly adopted a few more kids. I would suggest brainwashing, but come on.

Also remember when Kevin the ranger dude went into the station and his boss (Shymalan himself) said not to get into conversations with the visitors because they could start asking questions about why the rangers were hired by the government to protect the preserve. But if the government had something to do with it wouldn't of that been in the script?

MysticalMoose

08-04-04, 01:29 AM

There is no need to talk about the government more in the script, shyamalan makes it quite clear with his words in the film. If they got into the government, it would just drag out the movie and make it too long, too off subject, and ruin the movie.

adrian

08-04-04, 07:31 AM

Warning Possible spoilers. Also, as usual, my post is very long. Not much about current events this time though, I promise.

To Austruck, I’d like to say that I also waited to see the movie to post in the forum. In fact I joined the forum because I needed a place to discuss my thoughts on the film. I didn’t mean to go on so long arguing about political events, but I felt I needed to defend my argument as its’ validity was under attack..

To Stacy, I think that every thing I was discussing is quite relevant to The Village and belongs in this forum thread. I think that talking about what is wrong with the world will have very much effect on what people choose to do in the world. As I am not an American citizen, I have no say in who wins the next election, but as member of this message board, I can share my views with others and perhaps have a small influence on the way they see the world.

I’m not so arrogant as to believe that my opinions are always 100% correct, but when I argue, I support my arguments with facts and logic as best as I can. I understand that this is not the only aspect of the film open to discussion, but I believe that this kind of discussion is what M. Night Shyamalan was hoping to prompt by including the political parallels in the film.

What I’m surprised about is how little anyone else has discussed these parallels. It’s as though people are afraid to get too controversial. Sedai, while you say I hit on some good points you say that it is dangerous ground to compare the village to society. I’m afraid I don’t understand. In what way is it dangerous?

No-one here has clearly agreed with or disagreed with any of the main arguments of my initial post. Does anyone have a different theory that would disprove the parallels between the Village and America? If so, I’d like to hear them.

Anyways, now that that has been taken care of, I‘d like to get back to actually discussing the Village. Over the past few days I have come to some more conclusions as to the parallels and symbolism in the film. Regarding Ivy’s blindness, I think that she is a symbol of those who follow the government without question. The fact that she is blind almost makes this parallel cheesy when I think about it. If this is so, then Lucious must represent those who are rebellious in nature, but have good intentions. While he is often a silent observer, Lucious questions authority and breaks the rules by briefly leaving the Village. He thinks outside the box and is not controlled by fear.

The “magic rocks” that Ivy brings along on her journey and the idea of the “safe colour” remind me of the false security of having duct tape and gas masks to fend off terrorist attacks. It also reminds me of the instructions given to school children during the cold war in the event of a nuclear strike form the Soviet Union. I recall seeing videos of children being instructed on taking shelter under a desk when clearly this would have zero effect on a person’s chances of surviving such a devastating attack.

My girlfriend brought up an interesting point about the scene where the audience first sees the creature below the watch tower. She thinks that as a Village Elder, the creature purposely knocks on the tower to let the character of Finton Coin know it is there. Otherwise the Finton would likely have missed the creature and not rang the bell and caused the ensuing panic and chaos.

She also pointed out that the character of Kevin was an example of kindness in the outside world. As Ivy expected the worst of the towns she was suprised to find a helping hand in Kevin. This is kind of like how there are good an bad people all over the world. Even in a cynical mindset, kindness can show up where you lest expect it.

As for the unexplained number of adults going about their business in the Village, I was also confused by that. The fact that Walker was a billionaire is a pretty good explanation for this in that he could pay people to play along. But I was thinking that perhaps these other adults may be colleagues of his that were part of academia and are also aware of the secret. I can’t quite remember all the details of the film so I’m not sure if anything contradicts this, like there being older adults in the village who are also mortified by the creatures.

I’m excited to see the Village again to see if I notice anything else that would confirm or contradict my current theories. As I’m too cheap to go to the theaters again, I guess I’m just going have to sit around and wait for the DVD.

Austruck

08-04-04, 08:35 AM

I'm sorry but I don't think the movie accounts for these other adults. It's fairly plain in the movie MANY times that only the Elders know the secret. It's definitely NOT portrayed as if most people in the village know the secret. The overwhelming idea is that a small minority know the truth -- namely, those people in the modern photograph ... the Elders. This is precisely why they are the Elders. They are steering the "project."

There is no hint anywhere in the film that Walker's money "bought" off people to play along. That's just something some of us here are throwing out there to explain it, but I'm thinking there is no explanation. That it is just a mistake Shyamalan doesn't account for and hopes we won't ask about.

As for political parallels, I don't think we have to think deeply here. If many of you are young people, I can see how you might link up political parallels. Yet, those of us who are 40+ can tell you that the world goes through these kinds of societal cycles over and over again, which is what makes a movie like this "timeless" in its themes. It needn't be a commentary on any one particular war-era or troubling time. There will always be troubling times to match things in the movie up with.

Austruck

08-04-04, 08:37 AM

P.S. Adrian, you SO have to use spoiler tags for that last post! :)

Sedai

08-04-04, 12:55 PM

You read it for the story, not to look pathetic and ahve your emotions stirred up over..a movie.

Actually, many people read/watch books and film to be engaged by the concepts and swept up by the emotions portrayed by characters/events. To be moved, in other words. M Night doesn't make his films to just tell a story, as far as I can tell, with the multiple layers of metaphor and allegory present in his films corroberating this claim. If a film isn't meant to stir emotion or provoke thought, than it is strictly a vehicle for dumping content to the viewer for pure slack-jawed enjoyment, which I don't believe for a second, at least with the films I try and view. There are plenty of films without substance out there, but they are widely considered crap that fly in the face of true film making... As for looking pathetic...how does watching a film make the viewer look pathetic? That just makes no sense at all.

adrian

08-04-04, 04:59 PM

Sorry about the spolier tags, I'm still not very familiar with this board and am trying my best not to piss too many people off.

Anyways, another thought had occured to me that could be seen as a minor mistake. As it seems very few people have actually seen the creatures, much less walked up and shaken their claws. I find it odd that Ivy can immediately tell what she is touching in the shed and is afraid of the creature suit. I suppose you could attribute this to her Daredevil-like heightened sense of awreness, but realistically she should just feel something that is long, smooth, and pointy and not be able to make the connection right away.

Also I was a little confused by her ability to sense auras. I thought this was that she still had some remaining eyesight but not enough to usefully guide her about the Village without a cane. My girlfriend pointed out, however, that she was not able to sense Lucious' dying body. His aura was gone so she thinks this was in fact more of a spiritual concept. I'm still somewhat confused about this part of the movie but it's nothing major.

