The Village

[Guest Boomer Sprinklespax]

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.

They were very good, no doubt, but none of Night's are awesome like Rosemary's Baby or Chinatown.

 

And no, Night is not a hack, he's just got a very specific style. Lots of great directors have them. Night has yet to become a great director, but he may. He's really got to do a different genre, something far different from his pseudo-intellectual, modern day, suspense/thriller/drama parables, for that distinction to be made.

[Damaramu 0]

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).

So because all of these guys hate it there must've been something wrong with me to like it? That's weak.

[WrestlingFan4Ever 0]

So because all of these guys hate it there must've been something wrong with me to like it? That's weak.

 

Yes, there is something wrong with you. It sucked ass.

[Damaramu 0]

So because all of these guys hate it there must've been something wrong with me to like it? That's weak.

 

Yes, there is something wrong with you. It sucked ass.

No this is where we come into something called a difference of opinion. In your opinion you thought the movie sucked. In my opinion I thought it was entertaining.

[Downhome 0]

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.

[Damaramu 0]

Well stop acting like there's something wrong with me for liking the movie. And I actually don't think it was badly made, that's why I enjoyed it. There were parts that could've been better and more suspense like in Signs but I don't think it was this complete failure of modern film making that you're making it out to be.

So stop acting insulting b/c I like the movie(that's directed at everyone). I liked it. Nothing wrong with me for that. If you have a problem with me liking it then go to hell.

[Downhome 0]

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.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

It didn't do better than Signs in its first weekend, but it The Village still pulled in over $50 million.

 

Im not surprised, but thats still more than I figured with all the bad reviews..

[Damaramu 0]

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 said that goes for everyone.

You insulted me earlier for liking it.

And now Kotz and Wrestlingfan4ever are giving me shit for liking the movie.

[Guest Brian]

I'm not the only one who didn't like signs am I? The aliens were cheap CGI, which really killed the suspense, and the ending seemed like a total cop out.

[Downhome 0]

I said that goes for everyone.

You insulted me earlier for liking it.

I didn't insult you for liking it. I insulted you for buying into a false, and cheap ass, sense of suspense.

 

I'm not the only one who didn't like signs am I? The aliens were cheap CGI, which really killed the suspense, and the ending seemed like a total cop out.

 

That film was an overall POS as well. However, compared to The Village, it was great, if that makes sense.

[Renegade 0]

I read this from another message board and I think it sums up the village perfectly:

 

To sum this shit bomb up: It's like a girl giving you a god tier blowjob and just when you're about to nut, she gets bored and walks away, leaving you to take care of business yourself, but you can't because your dick won't respond to your hand, so you're just forced to sit there and wait for her to come back and finish up, but she never does cuz she's too busy doing the same thing to your dad.

[Damaramu 0]

I said that goes for everyone.

You insulted me earlier for liking it.

I didn't insult you for liking it. I insulted you for buying into a false, and cheap ass, sense of suspense.

 

And I thought that part was suspensful.

Therefore you turned yourself into a holier than thou jerk by acting like "Oh my god I so wasn't in suspense. And like anyone that was......well they're just moronic and beneath me. Like oh my god."

[Downhome 0]

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.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

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.

This is one of the big gripes I have with the film and M. Night's script-writing attitude of late. He floats stuff like that line multiple times, repeats dialogue in voice over, and it ends up being one of two things: ass-quality misdirection, or an implicit statement that his audience won't be smart enough to remember something William Hurt said not 15 minutes earlier. He wants to be big, and he wants to make sweeping statements, but he doesn't seem to know to whom he's making them.

 

And did anyone get an idea as to how there were so many people in the village if only the elders were in on it, like I asked earlier? I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas beyond "plot gap" or "they sho nuff had mondo babies," because I can't reason it out too well.

[WrestlingFan4Ever 0]

I got two words for ya Damaramu......magic rocks. That basically sums up the quality of the movie.

[Damaramu 0]

I got two words for ya Damaramu......magic rocks. That basically sums up the quality of the movie.

The magic rocks weren't intended to be serious either. She knew that they were phoney and fake but she was using them to trick the two immature boys.

I mean if I was dealing in the same situation and had a couple of immature kids that believed in monsters I'd probably do something along those lines to. Why? Because they'd believe it!

