The Village (Spoilers)

[TigerMan]

Well I went to see The Village today, and was extrememly disappointed. You might as well not even watch the previews, because the movie is totally different. I went in thinking I was going to be a seeing a horror flick, and I came out saying "wtf did I just waste my money on!?" because it wasn't that type of movie. Seriously, if you want to see a horror flick, this isn't it. It's a very predictable movie that will make you angry (especially since I laid down $8 for it).

*Now if you haven't seen, stop here because now I'm letting out*

Now granted the first like half hour I was thinking this is going to be good and scary, but when the dad took the blind girl to the shed and told her the monsters were fake, I was like what the heck. Now some people are going to say its good cause it makes you think and reflect on junk in society, but for me I feel jipped. I thought I'd be seeing some sort of scary flick, and I end up leaving after watching a movie that supposed to make me "think and reflect." Ugh and even if I went in thinking it was going to be a movie for thinking and reflecting, it wouldn't be any good then since the movie is very predictable (at least I thought). And the thing that made me really get mad was the whole "magic rocks" thing. I mean couldn't they think of something more clever than "magic rocks"? Overall, I felt very misled, and well the junk ain't a horror flick if you ask me (and even the monster was really stupid looking as it was like a pig/porcupine frankenstein). I really wished I had gone to seen I, Robot, or even Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle again. Big waste of time the Village is IMO.

[Ov3rmind]

I have come to the conclusion that there are no good movies in theaters right now.

[Tron]

go see Harold and Kumar that movie was awesome.

And I agree on the village really disappointing. I figured it out in the first 30secs if you pay attention it lets the secret out right then.

[adam_61550]

Yeah, pretty dissapointing. I'm gonna go see it again just in case I missed something. But I doubt I'll like it any better.

It is scary for the first hour. Then when the big twist is revealed its like....."Ok why am I here?" It's a completely different movie from what the previews showed. And I think it could've been a lot better if it had been taken in a different direction (you'll know what I mean).

HOWEVER, I dont care if she is Ron Howard's daughter, the blind chick is totally hot....



And 2 weeks till ALIEN VS PREDATOR!

[behemoth]

yeah t3h blind chick was pretty hot

and AVP ALL THE WAY!~!!!

[Jack_Dubious]

While I liked the movie...I would have edited the ending differently. I would have not revealed the secret about the creatures till closer to the end. IMHO they showed the scene where the father shows her whats inside the shed too early....they could have waited till after she was attacked in the woods.

It was OK overall, it was definately not a horror movie nor did i expect it to be. But i was hoping for werewolves or something

I still liked it better than Signs...and yeah the blind girl was HAWT!! I wanted to see what she had hiding under that skirt.

JDub

[WenULiVeUdiE]

Your right, the previews were misleading. But I still liked it.

Did any of you notice the clues about what year it really was? When Ivy and the 2 men were going to take her into the forest to get the medicene(sp?) I saw what looked a lot like a streetlight in the background. Also, there seemed to be tire tracks through out the village. Well not tire tracks, but roads that could have only been made by cars. Also, another clue was the buildings they had. The greenhouse looked way to modern to be from the 1800's, the glass was perfect and it looked like it was made of metal. Also, their brooms and the water pump didnt seem to be from that time period. I guess they did it all on purpose.

Jack_D- Hmm, that definately would have been better if they revealed it after she was attacked. But I thought it was actually real the first time she was attacked.

I think it would have been cool if the security guard( the one sitting down, the supervisor) was like related to the Walker's or something. He sounded like he knew about them all. " It's an easy job...Dont talk to anyone....Dont get in any conversations"

[t33kyboy]

Signs, Sixth Sense, or Unbreakable.

What did you expect, all his movies are the same.. deep thinking kinda stuff.

[RiddalinJunkie08]

***I DID NOT WRITE THIS, I FOUND IT ON YAHOO***

Every negative review of "The Village" has been based on the dissapointment of the "twist" and the ease of suspecting the Village's true secret so early in the film. These same critics, Ebert included, are so focused on their assumption of M. Night's reliance upon a plot twist that they fail to relize that the director purposefully and intelligently chose not to rely solely on a big plot twist (like Sixth Sense and the far worse, Signs).

