The Village

[AerynSun]

It was so good. One of the best movies I've seen in awhile. It was spooky, and had a great twist. Even my mom liked it!

Unfortunately, half an hour into the movie, I choked on my soda (I choke on liquids easily) and had breathing problems for a third of the movie (I am so stupid sometimes).

And there was an ad for a batman movie, coming out next summer. Why? Batman was in the 90s, why bring it/him back? The insanity....

 

[Recoil]

I am a huge fan of M. Night's previous 3 movies, and his style of storytelling. I think that this movie started out FAR slower than any of the first 3. For a while I had trouble keeping focus and maintaining interest as things seemed to just jump randomly all over the place to what seemed to be really pointless stuff.

I also felt pretty early on that this movie's "twist" was more obvious (at least to me) than his other three movies, and that as a result I was going to be seriously disappointed.

I do have to say that in the end, this movie did live up to the others. Definately a movie that will catch you off guard with something, and give you plenty of things to look back on and talk about.

I would say its the slowest paced of all of them (yea, slower moving than Unbreakable) and that it has a very irratic start. But I think the story was great, and I was certainly impressed with where it went. I will keep this thread spoiler free. I might start up a spoiler thread so those who have seen it can discuss it. M. Night's movies are so much better if they aren't spoiled so I won't post any in here.

In the end I did really like it, perhaps because for most of it I was certain I was being let down and in the end I wasn't.

 

[AntonyF]

I definitely want to see this. And am glad Joaquin is more prominent in this one.

Not sure when it's out here though...

 

[Ninja_Squirrel]

I also liked the movie. Shyamalan is a master of setting a mood and keeping you guessing. Even if the major, obligatory twist at the end was not much of a surprise to some, he still successfully keeps you guessing during the small moments (why does that person have that expression on their face, what is around the corner, what is that person about to touch, is this about to be a scary moment or a false alarm, etc.).

As far as the major twist, my two friends guessed it very early into the movie. I actually considered the possibility even before I saw the movie, and yet oddly put that possibility out of my head while I was watching it. That's a compliment to the performances, the script, and how well the mood and setting are directed that I can guess the twist correctly before yet dismiss it during. When the twist was revealed, I obviously wasn't surprised anymore, but I was still satisfied. It was a good twist to a good story.

I would say that the twist is better than the one in Signs, that the whole ending of the movie is better than in Unbreakable, and the overall story of the movie is almost as good, if not on par, with Sixth Sense. The performances are very good, so the movie stands well on its own.

I only have three minor quibbles about the movie. For a village that has no electricity, the lighting occasionally looks Hollywoodishly artificial. There's a blind character in the movie who seems to get around almost too well without vision. And, it's hard to tell the exact scope and professional diversity of the village's population, and sometimes I found myself wondering if they really had all the material and human resources necessary to be completely self-sufficient. If they don't trade, shouldn't they have had crops all over the place, or at least some gardens here and there? I don't remember seeing any.

I would say it's an A- movie the first time around, but I'll say it's a B+, because it's one of those movies that once you've seen it one time, it may not hold up as well on repeated viewings (with the tension gone and the secret revealed). I would say it's the fourth best movie of the summer, behind Spider-Man 2, Fahrenheit 9/11, and The Terminal.

 

[Quagmire]

I'll probably check it out. I just hope it doesn't have the gigantic plot holes Signs did.

 

[Recoil]

I dont think it does...of course, I didnt think that Signs had a gigantic plot hole.

Unless you are talking about aliens coming all the way to Earth...a planet with 75% water not realizing that they are vulnerable to water. Yea, I suppose, but I overlooked it because the story was cool. Either way, no this movie doesn't have a plot hole like that at all.

 

[AntonyF]

And of course the often mentioned fact that they built space ships but couldn't get through a damn door.

 

[Quagmire]

And that they need crop markings to locate places, didn't have weapons or protective suits ect. ect....but mostly that they couldn't kick down a damn door.

