The ending to the village was shitty to an absolute degree.
Ebert said it best in his review.
"Eventually the secret of Those, etc., is revealed. To call it an anticlimax would be an insult not only to climaxes but to prefixes. It's a crummy secret, about one step up the ladder of narrative originality from It Was All a Dream. It's so witless, in fact, that when we do discover the secret, we want to rewind the film so we don't know the secret anymore."
It wasn't a great masterpiece but it was fairly good. There are symbolism of the posibility of an Utopia society. And
Spoiler:
That's what M. Night was aiming at. That there is the posibility of a Utopian society even in our modern world. Kinda like the Amish of America
And no knee jerking but I'm the one watching and enjoying the film. I don't need Ebert telling me how to enjoy or expect from a film. Besides his credibility isn't worth a thing to me.
I respect Ebert's views, as he's usually pretty neutral. As for "The Village" ending, I liked it, and Ebert apparently didn't make mention of how since Ivy was blind, nothing was spoiled for the community. They went about livjng their normal lives. Nobodies cover was blown, I appreciated that in addition. As I said before, I really liked the subtle nature in which the realization came to light. No giant cliche twist with an eery score or anything like that. It just happened, and I felt it was more effective that way. For those who weren't already spoiled on the outcome, it was when you'd rest your chin in your hand and take in what's unfolding.
Not enough narrative films these days, and the reason I assume is that nobody can tell 'em like M.N.S.
I also respect Ebert's views on movies, especially on movies that alot of art house critics would give zero just because its a sports movie/martial arts/other cheesy movies and not becauseif it was a bad movie.
But on The Village. The story was alright for me but what got me on this movie was the colours and the production of set. I feel in terms of technical watchmacallit , this movie was very well done. I was a tad dissappointed that it didnt really scare me but I got over that fact because it was marketed wrong.
Originally posted by WindDancer
There are symbolism of the posibility of an Utopia society. AndSpoiler:
That's what M. Night was aiming at. That there is the posibility of a Utopian society even in our modern world. Kinda like the Amish of America
I totally disagree that M.Night was trying to illustrate the village as an idea of 'utopia'. The elders of the village were trying to create a utopia, but M.Night was most definitely not! The movie is M.Night's example of what goes wrong when people try to create a utopia. It can be seen as an allegory for the direction that post-9/11 America is taking.
Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo
I totally disagree that M.Night was trying to illustrate the village as an idea of 'utopia'. The elders of the village were trying to create a utopia, but M.Night was most definitely not! The movie is M.Night's example of what goes wrong when people try to create a utopia. It can be seen as an allegory for the direction that post-9/11 America is taking.
That's perfectly fine if you feel that was the direction that M. Night was going with the movie. If you see it as an allegorical of a post 9/11 America then that's how you interpret the film. Whereas I don't take the political message route. Instead I see it more as literature referrence of Thomas More's Utopia. The concept is rather simple.
Spoiler:
A group of people fed up with the world moved to a remote area and start a new society in our modern times.
Basically the same thing happens in More's book. Only difference that we get an observers narration in the book. Who happens to have travel to that area and met their society. In the Village we (the audience) are the observers.
Originally posted by WindDancerSpoiler:
A group of people fed up with the world moved to a remote area and start a new society in our modern times.Basically the same thing happens in More's book. Only difference that we get an observers narration in the book. Who happens to have travel to that area and met their society. In the Village we (the audience) are the observers.
OK, I agree with this ^...But this is the first time you have stated it like that...Before, you have attempted to argue that it is an example of a Utopia...It is not. It is an example of an attempted utopia. There is nothing utopian about a society isolated from the rest of the world living in fear of what is beyond it's boarders. This is the idea behind the movie...M.Night is highlighting the fallacy of isolationism.
The Village was a big dissapointment. As I watched it a few months ago, it seemed very interesting, although the storyboard was kind of confusing, since the location and the creatures weren't shown clearly until the end (it turned out to be a huge lie, which ruined the whole thrill).
Anywho, i liked the scenery and the music in the film, it somewhat resembled Signs ( it's the same director, right?), but it was five times worse.
The movie was definetly overrated 🙁.
Originally posted by s|m
The movie was definetly overrated 🙁.
Overrated? Nobody liked it to begin with, and hardly ANYONE "rated" it to begin with. See, that's what you get for listening to other people.
Originally posted by uma040
bollocks film...dont rent it or buy it or watch it at sum1s house because its shit and u'll fall asleep watchin it
Only because people are too ****ing impatient to watch/listen to a story.