Support NeoGAF

[Razoric]

Meh. I think the stereotype 'Love conquers all' is one of the biggest cookie cutter cliches in all of hollywood. However the Ivy/Lucius scenes were the best part of the movie.

You break any movie down far enough and it will fit some cliche... good vs evil, love conquers all, david vs goliath, etc

I'm speaking more on actual delivery, style and the way the story is told. This movie was a nice change of pace from the CGI blockbusters and the low budget post-SNL comedys.

 

[Phoenix]

They don't really tell us what color, but it's safe to bet the color was Red. That's why she didn't want to say anything.. or at least that was my guess.

That's what I was guessing as well and I imagined that they way he was trying to tell us this answer was when Noah had the blood on his hand and was talking about the bad color. I could have just been trying to find an answer, but I guessed that he'd want to answer that question.

 

[Brian Fellows]

Sounds crizzappy!

 

[Bizarro Sun Yat-sen]

Which part of this suggests that the author is saying that documentaries on quakers is unintelligent?

The implication that in order to be intelligent, a film must be more intelligent than a documentary on Quakers.

 

[Mason]

Yeah, I found it amusing that most people in the crowd were laughing and exclaiming "Are you serious?!" more than anything else.

What pisses me off most is that I had an idea very similar to this basic premise a few years ago and now he comes out with this and ruins it.

 

[SyNapSe]

Mini-Review

I thought this was a fairly thought provoking film. It was unique, and well directed. I'm not sure of the actresses name, but whoever portrayed the girl Ivy did an incredible job.

There were no huge twists in this movie, but the tension was still quite good. M. Night just seems to have a feel for it... It was a good love story with preachy overtones, I suppose. It definately has some plot holes, and that would be the biggest fault I found with the movie.



As I said earlier, once they reveal Noah had found the outfits.. I realized he had been skinning the cats, and been responsible for the raids in town. This was a cute twist, that he had given you a lot of clues to early on, but I hadn't caught them...

This is also the downside Part of the reason it was hard to catch the clues, was because Noah was portrayed as being mentally challenged. It makes it a stretch of the imagination for him to come up with all this stuff, and be an insane serial killer type.. I thought this was lame

 

[grungy gamer]

This was all foreshadowed early in the movie. Noah always laughs when other people are scared of the werewolves... he also went into the forest all the time, and wasn't bothered carrying red berries or what not. At first you we're led to believe, it was simply because he was "slow" and didn't know better... but that wasn't the truth.

-ahhhhh that makes a lot of sense. i just passed his laughter as an effect of his mental condition.

 

[Phoenix]

The implication that in order to be intelligent, a film must be more intelligent than a documentary on Quakers.

No, because clearly you either haven't read the thread or no why Quakers are being compared to the society in the village.

 

[Phoenix]

This is also the downside Part of the reason it was hard to catch the clues, was because Noah was portrayed as being mentally challenged. It makes it a stretch of the imagination for him to come up with all this stuff, and be an insane serial killer type.. I thought this was lame

That's the unfortunate thing about all of M. Nights movies for me. Since I know there is a twist, I start off the movie and within the first 10 minutes I've got a list of plausible twists and can generally narrow down to the right one pretty quickly. That was unfortunately why I has already figured out Sixth Sense within the first 5 mintes. I whispered it to my wife and validated it as the film went on. When you know you're being deceived, you start paying attention to inconsistencies and things out of place.

 

[SyNapSe]

Well, the Sixth was the first of his movies, and I totally missed it and all the clues. This movie I caught some twists, and missed others.. it didn't have the "huge" twist though really. Just a lot of stuff going on.. I saw this user review at IMDB and thought it summed it up pretty well

The reviews I have seen here and other places are way too scathing. I don't know if people were just expecting too much and were disappointed when they didn't get it or what. But this movie had tons of twists, and there was subplot, there were multiple main plots, it was diverse and complicated but at the same time entertaining and easy to understand. It kept you guessing and on the edge of suspense and fright without actually showing you anything blatantly scary for the most part.

