Shyamalans Village

OY

Now i want to pre-empt this by saying that i know that most people here are living in Ireland. And i do not think 'The Village' has been released in Europe yet! So although this might be of no consequence to you i just want you to watch and wait.

I saw it the other night and it rocks! It's plot twists are not as shocking as the Sixth Sense but they carry a lot more impact than in Unbreakable and Signs. The acting overall is awesome with a tremendous cast...Pheonix, Weaver, Hurt, Gleeson are all awesome but the newfound talent in Bryce Dallas Howard is awe inspiring. Aparently Shy found her in an off broadway show and here she plays a blind Ivy with such conviction that an engaged buddy of mine claimed to be falling in love with her as the movie progressed. The entire cast speak in an almost shaekespearean dialect that in the beginning can be a lot to take but gets a lot easier to handle!

My wife and I spent the entire car journey home and a long time afterwards debating some of the messages and implications that the movie carried.

In short, i am saying that i have no idea when it is opening over there but i urge you to keep your eyes open for it. I personally rate it as one of the best i have seen in a long time and Shys best work to date. And when the dvd version arrives i will definately be picking it up.

iMax

I see village people*



* I'd love to claim originality for that but I nicked it elsewhere

Karl Hungus

I'm definetly looking farward to the film myself, seems to be far better than Signs from what I've heard.

Basq

I love Shyamalan's films!

Think 'Signs' is the best of his films actually! It really divided people though. But when i saw it in the cinema, the audience's reaction to the video of the birthday party and when the aliens fingers slip under the door etc. - the only other film i saw with an audience truly screaming like in those moments in 'Signs' was Samara coming out of the TV in 'The Ring'. I think most people who dislike 'Signs' just think it's a blatant rip-off of 'War Of The Worlds'.

Anyways, i thought the man could clearly do no wrong! But i've heard a lot of negative press about the film - but people who do like it's not really a film out there to scare people - they say that it has a message that can be taken from it after multiple viewings of the film.

Am set to see The Village this weekend! Will let you know in the 'Films Reviews' section of what i thought.

PS - 'The Village' is opening nationwide August 20th by the way

Gaijin

Really looking forward to it.All of his films are amazing in my opinion!I heard it might be out in august,but again thats just heresay!

gandalf

Yep it seems to be getting alot of mixed reviews. I like Signs as well, the ending of it was a bit of a let down compared to the rest of the film. My favourite film by him is Unbreakable which I think is absolutely excellent.

Looking forward to seeing the Village.

Rew

Good movie, very atmospheric and even scary in spots. Im a fan of all his flicks so im probbaly biased. My girlfriend didnt like it she lost intrest about half way through. May not be for everyone. Still better then 90% of the ****e they churn out (Catwoman FFS!).

Its a tough movie to describe because it plays on the fact that you know dont quite have all the info. What I will say to anyone who wants to see it, avode trailers and reviews they wont do you any favours. Gussed the ending ealry on (guessed the twist in 6th sense long before I ever saw the movie though).

Definatly recomend it if you have seen his other movies, I actually think he is playing on the fact that you will have seen the others and expect or assume certain things

OY

Rew wrote:

What I will say to anyone who wants to see it, avode trailers and reviews they wont do you any favours. Gussed the ending ealry on

I agree! The twist in the movie is pretty obvious. I had guessed the ending purely based on the ads that i had been seeing and interviews with the cast about a week before seeing the flick. So for maximum effect, avoid them if you can!

But i have already made my feelings about the movie clear and knowing took nothing away from the movie!

koneko

After reading what the twist at the end is, I don't think I'll bother. Like I read in a review on the web, it's one step up from the "It Was All A Dream" ending.

ObeyGiant

I read yesterday that Disney aren't expecting the Village to be nearly as successful as the Sixth Sense (although they're confident they'll easily break even). They reckon this is partly due to word-of-mouth spoiling the ending.

Personally speaking, I've loved every Shyamalan film so far, and not for the 'twist' at the end, but because of the atmosphere he manages to create within his movies. The twist is just the payoff at the end of this whole thing, but it is not the entire reason for watching a movie. Just like I don't pack Rear Window away forever because I know how it ends.

Can't wait for the Village to open up here.

LoLth

august 20th according to the posters.

Really looking forward to this and avoiding trailers liek the plague. I actually highlighted that spoiler above (out of instinct) and just copped on to what I was doing before I read any of it.

bandit

Saw it on holidays last week, it was pretty good although like most of his films very slow moving at times. I think it would have been a better film without the twists as they took away from the story imho.

