[Intrepid Homoludens]

I love arthouse movies!

Originally Posted by Ninth

What exactly are arthouse movies?

They're difficult, that's what they are. Their ultimate goal is not necessarily to purely entertain, though they could in terms of visual style or other elements. They usually address complicated ideas or concepts your brain churns over hours after leaving the cinema. Things like interrelational social issues (Ingmar Bergman's Scenes From A Marriage), politically inclined consequences, breaches in humanity (Pasolini's Salu), feminism (Lina Wertmüller's The Seven Beauties and Swept Away), existentialist musings (Alain Resnais's Last Year At Marienbad), religion (Jean Luc Godard's Hail Mary), and metaphysical rhetoric (Chris Marker's La Jetee).

Personally I love these kinds of films, but I also love your standard summer blockbuster, although I'm terribly picky with them.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Intrepid HomoludensThey're [U

difficult[/U], that's what they are. Their ultimate goal is not necessarily to purely entertain, though they could in terms of visual style or other elements. They usually address complicated ideas or concepts your brain churns over hours after leaving the cinema. Things like interrelational social issues (Ingmar Bergman's Scenes From A Marriage), politically inclined consequences, breaches in humanity (Pasolini's Salu), feminism (Lina Wertmüller's The Seven Beauties and Swept Away), existentialist musings (Alain Resnais's Last Year At Marienbad), religion (Jean Luc Godard's Hail Mary), and metaphysical rhetoric (Chris Marker's La Jetee).

Personally I love these kinds of films, but I also love your standard summer blockbuster, although I'm terribly picky with them.

Yeah, that's what I though, and I love this kind of films too, obviously, and I don't love the standard summer blockbuster, with a very few exceptions. I still see a lot of those, though... :eek:

[ConcreteRancor]

I honestly have to say that I thought The Village was one of the absolute WORST movies I have ever seen. It's the first movie where I ever felt tempted to go up and ask for a refund afterwards. And I saw Lost in Space in theaters. (Man, William Hurt needs a better agent.) What was wrong with it? Well sit down children, you'll be here for a while.

1. The speaking. It grated. Immensely. Know first that I am a Shakespeare nut, and so I at first was really willing to forgive the style of their speaking. I thought, okay, here's an artistic decision, let's see if it works. It didn't. Shyamalan may have been trying to write the Bard, but Shakespeare FLOWS. This was just incredibly stilted and boring. I WANTED to accept it, I really did, but then I realized, no, it's just really, really bad writing. It sounded, not like the Amish, but like modern-day people trying to speak like the Amish. Which might have been on purpose, considering the so-called "twist." But I'll get to that in a minute.

2. The colors. For Christ's sake, what the hell is wrong with teaching your children the name of colors? Okay, "those we do not speak of" I can accept. Hell, it works in Harry Potter. But "the bad color?" "The good color?" It has PRETENTION stamped all over it. Worse, like his now-predictable "twist-endings," Shyamalan's use of color has gotten way too obvious. I'll go into spoiler mode here for those who haven't seen Sixth Sense and Unbreakable.

Spoiler:

In Sixth Sense, there was a flash of red every time there was a clue that Bruce Willis was dead. In Unbreakable, there was a flash of purple right before someone would get hurt.

Now it's just gotten ridiculously blatant.

3. This is obvious from what I've been saying, but the twist was just stupid and SO poorly handled. It came way before the end of the movie, thus spoiling the tension of the remaining half-hour, and it could be predicted a mile away. Friends of mine who I talked to afterwards never even went to SEE the movie, and yet correctly predicted the twist in its entirety.

Spoiler:

I thought that although the Elders had created their own monster, there might ACTUALLY be something else out there that was much worse than what they could come up with. THAT would be a twist, after the audience thought that they already saw it. But no, Shyamalan isn't that creative. Why did he say that the monsters were fake so early? Why not leave it until the end and let us wonder the entire time? Probably because he had to admit to himself that by this time, the entire audience already knew anyway.
And the whole "they're actually living in modern times" was apparent from the start. It wasn't until halfway through the movie that I realized that that was even supposed to be a secret.

4. The acting. There were only two good performances in this entire movie, and one of those wasn't of an interesting character anyway. Adrian Brody did very well, but then there's only so much you can do with a mentally retarded character. Bryce Howard was the only other character who was any good. (Although she WAS very good, I'll give the movie that.) Everyone else blended into each other. I'm generally good at remembering movie characters' names, but I was forgetting names here because all the characters were so like one another. And Joaquin Phoenix... hoo boy. From the movies I've seen him in, I find he has a tendency to overact severely on everything he does. What a surprise, he does the same thing here.