Austruck

08-04-04, 05:13 PM

I assumed Ivy -- like others in the village -- had grown up hearing stories and descriptions of the creatures from the elders (note Walker teaching the children about what's happened in the classroom early in the film). That part didn't bother me. Bear in mind, too, that she has got these things on the brain anyway because she's about to enter their woods. When her father says, "Try not to scream," you have to bet she was already thinking that whatever he was having her touch had SOMETHING to do with the creatures...

One thing I found almost humorous is that they call the creatures Those We Do Not Speak Of (or something close to that) -- and yet they mention them incessantly throughout the movie, even in the beginning. Yoda and I joked during the movie (whispering, of course) that they should have been more like Those We Do Not Speak Of Much ... Except About 90 Percent Of The Time.

:)

adrian

08-04-04, 05:21 PM

Austruck, you bring up a good point about the cyclical nature of history. Thinking about it now, I still come to many of the same conclusions, but I see now that these ideas can be applied more broadly to society as a whole. I didn't mean to single out the American government and say that they are the only ones guilty of controlling the public through fear. It just seemed relevent at the time to use current examples.

MysticalMoose

08-04-04, 07:13 PM

I think it all comes down to one thing which we can agree on. This is a love or hate movie. Some people are just not going to be able to accept that extreme of an ending or they are.

wafflepunk

08-05-04, 01:36 AM

was wondering if anyone else noticed the military style combat knife used to stab Luiscious...

jamesglewisf

08-05-04, 02:02 AM

I thought it was an excellent movie. I'll probably see it a couple more times and buy the DVD.

BTW, here is a spoiler:

THE BUTLER DID IT.

Ok. It doesn't fit this movie. I was just trying to see if I could get banned. :(

The funny thing about the political discussion is that there are two groups of people, and both think that the other group is full of totally ignorant, misled saps. Fortunately for me, I'm in the group that has it right. :)

Autumn2099

08-05-04, 05:54 PM

The Village to me was a decent movie plagued by a horrible ending. I just don't get the whole concept behind there plan i mean i understand the reasoning for it but i just doesn't make sense to me. It is a really stupid idea. Also to me that Batman teaser didn't even impress me.The trailer that impressed me the most was The Forgotten..........pretty freaky stuff.

I give The Village an 6/10

thankyoucomeagain

08-05-04, 06:52 PM

The best part of this movie was the credits this was not scary.

3 out of 10

jungerpants

08-05-04, 10:35 PM

I'm sorry if anyone said this already, but from what I can tell no one did....

One of the things I thought was odd before the ending came was that there were no African-American people in the movie. If it was really supposed to take place in the 1890s, there would most definitely be some sharecroppers at least. Even though slavery had officially ended, institutions similar to it popped up. But then again, had there been black people with equal status to the whites in the village, we all would have thought it was a little fishy... since it wasn't like that until the late 20th century.

KittyJunkie

08-05-04, 11:37 PM

I just saw The Village yesterday and I thought it was a masterpiece! Exceeded my expectations that came tagged with Signs. It's a beautiful love story, and stacked with underlying implications (not about 9/11 though). In fact I have an uncle who hides his children in their house all the time, telling them bad things about the world, and showing them only specially censored children's movies from video tape/video cd (they tuned the tv in such a way it will not receive regular programs). When I do meet my cousins, they speak as if they're not from this world - kinda reminded me of the encounter that Bryce had. So it gave the movie extra flavour for me.

btw jungerpants, initially I assumed that they came from the 19th century myself - till towards the end when they pulled out a picture of the village elders, and they were in 60s clothings in front of a modern day counselling centre. Perhaps the ancient clothings was part of the farce. I only wonder how they managed to maintain their materials for so many years despite living in such a small area ie. pots, pans, spoons... metallic stuff that you do not get from the forest

Austruck

08-05-04, 11:46 PM

I kinda thought the same thing, Kittie. In fact...

I thought, "If you're having Ivy go all that way, ask her to bring back toilet paper too." :D

KittyJunkie

08-06-04, 12:17 AM

Oh one thing I wanted to ask you guys...
Why did the forest ranger not take her in his car to a hospital or something... and why did he not report the sighting to his boss? The weirdest thing is that Ivy didn't even tell him not to tell anyone about her presence, but he assumed he should keep it a secret.

I thought this was more of a mind boggler than the number of children in the village. People living in a reserve with no form of entertainment will resort to making love. And btw, you do not find condoms in the middle of a forest. ;)

7thson

08-06-04, 12:36 AM

If you read between the lines too much you may miss the lines all together.

MysticalMoose

08-06-04, 02:19 AM

The best part of this movie was the credits this was not scary.

3 out of 10

wasnt supposed to be a scary movie...shyamalan said it was more of a love story, you like many others were misled by the trailer. Appreciate the movie for what it is, good creative story, with very good directing and acting

MysticalMoose

08-06-04, 02:26 AM

A lot of you arent paying attention. The land rover that pulled up had WALKER WILDLIFE PRESERVE on it. who was the main elder(the professor from penn university who "had the idea"), i dont know, was his last name.... WALKER(daughter being ivy walker). This means he started the reserve, and hired people to take care of it, meaning some people taking care of the reserve probably know the secret, but dont talk about it (when i mean taking care of, i mean protecting the borders like they mentioned in the movie). This also brings possibilities for some supplies to be brought to them. As for the love making thing, by kitty, these kids were brought up with innocence, they havent been strongly effected with a culture to act in such a manner.

KittyJunkie

08-06-04, 05:00 AM

If the forest rangers knew about the place and were helping to keep the place a secret, then why did the ranger who bumped into Ivy look so surprised/bewildered/shocked? He had to get her to repeat that she was actually living in the reserve a few times before he could swallow the truth. Obviously he knew nothing about Mr Walker and his family. But now that you say it, I admit I didn't notice how the reserve was under Walker's name. It makes somewhat, but the forest ranger's reaction doesn't tally - that's all.

As for the second point, there's a thing called doors 'ya know :laugh: If the kids are off in the fields and in schools for most of the day, then what are the parents doing at home (besides sewing or chopping wood)? ;)

wafflepunk

08-06-04, 09:11 AM

THE KNIFE!!! again, did anyone else notice it?

Yoda

08-06-04, 09:53 AM

THE KNIFE!!! again, did anyone else notice it? It looked like a pretty normal knife to me. I don't think it was any sort of giveaway.

Austruck

08-06-04, 10:21 AM

As for the "we have so much free time so let's all screw like bunnies" theory ...

1. They have entertainment. Musical instruments, reading, dancing, social events.

2. They probably don't have time for much more than that. Do you realize how much harder it is just to subsist in pre-technology times? Without a Walmart, it takes you all day just to do the basic chores of life. You don't have the time or energy by day's end.

3. These people are trying to maintain their innocence on *all* levels. Note in particular how Walker purposely reins in his feelings for Mrs. Hunt. There is a sense of right and wrong about such behavior that does not exist in our current culture.

