The Village

[Guest Olympic Slam]

How to judge the emotional reaction that is a movie:

 

- Good, I'm glad I PAID/TOOK TIME to see it/rent it/buy it

- Good, but I wish I hadn't PAID so much or took so much TIME to see it/rent it/ buy it

- I want my money back

- At least it was free/something to do

- No complaints or praise either way

 

Applied to recent movies I've seen:

 

- Spider Man 2 - Good, I'm glad I paid to see it

- Dodgeball - Good, but I wish I hadn't paid so much to see it

 

Simple. No need to post 1,000 word essays convincing people why the Village is a "bad movie." You either were happy you took the time to pay to see it, or you weren't. No need to bitch about the vague benchmarks of cinematography or dialogue or whatever. The movie sounds lame, but if Damaramu is happy he paid to see it, then that's all that matters. A laundry list of logic gaps and dumb dialogue won't change anyone's emotional reaction.

[Damaramu 0]

Well I judge movies on if I want to see them again and how bad.

 

The Village was good but I can wait until video to see it again.

 

Anchorman and Dodgeball I saw twice. Spider Man2 I want to see again. Harold and Kumar I want to see again.

[Guest Boomer Sprinklespax]

Simple. No need to post 1,000 word essays convincing people why the Village is a "bad movie." You either were happy you took the time to pay to see it, or you weren't. No need to bitch about the vague benchmarks of cinematography or dialogue or whatever. The movie sounds lame, but if Damaramu is happy he paid to see it, then that's all that matters. A laundry list of logic gaps and dumb dialogue won't change anyone's emotional reaction.

Of course it won't, but this is a messageboard. People are here to converse. Why even start a thread about it if all that's going to be said is whether or not you were happy you saw it? That sounds pretty boring to me.

[Downhome 0]

So why are you now saying that The Village is poorly-made?

Because a film is more than just what you visually see. A film can look outstanding, yet still be very poorly made, and a piece of shit.

 

There is such a thing as a poorly made film, and with the writing, acting, the entire concept and setup of this one, The Village is most certainly one of them, even if it has a few shots that are nice.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Oh man, if Downhome even hated this movie, I know I won't be able to stand it.

 

By the by, it's not like Damaramu said anything the past couple of pages as to back up why it's a good movie. He just said it was one. Downhome at least explained himself there.

[Dr. Tom 0]

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.

I think you're taking some of these movie discussions too seriously. Chill.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I’ve been very bored at work this morning with no assignments and no editors, so I spent some time typing out my complaints and analysis of what frustrated me most about The Village. It’s mostly ground we’ve already covered, but read it if you like.

 

The Village is M. Night Shyamalan’s latest one-man show, unwisely written, directed, and produced by him. It’s his most facile film, and certainly his most frustrating; while I think it’s unquestionably his worst effort in four tries, it could have easily been his best with just the slightest touch of restraint.

 

Here is the good about The Village. It can be gorgeous, pale earth tones occasionally spiked with a fleck of red, yellow, or flame. The scene with Lucius and Ivy sitting on the porch in front of the moonlight mist is probably the finest composition in the entire piece. Noah stabbing Lucius is deception done right; it’s misdirection by craft and perspective with a quick reveal. This is the right way to delay information; to maximize impact, and to use the tools of cinema to bring script and image together in a great holistic piece. The design of the creatures is weird and great; they are spiny druids who conjure images of bone and branch, which makes it all the more disappointing when they’re revealed as a hoax. Bryce Dallas Howard is adorable and engaging, doing the disabled-character thing without relying on schmaltz or too much seriousness. The rest of the cast fights through a brutal script, and William Hurt especially makes the film mildly compelling by sheer force of will.

 

