Random Thoughts: The Village
7/10
What do I push more for? M. Night Shyamalan to an Oscar? Or to a Razzie? His stupid, distracting cameo in this deserves the latter. Enough with the self-gratification already. You're not Hitchcock. You never will be. In a scene that is crucial to the story and involves people helping each other, we're not focusing on that because we're too busy staring at Mr. Shamalamadingdong. Rant over.
The so far wildy split reactions to this film are understandable. The negative has to do with people being misguided by marketing selling this gothic drama as a horror movie. It also has to do with two of the film's twists, neither of which are really twists at all. The film doesn't dwell on these as being twists and continues with the narrative, whereas usually a twist is revealed and then focused on. The writing is probably the worst thing about the film but makes sense in the context of the story. Right? Well, sort of. I couldn't help but feel left down not by the "twists" like everyone else but rather the lack to which the story is explored. Yes, I'm getting the whole "creatures of mass destruction" and fear being manipulated using colors (terror alerts!! the creatures are coming if there is red..hmm..sounds familiar.) Yes, the reason Angie could write so much about the themes of the film is that there are so many. Most of them are too briefly touched upon.
So, with all that, why did I give this movie a 7? I really liked it. It has a lot of problems, mostly related to the script, but it is well directed and an aesthetically pleasing film thanks to Deakins' near-great cinematography and James Newton Howard's beautiful/slightly eerie score. The feel the film radiates is one I really love. The acting is appropriate for the most part. It is stilted, which when you realize what is going on is appropriate. Actually, its not. (SPOILERS BELOW PICTURE) Bryce has beautiful eyes and holds the film well. I think the film is at its best when she is in the woods by itself. I also loved the designs of the creatures. Adrien Brody and Judy Greer are the only ones having any fun with their roles, while Joaqin Phoenix practically disappears before he, well, disappears. The film for the most part is a good first draft to a much better final version. While its not all it could be, it is what we are left with and is pretty solid on its own.
SPOILERS HERE ON IN:
So, why exactly did they choose to make it 1897? See, this is why many people are pissed off. The fact that they live in old times while attempting make it seem like old times only sets up for how pissed off people will be with the twist. A better idea: It is 1897 in the village, but maybe early 1900's in the other parts. They see society advancing and decide to flee it, but not an illusion of 100 years difference. Now, if they put on the illusion of 1897, why do they have to talk like that? Wouldn't it make more sense just to talk naturally? Its not like the young people are going to call them on it. "Oh, even though I've been raised like this my whole life, I know that is not the way they actually talked in 1897. HA! Suck it Sigourney!" Ok, now onto the creatures. You can actually have creatures in the woods. They don't have to be just the town elders dressed up. Why not have society advanced a few years beyond it because these people were afraid to get out of the village? Yes, it kind of swerves from the point. But I think there are too many brought up to accurately fit into one storyline without people finding the whole thing bogus.
What do I push more for? M. Night Shyamalan to an Oscar? Or to a Razzie? His stupid, distracting cameo in this deserves the latter. Enough with the self-gratification already. You're not Hitchcock. You never will be. In a scene that is crucial to the story and involves people helping each other, we're not focusing on that because we're too busy staring at Mr. Shamalamadingdong. Rant over.
The so far wildy split reactions to this film are understandable. The negative has to do with people being misguided by marketing selling this gothic drama as a horror movie. It also has to do with two of the film's twists, neither of which are really twists at all. The film doesn't dwell on these as being twists and continues with the narrative, whereas usually a twist is revealed and then focused on. The writing is probably the worst thing about the film but makes sense in the context of the story. Right? Well, sort of. I couldn't help but feel left down not by the "twists" like everyone else but rather the lack to which the story is explored. Yes, I'm getting the whole "creatures of mass destruction" and fear being manipulated using colors (terror alerts!! the creatures are coming if there is red..hmm..sounds familiar.) Yes, the reason Angie could write so much about the themes of the film is that there are so many. Most of them are too briefly touched upon.
So, with all that, why did I give this movie a 7? I really liked it. It has a lot of problems, mostly related to the script, but it is well directed and an aesthetically pleasing film thanks to Deakins' near-great cinematography and James Newton Howard's beautiful/slightly eerie score. The feel the film radiates is one I really love. The acting is appropriate for the most part. It is stilted, which when you realize what is going on is appropriate. Actually, its not. (SPOILERS BELOW PICTURE) Bryce has beautiful eyes and holds the film well. I think the film is at its best when she is in the woods by itself. I also loved the designs of the creatures. Adrien Brody and Judy Greer are the only ones having any fun with their roles, while Joaqin Phoenix practically disappears before he, well, disappears. The film for the most part is a good first draft to a much better final version. While its not all it could be, it is what we are left with and is pretty solid on its own.
SPOILERS HERE ON IN:
So, why exactly did they choose to make it 1897? See, this is why many people are pissed off. The fact that they live in old times while attempting make it seem like old times only sets up for how pissed off people will be with the twist. A better idea: It is 1897 in the village, but maybe early 1900's in the other parts. They see society advancing and decide to flee it, but not an illusion of 100 years difference. Now, if they put on the illusion of 1897, why do they have to talk like that? Wouldn't it make more sense just to talk naturally? Its not like the young people are going to call them on it. "Oh, even though I've been raised like this my whole life, I know that is not the way they actually talked in 1897. HA! Suck it Sigourney!" Ok, now onto the creatures. You can actually have creatures in the woods. They don't have to be just the town elders dressed up. Why not have society advanced a few years beyond it because these people were afraid to get out of the village? Yes, it kind of swerves from the point. But I think there are too many brought up to accurately fit into one storyline without people finding the whole thing bogus.
posted by Darren at 1:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home