 

[B5_Obsessed]

I only have three minor quibbles about the movie. For a village that has no electricity, the lighting occasionally looks Hollywoodishly artificial. There's a blind character in the movie who seems to get around almost too well without vision. And, it's hard to tell the exact scope and professional diversity of the village's population, and sometimes I found myself wondering if they really had all the material and human resources necessary to be completely self-sufficient. If they don't trade, shouldn't they have had crops all over the place, or at least some gardens here and there? I don't remember seeing any.

There's one scene at night when they're sitting on the porch and the fog is brightly lighted. My daughter said, "Is that the moon?" I said, "No, kleeg lights".

I agree on the self-sufficiency. How much lamp oil do you think they would have to produce? They did have a garden with HUGE cabbages, though.

Did anybody recognize Dee Wallace (Elliott's mom from E.T.) in there?

 

[Ninja_Squirrel]

There's one scene at night when they're sitting on the porch and the fog is brightly lighted. My daughter said, "Is that the moon?" I said, "No, kleeg lights".

Yeap, that's one big example that stood out in my mind.

There was one other major time I noticed it. I can't remember exactly when but there's a scene in which a lot of the villagers were walking around. You can see the front and one side of a house from a few dozen feet distance. The house has lanterns lit inside and on the front porch...

However, you can also see extra lighting coming from underneath the roof where it hangs over the porch. It's bright enough to help supplement the light from the lanterns and helps light up the face of the house and the vertical posts holding up the roof overhang. A few moments later, during a close-up of the characters standing on or near that porch (where the source of the extra light would be visible), the face of the house is not as bright, and the posts are dark and covered in shadow.

----

I think I do vaguely remember some cabbage now, but I don't remember seeing Dee Wallace.

 

[Recoil]

Well guys. While I think those lighting complaints may be valid to a degree...I dont think they are NEARLY as valid as those above examples in "Signs" and frankly are more than a bit nitpicky.

There has to be a point where story logic has to give way to movie logic. If it was TRULY an authentic reproduction of an 1800s or so Village...we wouldn't be able to see a Goddamn thing because it would be too dark for the cameras. Hence, they had more than just candle lights so us, the audience, can see. I don't really look at those things as story or continuity problems...just something thats required so we can see whats going on. I completely overlook that stuff...

 

[B5_Obsessed]

Well guys. While I think those lighting complaints may be valid to a degree...I dont think they are NEARLY as valid as those above examples in "Signs" and frankly are more than a bit nitpicky.

I don't think it's being nitpicky. The fact that Squirrel and I (and my daughter) all found ourselves distracted by a technical detail such as overlighting, makes it a valid complaint on a technical level.

There has to be a point where story logic has to give way to movie logic. If it was TRULY an authentic reproduction of an 1800s or so Village...we wouldn't be able to see a Goddamn thing because it would be too dark for the cameras.

If it were the 1800s there wouldn't be any cameras. However, it would look a certain way to your eye if you were there. Outdoor night scenes are artificially lit all the time. Usually you don't notice, sometimes you notice a lot.

Hence, they had more than just candle lights so us, the audience, can see. I don't really look at those things as story or continuity problems...just something thats required so we can see whats going on. I completely overlook that stuff...

I didn't really refer to those things as continuity or story problems either, but it's only natural to wonder about the plausibility of a situation. Like the lamp oil: There is literally a lamp posted every 5 feet on the perimeter of this village, lamps on every porch, inside every home, one for the guard tower, and a long procession of lamps from the social hall back to the houses (although these were probably only lit for special occasions such as the one in the film. That's a lot of lamp oil and unless



SPOILER






there's a tank under the Shed that Must not be Entered, I don't know where they're getting it all. (There could be. I don't know)

 

[Quagmire]

I haven't seen it but I would think the people who worked on the film assumed that since a great deal of people haven't experienced actual outdoor darkness that few would notice.