Here is the bad: the entire premise. It’s a ridiculous twist that doesn’t make you say, “oh my god,” or “it all makes sense”; the more common response to this set of surprises has been “that’s fucking dumb.” The script is designed to cheaply deceive in all the worst ways. It’s bad enough that Shyamalan attempts to sew up plot holes with that horribly dry scene between the security guard and his Night-played boss; he seems to realize that his premises won’t hold up under even cursory scrutiny, so he throws all the business about diverting planes and keeping the media out in one swoop. Seeking another bad premise? Take two that are interrelated: the speech patterns. The insistence that it’s 1897. Why would any of this matter? The “elders” have created a society that’s entirely separated from the rest of the world. There is no comparison point; unless we’re intended to extrapolate that all the elders are some dorky LARP fans, there’s no reason for them to effect that formal, stiff, self-consciously ancient style of speaking, nor is there any reason for them to arbitrarily decide that their little village will occur in the 19th century. Call it 1897 or call it the year 8000; how will time period or an era mean anything to a generation of children without a frame of reference? It is trickery aimed at no one but the audience, and it is neither clever nor ultimately honest enough to be seen as anything but lazy filmmaking. Even in Signs, full of ridiculous contrivances and semi-spiritual hogwash, Shyamalan played straight with the viewer. The aliens didn’t end up being government agents, nor was Mel Gibson’s family living on another planet made entirely of sentient, mischievous corn.

 

I suppose there are some who’ll appreciate Shyamalan’s decision to make this a “monsters within” story rather than one of true monsters. This argument, that the film is designed as a social commentary, may be even more maddening than William Hurt prattling on about magic rocks. If this is the case, then there is no reason to maintain the trappings of a horror film. Instead of exploring the idea and mad philosophy behind Covington Woods, Shyamalan seems to think it adequate merely to put the situation out on the table. If a discussion of this community’s merits, flaws, and difficulties is what Shyamalan is really after (and the leering war reports in the boss’s newspaper and on the radio suggest as much), then he would have been wise to discard the spook story in his first act. How much more powerful could this film have been if Shyamalan pulled the rug out not 90 minutes from the start, but 40? Whether he chooses to let the ignorant characters of the village know the secret or only to bring the viewer closer to the elders’ actual motivations, he wins: he gives the mystery momentum and moves his audience away from silly guessing games and into a world that actually engages this notion of self-imposed isolation. I have no desire to spend my days writing M. Night Shyamalan fanfiction, but moving the story forward sans gimmickry would require little more than a steel bird called Delta flying overhead, or a rebellious journey to the forest walls courtesy one of the already-exploratory characters like Lucius or Noah. This story was never going to be about monsters; it was about people, fear, and protection. It’s beyond me why you would sell such a rich concept short for any reason other than money, or the masturbatory desire to dupe millions (or, to be more accurate: to helplessly attempt to dupe millions who figured out your one trick long ago).

 

Crammed within the walls of The Village are two excellent stories. One is a complex allegory about a village and the monsters that contain it; the other follows a scheme between 10 people to leave the world behind and preserve some sort of oasis for future generations. With the cast and crew here assembled, either could be a slam-dunk hit. Dishonestly shoehorned into one cumbersome frame, neither story comes close to succeeding.

 

Furthermore, my thoughts on the issue of opinions in criticism: some preferences are more legitimate than others. Sounds cruel, but in an argument I’ll take anything that’s substantiated with an analytic breakdown over “we’ll agree to disagree” any day. The only thing I like less than “it’s my opinion, so shut up,” is “let’s see you make a movie and THEN you can criticize this thing I like.” Everyone’s entitled to opinion, but harping on about it without really explaining is a waste of time. And you certainly don’t have to explain why – just don’t expect others to care too much if they’re busy digging into the product and really finding out why they did or didn’t like it and what could have been done about it.

[Damaramu 0]

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.

I think you're taking some of these movie discussions too seriously. Chill.

I don't need to chill! You chill asswipe!

I'm going to go sit down now.........

 

 

And I have no reasons for why I thought it was a good movie. I simply enjoyed it and thought it was fun to watch. It wasn't as suspenseful as Signs but there were some parts that had me on the edge of my seat. And I thought the story was intriguing. Could it have been better done? Yes, but I like what I got.

I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, hate the damn thing. I'm just trying to say that I liked it and I don't need to be insulted for liking it.

 

And again with the magic rocks! Everyone is taking that so seriously when nobody seems to realize.......it's not supposed to be serious! It was a trick used to trick 2 immature and ignorant boys!

[Downhome 0]

This thread taught me that there is apparently a limit to how many characters you can put in spoiler tags. I had to go back to my long post and put the first part in tags, then the second part in another set of tags, to make them all "spoilers".

 

Did anyone else know this?

 

Just look at the first line of Edwin MacPhisto's post above. I just found this odd.

[Downhome 0]

I'm just trying to say that I liked it and I don't need to be insulted for liking it.

We are not insulting you, you are simply taking it like that.

