I will talk about them here. Neefull to say, there will be spoilers.
1. I was really distracted and bothered by the purposeful omission of key information by the camera. Many times the camera was purposely kept away from where the audience wanted to look. I don't have a problem with keeping things off camera when it's done because the characters cannot see it, but when everybody in the scene can see it but the audience cannot -- that is a cheap trick, and one that I do not appreciate.
3. That village was waaay too prosperous. I don't see how a completely self-sustaining villiage of that size could have such nice homes, halls, furniture, and clothing.
4. The villiage too big. The oldes non-elders seem to be about 20 years old, meaning that the villiage is about 20 years old. Either there are many other people that they recruited into the village that they never told us about (which is bad storytelling), or there are way too many people. There are what -- about 12 elders? That's 6 couples. It seems too short of a time for so few to have so much progeny. But I could be wrong. As I think about it, there weren't too many people. But most of the people would have had to be children for most of the life of the villiage, which strengthens #3.
5. At the beginning of the film, we see a date on the tombstone of the recently dead child -- 1897. This was obviously a lie. But who were they lying to? The only people in the villiage would know that a date closer to 1997 doesn't fit are the elders who are the ones doing the lying. The only people they were lying to were the audience. There was absolutely no reason for them to change the date they used.
6. I think having a job as villiage idiot would be fun. This isn't an annoyance -- merely an observation.
7. I am having enormous difficulty seeing the villiage elders as anything but villians. I don't care what you are trying to accomplish; lying and controlling people in that fashion -- stripping people of their free will -- is evil.
There. I had to share that. Thank you for listening.
[ January 20, 2006, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I felt the same way on many of your points, Porter.
But mostly, I didn't like the Village because when it comes to scary movies, I'm a six year old child.
I get spooked really easily, and it lasts a long, long time.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I didn't find it scary at all, but probably because I knew that the movie was done by M. Night Whatever, so I knew that there would be some big twist, which meant that I couldn't believe anything I saw. The suspension of disbelief just didn't happen. M. Night has cried wolf too many times.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I thought the movie was unbelievably good until the ending. The Sixth Sense, Signs, and Unbreakable had twist endings that worked because they built upon what came before; at the end of those films there was that 'aha!' moment when everything came together.
At the end of the village, the twist ending was that everything you had cared about while watching the film, and everything that frightened you, and everything that you had just learned ... was a lie. A freaking lie. It ruined the movie utterly for me because it did not build upon what came before, nothing came together, and when you left the theater you had no reason to care about anything you'd just seen.
If the monsters had been real, it would have been a great movie.....
But they weren't.
And yeah, okay, on an intellectual level, the post-911 criticisms of a government lying-to-its-people-for-their-own-good was all laid out very clearly in an allegory that has now been dissected pretty cleverly by a lot of people.
But in order to find this movie satisfying you have to A) believe in that message. And B) be willing to regard the film as an intellectual exercise rather than as a satisfying experience unto itself.
As an intellectual exercise it might be a fun movie.
But as a movie, it was awful, and I hated it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
First, what happened to #2?
Second, regarding #3, they certainly could have started out with a nice prosperous village. I mean, they made the concious decision to move into the compound. There's no reason they couldn't make it as nice as possible first.
But yeah, I agree whole-heartedly with #1, #5, and #7.
All in all, though, I enjoyed the film up to the ending. But I was watching it in the theater and I seem to enjoy movies a lot more there than watching them on DVD at home. (Of course that could also be because movies I'm not too excited about tend to be the ones I catch later on DVD. )
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
I really liked it when it turned out that three of the characters were comic-book loving ghost villains only Haily Joel Osment could see.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think the premise could have been used to make a brilliant movie. The problem was that Shayamalan had to lie to the audience to keep his surprise ending.
Imagine the film starting out with the message: "20 years ago a group of families decided to sequester themselves deep in the heart of a private reserve. . . ." That could free up the writer to explore the characters and moral dilemmas involved rather than play mind games with the audience. (Not that I mind a good mind game from a director, but this wasn't it.)
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
quote:But mostly, I didn't like the Village because when it comes to scary movies, I'm a six year old child.
Me too. I loved the Village, but that's because I fall for everything. I'm a filmmaker's dream.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think the premise could have been used to make a brilliant movie. The problem was that Shayamalan had to lie to the audience to keep his surprise ending.