I think he tries to do to much ie writing, diretcing and producing, would love to see him direct someone elses script as he is one of the best directors around some of the camera angles he uses are unbelievable also there would be no need for a twist and there would be less pacing problems...

honestly thought unbreakable was utter tripe, but the sixth sense was good. I liked signs, but it seemed to be not as memorable as the sixth sense.

Pink Bunny

I saw The Village last weekend, opening night (in the states). I thought it was really good! Although afterwards you could hear people complaining that they didn't like it. I think the only reason for that is because I think anything would be hard to beat how awesome 6th Sense was. If this had come out before 6th Sense any surprises would have seemed more stunning. But it is a good film on it's own merit. Good and interesting plot, wonderful acting. So just watch it and enjoy it like you would any other movie and try not to be distracted by trying to guess what or if there is any twist.

Basq

Watched it last night! Thought it was great actually!

But don't go into it expecting another 'Sixth Sense' or 'Signs'. It's more of a drama with an underlying love story and a few brief moments of suspense. But saying that, i rarely jump out of fright in films and there was definantly one or two moments here.

I knew the twist before i saw it (damn Internet ruined it for me!). But i still enjoyed it. One complaint would be it ended very suddenly.

The performances by Bryce Dallas Howard, Joaquin Phoenix and especially Adrien Brody were fantastic!

In a way, i can't see why critics and more people didn't like it. It's absolutely nothing like Shymalan's other films - and i was thinking about the film and it's ending long after the closing credits.

Can't really give too much away as i don't want to spoil it. But if you're fairly easily bored, i'd recommend waiting for it on video or something! It is somewhat slow at times.

In my opinion, Shyamalan can do no wrong after seeing this. And critics that say he's needs to take another direction that making a suspenseful thriller / horror with one big twist in the tale are speaking out of their arse - don't think they watched the same film i did!

mewso

I thought the Village was excellent. I am a huge fan of all of this guys films apart from the sixth sense.
This is because the Sixth Sense it the most dependent on the twist than any of his other films. I find unbreakable and signs bear up to repeated viewing far more easily than SS because of the way they are filmed. Shyamalan has a great sense for suspense and thrills and signs was the most effective and probably my favorite of his films.

While I liked the Village it may go the same way as the Sixth Sense. The problem is that with a twist that reveals that what you were watching was not quite real it won't be worth repeated viewing whereas in Unbreakable the guy is genuinely unbreakable and in signs there really are aliens

jor el

Fair point there musician, I didn't really like Signs, but then I've only watched it once. Though it was good for suspence and chill factor I thought the underlying story kind of let it down. Aliens coming to planet covered in water when they're alergic to water, bit much for me. I must watch it again because I've probably forgotten most of it now. I wouldn't really be bothered watching 6th sense, the twist is done now and the whole film kinda depends on it.
This is the first I've heard of The Village, I'm quite looking forward to it now. I wish they'd release films like this worldwide at the same time so as spoilers and stories don't leak out before we get a chance to see it.

chewy

nothing happened in signs, i mean aliens coming to earth we knew that was going to happen in the film but _then_ nothing happened and didn't care about the film it was such a nothing film...

i like unbreakable as a real comic movie...

can i guess the twist...?

is something like its really present day and there just been hiding behind hte forest for decades???

i liked sixth sense very much and it rewatchable

Bacchus

I enjoyed The Village... but not as much as his previous movies. One notable thing is that this story doesn't depend on the "twist ending" as much as 6th Sense and Unbreakable. It's a more natural story that flows well and is well grounded in reality (compared to 6th sense and Signs).
The direction and cinematography is superb. So too is the dialogue - they all talk like someone out of a Jane Austin novel. The performances from the actors alone is worth the admission. You really get absorbed into their world and what the're going through. Yer man from Signs and Gladiator is fantastic again.
The frights are good but too few - from the trailer I was expecting a lot more frights and jumps - but Shyamalan does manage to keep the movie tense throughout and never lets you sit back and relax. There are a few nice twists/shocks through the movie which keeps you guessing what's really going on. As I said though, the movie does not rely on the twists as much as his previous movies.
Overall, good brain food, beautifully directed and very well acted. I'd recommend it for anyone who enjoyed his previous movies and even those who think he's a one trick pony.

koneko

chewy:

only read the next spoiler if you want to know the answer to your question (about the ending

super duper

Pretty much yeah, turns out it's modern day and modern society/people are the real monsters

I didn't like Signs. At all. Sixth Sense was good, Unbreakable was good (ish). Might see the film if there's nothing else in the cinema this weekend, got that cinema-going itch again.