5. The type of scares. Technique is what I'm referring to here. The scares of this movie got away on shock value, basically. A loud sound and something flashing across the screen may scare you once, (I'll admit I jumped in my seat a few times,) but see it again and you'll be thinking "meh." Was the same with the movie What Lies Beneath. Although that was a much better movie for other reasons, it just didn't scare on the second time through.

As I was walking out of the theater with my friend, I was listening to the people around me. Here's a sample of what I heard. These are all actual quotes, from entirely different groups of people. (Not just the same group of friends):
"That sucked ass!"
"What the f*ck was that sh*t?"
"The only thing that movie was good at was sucking ass."
I did not hear one positive comment. Reviews I've read have said pretty much the same thing. Although I don't doubt your characters, Stinger and Mares, I believe that you are in the vast minority when it comes to liking this movie.

[nordic_guy]

It sounded, not like the Amish, but like modern-day people trying to speak like the Amish. Which might have been on purpose, considering the so-called "twist." But I'll get to that in a minute.

Spoiler:

You need to start hiding your spoilers better.
(Not that I didn't know it already, though. That twist was predicted long before the movie finished in production. =/)

[Royal Fool]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but wow, it looks like I was pretty spot-on with some of the twists.

*sigh* Trailers.

[Sly Boots]

Originally Posted by Stinger

My favorite movies - American Beauty, Usual Suspects, Fight Club, This is Spinal Tap, Life is Beautiful, the first Austin Powers, Seven, Memento, Being John Malkovich

Oh my god! My top-5 movies are in your list. You must like Kevin Spacey(I know I do). I would have to add Glengarry Glen Ross. Haven't seen Austin Powers 1, but AP2 really sucked.

Regarding Shyamalans's films, I really liked Unbreakable and the whole comic book parralel. The Sixth Sense, though, was pretty boring, and by the time the twist popped up, I was too bored to care.

[Sly Boots]

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

Not everyone who loves 'arthouse' films are snobs.

--Erwin

But most of them, anyway. I saw Hable con Ella and I can't say I understood it. It wasn't boring, not by a long shot, it gave you the impression that it had a meaning, not a very obvious one though.
Some people like these kinds of movies out of narcissism. They think they understand it, therefore they are superrior. It's kind of like masturbation.
And of course, there are people who really understand them. But the ones saying I like only arthouse films, the others are beneath me, those are the real snobs.
I like movies with meaning, movies which get stuck to your mind long after you've watched them that aren't really arthouse movies. That's why I like Fight Club or American Beauty.
Also, european movies are more difficult than american ones, but that doesn't make them better. I loved Kusturica's Underground, winner of Cannes 1995, but I'm not sure it's an arthouse movie, maybe someone can enlighten me.

[AFGNCAAP]

I watched it yesterday and what can I add? Shyamalan has directed (and, most of all, written) another intelligent picture. Whereas not his best, The Village is IMO the deepest of his movies. Firstly, the whole situation is quite openly a metaphor of human's attitude towards evil (Could creating a confined, artificial paradise be any solution? Do people need a common enemy to stick together? Is fear essential to provide lawfulness?). Secondly, the characters are ambigous. Lastly, although there is some treat for Sixth Sense and Unbreakable fans (though there is more than one surprise this time around), the CRAZY twists do not explain everything; some questions are left unanswered. All in all a worthy film, though I'm quite shocked it's doing so well commercially - many viewers may feel misled by the trailer which suggests typical horror, while there are relatively few frightening scenes.

[ConcreteRancor]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

I watched it yesterday and what can I add? Shyamalan has directed (and, most of all, written) another intelligent picture. Whereas not his best, The Village is IMO the deepest of his movies. Firstly, the whole situation is quite openly a metaphor of human's attitude towards evil (Could creating a confined, artificial paradise be any solution? Do people need a common enemy to stick together? Is fear essential to provide lawfulness?). Secondly, the characters are ambigous. Lastly, although there is some treat for Sixth Sense and Unbreakable fans (though there is more than one surprise this time around), the CRAZY twists do not explain everything; some questions are left unanswered. All in all a worthy film, though I'm quite shocked it's doing so well commercially - many viewers may feel misled by the trailer which suggests typical horror, while there are relatively few frightening scenes.

I have to admit that you're right about the concept and basic story being pretty intelligent, but it's not really groundbreaking. The Truman Show had a similar idea behind it. Basically, it comes down to the fact that I've never seen a good concept for a movie handled quite so ineptly.

