Replies

The Village was horrible. Since others have posted spoilers already, I will do the same...

1) Ivy was um... BLIND, yet she ran through the brambles and woods like a deer. Heck, after several hours in the forest, her cloak was only muddy at the feet, not the knees, so yes, dear viewer, a BLIND girl didn't fall down ONCE on her sightless bushwhacking trek.

2) How in the world did the retarded guy make those gutteral sounds in the suit? (Ok, maybe that was meant to be in Ivy's head, I'll give this one a pass... bUt how did he a) run thru the Village to the woods undetected with the suit, b) find Ivy, c) Not have the presence of mind to take off the stupid mask, etc.

3) Why pay high priced actors (Brody, Hurt, Weaver) for this movie? No skills were required.

4) In 2004, no way this place stays secret.

5) If men created this secret world, and pardon my crassness, why would they bundle the women up in frontier clothes? Bikinis all around (on the younger women.)

6) Why would you, ever, send a blind girl off on an adventure in the woods, with poor directions, to a place she knows nothing about and can't possibly understand. What is a "town" to her anyway?

7) What happened to the two wimps who left her alone in the woods?

9) Where did all the kids in the Village come from? Way too many for the small number of adults there.

10) On adn on and on and on.

Terrible movie. I had really hoped for more, and it could have been. I thought it was going to be a good social comment on American puritanism, or even religious symbolism gone awry. That is, ok, they decided to make the color red "bad," much like some religions think dancing or the number 7 is bad or some other arbitrary thing, and the lesson would be that hey, "red ain't so bad, see, we live fine with red in our lives." But no, not this movie. This movie gave us nothing intelligent or even much to think about-- and what kills me is that is should have! Even with this tired old Twilight Zone plot that is evident in the first 3 sleep inducing minutes!

Also saw Bourne Supremacy which was cool. Kind of like Spiderman meets Bond, but in a good way.

1) Ivy was um... BLIND, yet she ran through the brambles and woods like a deer.

Not in the film I saw.

Heck, after several hours in the forest, her cloak was only muddy at the feet, not the knees, so yes, dear viewer, a BLIND girl didn't fall down ONCE on her sightless bushwhacking trek.

Except for the time she, you know, fell into a muddy pit.

how did he a) run thru the Village to the woods undetected with the suit, b) find Ivy, c) Not have the presence of mind to take off the stupid mask, etc.

He probably left The Village in dark of night (remember Ivy had already camped one night in the forest). I don't know why you think he would have wanted to take off the mask. He liked playing the monster. Was that not clear?

3) Why pay high priced actors (Brody, Hurt, Weaver) for this movie? No skills were required.

This comment is pointless and has nothing to do with anything.

4) In 2004, no way this place stays secret.

It's a movie. It's not real. You understand that, right? All we know is that Walker's father was "rich" and that these funds were at times used to pay off people when necessary to keep the place secret. I suppose it's implausible, but certainly no more so than seeing dead people.

5) If men created this secret world, and pardon my crassness, why would they bundle the women up in frontier clothes? Bikinis all around (on the younger women.)

Heh heh. But of course, that's your take on it. Clearly the guys in this Village were, uh, going for something different than Florida Spring Break when they created this place. And besides, "men" did not create this secret world in the first place. There were men and women in on the original founding of the Village. You didn't know that?

6) Why would you, ever, send a blind girl off on an adventure in the woods, with poor directions, to a place she knows nothing about and can't possibly understand. What is a "town" to her anyway?

It's a risk, yeah. He sent her because the only other option was watching her suffer as her true love dies. The fact that she was blind was actually a bonus because it increased the likelihood that she would not be able to report anything from "the towns" which would arouse suspicion from the other Villagers. But yeah, the whole thing was a risk.

I'm puzzled why so many people seem to think 'one of the characters did something risky and not logically ironclad or failsafe!' is actually a criticism of a movie. Have you seen any other movies?