ObeyGiant

NGAH.

As someone who habitually looks through the spoiler tags, I don't know how much I appreciate those being there. Of course, this will probably all change when I finally get to see the movie. I just don't want to go in with any preconceptions right now.

Also.. spoiler tags get revealed when you hit that "quote" button, as I just found out.

NGAH.

Basq

Thought the 3 main actors in it: Bryce Dallas Howard (Ivy), Joaquin Phoenix (Lucius)and Adrien Brody (Noah) were amazing in it!

Quick bit of trivia for those of you that don't know: Bryce Dallas Howard is Ron Howard's (director of A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13 etc) daughter - quite a talented actress, one to look out for!

I, for one, thought Adrien Brody stole the show.

I still don't know why the film is getting such bad reviews in the States and they're all saying it has been too similar to Shyamalan's other films with a big twist at the end. I seriously think they were watching a different film.

A very intelligent film.... that will really divide audiences over here. Critics will more than likely hate it!

ixoy

Didn't like this at all! A number of points:

1) Acting was merely OK. Adrien Brody does the tired old I'm-playing-a-cripple/disadvantaged person :rolleyes: Nothing new there. Bryce was quite irritating as the blind person and - oh look - isn't she a clever metaphor for the villager's blindness to their situation....

2) The "twist". Did anyone else find it REALLY obvious? I guessed it about five minutes into the movie. More now into the spoiler space:

I was thinking "Please don't let it be set in the modern day" over and over. This became a rapid chant as they opened the box and I knew, with a profound sense of disappointment, that I was right. It stank of a plot from the Outer Limits/Twilight Zone that isn't thought through. As if noone would ever have ventured in - and Shaymalan's cameo trying to explain it doesn't wash either. Pants. As to the villager's dressing up - such stuff has been the staple of sci-fi shows for years. I know "Doctor Who" did it decades ago.

3) Direction. There were some nice shots with

Brody stabbing Pheonix was a highlight

but overall there were few jump moments. Indeed people were openly laughing, in a derisory manner, at some parts.

It's not that this is an awful movie... it's just certainly not a good one. Probably his weakest effort yet.

jank

ixoy wrote:

Didn't like this at all! A number of points:

1) Acting was merely OK. Adrien Brody does the tired old I'm-playing-a-cripple/disadvantaged person :rolleyes: Nothing new there. Bryce was quite irritating as the blind person and - oh look - isn't she a clever metaphor for the villager's blindness to their situation....
QUOTE]

You my friend are way too critical..ok the twist was kinda obvious but

the whole modern thing was a bit of a surprise to me

, but that is the twist u say well really it is only half of it as i knew absolutly nothing about this film, only saw the trailer once and avoided all material related to it

The acting in it was one of the best I have seen in a long long time dallas and brody really came off the screen and along with some of the direction and score were the most positive aspect of the film.

Not the best ever but the first time i saw signs i was very disapointed but the second time around was very enjoyable i think i would be the same here need to watch it again to really appreciate it

elvis2002

i thought it was the worst movie i've seen in a cinema in ages. Total and utter tripe.

jesus_thats_gre

Had the displeassure of watching this film today. I don't know how to sum it up but **** and complete waste keeps springing to mind.. I dont know how many peole tut'd throughout the film.

allyourbase

The moral of the movie (the village) without spoiling anything (i hope) is that nothing good ever comes from trying to integrate retarded persons into normal society. That is my opinion only. lock em up.

ThreadKiller

There will be some people who just don't get it, but it is an excellent movie, Howard & Brody are particularly good, it's chilling in parts. if you make an effort to know nothing about it before seeing it (as I did) you will enjoy it.

Mr E

I really enjoyed it too. Shyamalan has a great knack of building suspense, and there are some very good scares in it. The music score was the best I've heard in a long time too..... Howard and Brody were brilliant (although for a blind girl, Howard's character could run unnervingly fast).

Go and see it in a packed cinema (not as a divx on your PC!)

ixoy

ThreadKiller wrote:

There will be some people who just don't get it, but it is an excellent movie

Because I didn't like the movie I didn't get it? :mad: How condescending you are! I didn't like it for many of the reasons stated above (and more). The fact you liked it doesn't invalidate my opinion! What is there to "get" that I missed, hmm? Please tell me what I, who've enjoyed movies from all decades and genres, have "missed" that register on your, clearly higher-functioning, critical faculties?