Austruck

08-06-04, 10:24 AM

If the forest rangers knew about the place and were helping to keep the place a secret, then why did the ranger who bumped into Ivy look so surprised/bewildered/shocked? He had to get her to repeat that she was actually living in the reserve a few times before he could swallow the truth. Obviously he knew nothing about Mr Walker and his family.

Not all rangers have to know the secret. There is something to be said for keeping the secret under wraps as much as possible. The guys lowest on the totem pole don't need to know much. It seems clear to me, though, that Night's character *does* know the secret and he's trying to communicate that to his underling when he comes into the station.

As for the Walker Game Preserve, yes, I think that's crucial. Walker tells Ivy during his revealing the secret that his grandfather was hugely wealthy. Hence ... there would have been money there to start this project and keep it secret. Money does wonders in such situations, I'm sure.

Sedai

08-06-04, 10:46 AM

Insanity Rulez

08-06-04, 05:48 PM

Strange, many folks are acting as if finding out the time period was a surprise. At the beginning of the film, the headstone clearly says 1990-1997. I noticed this the second time saw the movie.The first time some fatarse was standing in my way :mad:

To me it was quite obvious people other than the elders new about life outside the village.They just assumed that all people were bad in the towns.Thats why Ivy told Kevin the Ranger he had kindness in his voice and did not expect that.It is quite obvious that MR Walker bought the land and turned in into a nature preserve with the billions he received in his inheritance.He also,if you remember what M. Nights character tells Kevin,paid off the government to not allow air traffic over the preserve.M. Nights character IMO does not know of The Village in the preserve,he just has very specific instructions how to maintain it.This is why Mr Walker tells Ivy that she must tell no one that they are there.It must be a secret only known by the villagers themselves.

I believe M Nights message in this film is the decline of civlization of the modern age.These people were all victims of terribly tragic events and were just disgusted with life as they knew it and simply wanted a simple life,free from all the heartbreak they suffered.Unfortunately,as they found out,there is evil in the most innocent of places.

wafflepunk

08-06-04, 09:40 PM

It looked like a pretty normal knife to me. I don't think it was any sort of giveaway.
Why didn't anyone else see this? It was a serrated edge military-style survival knife. Dead give away.

blibblobblib

08-06-04, 09:49 PM

Just watched The Sixth Sense. You cannot fault Halley Joel Osment in that film...perfect casting and acting. Toni Collette (sp?) is pretty darn good too.

"Goodnight Malcolm..."

My appetite is well and truly wet, roll on next week.

Yoda

08-06-04, 09:52 PM

Spoilers tags, people. C'mon; most of ya'll know better.

Why didn't anyone else see this? It was a serrated edge military-style survival knife. Dead give away. It was nowhere near a "dead give away." The knife was not particularly modern looking. It's only supposed to be a century ago; they had guns, for crying out loud. Why couldn't they have knives with notches in them?

MysticalMoose

08-06-04, 10:57 PM

Did anyone notice the spoon?!?!?!?

adrian

08-07-04, 07:56 AM

Oh come on now. They had spoons in biblical times, you're looking too hard.

Austruck

08-07-04, 09:57 AM

Just to clear up: I didn't mean to imply that the secret of the village was knowing there was a town out there. Everyone in the village knew that. And everyone in the village knew that those in the town were bad, to be avoided anyway. What most of the village doesn't know is that there is technology out there, that the creatures aren't real, and that they could leave at any time.

As for the other point, I can even remember reading that headstone and counting the years to find out how old the child was who died, but don't remember it being the *full* years. Did it really say 1990 and not just 90? Geez, how did most of us miss that? Were we all too busy doing the math on the kid's age?

wafflepunk

08-07-04, 10:59 AM

Spoilers tags, people. C'mon; most of ya'll know better.

It was nowhere near a "dead give away." The knife was not particularly modern looking. It's only supposed to be a century ago; they had guns, for crying out loud. Why couldn't they have knives with notches in them?
]Well, because it wasn't just a knife with a notch in it. It was a Rambo-style military issue survival knife. That particular style wasn't manufactured until the Korean War I believe, maybe Vietnam.

Austruck

08-07-04, 11:39 AM

I don't see what the big deal with the knife was. Perhaps it was a spoiler for a few people watching the movie who picked up on the era of a particular knife we only saw briefly. It wasn't a spoiler for the ignorant people in the village itself, though, because they'd have no reference with which to compare this or that style of knife.

Plus, if the tombstone early in the film actually had those *full* dates on it, that's the big spoiler right there. Man, now I want to see that movie again just to see that tombstone for myself. If it's true, I can't believe I didn't notice that at the time -- I was sitting there calculating the math on the age but never noticed the modernity of the dates!

Yoda

08-07-04, 12:17 PM

I've seen the movie twice, and am relatively sure the tombstone said 1890 and 1897.

]Well, because it wasn't just a knife with a notch in it. It was a Rambo-style military issue survival knife. That particular style wasn't manufactured until the Korean War I believe, maybe Vietnam. I think you're exaggerating. Regardless, I'm guessing the majority of the audience is not composed of knife historians, so it hardly matters. Even if someone did happen to think that the knife looked somewhat modern, it wouldn't necessarily give anything away, except that perhaps some production designer was a bit sloppy. You'd be more likely to chalk it up to a mere technical error, like a visible boom mic.

Sedai

08-07-04, 02:54 PM

Spoilers tags, people. C'mon; most of ya'll know better.

Doh, sorry
:rolleyes:

MysticalMoose

08-07-04, 04:42 PM

I confirm what yoda says. The tombstone definitely reads 1890 to 1897.

Insanity Rulez

08-07-04, 05:17 PM

[QUOTE=Yoda]I've seen the movie twice, and am relatively sure the tombstone said 1890 and 1897.

Crap now i gotta seee it again..Darn it ;)

susan

08-07-04, 07:01 PM

yes, yoda is right...

we just saw this and while i thought it was a great idea there were a few unanswered questions...

wafflepunk

08-08-04, 03:02 AM

I think you're exaggerating. Regardless, I'm guessing the majority of the audience is not composed of knife historians, so it hardly matters. Even if someone did happen to think that the knife looked somewhat modern, it wouldn't necessarily give anything away, except that perhaps some production designer was a bit sloppy. You'd be more likely to chalk it up to a mere technical error, like a visible boom mic.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. My point was that until that scene, I had a feeling the movie was set in the present ( or actually, I suspected the future ), but at that moment I knew for sure. My problem then was trying to explain the lack of air traffic, which of course was dealt with later. In any case, this certainly wasn't a technical error, but more of a Hitchockian "hint," like all of the red objects in the Sixth Sense. The knife was a director's clue for the audience.

fingers.8

08-08-04, 06:04 PM

One of Night's talents lies in directing intense actors to be calm and peaceful while conveying the message with singular vision and clarity. This is movie direction at it's best. ;)

MysticalMoose

08-08-04, 06:06 PM

Yeah, im sure shyamalan had this great idea of using this knife to hint the audience. C'mon man, get a grip.

wafflepunk

08-08-04, 07:30 PM

Yeah, im sure shyamalan had this great idea of using this knife to hint the audience. C'mon man, get a grip.