You're acting like it was meant to be a serious plot point that everyone believed was true when in actuality it was a hokey story used to trick two kids.

[WrestlingFan4Ever 0]

Damaramu, I'm just kidding with you buddy, please calm down. It just wasn't a good movie no matter how you look at it. I guarantee you word of mouth will cause it to have a huge drop off next weekend, because obviously it was gonna do good this weekend.

[Downhome 0]

This is one of the big gripes I have with the film and M. Night's script-writing attitude of late.  He floats stuff like that line multiple times, repeats dialogue in voice over, and it ends up being one of two things: ass-quality misdirection, or an implicit statement that his audience won't be smart enough to remember something William Hurt said not 15 minutes earlier.  He wants to be big, and he wants to make sweeping statements, but he doesn't seem to know to whom he's making them.

 

And did anyone get an idea as to how there were so many people in the village if only the elders were in on it, like I asked earlier?  I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas beyond "plot gap" or "they sho nuff had mondo babies," because I can't reason it out too well.

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.

[Damaramu 0]

Well........I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I will still like the film and probably always like it just as I do his other work. Nothing's going to change that. And I thought it was a good film despite your criticism b/c like you said.....there is an answer to all of them. *sits back and crosses his arms* That's my position and I'm sticking to it.

[Downhome 0]

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

[Damaramu 0]

But you keep saying it's a bad film. And that's why I keep responding. I don't think it's a bad film. I think it's a good film. But you keep saying that it's a bad film and that I like a bad film.....which is insulting to me and my tastes.

[Downhome 0]

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.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

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".

Yeah. A friend of mine latched onto that. Really, really ridiculous - that sort of thing exists solely to trick the viewer and for absolutely no other reason.

[Downhome 0]

Exactly, it's just so pathetic. He can't come up with any better idea to "trick" everyone other than to just flat out lie to the viewer? If I'm not mistaken, I believe it was even said, in an interview or something, that the ENTIRE film was based in the 1800s.

[WrestlingFan4Ever 0]

Yeah I also agree. It was just a bad film and there's no way around it. And it is OK to like a bad film. A sold out movie theatre of 200 people all booing the film at its conclusion also back up my claim. It was just a terrible movie. And this is coming from a guy who liked The Sixth Sense, liked Signs, and sort of liked Unbreakable. M. Night was 3 for 3 but couldn't make it 4 for 4.

[Damaramu 0]

I still don't know where the booing theaters come from. Didn't happen in my theater and this seems to be the only place I'm hearing of people actively booing movies.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I didn't get any direct booing, but definitely a lot of groans and a handful of "you've got to be kidding me."

 

Shyamalan ought to work off someone else's script on his next go-round.

[NoCalMike 0]

Something else too, on a wildlife preserve, wouldn't scientists, and geologists etc.......have to venture in there to keep up with what is going on with the wild life. So it is kind of silly to think they would be perfectly hidden.

 

Also I think William Hurt's character OWNED the land, cause that wild life jr ranger had William Hurt's last name splattered on the front of the jeep.

 

Also if 10 people dissapeared at the same time, you'd think there would be an FBI investigation.

 

Also it seemed like the Jr. Ranger kind of let her off the hook rather easily, withouth any further questioning or investigating.

 

-------------------

 

Overall, I didn't think this film was an ABOMINATION TO CINEMA, but it is one of those films that wants you to just blindly go along with the weakness in the dialouge and plot. This is the kind of film that contrary to what M. Night S. says, does NOT want you to ask questions, and would rather you just play dumb and accept the shoveled shit like a horsefly.

[Guest Boomer Sprinklespax]

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.

In my opinion, The Village is not a poorly-made film...just poorly-concieved.

 

I outlined many reasons why I believe so, and none of them have been refuted. Hell, you even agreed that it was fairly pretty.

 

So why are you now saying that The Village is poorly-made? All you seem to have really commented on is the writing, which I agree was weak. How does that make the entire film poorly-made? Just curious, as that doesn't make sense to me.

 

Also, your argument with Dama is just pathetic; you seem unable to grasp the notion that opinions vary and, as a result, you are being very condescending. You may not be trying to act in this manner, but you nonetheless are. Your opinion is not the Word on the matter, so stop acting like it is.