The Village
Jul. 31st, 2004 11:32 pmBoth
dstntp1lgr1m and
spitefairy have sounded off on their opinions of "The Village", and since I saw it yesterday, I thought I'd toss my two cents in as well.
The Baltimore Sun gave it 2.5 stars. It's at about 50% at Rotten Tomatoes but I'm a bit fan of M. Night Shymalan (even though I can't say or spell his last name) so I figured what the heck, let's go see it. You knew there would be a twist, it's what he does. The minute the credits started to roll, you were looking for hints. I have to say the mislead on the tombstone in the first few seconds was enough to throw me off for a good portion of the film. Before even seeing the movie, I had decided that it must be modern times, but then the tombstone said 1897 on it, so I figured I was mistaken. So then I'm trying to figure out the twist. When the monsters came into the town and we saw them wandering the streets, I was like "oh good, their real".
I've said this about a thousand times, but technically I can't find anything *wrong* with the movie. I felt that it was shot really well, everything looked good. I thought the plot was pretty hole-free. Shymalan covered all his bases. But, as John Mayer says, somethings missing and I don't know how to fix it. Maybe it's because we've heard the "Monsters in the woods" story so many times that the twist wasn't shocking enough. Maybe when the park ranger picks up Ivy by the side of the road, we feel let down that we *did* have it figured out after all. Or maybe it's because you're not sure what the heck they have decided to to at the end.
They sent Ivy into "town", but she was blind. She could not see the car, the ladder, the modern technology all around her. She has no desire to go back because she did not see the world. But at the end her father makes a remark to the other elders that they can stop this now if they want to, and no one says anything, they just stand up and you're not quite sure whether they are done with this charade or not.
Like "Signs", the plot is all about the moral. In "Signs" it wasn't about alien invasion, so much as it was about fear, paranoia, faith, and family. The aliens were merely there to bring the family together. In "The Village" the story is less about monsters, and more about questioning the limitations set upon you. But at the end, you're not sure if anything has come from it. In "Signs" we see Mel Gibson and his family reunited and happy together. At the end of "The Village" we see a group of people who are foolin themselves by living in this fake town they have created and we're not sure if anything good will come of it. They had created Covington Woods in the hopes of escaping the violence of the city, blaming modern society for all things bad. But when the retarded man Noah, (Adrien Brody) stabs Lucious (not once but TWICE) , how can they keep tellin themselves it's all modern soceity's fault? (or as Noah puts to simply "the bad color, it's inside me.")
The language of the movie was stilted at times, and at other moments very poetic. Not only did these people create a quaker-like existence, they also decided to SPEAK like them. Their vocabulary is lacking in contractions. Lots of "can not" and "do not" and "those we do not speak of" (isn' that Voldemort?) and "The shed we do not use" (that just sounds ridiculous). But at other moments, the lines are poetic and beautiful. I think this was mostly done as a mislead, to make you believe that it was really the 1890s and not 2004.
I dunno, I'd have to say, I enjoyed watching it this once. But I don't think I can watch it again. It's not like "Sixth Sense" or "Signs" where you can go back and watch for clues. Maybe because you don't care. Perhaps having to worry about a whole Village was a mistake, perhaps stories like this need to be limited to a smaller group of characters. Maybe that's it.
I also thought that "the creatures" looked a LOT like theSkekxis skeksis, skeksees, the bad guys from The Dark Crystal. Perhaps they raided the Henson Warehouse prior to creating their little colony.
Yeah, I'm gonna stop ranting now and watch Sealab 2021. and eat stale movie popcorn.
The Baltimore Sun gave it 2.5 stars. It's at about 50% at Rotten Tomatoes but I'm a bit fan of M. Night Shymalan (even though I can't say or spell his last name) so I figured what the heck, let's go see it. You knew there would be a twist, it's what he does. The minute the credits started to roll, you were looking for hints. I have to say the mislead on the tombstone in the first few seconds was enough to throw me off for a good portion of the film. Before even seeing the movie, I had decided that it must be modern times, but then the tombstone said 1897 on it, so I figured I was mistaken. So then I'm trying to figure out the twist. When the monsters came into the town and we saw them wandering the streets, I was like "oh good, their real".
I've said this about a thousand times, but technically I can't find anything *wrong* with the movie. I felt that it was shot really well, everything looked good. I thought the plot was pretty hole-free. Shymalan covered all his bases. But, as John Mayer says, somethings missing and I don't know how to fix it. Maybe it's because we've heard the "Monsters in the woods" story so many times that the twist wasn't shocking enough. Maybe when the park ranger picks up Ivy by the side of the road, we feel let down that we *did* have it figured out after all. Or maybe it's because you're not sure what the heck they have decided to to at the end.
They sent Ivy into "town", but she was blind. She could not see the car, the ladder, the modern technology all around her. She has no desire to go back because she did not see the world. But at the end her father makes a remark to the other elders that they can stop this now if they want to, and no one says anything, they just stand up and you're not quite sure whether they are done with this charade or not.
Like "Signs", the plot is all about the moral. In "Signs" it wasn't about alien invasion, so much as it was about fear, paranoia, faith, and family. The aliens were merely there to bring the family together. In "The Village" the story is less about monsters, and more about questioning the limitations set upon you. But at the end, you're not sure if anything has come from it. In "Signs" we see Mel Gibson and his family reunited and happy together. At the end of "The Village" we see a group of people who are foolin themselves by living in this fake town they have created and we're not sure if anything good will come of it. They had created Covington Woods in the hopes of escaping the violence of the city, blaming modern society for all things bad. But when the retarded man Noah, (Adrien Brody) stabs Lucious (not once but TWICE) , how can they keep tellin themselves it's all modern soceity's fault? (or as Noah puts to simply "the bad color, it's inside me.")
The language of the movie was stilted at times, and at other moments very poetic. Not only did these people create a quaker-like existence, they also decided to SPEAK like them. Their vocabulary is lacking in contractions. Lots of "can not" and "do not" and "those we do not speak of" (isn' that Voldemort?) and "The shed we do not use" (that just sounds ridiculous). But at other moments, the lines are poetic and beautiful. I think this was mostly done as a mislead, to make you believe that it was really the 1890s and not 2004.
I dunno, I'd have to say, I enjoyed watching it this once. But I don't think I can watch it again. It's not like "Sixth Sense" or "Signs" where you can go back and watch for clues. Maybe because you don't care. Perhaps having to worry about a whole Village was a mistake, perhaps stories like this need to be limited to a smaller group of characters. Maybe that's it.
I also thought that "the creatures" looked a LOT like the
Yeah, I'm gonna stop ranting now and watch Sealab 2021. and eat stale movie popcorn.