Downhome

I also thought all of that fit the film, I loved it for what it was.

There, I fixed it.

You can't have a Star Trek thread without mentioning this.

It's a poorly made film, it just is. If you don't want to accept that, that's fine. I'm not trying to insult you or anything.

Hey, I'm not trying to change your mind. People like what people like, and that's that. I love plenty of bad films.

This week, blah. I'm looking forward to seeing next weeks numbers.

There is no way to explain it, that's yet another example of why this film is just shit filmmaking. It's just like plenty of other examples that you could ponder over. One being how, in 20 or so years, how NO ONE FUCKING EVER JUST ACCIDENTALLY FOUND THIS VILLAGE, considering it was in the middle of a wildlife deal, with people all around it. How did they get all of the stuff to that piece of land without many people seeing what they were doing? How did all of these, seemingly mental psychos, know how to build an absolutely perfect village? Why did they keep that ONE suit under a floor instead of keeping it in the "shed which we are to never go"? Why the hell put that nutcase in the same room where they kept that one suit? If all this guy had to do to break out of the room was break a window, then why didn't he just do it in the first place? How did they get all of the animals that they had in the village? Why the fuck did that guy at the end just let Ivy go back into the woods, when it's obviously illegal? In all of the time that the "monsters" were in the woods, how in all of those years did NO ONE in the village ever see the elders doing the deed? Why did no one ever question where the elders went at night? Why let the blind girl go into the woods and risk her finding out what the world was truly like (I know WHY they did, so she couldn't see what was going on in the real world, so she couldn't tell everyone the truth, but still it doesn't make sense...)? Why didn't the man just do it himself, seeing how he could have done so at night and no one would ever know he left to get the meds? Why didn't Ivy ever actually act blind except when it "helped" the story? At times it looked like she could perfectly see. Why didn't thing bring meds with them in the first place? Why in the hell did they start talking like they were in the 1800s, or whatever? Once their children got older, they wouldn't think anything of it if they talked like we do today, or not. It would just be "what they know". Why didn't you ever have planes flying overhead? Why was Ivy still scared of the "monster", and think it was a monster, after she had already learned of the truth? I could go on, and on, and on, and on. For some of the above, I know what the answer is, as it's given in the film in some cases, such as the thing about planes and Ivy in the woods in the end. Still, this film is based on the illogical. The only way this film can exist is if many questions simply are not asked. M. Night had an idea, and thought it could make a great film, and went with it, even though that it doesn't make a bit of fucking sense. It's as if he didn't sit back to think about just what makes up this story, and what will need to be done in order to tie up the loose ends and to help it be more acceptable and believable...and how to truly create suspense. Saying a bullshit single line does not help things. How we had the voice over in the woods saying something like "Well, I read in history books that monsters might be real" is a slap in the face of the viewer, not an acceptable way to create suspense. If anything, to me at least, it comes across very badly. As if they completed the film, and when people questioned M. Night about why Ivy was still scared after learning the truth, he just decided to toss that line in there just for shits, and didn't put any thinking into coming up with a real answer. Then the explanation at the end about planes, once again, weak as hell. It felt to me as nothing more than someone questioned him about it, and decided that that one line would be enough to tie everything up, when it is NOT. It isn't that all of us that hated this movie thought long and hard about it. Most of the illogical moments in this film are right there, for all to see. It's not some deep thing at the core of the film, it's all right there on the surface for everyone to notice, even when not thinking about it at all. It all comes down to one basic idea. Many people, as filmgoers, dislike it when a director takes us as fools, and tries to insult our intelligence. As a director, or a writer, that should be a huge no no. No film should be as weak as this on was, there simply is not an excuse for it. There are some things which the filmgoing public must accept. Such as when watching movies about real monsters, things that aren't real in real life, and the such. There are times when one must accept things like that, and everyone does and doesn't think twice about it. With The Village though, it goes further than simply asking you to overlook basic ideas. From start to finish, it's like M. Night is blowing his load all over the audience, slapping us with his dick, and going "You fools, I am smarter than all of you. Take this bitches, accept all that is here and like it because this is utter brilliance I tell you, BRILLIANCE~!". It's like at the end of the film where he MUST get his reflection in there, he's just blowing his load laughing at all of us. It's almost like M. Night set out to donkey punch everyone who watched this movie...the damn pervert. I, for one, wont fucking go along with that, will not leave his POS to go unquestioned, and will not just sit back, and accept poor filmmaking. I'm starting to doubt that M. Night even wrote this movie. I think he's took the money he made from his first few films, and for this one hired a bunch of foreign retarded six-year-olds to write his lastest film. I serioulsy got that impression as I was watching it. Whew, that felt good to get off of my chest.

Hey, it was a poor way of trying to create suspense, period . The line that they, seemingly, just tossed in about that guy saying that, well, he heard in history books once that monsters were out there, was so fucking pathetic. It was almost as bad as how they tried to explain why no aircraft ever went overhead. Like I said, bad filmmaking. If it worked for some people, then fine, but it really shouldn't have.

I didn't insult you for liking it. I insulted you for buying into a false, and cheap ass, sense of suspense. That film was an overall POS as well. However, compared to The Village, it was great, if that makes sense.

Good lord, I never said there was anything wrong with liking it. I've said over and over in this very thread that I am glad that some of you people liked it. The movie had obvious faults however, which anyone can notice after the first watch.