Instead Shyamalan chose to create a brilliant metaphor, displayed in the film's entirety, and throughout its peices (the actors and atmosphere): control, through fear and the power of myth. This film is somewhat the antithesis to Signs. Signs was all about the power of blind faith in religion (good premise, but cheesily executed) while The Village is about the very real dangers of that same blind faith that belies the usage of such power. The viewer learns near the end that violence is a part of human nature (nature period) and not confound to any particular town or society. Equally, benevolence exists in these same areas regardless of predjudices. It touches on so many levels: political, religous, and social.

The acting is perfect for the mood and atmosphere, the cinematography of the village and forest is gorgeous, and the message is completely relevant.

Yet all critics can seem to talk about is "how the plot twist isn't surprising." The audience is looking more for the plot twist than for a good movie as shown in the following Washington Post's criticism.
"It's no way to see a movie, because you're never unself-conscious enough to let the drama work on you; you're concentrated on the game. And at a certain point the whole exercise is rendered anticlimactic: The only suspense left is whether you got it right or not," (Stephen Hunter).
I took this into consideration before seeing the movie and the drama worked wonderfully for me. No, the surpise is no surprise, but more importantly a purposeful piece to a well crafted puzzle.

See "The Village" for a good movie with a thought provoking message, not for a reinvention of "The Sixth Sense." The real surprise will be how much you can enjoy a movie if you maintain an open mind.

[Cryer]

even still I think Shyamalan is too concerned with fooling his audience with twists in the plot, he sacrificed what could very well have been an excelent horror pic. I liked it ok... but It was one of the few movies that I was angry because it didnt go the way I wanted it to.

I dont feel I could justify spending the money a second time to see it :-/

I liked Signs alot better.

[Chojin Man]

i thought this movie was really good. the suspense and acting were very well done. my only complaint is what jack said about the editing of the order of events.

[fazer]

What do people mean then they say that you can figure out the year from the beginning? I wasn't paying enough attention, in those moments I guess.

I went into the movie expecting something NOT what the trailers showed, specifically because it's a Shyamalan movie. I know by now not to expect anything with that guy. I'm the ONE dork I know that LIKED Unbreakable. Signs was ok. It had a twilight zone feel to it that most people missed.

I think it was better that this movie did not rely on the plot twists, but rather on how well the people in the movie did playing believable characters regardless of temporal place. His movies are almost always about an idea more than the direct subject matter

[t33kyboy]

I liked Unbreakable too! Great movie, no action which i was expecting from a invinsible man, but it teaches a leason...

[Jack_Dubious]

I had guessed the time period very early in the movie. I knew there had to be a major twist at the end...and being modern day was one of my ideas. The movie never officially proclaimed the time period and the only date shown was on a tombstone. The tombstone was an obvious attempt to put a time period in the viewers mind, even though it doesnt really tell you what year it is....it could be any year after the date on the tombstone.

But after they showed a glimpse of the creature...i did have my doubts about my theory....

JDub

[louie]

I had guessed the time period very early in the movie. I knew there had to be a major twist at the end...and being modern day was one of my ideas. The movie never officially proclaimed the time period and the only date shown was on a tombstone. The tombstone was an obvious attempt to put a time period in the viewers mind, even though it doesnt really tell you what year it is....it could be any year after the date on the tombstone.

But after they showed a glimpse of the creature...i did have my doubts about my theory....

JDub

I don't remember exactly, but I think even before they showed the tombstone, it said on screen what year it was. I also did think that they revealed that the mosters were fake too early in the movie. I think the perfect place would have been right when Adrien Brody fell in the pit but they would do a flashback to when the girl's father showed her the suit then show who/what was in the pit.

I can't really think of other hints from the movie but I'm sure there are. If someone would point them out, that would be nice. The thing that struck me too was the green/glass house, I thought that seemed really out of place.

Also, the park ranger reading the newspaper (Shyamalan) did know about the people in the enclosure. That's why he didn't stop or question the other park ranger about the medicine and ladder.

I think the best way to watch the director's movies is to not think ahead and try to figure out what the twist is (EVERYONE knows there's going to be one). Just watch and go along with the movie.