The Village... — Page 2

I highly recommend THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. It is one of the sharpest, smartest and most thought-provoking films I have seen in a long while. All the acting was superb, but Meryl Streep gives another award-worthy performance. One of the greatest political thrillers I've ever seen. I would unreservedly give it an A.

---

I thought that The Village was okay. I too was disappointed. I went in wanting a scream-worthy, pulse-hightening film. What I ended up watching was a suspensefull drama. I did not expect what happened with Lucious and enjoyed being stunned a little. I felt like it ended a little inappropraitly. Anybody else smell a sequel or spin-off? I do. It reaks.

Also, I think that the actors were amazing. I think the tecnique, or w/e you call it, of whispering a boring line to create "suspense" was a bit tired in this movie. I enjoyed BD Howard though. She was amazing and gorgeous. She lit up the screen.

It might be a bit early for a shark sighting right now, but he's heading that way.

Yeah, even though I did get disappointed when the 'twist' was true (I had suspected something....), M. Night has definitely done well what scares people, even though it happened only for a few seconds, and about two times in that movie.

The character that flashes by the screen, and the music- I think that's what does everything, added to the atmosphere. To hell with the plot, just play scary music and have a guy pop up- people screamed (me included, I must admit).

I was looking for more, though. I need to see it a 2nd time to register the real plot in my head, it sounds clever, but the previews and hype were very misleading so it's not going to get all the good reviews.

Oh, Matt. Take it from another Matt that Miss Streep will NOT dissapoint. She is the nastiest bitch I've seen on the screen in a long long long time!

---

Well, I didn't like it, but I didn't hate it. Here's my dilema:

HEAVY SPOILERS! DO NOT READ IF YOU PLAN ON SEEING IT!!!!

I felt that M. Night killed any suspense by giving away the elders' secret about the creatures not existing. During Ivy's entire journey throughout the woods, we know that such creatures don't exist, so what is the point of trying to build suspense where there isn't any danger? We know that they aren't real, so why does M. Night try to make us fall for it? (I'm talking about Noah being dressed in the suit) I think the entire scene in the woods would have been more effective if M. Night had held out on the scene where William Hurt's character reveals the "creatures" for what they really are. Once the revelation is made (about halfway through the movie), there's really no where else for the movie to go. The "twist" ending can easily be derived because no where in the film are we told what year it is and the fact that it is present day would be a reasonable excuse for why the elders lied. That's how I figured out the twist before it was revealed. The second half is a mess. And M. Night's cameo was very distracting and unnecesary. We've figured it out, we don't need him to spell it out for us. It's as if M. Night thinks his audience is a bunch of morons (which, I guess, might be true because a lot of the people at my showing were horror fans wanting a scare).

END SPOILER!

With that being sad, the film is not a complete loss. The first half is very interesting. There is a lot of build up, but sadly, no pay-off. Bryce Howard is fantastic. Adrien Brody's character seemed out of place and borders on the line of silly. The dialogue in the movie is sometimes ridiculous and falls into the "so-bad-it's-funny" category. Some things are taken too seriously. The film has a great style and atmosphere. M. Night is developing into a great director, but as a screenwriter, he's declining.

So, overall...

** (out of 4)

Updated On: 8/2/04 at 01:24 PM

Okay, I haven't even seen the movie and I guessed at the spoiler about the creatures.

If you all are looking for an incredibly well-made film, go see DOOR IN THE FLOOR with Jeff Bridges and Kim Basinger.

---

When Brendan Gleeson is burying his son at the beginning, his gravestone reads 1890-1897, so you ARE told what year it is.

I think, by revealing that the monsters were fake when he did, he was trying to lull the viewer into a false sense of security. Hurt says to Ivy that there were rumours of monsters being in the woods years before, and that's where he got the idea. I think you were supposed to think that the "monster" going after Ivy was real.

My problem with the final twist is not that it's obvious (Matt_G is right, there is NOTHING to hint at it), it's SO badly handled. The viewer needs a little more than William Hurt staring at a picture and a bunch of voiceover to buy such a huge conceit. That really took the edge off for me.

---

I think that those who guessed the twist did so because they knew one was coming so they were looking for it. Had the fact that there was a twist been completely withheld from the public and had it been marketed correctly (as a thoughtful drama, rather than a suspense thriller), I think it would have been far better received.

---

No, I CLEARLY thought that the language by the adults was stilted. That plus clues in the art direction (the houses and other elements were a little too modern) made me get the feeling that this was a false world that they were inhabiting.

---

exactly--it was a false language for the characters.

---

No, Adrien Brody was the only retarted thing in the movie. And it wasn't supposed to be scary.

---

hahaha, I know Shamylan said it was different and not as scary but I'm sorry, I was expecting some thrills and chills like SIGNS and thats what others were expecting too.