User Reviews (2,193)

Add a Review

  • I don't think I've ever been more shocked by how much I liked a film. I had very low expectations when I decided to watch "The Village," because I knew how much critics had panned it. I'm not saying that I regard the consensus of the critics as sacrosanct. But the movies I love are rarely ones that have earned critical scorn, so by the law of probability I doubted that this one would be any good. Besides, I had noticed a steadily downward slope in the quality of M. Night Shyamalan's films since "The Sixth Sense." When "The Village" was released and subsequently panned, it seemed to fit the pattern that I myself had noticed. So I didn't go and see the film. Only recently did I take a look at it on cable, more out of curiosity than anything else.

    And alas, I found the first fifteen minutes rather slow. The movie has a lot of characters, and it doesn't quickly establish which ones are the most important. All we see is this primitive nineteenth-century village in the midst of woods that the villagers believe to be haunted by ominous, sentient creatures who will not harm the people as long as they don't set foot in the woods. The villagers have all sorts of rituals to protect themselves from attack, such as avoiding the color red (what is it with Shyamalan and red?) and wearing yellow hoods. But rules are meant to be broken, and a quiet, mysterious young man played by Joaquin Phoenix wants to journey into the woods so that he can visit "the towns" on the other side, which boast superior medicine. Among other things, he wonders if he'll find a cure for his mentally handicapped friend (Adrien Brody). In the meantime, he's falling in love with the blind girl (Bryce Dallas Howard) whose role in the plot will expand as the movie progresses.

    The love story between Phoenix and Howard is well-handled and believable, transcending the romantic clichés. The two characters seem to possess a common understanding and don't have to talk much in order for us to feel the developing bond between them. But what they do say to each other is intriguing. My favorite line is "Sometimes we don't do things we want to do so that others won't know we want to do them." Their personalities also transcend stereotype, particularly with Phoenix: while stoic and courageous, he's also shy and withdrawn, as revealed in scenes where he passes letters to the public council instead of speaking in front of them. His ultimate significance to the story turns the heroic convention on its head.

    Everyone in the village speaks in an oddly formal manner, using big words and avoiding contractions. The accents are American, but the diction is like that of a nineteenth-century English novel. Amazingly, the actors make this language sound natural as it rolls off their tongues. The cast includes several familiar faces: William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, Brendan Gleeson, and the aforementioned Phoenix and Brody. But the star of the film is the as-yet unknown Howard, who delivers a performance so compelling that it's a shame the film was trashed by critics.

    Much of the film concerns the relationships of the characters in the village, but the mystery of the creatures also dominates the plot. This is more of a quietly creepy "Twilight Zone"-style tale than outright horror. Like Shyamalan's other films, it ultimately carries a message of hope and optimism. But Shyamalan does not forget his horror roots. No other Hollywood filmmaker today is better at crafting scenes where a character is being haunted by an evil presence. These scenes work because of Shyamalan's acute sense of how nightmares feel. Like all skilled horror directors, he knows not to focus on the monster itself but on the panicked reaction of the character being stalked.

    While the use of a blind character is hardly a new device, Shyamalan handles the scenes with Howard in an interesting way. Instead of the usual approach of teasing the audience by showing exactly what the blind character doesn't see, he practically makes us blind along with her. He has the camera follow her as she walks, so that we don't see what's in front of her. We soon realize that we are seeing little more than what she is able to discern about her surroundings. In crucial scenes, we are effectively almost as much in the dark as she is.

    I cannot say much more about the plot without ruining the movie's surprises, which are abundant. Critics dismissed "The Village" as a crude exercise in plot manipulation. I couldn't disagree more. While I'm not certain that the logistics of the plot work in every detail, most of the criticisms I have heard reflect a superficial reading of the story.

    The film has the same basic structure that Shyamalan always uses, where we are swept up in the events and only at the end do we find out what the movie was truly about. From there, we have to think backwards to understand the ultimate meaning of the story. I have seen the movie three times now, noticing new things each time. The social themes make me think that Shyamalan is familiar with Joseph Campbell's works on primitive societies and the origin of drama. The back story is very well thought out compared to that of the average thriller, and I feel some disappointment that more people aren't able to appreciate it. The beauty and genius of this film is a well-kept secret.
  • In recent years, M Night Shyamalan's reputation has taken a serious beating, having directed universally panned Razzy films (such as The Last Airbender and The Happening), and even some recent successes (Split, Glass) haven't been enough to salvage his career. However, slightly earlier in his directorial filmography sits this genuine horror-mystery masterpiece, criminally underrated and judged undeservedly.

    The Village is a different take on a horror trope, detailing an isolated community's resolve against a hidden threat in the surrounding forest. As this genre goes, the cast does not get any better: Sigourney Weaver, Joaquin Phoenix, Adrien Brody and Brendan Gleeson all feature prominently, as well as relative unknowns Jesse Eisenberg and Dallas Bryce Howard in some of their earlier roles. All are individually excellent and well-cast, perfectly depicting the repressed fear of a society without outside influences.

