I am really looking forward to seeing "The Village"

In my book M. Night is three for three. Not all homeruns. The last two were RBI's, but that's not too shabby.

Below is an article about someone who supposedly got a hold of the closely guarded script.

http://www.filmjerk.com/nuke/article603.html

I thought that The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were both a little overrated. I mean, the whole point of Sixth Sense was the twist. Everything was leading up to that point, which in the end I saw coming. Umbreakable was far too subdued for my tastes.

Signs was his best so far, I think. He took what most people would have made a special-effects alien invasio flick and turned it into a more quieter, isolated view on it. In this case the subdued feeling fit it, as it was about the family more than anything, not the aliens, which I liked.

The village looks pretty good, though with him it's hard for me to say. I didn't like Sixth, hated Unbreakable, but loved Signs. Who knows. I'd bet you dollars to donuts I know what the twist ending is. That's the one bad thing with his movies: he has the same type of twist, so the twist isn't unexpected anymore. You expect it from him, so you look for the signs.

I don't really like the guy... not as a writer or director/movie maker. I didn't like the six sense or unbreakable... I thought that Signs was an exercise in typical run of the mill movie miffs.

I saw the baseball bat and water bit coming from 3 miles away.

I did however like signs better than any of his other movies to date... all though, it was still pretty stupid.

In the end, the village looks lame at best. It is going to be very dry and very ho hum. I think the good parts will far be out weighed by the bad parts.

Just my two cents, but that's how I see it.

The thing about M. Night (I'm not going to even attempt spelling his last name) is that he seems to think that people always expect a twist ending from him.  Unfortunatly, this is probably true.  I guarantee you the day he makes a (probably good, critically acclaimed) film without the twist ending is the day mainstream audiences turns their backs on him.

As far as "The Village" goes... eh.  I like the idea, but if the ending is what I heard (as has half of the globe by this point), I will be very dissapointed.  Also, the ad campaign makes me sick with the trailer re-capping Night's career (why?) and the false, "Secrets of M. Night" documentary set to air on Sci-Fi.  Just stop already.

Signs is his best....the rest are, well----"not bad"

I do find the subtext of this idea irresistible and intriguing given the times we are faced with here in America.

Outsiders kept apart by a thin border and ancient agreement. Neither side having a full understanding of the other until one day someone breaks the agreement and ventures in to the others territory and more confusion, suspicion, fear and death occur.
SOUND A LITTLE LIKE THE WAR ON TERRORISM?

If this subtext resonates by way of these subtle, subconscious messages this should be a popular film.

Stop and think about the rash of "revenge" films that came out recently.

THE PUNISHER
WALKING TALL
KILL BILL
MAN ON FIRE

A coincidence or a reflection of our current societal and political leanings?

50% of the list of movies you just named are remakes.

The other two are works of a genre in need of something original.

Watch the original piece that walking tall was based off of, and tell me it's typical...

Watch the original Punisher... a more gritty, more true to form look at Frank Castle, not a pretty boy Hollywood block buster. Dolph was the punisher invisioned... in my opinion anyway.

Instead of wearing a gay ass skull T-shirt, his beard was in the shape of a skull... really cool stuff in the original punisher, given the fact Marvel didn't release all the rights to the studio.

I have to agree with baltis here.  Call it a guilty pleasure, but I do enjoy when the Dolph Lundren "Punisher" comes on WB on Sunday afternoons.  As for the re-make?  Could have been good if given to a seasoned director.  Hensleigh may have been a bit of a pre-mature choice as a director for such a high-caliber action flick.

As far as revenge films in general, I actually liked "Man on Fire" (except for the ending).  Though, I would really like to see a "Max Payne" picture (in all of its dead baby glory).

Quoted from AmericanSyCo, posted July 10th, 2004, 8:05pm at here Though, I would really like to see a "Max Payne" picture (in all of its dead baby glory).

As long as they give it to someone who can handle it (I'm thinking a Hong Kong director, like John Woo before he went blockbuster on us) I wouldn't mind seeing one either.

The point is:

These movies coming out now (whether remakes or not) are reflections of our social state of mind. REVENGE sells to a public in need of a way to express its anger. These films might not have been greenlighted in more tranquil times. Not a lot of REVENGE flicks in the 80's. It's not anything new. Movies have provided this sort of catharsis for a long time.