I pretty much agree with this review. I would say the films weaknesses are some plot holes, or implausible plot points, but the acting I felt was very excellent and overcame that.

The reason this movie will get panned is the same as Signs. The true twist is shown in the previews basically not reflecting what the film is truly about.

 

[yoshifumi]

i just saw it...i thought it was pretty good. not great, but not bad either.

 

[Fjord]

I thought this movie was quite good. It had great atmosphere and acting. Those of you who didn't like it were probably trying to figure out the twist the entire time, I just let everything happen and found it quite enjoyable. My weakness for redheads may also have something to do with my enjoyment.

PS I was a little dissapointed that it didn't turn into "The 13th Warrior 2: Mating Season"

 

[Bizarro Sun Yat-sen]

No, because clearly you either haven't read the thread or no why Quakers are being compared to the society in the village.

Well, yeah, if you had another point I sure missed it. Maybe you should have made it clearer?

 

[aerofx]

Good movie. Watch it.

Spoiler

The monsters weren't real but

it was still kind of creepy in the beginning.

 

[Scalemail Ted]

Completely off topic:

In my expercience with films and movies;

I find that the most a fictional film can hope to achieve (on an "intellectual" level) is to be 'thought provoking'. And by that term, I mean 'to inspire a desire to ponder a particular subject in more detail based off an observation found in the material of the film.'

I would never trust a film to go beyond just merely inspiring the audience member to consider an idea which was previously dorment from the realm of thought. The reason being, is that the film presents a fictional world created by a writer and guided by the director. It is not an accurate, unbiased account of ideas and methodologies. Movies can be used to present a case sample to show a point under confined conditions but any "real" understanding of the ideas presented should be externally studied and discussed. Only through a true understanding of circumstances and facts should one place value over one conclusion of ideas over another and thus be swayed to an opinion/conclusion on a particular subject matter.

 

[SteveMeister]

I thought the movie was pretty good. Not spectacular, but certainly not horrible. It IS rather slow, so I can see how those expecting a thriller could be disappointed. I thought it was well-acted, and I especially liked Bryce Dallas Howard's performance as Ivy (she's Ron Howard's daughter, by the way).

Since I had heard about a slightly different ending, and had read the largely horrible reviews, I was pleasantly surprised that the movie itself wasn't actually horrible. In fact, at the end the group I was with all turned to each other & asked what the big deal was. None of us could come up with reasons why people HATED the movie so much. Personally, I think it's better than Unbreakable, but not as good as The Sixth Sense or Signs.

 

[Archaix]

Well, yeah, if you had another point I sure missed it. Maybe you should have made it clearer?

It was very clear. The point was that a documentary on quakers would have the same kind of social commentary, and would be true rather than being a poorly written and executed story.

 

[dark10x]

The one thing that I always wanted to know and that they never real touched on was the colors that people were seen in.

Can you describe the color red to me? Actually describe that color in explicit detail?

Words have been assigned to certain colors in order to describe them. How could a blind person possibly be able to describe any color? If, to us, the color of a person was red...how would SHE contain the knowledge to describe it as red?

Her idea of a color (some visual pattern that she may have seen) is likely to be completely different from any other human being with the ability to see. They could not possibly have described it.

Oh, and I actually really enjoyed the movie. I knew the twist the moment an "alley" was mentioned early on (heck, I pretty much had an idea when I walked into the theatre, despite never having actually read a spoiler), but it was still very interesting. It wasn't particularly complex, but the parallels drawn were fascinating. It wasn't even a "suprise ending", as the "twist" was revealed about 3/4 of the way through the film (and they even tossed it back and forth a couple times).

Unbreakable is still my favorite of his flicks, though. I really enjoyed that one...

 

[Bizarro Sun Yat-sen]

It was very clear. The point was that a documentary on quakers would have the same kind of social commentary, and would be true rather than being a poorly written and executed story.