    The plot of is consistent and of genuine quality, which doesn't often translate in the horror genre; however, do not be dissuaded by the premise of horror - The Village plays more off the resulting drama than cheap jump scares, and slow burns until the revelations in the second half blow the script open. The forest village is the ideal setting for this hidden evil, sparsely populated and somewhat bleak - the integral use of red and yellow elevate the cinematography further, making the environment more distressing.

    The Village should be a must-watch purely on the merit of the plot: some may not connect with the subtleties of the script and the nuances of the story, but those who take the time to invest will be thoroughly rewarded with a quality film.
  • This appears to be a really divisive movie. It seems to me that people wanted another Sixth Sense and when The Village arrived, people were disappointed. Maybe the distributor didn't help by giving the impression it's a horror movie. It isn't. Or maybe some have taken against the writer/director.

    It's a story of someone going to great lengths for someone they love. It just so happens there's a twist on the way.

    I've recently rewatched The Village after many years. And whilst I knew the twist, there was plenty to keep me entertained and I think it's held up well. Put it this way, I persuaded my 14 year old to watch it with me, and she thoroughly enjoyed it. There were jump scares, good performances and it looked good. The twist completely wrong footed her, and we both thoroughly enjoyed it.
  • I read somewhere that The Village was M. Night Shyamalan's best and most underrated movie. I wouldn't agree with that as The Sixth Sense was his best to me. But that's my opinion. The Village is entertaining though, like most of his movies, with the right amount of suspense. The cast is great as well, all top class actors and actresses so bad acting isn't present in this movie. To be honest this is my second viewing of this movie, and I liked it more the first time but that's just because of the element of surprise that plays a big role in his movies. It's a good movie for a first time viewing.
  • The population of a small, isolated countryside village believe that their alliance with the mysterious creatures that inhabit the forest around them is coming to an end.

    As of 2015, this is probably M. Night's last good film. Which is unfortunate, because he had a pretty good run for a few years. Some people even want to be harsh on this film, which is unfair. Some either see it as a ripoff (which is possible) or lacking the twist they want. If it is a ripoff, that has no bearing on the film. And the twist? That is an audience expectation... whether it meets your needs or not is on you, not the creators.

    One thing that did not go well for the film was its marketing, which seemed to present it as a horror film. Some scenes have horror elements, and the score has some horror inspiration. But it really is not that, so much as it is a love story. Sure, it has fantasy elements mixed in, but those are secondary.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD

    There's been a lot of divided opinion on this film, and I do actually understand why someone may not like it, it's not a horror film so don't go in expecting jumps at every corner and bucket falls of gore, nor is it a stereotypical 19th century thriller, the dialogue is all mixed up with modern-day English and 19th century dialect, but that's because the town is created in the idealistic image of the original designers and people who thought up the idea.

    Like Shutter Island I would argue that this is infinitely better on a second viewing when you see all the subtle hints that all is not conforming to the usual Victorian rural village life. On my first viewing I would only have given this a 6 or 7/10.

    The acting is beautiful and the three main characters played by Bryce Dallas Howard, Joaquin Phoenix and Adrian Brody is quite frankly Oscar worthy. Every shot is very subversive and surprisingly hands play a huge and abnormal part in this, in the forest each branch is snagging forward creakily as if it's a hand and in the scene where Joaquin's character is stabbed the angle the knife goes in and all four of their hands being in shot is unreal and tense. Also, the music by James Newton Howard is actually fantastic and one of the best soundtracks I've ever heard!

    Not all critics and people will love this film, and that's fine as everyone has a different view and I understand why this film may not be liked, read Roger Ebert's scathing review of it for example, and he's certainly no fool.

    10/10: Brilliant, unique and worth two viewings if you've only seen it once
  • I will not go into details about the plot of the movie, or how good or bad the movie was. What i would like to tell is how good i felt that evening as i went to bed. As I was resting my head on my pillow, i felt extremely good about humanity. My heart and mind were filled with hope about the future. That is what the movie did to me. In am writing this 10 years after seeing the movie, and i can still recall with clarity how i felt that evening in bed. Hence, the movie gets a 10 from this reviewer.
  • As with M.Night's other movies, I enjoyed this latest outing, especially the performances of the leads. I think the movie suffered in overall response due to a poorly conceived marketing plan.

    The movie was sold as a horror film and fans of that genre went into this with that mindset in place. When the film actually turned out to be a look at how we try and protect those we love from the horrors of the "real world", fans were upset and rightly so. As anyone that has enjoyed M.Night's movies, all is not what it would seem. I think the marketing pushed too hard the horror aspect which created an expectation that was not going to be met.

    I think if you go into this movie expecting another commentary on spiritual and moral themes, you are going to like this. If you are going into this for the scare factor, you are going to be left empty.
  • I like clever movies, and I like scary movies. And because of my disposition I already spent money on two very awful movies that came from Hollywood this year: abysmal "Godsend" and at first glance promising but ultimately stupid and disappointing "The Forgotten".

    That's why I proceeded with care to the latest Shyamalan's work: "The village". The trailer looked promising: a desolate turn-of-the-last-century village, sorrounded by the forest in which some horrible creatures live. Promising, but being careful lately, I first checked around the net...and was amazed to see a big load of negative reviews. Roger Ebert for instance, whose opinion I usually respect, gave it a horribly low grade! Great.