Yeah you're right, sorry about that. I guess you're just stupid. Apparently you didn't see the Sixth Sense. That's exactly what he was doing.

Yoda

08-08-04, 07:35 PM

Yeah you're right, sorry about that. I guess you're just stupid. Apparently you didn't see the Sixth Sense. That's exactly what he was doing. There were many color-related clues in The Sixth Sense. They were persistent. In this case, we're talking about just one, which strengthens the idea that it really wasn't supposed to mean anything.

Honestly, the fact that you're the only one here who picked up on this so-called clue should be enough to convince you that it probably wasn't intentional. Night is deliberate when it comes to these sorts of things; if he'd wanted to tip people off, he'd probably have done it well enough so that more than one out of every few hundred people would even notice it.

You're definitely over-analyzing the whole thing.

MysticalMoose

08-08-04, 08:28 PM

Listen to yoda, he is very wise

StayAwayFromTheBadColor

08-08-04, 11:12 PM

>_> we ( meaning me and the person i am on here with) saw the movie on M. Nights, birthday...and we must say......we found it awful. M. Night pulled a Jhonen on us! >_< ( pulling a jhonen is when you make a bad movie for fun)ok he didnt really pull a jhonen but still.....

Sedai

08-09-04, 12:09 PM

Jhonen? Uhhh, ok.

Hmm, if the news that the date is in fact 1897 on the stone, I am afraid my opinion of the film will have to go down a bit, as this is an outright lie to deceive the audience. Using techniques like this to set up a surprise ending is poor filmmaking in my IMO. It makes no sense whatsoever in the story if this is the case, as, all the elders knew the true time period, and everyone else in the village did not. The younger folk had been born there, therefore any concept of date is purely arbitrary to them. The only concepts they would have about the date and the state of the world at said date would be what the elders told them. They could have said "It's 1536 and this is the state of the world", and the children would have no call to question either fact, as it would be all they knew. They could tell them the date was 2536 and it would make no difference in a closed system. So, this brings up the question of why they would lie to themselves, the only people who knew the true date in relation to the rest of the world. Also, checking through the posts, I still see people saying things like "I am relatively sure it said XX97", Still not a definite answer as far as I am concerned. I guess I will have to see for myself... The only reason I can see to have the stone read 1897, is to trick the viewer, which as stated, I feel is a cop out....

I loved this film, and one of the reasons was the clever misdirection with emotion (death of a child), and camera techniques in the opening scene to imply a different time period, while he was showing you crucial information to the contrary. If it's just a trick, meh. I still think it said 1997, because I remember people talking about it after scene ended, saying stuff like "Did that just say 1997? Nah, it couldn't have". Yet I remember it reading 1997...

The film still has many merits, even if it is a goofy lie setting it up, and I do want to see it again, but it will go down in rating for me if it is a trick.

Yoda

08-09-04, 12:22 PM

Jhonen? Uhhh, ok.

Hmm, if the news that the date is in fact 1897 on the stone, I am afraid my opinion of the film will have to go down a bit, as this is an outright lie to deceive the audience. Using techniques like this to set up a surprise ending is poor filmmaking in my IMO. It makes no sense whatsoever in the story if this is the case, as, all the elders knew the true time period, and everyone else in the village did not. The younger folk had been born there, therefore any concept of date is purely arbitrary to them. The only concepts they would have about the date and the state of the world at said date would be what the elders told them. They could have said "It's 1536 and this is the state of the world", and the children would have no call to question either fact, as it would be all they knew. They could tell them the date was 2536 and it would make no difference in a closed system. So, this brings up the question of why they would lie to themselves, the only people who knew the true date in relation to the rest of the world. Also, checking through the posts, I still see people saying things like "I am relatively sure it said XX97", Still not a definite answer as far as I am concerned. I guess I will have to see for myself... The only reason I can see to have the stone read 1897, is to trick the viewer, which as stated, I feel is a cop out.... I disagree. Remember, they had history books, and taught the children. If they tell them it's 1997, they've got 100 years of history to fabricate.

Sedai

08-09-04, 12:33 PM

Ahh, this makes sense. As usual, Yoda rocks the solid facts. That fact alone justifies the false information on the stone...If it's there ;)

Yoda

08-09-04, 12:36 PM

Yeah, I'm still not positive about the date, and I'm probably not going to see the movie again until it's released on DVD.

If anyone is planning to go again, please be sure to check. It'd be pretty interesting if it does, indeed, say 1997.

Agent 0 Zero

08-09-04, 01:21 PM

Sedai

08-09-04, 01:34 PM

I would think it wasn't scary because it was never intended to be. The biggest complaint I see with this film is "It wasn't what I wanted it to be"

News flash: Films aren't supposed to be what you want them to be, but what the creators want them to be.

The stabbing scene was intense, and in my mind surprising and well done. As for a blind girl in the woods, I thought that was quite tense, you try walking through the woods blind. As for why they sent the blind person, that should be quite obvious.

LordSlaytan

08-09-04, 01:51 PM

The stone did indeed say 1897. I remember noting that when I saw it, partly because of that dick that threw the plot twist for us all to see a month or two before it came out. His opening sentence stuck in my mind so much that I wasn't fooled by the movies 'twist'. I still liked it, but I'm one of the people that was disappointed because it wasn't anything like the rest of his movies. I would have liked it more if it was.

Sedai

08-09-04, 04:09 PM

Confirmation at last...alas, that's not real magic, just tricks.

Good to see Slay on anyway :yup:

MysticalMoose

08-09-04, 05:02 PM

first off i love shyamalan . but the village was utterly dissapointing. there was no cinematic evil creature such as aliens and a little boy saying i see dead people i mean come on. that movie was crap. i mean i was pissed when they stabbed phoenix and who wouldnt want to see a little blind girl walking from a 18th century town into the woods into what was a surprising modern day era. so to me the movie was crap. night let me down.

Well if you just think a little, the blind girl cant see whats truely out there, meaning she will be the most likely to believe they are still in the time period she has believed to be living in. Even though she learned the creatures were fake, she was never told that they were in a later time period. Also her going to be a future elder, it would make sense for her to go and not anyone else, wouldnt it?

