The Village Impressions - MAJOR SPOILERS

No, I haven’t seen it, but wanted to take a stab at guessing what the big mystery was. If my guesses are right, could someone please let me know so I can avoid seeing it? ;)

I’m thinking the mysterious people are either 1) the Sidhe or 2) a Native American tribe. I’ll be especially pissed if it’s the latter.

http://filmtalk.guardian.co.uk/[email protected]@.77472f18/0

Oh dear. Both of noun’s guesses sound more interesting that the actual answer given in Mr. Preach’s link.

Scooby-Doo indeed.

–milo
http://www.starshatter.com

Sorry to be the bearer of bad spoilers…

It was something of a relief to find out the secret, y’know. I did laugh. In relief, more than anything else.

Oh, that is LAME. Seriously? That’s the twist?

BAH.

Thanks for providing that link, I definitely have no interest in seeing this now. I would have been furious if I saw that in the theater.

Wow. Wow that’s dumb. And pretentious. Wow.

Guy keeps outdoing himself. Next time, the movie will be literally impossible to not fall asleep during, and the twist will be that you’re not really watching a movie… the movie is watching you.

I told you the “twist” sucked serious ass. There are enough good reviews, though, to put this movie in my Netflix list instead of “ignore for all time” list.

It would have been all better if the final line was…

And we would have got away with it if it weren’t for you meddling kids!

I was really hoping for Earnest Borgnine as a satanic high priest.

It’s in the thread title, but just in case: [size=6]SPOILERS.[/size]

Oh, that is LAME. Seriously? That’s the twist?

No, it isn’t.

So, have any of the folks bitching here actually seen the film, or do you just hate it on general principle? I enjoyed it, actually, though I also think that it’s it’s also a lot more uneven than his other films. But if it’s lacking, it’s not for want of an interesting premise–that’s the film’s strong suit. The revelation that the creatures are a hoax isn’t the twist revelation, either, and there’s more going on with regard to the creatures than the village elders know about.

I had some problems with the film–particularly the very beginning, which felt unevenly edited and stilted at times. And there’s one big contrivance that bothered me, but the overall premise is actually pretty neat, and the film is definitely scary.

I just read about the second twist, the one regarding the setting of the village. That’s even dumber. I’m glad you liked it Ben, but me, I’m glad I discovered this in advance and saved myself the $$$.

I just got back from seeing this film and as one person said in that link, the twist makes the early stuff more palatable but leaves you wondering why? A good twist will let you go through the movie and see it in a whole new way. A bad twist just raises a ton of silly questions that end up destroying the story from the inside out. The twist in The Village is the latter unfortunately. It’s too bad because there were a lot of interesting things that could have been explored if the story wasn’t so focused on providing a twist.

I saw this today and I really, really liked it.

The love scenes are just beautiful, and, dare I say, beautifully written.

It’s about trying to externalize evil, and finding that evil comes from the inside. I was quite happy with the twist, and it felt really good to know that this was happening in the real world instead of some parable fairy-land.

I thought the biggest twist was having Ivy become the hero who needs to save her love.

I was sitting near some 13-year old boys and they were having none of it. I understand that when you come to a movie about razorback hog-people terrorizing a village and you get a meditative film about love and protecting those you love, you’re going to have some dissatisfaction. You’d think people would realize this about Shamlamamamamama’s work by now.

Mostly I think Shamalamamamama’s (sorry, I know it’s juvenile, but I can’t resist) writing is “delicate”, in that it works really well on an emotional, in-the-moment level, but when the brainiacs start tearing it apart it won’t hold up. But y’know what, for all the plot holes, for all the “that’s a dumb twist” every one of his movies have made me feel something.

I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that thirteen year olds were brainiacs. What’s that? I’m sorry again. Did you just try and backtrack by saying that you meant brainiacs and juveniles? What? Jesus, my ears must be going. Did you also just say brainiacs, juveniles, and anyone with taste? God, you’re so demanding. Your standards are way too high.

Dean was saying that a) 13-year-olds were having none of the love story and that b) braniacs can tear up the movie by over-analyzing it.

I thought Dean made a pretty lucid point even if I didn’t care for the movie (although the Ivy/Lucius courtship was pretty good, mainly because of Bryce Dallas Howard’s fiesty ‘stilted-dialoge-be-damned!’ performance). Awdougherty put his finger on the difference between a good twist and a bad twist.

Shymalan is a master of bad twists who writes scripts that are slightly out of reach of his capacity as a director. He needs to just step back and do a straight-up genre movie, because he lacks the delicacy and insight to do what he’s trying to do. For Pete’s sake, M. Night, just make a frickin’ zombie movie or something…

 -Tom

(warning: This is multitiered and not so much aimed at anyone. Tom, it’s not in response to you, aside from the very tip-top, and most of it is just idle thinking. Thought I’d make that warning)

Noted. I misunderstood the 13 year old part, however (and I realize that what I said was very heavy-handed), I firmly believe that M. Night is a talented filmmaker but a horrible writer. His movies please visually, he generally commands good performances from actors and actresses in his movies, and in the end nobody really has any complaints about the actual cinematography or directorial aspects of them. Instead, the twists are the most focused on point.

