All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
The Village became a hot topic on another thread, so I thought I'd begin a new one about that movie by itself. People have mixed feeling about what Shyamalan did right and wrong here and I'm very curious about it.
Personally, I felt the big twist of the creatures not really existing simply destroyed the film's rewatchability since 100% of the suspense was gone. Those creatures were the only thing that created any fear or suspense in the film, so knowing the truth just makes it laughable the second time through.
This didn't ruin the film for me, though. I actually felt the later revelation of where and when they were was an even bigger surprise and made the film very interesting in retrospect. I think their motives could have been better explained in some scene, but overall, I didn't have a problem with the film, and I thought Shyamalan did a good job with the idea, as un-re-watchable as it is.
so knowing the truth just makes it laughable the second time through.
Laughable the second time?
My major problem with this is that, not only is the twist wholly unsatisfying and poorly executed, it comes about halfway through the movie (if I remember correctly). I just wanted to turn off as soon as the reveal came along.
A waste of some great cinematography, strong performances and some decent suspense building.
Crap. My bizarre view of the world thought it said movie reviews and discussion. Can someone please move this into movie boards? I feel like such a putz.
i thought the village was an excellent movie and i have it on DVD and have watched it numerous times... although the creatures being fake does take away suspense its still good to watch simply for the execution of the directing and secondly because the story never fails to amaze me even though i know what will come... there are new details i notice everytime that just add to the enjoyment.... i can totally understand why some people view it as a gimmick but to me the twist isn't the main point of the story and isn't as bad as some people say
True, the Village may have next to zero rewatchability, but you have to give him credit for a good story - and I'm not talking about the whole "Hey, we're in the year 200-whatever instead of the 1800s." M. Night did a fantastic job of expressing a theme of fear with this script, and he did it in a way that most Hollywood films wouldnt even try hard enough to do. He created a smart story, he just added a twist that ruined it (sort of).
I love Shyamalan and I love his work. In regards to The Village - I must admit I thought it was fantastic. As the movie unfolded, I remember sitting in the theatre thinking "Uh-oh, a lot of people are gonna be pissed at this movie...".
It's fantastically filmed and the acting is top notch. What killed it for people was two things:
1. It was falsely marketed as a horror movie - which it is not. Yes, it deals with fear and terror - but I wouldn't classify it as a typical horror movie.
2. The first twist. Although I don't think it kills the movie, what it does is kills the premise. That's why it was so important to have the sub-theme and the second twist. Roger Ebert gives a review, a harsh one mind you, but a fair one in retrospect. Let me quote him:
"The Village is a colossal miscalculation, a movie based on a premise that cannot support it, a premise so transparent it would be laughable were the movie not so deadly solemn. It's a flimsy excuse for a plot, with characters who move below the one-dimensional and enter Flatland."
AND
"Eventually the secret of Those, etc., is revealed. To call it an anticlimax would be an insult not only to climaxes but to prefixes. It's a crummy secret, about one step up the ladder of narrative originality from It Was All a Dream. It's so witless, in fact, that when we do discover the secret, we want to rewind the film so we don't know the secret anymore.
And then keep on rewinding, and rewinding, until we're back at the beginning, and can get up from our seats and walk backward out of the theater and go down the up escalator and watch the money spring from the cash register into our pockets." I don't agree with his one-dimensional characters critique, I thought they were good and acted/re-acted with honesty to their situation.
It was a calculated risk - and to most, it failed. I'm one of the folks who liked it and will watch it again.
It just bugged me how the blind girl ran through the forest without hitting a single tree. I was like, shit,this is just ridiculous. She didn't trip or anything.
it doesnt show her running through the whole forest and she did almost fall down that hole... if theyd have shown her running into trees it would have changed the whole tone of the film, she made mistakes but not big ones which also go to show her character... although she's blind she's just as capable as anyone else in the village and is alot braver
1. It was falsely marketed as a horror movie - which it is not. Yes, it deals with fear and terror - but I wouldn't classify it as a typical horror movie.
I think this sums up its biggest problem. If it had been marketed to a different audience, it might have fared better. However, when you try and hit the horror audience with something like this, you're bound to get nailed to the wall, because the horror audience doesn't want this. Kind of a case of misfired expectations. You EXPECT Shyamalan to put out a certain type of film, and when one is marketed as a film like those he has put out before, you go in with the expectation that this is what you're getting.
Then you get zinged with a film that relies on something other than its shock value to survive. Once you pass that first twist, the genre (by necessity) changes. You move from the original horror to one that is more straight drama. And it's hard to get the horror buffs to sit through a drama and hard to get drama buffs to sit through a horror.
it doesnt show her running through the whole forest and she did almost fall down that hole... if theyd have shown her running into trees it would have changed the whole tone of the film, she made mistakes but not big ones which also go to show her character... although she's blind she's just as capable as anyone else in the village and is alot braver
Doesn't matter how brave she is, a blind person running through a forest is bound to hit a tree. It's imperturbable. The probability of a lone blind person running through a forest and not hitting a tree, is just about as improbable as me turning into a million penguins right now. Which would actually be pretty cool.
I thought the movie was sub-par. Nicely photographed with some creative sequences, but for the most part it wallowed one step above mediocrity.
For me, there just wasn't very much entertainment value. I didn't think the suspense was particularly good, I didn't identify with the characters, and it moved far too slowly for me. Now I'm not the type who gets bored when I'm not watching Michael Bay, but all the same, I felt like yelling, "Get on with it!" This meant that when the first twist came around, it just sort of crushed any hope I had of being entertained.
I thought some of the acting was great, and some of it was downright laughable. Same goes for writing. I dunno...in the end, I just thought it was too much of a non-event.