RosieGamgee

08-09-04, 05:02 PM

Well, M. Night's latest is... interesting. I will say that I did guess his signature surprise before it was acutally revealed, which was a little dissapointing to me.
Bad news first. I really only have three problems with The Village.
I thought the movie had some problems with the story- like, where did they get metal for hinges and knives and shovels and any other thing that needed metal? How did they keep warm in winter if they were not allowed in the woods? Additionally, the way the story was presented is a little muddled. I was left with a feeling of "Why was I there?"- were we there to see a love story? a story of survival? a story of betrayal? Like I said, a little muddled.
Second, the characters were rather shallow. This may be because some people thought that Shyamalan's characters in 'Signs' were a little over-developed (a belief which I do not share). It was hard to understand who exactly the characters were because we had to take them on face value- no insight was really given in regard to their lives except for the 'present'.
Thirdly, the language was a little tedious. A lot of times it seemed ill-fitting- like the characters had a hard time getting their thoughts across with them.

However, I definately think the movie is worth seeing. The acting is gripping and superb, the directing is wonderful- creative, loving and bold- as usual with Shyamalan. The score is beautiful. Despite the problems with the story, the emotions in the scenes are portrayed well. A 'must-see' (as those cheesy liner-noters say) for anyone fond of great acting and directing.

phytal62

08-09-04, 08:22 PM

I loved The Village- the overall tone just scared me so much...just the way the town looked so creepy and the way the characters responded to things. I really thought it was genius and ther trailers were not misleading....there WERE creatures...and they were damn scary!

Insanity Rulez

08-09-04, 10:43 PM

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=3423
Its true,It would have been cool if it was'nt.

MysticalMoose

08-09-04, 10:56 PM

In response to what RosieGamgee said:
First shyamalan said that overall, that the village was a love story, but as you saw, there were many elements to this movie.
And you asked where they got all their supplies and things. This was answered when the elder (walker) said he had a very rich grandfather that was killed. Meaning he inherited money to buy the preserve, and to buy all the things necessary to run the village.
You asked how they kept warm if they werent allowed into the woods. Well the children werent because of the creatures the elders made up. That doesnt stop the elders from going to get wood.
Hope that clears up your questions

FiLm Fr3aK

08-11-04, 10:04 AM

Well if you just think a little, the blind girl cant see whats truely out there, meaning she will be the most likely to believe they are still in the time period she has believed to be living in. Even though she learned the creatures were fake, she was never told that they were in a later time period. Also her going to be a future elder, it would make sense for her to go and not anyone else, wouldnt it?

Actually, I think---
when she was told about THEIR creatures being fake, she was also told that there were stories of CREATURES in those woods. Thats why at the end there, when the elders are talking as they are waiting for Ivy to enter the room, her father says, something to the effect of Your son has made our stories real. Ivy knows the stories they had been told were fabricated but NOW she THINKS there really are SOME KIND of creatures in those woods.

ALSO!
my goodness... did anyone read this?

Author Says New Film Is Similar to Her Novel By EDWARD WYATT
Published: August 6, 2004 NYTimes.com

The author of an award-winning novel for teenagers - set in an isolated 19th-century village where the adults keep a deep secret from the children - said yesterday that she recognized numerous similarities between her book and the recently released film "The Village'' by M. Night Shyamalan.

The author, Margaret Peterson Haddix, said she saw "The Village'' on Tuesday after receiving several telephone calls and e-mail messages from friends and from fans noting the parallels between the film and her book, "Running Out of Time,'' published in 1995 by Simon & Schuster Children's Publishing.

"The spoiler ending is the thing that is the biggest similarity,'' Ms. Haddix said.

But Dennis Rice, senior vice president for publicity at Buena Vista Pictures, a unit of the Walt Disney Company, said yesterday, "Whatever claims are being made of similarities between the book and the movie have no merit.''

Mr. Rice said he spoke on behalf of Disney and Blinding Edge Pictures, Mr. Shyamalan's production company. Mr. Shyamalan is in Europe promoting "The Village,'' Mr. Rice said.

Neither Ms. Haddix nor Simon & Schuster has yet to contact Mr. Shyamalan or Disney. Tracy van Straaten, the executive director of publicity at Simon & Schuster Children's Publishing, said the matter was under review but no decision had been made about legal or other action.

"The Village,'' which was written and directed by Mr. Shyamalan, was the top-grossing film in the United States last weekend, earning $50.8 million in its first three days in theaters and becoming Disney's biggest opening of the year. His earlier films, which include "Signs,'' "Unbreakable'' and "The Sixth Sense,'' have also done well at the box office, enough to win the director above-the-title billing on his last two films.

"Running Out of Time'' was also well-received, winning several children's book awards and selling more than 500,000 copies in hardcover and paperback.

The similarities between "The Village'' and "Running Out of Time,'' which were noted Wednesday in The Columbus Dispatch, of Columbus, Ohio, go beyond the 19th-century setting. In each, the main character is a tomboyish young girl and a village, in seeking help, reveals a secret that has been kept from the children.

Mr. Shyamalan is also fighting a lawsuit for copyright infringement in federal court in Los Angeles. The lawsuit was brought by a Pennsylvania screenwriter, Robert McIlhenny, who charged that the film "Signs'' was similar to an unproduced script he had written.

led_zeppelin

08-11-04, 09:22 PM

Ok, I saw the Villiage the 2nd day it came out, but I've been at band camp so I couldn't reply. I was impressed with the Villiage, but Signs is still my favorite. I must say the ending did rather dissapoint me, I still really liked the movie. I haven't seen Unbreakable for a long time so the Villiage will claim the spot as my 2nd favorite Night film. ANYway, back to the movie. Here's what I liked and didn't like.

*************POSSIBLE SPOILERS*************

the Good: The monsters were fickin' cool looking. I was extrememly pleased on that aspect. All the scenes that involve them were very very well done. The scene where Adrien Brody stabs blahblah Pheonix (I can't spell his name) was very intense. I don't know why I was affected like I was, after watching Shindler's List or the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre you'd think I'd be. . .oh what's the word, dissollutioned maybe? no that's not it, but something like that. Anyway, I mean violence wouldn't bother me anymore. I think MAYBE it might have been the fact that there was no build up to the stabbing, well the first stab there was, but the second one caught me off guard and that's probably what got me. Also, the "something something Howard" girl was amazing. I can't wait to see her in more movies.

The Bad: Adrien Brody, his character really got on my nerves, arrg. The ending, I know I'm gonna sound like I have to real taste in story or anything besides action in movies but I think I would've liked it better if the monsters were real. The whole thing about them actually being in modern time was very intriguing but not mind blowing like the Sixth Sense's ending. It's more like the Signs ending where I'm just like, "Huh, that's pretty cool." Although I liked Signs a heck of a lot more than the Sixth Sense. So, there you have it, I give this movie a 7/10.

susan

08-11-04, 11:27 PM

ALSO!
my goodness... did anyone read this?

thanks for the info...i'm going to look for that book....

