[Zerahsedai]

I saw this film last week. Going in, the ticket taker said "oh it's not even scary."

Well I beg to differ. It's a teensy bit scary.

Has anyone else seen it yet? If so, what did you think?

I enjoyed the movie a lot, but at the same time there was plenty of reasons to be annoyed with it. For instance, the movie starts off incredibly slow. I was surprised people in the theatre actually stayed thru it. Then, when the characters start speaking, they sound like like very poor actors doing impressions of old english dialogue. And this is William Hurt, Brendan Gleeson, Sigourney Weaver. Not exactly poor actors. But, as the movie progressed, I realized why this weird way of speaking was happening. That in itself confirmed for me the "twist."

Luckily, there were a few more twists that I didn't see coming and they kept me on my toes. Shymalan (sp?) did a good job of creating suspense by using symbolic colors and weird camera techinque. I liked it.

Surprisingly, Joaquin Phoenix didn't have such a large part in the movie, but Bryce Howard (who played his love interest) really stole the show. She was amazing.

Post your thoughts if you please. I tried not to divulge too much information about the actual ins and outs of the film.

[SimeSublime]

It's not released here as of yet, so I don't really have much to say.

[Jordan]

The movie got less scary as time passed. The ending was so anti-climactic.


Everybody I went in with had the same preconvieved idea about how the movie was going to be. All of us were wrong and sorry we went.

[Zerahsedai]

Jordan, how did you think it was going to end? If it doesn't spoil it for everyone else by saying so, that is.

[Jordan]

Ok, I did not have an idea of how it was going to end. But i did have an idea of what was in the woods.



SPOILER


When I found out the threat from within the woods was not a demon, the movie was drained of all thriller qualities.

I payed money to be scared and shocked. I was up and till the "forbidden shed" scene.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 10 August 2004 - 11:20 AM

[Zerahsedai]

Yeah, it kind of morphed from thriller to social commentary. Not the smoothest transition.

[Jane Sherwood]

I just got back from seeing it right now. It was...interesting, to say the least. The "twists", however, I wouldn't be lying if I said that I saw them coming a mile away (well, except for that very last thing with Noah, then I just had to slap my forehead).

Overall, it's ok, but it's one of those movies that are only good the first time around, then it loses whatever flavor it had.

...The way they talked really made me wince, though. I don't care what the reason for it was, it was almost painful for me to listen to. I sincerely wanted to punch Kitty (I don't remember who the actress was) when she was going on and on about love to Lucius.

[Jordan]

...The way they talked really made me wince, though. I don't care what the reason for it was, it was almost painful for me to listen to. I sincerely wanted to punch Kitty (I don't remember who the actress was) when she was going on and on about love to Lucius.

This did not bug me in the least. I thought it made perfect sense for the time frame I initially thought the movie took place in.

[Jane Sherwood]

It wasn't what they said, it was how they said it. Some stuff just sounded forced or overdone.

[Jordan]

It wasn't what they said, it was how they said it. Some stuff just sounded forced or overdone

Ok.

Did you like Ron Howard's daughter? What did you think of her performance?

[Jane Sherwood]

I was kind of annoyed by a lot of things in the beginning, but I started to like her character much more as the movie progressed. I think I must have just stopped paying attention to things like that after a while.

I'm not good a critiquing these kinds of things, I just know what gets to me and what doesn't, and for some weird reason I'm very particular about voices.

[Zerahsedai]

It wasn't what they said, it was how they said it. Some stuff just sounded forced or overdone

To me, the reason they spoke that way was because the characters (especially the elders) were actually modern people trying really hard to sound like 19th century people. So of course it sounds wierd. Joaquin's and Bryce Howard's characters didn't have that overbearing sound to their speech, even though they used the same vocabulary and structure. In my opinion, of course.

[Heccubus]

The movie got less scary as time passed. The ending was so anti-climactic.

Oh...so it's basically just a typical M Knight Shalamawhatever movie, then? Good to know. *marks "The Village" on list of movies to avoid*

[Jane Sherwood]

Here is where I have to ask:

Who the fuck is M Knight Shyamalan, anyway?!

[SouthernRonin]

M. Night Shyamalan is a very good director. But don't take my word for it. *waits for the little "ba-da-DA" like in Reading Rainbow*

THE VILLAGE:SPOILER alert

I have to begin this post by saying I am a big fan of M. Night Shyamalan's work. More than his storytelling style, I like the kinds of stories he chooses, and the reasons he has for choosing them.

As he mentioned once in an interview for Signs, a film has to satisfy on a number of levels, and if it doesn't, in my mind, it simply isn't working.

You've been forewarned. On to "The Village":


Overall, I thought the film was enjoyable. Shyamalan has got the "spooky long drawn out silences" down to an art. I caught myself in the theater (especially when Joaquin Pheonix was staring into the deep woods) on the edge of my seat whispering, "Dammit, Shyamalan, break the tension!"

Bryce Howard did a great job. My only complaint was that, during the first few minutes of her appearance, she seemed awfully mobile for a blind person. Footraces? (Gotta love during early parts of the first 'Those-We-Do-Not-Speak-Of' sequence when Joaquin Pheonix slid into frame and took her hand like he was running a field goal, smooth and natural. That said more about their relationship than anything.)

As others have said, the tension did drain away towards the last half of the film, and it became more of an examination of society. While I found it interesting, I don't think it holds that same rewatchability that the monologues from Signs or the serial killer sequence from Unbreakable does.

However, you have to grant the movie one thing: the tone of the last half was the kind for which cinematic artists search. Although he delivers an ending to the story, he adamantly refuses to tell you what to think about this mini-civilization. You have to draw your own conclusions. It was the first time I came out of the theater thinking, "What DO I think of isolationist politics and the idea of laissez-faire?"

My other observation is about "Those-We-Do-Not-Speak-Of". Seeing as these people were trying to mimic the proper diction of an earlier time, wouldn't the woodsy demons be called "Those-Of-Which-We-Do-Not-Speak"?

Durn hanging participle.

(Of course, if Brian De Palma had done the film, it would have just been called "The Unspeakables")

Those are my thoughts.