I sooo agree.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I find myself uninterested in seeing any more movies by him.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I thought The Village got a bad rap! Near the end the plot became a little dumb in the sense of being quite forced, but that's not all there is to a movie. The acting was excellent, especially Adrien Brody and the blind woman/main character. I also enjoyed the clever trick of setting up Joaquin Phoenix as the main character, only to take him out of commission and replace him with his girlfriend. And the score was very evocative.
The problem with Shyamalan is that the 6th Sense was so good, and hung together so well, that everyone assumes all his movies will be plotted just as well or better. Not gonna happen, and so the audience comes to dislike movies that they would otherwise enjoy.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: The acting was excellent
Nearly every aspect of the filmmaking was superb, which in a way makes is so tragic, considering the storytelling was so lousy.
quote:The problem with Shyamalan is that the 6th Sense was so good, and hung together so well, that everyone assumes all his movies will be plotted just as well or better. Not gonna happen, and so the audience comes to dislike movies that they would otherwise enjoy.
I completely disagree that this is why I disliked it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I thought it was pretty good until the end, too.
quote: I find myself uninterested in seeing any more movies by him.
I don't get this. Even if you've never seen any other movies by him, it doesn't make sense to not see any more movies directed by him just because of one bad movie. It's illogical to assume that one bad movie means that he'll continue to make bad movies.
If you've seen other movies he's directed and liked them, then you know he can make good movies. So, again, why?
You're a weird person, mph. Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Yeah, but he *HAS* cried wolf too many times. During the Village, I was waiting to see what the twist was. I was competing with the filmmaker. Therefore, I wasn't able to connect with the characters as he wanted. I was watching to see his slight of hand, not being drawn into the mystique.
And fear/suspence does not come from being an outsider looking in. It comes from becoming an insider so that you care about what they do, you dread what they do, you fear what they do, and you dread the pain that you know is coming. As OSC once said, dread is the most potent of fears. But it only works when you are in their skin. Stephen Kings knew this.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: don't get this. Even if you've never seen any other movies by him, it doesn't make sense to not see any more movies directed by him just because of one bad movie. It's illogical to assume that one bad movie means that he'll continue to make bad movies.
You misunderstand me.
I'm uninterested in seeing any more movies by him because he keeps using the same trick over and over. He relies on the "surprise twist" at the end of all of his movies.
But like the boy that cried wolf, it stops working after a while. The fact that I knew there would be a surprise endind meant that I couldn't believe anything in the movie. I never believed the monsters were real because I knew that Shamalat always deceives his audience. Since I didn't believe in the monsters, I was never scared for the characters.
I was unable to suspend my disbelief because I knew I was being lied to.
And I suspect the same thing will happen if I ever see another one of his movies.
edit: or what IanO said.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
MPH, its Sham-a-lot.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
quote:During the Village, I was waiting to see what the twist was.
Me too. But for me, that's where the fun is. He manages to tell such a different story in every movie that I'm excited to see how he's going to dump my on my a$$ this time.
I think I'm rather weird though.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'll bet you're really fun to tell ghost stories to, Narnia.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I gotcha, and I guess I can understand that.
I still really like him, myself. Even though his last two movies were kind of meh overall, they still tried to be something in a way that a lot of other movies aren't working for these days. If that makes any sense. I think in a very real way, Shyamalan, along with Gilliam, is one of our finest cinematic fantasists.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: MPH, its Sham-a-lot.
That's so cold. Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
quote:I'll bet you're really fun to tell ghost stories to, Narnia.
I probably would be. Movies tend to have a more chilling/tense effect on me though. The film maker has the ability to go 'BOO!' in quite unique and terrifying ways. I love it and I also hate it because I'm really tense and wimpy. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Also, I think part of the problem is that Shamalan has almost made his name into a brand. He makes sure that everybody knows that HE is the one that did this movie.
With most movies I see, I have no idea who the producer, director, or writer is.
But with The Villiage, I knew that he was behind it as soon as I knew there was a movie called "The Villiage".
It's even worse with his next movie. I can't remember the name of it. All I know about it is A) Mermaids! and B) Shamalan.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Shyamalan, along with Gilliam, is one of our finest cinematic fantasists.
I'll give a nod to that, but even so, The Brother's Grimm was almost irredeemably bad.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I really didn't like The Village either. I thought it was barely scary, and I didn't even know about the twist at the end.
The twist at the end felt like a cheat. It had no basis in what had come before.
I thought it was a very poorly made movie.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I find myself uninterested in seeing any more movies by him.
I said that after Unbreakable. I don't feel like I've missed out at all. As soon as I realized that he was a one trick pony, devoting all his time to thinking of new ways to cleverly fool the audience, I had no desire to put any of my hard earned cash into his pocket.