 

[B5_Obsessed]

I haven't seen it but I would think the people who worked on the film assumed that since a great deal of people haven't experienced actual outdoor darkness that few would notice.

Last time I checked, it gets dark everywhere.

Trust me, when you see the film you'll immediately spot the scene I was talking about.

 

[Quagmire]

It certainly does not get dark everywhere. Try living in a city or close suburb for awhile than spend a week in a rural area with no street lights and few house lights. There are a large number of people who don't know what dark really is like.

 

[B5_Obsessed]

Dark is dark. Sometimes darker, but still dark. I took a bunch of shots in Times Square at night. They came out like shit. Ergo, too dark.

I don't think a person who lives in a city is too ignorant to recognize an artificial light source.

I'll give you another example of funky ass lighting in a city environment this time. Did you see the scenes in the second episode of "The 4400" involving the "vigilante" that take place in the park at night? They were all shot in broad daylight and then very badly color-treated to simulate night - right down to digitally putting lights in some house windows. I don't know why that was necessary; they did shoot other scenes using all-natural darkness.

And don't get me started on that episode of "Monk" with the night vision goggles.

 

[Ninja_Squirrel]

Did you see the scenes in the second episode of "The 4400" involving the "vigilante" that take place in the park at night? They were all shot in broad daylight and then very badly color-treated to simulate night - right down to digitally putting lights in some house windows. I don't know why that was necessary; they did shoot other scenes using all-natural darkness.

Sweet, I wasn't the only one to notice that. I don't think I noticed the house windows, but I could definitely tell that it was shot in daylight and darkened either digitally and/or with special camera filters. If I remember correctly, it was the clouds that gave it away. For it to be nighttime, you can still see too much definition and a hint of color in the clouds.

Either they were forced to shoot those scenes that way due to scheduling or some other circumstances, or they did it intentionally as a visual effect to set a certain "mood". It may have been noticeable, but artistically, I'm not sure it was a bad choice. Maybe they were going for something more surreal looking than street lamps and shadows.

I don't know what's happened to me, but lately I've been noticing lighting in TV & movies more and more.

 

[Quagmire]

I'm not arguing the scence since I didn't see it just giving one reason they thought they could get away with something like that.

Dark is definately not universal. It just isn't.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

You're right, Dr. G. Dark in my town isn't dark enough to see a star. Dark in the countryside outside my town, you can see a few stars. Dark at my dad's place, about 10 miles outside of Hot Springs Arkansas, in the 70's and 80's, was so dark you could see a sky white with stars. Dark in the open, you could see to walk. Dark in the woods, and you couldn't see a thing. You have to allow film some latitude, or night couldn't really be depicted, at least not so you could see what was going on. Through the 40s, most films were just underexposed, and/or shot through a filter, to simulate night. That was at least as phony looking as what they do today.

 

[Ninja_Squirrel]

You have to allow film some latitude, or night couldn't really be depicted, at least not so you could see what was going on.

You're right. I hate movie scenes that are too dark for you to tell what's going on, so I'd rather there be light even if it's not totally realistic. Sometimes the lighting job just seems to be more subtle than other times. It was just blatantly obvious in the The Village several times.

There's a scene in Message in a Bottle (yes, I'm a guy and some would think that's a chick flick; leave me alone) in which Kevin Costner and Robin Wright Penn are in a boat in the middle of the ocean. Costner's character *might* have had a light source on the boat, and there was a full moon. However, both their profiles were backlit so well, you could tell the light could not come natually from the moon, even a full moon (especially since the moon looked like a computer graphic anyway). It looks like a great scene, beautiful, and well lit, it sets the mood well, etc., but it is obviously fake.

If I remember correctly there's a dark dining room scene in American Beauty. The characters at the table seem to be partially illuminated by a light that seems to be coming from a very round vase (looks more like a fish bowl) in the middle of the table. Artistically it's a beautiful lighting job worthy of being repeated, but realistically, I doubt many real people out there are lighting their dining area with a light source in a vase.