 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
One of my friends is a real fan of the director of "Sixth Sense" which I never saw. He talked me into seeing "The Village" last night. The movie had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Horrible plot. Horrible acting. Horrible writing. Shocking imagery that I would prefer to have avoided, including a blind woman running terrified through the forest by herself, being chased by a monster...and Adrien Brody playing "The Village Idiot", and overacting something aweful. The whole cast did.But what I really disliked about the movie was its overt political message that our leaders create our enemies (which really don't exist) to control us and keep us living in fear. This "moral of the story" was communicated with the subtlety of a sledgehammer.
Follow Ups:
"But what I really disliked about the movie was its overt political message that our leaders create our enemies (which really don't exist) to control us and keep us living in fear. This "moral of the story" was communicated with the subtlety of a sledgehammer"I saw The Village last night and was midly amused by it. It was good summer entertainment.
I did not see the same film you did. I certainly do not come to the same interpretation. The key to this may be the word "interpretation".
I sugest that the interpretation of the film says more about the interpreter than the film.
In short, your interpretation may be true for you, but it is by no means a definitive interpretation. Not a great film, or even a good film, but I didn't see the same film you did.
Did you at least get the premise that the village leaders had invented their enemy to control and sow fear in their people?And if so, how can you deny that this has political overtones in an election year in which the incumbent is being criticized for exactly the reasons the village elders should be criticized in the movie?
"And if so, how can you deny that this has political overtones in an election year in which the incumbent is being criticized for exactly the reasons the village elders should be criticized in the movie?"I guess I'm just a simple minded kind of guy. I took the movie on its face. The elders saw themselves as alienated and injured by an impersonal and violent society. To create a differnt life for themselves and their children they were willing to create a giant hoax for their offspring. This "premise" creates a very mildly interesting moral question. However, as a dramatic story it was not particularly plausible. I took the film no further than that.
I read absolutely no political overtones into the movie. It was just summer entertainment. I would be very surprised to learn that the movie had an "intended" allegorical meaning such as you suggest.
I see absolutely no intended parallel between the elders in the movie and the current administration. Again, I suspect that any parallels you see, you brought to the movie.
a
I'm an idiot. I read some strong negative reviews (which should have been even stronger). Call me and idiot, I was bored [I did love the trailer (and posted such here month's ago, even then you guys warned me)]. The movie did some strong box office, and there were some strong positive reviews to be found (you sluts, whores, charlatans, and hustlers posing as reviewers).Now if the movie were say twenty five or so minutes long? It might possibly make an O.K. episode of the Twilight Zone.
a
Van Helsing was by far the worst movie I've seen this year. I don't even want to think about the "worst ever".I think your own political paranoia slants your spin on The Village. The theme is a time honored one in scifi and fantasy.
You appear to have allegory more on your mind than did the director.Ever considered that the theme had more to do with the monster within than the monster without? (Not saying The Village is great cinema, BTW.)
The film did have brilliant cinematography from Deakins, IMO.
There are much MUCH worse films playing at your local multiplex: I Robot, Catwoman, Van Helsing, Cindarella Story, et al.
I'd see watch The Village than Jaws, which I consider unwatchable.
Excuse me, I'm allergic to bullshit.
You must be having a really rough time these days.
nt
I haven't seen it but the "Buried Secret of M. Night Shyamalan" on the Sci-Fi channel was horrible. It was basically a 3 HOUR commercial/infommercial for this movie. I watched it at a local bar where some of the interviews, some of the staff were interviewed as well, were conducted. The most controversial thing I saw was M.N.S. step on a leaf. I was yawning in my lager.
Ah, you mean as opposed to using real enemies to control us and keep us living in fear? - Must be a commie plot.
...if "The Village" offended your political sensibilities. Even I got it's message...
do you think it's a coincidence that such movies are opening in theaters this summer? No one has attempted a remake of Manchurian Candidate in decades, and it's been a while since I've seen a movie as overtly judgemental of the US as The Village, or a woeful piece of propoganda mislabeled a "documentary", as F911.Hollywood has certainly been busy preparing for this summer.
(nt)
So what's the problem?
. . . Is that it was purely politically motivated. Why did they decide to release this outdated info the week after democratic convention? It's all so pat and convenient.I bet the terror color gets lowered to yellow the week after the Republical convention too.
Another example of how the public is being manipulated by this administration, and most of us don't even notice it, or care.
Roger Ebert's online review of this is hilarious.
based on trackrecord, I have come to the conclusion (admittedly simplistic, but works for me) that either:1. Roeper is an idiot
or
2. they are a double act i.e. Ebert tells it like it is while Roeper provides the "balanced" view.