    Nevertheless, I chose to see it, and I must say was quite pleasantly surprised. Here, ladies and gentlemen, you have a very nicely shot, atmospheric thriller with great cast, good story and a few finishing touches of Shyamalan's cleverness (which could be simply called brilliant when compared with the latest scripts that the Hollywood vomits over its audience!).

    Why the lousy reviews? Well, there are basically two kinds of people that will want to see this movie: first the horror fans, who will expect a gruesome and chilling and potentially bloody tale, and the puzzle-movie fans, who are more or less not interested in the movie itself, but in "solving the latest Shyamalan's puzzle" of what the movie is all about.

    The horror crowd will be disappointed. There are scares in this movie, but way too much characterization and drama for their taste. As for the other crowd, well people, the twist is there, but this time it's very guessable (although Shyamalan still has some tricks up his sleeve, as you'll see).

    It seems that Shyamalan will always live in the shadow of his masterpiece "The 6th sense". People still remember getting their socks knocked off with its powerful ending, and keep expecting that to happen again with every following movie. What's worse, Hollywood realized that the twists are trendy, so lately we have lots of movies with a final twist, most of which are stupid/cheap/illogical. People today set their expectations too damn high, especially if they see Shyamalan's name at the movie poster.

    This movie is great. The atmosphere is great, the cast is fantastic, and what I mostly love about it, it's clever. It's logical. And whatever you say about it, it's CONSISTENT. Compared to the other Hollywood crap we are getting served lately, this is a VERY good movie.

    Watch this, but not as a puzzle, but as a great movie in itself.

    Well, just my 2 cents.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    'The Village' . At first glance, this village seems happy , but this close-knit community lives with the frightening knowledge that creatures reside in the surrounding forests .At night , animals are mysteriously killed and when one man dares to enters the woods , a retaliatory attack sends the astonishing villagers fleeing to their basements . The evil and foreboding force is so unnerving that none dare venture beyond the borders of the village and into the woods. The villagers live simply under the strict leading of a group of veteran people (William Hurt , Sigourney Weaver , Brendan Gleeson , Cherry Jones ,Celia Weston) who forbid them to venture into the neighbouring woods . They talk in fear of those we don't speak of : creatures lurking among the trees ever ready to attack . But when curious, obstinate Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix) plans to step beyond the boundaries of the town and into the unknown, his bold move threatens to forever change the future of the village. Their Days Of Peace Are Over . The truce is ending. I: Let the bad color not be seen. It attracts them. II: Never enter the woods. That is where they wait. III: Heed the warning bell, for they are coming.

    This eerie and mysterious movie depicts the tale of an isolated town confronting the surprising truth that lies just outside its borders , they live under the control of a few elders until a revelatory twist at the end . M. Night toys with political ideas , but at times , he buries them under an illogical and rather unpredictable tale . Writer/director M. Night Shyamalan got a good feel for the time period, in fact there were nearly 300 people in the scenic and construction department in order to achieve nice settings. Focusing here is on security , self-preservation , frightening to society and conservatism , all key post-9/11 themes , as revealed in the tale of a remote rural community in 1890s America. Main cast and support cast are pretty good , full of young and veteran players such as : William Hurt , Sigourney Weaver , Brendan Gleeson , Cherry Jones , Cherry Jones, Celia Weston , Judy Greer , and of course , Joaquin Phoenix and Adrien Brody . A main draw is the cast as newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard , Ron Howard's daughter , as a visionary blind girl and other young players as Jesse Eisenberg , Michael Pitt, all of them put in great performances .

    Well written/produced and directed by Night Shyamalan . The motion picture was well made by Night M Shyamalan , writing , producing and directing , though being some claustrophobic and slow-moving . M. Night delivers his first period piece putting the entire cast through a 19th century "boot camp" at a creepy retelling with several surprises and it took the crew about twelve weeks to build the set for the village. Competently produced by Night Shyamalan himself , many of his films involve pivotal roles with extraordinary abilities or events happening to them and with children always having family problems . Night Shyamalan is an expert on fantastic and Mystery films plenty of Intelligence and thought-provoking issues as proved in : ¨Signs¨ , ¨The village¨ , ¨Lady in water¨ , ¨The Incident¨ , ¨The sixth sense¨ , with exception for an extreme flop as critical as boxoffice : ¨Airbender¨. Shyalaman usually shoots in Philadelphia , this is Shyamalan favorite location . Night is an avid comic books fan , which was made in this film that along with "Unbreakable" , ¨Multiple¨and "Glass" belong to the top-notch trilogy starred by Bruce Willis , Samuel L Jackson and James McAvoy. Rating 7/10 notable . Well worth watching . Better than average .
  • Warning: Spoilers
    How does one write an intelligent, coherent review of a movie that made me feel like I was not only cheated, but done so at a shameless way? M. Night Shyamalan has, for the last three out of five movies, focused on making sci-fi/horror films that rely on only one thing: a fantastic twist at or near the movie's climax or critical point, which of course, would make you, the viewer, do a double-take and applaud him for doing something so breath-taking and original that it would, in itself, trump the big revelation in VERTIGO (1957) or the final big denouement scene in WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION (also 1957). With THE SIXTH SENSE (1999) he had a honest hit, a revelation of a movie director with talent to spare, but once he made SIGNS (2002), it was clear the cheap twist is all he is about.

