Movie FReview--The Village

vanity | July 31, 2004 | grellis

[grellis]

There are movies with a twist, and then there are movies with a twist and a turn. Occasionally, a movie is written with a twist, a turn, and something else...a twang? Whatever you choose to call it, the device is generally to the movie's detriment. M. Night Shyamalan's The Village has a twist, a turn, a twang, and sadly rounds the corner into absurdity.

Roger Friedman, movie critic for Fox News Channel, referred to The Village as being anti-Bush. Its not. His assertion, based primarily on a character named "Walker" and the use of the color red, is just plain silly. I cannot understand why a movie critic would stretch the truth and criticize a movie for being politically biased when he easily could have criticized the work for being, well, not that great. Just one gal's opinion, but there you have it. The Village is, simply, not a good movie.

That's not to say that the movie is all bad, however. The cast is excellent. The basic premise is good--a village is suddenly besieged by the mysterious creatures which inhabit the surrounding woods. There are some genuinely suspenseful moments. Two or three times I jumped, in spite of myself. I particularly liked the score, which is sublimely unobtrusive--as every score should be. I do not like having to bring a map and a compass to the theater with me, in the hope that I may be able to stay on the trail of the plot. The movie is convoluted. Its as if Shyamalan, recalling the plot twist in The Sixth Sense (which made the movie so wildly popular) thought to himself, "So they like twists? I'll show them!!!" I find myself wondering who had the final cut of the film. That person should be looking for alternate means of employment.

Five out of ten stars.

[grellis]

I never noticed mikes! That is pretty bad.

I went to an old brick quarry-turned swimming hole today for a bit of a swim and some sunbathing. The only way to get to the quarry is to hike through about a quarter mile of very dense woods. If the movie had really stuck to me, I would have found the trek at least a little daunting, but it wasn't. Just a plain old walk in the woods.

[Varda]

I saw it Friday and enjoyed it. I already knew that the advertising champaign was grossing misleading; it was definitely not a horror movie. I would call it a philosophical/theological drama concerning the morality of human acts.

Shyamalan's narrative was on the spartan side and he only concentrated on those scenes that dealt with the cause and effects of the actions of the elders. The whole look and content struck me as a kind of art house film. Kids looking for a good scare definitely came to the wrong movie.

[nuffsenuff]

Just finished watching it.

Really good. Completely unexpected twists.

[FredWolfe]

I thought the movie sucked. I saw the twist from MIIIIILES away and when it happened I thought... wtf? M. Night Shyamalan can do WAY better than this.

The "twist" in this movie was just plane stupid, unsuspenseful, it didnt make you think, it was scary or "wow I never thought THAT would happen".


I give it 5 out 10. The acting was good, the story sucked.

[French-American Republican]

I agree. Well-shot, well-edited, well-acted, well-written. What is everyone's problem with this film? It's light years ahead of all of the director's other films other than Unbreakable (Signs was absolutely atrocious).

I didn't notice anything anti-American or leftist about it. The film's thematically had more to do with Calvinist and Augustinian religious philosophy than Bush or the war. I liked it a lot.