The village, Yes, it really is that bad

[Reynard]

I'm not entirely certain why I'm bothering, other than the fact that it is late and most of the posts in this thread stuck in my craw:

Just because you go into a movie expecting one thing, based upon the previous films by the filmaker, and that is not what you gte *does not* mean that the film is flawed. Rather, your perceptions are flawed because you failed to judge the film on its own merits.

All the posters whining that they "got" the twist too early should watch the movie again. guess what? That isn't the point of the movie at all. The twists is a very small part of the overall story and is there to make us, people living in the modern world, think about what would make us do such a thing, and what lengths we would go to in order to protect those we loved.

As to those that thought it was poorly directed, you're wrong. And don't say that it is your opinion and therefore you can't be wrong. You might not have liked it, and you might not have enjoyed the direction, but it is a near perfect example of solid technical direction. MNS is probably the best damn technical director working today and I wish a lot of directors, the ones that can't stop shaking the freaking camera, would pay attention to his films and learn something.

If you didn't like the actors, the plot, or the theme: you are perfectly entitled to your opinion and while I think you are wrong, I can't say that you are.

/rant

By the way -- Unbreakable is a great movie and is indeed the best superhero origin movie ever made.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

I was not thrilled by the movie but I'll hardly say it sucked, either. I suspect that one fo the reasons I was less than happy with it is because I was so fond of his other movies and this one did not impress me as much as say, Signs. I thought it was a beautiful movie to look at but as I mentioned to the people I saw it with, I would have been much more impressed if it was a made-for-TV movie rather than something I shelled out 7 bucks for.

 

[Pielorinho]

Just because you go into a movie expecting one thing, based upon the previous films by the filmaker, and that is not what you gte *does not* mean that the film is flawed. Rather, your perceptions are flawed because you failed to judge the film on its own merits.

First, I'm glad you enjoyed the movie; I wish I had.

That said, no film is inherently flawed or inherently good. It's *all* a matter of opinion. De gustibus, the Romans say, non est disputandem.

All the posters whining that they "got" the twist too early should watch the movie again. guess what? That isn't the point of the movie at all. The twists is a very small part of the overall story and is there to make us, people living in the modern world, think about what would make us do such a thing, and what lengths we would go to in order to protect those we loved.

I'll thank you not to characterize it as "whining." It's a criticism of the movie.

I read interviews before the movie came out in which Shyamalan was bragging about the twist. He did several things in the movie entirely for the purpose of deceiving the viewer, not least of which was misdating the tombstone in the movie's first scene (which served no explicable purpose within the movie's narrative). The twist was central to the movie's structure. I wish it had not been; I wish he had explicitly made the twist clear in the first five minutes, because it was uninteresting, as you point out. He did not. He built it up, and I therefore thought (based on this movie, not on his previous movies) that it was going to be something interesting. It did not live up to my hopes.

As to those that thought it was poorly directed, you're wrong. And don't say that it is your opinion and therefore you can't be wrong.

Sorry, but that's exactly what I'll say. Claiming that it's poorly directed is a value statement; value statements are by definition opinions, and therefore by definition are neither right nor wrong. I believe it was poorly directed in several ways.

In other ways, it was brilliantly directed, which made my attitude toward the movie all the more complicated. If it had just been another Independence Day, I would've loved dishing on it. But the acting was wonderful, and the cinematography was beautiful, and most of the scripted dialogue was interesting, and the movie's central conceit was a great one, full of potential.

With a quarter-twist of the Plot Wrench, it could've been one of my favorite movies of the year. But it was just off enough that I left the theater wanting to wipe the bad taste from my mouth.

Again, I'm glad you enjoyed it. The fact that I didn't does not reflect poorly on me, any more than the fact that you did reflects poorly on you.

Daniel

 

[LizardWizard]

By the way -- Unbreakable is a great movie and is indeed the best superhero origin movie ever made.

And horribly misunderestimated by the general audience, that's for sure.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

De gustibus, the Romans say, non est disputandem.

I don't speak Latin. What does this mean?

Further, could someone give me some spoilers about The Very Small Creepy Town? Maybe then I can figure out why people are so polarized about it.

 

[The Other Librarian]

I don't speak Latin. What does this mean?

There's no arguing taste, basically.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

I mentioned that I was less than thrilled yet I thought it was well directed. See, three different opinions on the film's direction.

I thought the plot twist was OK. I mean if I had not figured it out early on (or at least suspected) then it may have been more of an interesting twist. It definitely won't hold up well with subsequent viewings.

 

[Pielorinho]

I don't speak Latin. What does this mean?

The Other Librarian got it right: "About tastes, there is no disputing" is a slightly more literal translation. "Hey, whatever floats your boat" also captures the sentiment . It's a Latin proverb that I like a lot.

Further, could someone give me some spoilers about The Very Small Creepy Town? Maybe then I can figure out why people are so polarized about it.

Here goes:

Spoiler

The movie looks like it's set in a nonspecific, highly religious community in some era before electricity or steam engines--maybe the seventeenth or eighteenth century America. The movie opens with a child being buried beneath a tombstone dated something like 1879; I forget the exact date. The village is menaced by scary hedgehogmen that live in the surrounding woods, so nobody leaves.

But it turns out that the village is actually set in modern times, founded by a fantastically wealthy guy as a utopian community, and the monsters are just the adults in the village dressing up in order to scare the youngsters so that they never venture into the woods and discover the big bad evil world out there.

The elders' decision not to bring any medicine with them when they founded the village plays a key plot role; their decision not to bring modern tools or supplies of raw iron ore, so that their current tools ought to be worn out by now, does not.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

I thought The Village was better than 75% of the movies out there... but I was still disappointed because I have come to expect so much from Night.

For what it's worth, I saw through the Sixth Sense even more easily than I saw through the Village. I still liked both. For one, they're different from most Hollywood movies. For two, they're thoughtful and deliberate. For three, they treat cool subject matter.