It's a shame, too, because he's a talented director. If he would just direct someone else's scripts....
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I absolutely loved Unbreakable.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Me, too.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I loved Unbreakable, too. It's quite possibly my favorite Shyalaman movie.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah, I liked Sixth Sense and Unbreakable a lot. But I felt where he was going, and I didn't think seeing the same thing thrice was gonna be worth it.
Signs was next, and I just took a pass.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Signs sucked so badly that I didn't see The Village at all. So I know where you're coming from. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I will probably see all of his movies. They amuse me. And this new one about Lady in the Water or whatever. I really want to know what that's all about.
Edit: Also, I liked the Village more as a love story than anything else. I thought it was very sweet, even though I'd figured out the twist like five minutes into the movie.
-pH
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Unbreakable is my favorite of his movies...but that's not saying much. I really think he's the most overrated filmmaker around at this moment. I fell asleep during The Sixth Sense, and I found Signs absolutely laughable (you know, I'd laugh in REALLY inappropriate places). In fact, I disliked Signs so much that I decided I really wasn't interested in seeing anymore of his work.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
His movies are beautiful, even when they suck. I'll see it just for that.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Kat, that's how I feel about Ang Lee. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yep, Kat. Well put.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: His movies are beautiful, even when they suck. I'll see it just for that.
I agree, except for the seeing them part.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Kat, I typed out a long response and deleted it.. but then you said what I wanted to say in 1 line =)
Pix
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I watched Unbreakable, but I have absolutely no memory of what it was about - beyond the obvious. I don't remember the twist or the ending or anything except Bruce Willis surviving the train wreck and Samuel L. Jackson turning out to be the bad guy (at least I think he was...)
It's kind of disturbing that I can't remember any more than that. I wonder why?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Actually Unwatchable is the one MNS movie I don't like. It was all I could do to keep from leaving the room =/
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
"Are you...Unwatchable?"
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
First of all, I knew the "surprise ending" to the Sixth Sense as soon as I saw him lying on the bed. I just didn't understand how it all fit together, precisely because Shayamalan was "lying to us" all through the movie.
That is, the scene where he meets his wife for dinner. That was the only scene that bugged me, because it didn't fit with my idea of what was happening. But the scene where he breaks the window fit perfectly.
As for The Village, I don't remember the date on the tombstone, but I enjoyed the movie thoroughly, again, because I knew there was a lie, and I was trying to figure it out. I knew the others weren't real, but I didn't know how the mythology had been set up. So to me it was like trying to solve a puzzle, but with the time element of needing to solve it before the movie ended.
And I didn't have any problem with the scenes where the camera didn't show everything. He did exactly the same thing in Sixth Sense.
Now, I know this will blow your minds, but I thought Unbreakable was his best movie to date, and I hated Signs.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I should append:
Part of what I really liked about The Village was that I kept expecting him to pull in the supernatural, and he didn't. That's what kept me guessing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Now, I know this will blow your minds, but I thought Unbreakable was his best movie to date, and I hated Signs.
Yes. All good people feel this way.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I'm a good person! Excellent! Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No, it just means that you might be a good people.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Rats. So close, and yet so far away.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
KarlEd had the right idea. If he had started out with them saying that 20 years ago, an enclave set out to sequester themselves from the world, it would have given us a framework to see the story in that wasn't a lie. Then the twist at the end would have had the girl sneaking out to find the "real world" in a tattered ruins, perhaps after a biological disaster that the group would have been spared from.
And then, perhaps, the horror would be that what they wished for, they now have, and that there really was no hope for help from the outside world.
But hey, I don't get to write movies.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I saw Signs, and from seeing only one movie (which I realise is pathetic), I agree that Shyamalan is all about set up and not about resolving the plot. He builds his stories up in a Lost-like fashion, then has to bring them down. I don't think overall plot is his strength as a writer, and as this is so important, I think that maybe he should stick to directing only, as he tends to be a very good director from what I've seen.
Throughout Signs, although I was mildly worried/frightened by what was happening, the feeling of being challenged by the director (as some people wrote here) was prevalent, causing me to focus on predicting and talking to the screen rather than getting involved. The "big reveal" at the end wasn't as twisty as some of his other movies, but it was a major let down.
I agree that M. Night Shyamalan is, if not overrated, not the blockbuster creator he is presented as.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I can't even remember what the big reveal at the end of Signs was.