    What can one do when one has to listen to the most God-awful dialog in recent film history? Judy Greer, whom I've seen in movies of varying quality and the TV series "Arrested Development," decides to proclaim her love for Joaquin Phoenix with an intensity that rivals that of Peter Finch's speech (take your pick, there are at least five) as Howard Beale in NETWORK (1976), but since here her lines are so horrible, it's unintentionally funny. As a matter of fact, everyone speaks in that odd pilgrim-like choice of words and utters sentences like, "What is your meaning" and "I know that thing that is in your head" as if it were written by Paddy Chayefsky or Joseph Mankiewicz or even Shakespeare. It is done so totally deadpan that it becomes painful to watch and more than once I looked at the time to see how much more I would have to endure, because when a story like this is devoid of even a slight bit of humor and is equally pointless, actions must be taken.

    For a director to state that he has been influenced by Alfred Hitchcock, there has to be some proof in his work. Choices of takes and scenes, choices of actors/actresses, choices of stories to tell, music, among other things. Shyamalan may say he is influenced by (Hitchcock) all he wants but if he is so, I can't see it. The use of red here -- an important part of the story -- has been done masterfully by Hitchcock in the aforementioned VERTIGO (1957) and MARNIE (1964), and better still by Ingmar Bergman's CRIES AND WHISPERS (1972). Also, Hitchcock was The Master of Suspense: he gave us enough information for us to know what is happening at the moment, and then cranked up the mounting intensity to a fever pitch like the masterful Albert Hall sequence in THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (1956) or the scene in NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959) where Cary Grant is left waiting for his ride in the middle of a cornfield and slowly but surely, a plane materializes. We know there is something about to happen, just not what, or if it will actually take place.

    Sadly enough, there is zero suspense here. The events that take place in Covington, PA, fail to cause any sort of empathy or reaction, and the only real scene that introduces danger about to strike a major character seems so contrived it begs for a reason to exist. Why would Bryce Dallas Howard stand at the threshold extending her arm outward when it is clear there are things out there in the dark? Because the plot had her do so, not because there was a need for it.

    So many ways to have told this story and genuinely introduce the twist without cheating the audience with holes as large as the ozone layer for the convenience and whims of the "plot." Shyamalan decides to cop out, waste some good talent (or, if seen differently, use high profile names like Sigourney Weaver, William Hurt, Brendan Gleeson, and Adrien Brody fresh out of his Oscar win, to ensure viewers), make some easy money, cash on his new-found fame, and produce a hat-trick that doesn't have a rabbit and basically gives no new insights. And that is a sad thing for a director to do, if he purportedly is to consider himself serious.

    And one last thing: Shyamalan needs to take his name off the title of the movie, since he is not at the stature of a Kubrick or the aforementioned Hitchcock. He needs a little lesson in humility and return to making actual movies, not travesties.
  • The Village is set in a small, rural community living in a kind of 19th Century self-supporting agrarianism. Woods surround the town, and the villagers maintain a strict perimeter, as there are creatures in the woods with whom they've reached a truce so long as the borders are not breached. Tension mounts as the creatures start breaking their normal pattern, and one of the villagers, Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix), seeks permission from the town elders to travel through the woods, to the towns and "those we don't speak of", so he can acquire medicine for his fellow villagers.

    For anyone seriously interested in the art of film, The Village is worth a viewing just for its cinematography and score. That's not to say that the story isn't good. It's a captivating tale of a very odd small town, complete with a twist, as is characteristic of director M. Night Shyamalan. The twist may not be as shattering here as it was in some of his previous films, such as The Sixth Sense (1999) and Unbreakable (2000), but it is still a change that catalyzes an eye-opening recontextualization and reassessment of the previous material, making the film and the final resolution of the story even more poignant. It is also interesting to note the many possible metaphorical readings, ranging from political insularism to religion, or even more literal comparisons to social and geographic segregation (from ethnic enclaves to gated communities).

    Shyamalan could be said to have a directorial gimmick, although that might not be the best word because it's usually taken negatively, and I don't mean it to undervalue his approach. He makes genre films in the guise of realist dramas. So far, all of his films since he hit it big with The Sixth Sense have used this interesting device, each in a different genre. The Sixth Sense was a horror/ghost story. Unbreakable was a comic book film. Signs was sci-fi. The Village is fantasy/adventure. It also has some horror elements (as do Unbreakable and Signs).

    Part of Shyamalan's genius as a filmmaker is that he can achieve the usual responses associated with those genres using such unusual, relatively mundane and realist material. For example, in The Village, he is able to build up an incredible amount of suspense in relation to two very simple things--flowers of a particular color, and beginning a walk into the woods. A simple walk into the woods is also the beginning of an adventure just as grand as any depiction of a quest for the Holy Grail, say. And the ensuing plot developments, although very ordinary on one level, have a profound, redemptive effect. Many of the most important developments in the climax aren't even directly stated; they're just subtly implied in what we're shown, yet they all work extremely well. While Shyamalan's style may require some adjustments for viewers more accustomed to chaotic, MTV-paced genre films, or on the flipside, for viewers less accustomed to elements of fantasy in their films, it is worth altering your preconceptions about pacing and content.