LOOK OUT FOR The Manchurian Candidate (also a remake) about a shadowy brainwashing experiments and government manipulations. mmmmmm...

If your movie isnt called Fahrenheit 911 then people dont really care about some war (and their feelings about it) when they go see a movie. If the movies good, see it and if it isnt---somebodys gonna accidently wind up in the theatre anyhow.
WAR=stuff exploding and people dying
MOVIES=entertainment

Big difference. No correlation.

I am not suggesting that these films are overtly political or that they are popular because people want to be informed about politics or war. True, the primary function of film is to entertain, but trends form at different periods in time and the public responds to because of politial and social events.

The ideas work on a subconcious level and reflect a deeper meaning.

Take a look at the films of the fifties. Many of them especially the sci fi ones dealt with outsiders/aliens infiltrating and destroying our society. Invasion of the body Snatchers, War of the worlds some of the better examples. They tapped into the fears brought on by the rad scare.

It's not just a phenomenon in American society. The great Japanese Monster films for example. Nuclear mutations destroying great cities becomes an expression of a society dealing with the horrible aftermath of nuclear destruction.

It's naive to overlook these trends in art. Not just movies, but all art.

I suppose I agree, because, mostly in early paintings, all they did was represent situations occuring in the times----but I dont think viewers of these painting really cared about that, though the artist did.

You don't have to "care" about it. You don't even have to know it's there, but it is and for me it's fun to observe.

What are you talking about PAULA?

RAMBO, RAMBO 2, RAMBO 3,

All the MISSING IN ACTION movies

All the BRONSON movies

EXTERMINATOR 1 & 2

EXTREMITIES

Every DOLP LUNDGEREN movie in the 80's and early 90's

All the BILLY JACK movies

LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT

HOUSE ON THE EDGE OF THE PARK

DON'T GO INTO THE HOUSE

DON'T TOUCH MY SISTER

MOTHERS DAY

FIRE CLOUD
----------

I could go on and on and on and on...... and on some more about all the REVENGE movies that came out in the 70's and 80's.

You don't know what you're talking about PAULA. There were litterally hundreds of them in the day. It just looks to me that you don't know your movies well enough to know about any of them.

Please, don't speak your opinion when it's far from truth. And if you do speak it, please let it be known that it is "YOUR" opinion.

Cause I just listed several movies in the REVENGE genre... and all of them were released at more "TRANQUIL" times....

Whatever...

It's pretty easy to say I saw that coming when you watched the film, yeah really easy. After the fact

I actually like M. Night Shyamalan films so far, The Village isn't really the type of film I'd waste the time watching and my expectations are never high in this genre of film.

People are so picky anymore, that's why they can't enjoy anything.

Anyone with a brain can see the over use of plot fodder in Signs... C'mon... come clean. You don't need to say "HEy, I saw it coming" after the movie.

The first thing you see of merit in the movie is what? Water right? Why would you forget about it the whole movie? You wouldn't if you have an open mind and are a thinker.

M. Nights movies are standard fair in most formes... I don't like one them really, however signs was a decent movie. I thought the aliens were above average and kinda creepy. A little night of the living dead meets... fire in the sky kinda stuff.

However, the baseball bat -- him being a player -- the little girls obsession with water -- the stupid dad -- the kid who see's all -- C'mon, this is what he gave us before.

I'm not sold.

The only aspects of his movies I dont like is how (wont try to spell) HE tries to add supernatural phychological crap to his movies that sometimes isnt at all nessasary---like in certain parts of Signs. It didnt take away from the movie, it added to its running time.

Metaphor and allegory are useful tools and could really bolster some of the run of the mill horror scripts I have perused on these boards. While some are well written and adhere to the rules of the genre they are missing that subconcious mythology that Joseph Campbell teaches us in The Power Of Myth

Movies are always a window into what is going on in a particular society at the time. The thematic trends especially paralell the fears of that society.

In the 50's we were afraid of the Comunists and nuclear destruction. So, like I posted earlier, many mainstream films of the time followed a thematic trend of aliens and mutant monsters. The 60's brought out the great anti-establishment films like Easy Rider and Billy Jack. We were tired of blindly trusting authority as we did in the fifties and feared every value "the man" tried to uphold. In the 70's America was thrust deep into their fear of the sexual revolution hence the birth of the teen slasher film. Teens out having sex and living with morally casual attitudes got chopped into bits as in Halloween. We also had an out of control crime rate in the 70's and this brought on a rash of vigilante pictures. Deathwish, Taxi Driver, Assault on Precinct 13. To some extent NETWORK was a vigilante picture in its own MAD AS HELL NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE way. Films like Last House on the Left , I Spit on Your Grave and Mothers Day pulled an interesting twist by combining the slasher film with the vigilante film...nice trick!