FiLm Fr3aK

08-12-04, 03:34 AM

You can buy it here:

http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpid=1563246&domain_id=1856&meta_id=1

bert

08-14-04, 10:49 PM

Hello all. I am Bert, 42, I live and work in Singapore in the aeorspace industry.
Ok, to my point. I saw the film " The Villiage" yesterday afternoon with my wife. She and I sat at a coffee bean and discussed the film.

From our point of view the movie was a warning in the form of a parable.
Why a parable? Because the information contained is not for everyone.

The film depicted a utopian vision supported by a lie known only by a few, inflicted on the masses (the many). It had all the ear marks of this day in age. There are the world leaders who have dismantled the borders to create the "one world villiage" utopia. And above them are the likes of the Rockiefellers, Rothchildren WTO, WHO Trilateral commission, Club of Rome, The great white brotherhood etc., etc.

There was the evil in the forest or woods I equated to terrorist all over the world (villiage) in which the media hype has worked wonders in promoting fear. The mentaly handicap fellow and the stabbing was a reminder that no matter what man creates human nature will screw it up (see Adam and Eve' story). There is a little bit of retardation in all of us. Imperfect creatures (the created) trying to create a utopia? laughable...

The acting styles of Wever, Hurt and nearly all the rest I think was intentional. there speakings were reserved, carefuly chosen or "politicly correct". To the point they seemed too good to be true. I thought it was VERY well depicted. The actors acting as actors acting or tell half truths. better yet, they were living a lie and how their lives revolved as the effect of the lie became the life the lived to where they could not even believe their eyes or ears because....I think I better stop here my soap box is tilting. I shant go into the Night charater or the dude in with the land rover (nice nice truck). Everyone knows who that represented. "Dont Talk too much"...

In closing; if the film was intended as a warning in the form of a parable, Damn Great Job. And a BIG Kudos to the entire cast and staff behind the scenes.

One mans thoughts...

susan

08-15-04, 07:22 AM

i have looked at the book running out of time...there are similarities to the film however it's not quite the same

a diptheria epidemic strikes the village and they send three of their children out to find medicine. but we find out later that it's 1996 and that this 19th century village was used as an experiment gone wrong...the gov't set up a gene pool and used the group as guinea pigs to test different diseases and who would or would not survive.....eventually the village is slated to be destroyed

another thing...the book takes place in clifton, indiana

MysticalMoose

08-18-04, 09:46 PM

[QUOTE=led_zeppelin]Ok, I saw the Villiage the 2nd day it came out, but I've been at band camp so I couldn't reply. I was impressed with the Villiage, but Signs is still my favorite.

You liked signs more than the sixth sense, oy vey

blibblobblib

08-20-04, 10:03 PM

Finally managed to see this tonight, at last my most anticipated wait is over, and i wasnt dissapointed....much. The only thing i was annoyed with was myself. A couple of weeks ago my curiosity got the better of me and i read some guesses for the twists on some stupid fan site and wadda ya know, it planted a seed in my head that unfortunatly turned out to be right.

I can see a lot of poeple disliking this film, and i always find this a shame. For all of you that disliked it as you didnt get the scare you wanted, did you pay any attention at all in any of Shyamalans other films? Although they all involve intense shocking scenes, they involve a higher number of funnny, sad and deeply emotional scenes delivered by some brilliant actors, a trend that normally outways the fright facor in all of his films.

Are we still using spoiler tags? theres a few posts on here with no spoiler tags and crazy spoilers going on...Well ill leave the spoiler tags for now, but if any mods feel they are necessary let me know and ill add them or fell free to edit away.

!!SPOILERS!!

Things i loved -
I absoloutly loved the cinematography again. Shyamalans use of colour has once again made the film a beauty to watch, the bright yellows set against the dark greys and brown tones of the village are a blatant symbol in themselves, but the reds of the flowers, berrys and mostly of the creatures look just spectacular. The image of Noahs dying body dressed in the creatures costume at the bottom of the pit is amazing, kind of looked like a dying bird....ANYWAY i really enjoyed the visuals of the film. I also loved the music. Shyamaln (im gonna be spelling his name wrong all the way through this and i apologise but you know what i mean) has chosen a good score for this film, although i think his Hitchcockian score from Signs set the tone perfectly i wasnt sure about this one at the beginning, but by the end of the film i really enjoyed it. I, like most of you who enjoyed was also really shocked by the stabbing scene, i thought it was done really well, as the trailer leads you to believe Phoenix is the main charecter throughout its just such a suprise. i thought for a moment he was gonna do the big hitchcock thing and kill off the main star half way through. But i feel howard done a brilliant job in her big debut role.
As for the scariness, i really was scared at several points. Towards the end of the film when Ivy is followed by the last creature, and as it stood staring at her then charged.....yuk, it was horrible. very creepy. Also the raid on the village when Ivy was waiting for Lucious's hand outside the door and the creature approaches her out of focus in the background.....makes my skin crawl. So i for one was definatly not dissapointed with that aspect of the film.

Although i feel the film has satisfied me, and it really does seem like its getting better and better as i think about it more, there is a little something thats bugging me. I would like to have seen more from Sigourney Weaver. her talents seemed a bit wasted. I would love to have seen the relationship with her and Walker senior develop. Another thing is that Ive always enjoyed the way Shyamalan can make me so emotional. In Sixth Sense im moved to tears so many times, especially by Coles final conversation with his mum in the car, and Malcolms goodbye to his wife at the end. In Unbreakable its all the scenes with david and his wife, and when he cries with his son at the breakfast table over the newspaper headline. And all of the flashback scene in Signs i find quite hard to watch. But unfortunatly i didnt find one with this movie. there was no piece of dialogue that just blew me away. perhaps this is becuase its only after my first screening, and once ive seen it a few more times i'll find a scene but right now i cant pinpoint one. Perhaps the scene with Lucious and Ivy proposing to eachother might be it, or the dialogue of the elders as they exlpain why they chose to go along with the "village", but right now i cant say.

I always wondered how M. Night would get a cameo in this film as i couldnt see how they could feature someone of his ethnicity (is that the right word?) in the setting for the film. but i did think his cameo was blatantly hitchockesque.

just a question...

What was Lucious's colour?

carpe eternitium

08-22-04, 03:29 AM

The Village is an excellent film. Although it was nothing like I had anticipated, I was thrilled to view a movie that actually made me think-beyond the theater. M.Knight is my new fav-he had a dynamic cast which made the slightly out-of-place objects seem believable. I loved the development of the story and the characters, and his timing throughout the whole film, particulary at the end, was impeccable.
I've heard some gripes about the ending. While everyone loves to see the beautiful princess being carried on a white steed to the shining castle in the distance, M.Knight gives audiences a little more to chew on. Shining castles and happily ever afters wouldn't have been an appropriate ending for the this film. I thought it was perfect.

calistoga

08-22-04, 11:36 AM

The Villiage 0_5 - for the teaser.