    The cast is excellent. I'm not usually the biggest fan of William Hurt, but I even loved his performance. Joaquin Phoenix and particularly Bryce Dallas Howard are amazing. The film wouldn't have worked without the right person in either actor's roles. Both were perfect choices. There is also a wonderful, very slight surreal quality throughout most of the film shown in the behavior of the villagers towards each other.

    James Newton Howard's score may be his best to date in a very long list of credits. The music always provides just the right atmosphere, sense of wonder/mystery, pathos and suspense. Roger Deakins' cinematography is equally brilliant, capturing a slight eeriness, sense of foreboding and comfort all at the same time, and with an ingenious use of colors. Much of the film leans towards rich yellow/orange hues and tints, with strong green accents in the grasses and trees. Whenever red is introduced, it is appropriately intense. The framing of shots and staging of scenes is equally impressive.

    I know that this film has had its detractors, but I cannot see why. For my tastes, The Village is yet another masterpiece from a very creative, innovative filmmaker.
  • I had no idea what to expect from M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village," since I had heard nothing but awful things about it. It wasn't awful; there was a lot good in it, as Shyamalan, unlike some, is a thoughtful filmmaker. I don't think he's the man with the problem. I think it's his audience. They go, as they did in Signs, expecting to see a scary alien movie and are disappointed. With Shymamalan, it's never what's on the surface; it's always what lies beneath. And no matter the plot, what lies beneath an M. Night Shyamalan film is spirituality and some of life's fundamental questions.

    The question here is: Can we really isolate ourselves from evil? A little village, bordered by a forest that contains some sort of evil creatures, is threatened when the creatures, for the first time, seem to be encroaching on the citizens' territory. When a near tragedy strikes, one of them (Bryce Dallas Howard) must go through those woods into the town - something never done.

    There are some scary scenes, to be sure, but Shyamalan for me is never about the scary scenes so I'm not going to object that "The Village" wasn't terrifying enough. What I will say is that it does not have the pacing of his other films. It is drawn out with some slow patches in which nothing happens. Atmosphere is one thing, and it has plenty of that - but when that's all there is, a little judicious editing is called for.

    Bryce Dallas Howard, as the blind Ivy, seems to have inherited the family acting talent - she is a real find and does a marvelous job with a large and difficult role. Joaquin Phoenix as well is very good. And then there are the actors with whom I was young - Sigourney Weaver and William Hurt - class casting for sure, and the two pros give beautiful performances. Hurt is really making a niche for himself as a character actor. Weaver is still beautiful enough to play leads if she can get cast in one. Broadway star Cherry Jones seems to be a favorite of Shyamalan's, and she is again on hand in a small role. To cast even a bit part with a double Tony award winner shows good taste.

    Adrien Brody has had an odd career since his Oscar win. I advise him and Halle Berry, while we're at it, to get new agents. He plays what can best be described here as the village idiot. At first, I thought the character had Tourette's syndrome - well, there was something wrong anyway, and while I suppose he was good, I agree with one of the posters. He was annoying - a manic in a sea of soft-talking, well-mannered people.

    Be advised - M. Night Shyamalan doesn't make horror films. Strange sometimes, surprising, spiritual, romantic. But the aliens et al are just bogeymen asking us to confront what needs to be confronted.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Yes, this film was marketed poorly. Yes, the trailers were misguided. But yes, this is also not a very good film.

    The problem is that Night has introduced too many concepts, ideas and sub-plots with not enough time to fully realize any of them. The casting is wonderful; Hurt does his best "intellectual every man", Phoenix is a decently stoic enigma and newcomer Bryce is actually fantastic as the lead. But Sigourney Weaver is given little to do and some difficult, mundane dialogue to act her way through. Brendan Gleeson is inexcusably underused and Adrien Brody seems to have been edited out of any real emotional impact.

    What this film wants to be is a comment on contemporary America - where a group of intellectuals (with the funding of one very wealthy family), disenfranchised with modern street violence and urban decay, could conceivably remove themselves from the modern world and live in the perceived utopia of a rural 19th century. But too many easy answers, tacked on script "quick fixes", and multiple convenient solutions expose the many holes in the film making. It always feels like Night was tacking on justification scenes as the film posed questions instead of having a clear vision at the script stage. I won't go into all of the examples - but there are many (costumes hidden under floorboards, a blind girl, a mentally challenged man who can't expose the truth of the woods, a clearly quick-fix line about someone paying off the government to not fly over the commune, etc). You never get the sense that Brody is in love enough to kill. You never really fear the "woods", you are never really forced to wonder what is in the boxes in the elders' homes, and the creatures should never have been shown (first rule of mis-direction-based suspense!). I'll offer this one question as an example indicative of the other problematic elements: Why - if the "elders" know that it is really not the 1800's, and also know that they are living in a protected area set up by the Walker family - do they make such a fuss about Ivy going for medicine? They know what she will find but not be able to see. Unlike Night's previous films, the mystery is not guarded in a realistic way. He makes these elders seem suspicious and mysterious solely for the benefit of the audience, but there is no real justification for the characters themselves. This is troubling throughout the film and ends up like most badly written suspense films where the twists only trick the viewer but seem ridiculous and improbable if you just deal with the fictional world contained in the film.