[NoCalMike 0]

Something else that irks me is the assumption by the Elders that the blind chick will keep her mouth shut and not start talking about her trip to the "towns" I mean if you just found out the entire basis of your villiage was a lie, wouldn't you be curious and start to talk and then eventually explore....?

[Damaramu 0]

I'm just trying to say that I liked it and I don't need to be insulted for liking it.

We are not insulting you, you are simply taking it like that.

Well saying that you felt sorry for me for being in suspense was pretty insulting to my intelligence.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

LET'S DRESS UP IN MONSTER SUITS GUYS

[JoeDirt 0]

I saw this last night. My girlfriend liked it a lot, but I liked it less. I thought the twist was "eh" and felt kind of ripped off after the movie was over. Like a lot of hype for a match that is drawn out, but nothing really ever happens.

 

It wasn't a pile of shit by any means, though, and there were interesting psychological aspects to it I suppose. But for the most part, a lot of the complaints lodged in above posts are absolutely correct.

 

I'd pass on it in the theaters and wait until it comes out on video. It's probably worth a two dollar rental if go in not expecting to see the scariest movie of the summer. It's just not a scary movie. At all.

[Guest Boomer Sprinklespax]

So why are you now saying that The Village is poorly-made?

Because a film is more than just what you visually see. A film can look outstanding, yet still be very poorly made, and a piece of shit.

 

There is such a thing as a poorly made film, and with the writing, acting, the entire concept and setup of this one, The Village is most certainly one of them, even if it has a few shots that are nice.

Bullshit. The making of the film is the cinematography and shooting of it. Your problem is with the concept and writing. The Village was made just fine, but it was unfortunately grounded in an unfulfilling premise.

 

Using your logic, I could say The Day After Tomorrow was a very poorly-made POS, simply because I loathed the story and script. That would be nonsense, however, as anyone who has seen it would have to admit that it's a good looking movie. It is NOT poorly-made; it's poorly-written.

 

I'm glad I brought up The Day After Tomorrow, actually. I seem to remember you, DH, being a big proponent of that film (I could be mistaken, and if I am, apologies). You say that there's more to movies than the visuals. If this is so, how can ANYONE like The Day After Tomorrow? There was absolutely nothing engaging about that movie other than seeing what neato keen special effects were going to occur next. Everything else about it was shitty.

[WrestlingFan4Ever 0]

The Village didn't work because there was too much talking and everything was drawn out. And I wouldn't have minded all the talking if it built suspense about the "monsters." Instead, the movie started turning into a love story. None of it worked. Not to mention, the twist was revealed way too early and was very underwhelming. I blame the writing and the editing for the piece of shit that was The Village.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Using your logic, I could say The Day After Tomorrow was a very poorly-made POS, simply because I loathed the story and script. That would be nonsense, however, as anyone who has seen it would have to admit that it's a good looking movie. It is NOT poorly-made; it's poorly-written.

Right. It's poorly written (though I did enjoy TDAT). Writing is a part of how something is made. What you're describing

 

Bullshit. The making of the film is the cinematography and shooting of it.

 

is how the film is shot and arranged visually. Not the making of the film; a film is not made until all the parts are synthesized together. Acting + writing + directing + editing + cinematography + everything else = making a film.

 

If it looks like shit or reads like shit, shit it remains.

 

I won't dispute that The Village was well-shot. I thought it was at times gorgeous to look at and I loved the spots of bright color. But it wasn't well made, because in the end, those atmospheric aspects didn't connect with the awful script. We're arguing over semantics, but I believe what I've just laid out is truer to the actual notion of "making" a film.

[Downhome 0]

Bullshit. The making of the film is the cinematography and shooting of it. Your problem is with the concept and writing. The Village was made just fine, but it was unfortunately grounded in an unfulfilling premise.

But a film is more than visual. Someone could make a film and it could look like the best thing ever, but if everything else isn't there it'll still be a POS. I admitted the film looks good in places, but it doesn't make up for every single other aspect of the film.

 

And pretty much every other aspect of the movie is poorly done, and anyone that knows film, knows that is a fact, and can not just be overlooked. Like I said though, I actually like some bad movies, but this isn't one I liked.

 

Using your logic, I could say The Day After Tomorrow was a very poorly-made POS, simply because I loathed the story and script. That would be nonsense, however, as anyone who has seen it would have to admit that it's a good looking movie. It is NOT poorly-made; it's poorly-written.