Nope, he didn't express it well. But thanks for doing his work for him.

 

[SyNapSe]

Can you describe the color red to me? Actually describe that color in explicit detail?

Words have been assigned to certain colors in order to describe them. How could a blind person possibly be able to describe any color? If, to us, the color of a person was red...how would SHE contain the knowledge to describe it as red?

Her idea of a color (some visual pattern that she may have seen) is likely to be completely different from any other human being with the ability to see. They could not possibly have described it.

dark10x,

I think your forgetting that she wasn't born blind. William Hurt gives us the information in the scene where she is sitting in the rocking chair.. Something along the lines "That's the chair I was sitting in when they told me that my daughter was going blind."

 

[Phoenix]

It was very clear. The point was that a documentary on quakers would have the same kind of social commentary, and would be true rather than being a poorly written and executed story.

Precisely! Thank you.

On the subject of plot twists and such:

Signs and Unbreakable were two that didn't really have a twist - they were probably the most straightforward of the films. Or rather if they did have a twist they were so open and obvious in the context of the story that they just made sense.

Sixth Sense was an excellent film and I would say the best of the films he's ever done. While I figured out what was going on rather early - it was STILL a very cool movie.

The Village, in summary, was rather transparent. It was well acted but overall it was very shallow and not well executed. Once you figured this one out, there really wasn't anything to enjoy. The difference is that in Sixth Sense the plot wasn't the twist itself - it was all of the other things related to that twist that made it such an excellent film. With The Village, once you realize the twist and sit around waiting for other coolness - there really isn't anything there. That 'void' is well acted and visually interesting - I did like the way he created this sterile environment and all and the imagery of the village is cool, but in the end the experience is neither frightening nor delivers any useful social commentary... unless you live like the people in the village and never seek out any knowledge about why things are and instead just consume what people give you. Consequently, it all just comes off as amateurish and stupid. I don't hate the movie, but I'm definitely in the did not like category.

The one thing common about all the people who I was with who thought the plot was cool (and that's again why I was asking for demographic) is that none of them knew that there were actually people who live in that type of society FOR REAL. They all thought it was unique and 'couldn't imagine that taking place today' until I clued them in on the fact that it IS taking place today - all over the country, all over the world. For me, this is why the plot was more obvious - because I have seen a documentary on Quakers and other societies of this type on the History and Discovery Channels because these types of societies fascinate me. The real thing is actually better than what he tried to create in the movies - and they don't need some elders in robes to keep people in. Not THAT is a good source for the study of human behavior.

 

[Phoenix]

Nope, he didn't express it well. But thanks for doing his work for him.

Lets see someone got it and you didn't but I didn't express it well.... hmmm.

 

[Phoenix]

dark10x,

I think your forgetting that she wasn't born blind. William Hurt gives us the information in the scene where she is sitting in the rocking chair.. Something along the lines "That's the chair I was sitting in when they told me that my daughter was going blind."

Indeed. You would have to have some concept of what a color is in order to know that you're seeing a color at all, particularly in the sense that you could tell someone that you could/couldn't tell them their color. She would have to have some reference point in order to even know.

 

[hiryu]

I loved it. I knew all the spoilers going in and still loved it. I can see that it will not be a well liked film because people were expecting another Sixth Sense or Signs and that is not what this movie is. I can also see by some of these threads that many people don't pay attention during movies. It was very clear that

Spoiler

Noah

was the one skinning the animals and painting the doors. It was also very clear that Ivy wasn't always blind.

 

[dark10x]

dark10x,

I think your forgetting that she wasn't born blind. William Hurt gives us the information in the scene where she is sitting in the rocking chair.. Something along the lines "That's the chair I was sitting in when they told me that my daughter was going blind."

Where was she born, though? I didn't catch that...

 

[Phoenix]

Where was she born, though? I didn't catch that...