TmB wrote:

Go and see it in a packed cinema (not as a divx on your PC!)

Excuse me, I saw it in a packed cinema on opening night. I still didn't like it and, for that matter, neither did the folk beside me or many others I've spoken to. But then maybe we all managed not to "get" it.

ThreadKiller

Did I touch a nerve ixoy ?

I'm far from condescending. Perhaps I just understand the way Shyamalan makes movies.

I wasn't expecting a horror, I was expecting a narrative that got us from the start of the film to the end, which is exactly what I got in a very enjoyable manner.

The number of people exiting the cinema saying "That wasn't as scary as it looked in the trailer" or "what was that all about" was stunning.

Maybe it was a little hi-brow for them, maybe they're used to cinema being dumbed down.

It was an intelligent emotional simple story.

The best analogy to describe it that I heard so far - It's a campfire story.

ObeyGiant

I saw this over the weekend and loved it. But then, I would - I've loved all of Shyamalan's films so far. I also managed to go into the film having read almost nothing about it, apart from one or two on here (

Hey, thanks Chewy!

).

I think, like the rest of his films, it suffers from a compulsion to blindside its audiences. The Sixth Sense looked like a horror but was actually a film about relationships and belonging. Unbreakable looked like a serious drama but was actually a delightfully cheesy superhero movie. Signs also looked like a tight horror but was actually a film about faith. And The Village, far from being the suspenseful little piece of period-horror it's being pitched as, is actually a film about love, trust and hope.

This sudden blindside at the end tends to annoy a certain demographic. Some people don't like the fact that they'd been cheated out of the movie they were expecting to see and wrongly conclude it's a fault in the movie. If they go back and analyse the rest of the film in the new-found, correct context, I think they'd find that it all makes sense.

But this isn't to say that the Village doesn't provide its share of scares. If you allow yourself to be swept up by the movie, you'll see it has a sombre, suspenseful tone, which amplifies the few moments where the director indulges himself, giving us a couple of genuine shocks. This is the first film I've seen that managed to make my friend, a 200lb builder, jump out of his seat. No mean feat.

It's a shame the "twist" is going to dominate every discussion of the Village, because there's so much more going on that's worth talking about. Such as the acting. Perhaps ixoy has a higher set of criteria with which to judge what makes for 'good' acting than I do, because I thought the acting in this was superb. Especially the much-lauded Bryce Dallas Howard, who effortlessly provided a true emotional heart to the film. The cinematography is also worth applauding here - slow, languid shots matching the slow-paced nature of the village with deep, rich earth colours giving us a genuine sense of being back to nature.

But that's not to say that the film was flawless. Some of the plot exposition was needlessly heavy-handed (

notable "Oh no, Noah found the..." and "Shouldn't start conversations..."

), and at times the music was a little too intrusive and distracting. But these are minor flaws and are only here to appease those who truly want to have something to moan about.

I think that those who condemn the ending for being a cop-out (

"one step up from 'it was all a dream'" couldn't be further from the truth

) should go back and re-examine it in terms of the message the film was trying to get across instead of dismissing it as a cheap-and-nasty way of pulling the rug from an audience expecting a horror movie.

midget lord

i have to go and see this this week. I really like his work so should enjoy this.

ixoy

ThreadKiller wrote:

I wasn't expecting a horror, I was expecting a narrative that got us from the start of the film to the end, which is exactly what I got in a very enjoyable manner.

A narrative that got from start to end? Hell, that's the least I'd expect from any movie...The problem with this one is I felt that the narrative's plot reminded me of old sci-fi serials, right up to the ending which, much like the Twilight Zone, tries to force a cheap re-evaluation of what's gone before. I'm not impressed that Shaymalan tried to get from A to B and managed to do that.

The number of people exiting the cinema saying "That wasn't as scary as it looked in the trailer" or "what was that all about" was stunning.

Maybe it was a little hi-brow for them, maybe they're used to cinema being dumbed down.

I didn't expect the movie to be scary, more eerie than anything else. Failing that, I'd like to be able to get emotionally involved with the characters which this movie never let me do because they lacked depth. As to the "what was that all about" crowd - didn't encounter any of them. The movie's perfectly simple - too much so. More likely the bewilderment is "we paid to see this?"

It was an intelligent emotional simple story.

Well we'll remove the adjectives intelligent and emotional, and agree....

ThreadKiller

Whatever...