With the 70's over and time to reflect on the tumult of Vietnam a rash of let's redo Vietnam our way films emerged in the 80's. Rambo, Missing in Action,. Of course the eighties were also the "ME" decade so there were plenty of films about rich whiney kids crying over their flat champagne. Less than Zero, St. Elmo's Fire, John Hughes Ad Nauseum.

So back to my belief that Shyamalan is onto something deeper than just a scary movie about creatures in the woods.  In the same way Romero chose to set Dawn of the Dead in a mall to make a statement about mall culture and rampant consumerism. Shyamalan is tapping into our current fears and uncertainties. Borders crossed, unknown cultures, suspicion, broken promises, territorial disputes all topics paralleling our current milaise
If Shyamalan is purposely structuring his film this way then he is a genius. If not then he is a tool of the genius known as our collective unconcious. Either way it's a lot of fun to deconstruct, observe and be entertained at the same time. Don't ya think?

Here is a review of SIGNS that delves into these ideas and suggests that SIGNS is subversively political. It's a bit heavy handed and long winded, but I generally agree.

http://www.geocities.com/redtheory/redcritique/SeptOct02/readingasrevelation.htm

This one sums it up a bit clearer:

http://www.geocities.com/~polfilms/signs.html

Well, I didnt know there was so much behind Signs. I just thought it was about guys dressed up in mediocre alien makeup trying to take over the world and screw over Mel Gibson.

YOU ARE RIGHT! It is about all those things...and a little more hidden beneath the surface.

Reminds me of that old TV film "The Lottery" based on the Shirley Jackson book.

I don't know.  I seriously came into this thread thinking "The Village" had really been released already somewhere in the world when it's July 30th in the U.S.  I was about to say, "Wha...?  Somebody go to a sneak or go to some premiere I don't know about...?"

But seeing as how this is primarily a debate thread, I'll just say thanks for the filmjerk article, Paula, and Baltis can ya quit with this personal agenda.  Look, B, not taking sides here, it's just become irksome to see whenever you've posted a remark in the same thread as she has, the whole thread takes on a distinctive negative tone and a fun debate becomes a "war against how arrogant she's being".

please - one friend to another - stop.  

i like your commentary, balt.  but i think it detracts when you take so much time and put so much energy into attacks on one person who should not even phase you.  we're a loving community here.  (at least once upon a time we were...what happened...)  lot of folks in hollywood don't like each other but just don't deal with each other.

i know you're ten times better than that.  


thanks.

-L

tbh I found Unbreakable, M. Night's best work, maybe it's because it's better than all the rest of the "superhero" movies :p
Sixth Sense was okay, and Signs was unbearable for me, but the directing was good, I just hate everything else.
The Village seems bad, but I'll watch it anyways.

Goose,
Good eye recognizing the apparent similarities between The Village and Shirley Jackson's short story. The Lottery is one of the most subversive and political pieces of literature of the 20th century. It attacks stagnant social rituals and values as well as the pointless violence that still plagues American society. It is as relevant today as it was when it first shocked those who read it in 1948.

I can't say if Shyamalan is giving a visual and thematic nod to Shirley Jackson's story until I see it, but I have to assume Shyamalan is a reader and knows Jacksons work, but maybe not. It will be interesting to see if their are any allusions to the story.

I'll be first in line to see this film!!

FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO READ THE STORY:
http://mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us/cybereng/shorts/lotry.html

Have not seen the film yet, but my enthusiasm is waning.

Thought this bit from Roger Ebert's review was funny.

Speaking on the "TWIST" ending he wrote:

"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 saw "the village" three times already - when it was called "The Sixth Sense", "Unbreakable" and "Signs". Seriously, I can't think of a filmmaker I like less than Shymalan - except maybe Tarantino. I've never understood the hoopla around those two.

But to each their own. I'm glad those who liked it liked it.

Vkonstant:

You don't like Tarantino?

That's an opinion I'd like to see the reasoning behind..do you feel, like many people, that all he does is rehash old movies?  Not like the violence?  Think his films are just plain stupid?  Please explain.

