An insult to prefixes
Comments: 10
Roger Ebert’s review of The Village is pretty funny.
Here is a village that desperately needs an East Village.
And this zinger:
Eventually the secret […] is revealed. To call it an anticlimax would be an insult not only to climaxes but to prefixes.
Looks like a real stinker.
•••
Posted to Film • 2004.09.11 (Sat) • 20:52
Comments
Posted by mark 2004.09.11, 22:34
Jeremy, here’s another not so kind article in Slate “Village Idiot: The case against M. Night Shyamalan.”
Posted by Shawn 2004.09.11, 22:54
Don’t listen to the bad reviews! The Village was fantastic. Ebert is right 99% of the time, this is that 1%. Besides, it’s never very fun to go by the critical group-think. Yes, Ebert’s review was devastating and fun to read but… just go see it!
Posted by Daphne 2004.09.12, 00:34
I saw the movie in Avignon, France. Well, all throughout the film, I did wonder what the plot was and where the whole thing was going. Then in short snippets, a conversation here and there, you realise why they are in that village surrounded by a forest (the plot could have been revealed another way—a conversation is a statement, and it is better to show, not tell. “Show” could be like via nightmares, perhaps through Walker, the person who conceived the village in his forest).
Which brings us to another point: the audience cannot tell who the principle character is. Is it Walker? or Lucius Hunt who wanted to leave the village to look for help against the “Thing” and thereby hints to us that he is the hero?
In the end, in one sentence, it tells you that “the thing that cannot be named” dies with the death of a character in the village (that statement assumes that the audience is too dumb to derive his or her own conclusion). The ending was so abrupt. (If you will notice, Ivy finds Lucius’ hand too quickly without a “blind search,” revealing that she cannot be blind…).
The review— “Something terrible happens to somebody. I dare not reveal what, and to which, and by whom. Edward Walker decides reluctantly to send someone to “the towns” to bring back medicine for whoever was injured. And off goes his daughter Ivy, a blind girl walking through the forest inhabited by Those Who, etc.” —is wrong on this point. Ivy volunteered to search for medicine, not Walker deciding to send her blind daughter for it.
The making of the movie was very good—the scenery, the costumes, the tense atmosphere, the great actors and actresses. If only the plot was treated a different way…
Posted by Andreas 2004.09.12, 05:12
I felt that The Village was Shyamalan’s best movie to date. Better than The Sixth Sense. Simply because it is much more than yet another movie with a twist at the end. It holds a very touching love story, which is genuine and stands well on its own, has nothing to do with the twist at the end. And since the love story is so well acted it is the reason why the movie is enjoyable to watch again - even though by that time you already know the twist.
For a more detailed description you can also check out my own review on my movie blog here.
Posted by ericville 2004.09.12, 14:23
this is one of those movies that you either hate it more than anything, or you love it more than anything. i’ve yet to hear any “kind of“‘s regarding the flick :P
personally, i tend to lean on the side that regrets EVER spending any bit of my well earned cash on that hilarious thriller… imho :)
Posted by Andreas 2004.09.12, 17:07
[spoilers - don’t read if you have not seen the movie]
To Daphne:
You reveal way too many plot details in your comment - spoiling the movie for everyone who reads them. Please include a warning the next time.
quote: “If you will notice, Ivy finds Lucius’ hand too quickly without a “blind search,” revealing that she cannot be blind…”
I think you are wrong here. There is no fault. Ivy said time and time again that she can actually see Lucius. He has a colorful aura, the color of which we never learn. So when she returns and grabs his hand “too quickly” this tells the audience that Lucius had his aura back (after the doctor’s operation), if only faintly, with the hope that he will make a full recovery with the medicine.
quote: “‘the thing that cannot be named’ dies with the death of a character”
I think you are wrong here too. ‘The thing that cannot be named’ ultimately survives because of the very death of a character! It makes the whole thing real!
Posted by stijn 2004.09.13, 00:56
I agree with Andreas here. And in my opinion the movie was great.
But a common mistake is that people are approaching this movie as a thriller in there comments. It might have been announced as a thriller and in that point of view it is a bit of a dissapointment.
Once you’ve seen the movie you should step away from ‘thriller’ as a genre to this movie and think of it more as a psychological drama/lovestory. It’s all about the psyche of of the characters. Them versus “what’s out there”.
Anyway. I loved it. Very cleaver and well thought of.
Posted by Anonymous 2004.09.13, 11:02
Yes; I concur with all those who thought the movie was great. It was.
People who are disappointed because the ‘twist’ characteristic of Shyamalan flicks reveals itself too early and is too obvious are not getting it; this movie is not about the twist in the plot. Its about people, and relationships, and communities.
Posted by Graham 2004.09.15, 03:41
I agree with Anonymous. If you go in looking for a thriller, then The Village might disapoint you. Just go in without any preconceived notions of what the film should be and you’ll probably enjoy it.
Posted by ambulance doctor 2005.04.05, 23:15
I do agree with Andreas that a really good movie does not need the twist and the end, as this does not prevent you from wishing to watch it again. Is putting a “thriller” label on the movie necessary to prove its value? And desire to watch a movie for the second and for the third time means that a movie is a true masterpiece.
Post a comment:
Send This Story to an Enemy
• • •