As ObeyGiant said before... Perhaps ixoy has a higher set of criteria with which to judge what makes for 'good'...

ixoy

ThreadKiller wrote:

As ObeyGiant said before... Perhaps ixoy has a higher set of criteria with which to judge what makes for 'good'...

Perhaps so, although his quote was in relation to acting rather than the movie as a whole. I see a hell of a lot of movies and TV shows and yes, it's hard to make a good impression on me (only about four or five movies have done so far and, of those, only "Before Sunset" REALLY impressed me on all levels). This movie's plot, setting, and moral values irked me, as did its message - which ObeyGiant has outlined above. I found it all a bit heavy (something I felt he was guilty of in "Signs" as well). P'raps I'm overly harsh on the acting but I just didn't feel they had much decent material to work with and a couple of nice shots - which I admitted to before - just can't remove the distaste this movie generated in me (and no, I wasn't expecting a horror and knew very little about the movie before going in).

Zombrex

I read one of the reviews of RottenTomato.com which basically came out and said the "twist" right in the review. The reviewer said if you couldn't get it in the first 5 minutes (or from the trailer, which I did) then you would probably would still be surprised even knowing it!

I think Shyamalan is a good director but he has got to stop writing his own scripts. "Six Sense" was a one trick pony. "Unbreakable" was sooo boring (every scene had about a minute of the characters just looking at each other with Bruce doing his constipated "I'm a serious actor" face). "Signs" was actually good right up to the earth shatteringly bad ending. Why doesn't "God" just put a shot gun beside Mel ("suck on this!").

I don't mean to insult anyone on this thread, but in my opinion Shyamalan makes bad movies for people who don't watch a lot of movies. He copies ideas from every crappy B-Movie or Sci-Fi tv show in the last 30 years. Anyone who has ever seen a "twist" sci-fi show or movie can see the endings a mile away.

ObeyGiant

Wicknight wrote:

I don't mean to insult anyone on this thread, but in my opinion Shyamalan makes bad movies for people who don't watch a lot of movies. He copies ideas from every crappy B-Movie or Sci-Fi tv show in the last 30 years. Anyone who has ever seen a "twist" sci-fi show or movie can see the endings a mile away.

While I'd disagree with the first part of your statement (I watch a lot of movies, both good and bad, and still love Shyamalan), I'd say that noone in their right mind could sincerely argue that Shyamalan is entirely original. He's not. But he's ranked as a director worth watching because he manages to tell simple stories very well - and for this he's been compared to Spielberg and Hitchcock (again, not entirely masters of originality, but masters of storytelling).

Mr E

Shyamalan's movies aren't just about the twist. They're about atmosphere, characters and setting.

ixoy

TmB wrote:

Shyamalan's movies aren't just about the twist. They're about atmosphere, characters and setting.

As it should be. But the characters and settings in this, to my mind, were woeful. It's as if they were all constructed in a simplistic manner to enable Shaymalan to try and ram home whatever theme or message he wished to preach. The smell of aritfice about the whole thing is one of many that galled me - I didn't find the setup or people remotely convincing. The atmosphere even felt too forced. I certainly don't think Shaymalan should remotely be compared to Spielberg or Hitchcock with his current output - an insult to genuine storytellers if ever I heard one.

ObeyGiant

ixoy wrote:

I certainly don't think Shaymalan should remotely be compared to Spielberg or Hitchcock with his current output - an insult to genuine storytellers if ever I heard one.

Don't you think you're taking this whole thing a little too personally? It's impossible to argue with someone who's as hot-headed as you are, so maybe you should go somewhere and cool off?

This isn't me being condescending or anything, I genuinely want to have a discussion about this movie, especially with someone who disliked the movie and can explain why, but in your current state, you're likely to dismiss anything with a wave of cliche criticisms, and I'm not interested in that.

Smellyirishman

Cant be arsed doing a proper quote!

Quote:actually a film about love, trust and hope.

I dont think I would agree with that, I think it is more about Society and the desire to escape and try to create a perfect community, but humans will always have flaws and no such community exists

For example the mentally challenged guy kills the dude and the leader realises that the "human" element will be there with them forever and running from the murders that happened in the real world has no solved anything as you "cannot run from sorrow".Then what they dont realise is all the time they have been doing something similar by surpressing their kids into this area

Basically society , the usual blah.

All in all, quite dry, quite boring, quite slow (actually very)

Not a great film by any means.

Anyone else with a view on the film now that it has been seen can you please post as I may have missed something. Still I doubt it will change the film

[EDIT]

Just read the above post

ixoy

ObeyGiant wrote:

I genuinely want to have a discussion about this movie, especially with someone who disliked the movie and can explain why, but in your current state, you're likely to dismiss anything with a wave of cliche criticisms, and I'm not interested in that.

