RSS 2.0The Village (2004)
This is a great fight movie! Huh, did M. Night Shyamalan (henceforth “Night”) make an action-movie? Wow, now that would be a surprise! No, he didn’t, he just went on his usual business and reheated his patented formula of his last three movies: slow building of tension, morose characters and an earth-shattering twist at the end that makes you question the whole movie. Well, Signs was pretty disappointing on the Richter Scale and this movie even more. Yes, I thought it was sheer crap. So why was this such a great fight-movie then? Well, because this movie already knows enthusiastic fans and passionate haters, which makes for great flame-wars. Bring it on!
This movie disappointed me for several reasons. I was disappointed that Night chose to again pull the same rabbit from his hat by setting the whole movie up to culminate in the aforementioned great revelation. Seeing the star-studded cast for this movie, I was ready for some top-notch acting and drama. Alas… Night seems to have his cast on a constant feed of downers as he always wants his actors to play as if they have lost everything they hold dear in life. Not only does it make for a depressing viewing experience, but it is a sure waste of acting talent. The other disappointment was that the revealing twist wasn’t revealing at all and well before halfway of the movie I’d figured out what was the catch was. That in itself doesn’t have to be a problem, because you often can see a certain ending coming and still enjoy the movie. I mean: we all did enjoy LOTR even if we knew from the beginning that the ring would be destroyed and the world saved. However, that isn’t the case with this movie since it is completely set up for the grand finale with little or nothing happening in between.
When you burn down movies like this that contain a lot of innuendo and an open ending, people often accuse you of ‘not getting it’ or ‘being insensitive to a story told through omission’ (whatever that may be). I’ll have none of that! I can really enjoy slow movies or stories with lots of allusion, but I hate -and I am using the word ‘hate’ here (courtesy of Mr. Nicholson)- pretentious pseudo-intellectual baloney that does nothing more than insult your intelligence and waste talent, resources, good actors and your precious time. Night is quickly becoming a one-trick pony and should expand the talent he showed in the Sixth Sense and Unbreakable and treat us to something different. There is more to a thriller than just a revealing twist at the end or some scary effects with some loud music. I won’t discuss the story here for the sake of people that still want to see it (even after this review 
). I do have a tip for those still about to see it: stay home with your friends or loved-one and pop Brotherhood of the Wolf in the DVD instead. You’ll see why.
paco (89 posts)Certified movie phreak and conspiracy theorist.
5 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I couldn’t agree more. I also guessed the big twist … and couldn’t have cared less. The whole concept had a great set up at the beginning and an amazingly eerie chill about it. Then the movie just completely fizzled and went nowhere.
For example, why did he hype some mysterious evil creatures “those who must not be mentioned” and then show the creatures about 20 minutes into the movie? Doesn’t anyone realize the suspense in NOT showing the evil creature? My imagination will scare me much more than bad costuming ever will. It was reminiscent of Stephen King’s big letdown in IT when the evil creature turned out to be a clown. Hello, not scary!
I think this is the movie that “must not be mentioned” because it was that dissapointing.
Comment by marisa — Fri August 27, 2004 @ 20:14Bad costumes seem to be his new trademark; remember the fake-looking rubber costume of the alien in Signs?
The 6th Sense was indeed more scarier because you didn’t see a lot and the power of suggestion was strong, but it didn’t work here one bit. I thinks Night is suffering a bit of megalomania here…
Good movie for insomniacs.
Comment by Paco — Sat August 28, 2004 @ 1:49I don’t think I ever agreed more with you than on The Village, Paco.
When the huge plot-twist came me and my friend were like: what the f***, you can’t be serious
Shyamalan seems to builds his stories around his plot-twist, losing eye from what is really important: the story itself. I think the characters were very flat and didn’t go through a lot of development. Like: seemingly all of a sudden Ivy loved Lucius and he loved her back.
I was also very disappointed by Sigourney Weaver’s performance. I am a huge fan of hers but she didn’t fit in and she played emotionless and sobre.
I WAS amazed by the use of color and the cinematography, but that wasn’t enough to save the story. There were a few moments of tension but Shyamalan makes a few fundamental mistakes. Like showing the creatures when you’re 30 minutes in the movie. And by giving away the plot-twist about half-way in the movie. From that moment on all suspense was gone (besides a small shock moment with Ivy in the woods). It made me think there was more to it, but there wasn’t.
It seems Shyamalan is getting worse with every movie he releases from The Sixth Sense on. The Sixth Sense is interesting to watch even if you know that clue… The Village is total rubbish and yes: an insult to the intelligence of the viewer…
Besides (I won’t spoiler on you): the press info is misleading (I can’t go into detail too much, because otherwise I would give away too much – but it has something to do with the year 1897)
Comment by arjan — Sat August 28, 2004 @ 10:21@ Marisa: Clowns not scary? Are you serious? I hate clowns and am a member of:
Comment by suzero — Tue August 31, 2004 @ 1:18http://www.ihateclowns.com/
Sorry, I have to disagree with Paco this time — well, sort of.
Upon seeing this film for the first time in theater, I walked away disappointed. I thought the plot twist at the end was contrived and weak and basically, we had a nuanced period piece up until then.
But after viewing it again (and again), I do acknowledge that the ending isn’t as satisfying as it could be, but the movie up until then was completely satisfying.
A lot of folks have trouble with subdued style that actors use in Shymalan’s movies, but it’s a choice. You say a bad one, I say subtle and one that is useful for the characters and the movie.
You should know coming in that you’re not going to see any Jack Nicholson or Al Pacino outbursts in his movies. It’s going to be a given.
You should also know that Shymalan employs a slow build of tension in his movies by employing long takes. Watch a Kubrick film (Barry Lyndon) for long takes. I, for one, am tired of the frenetic editing from music videos invading every movie. Watch the last two Bourne films to see scenes so chaotic that you almost no idea of what is going on.
I like movies that have transcendent moments in them. Scenes that cause me to stop and pay attention instead of demanding my attention with a bombastic array of cuts and visual manipulation. In “The Village” there are several scenes in that I find completely captivating:
- Ivy waiting for Lucius to rescue on the porch of their home
- when Lucius declares his devotion for Ivy
- when Lucius is attacked
These are spell binding.
I guess what I’m saying is that some filmmakers have styles that aren’t to everyone’s taste.
Granted, “The Village” isn’t art, but there’s a depth to this film that I would prefer to experience over any number of Michael Bay movies.
Thanks,
Comment by rjs1138 — Wed December 12, 2007 @ 19:06rjs1138