I didn't either. I would guess that she would have to have been born in the village since her older sister could see and would have been able to speak about the outside. Since she apparently knew nothing of the outside world she must have been born there. Since IVY is the younger sibbling it would follow that she too was born in the village.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Here's a spoiler:
http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=8328
It's obvious you guys suck and The Village

Go, M. Night, it's your birthday, not a holiday, but kick it anyway.

 

[KarishBHR]

Can you describe the color red to me? Actually describe that color in explicit detail?

Words have been assigned to certain colors in order to describe them. How could a blind person possibly be able to describe any color? If, to us, the color of a person was red...how would SHE contain the knowledge to describe it as red?

Her idea of a color (some visual pattern that she may have seen) is likely to be completely different from any other human being with the ability to see. They could not possibly have described it.

Ive been reading this whole thread since I got back, and this is the only thing that needs to be corrected so far besides peoples opinions. She at some point in her life could see, Hurt's character says "When I found out that my daughters sight had failed her and she would never be able to see again, I was ashamed". The line "see again" implies at one point, she had the ability to see

 

[KarishBHR]

Ok, now for my take on this movie:


I thought it was phenominal, and I think that many people who dont like it... just couldnt get over their original dissapoitment... for about 10 minutes I was sooo pissed, but then... when they pull out the box, I was like... BINGO. I honestly dont see how someone would have gotten that ending before they presented it. I'm impressed that some people picked up on the "WALKER Wild Life Preserve" being there to protect the people of the village. I thought the acting was incredible, and the actress who portrayed Ivy has a very bright future for herself. I didnt like the whole color thing because it wasnt played out well in the end, but that is very easily put asside by how amazing the whole movie was.

MAJOR THING NO ONE HAS MENTIONED: In the picture of the people in modern times (the elders), Sigourney Weaver is holding a baby, who is Lucious. This completely explains why he is not as scared as others, because deep down he has seen the truth... he just doesnt know it.

I would give this movie a 9/10 and cannot wait to see it again. A great movie, and easily my favorite of all of M's. People, just give this movie a chance!!!!!!!

 

[dark10x]

Ive been reading this whole thread since I got back, and this is the only thing that needs to be corrected so far besides peoples opinions. She at some point in her life could see, Hurt's character says "When I found out that my daughters sight had failed her and she would never be able to see again, I was ashamed". The line "see again" implies at one point, she had the ability to see

When did they first come to the village?

One question, though...was Noah not one of the two people she claimed to have "color"?

 

[ConfusingJazz]

MAJOR THING NO ONE HAS MENTIONED: In the picture of the people in modern times (the elders), Sigourney Weaver is holding a baby, who is Lucious. This completely explains why he is not as scared as others, because deep down he has seen the truth... he just doesnt know it.

He would have to have been, the reason she went there was because the father was killed and thrown into the east river. So she either had to have pregnant or already had the kid by the time he went there.

 

[FightyF]

As far as Noah's involvement goes, I had the impression (by the end of the movie) that he knew of the elder's actions, but didn't perform any of it himself (until the end).

He laughs because he knows it could be his parents or anyone else blowing the horns in the beginning of the movie. He was even held to the table because he was so giddy.

That's the way I saw it anyways.

The reason why the dogs and sheep had to be skinned by the elders was because Lucious had the impression that anyone with purity of heart could enter the woods. A strong message had to be sent to the people that anyone going into the woods would jeopardize the lives of all villagers, no matter what "state of heart" they have.

 

[Mike Works]

Just got back from the movie, and I fucking hated it. Signs and The Sixth Sense are two of my favorite movies of all time, and I also really like Unbreakable, and I just hated this garbage. I'd read the construction worker spoilers months back, but made sure to avoid anything else, so I came into the movie knowing nothing but the possible construction worker scenario. M Night is/was one of my favorite directors (he still is, but his next movie had better be a step up from this), and I always especially like how the full story always unrolled at the end, and his excellent choice cinematography, but this movie was poor on both accounts.