    All in all, it's overly-simplistic; the equivalent of the "it was all a dream" device. While I was not disappointed that this film was not the horror thrill ride that the trailers would have you believe, I was disappointed that a clever idea was so badly edited together (it looks like hours of footage was shot, but slashed down to its essential plot points for time) and never realized. It's a shame, it could have been a great film if Night would have stuck to a couple fully developed characters and plot paths and really got us to invest in them.
  • I went to see M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village" today.

    First things first... I won't even discuss a SINGLE aspect of the plot, here, so you can read this safely. I will say this: If you plan to see the movie, do not read a single review (besides mine!). As with most of Shyamalan's films, the less you know about the plot going in, the better.

    As far as the quality of the film... it is solid. Beautifully directed, well acted, dramatic, scary, sometimes funny, and with some great plot twists. It is not as good as "The Sixth Sense", but it's probably not fair to keep comparing Shyamalan's work to his first big hit, one of the best psychological horror films ever made. A director could work his entire career and never make a SINGLE film as good as "The Sixth Sense", let alone recapture that movie's amazing brilliance.

    But, I hear you asking, is "The Village" better than "Unbreakable" and "Signs" (Shyamalan's second and third films)??? Well, that depends on what you thought of those films. Personally, I'd probably say that it is a better film than those two. At the very least it is more sophisticated, with stronger themes, a much bigger and better cast, and more subtle surprises than in those two films.

    "The Village" continues Shyamalan's pattern of there being twists in the plot, but this time there are SEVERAL of them and they occur sporadically throughout the film... not one big one at the end. You WILL be surprised by the film, but don't expect to be bowled over.

    I would describe this as his most subtle film, and also as more of a character study than a horror film. The characters here are very rich, and their interactions and relationships with one another are very rewarding in big and small ways. The acting is phenomenal, most noticeably by Academy Award winner Adrian Brody and Joaquin Phoenix. But first time actress Bryce Dallas Howard (Ron Howard's daughter), William Hurt and Sigourney Weaver all give solid performances as well.

    "The Village" is a character study of how a community and individuals respond under pressure and fear. And while it has elements of horror, I'm not even sure I would describe it as a horror film.

    But don't get me wrong, there are some real scary moments in the film... just don't go in expecting a roller coaster ride. While I was watching it, I kept thinking about some of the better episodes of The Twilight Zone that had a few thrills but left you thinking about human nature more than anything.

    Go see "The Village", but bring someone with you.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I am kind of baffled by this movie – I have problems describing it!

    "Unbelievable lack of advertising strategy" would be my first observation. M. Night Shyamalan has made his career with suspenseful thrillers with plot twists at the very end, but "The Village" takes a somewhat different step, perhaps unnoticed to the untrained eye. The entire movie still looks and feels exactly the same as the rest of M.'s previous movies, which, in this case is more of a negative than a positive thing, yet at the same time it's exactly this rich quality of production that gives it the strongest assets. Let's face it, "The Village" is yet another one of M.'s misunderstood movies due to "poorly educated" viewers. I'm talking about the type that doesn't get the blatantly obvious or the blatantly irrelevant and writes posts like "what color does Ivy see in Luscious and her father". A Non-important, Irrellevant one, btw!. The exquisite ensemble of actors and actresses (special kudos to the sexy redhead Bryce Dallas Howard) made the script breathe and gave sense to M's story. But what saved the whole movie was the musical score. James Newton Howard singlehandedly brought life to "The Village". What this man does is beyond me, I can describe it only as perfection. Every score he has so far composed for M felt like the movie was made after the score so it could blend in just the right way. The music editing deserves a ton of recognition and praise as well because it gave the movie just the right tone and atmosphere. M's movies have always demanded the viewers utmost attention, and so far this has always been rewarded many times over. "The Village" will probably be remembered as one of his weakest and least liked movies, and I have to understand why. He has been using the same style of story-telling since 1999 and this movie should have been an exception because it stands out. The story is minimalistic (as are the "twists" towards the end) and if one doesn't pay enough attention the main theme of the movie gets easily lost. It's love! I think. The plot, the motives, even the explanations are pretty shaky but this movie delivers numerous amazing moments that I know I'll just want to see over and over again. M is THE MASTER of subtlety and if you won't see it in "The Village" you won't see it anywhere else! And it's exactly these incredibly subtle, thought-out scenes that have immense power and are the best parts (literally) of the movie. It's because of them that I enjoyed "The Village" as much as I did and looked past the simple story that never even intended to be the key thing here (it's even revealed before the end). It's unnoticed things like cinematography that treats the character of Ivy differently that any other character because she can't see, it's the barely noticed tear on her left cheek that falls down her face when Luscious declares his love to her, it's the expression that he makes when he gets stabbed, it's the breath-takingly perfect last 5 seconds of the movie, then the score with instant fade to black…priceless! I sincerely have to admit I have no idea what happened to the 60 million dollar budget and where it went to, but "The Village" does feel rich (despite mostly being in a very minimalistic location), full of details, and manages to provide the absolute best of sound, style, cinematography, acting and music making it an absolute treat for the senses. And I actually like the fact that this movie is generally hated, it makes it more mine on some personal level. 7/10