 

I'm glad I brought up The Day After Tomorrow, actually. I seem to remember you, DH, being a big proponent of that film (I could be mistaken, and if I am, apologies). You say that there's more to movies than the visuals. If this is so, how can ANYONE like The Day After Tomorrow? There was absolutely nothing engaging about that movie other than seeing what neato keen special effects were going to occur next. Everything else about it was shitty.

 

Yes, you are more than mistaken on this one . The Day After Tomorrow is one of the biggest pieces of crap, top to bottom. Ugh, now THAT is my least favorite movie ever, EVER!

 

While I hated both The Village and The Day After Tomorrow, they did entertain me, in that I laughed my ass all the way through both of them.

 

I suppose that also counts as something, right?

 

Like I said, the filmmaking process is not just what you see on the screen, it's not just the visuals. It's the writing, the acting, the direction, the lighting, everything, at least to me. When I view a film, I take all aspects of the film into account and then from there I add it all together.

 

That's what the filmmaking process is to me, and THAT'S what I mean when I say that both of those films are poorly made...bad filmmaking. There is no looking past the horrible aspects of the films. No one who gives a shit about film can be blind to all of the faults in The Village.

 

For my few thoughts on TDAT, see this page. It shares so many faults with The Village. I can't believe that these two films were released in the same year. I'll never forget the year 2004, heh. Two of my favorite films ever (one being my #1 favorite) and two of my least favorite films ever (one also being my #1 least favorite) all came out in the same year.

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...0tomorrow&st=90

 

One quick note. Even though I say that TDAT is my least favorite film ever, I do not actually mean that I believe it to be the worst film ever. It was a much better film in many ways than The Village. I suppose all of the politicalness of TDAT just really got to me, and I found it largely pathetic in that respect.

[cabbageboy 0]

I'm amazed that so many people here have worked up such strong thoughts on The Village. After seeing it I had no real impression either way about it. It was kinda like the people in my theater said "Well, he got us again" and then left never to think about it again.

 

The saddest thing to me about the film was the scene with Ivy in the woods. This was actually one of M. Night's stronger scenes for creating suspense, but it had one fatal flaw: It was impossible to create suspense at that point. I mean, we already knew the monsters weren't real. Yeah I know William Hurt said something lame like "In the history book it said there are monsters in the woods" but that was a lamely introduced concept. Which are we supposed to remember more? The monsters being fake, or the minor toss in line of the history book? I remembered the monsters are fake, and thus this whole scene that was so well done just fell flat on its face.

 

[Guest Boomer Sprinklespax]

Not the making of the film; a film is not made until all the parts are synthesized together. Acting + writing + directing + editing + cinematography + everything else = making a film.

 

If it looks like shit or reads like shit, shit it remains.

 

I won't dispute that The Village was well-shot. I thought it was at times gorgeous to look at and I loved the spots of bright color. But it wasn't well made, because in the end, those atmospheric aspects didn't connect with the awful script. We're arguing over semantics, but I believe what I've just laid out is truer to the actual notion of "making" a film.

We are just arguing over semantics, you're right. And you're right about filmmaking being all the processes included in pre-production, shooting, and post-production.

 

I think I was just trying to make the point that all everyone is bitching about is the writing, and yet everyone still calls Night a bad director. IMO, there's nothing wrong with The Village in regards to cinematography, directing, editing, or even acting, really (the best was done with what was there).

 

No doubt Night's script was complete ass; that much I agree with. But that doesn't mean the guy is a hack director or producer.

[Damaramu 0]

Actually the thing that got me in suspense the most with the scen ewith the monster in the woods was that I figured one of the elders was pissed he'd given the secret away so he went out there to kill her. Because whoever was in that suit obviously wanted to do something bad to her.

[reign 0]

Christ you people could pick apart a documentary on your own mothers it seems like.....I felt that this movie...while predictable to myself...did what it needed to do...my buddies were totally taken and were still talking up the film three days later....and as far as the plot inconsistencies go I didn't find any that I couldn't explain...there were so many little things that made perfect sense and I really thought it was a smart,well made film...has any other writer/director tackled this premise before? I'd like to see someone do it better and maybe someone will try and fail like they did after the Sixth Sense. Just my opinion though....

P.S.

Can somebody tell me how to do that cool red cover up thing to protect spoilers?