The movie would've been MUCH better in my opinion if;

There was no scene of the outside/current world (with M Night and that kid doing patrol) AND if they didn't give away that the "monsters" were just costumes so early. It would've been much better and more surprising if the sequence of events were re-arranged as follows;

1) You see the scene where she and her father are inside the forbidden barn with the costumes, she reaches her arm out, slowly walks forward- and that's it. Cut to next scene. Don't show the claw/costumes. Don't tell the viewer that she knows what it is.

2) She is confronted with the "creature" in the woods. She evades it, it falls into the pit. They then DON'T show the viewer that the creature was Adrien Brody in the costume, and they DON'T show the quit scene with the elders discovering a missing suit. All one would know at this point was there was something secret in the barn and one of the creatures had falled into the pit.

3) She gets to that wall of vines and climbs over it. Cut to next scene back at the village, do not show the paved road/jeep/anything else.

4) She arrives back at the village and hands the bag of medicine (which she obviously hasn't seen) to one of the village elders. Everyone leaves the room but the elders who are taking care of Joquain Phoenix. Once the door is closed, they take out the bag, and place down a bottle of peniciline or aspirin or some sort of recognizable modern medicine that would be useful for a stab wound. You could then add the opening of the black box and viewing of the picture of them in the city/70's if deemed neccessary.

5) The next and final scene would then be William Hurt (or whoever the main elder was) talking to another elder (perhaps that irish guy with the big ears, or hell you could have all of the elders there) outside of the forbidden barn. They can be having the conversation that was held inside the room with Joquaine that the elders held regarding whether or not they should continue living like this. After they all agree, they then audibly agree that it's best to do what they've been doing. At this point, they'd open the door to the forbidden barn, revealing the suits (to the audience, for the first time). William Hurt could say, "wait..."

It could then cut back to Ivy and Joquaine, with Ivy telling him about what she did. Then it goes back to the elders, with Hurt proclaiming something along the lines of, "There's a suit missing..."

The final shot would then be a high shot looking straight down at the ground, panning along the muddy forest floor, eventually and slowly reaching the pit. It (the camera shot) would slowly lower into the pit, to reveal Adrien Brody with the mask off, in his dying scene.

Honest to God, that's the exact same movie that I just watched, only spliced differently, and it would've been SO MUCH BETTER if they had done it like that. Why in God's name he didn't is beyond me. It'd be like Haylie Joel Osmand telling Bruce Willis that he's a ghost 2/3rds through the movie, or revealing Mr Glass's plans in the middle of the fucking film.

I'm just really disappointed right now. There was some good in the movie, mainly in the performances by the lead actors (Hurt and the woman who played Ivy were especially strong), and there was some nice tension and good shots that accompany the usual M Night film, but all in all, The Village was a huge letdown.

I'm interested to see if any of you agree or disagree with the scene changes I felt would have improved the movie.

 

[DJ Demon J]

I don't feel bad at all for anyone who wastes $9 on this movie after the repeated warnings. All that money that was wasted on The Village could have gone to Harold and Kumar (movie of the year! ).

 

[effzee]

I don't feel bad at all for anyone who wastes $9 on this movie after the repeated warnings. All that money that was wasted on The Village could have gone to Harold and Kumar (movie of the year! ).

even the people who liked it?


im sorry but any movie that u know the twist of b4 hand is going to suck. if i knew the twist of the sixth sense or unbreakable there is no way i would pay money to see it.

thank god i havent read a thing about it still so ill get to see it and base it on what it is.

 

[DJ Demon J]

even the people who liked it?


im sorry but any movie that u know the twist of b4 hand is going to suck. if i knew the twist of the sixth sense or unbreakable there is no way i would pay money to see it.

thank god i havent read a thing about it still so ill get to see it and base it on what it is.

Had I known the twist of Sixth Sense, Unbreakable or Signs I still would have gone because they were good movies. The Village's premise was inane. If you liked it, fine, but anyone complaining deserves what they got.