But I have already said why I disliked the movie in posts.But let me re-iterate what I disliked then so you can reply with your own thoughts (which are no more nor less clichéd than any so far):

1) Plot. But you know that. Ripped from old serials with litle deviations or surprises and an ending that stank of the Twilight Zone (which, of course, was a cheaper, shorter, means of bringing home a message).

2) Characters. It seemed the characters were just too simplistically drawn to engage me as a pure character piece. I feel that they represented values and principles that Shaymalan was trying to get across - much as Smellyirishman describes. They didn't feel like rounded individuals. Now Bryce did well with she could but good actors can't always impart good acting if the movie's not up to much (withness "The Score" as an example of this).

3) Directing in parts. Although there's a few nice scenes (something I've attested to since the beginning!), Shaymalan's main mood setter seemed to be : [Shot of forest - dark, misty, eerie!] and [Make a loud sound]. It's the same bag of tricks he employed in "Signs" and "The Sixth Sense". He also let some conversations drag on to long. This didn't help with the labored dialog being drawn out of the character's mouths (e.g.: the meeting of the Elders to discuss what to do). Some of the conversations seemed also very heavy handed and forced. The Elders were trying to hard to not mention "the secret" which only serves to further build it up and, as a result, make it appear all the weaker (would have been more effective, and less gee-golly-whizz-look-what-I-did if they had been straight up about the "outside world" when amongst each other. This could have focused the movie more on the social play instead).

4) Credulity swept aside in favour of ethics/values - OK so there's an element of "suspension of disbelief" inherent in all movies, granted. But one of the things Shaymalan often seems to be trying to do is to try and ground his stories with a degree of realism - so, for example, we saw in "Unbreakable" a super hero as they might exist in today's world, sans spandex suit. The scenario in The Village was so patently false, ridiculous, that it detracted from the movie. It's artifical nature, obviously, had reason to impart a message about social values and how far into the darkness we'd go for someone, etc. BUT it was at the expense, for me, of engagement with the movie.

So again I've made a long list of what I disliked about the movie that comes to mind. Now you can address them or just selectively quote from my post as you see fit.

ObeyGiant

ixoy wrote:

1) Plot. But you know that. Ripped from old serials with litle deviations or surprises and an ending that stank of the Twilight Zone (which, of course, was a cheaper, shorter, means of bringing home a message).

I've already (sort of) touched on this. I'm sort of annoyed at the comparisons to such things as 'The Twilight Zone', because it's not a 'supernatural' story. This is not like that episode of the Twilight Zone where a kid wakes up to find out that his family and friends aren't actually real and that he's just been living in a house built by alien scientists solely to observe human behaviour. Or was that the Hammer House of Horror? I can't remember. Either way, this is a human story, and doesn't even go near touching on the realms of Twilight Zone.

A Twilight Zone ending would have left it at Ivy falling down in the woods, and finding herself hanging off the edge of the world.

ixoy wrote:

Characters. It seemed the characters were just too simplistically drawn to engage me as a pure character piece. I feel that they represented values and principles that Shaymalan was trying to get across - much as Smellyirishman describes.

It's hard to argue with personal taste. As we've already seen in this thread, a lot of people loved the acting, a lot didn't. From a personal point of view, I thought that the subtlety of the writing may have harmed it in this regard. The William Hurt/Sigourney Weaver thing was hinted at, and intensely acted by Hurt, but for the most part, left alone. Perhaps this all comes down to people's patience for this kind of thing.

ixoy wrote:

He also let some conversations drag on to long. This didn't help with the labored dialog being drawn out of the character's mouths (e.g.: the meeting of the Elders to discuss what to do).

Of all the "complaints" I have heard, this one has confused me the most. Or at least, it's confused me because, to me, it makes perfect sense in the context of the ending.

If it seemed heavy handed and forced, perhaps that's because these were people from the 1960s 'acting' out the part of pioneers.

ixoy wrote:

Some of the conversations seemed also very heavy handed and forced.

Agreed, I listed two myself. But these were necessary plot expositions. Just as the flashback/voice-over within the Sixth Sense was necessary to explain to people what they'd just seen.

Oh, except the conversation by Shyamalan himself. Which did annoy me.

ixoy wrote:

(would have been more effective, and less gee-golly-whizz-look-what-I-did if they had been straight up about the "outside world" when amongst each other. This could have focused the movie more on the social play instead).