If there's a movie that Roeper liked and Ebert disliked or did not review, I stay the hell away from it.
...and his fluid writing style...Ebert is off his rocker half the time these days. He's written some daffily flattering reviews of many very bad commercial movies in the last few years.I don't pay any attention to either of them. I look for insight elsewhere and in more than one place.
yes, I look beyond Ebert too, especially now that Rotten Tomatoes has made it so convenient.I suppose I should sit down some day to do a proper statistical study to identify a subgroup of e-reviewers whose inclination correlates with mine. I had Ebert and James Berardinelli, but they are not as prolific as before.
...the Cinemarati forum (www.cinemarati.org). I also recommend metacritic.I tend to loosely follow certain writers: Mary Ann Johansen (flickfilosopher.com), David Poland (the Hot Button, Movie City News), Ken Turan (LA Times), Michael Wilmington (Chicago Trib), Jill Cozzi & ??? (damn, I forgot the site...find 'em through Cinemarati), the good folks at Salon.com. Anthony Lane at New Yorker...I guess I've given up on David Denby.
I'm comfortable in my own opinions. It's always interesting to get a new perspective though. I also read Sight & Sound.
(nt)
I saw it tonight because "The Blind Swordsman of Zatoichi" was playing too far away. I've seen all of Shyamalan's films and this one was about on par with "Signs", better than "Unbreakable" and not nearly as good as "6th Sense". I found it pretty entertaining but it reminded me mostly of a bigger budget "Blair Witch" with all the stilted dialogue, spooky music and rustling in the brush.> But what I really disliked about the movie was its overt political message that our leaders create our enemies (which really don't exist) to control us and keep us living in fear. This "moral of the story" was communicated with the subtlety of a sledgehammer.>
Sorry but I didn't get your "overt political message" from this movie - I think you're reading too much into it. I did, however, get your political message/moral above from M. Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" - that our leaders use fear to keep us where they want us.
Regards,
Mike
The fact that you didn't get the overt political message says it all...The movie was nothing but a stilted, offensive, poorly portrayed allegory as intellectually bankrupt as Moore's mockumentary (since you bring it up). You don't wake up one morning and write a story about a group of settlers fleeing their previous society to start a new one...and the leaders controlling the settlers with lies and fear. There's a little more to it than that and I'm astonished you couldn't see it.
s
You mean yesterday's phony terror alert was just a ploy to keep Americans afraid? I can't believe it. I mean, George Bush is a man of impeccable character.Jeffery
The news is only four years old, after all ;-)
> > > "This 'moral to the story' was communicated with the subtlety of a sledgehammer." < < <Then, would you say that M Night Shyamalan was aiming at a staunchly Conservative audience, perhaps? ;^)
Seriously, knowing your political views, that mini-review almost comes across as an endorsement. I hadn't intended on seeing The Village because it's been almost universally panned, but if there's an obvious alegorical message that zeros in on the political gamesmanship of our own contemporary polarized political society then this film may have some redeeming value after all!
BTW, as far as M. Night Shymalan's other films are concerned, I can wholeheartedly recommend The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable as genuine masterpieces of suspense; both are excellent and quite different from one another. OTOH, Signs was a definite letdown (some of the hammiest acting I've ever seen from Mel Gibson; I can't recommend it) and I've been concerned that The Village just might be as well.
Cheers,
AuPh
You are trying too hard.
I do think people who ignore or take an apologist stance for our real enemies while blaming/hating our leaders, will find much to dig about this movie. That was the scariest part of it for me. The imagery was gratuitously disgusting and nightmarish, but it was soothing compared to the Hollywood demagoguery.Whatever one's political leaning, I will guarantee that when the credits role you will wish you had your $10 back. The ending was such a cop-out that it fit right in with the rest of the film's weaknesses.
Well, I take it back--it wasn't *all* bad. If you're a Hilary Hahn fan, your ears don't bleed in movie theaters and you can tune out dialogue, you may be able to enjoy the soundtrack.
I saw a trailer for the new "Exorcist" movie yesterday. The message of that film seems to be that Christians are really, really paranoid.I also sat through "Howard and Kumar Go to White Castle." The message of that film seemed to be that straight young-adult males are really, really paranoid about homosexuality.
I also saw a trailer for the new John Waters movie, "A Dirty Shame," but it was hard to tell what the message of that movie was because the trailer made no sense. Nice to see Tracey Ullman in a flick, though.
Jeffery
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
