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.
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. )
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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....
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Signs sucked so badly that I didn't see The Village at all. So I know where you're coming from. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Unwatchable is the one MNS movie I don't like. It was all I could do to keep from leaving the room =/
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