7) What happened to the two wimps who left her alone in the woods?

They were scared and so went back to the Village.

9) Where did all the kids in the Village come from? Way too many for the small number of adults there.

I doubt the Elders brought a supply of birth control pills with them.

10) On adn on and on and on.

Yup, keep on picking those nits.

I thought it was going to be a good social comment on American puritanism, or even religious symbolism gone awry.

Why did you think that?

That is, ok, they decided to make the color red "bad," much like some religions think dancing or the number 7 is bad or some other arbitrary thing, and the lesson would be that hey, "red ain't so bad, see, we live fine with red in our lives."

Hmm. Sounds pretty lame, I liked Shyamalan's movie better. Essentially the movie you're describing has already been made, it was called Pleasantville.

This movie gave us nothing intelligent or even much to think about

Well I disagree, but of course different people think about different things and to different extents.

3) Why pay high priced actors (Brody, Hurt, Weaver) for this movie? No skills were required.

On the contrary, the drama and development was done almost entirely in dialog. And the writing of the dialog, and the delivery by the actors, was electric. Even small exchanges often hit the viewer with great force and explained far more than the number of words would indicate. With lesser actors, the dialog wouldn't have worked as effectively, and the whole story would have been strongly diminished.

4) In 2004, no way this place stays secret.

Why not? William Hurt's character *owned* the nature preserve. And the "warden" or whatever he was was clearly "in" on the secret, and part of his job was keeping people away. There was even a comment about paying off politicians to keep planes from flying over it. And who was even *looking* for the village, anyway? They just bought the land (or Walker's father had, he was a philanthropist), and then set it up to be left the hell alone as a "nature preserve" -- no visitors, no trespassing, no hunting, and walled in, with a caretaker whose job it was to keep people out.

6) Why would you, ever, send a blind girl off on an adventure in the woods, with poor directions, to a place she knows nothing about and can't possibly understand. What is a "town" to her anyway?

a) She volunteered to go and wasn't going to let anyone stop her. b) there was even dialog to point out that if any of the young ones had to go, the fact that Ivy was blind was a plus -- she wouldn't see anything that would ruin the illusion or that she could report back to the others. And she was *supposed* two have the two boys as guides, they weren't intending to send a blind woman alone. Then they were to stay back on the road, while Ivy went over the wall to get the medicine, then they were lead her back. Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way, the boys were too scared and left her alone.

7) What happened to the two wimps who left her alone in the woods?

They went back to the village. That was made quite clear.

9) Where did all the kids in the Village come from? Way too many for the small number of adults there.

I strongly disagree. They had been there for 25 years at least, maybe 30. The car in the old photo was a 1970's model, and several of the "young" characters were well into their 20's, pushing 30. The original founders would have had no birth control pills (and like old-time farm families, children would be a useful labor pool for chores). Each couple having 5-10 children would not be out of the question. Plus there was time for the earlier children to be old enough to get married and have their *own* children. There were three generations there, at least.

That is, ok, they decided to make the color red "bad," much like some religions think dancing or the number 7 is bad or some other arbitrary thing,

It's not arbitrary. Red is the color of blood. They wanted a taboo against violence and bloodshed. They wanted the children to think that if they spilled blood, the monsters could come and take them away for it.

and the lesson would be that hey, "red ain't so bad, see, we live fine with red in our lives."

Huh?

But no, not this movie. This movie gave us nothing intelligent or even much to think about-- and what kills me is that is should have!

I found it full of brilliant touches. Hours after I saw it, I kept realizing new things which the film provided clues to, but didn't bother spelling out, since it presumed the audience would be smart enough to connect the dots.

This is a film that richly rewards paying close attention, because almost every little exchange has significance. If you miss some, you'll lose parts of the story and the backstory, and it presumes that the viewer doesn't have to be spoonfed information and can figure it out for themselves. From the sorts of things you missed, I get the impression you weren't paying close enough attention while you were watching it.