In the end, the M. Night fanboys try and pose him as being Hitchcock reborn. I can see why they draw on that. He has a lot of those aspects, but in the end M. Night seems to believe that the best part of Hitchcock films was always the twist or the shock factor as opposed to the subtle suspense and imagery. This is all in my humble opinion, of course, but I always felt those were Hitchcock’s strong suites. He didn’t need to crack your teeth for you to still feel very unnerved by his movies. M. Night hasn’t grasped that concept yet, and still feels the need to force open our eyes and see whatever point it is he is trying to push. I’m not Alexander de Large, Mr. Shyamalan, thanks.

At the same time, M. Night haters poise him as being the most overrated director of his generation. What? I’m sorry. I don’t see it. Sure, I don’t enjoy his films, but plenty of people do. Hack? Again, I’m sorry. He may be overly commercial, but he’s no Joel Schumacher or <generic romantic comedy director here>. So the man enjoys horror. So he’s pretty hackneyed in his writing. Wow! Color me completely uncaring in any way except for thinking he’s a bad writer. I’m not going to be so pretentious as to call him a hack or the worst director of his generation. What’s so wrong with saying he’s a bad writer and leaving it at that? Why do people feel the need to justify their opinions by lacing their arguments with phrases and utterances that would make an artschool student squirm and gawk at before asking, “You do realize it’s just a <painting/movie/album>, right?”

I digress, but my original point was meant to be mocking. Brainiacs? Juveniles? People with good taste? Why point out someone’s age, or the fact that they like Darren Aronofsky movies, or the fact that they’re pretentious? That has nothing to do with liking or disliking an M. Night Shyamalan movie. I think you’ll find plenty of brainiacs who love it, plenty of people who think they’re brainiacs who love it, and plenty of juveniles who love it. Likewise, I think you’ll find the same amount of people in all three camps who loathe it. In the end, you’ll also find quite a few people who are meh to the idea of seeing one of his movies.

The generalization just aggitated me, and I’ve gone out of my way to restate your points about his writing bad scripts, so I’ll simply state my personal feelings on The Village:

Holy toledo! Somebody had fun. Unfortunately, that somebody wasn’t me. I look forward to the day when I can see M. Night Shyamalan’s Undead Apocalypse, but until that day, I can’t see any of his movies being enjoyable to me.

Cool Breeze-- the 13 year olds were goofing on corny love dialogue. I shushed them. Me, I’m a sucker for corny love dialogue. Sue me, I get a big goofy grin every time I watch Casablanca.

By brainiacs I meant people who over-intellectualize and start pointing out all the flaws in the twist. Hey, why did they bother to put 1897 on the tombstone if people were either in on it or children who didn’t know better? What about flight paths? How the heck can you keep a wildlife preserve fenced in and patrolled for 30 years? Blah blah blah.

Have you ever seen a Tennessee Williams play? They’re full of stilted “poetic” dialogue, they have overwrought plots, and characters do tend to go on about love, ambition, loss, and how hot it is. For all that, when done well, they make me feel something, and for that I go to see them.

This was explained, or at least hinted at–it’s the “Walker Wildlife Preserve.” William Hurt’s character, Edward Walker, owns it. He’s rich–the son of a murdered billionaire.

Just saw this. I found it slightly boring, but that’s probably my own stupid fault for knowing what the twist was beforehand. Even so, when it was finally revealed I thought it worked pretty well. The idea of them all being bereaved people who’d met at some kind of crisis therapy center made sense, at least to me.

On the drive home, though, I found myself picking holes in it. Why did Adrien Brody’s character start scavenging around under the floorboards? If all he had to do to escape was smash the window, why didn’t he just do that? And why would there be a spare creature suit hidden away under there? Shouldn’t that be kept in the The Shed with all the others?

Why didn’t the elders keep a secret stash of modern medical supplies for super-emergencies? They could have been administered secretly. Okay, maybe they agreed to totally eschew everything about the modern world and make their 19th Century existence totally authentic. But so why didn’t William Hurt go into the woods himself? He could have been out of there and back before dawn without anyone noticing – clearly the Elders came and went as they pleased at night so they could swan around in their creature suits. What was the point of letting someone else in on their ultimate secret, and sending her – A BLIND GIRL, no less – out into those featureless woods?

I thought it would have been much scarier had they not revealed the fact that the creatures were fake so early. If we didn’t know this by the time Ivy went into the woods, it would have been terrifying. As it stands, we know it’s a guy in a suit (despite the lame V.O. callback that’s meant to make us think that maybe there are real creatures after all) and so there’s no real horror here.

Without wishing to get TOO high-brow about it all, what I took from it thematically was an exploration of how fear can be used to control people. As the dude in Fahrenheit 9/11 says, “You can make people do anything if they’re afraid” – was there meant to be a subtle point about our modern culture of paranoia and fear, or is it just me?

Anyone think that Ivy knew that it was Noah chasing her in the woods?