 

[effzee]

for the last time SIGNS had no twist!!!!


and if there was one i missed it...some one point it out!

 

[FightyF]

Mike: That's the only "fault" that I found with the movie. It's a fault that I forgave...and I can't explain why, but I understand why people wouldn't like how it would "unrolled" as you put it.

As far as your ending goes, I think it would be more shocking, but I think showing the outside world was kind of important, because it shows how sheltered and safe the community really is.

When reading your alternate ending again...it seems like it would have been a more surprising ending, which usually I would think is better.

But I feel that the way it was done, was alright. Again, I can't explain it. For some reason I feel that even knowing the "twist" 2/3rds into the movie, it was still something I wanted to watch until the end. On the other hand, I still consider it's unraveling a fault...*bangs head against desk*

 

[Mike Works]

I don't feel bad at all for anyone who wastes $9 on this movie after the repeated warnings.

And if these people blatantly avoided all reviews/spoilers thanks to the nature of M Night's previous films? Quit being a fucking retard and just stick to the Gaming Forum if this is all you're going to contribute.

 

[DJ Demon J]

Quit being a fucking retard

I forgot, can mods do this? Freeburn, didn't I get reprimanded for similar behavior? Is a warning appropriate here?

 

[Mooreberg]

Spoiler

I knew it was occuring during modern time when I realized that despite the fact that the child's grave said 1897 on it, the funeral was being recorded by a hi defintion panaflex camera that was not available in 1897. On top of that, actors like William Hurt and Brendan Gleeson are alive now in 2004, they were not alive in 1897. So you see, I was aboslutely correct.

 

[Mike Works]

I forgot, can mods do this? Freeburn, didn't I get reprimanded for similar behavior? Is a warning appropriate here?

Mods can do a surprising amount of things that regular users can't. Welcome to the internet, genius. I'd rather be called a fucking retard for continually contributing nothing of worth than getting banned outright. If you still feel you've unjustly been criticized, I will gladly reverse that decision.

But this is a thread regarding The Village. If you want to bitch and me and the mods, you can do it through PM.

 

[FightyF]

I forgot, can mods do this?

Seemed more like an observation rather than an insult.

I, thankfully, avoided every single preview/spoiler on this forum. After watching the movie I read some of the spoilers (that weren't totally correct) and it would have ruined it for me. I knew nothing about the movie besides what was shown in the trailer/TV spots.

 

[Mrbob]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet. The ending has no tension at all, because IVY knows that is NOAH in the suit. She is blind, and can only see by her visions of color. She knows NOAHs color. That is why I find it very intriguing she lets him fall into that pit. She wanted revenge for what happened to Lucius. Shows you the vindictive side of Ivy, but again, no tension in that scene because NOAH wasn't ever going to hurt her.

 

[Mike Works]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet. The ending has no tension at all, because IVY knows that is NOAH in the suit. She is blind, and can only see by her visions of color. She knows NOAHs color. That is why I find it very intriguing she lets him fall into that pit. She wanted revenge for what happened to Lucius. Shows you the vindictive side of Ivy, but again, no tension in that scene because NOAH wasn't ever going to hurt her.

Aside from the beginning (when you see the creature behind her, and she says "this can't be real" or something along those lines, she walks behind the tree, the camera pans over and you see the creature's back), that scene was just shot so amazingly amateurish too. It's weird, because M Night's cinematography is usually top notch.

I just remember the creature charging at her and all of a sudden it went to slow motion for no reason, and then back off, and all it did was... swipe at her or something. And 3 fucking times during that scene it cut to shots of the tops of trees for no reason, the kind of shots that were interject passing of time. It just made so little sense to shoot it like that.

I do have to say that the stabbing scene was fucking awesome though.

 

[Warm Machine]

I can't stand bashing a movie without getting into the mechanics of the film. Just saying that the movie isn't worth your money or acting superior because you haven't seen it is pretty pathetic.