:rotfl:

I realize many like this film, and to each their own, but I'm afraid I couldn't agree more....the teaser was the only part of this movie to lift my head up.

Zora

08-23-04, 04:10 PM

Any insight into my theories...

I think that the elders were actually counselors and not patients in the clinic. Just the freeky detached way that that one lady talks about her sister being raped was suspcious. Also, in the photo, Walker is standing next to a pregnant woman that I am pretty sure is one of the other elders (the one who reminds him that HE TOOK AN OATH). My ideas about the elders being mental health professionals gives the movie a little more of an insidious twist to the whole story. Also kinda sick and freeky how Walker and the elders were willing to risk the death or serious injury of Ivy just to save the village (remember that they knew that Noah had escaped and was probably headed out into the woods).

acidburn

08-23-04, 04:25 PM

I thought the movie was fantastic! The story was so different and it was amusing aswell as touching. I really enjoyed it!! :)

MysticalMoose

08-23-04, 11:11 PM

LordSlaytan

08-24-04, 12:13 AM

What Zora is saying is that she thinks that they might have been full of crap, and were actually fibbing when speaking of family members lost to violence. Personally, I thought William Hurt's speech seemed too genuine to not be the truth.

moviemad

08-29-04, 11:09 PM

I'm under instructions not to reveal anything until the movie's been released, so I'll have a review up tomorrow. :)

we ive just got onto this forum and reviewed it, didnt see you post on here, but mines vertually on top of the pile if you want to take a look.

I'm under moviemad

Womersley

09-02-04, 12:05 AM

Can someone please explain to me what the hell is going on in the movie...?

I understand that the village elders were actually the creatures but all the people were inside when the first monster came to the door?

...and I surpose the retarded guy who stabbed Loucious knew about the secret or what? It's just really confusing, it was the retard guy in the suit near the end, why did he attack Ivy?

Need anwsers please, yes I am stupid. :mad:

Sinny McGuffins

09-02-04, 10:00 PM

An elder could have easily slipped away.

Noah didn't know about the secrect, he just found a creature suit under the floor board.

I'm curious as to why he attacked Ivy too, I guess we'll never know his motives.

Anyway, I just saw The Village. Like many of you, I was the only one of my freinds who liked it. Great film.

MysticalMoose

09-03-04, 08:32 PM

Parky he was probably angry about the recent engagement of Ivy to Lucius, but then again, with those retards, you never know.

adrian

09-07-04, 07:01 AM

Real smooth there Moose.

Fugitive

09-08-04, 09:42 AM

As for the scariness, i really was scared at several points............makes my skin crawl. So i for one was definatly not dissapointed with that aspect of the film.

I would like to have seen more from Sigourney Weaver. her talents seemed a bit wasted. I would love to have seen the relationship with her and Walker senior develop.

Blib, you sound like an ol' romantic at heart reading your little review. I have to agree with you in regards to Weaver's waste of talent tho. (I might be too used to her being in over-assertive roles tho). I didn't think this was a scary film in the 'frightening' term of the word. I found it more thought-provoking and altho the pace was slow, I thought as far as the storyline went, it wasn't too bad. Now, I don't know if you were joking there, Slay, but man, I thought Hurt's acting really helped to keep the movie afloat.

Rankles

09-10-04, 06:42 PM

I think this is a spoiler so...

If anyone has seen the movie and wouldn't mind helping me figure something out, please read this and reply to it.

Thank you.

I hope I haven't messed up...

A microphone was shown in many scenes. Was this an accident or did it mean something?

EDIT: To fix spoilers tags
Dude I think me, you and the cinema I was at are the only people who noticed that. It was blatantly obvious and in almost every other shot... wtf????

ash_is_the_gal

01-08-05, 05:27 AM

I have heard so many people bash this movie since I have seen it. The number one complaint I have heard is that upon watching the trailor, they were looking forward to a real spook-fest by this one, and that is not what they got at all.

I am actually quite surprised that I don't hold the norm opinion on this movie, especially after the way I felt about Signs. I feel that the director himself made the same mistake with Signs, showing us a trailor that looked really spooky and promising and then wasn't even that at all. But I actually really...enjoyed....the storyline, the characters, and the way this movie folded out. So what if it was "ripped off" of an old twilight episode? He pulled it off beautifully! Bryce Dallas Howard was absolutely enchanting as our female lead, Ivy Walker. Even though this movie ended up turning out to be more of a dramatic romance then an actual horror movie, I still found this movie spooky and unatural in that pleastly unpleasant way.

The only beef I have is with the director himself, but its not my fault that he might try to draw the audience in with a deceiving trailor! I guess after doing The Sixth Sense, and what a great dent that made in movie history, he doesn't want to let those fans down. I guess after being known famously for one type of genre, its hard to switch? See, I wouldn't know, I'm not a big-time director....yet. :)

Anyway, I think everyone should give this movie a shot, you may find that you actually like it!

kevinkelly

01-08-05, 10:07 AM

Mose

01-08-05, 10:12 AM

I've liked all of Shyamalan's (did I spell that right?) films. I found The Sixth Sense, Signs and The Village to be scary. I haven't seen The Sixth Sense in a while, so I can't comment on that. But I like how in both Signs and The Village, it's not just straight-forward horror. In Signs you have a family dealing with the loss of the mother figure and the father figure losing his faith... I mean tremendous problems... and then they're thrown into a 'movie reality' (you know, the kind where aliens come down and attack us). Same thing in the Village... you have this great love story (like you mentioned, Ash), but at the same time you have this other-worldly creature factor.
To me... this way of telling stories makes it somehow more real. It's not just... teenagers have sex... guy in mask chops up teenagers... credits roll.

I agree Kevin... I think what most people overlooked was that Signs wasn't really a horror movie. Instead it was a movie dealing with faith that happened to be set against a backdrop that included some aliens and a few genuinely scary moments. I find if you watch it from that point of view it's a much more enjoyable film. As for The Village, it should be here Tuesday if Netflix holds to form... Yeah! I think it will be the type of movie I enjoy more by waiting to watch it at home so I don't have the trailers fresh in my mind.

Sedai

01-08-05, 12:45 PM

The director has little to do with the marketing, or nothing to do with it. Besides, people should expect the unexpected with M. Knight. I see no mention in this thread of my favorite M. Night film, Unbreakable. An amazing film and wonderful character study. Check it out if you haven't seen it folks.

Also, this thread belongs in a different section of the forums, as I don't see any review here.

Yoda

01-08-05, 12:50 PM

Also, this thread belongs in a different section of the forums, as I don't see any review here.Eh, fine line. I mean, it's not an analysis, but it's still a "here's what I thought of it" post.