What was it?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It wasn't a big reveal, really, not like the others. But the (semi-SPOILERS)
aliens were finally shown on screen and their weak point was revealed. Like all off-screen monsters, the aliens were totally non-scary, and their fatal weak point was pretty amusing as weak points go, taking the earth into account and stuff.
Also, it was also pretty predictable.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Spoilers for Signs... . . . . . . . . .
Teshi, yeah, it was the fatal weak point that caused much of my amusement. Hey, it's a race allergic to water invading a planet that's mostly...water! Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
The 'big reveal' was not particularly the aliens -- it was that the family's various idiosyncracies and things Mel Gibson's character's wife said as she was dying all turned out to be related to how they'd survive the alien encounter -- in other words, the titular 'signs' were not crop circles but clues that God was setting up to ultimately benefit them.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Megan: Exactly! Hehehehe.
Oh yeah! I'd completely forgotten the religious aspect and I'm a little fuzzy on the specific details. Yes, I felt that that kind of undermined the rest of the story, which is why I can't remember that ending bit; it was, for me, non-memorable... incongruent with the rest of the story.
I think that Shyamalan has the same problems as I do when writing a short story. He goes a little too far.
Although I wish my middle name was "Night".
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I love M Night's movies, including Signs, and The Village.
His movies aren't meant to be scary in the sense that Dawn of the Dead or the Ring were supposed to be scary (which, by the way, they weren't).
I can't wait to see Lady in the Water. Shyamalan is one of the few director's that I'll probably see any movie with his name attached to it.
Though I must admit, that knowing there is a twist coming at the end has created a two fold reaction in me. One, I know it's coming, and therefore it becomes much, MUCH easier to spot. And Two, knowing that going in makes it sort of fun, it's almost like a sub genre of movie. Besides, if his next movie DOESN'T have a twist, that in itself would be a twist from his other movies.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Signs wasn't about the aliens! Who cares that the were stupid enough to come to an ocean planet =)
Signs was about Mel's character getting his faith back through the Signs God had given him and through what was left of his family. It's a beautiful beautiful movie!
Pix
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I agree that that part was touching; the problem was I distracted by the utter absurdity of the other part.
Spoiler . . . . . . Maybe if he'd made the aliens allergic to orange juice, or something. The movie was well-made; I agree with Kat on that. That "plot twist" was just sloppy writing, though.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
*spoiler*
.
.
.
.
My problem with Signs was that I find the idea that the bad things in my life happened as clues from God on what to do during an alien invasion entirely offensive.
I mean, Mel's wife dies so she can give a few cryptic hints? Couldn't God have sent Mel an email or something?? Whatever happened to messages in your morning cereal? Handwriting on a wall? Messenger from heaven? A dream? A sudden flash of inspiration at the right moment? The entire premise of the movie is for me false and shows what I consider to be a misunderstanding of Christian faith.
.
.
.
.
*spoilers*
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Nicely said. That was something that bothered me as well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I recall having had this conversation shortly after the movie came out, and feeling quite alone in my disgust for the "faith" elements of the movie. I'm glad other people now feel the same way. Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
If I was here, Tom, I definitely commented on it. Disgustedly. I can't swear that I mentioned the email, though. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, as an atheist you can expect my reaction to be "whoa", but usually I have no problem with religious tales at all. This one I just felt was bizarre and almost two movies in one, both undermining the other.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Title changed, so you can now spoil all those movies with impunity.
I'm a pretty sympathetic audience for religious messages, but the religious aspects Signs did nothing for me.
Just like the other aspects.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm an atheist as well, but I wasn't always. Now that I'm past my "King of Men"-like phase, I can recall the good things about having faith.
It doesn't change that I think it's all based on a lie, but it's still a beautiful thing.
Pix
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I liked Signs because it didn't scare the tar out of me. I could actually sit down and watch it.
I would never have seen the Sixth Sense if I had known even a little bit about it. I can't take scary movies. I still haven't seen all of The Village...it was just too scary. Which goes to show how big a wimp I am.
I agree on Unbreakable being the best of his movies. I loved the premise, and the delivery was wonderful.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: I recall having had this conversation shortly after the movie came out, and feeling quite alone in my disgust for the "faith" elements of the movie. I'm glad other people now feel the same way.
Yeah, I walked out during the scene where he refused to allow his son to pray. Never got to the "signs" part.
I did rather enjoy the tinfoil hats though. But one sight gag does not a movie make.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You walked out during that scene?
Why?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
For the same reason that I turned off a passion play on TBN when the "Jews" yelled "We'd kill you ourselves, but we aren't allowed!"
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)