Paula:

I think the definitive 50s Communism scare movie is Invasion of the Body Snatchers.  And regarding the Shirley Jackson story, I would guess that perhaps Shyamalan incorporated it somewhat, either consciously or unconsciously.

Oh and I have high hopes for The Village.  I like Shyamalan.  Wasn't a huge Signs fan but thought Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were very good.

Heretic,

I won't say I don't like Tarantino - I've never met the man. But no, I don't like his films. I find them, without exception, to be overhyped, simplistic, pseudo-Orwellian, pop  culture invested socially consciousless drivel masquerading as cinema.

I like movies where you can walk out and have something to talk about - a point, a morality, a base. I have never found any of his films to have that foundation, nor have I seen any attempt to pursue such a genesis. What I have seen are conversations on Like A Virgin, Michael Madsen acting like a psycho, John Travolta lying about Amsterdam (hell, I lived there for a year and never once saw anybody but mayonnaise on french fries!), Uma Thurman doing - well, Uma Thurman and a prepubescent Asian swinging a Mace in Hollywood's version of a Sake Bar.

Useless, careless, pointless crap. But that's just me, and he's a millionaire with an Oscar, so what do I know?

The late Charles Brosnan was arguable the best man in any revenge movie.

in regards to The Village...i have no doubts it will be awesome.
however, i was hanging around a chat room and some jerk gave away the ending....which ruins the movie somewhat

however, i still intend to enjoy it....

I went and seen it tonight...

All I can say is simply this... I don't like M.N.S anyways, so... this is no surprise, but... the movie was crap! The ending was a joke! I couldn't beleive that this was the ending he went with, opposed to the other ending floating around.

All I can say is this... It was boring, slow paced, predictable at almost every turn and the explantion of the "things beyond the village or whatever" was so damn stupid it wasn't even worth the time.

I coined the ending about 65 to 70 minutes into it... and... I was right.

LAME... really LAME...

For any who want to save a few bucks... I'll let you in on it if you'd like.

well don't do that....i enjoy MNS....he adds some creativity and good ideas, that are unbelievably unique, to the whole film world....

like unbreakable....man....genius

I think M. Night Shyamalan is a good filmmaker, but he needs to get over the surprise twist ending.  He is in a funk, though, if he makes a really good movie, and it has no surprise ending, it just has a good, satisfying ending, (like Lord of the Rings) than everyone will say the movie is bad, but, if he does another twist ending, it won't be too good, because everyone goes and expects the twist, so because they expect it, the ending is getting easier to pinpoint and figure out.

I don't know, I only liked the first of the LOTR trilogy, coz the third wasn't very good imo ;( prolly because we all know what happens, and I'm just staring at the screen, and I'm like... ok... dull

I thought all of the LOTR trilogy were phenomal.

Movies to go down in history.

oh...well in that case baltis, i take back what i said...
it's certainly a twist ending...as usual, that some people may not find..appealing?

Also -- are we talking about the late great Charles Bronson?  Or is Charles Brosnan his mysterious twin brother?

Yeah.  Death Wish great.

Note to AmericanSyCo, I've moved this back to the movie reviews section.  Apparently this page was indexed by Google ( http://www.google.com/search?s.....alan%27s+The+Village ) and when it was moved, I was getting  a ton of errors on the site.  So, I moved it back here.

Don

Well I'll be adding a review on this movie tomorrow night or Wednesday morning

I saw the village.  I can't see why people hated the ending.  I can honestly say that I really liked this movie, and i can't really say that about a lot of movies I've seen this year.  I thought the twist at the end was pretty good, and it was different from a lotta other movies.  I hate it when the audience dis likes a movie because it tricked them, i think that's just crap.  The ending, however, reminded me of a book I've read called RUNNING OUT OF TIME, the similarities between that book and the ending of this movie were remarkable, and that's how I predicted the ending when the woman told what happened to her sister the FIRST time.  not the SECOND time, that's when I knew for sure that was the ending, but she said "alley" and i started thinking...  I think that in people's reviews, they take the fact it's a Shyamalan flick when considering the movie.  People shouldn't do that.  If this was Shyamalan's FIRST movie, would people like it?  It's a fun thing to think about....