    Recommendations: any avid fans of M, you are the ones that will appreciate this movie, anyone into great sound and music editing, cinematography, outstanding acting performances…the works. BUT A WORD OF CAUTION-don't expect much from the story, this time the movie relies completely on the actors and the solid production.
  • Kdosda_Hegen9 April 2020
    The movie changes genre near the end for a few shocking plot twists. I loved them, but it raises so many questions. Anyway, I do recommend to experience this movie yourself, make your own mind about it.
  • This movie is amazing. Its so emotionally gripping and overall a beautiful film. It has its creepy moments and the story keeps you hooked. The critics are wrong, this is an amazing film, Shyamalan at his best. And the excellent soundtrack adds even more beauty to the film. And this review is coming from a person who usually likes over the top action movies. THIS IS NOT A SPOILER: The twist at the end is thoughtful, not a cheap shock. Critics only dislike it because of the "dissapointing" twist, which is a shame. Shyamalan made two movies with a twist, and critics started to expect it. I love the ending. Last thing, this is not a horror movie. It has a few creepy moments, but it is more of a drama. I think some people don't like it because they expected a horror movie and its not.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Following the success of "The Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable", both of which I liked a lot, M. Night Shyamalan had a bit of a clunker with "The Village". The trailers for the film had you hungering for a supernatural movie excursion, but the resolution of the story blew the whole thing right out of the water. Given that the Amish people live in the same state as the location for 'The Village', it's impossible to my mind for some community to live as if they're the only one on the planet. Even the Amish have contact with the outside world, while maintaining their own beliefs and traditions. The idea that the community elders would willfully keep their members from learning or even knowing anything of the outside world seemed absolutely perverse to me. So all that talk of 'those we do not speak of', the 'bad' color and magic rocks, which might have been intriguing in another venue, were simply wasted here once the truth of The Village was revealed with the death of Noah (Adrien Brody) and Ivy's (Bryce Dallas Howard) contact with the modern world. There may have been secrets in every corner of this village, but a little intellectual curiosity by any one of it's residents would have made the story unnecessary.
  • This user comment is my own personal feelings, it is not a review that I make in the hope of turning anyone's opinion to that of my own, no mater what anyone says or does, my feelings for the film will never change.

    I see a smartly crafted movie about fear and hope, a community living in fear of the outside world, I see involving characters to follow with interest, I see a gorgeous setting that intrigues and engages me.

    Manoj Night Shyamalan's fourth mainstream picture is now, as we can all agree, a victim of a terrible marketing campaign, wasn't it? For there are horror elements in the film, of which I don't wish to spoiler write about, the horror elements are there, they just aren't the boo jump scary monster variety that many had hoped for. The ending to the film disappoints many it would seem, but it doesn't to me because it is here that the film has most resonance and the point is well and truly made. It's acted out with style from the majority of the cast, and Shyamalan directs with a steady caring approach. It's not without flaws for sure, but this is a very tidy piece that's saying quite a bit if the viewer is so inclined to jump on board. All told, it's a very solid and thought provoking piece that's made with much film making care. 8/10
  • M. Night Shyamalan wrote, co-produced, and directed this deceptively simple whirlpool of deceit and consequence. This is the kind of human study (with a suspenseful undercurrent) that might have become legendary as a paperback novel, a swift read on a rainy Saturday afternoon. An isolated East Coast community in the late 1890s, apparently made up of simple farmers and their families, have made a pact with the ominous creatures who live in the forest which borders their hamlet: do not cross into their territory, do not offend the creatures with the color red, feed them raw meat for supper, and be thankful for every day they've had without upsetting Those They Dare Not Speak Of. After a backwards villager has stabbed an innocent young man on the verge of getting married, his intended (a wise but blind lass) asks permission to travel through the woods to find medicine in the neighboring town. Shyamalan always runs the risk of upsetting his own core audience by not coming up with amazing-enough answers to his own circumstances. The scenario here is fully dimensional, the narrative is absorbing and intriguing, and all the players are wonderful...yet, Shyamalan is perhaps too logical in his storytelling (and too methodical in his approach) to satisfy a thriller audience with this story (in the end, it isn't audacious enough). On the other hand--purely as a psychological study--the movie has layers of complexity that seem even deeper in retrospect, and the dialogue is so well-written and delivered it nearly doesn't matter that the scare factor is all a sham. **1/2 from ****
  • A couple of weeks ago I was part of a family get together and like all family get togethers boredom rapidly set in , so one night my sister rented a couple of DVDs* with one of the films being the horror movie THE VILLAGE . " Ah " I piped up " I know the ending of this and it's not a horror movie " and promised not to tell anyone the twist ending . The titles came up and my sister asked who the director was as M Night Shymalan rang a bell . I explained that he was the writer/director of THE SIXTH SENSE ( Overrated ) and UNBREAKABLE ( Brilliant movie ) . About half an hour later my sister asked if anyone was still able to follow it and at this point my brother admitted he'd seen it at the cinema and it does pick up .

