Downhome 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 Any word on M. Night's next film? I'd like to know what I should avoid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 One of the saddest moments in recent memory occured tonight, as in the packed theater I was at, half of the people applauded at the end. Is anyone else wondering why they would have a spare suit under the floor of the retarded person's house? Let's put the spare suit, that we have built our entire city around, in the floor of the most unpredictable person in the town. Brilliant! I liked how they announce that Ivy and Lucious are getting engaged, then Noah shows up with mysterious blood on his shirt and no one even thinks to check on Lucious. People know Noah and Ivy are close, Ivy gets engaged to Lucious, Noah ends up with blood and a 2 + 2 situation ends up The ending was just predictable and retarded. I thought there was too much Adrian Brody, in it, providing too many laughs. Especially the town hall scene with the note, when he walks up behind Walker, just killed the whole scene for me. Thank god I saw Harold and Kumar before this to save the night from being a total wash. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TonyJaymzV1 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 I saw H+K and The Village today, and the sad thing is, H+K is a better movie, when you strip down the jokes and look at them as complete stories, etc. I've never seen an audience have no response to a movie, whatsoever, but I did in the village. No gasp, no laugh, no nothing. The movie ended, people walked out. It was like "okay, it has to get good soon...come on..good?" It just felt boring and a waste of time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 Am I the only person in the world that thought this was a good movie? Oh well my friends that were with me thought it was good.......oh well.....at least I enjoyed myself...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downhome 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 Is anyone else wondering why they would have a spare suit under the floor of the retarded person's house? Let's put the spare suit, that we have built our entire city around, in the floor of the most unpredictable person in the town. Brilliant! 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 Any word on M. Night's next film? I'd like to know what I should avoid. This is from EW, a interview they did with Night: Shyamalan's next movie will be another orginal project with a supernatural bent, the details of which - in a shocking twist - he declines to share. After that, he'll strike out in a new direction with an adaptaion of Yann Martel's best-selling novel Life of Pi, the protagonist of which is a n Indian teenager from Night's birthplace of Pondichery. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downhome 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 Ah yes, the on-trick-pony continues his trend. I can't wait to see how much The Village makes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bobobrazil1984 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 I actually thought it was kind of interesting. I give it props for being somewhat different. Oh and that "horrible" speil with that girl about love being a difficult thing da-da-da was one of the best parts, when you look at Phoenix's reaction, and the cut to her crying, it's obvious that scene was actually supposed to be over the top and funny (unlike a lot of others) I actually thought it was very good up until Lucious got stabbed, at that point it got all kinds of weird. And I like the ending, it had kind of a surreal quality to it. I like it when things go in a weird unconventional direction However I want Night to direct a movie that he hasn't written. I still like most of his movies though, 6th sense and Signs are both very good films, Signs especially in its story about faith. and Unbreakable is one of the most underrated films there is in recent years (Night's BEST film). Can't quite bring myself to declare this a HIT with me though, it was kind of in the middle. I kinda admired it for doing something I'm sure night knew would piss off people. Still he's 3 for 4, so I'm still looking forward to his next Twilight Zone movie ( please UNBREAKABLE 2! UNBREAKABLE 2! UNBREAKABLE 2! UNBREAKABLE 2! UNBREAKABLE 2! UNBREAKABLE 2! UNBREAKABLE 2! UNBREAKABLE 2! UNBREAKABLE 2! UNBREAKABLE 2! UNBREAKABLE 2! please! No? Fuck.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 Ah yes, the on-trick-pony continues his trend. I can't wait to see how much The Village makes. It is going to make a good amount of money in the opening weekend. At the 4:45 showing, the theater was almost sold out which I have never seen before. But with bad of mouth, it won't have much legs and have a final gross of $120 million or so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downhome 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 Oh it'll go over 100Mil EASY, but I don't think it'll have legs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 Well just because you hate it doesn't mean everyone else did. There were others(see: me and my friends) that enjoyed it and I'm sure we aren't the only ones out there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jesse_ewiak 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 A better twist....it's all a reality show! In other words, the elders are all in on it, but the kids and generations beyond don't know any better. Set it a few decades into the future and there you go. Or not. After all, I'm sitting here in my room living with my Mom and Night has 500 quadtrillion dollars. *Shrug* :-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beast 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 Saw it last night with some friends, I thought it was entertaining enough. I'm sure I'll like Harold and Kumar better, but this will still a good movie. Not much Joaquin Phoenix though, even though he's the first person listed in the beginning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nogoodnick 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 