And again, this makes sense to me...

it was said that each of the elders had to make some kind of sacrifice as a result of living in the Village, and that each of them had suffered some kind of heartache. As people who decided to completely shun the outside world, don't you think they might be more comfortable ignoring such things and sticking to the commitment they'd made than discussing them?

ixoy wrote:

The scenario in The Village was so patently false, ridiculous, that it detracted from the movie. It's artifical nature, obviously, had reason to impart a message about social values and how far into the darkness we'd go for someone, etc. BUT it was at the expense, for me, of engagement with the movie.

Another thing that's hard to argue with. Personal taste dictates how much of this you're willing to swallow.

ixoy wrote:

So again I've made a long list of what I disliked about the movie that comes to mind. Now you can address them or just selectively quote from my post as you see fit.

You sure you're not still taking this too personally?

ixoy

ObeyGiant wrote:

Either way, this is a human story, and doesn't even go near touching on the realms of Twilight Zone.

Well what I mean is that it's often found, in such series, where:

The environment they're in, isn't what it appears to be - and this is revelaed in the closing minutes. So we have the dolls in the doll house not realising they're a kids plaything, etc.

OKay, so the film takes a humanisitc angle on whats in the spoiler tags, but that still makes me think of the old shows. I'm assuming you see it as a drama/romance with certain other elements and you perceive that I see it as a supernatural show with drama/romance elements, right? Because that's one of the criticisms levelled at it (the fault of marketing really). I just don't think it's a good example of any genre.

It's hard to argue with personal taste. As we've already seen in this thread, a lot of people loved the acting, a lot didn't. From a personal point of view, I thought that the subtlety of the writing may have harmed it in this regard.

The William Hurt/Sigourney Weaver thing was hinted at, and intensely acted by Hurt, but for the most part, left alone. Perhaps this all comes down to people's patience for this kind of thing.

Now ya see, the thing is I'll often enjoy subtlety in acting. I don't think was subtle really and I certainly feel Weaver - a favourite of mine - was criminally underused. I know, I know it's a movie where the acting and scripts say as much in what they don't say as in what they do... it just didn't work. By comparsion, I adored the bit in 'Before Sunset' where

Julianne Delpy, as Ethan is being upset, reaches out a hand to touch him - but just can't quite connect.

That, to me, was wonderful character interaction. Here I felt the po-faced nature of society just restricted expressions to halting sentences and characters, too often, masking their feelings in long phrases or offbeat glances. As an occasional thing it's grand but over the course of the movie it grated, especially given what we came to know.

it was said that each of the elders had to make some kind of sacrifice as a result of living in the Village, and that each of them had suffered some kind of heartache. As people who decided to completely shun the outside world, don't you think they might be more comfortable ignoring such things and sticking to the commitment they'd made than discussing them?

Oh I understand why he took the route there he did and I knew you'd come back and say it. I mean by

speaking openly about it, they could allegedly be breaking the whole world they had built up for themselves. Yet, given they all knew of it, it seemed almost childish of them not to speak it, as if Voldermort would suddenly be awoken if the name was spoken. It also still made the ending more cheap by heightening the sense of mystery. Movie, to my mind, would have worked far better without that ending because it would have made their actions/reality more concrete.

You sure you're not still taking this too personally?

What? Ya fookin' startin? I'll burst ya :mad: *takes drink of Coke* It's Monday and I wanna go back to sleep...lemme alone

Zombrex

I think part of the problem with Shyamalan is that he is trying to be "clever" in all his movies since the Sixth Sense, and he is failing. None of his movies have had a clever ending. They have just had endings that try to trick the audience.

Compared a classic twist like the Usual Suspects his twists are a joke. Worse when you know a twist is coming you spend the whole movie wondering what it is. It then has to be something spectacular and completely from left field or it just ends up being unsatisfying ("Unbreakable" and "Signs").

Even the twist in the SS was pretty ineffective because I didn't give a sh*t about Bruce's character. Also you could kinda guess something was up because of the way the mother never talked to the character. He bangs you over the head constantly with what the twist is going to be, you almost hope that it is all miss-direction but then it ends up just being the ending. He leaves way too many "oh that is going to come up later" moments, especially in "Signs." And I haven't seen the Village yet but judging from the trailer I can guess you never get a good look at the "monsters." Ummm...I wonder why :rolleyes:

It is easy to do a twist, but very hard to do a good twist. He needs to stop being "clever" and try and direct something that actually has some depth to it (and before someone starts, neither SS, Unbreakable or Signs had any real depth to them, just a whole load of random crap that is then tied into the movies twist ending ... ie little girl leaves water around the place, oh I wonder if that will come up later :rolleyes:)

super_furry

Shaymalan started off well with The Sixth Sense which was (and still is) a very, very good film. However since then, each of his offerings have been progressively worse, with The Village seeming like a bad episode of the Outer Limits.

