The village, Yes, it really is that bad

[Quasqueton]

The major twist in Unbreakable is

Spoiler

Samuel L. Jackson is the bad guy - the super villain to Bruce Willis' super hero.

.

The major twist in Signs is

Spoiler

everything bad that has happened to Mel Gibson's family (son's asthma, wife's death, daughter's "psychosis" about water, and brother's failure as a baseball player) was to set up his family's survival against the aliens

.

I, too, had "figured out" the twist of The Village before half-way through the movie. But I had it figured that this village was "real", but because of their isolation, didn't know the rest of the world had evolved into the 21st century.

The only reason I figured anything about this movie was because everyone expects a twist in Shyamalan's movies. He's been cursed by his own success, in that everyone knows to look for the secret before they even should expect there to be a secret in the movie.

As I said, I'll still see any movie he writes and directs. I enjoyed The Village, and was not upset or "insulted" at all.

Quasqueton

 

[The Serge]

I'm not bothering with spoilder ques in this. If you haven't seen the movie, you shouldn't be reading this far into the thread. If you don't want anything spoiled, don't read any further. See the darn movie.

When intelligent people dislike something, rather than assume those folks have lost their intelligence, it might be worthwhile to look at what their concerns were. Obviously intelligent people can like this movie, too, but there's no cause for disappointment in us for disliking something you like .

Not assuming that anyone here has lost his/her intelligence. However, I have noticed that a lot of the comments here (and elsewhere) have not revolved around the characterizations or the story, but around the twist and genre expectations.

Now, I disagree with some of your perspectives, but I don't have a problem with them. I don't mind people not liking some of the things I like nor am I suggesting that his movie's perfect (I gave it a B- at a Dicefreak's review ). What I find disappointing is that a lot of people are jumping up and down based upon what they wanted to happen rather than just watching the film and basing an opinion upon what it ended up being.

Frankly, I thought the twist (which I figured out half-way through the film) was fine. It wasn't surprising, but it was nice to discover that there wasn't some kind of supernatural threat in this film. Rather, the threat was in the decisions made by the Elders and the manner in which they allowed fear of the real world to affect them and, thereby, affect their children. I loved that. I loved how they discover that humanity is still violent and deadly regardless of how one tries to defend against it. I though the cop out in this film was not because of questionable plot devices (like hiding the suit under the house), but the ultimate decision of the Elders. These people intentionally ignore that their actions will not and cannot change some of the darker elements of humanity. They rely on fear and superstition to keep people within boundaries. In the end, despite this recognition, they continue to essentially live a lie. There's no indication that anyone really learned anything here. Hell, they actually rejoice in the death of a character, using the event to perpetuate their own lies. That's where the cop out is...

This is not a perfect film. However, I think it's a strong satire that still features troubled features. Yet, I think there are some gems. The clues we receive throughout. The real twist (transferring the heroics from Lucius to Ivy was BRILLIANT) was totally unexpected to me. I loved the acting as well, and the hyper formal language (which was so stiff that it had to be fake). There's a lot going on in this film and it seems ashame that so many are focusing on what they wanted rather than what ended up occuring... The limitation, IMO, is on the viewer in this case, not the director.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Not assuming that anyone here has lost his/her intelligence. However, I have noticed that a lot of the comments here (and elsewhere) have not revolved around the characterizations or the story, but around the twist and genre expectations.

I don't know. I admit to being less than blown away by the twist, but it wasn't that so much as the fact that I found the movie too slow-paced and boring that bothered me. I didn't even think the acting was all that outstanding, frankly, though I'd have to see it a second (or third) time to really develop a solid judgement on that score.

I do think that if I hadn't already guessed the outcome of the movie, I probably would have been just as disappointed in how heavy-handed the resolution was as both of my friends that I saw the movie were, and as I see many people in this thread were, though.

 

[Kai Lord]

There's a lot going on in this film and it seems ashame that so many are focusing on what they wanted rather than what ended up occuring... The limitation, IMO, is on the viewer in this case, not the director.

That's just silly. "Oh you didn't like Showgirls? Well that's because you wanted a good movie! If you didn't focus on what you wanted as opposed to what occurred you would have seen that the limitation was on you."

Nobody is saying that the monsters had to be aliens, or ghosts, or mutants, or werewolves for them to enjoy it. Just something better than what they turned out to be. Same for the truth about the village itself. Its just such a let down, and a sadly lazy effort from such a gifted director.

Its like in writing the script Shyamalan's priorities were "what would make a surprising twist", "what would make a good trailer", and "how can I work in a personal cameo". And that's it. The story just wasn't there. Note to Shyamalan: If you're going to drop red herrings to lead people away from the real story make sure that the "fake" story the red herrings point to isn't a hundred times more compelling than the real one.

 

[The Serge]

That's just silly. "Oh you didn't like Showgirls? Well that's because you wanted a good movie! If you didn't focus on what you wanted as opposed to what occurred you would have seen that the limitation was on you."

I don't think it's silly. I think you're being silly with this asinine example, though.

Showgirls was weak through and through. Acting, plotting, pacing... And this is an attitude across almost all markets.

With Shyamalan's movies, I've noticed with each film since Sixth Sense attitudes regarding his films have deteriorated because so many are not paying attention to the story, but to the twist and to the implications offered by trailers and previews.

Nobody is saying that the monsters had to be aliens, or ghosts, or mutants, or werewolves for them to enjoy it. Just something better than what they turned out to be.

Like what? Do they have to be real monsters for the point of the film to be conveyed? Is that what you're interested in?

Same for the truth about the village itself. Its just such a let down, and a sadly lazy effort from such a gifted director.

Be more specific.

The story just wasn't there.

How was there not a story?

Note to Shyamalan: If you're going to drop red herrings to lead people away from the real story make sure that the "fake" story the red herrings point to isn't a hundred times more compelling than the real one.

Okay, here I can agree with you... Although perhaps for different reasons. My major gripe with this film, as I said earlier, is that he cops out. These people really didn't seem to learn squat in this film and that would have been the compelling ending needed to make this a very good movie IMO.

 

[Kai Lord]

Be more specific.

No.

 

[Hand of Evil]

the real spoiler...The Village is really a hamlet!

saw that on the Daily Show, got a kick out of it.

 

[The Serge]

No.

Very succinct response. Thanks!

 

[Cthulhudrew]

the real spoiler...The Village is really a hamlet!

Is it really, though? Or is it a Thorp? (Anyone got their DMG handy?)

 

[Shadowdancer]

Okay, here I can agree with you... Although perhaps for different reasons. My major gripe with this film, as I said earlier, is that he cops out. These people really didn't seem to learn squat in this film and that would have been the compelling ending needed to make this a very good movie IMO.

I actually like the fact that it didn't have the pat, expected, typical Hollywood-type happy ending, or at least positive ending. And maybe that's the ultimate twist -- it's more realistic this way. Not everyone learns from their mistakes. Or changes just because their plans didn't work out. Although I've read in interviews that William Hurt says the ending was changed to soften it; I wonder if the DVD will contain the original, alternate ending?

The great irony of the movie is that of the next generation, the young people who will take over when the elders die, the only one who knows part of the truth doesn't know the whole truth because she is blind and couldn't see what she encountered -- both in the woods and over the fence.