Big Spoilers Coming if you haven't read them already...

What works in the movie is then entire setup involving the monsters in the woods. Once the monsters are revealed to be a hoax this enitre setup dissolves. Because the intial setup was done so well what unfolds next has to top it. Unfortunately it doesn't. If the resolution of the movie is to reveal a contemporary wildlife park the juxtasposition of the two styles just plain looks and feels ridiculous.

The realism just isn't there. I don't think there is a single place in North America where you could live without seeing a jetliner cross the sky and leave massive contrails. If this was indeed supposed to be the resolve I'd buy a more futuristic world outside of the confines of the Village as opposed to 2004.

The movie would have been better just to stick true to its setup and actually have monsters in the woods and an impending siege. That or make it a necessity for someone, or a group, to cross the woods to get the mdeicine knowing full well that there are monsters in there that they had to avoid or confront.

The shooting, performances, editing, and directing of the story is excellent. The problem is just that the story is just so blah. All of the plot elements in terms of the dead animals, monsters, and the villiage elders controlling the village makes sense. There are not any obvious plot holes I can see.

Mike Works, I really like your treatment of the story. Your reveal is much more interesting than the slow burn reveal the movie had. The thing is with the film the way it is is that once one reveal is made as an audience we'll make a logical jump to the next or will begin just assuming more ridiculous plot concepts to come until nothing they put on screen becomes unexpected.

Shyamalan is allowed to have a bad movie. I am, and remain, a fan of his previous films. I even see much brillance in this movie, especially in those first 40 minutes. I absolutely love the converstation between the blind girl and Hurt as they approach the shed. We can see that shed in the background the whole time and we know where they are headed. We make the leap and assume something important is inside and the way the conversation choreography works is brilliant. Shyamalan just should have had the confidence to run the movie through from its setup and not try to twist it.

 

[Mike Works]

The realism just isn't there. I don't think there is a single place in North America where you could live without seeing a jetliner cross the sky and leave massive contrails.

Though it could rightly be argued that this is unrealistic, they do mention in the movie that they were able to restrict the area of the park a no-fly zone (I'm pretty sure it was either M Night himself or the park patrol guy who worked for him that mentioned it).

 

[Dan]

I love how Mike Works' description of how to change the movie is pretty much the following: The Village would have been better if it were The Sixth Sense. I don't know, I saw The Sixth Sense back in 1999. If I wanted to see it again, I have it on DVD. I'd much prefer to see something different than the same formula again.

I don't know, I knew the ending going into the film and had major reservations about it, but I thought the film worked really well. I think some of you have just been convincing yourselves for the past several months that this would suck. Plus, there's always that crowd that has to hate on things that lots of people think are good because that somehow elevates their own taste, or some bullshit like that.

 

[Warm Machine]

Yeah but a jetliner doesn't prescribe to those sort of rules, just light aircraft. As well, a jetliner could fly many many miles around the no fly zone yet still be seen from the ground.

 

[KarishBHR]

I saw it for a second time today, here are some of my second observations:

-Sigourney Weaver IS holding a baby in the picture from the present (or 70's)... which is why Lucious isnt afraid as others are

-THERE IS A HUGE FORESHADOW when Noah is locked in the quite room after she slaps him around... he claws and bangs at the door as well as tries to open it... it sounds exactly like when the "Monsters" do it at the beginning of the movie to Ivys house

-At the end, you see a knife in the river, I assume its Noah's... and I didnt notice it earlier

My one problem is that, even though the people of the village decided to live a better life by being old fashioned... that didnt really need to "change the date"... on the grave it says 1897, this is unneccesary because the date should have no effect on people's actions... if the other people of the village thought that was the way to act, they would do it whether or not its 1800 or 2004. That is only in there to keep up the illusion for the audience... really not a big deal, just bothered me.


PS. Your alternate ending is fairly impressive.
PSS. Where can I find the original ending/spoilers that people were soooooo pissed about?