[Fop]

Shyamalan rocks. I can't wait to see this movie, although I've heard a lot of bad things about it (even from Shyamalan fans) :/ And some bastard spoiled the twist for me. Unbreakable is my favourite of his films

[Kolzig]

Originally Posted by IMDB

Disney and Shyamalan Face Plagiarism Lawsuit

Writer-director M. Night Shyamalan and The Walt Disney Co. are bracing themselves for legal action, after a children's author declared similarities between her book and new movie The Village. The Village, the latest thriller by Shyamalan, stars Joaquin Phoenix, Sigourney Weaver and Adrien Brody and has proved to be a hit at the American office. But now that much-needed success - Disney has endured a string of flops this year - has been marred by publisher Simon & Schuster Inc's announcement it is reviewing its legal options against the company and Shyamalan. Last week, reports circulated that The Village's plot and surprise ending were parallel to Margaret Peterson Haddix's first book Running Out Of Time, published in 1995. Haddix says she heard about the similarities last week when fans - and then journalists - began calling and emailing her and her publisher to ask if she had sold the book to Shyamalan. She claims she has never spoken to Shyamalan or to Disney, adding, "It's certainly an interesting situation. I'm just examining what my options are." A joint statement from Disney and Shyamalan's Blinding Edge Pictures says: "(We) believe these claims to be meritless". Simon & Schuster spokeswoman Tracy Van Straaten adds, "This is a children's book that sold more than half a million copies and won prizes, so it's not an obscure book for us." Shyamalan has previously battled a copyright lawsuit brought by a Pennsylvania screenwriter who claimed the plot from his 2002 film Signs mirrored his unpublished script Lord Of The Barrens.

Hmmmm...

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

I have to admit that you're right about the concept and basic story being pretty intelligent,

I shall, in turn, agree that the speaking was indeed annoying at times (and I also love Shakespeare's work ).

but it's not really groundbreaking. The Truman Show had a similar idea behind it.

Does it have to be groundbreaking? Also, Truman Show had superb script, but it focused (or I received it that way) mainly on the mass media vs. freedom theme.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that I've never seen a good concept for a movie handled quite so ineptly.

To each his own. But, may I add, although I'd mention the same actors as the only two who gave good performances (Ms Howard really is a name to watch), the others weren't bad - they just didn't shine. I believe that multiple blending characters (and weird language) were written this way on purpose - to alienate us from this strange society (whether it was right decision is a different question - personally I prefer to care about the characters like I did in M. Night's three previous films).

About the "twisty" stuff: since the Sixth Sense (which is my favourite, even though I did predict the ending) I've tried to learn of Shyamalan's scripts as little as possible before seeing the actual movie. In case of The Village's plot, I had known literally nothing that can't be seen in the trailer. I think

Spoiler:

the possibility (if not certainty) that the creatures don't exist should occur to some 80% of the averagely intelligent audience. By revealing it so early, Shyamalan prepared us for the scene of the beast attacking Bryce Howard's character. For me it was definitely the moment of the greatest tension because I absolutely didn't know what to make of it: is there something - unknown to the elders - in the woods? Or did they lie to the girl for some reason? Or is it only her imagination?
The modern-times-twist is the icing on the cake, so to speak - note that while it is a surprise (well, was one for me), it doesn't dramatically change our view on the whole situation.
Finally, I'd never guess that Lucius will get stabbed. I mean, he was the one to enter the woods in the end, right?

Just out of curiosity, ConcreteRancor, did you like previous Shyamalan's productions, or were you disappointed with them as well?

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Oh. Well, I guess that answer my question, in a way, and so I guess I can be angry now.
Damn those ignorant fools who call people snobs when they're looking for something more than fun in movie theaters. It's like calling people snobs because they read actual books instead of comics.

I replied to this and then deleted it but then realized that I was right.

What the hell were you trying to say with the "actual books" vs "comic books" remark? Who on earth reads exclusively comic books instead of whatever "actual books" are? I know plenty of well read people who also read comic books. None of my friends read comic books as a replacement for or alternative to regular books. That's an insulting and uninformed example, unless maybe you're dealing with an eight year old. In fact of all my friends, the ones who have the most diverse tastes in most all forms of popular entertainment media (books, comics, film, television, music of any kind) are generally the ones who pop open a comic book or graphic novel from time to time. The ones who stick up their nose at comics, or action films or whatever, are generally more closed minded (and more loud about it), and miss out on a lot of fun things because of it.

I know that wasn't entirey your intent when you wrote that, but there is definitely some odd sneaking bias coming through in what you said, and I think it undermines the point you were trying to make.

