The Village discuss, pretty please
#1
Posted 09 August 2004 - 05:11 PM
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.
#3
Posted 10 August 2004 - 10:53 AM
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.
#5
Posted 10 August 2004 - 11:19 AM
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
#7
Posted 14 August 2004 - 06:45 PM
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.
Chyld is an ignorant slut.
- Campbell Bean (David Tennant), Takin' Over the Asylum, 1994
#8
Posted 14 August 2004 - 07:03 PM
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.
#9
Posted 14 August 2004 - 07:11 PM
Chyld is an ignorant slut.
- Campbell Bean (David Tennant), Takin' Over the Asylum, 1994
#10
Posted 14 August 2004 - 07:25 PM
Ok.
Did you like Ron Howard's daughter? What did you think of her performance?
#11
Posted 14 August 2004 - 07:39 PM
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.
Chyld is an ignorant slut.
- Campbell Bean (David Tennant), Takin' Over the Asylum, 1994
#12
Posted 14 August 2004 - 09:46 PM
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.
#14
Posted 15 August 2004 - 12:00 AM
Who the fuck is M Knight Shyamalan, anyway?!
Chyld is an ignorant slut.
- Campbell Bean (David Tennant), Takin' Over the Asylum, 1994
#15
Posted 16 August 2004 - 01:29 AM
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.
The Creative Orgasm - You have to see it for yourself.