    This sums up everything that's wrong with THE VILLAGE - Imagine if you have no idea who Shymalan is and you're expecting a horror movie watching this will be a dire ordeal . It's makes a snails pace look like a speed OD in comparison . We're treated to a series of sequences that on the surface make little sense like people burying red flowers in the ground . This all might make sense after the ending is revealed but what ruins the movie - Even if you know the ending - is the editing , the scenes jar without any sort of flow and as many people have pointed out this feels like a twelve hour movie cut down to a two hour movie with a lot of important scenes cut out . For example we see an attack by the mythical creatures then there's a jump cut to the next day which is very disjointed ,it's not well into the film that it's revealed that Ivy is blind when surely it would have been obvious at the start . Little things like that leads me to believe there's been large chunks cut out of the narrative along with characters that seem to be underdeveloped . And on top of all this the director insists on shooting several scenes in slow motion as if the movie isn't already slow paced enough

    ! !!!! SPOILER !!!!

    As for the ending where it's revealed that the village is part of the 21st century and has been built by people wanting to escape the violence of modern day America it's by no means as clever as the endings of THE SIXTH SENSE or UNBREAKABLE . There's also a lack of internal logic to this . For example if the younger villagers believe they're living in the 19th Century then why do they wear 19th century clothes ? If they were wearing flares and tie dye T-Shirts they'd still believe they were living in the 19th century if that's what they've been conditioned to believe wouldn't they ? The characters also have odd sounding 19th century speech patterns . Again why would people not knowing what century it was have to speak in 19th century speech patterns ? They could easily use 21st century speech patterns which would make the dialogue easier to understand . Ah but that might make the audience cotton on to the fact that this isn't a 19th Century village after all , the whole film revolves around the twist that it's the 21st Century . As many , many people have pointed out similar ideas have been done much better in a third of the running time in THE TWILIGHT ZONE and without a doubt THE VILLAGE is Shymalan's weakest movie

    * Just for the record COLLATERAL was the other movie we watched that night
  • From the story to Deakin beautiful cinematography, and perfect sound track. There are just so many moments that i can comfortably say that they were actually "perfect". The the whole cast was just one of the best ensambles Ive seen. The speach William Hurt (one of my favorites) gave to convince the elders he had to risk everything "for the right and knoble cause" just gets me every time. These people created a harmonious community in hopes to remove everything horrible in the world and create a sanctuary.

    I often look at the amish and think how womderful it was. Just a community that lives for eachother and they do so without all the technology that is supposed to make are lives easier. In reality we have every horrible thing happening in the world piped right to our brain.

    So in summation, its a beautiful movie, from a world far less complex than modern day society.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Actually, I've been avoiding this film because of all bad press, bad reviews and people telling me it sucks. But I was surprised to see a film which actually wanted to say something, and did it in a good way.

    For me, THE VILLAGE is probably the best Shamalayan film I've seen, since this is not only good cinema - it also has an underlying theme and story that tries to criticize our world. It's well done.

    The twists and turns are good, and the last twist is best.

    Best are the actors, dialog and feeling/mood. However, the film is too long and could've used some editing.

    Nice little movie that could've been filmed for $1 Million, and still worked wonders. Shamalayan is overpriced, and he's not worth his salary, but at least he gives us some good entertainment for the moment.

    I want to give this one a 6 out of 10, since it has some great ideas, even though it's painfully slow and boring at some times. Nice to watch alone a rainy day.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    NO spoilers… don't worry; I won't ruin the precious (!) story… I surely am going to be criticized for this again, but at least I hope to reach some people… M. Night Shyamalan is nothing but a phony storyteller! At first I just thought he was over-hyped and untalented but the more films he delivers, the more it becomes clear that he's actually laughing with his fans and audiences for keeping up with his lame so-called "mystery" tales. It wasn't my intention to watch Shyamalan's latest so quick after its release…In fact, after struggling my way through that dreadfully irritating "Signs" I took an oath never to waste time or money anymore on his films. Luckily for me, a friend wasted his money on this because, I assure you, "The Village" is absolutely worthless humbug. Shyamalan once made a partly successful film called "The Sixth Sense" using some stylish elements. Since then, he shamelessly repeats this formula and all you'll ever find in his films are an exaggerated use of ominous music and silence, a very slow tempo and a cast that is overacting in the opposite way (meaning they do their best to look depressed, unworldly and silent). Would somebody please tell the director that atmospheric aspects like these only work when you've got a story to tell? The premise of a little village inhabited by social outcasts who're terrified of the creatures living in the nearby forests is dull, ultra-thin and definitely not suited for a compelling mystery tale. And then, of course, there's the famous "twist-near-the-end" which pretty much has become Shyamalan's trademark. Well, the "twist" is this film is so ridiculous, so predictable and so pathetic that the entire project instantly turns into a comedy! Actually, I wouldn't refer to it as a twist but as a confirmation that our precious director is completely uninspired and overrated. What amazes me the most is that so many respected actors are almost battling to become part of this fake hype. Surely Sigourney Weaver and William Hurt know better than to accept awful scripts like this? Hopefully naive fans won't start shouting that opponents of The Village didn't "get it" and that the film actually contains several brilliant metaphors and underlying messages… The only underlying message featuring here is that M. Night Shyamalan's constantly growing star-status is one giant hoax.
An error has occured. Please try again.