I'm willing to discuss what should and should not be considered a "review," though, if you have an opinion on the matter.

Sedai

01-08-05, 12:52 PM

Eh, fine line. I mean, it's not an analysis, but it's still a "here's what I thought of it" post.

I'm willing to discuss what should and should not be considered a "review," though, if you have an opinion on the matter.

No, it's just me stepping over the line again. I'll try and leave it to the mods in the future (like you haven't heard that from me before ;)).

Yoda

01-08-05, 01:00 PM

Not at all, man; the mods and I don't necessarily have any special insight into all this. I'd actually welcome some formal guidelines on what constitutes a review, as it's been hazy for as long as we've had the forum. Can I send you a quick PM to discuss it a bit further?

Sedai

01-08-05, 01:09 PM

Of course, bro. Anytime :)

yellowjacket1

01-11-05, 04:33 PM

I have heard so many people bash this movie since I have seen it. The number one complaint I have heard is that upon watching the trailor, they were looking forward to a real spook-fest by this one, and that is not what they got at all.

Anyway, I think everyone should give this movie a shot, you may find that you actually like it!

I totally agree! Great review!

The Village could be the most underrated movie I’ve seen in quite some time. People have expressed disappointment over this film but I think the disappointment only comes from offbeat expectations of the film maker himself. Director/writer Shyamalan is a master story teller. Just because some people were expecting a horror film and didn’t get one doesn’t make this movie bad. In fact, it’s just the opposite. It’s an excellent movie because it’s a complex and deep story about real people in strange circumstances. It was well shot, hypnotic and well acted. Ron Howard's daughter was a great find and gives the best performance by a rookie actress that I’ve ever seen. It’s true that William Hurt, Sigorny Weaver and Adrien Brody were second tier characters but what a great cast. Even Joaquin Phoenix had little to do but that’s the beauty of this ensemble cast. They give depth and feeling to a movie that features story over all else. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I enjoyed this film far more then I was led to believe.

allthatglitters

01-17-05, 03:15 AM

Strange, many folks are acting as if finding out the time period was a surprise. At the beginning of the film, the headstone clearly says 1990-1997. All the people I was with watching knew it was the present the whole time. I didn't even think it was supposed to be an issue....

So a funny thing happened this night as I was watching The Village, I watched the gravestone very carefully and it said 1880-1887. Hmm. . .I wonder if it was changed?

I still like the movie though, my mother being the very emotional and sometimes impulsive person she is, after two minutes has already decided that it is her favorite movie and keeps yakking away nonsense. I love my mom, but she really is a nuisance, especially when it comes to not listening to me when I tell her why I think something lacks something.

Edwin

01-31-05, 05:25 PM

At least, was it as good as you expected?

Not at all. Unlike "Signs" which kept you interested throughout, The Village dragged on. M. Night Shylaman took his sweet time getting to the surprise twist. Waiting for it is what kept me awake.

blibblobblib

01-31-05, 10:09 PM

Got this on DVD yesterday. Love it. :yup:

lor83b

03-19-05, 01:06 PM

Is it just me but in M. Night Shylaman movies the sound/music and lighting is what makes me jump in my seat not the creatures themselves.

Uncle Rico

03-19-05, 01:17 PM

this movie sucked

MovieMaker5087

03-19-05, 01:17 PM

this movie sucked

No one asked you.

Uncle Rico

03-19-05, 01:18 PM

Seth!!!!!!!!!!!

MovieMaker5087

03-19-05, 01:19 PM

Jamie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

blibblobblib

03-19-05, 03:41 PM

this movie sucked
No it didn't. But thanks for your stimulating input.

nebbit

03-22-05, 01:25 AM

I saw it a few weeks ago, I thought it was interesting, also the ending was good. :cool:

Sir Toose

11-16-07, 11:25 AM

I don't know when it's no longer appropriate to wrap things in spoiler tags...

So, to be safe I guess I'll do it here:

I thought one of the most compelling parts of the story line was the character of Noah (Adrien Brody). The whole point of the elders constructing the fabrication of the village was to somehow escape the evil of men. They thought that by isolating themselves from society they could also isolate themselves from evil. The fact that Noah was born within the village and then commits acts of evil underscores the idea that evil comes from within ourselves and is not some external and mysterious force.

Rainier

11-16-07, 12:26 PM

I enjoy watching it..

psyche

11-21-07, 02:45 PM

I heard that this movie ranked in box office sales on its opening weekend in the United States...that makes me conclude that the movie have something to be impressed of...:D

Yoda

11-21-07, 02:57 PM

I heard that this movie ranked in box office sales on its opening weekend in the United States...that makes me conclude that the movie have something to be impressed of...:D
It made $50 million, which is quite good, sure, but it dropped off very quickly after that, and concluded with $114 domestically. Most films finish with roughly three times their opening weekend gross; anything less generally indicates poor word-of-mouth.

It wasn't just front-loaded in general, however; it was front-loaded even on its first weekend, making $20 million of its $50 million on the very first day. That generally indicates a film with a very fervent fan base, which, in turn, generally implies that it doesn't have a terribly broad appeal.

However, given director M. Night Shyamalan's financial success with The Sixth Sense and Signs, it was widely hailed as a disappointment, both financially and (moreso) critically. I myself thought it was solid; certainly an above-average film, but definitely one that would have been better-received with the many preconceptions people brought to it. It probably didn't help that someone on this forum (in this very thread, I think) spoiled the ending for me before I saw it.

Thursday Next

11-21-07, 03:39 PM

I get tired of this film getting ripped apart because 'it wasn't scary ' or 'it didn't have a gud twist'. I think The Village, like the underrated Stigmata, suffered from being marketed as a horror film, then boring all the 'It's Saturday night and I'm too young to get into a pub' crowd by paying more attention to aesthetics than gore.

I actually did find it scary, maybe that's because I don't watch a lot of horror movies.

I found the part where Ivy was trailed by one of the creatures in the woods genuinely scary. Yes, we had just been shown that the creatures were village elders dressed up, but here was one out in the woods. To me, it seemed that perhaps they were real after all (that would have been a twist ending!), and the tension was notched up fairly effectively by good camerawork and music.

I liked the 'fairytale' look of the film, especially when she comes to a giant hedge on the other side of the woods. I thought it was well acted. I also liked the way it came together at the end - when you realise why they won't let Lucius go to the outside world, you also realise why Ivy is the only one of the youngsters who could go - because she is blind and will not see what it looks like, and because they will recognise her name and know who she is and where she comes from and not trouble her.

It wasn't perfect, sure, and if you have seen Brotherhood of the Wolf, it casts some doubt on its originality, but still a good film.

Rainier

11-26-07, 01:16 PM

I find the movie not scary but creepy though...