LegacyUser

super_furry wrote:

Shaymalan started off well with The Sixth Sense which was (and still is) a very, very good film. However since then, each of his offerings have been progressively worse, with The Village seeming like a bad episode of the Outer Limits.

im not a proffesional movie critic but i liked the film, its a BIG step up from unbreakable which even i will admit was silliness

Agent Orange

I find it amusing that certain posters here who pride themselves on being film snobs and having seen the most obscure of films enjoy Shyamalan's cliché ridden, predictable, by the numbers dreck. Perhaps you should stop going to the movies while drunk.

Shyamalan makes 'intellectual' movies for stupid people.

This latest attempt at a decent film has had dreadful reviews and is getting terrible word of mouth. If you think this is a good movie, you are wrong.

Shyamalan's screenwriting is an insult to anyone with half a brain. His setups/payoffs are painfully obvious and you can literally work out the twist before the film even starts.

Shyamalan is quickly taking the lead over Kevin Smith in terms of directors who have had the most success with the least talent. It seems fart jokes or ridiculously obvious twists are all that it takes to impress the proles these days.

lodgepole

Agent Orange wrote:

I find it amusing that certain posters here who pride themselves on being film snobs and having seen the most obscure of films enjoy Shyamalan's cliché ridden, predictable, by the numbers dreck. Perhaps you should stop going to the movies while drunk.

Shyamalan makes 'intellectual' movies for stupid people.

That's an absolute load of cock.

This latest attempt at a decent film has had dreadful reviews and is getting terrible word of mouth. If you think this is a good movie, you are wrong.

Since when are reviews or word of mouth an indication of whether you enjoy a film?

Shyamalan's screenwriting is an insult to anyone with half a brain. His setups/payoffs are painfully obvious and you can literally work out the twist before the film even starts.

They are most definitely the words of a film snob, of the worst kind.

You're talking out of your arse. If you don't like his films, that's grand. If you want to voice that opinion with backup, do so. But there's nothing lower than throwing around pseudo controversial comments like you did and expecting to be taken seriously.

Come back to the thread when you've seen The Village, or if you've already seen it, throw in some specific examples.

ObeyGiant

Agent Orange wrote:

I find it amusing that certain posters here who pride themselves on being film snobs and having seen the most obscure of films enjoy Shyamalan's cliché ridden, predictable, by the numbers dreck. Perhaps you should stop going to the movies while drunk.

Seeing as how I'm the one who started the film snobs thread, I guess I'm at least partly covered by this trolling shot.

Sure, I'll bite.

As a side-note: I've always found it hard to reply to your posts, because I'm never entirely sure if they're not just some elaborate hoax. Surely if someone could present such (and I'm loathe to say this) pseudo-intellectual posturing, they could have at least formed a single independent opinion in the process? I'm baffled. If it's a joke, please let me in on it?

Another side-note: if it was aimed at me, I'd like to point out that the films I listed weren't all that obscure.

Anyway, back to your comments. I don't feel ashamed, or embarassed, or any of the above, regarding my enjoyment of Shyamalan's films. Nor do I feel this way about my enjoyment of Spielberg's films. Or Carpenter's. Or Tony Scott's. Or.. These all make cliche'd, predictable films. But they still manage to keep them entertaining. Some stories you never get tired of, so long as they're told well.

Agent Orange wrote:

Shyamalan makes 'intellectual' movies for stupid people.

He makes entertaining blockbusters. Perhaps, to you, these are one and the same.

Agent Orange wrote:

This latest attempt at a decent film has had dreadful reviews and is getting terrible word of mouth. If you think this is a good movie, you are wrong.

Why am I wrong? Give reasons. Or are you just going by this word-of-mouth again? This is kind of proving what I'm saying about the independent opinions thing.

Agent Orange wrote:

Shyamalan's screenwriting is an insult to anyone with half a brain.

I don't know. Personally, I think the fact that he's been nominated for a Bram Stoker award for writing for every screenplay so far, and was nominated for a Writer's Guild award alongside Magnolia, Three Kings and Being John Malkovitch kind of takes some of the weight from your already-redundant statement.

And by "some", I mean "all".