[ConcreteRancor]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Just out of curiosity, ConcreteRancor, did you like previous Shyamalan's productions, or were you disappointed with them as well?

I actually really liked both Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. I never saw Signs though.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Jake

I replied to this and then deleted it but then realized that I was right.

What the hell were you trying to say with the "actual books" vs "comic books" remark? Who on earth reads exclusively comic books instead of whatever "actual books" are? I know plenty of well read people who also read comic books. None of my friends read comic books as a replacement for or alternative to regular books...

Well, I guess I should have been more specific, if I was to use this example. Of course, some comics are brilliant (like, say, Calvin and Hobbes), and of course, of whole lot of books are crap.
By comic books I meant the "endless series with resurrecting bad guys, relatives of the hero coming up, cross-over all around the place and artists changing every other issue" kind, like Witchblade or X-Men or whatever.
And by books I meant, uh... any classical litterature. Let's say, for the sake of using simple example, Shakespeare.
Now, of course most people read both litterature and comics, and in spite of my using "because they read actual books instead of comics", I don't for a moment think that reading comic books is degrading in any way. I do so myself more often than I read actual books.
So I'll change my sentence in:
"It's like calling people snobs because they'd rather read some classical litterature rather than comic books." Or more precisely: "because they think there's more to classical litterature than there's to comic books".
Anyway, this was the first example that sprung to my mind at the time, and therefore wasn't that accurate to begin with. My point is: commercial movies are products, art-house movies are art (obviously). What could possibly be snob about liking art more than goods?

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Jake

The ones who stick up their nose at comics, or action films or whatever, are generally more closed minded (and more loud about it), and miss out on a lot of fun things because of it.

The thing is, fun is not something I look for. Pleasure is, certainly, but I just don't see the point of fun. A fun thing is something I'll forget as soon as it's over, like I do forget most of the action movies I've seen (and I've seen a bunch). Comic books are certainly often more than fun to me (compelling, funny, witty, interesting, impressive...), but action movies almost never are, so even though I go and see them, I take the liberty of sticking my nose at them afterwards. Not that I wouldn't like to be surprised by an action film, really.
8-)

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

I actually really liked both Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. I never saw Signs though.

I see. Altough I did enjoy The Village, I value both these titles way higher (and Signs somewhat lower) and I was wondering what are the tastes of those who dislike Village.

[The Seed]

Sorry to resurrect this thread after so long, but I only just saw this movie today and would like to add some comments.

I was unfortunate enough to see the 1.30 showing of the movie, which meant that the theatre was absolutely full of rowdy kids. Admittedly though, it was quite funny hearing a few ignorant little brats come out with such well thought out remarks as "That was complete shite!" and "What the f*** was that about?" once the credits started rolling. It's obvious that they were going in there expecting to see a monster ripping people apart for 2 hours, and were utterly disappointed to find that the film was actually deeper than that.

I really liked the film, the twist at the end was really clever, as is the norm with this Shyamalan dude. Not actually as suspenseful as I was expecting, but it had it's moments. That said there were a few things that I had problems with:

Spoiler:

I still have a little trouble believing that this little blind girl was able to find her way through those woods, regardless of whether or not they were inhabited by an evil creature. Then again, it kind of puts things in perspective when you discover that the whole thing is just a wildlife preserve.

I also thought it was a bit un-necessary to have poor Noah dress up as the creature and terrorize the blind girl, before falling into the pit and getting killed. It sort of portrayed him as being a more of a villain, which I kind of didn't like considering his mental condition.

Anyway, as I said...nice movie, just a shame about the company.

[Hammerite]

i only just discovered this thread, but ive been wondering a very long time about this... is the dude in the truck at the preserve dead because he looks very lifeless.

P.S. i didnt notice that the girl was blind until about half-an-hour into the film.

[Manhunter71]

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

I don't recall Signs as overrated, because I remember I went to see it with normal expectations. I must say I really liked the movie, except for the last 10 minutes or so, when they really show the alien creatures. The strenght of this movie was in the things you didn't see. Overall, it rates pretty high in my rankings.

--Erwin

I have to agree with you about this movie - I love M. Night Shyamalan and Signs didn't disappoint, apart from the end where you got to see the aliens.
The tension built up all through the film, and especially near the end when you could hear them walking about outside and on the roof.
But right at the end where Joachin Pheonix uses the baseball bat to smash the glass of water all over the alien just seemed really unbelievable.

Other than It was a great movie - I even bought the Shyamalan DVD box set because of it

Haven't seen the village yet but hopefully will do soon