Well after tonight I'll tell you, I do like Shyamalan's films very much but I am always an objective viewer especially when I sit in the front row and can barely hear when i'm done

Trust me if it blows it will still blow no matter how much I like his films

I went to see The Village, got there exactly when the film started and missed the previews but I got there

Now there may be spoilers ahead so if you're going to see the film don't read on

I was expecting maybe a fight between the ones they don't speak of and the village people but they tricked me and never even had any bad guys. It's really a drama with a thriller plot, the love story and all the talk about it

I didn't figure out if Ivy was really blind till halfway through the film, she's pretty good for a blind person. The ending wasn't the greatest ending possible because you don't really know if he dies or lives and they get married, that said it's a good enough ending

A few parts that made the crowd and myself jump, probably cause it was so loud but you never know. If you look at this as an M Night film I'm disappointed but if you just look at it as an overall film it's great.

4 out of 4 for this film, it had a story and it had a village what more do you want?

Quoted from Paula-Hanes, posted July 12th, 2004, 3:44am at here Movies are always a window into what is going on in a particular society at the time. The thematic trends especially paralell the fears of that society.

This may be true some of the time, and even a lot of the time, but some films are just pure entertainment.

Since we are talking about the thriller/horror genre, I offer Evil Dead and Re-animator as evidence.  Brilliant films, but utterly without underlying theme.

THE VILLAGE...SPOILERS..SPOILERS...SPOILERS...SPOILERS...

Okay - first of all I am a Shyamalan fan. I have thoroughly enjoyed his work. Signs being the best (though I was disappointed with how "water" played a big part in the movie), Sixth Sense being good, Unbreakable being okay.

As for The Village. As the movie went on I realized that it was not the horror flick that I thought it was going to be. I know a lot of people were p*ssed off because it really is a drama (with a hint of social commentary thrown in..) with a twist of horror...I must admit I was a little disappointed with the first twist, but realized that I was enjoying the movie as it was. I admit I did'nt see that ending coming, and I think it's kinda cool. Where I thought he had sold out with the creatures, it made sense with the ending...

As a movie...without the hype, without the Ad campaign making it "this years scariest movie to date", it's actually a great little picture. I loved the feeling of the village, the atmosphere and cinematography was great.

I was also going to question the fact about the lack of noise (planes etc..). But he conveniently covered that part.

Finally...I wonder if anyone else is like me. I can go into a movie and literally shut my brain off. I can become the target audience for almost any movie, and not think too much into any flick. I like to be surprised - even though it may be the easiest twist ever. I enjoy it. I know Shyamalan is known for his movie twists - but I can still go and see a movie unfold the way a director intends it to be unfolded. And I like that! Is anyone else like this?

I give The Village 4 out of 5.

I would have to say that I would have enjoyed the film so much more if there was no twist.  I really wish Shyamalan would start directing films written by other people than himself.  I really enjoyed "The Sixth Sense," "Unbreakable," and "Sign," but I thought the ball was dropped on "The Village" just because the script was lacking.  His direction, though, is phenomenal.

But if he didn't write he'd probably quit but he also worked on Stuart Little so you never know

I finally saw this on DVD last night.  This was fantastic.  I really enjoyed this movie.  My only question is why wouldn't Edward Walker (played by William Hurt) not touch Alice Hunt (played by Sigourney Weaver).  I didn't understand that.

Don

I saw this movie a while bak in theters witha lot, and i mean a lot of friends. We all thot it sucked. Maybe because we thot it was gonna be more horror, instead of drama. A lot of boring parts, and it confused me at times. U guys mite think that i am LD, but i will say it anyways. The main character with the cane: I didnt know she was blind.
i was like "hey guys, y was that girl holding a cane, and walking with it. and how come she was using that log in the woods?"
Lol. Anyways, the part that scared me was with the red guy, that was about to kill the blind girl, but fell into the hole

I haven't seen it yet. I guess I'll rent it just to see how it is.

Dont rent that crap. lol. I thot it was horrible. maybe rate it a d pr sumthin. A lott of borin parts.

Quoted from AsianBoyToy Dont rent that crap. lol. I thot it was horrible. maybe rate it a d pr sumthin. A lott of borin parts.

go see jet li the movie 10 then

maybe i will

Actually I rented this basically for free (the Hollywood MVP movie deal) it is pretty bad.
And not so much the plot, and "the twist" but rather the way it all came together.
They gave the twist away to soon, so basically the scenes in the woods were pretty useless.
Well acted, though.