I'll disagree. I'm one to believe that there is indeed such a thing as a well made film and then a badly made film, without question really. The Village just wasn't a well made film, what with all of the bad aspects of it. It's the same thing where I believe there is such a thing as a good musical artist, and a bad musical artist, without question. Doesn't mean you can't like a badly made film, or a bad musical artist though. I know that I do.

I believe I just heard them say that the terror level is going to be raised to...THE BAD COLOR, in NY.

Just for the record, here is the box office report for Friday. 1 THE VILLAGE 3,730 $20,600,000 2 THE BOURNE SUPREMACY 3,180 $7,400,000 3 THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE 2,867 $6,050,000 4 I, ROBOT 3,204 $2,950,000 5 SPIDER-MAN 2 3,001 $2,400,000 6 HAROLD AND KUMAR GO TO WHITE CASTLE 2,135 $2,020,000 7 CATWOMAN 3,117 $1,950,000 8 A CINDERELLA STORY 2,350 $1,600,000 9 ANCHORMAN: THE LEGEND OF RON BURGUNDY 2,032 $1,000,000 10 THUNDERBIRDS 2,057 $950,000

I'm sorry I insulted you, but I still think that it was pretty darn obvious that it wasn't real. It was just some guy, in a fake looking Scooby-Doo monster suit. The line where he said that he remembers reading about monsters, that just seemed to me like it was tossed in there, for no other reason, other than to try his best to make that part suspsnsefull, and it didn't work for me, and anyone else that I was with. Seemed to me like he was trying to make up for letting everyone in on the "secret", and try to make up for it. This movie is also one of the examples of suspense ever. Hitchcock, Night is NOT, nor shall he ever be...he's not even close.

Anyone who felt ANY suspense at all when Ivy was being chased in the woods by the man in the Scooby Doo monster suit, then I feel sorry for them. You already knew by then that there are no monsters, you already know by then that it was all fake. They basicly let you know that it wasn't any creature...just some freak in a cheap ass looking piece of shit costume. After this film, I don't even think Night understand suspense any longer. I was expecting the Scooby-Doo theme to start playing during that scene in the woods, that's how bad I thought it lookd and was shot. Then I was just waiting for Ivy to unmask the guy, and go "You're not a monster, you're young man Noah!". Most of the other stuff you've said has to do with the way the film was shot, the visual aspects, and I admitted that it looked pretty at times, and had a few nice shots here and there. However, as I say to anyone that talks to me about film... Visuals mean NOTHING to me when the true meat and bones of film is lacking. A twist ending + visuals do not a great/good film make. M. Night seems to be using all of this as a crutch at this point, and is not concentrating enough on the heart of his writing, character developement, and the basic overall story. I'm glad you liked it though, I hate seeing others get dissapointed by a film.

Now it would be extra fitting if Bart was gay.

Oh it'll go over 100Mil EASY, but I don't think it'll have legs.

Ah yes, the on-trick-pony continues his trend. I can't wait to see how much The Village makes.

I just wondered why the fuck didn't they just put it in "the shed which we are not to go", or whatever the hell they called it, since there was obviously enough room for another one. Wasn't that the entire point of the shed? You see, once again, another fucking stupid thing in the writing. It was placed under the floor, of that specific room, just to have a cheap out to continue the story. THAT itself is fucking bad writing.

Any word on M. Night's next film? I'd like to know what I should avoid.

I've seen plenty of films where people talk that way, plenty. This one sounds so fucking stupid, not only because of the delivery, but because the writing of the script just sucks. This was quite possibly one of the worst scripts that I've ever seen put to film. None of the lines worked, none. Nothing went over my head. I understnad that the line was meant to sound corny and whatnot, but it's more than that. It wasn't just what they said, it was a mixture of both that and the delivery. The acting simply wasn't what it should have been, goofy lines or not. Like I said, this was goofy in the "very bad SNL sketch" kind of way, not the intentional type of way that they were trying to relay in this film. If you liked it though, then more power to you. I choose to look at the entire mess as one of the worst examples of filmmaking ever. It was not presented as a comedy, it was not meant to be a comedy. This was a serious, dramatic, horror, suspense, thriller...but it didn't come off that way at all, ever.

Or better yet, not have Orton win it at all right now.

They keep going with it silly, forcing it on the fans, untill they accept it.

I thought Brody did an ok job. Not fantastic, not great, but just ok. My main problem with that role, was that it just shouldn't have been him in the role. I can't believe that he fought to take on the part, I just can't. One of the funniest scenes in the film was the very last time they show Brody, in that monster costume. The way he was laid out, his expression, the suit itself...it looked more like something that would belong in a gay kink porn film, instead of a major Hollywood film. Then the scene where he stabs the leading man, it was just...funny. I just couldn't take the performances seriously. When they both fell to the ground, I leaned to my cousin, and motioned to my cousin that it would be funny if Brody actually started to stab him again. Of course, he did, and we just died. I will give the film one thing, ONE THING. That being, it was funny. From beginning to end, I was laughing my ass off, and so were plenty of others in the theater. The horrible thing about that, is that everything we were laughing at was not meant to be funny in the first place. Just the thought of this shitfest makes me sick. The bad color, the safe color, those of which we do not speak, the shed which we shall not go, MAGIC ROCKS!? It was almost as if a fucking six year old put the film together. Hell, I know children who could put together a better story, with better dialogue. Yes, the film was funny as hell, but for all of the wrong reasons. I've seen better thought out scenes and dialogue posted on this very forum. As for the acting...just...oh my God. Nothing worked in this film for me, nothing. This wasn't a well put together film. No, instead, it was more of an extended SNL sketech. A very bad SNL sketch at that.