Saw the Village today and my first reaction was "What the fuck was that piece of shit I just paid to see?" I thought it was gonna be a good, scary movie but it turned out to be retarded. Shyamalan was trying to get a message across but it kinda fell on deaf ears because everyone was just like WTF. I give it 3/10 and never plan on watching it again. I really thought this movie would be good. I think im really more dissapointed than anything. I hear Harold & Kumar is the funniest movie in recent memory and wish I would have paid to see that instead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Boomer Sprinklespax Report post Posted July 31, 2004 Holy tiddlywinks, I can't wait to hear my M. Night Shamalamadingdong fanboy friend defend that. *ahem* Let it first be said that The Village vexed me utterly after I saw it midnight on Thursday. It has vexed me all day today, and all night tonight. I am sorely, sorely vexed. Why? Because The Village certainly wasn't great, which is unfortunate, because I really expected it to be Night's best film yet. It isn't, nor is it even his second or third best. It is, in fact, his worst, due totally to a forced plot twist that literally sucked the wind out of the entire picture. That being said, it was still a good movie. While I certainly understand the general feeling of disdain towards The Village, some of the things said here (particularly by DH) are just nuts. Worst movie ever? No good points?! Bah! First of all, I think it's obvious that a gigantic amount of thought went into the film, at least from a technical perspective. The cinematography was very good, IMO, and totally reinforced the content of the film in its form. There weren't very many closeups outside of the very emotional, real parts of the film (I'm thinking of the stabbing scene and the love scenes with Lucius and Ivy) This approach works because it intensifies the emotional impact of the thing more important to the heart of the movie than monsters and the color red - man's chaotic, passionate nature. Most of the conversation between the townsfolk and the elders at many of the social gatherings were shot pretty far away, and often at funky angles, almost as if you have to strain to see what's going on. While most here are bitching about this, I defy any of you not to see the logic in these shots. Not only does it emphasize the feeling of dread in the early parts of the movie (the same way Signs did, with the long shots from the corn fields), but it makes sense, given the ending. The village elders founded the place as a refuge from the society that hurt them so; the elders wanted to go away and not be seen again, by anyone. We, the viewers, are invading their perfect little world merely by watching, as we are the society that they seek refuge from. Night also utilized a whole hell of a lot of standard, by-the-book misdirection, particularly in the shots of the creatures. The amount of misdirection actually reminded me a lot of Roman Polanski's work in Rosemary's Baby, one of my favorite horror movies. Things flash quickly onscreen, and are gone again in an instant. Things slowly come into view via depth of field, but never fully into focus. Things are seen in the periphery of the vision of the camera. Ivy is attacked and seemingly captured by the creature, then, in the next shot, she is free, running from it. All of this was painstakingly crafted to unnerve the audience and it worked, at least in the theater I was in. The way color was utilized was beautiful, even though in the end that had little to do with the point of the movie. It was there simply to make the movie easier to look at, being that the rest was crafted to confuse and annoy. I think it worked well, in that small respect, as I doubt anyone would claim that The Village is an eyesore. Compositionally-speaking, The Village was also quite solid. In particular, I really liked the composition in the shot of Noah's death. The red cloak strikes out against the dark underbrush, claws laying just so, and one's eye immediately moves to Noah's face, scared and insane. As far as writing, while I respect what was said with it, I think it's obvious that the plot twist doesn't deliver solely because no one is going to accept it if the creatures aren't at least, you know, real. Still, there were a lot of subtleties to the writing that I enjoyed, such as Noah becoming the creature after attempting to kill Lucius, thus reinforcing the notion that the true horror is man's own inhumanity to himself. I also thought it interesting that the village elders (the women especially), were so unnappealing, whilst the younger members were so beautiful (once again, the women especially). This signifies how tainted the elders are by society, and how pure the younger ones are by comparison, having not had to deal with the brutality of the world. I will say, however, that Noah finding the costume underneath the floor was a deus ex machina of epic proportions. That actually pisses me off more than the twist, as it made much less sense. At least the twist made sense. The acting was...kinda mediocre, overall. Adrien Brody brought the goods, of course, but everyone else seemed distracted. Everyone else except for Bryce Dallas Howard, that is. I truly think she has made a star of herself - great, great performance. So there's your friggin' good points right there, bitches. But goddamn, I will agree that the twist sucked almost more than your mother. I blame marketing more than anything else, though. Once I am more removed from disappointment and what everyone thought the film was going to be, I will watch The Village again, and I am almost certain I will like it more, simply because I am confident that it wasn't bad, it just wasn't what I was expecting. Who knows, maybe it'll overtake Signs for third best. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downhome 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jonathon 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 I was surprised that such a powerhouse cast had so little screen time. Sigourney Weaver, Adrien Brody, and Joaquin Phoenix..I thought the movie would really center around them, but they seemed just like fancy window dressing compared to the amount of dialogue and screen time given to the main actress. I can't figure out how to do spoiler tags, so BEWARE, SPOILER COMING UP You gotta admit, Phoenix's death DID surprise. The marquee star bit it halfway through the movie. I was shocked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 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. Actually........ When she first runs into the monster she remembers him saying "there were legends i read in history books of monsters in the woods" and that made me think "Oh so they are real....." That's why that part was suspenseful. And I'm insulted that you feel sorry for me as if I'm some kind of an idiot for liking that part. That was very insulting as a matter of fact. And Jonathan...... He didnt die....... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downhome 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BX 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 Nothing here to see Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Boomer Sprinklespax Report post Posted July 31, 2004 No, not Hitch...but he could be Roman Polanski, if he ever makes an awesome movie. I have faith. And I didn't necessarily think the creature was real, but there was enough thrown in to at least make me question exactly what was going on. For the record, I didn't think the costume looked bad, and I'm very glad the damn thing wasn't CGI. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 No, not Hitch...but he could be Roman Polanski, if he ever makes an awesome movie. I have faith. And I didn't necessarily think the creature was real, but there was enough thrown in to at least make me question exactly what was going on. For the record, I didn't think the costume looked bad, and I'm very glad the damn thing wasn't CGI. He has made awesome movies. Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs were all awesome. While The Village wasn't awesome it was still good. I don't see where everyone gets this "he's a hack" stuff at. I think it's more the "hate what everyone else likes to be different" thing than anything else. Hey maybe some people have legitimate hate but for the most part that seems to be why a lot of people hate him. But I'm going to go see Harold and Kumar tonight to see what all the buzz is about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WrestlingFan4Ever 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 The Village sucked a great deal of ass. It fucking blew. The whole theatre I saw it with booed the movie at the end. Everyone wanted their money back. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted July 31, 2004 Wow I wonder where these theaters are where these people are crying for M's head? Because here it was either met with "that was good" or "eh....." I didn't hear anybody going on about how much it sucked like everyone else seems to have heard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted August 1, 2004 M. Night is to some degree a hack though. Let's face it: The man cannot make a movie without some sort of cornball twist. What he does is a modern twist on the William Castle school of carny hype for B grade horror. Castle however at least didn't try to make pretentious statements in his films. Anyway I saw The Village today and I'm still not even sure what I thought of it. I wasn't as revolted as some here, but it was far from great I'll tell you that. H and K Go to WC owns it easy, though that movie is not making ANYTHING this weekend. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downhome 0 Report post Posted August 1, 2004 H and K Go to WC owns it easy, though that movie is not making ANYTHING this weekend. 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Edwin MacPhisto 0 Report post Posted August 1, 2004 Just got back. Silly little movie with some good parts and a luminous leading lady. A few thoughts: I was so hoping that Night would do the audacious thing and have the monsters actually be real. It was a great, weird design, and the world was so much more complex if they existed. So I was holding out hope that some form of monster actually did exist, though it was very obvious about halfway through that, yes, something was up. Here's my big problem with the entire premise behind the village itself: if Walker and the rest of the elders are the only people who actually know the truth, how the hell is the village so big? At the dinner table, wedding, and town meeting there looked to be at least a hundred, probably more people, and it's fairly preposterous to believe that the 10 elders and their immediate offspring spawned them all. Did the other adults know? Do I really care? Nah. Oh, and M. Night's cameo was masturbatory and horribly acted, not unlike his waste of a great role in Signs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted August 1, 2004 Where was M. Night in the movie? I actually have no clue what the dude looks like......and where was he in Signs? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Edwin MacPhisto 0 Report post Posted August 1, 2004 In Signs, he was the guy who had killed Mel's wife and left for the lake. You know, the one with the alien in his pantry. In The Village, he was the boss reading the newspaper whose face we didn't see except for the reflection in the medical supplies fridge. Laaaame. He tries to do the Hitchcock "appear in my movies" thing, but hasn't done it well thus far. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Art Sandusky 0 Report post Posted August 1, 2004 In a shocking twist worthy of M. Night himself, Damaramu really saw The Bourne Supremacy and got all of the characters' names and the plot wrong, which by coincedence ended up sounding like The Village. This would be used to explain why he liked it. I'm actually tempted to see this even though I know the ending. Knowing how a film ends doesn't spoil it for me, since how they get there is much more interesting to me (probably why I like the Star Wars prequels). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