SPOILERS***

I didn't think they were useless. It had me confused and I, like Ivy, started to think there really was a creature after her, because her father told her that there were rumours of creatures living in the woods which is where they got the idea from. So you start to wonder if there's actually some truth in it, and then it's revealed that Noah was wearing a costume. That was the most effective twist in the film. I didn't see that coming one bit, and it was kind of sad .

Ian

Since I started this thread I suppose I should follow up by stating how profoundly disappointed with this film I was. Technically M. Night is a skilled filmaker. An artisan on par with hitchcock and Spielberg, but his storytelling skills have slipped into smaltzy, gimmickry.

The film did not take advantage of the political and social subtext dangling so obviously in front of his face and I think that this is why it lacked resonance and did not connect.

The acting was earnest and the film was beautiful visually, but the story was just not powerful or compelling enough and the themes were muddled and flimsy.

Though this was a stutter step, M. Night is still someone I am interested in and think he has a long career ahead of him.

I agree

After watching this movie, I wondered if the person who designed the posters and taglines had actually seen the movie or did M Night make a mistake. It was a BIG MISTAKE to have people hope it was strictly a horror/thriller when they walked into that theater - because when they realized it wasn't, they're angry - Bryce Howard and Joaquin Phoenix falling in love isn't what they bought tickets for. But I was in a reverse situation - I was dragged into seeing it with my family because they wanted to get scared but I didn't. So when it turned out what the movie was REALLY about, I was excited - and saw it 4 times in theaters while my family thought it was a waste of two hours - sweet revenge. Bryce Howard (Ivy) was probably one of the best performances.

What I absolutely loved was the cinematography. It was like every shot could've been taken as a still for a poster or something. Beautiful.

Something I noticed was M. Night's double visions.

Bruce Willis in Unbreakable and Sixth Sense
Joaquin Phoenix in Signs and the Village
Bryce Dallas Howard in the Village and the new Lady in the Water

Night has been typcasted into the role of "last twist" writer/director lately but it's making him money. Did you know that he wrote the screenplay for Stuart Little? Not what I expected from M. Night Shyamalan.

I liked The Village, despite all the morons sitting around me complaining. However, I did not like Unbreakable.

I've enjoyed all of his films but I've also noticed a steady drop, he started out with a bang, and ever since his films have been dropping into the average market.

Maybe his next film will bring it all back, I'm pulling for him because I think one more film considered average he just may be done in Hollywood for about 10 years in the future.

Disney pulled their funding with Night's Lady in the Water over "creative differences" even though Disney has backed all his other features. So, I think everyone else has noticed a drop.

He'll find another place, there are too many companies making to many terrible films that whether or not M Night is losing it they'll give him some money or he could always do what Mel Gibson did... Use his own money and make his film, than once completed he can get somebody to release it in theatre or on dvd.

With all the hatred the online community shows these guys, it's not at all shocking that probably most stay away from message boards about them.

I haven't seen Signs yet, but I am a big fan of the other three. They are all very touching (The Sixth Sense and The Village in particular), and never fail to get an emotional response from me. There are just so many layers and meanings to Night's stories and characters. He is somewhat of an idol for me now.

I don't understand why everyone expects horror from him. The Sixth Sense was yes (but also so much more), and I guess Signs sort of is, but Unbreakable isn't a horror in any shape, way or form. I know it was poor advertising that made The Village out to be something it wasn't, but it's not like it was his FIRST deviation from the horror genre. Since The Sixth Sense, there has always been a twist in his films. However, one thing that it is so great about him is that he is never constrained by genre conventions. None of his films can be placed into one specific genre. The Village for example had many horror/thriller/mystery&suspense elements to it, but it also largely a drama and a romance, as well as a social commentary. I think it is a very accomplished piece of work, and it frustrates me that some people can't appreciate it because they wanted to be scared by it. In fact, I WAS scared by it on a couple of occasions. When the "creature" came and Ivy wouldn't close the door until Lucius came, I was wetting myself lol. Very suspenseful, and James Newton Howard's score (his best yet in a Night film - another reason to love The Village!) complimented it (and all the other scenes) perfectly. It sent shivers down my spine. I can't wait for his next film!

The soundtrack was brilliant. And Night is an idol for me too .. the Village, as you said, Ian, was a lot more than monsters in the woods or lack thereof, it had a lot of other elements.