January 28, 2009
The Village (2004)
Should I see it?
No.
No.
Short Review: Answering the question "How can he do worse than the ending for Signs?"
I’m a dunce. That’s why I like films to have a clear point by the time they wrap up. I’m silly that way.
Stories are arguments. The first act of a story is the "question", wherein the central issue put before the characters and audience is posed. The second act is the various attempts to solve the riddle unleashed in the first act. The third and final act is the answer to the main question of the story. This is the whole point of the three-act structure. Ask – Debate – Answer.
In The Village, M. Night Shamalamadingdong lets rip a cornucopia of symbols and mysteries. Each seems to move toward some grand truth. The film is a string of events that lead us to some interesting places but ends taking us nowhere. Its as if he had a thousand cool ideas, but had no idea what they meant.
It is vital for a story to have a point of view – to take a stand on the issue it presses. This film doesn’t make its stake even slightly. With all of the conflicting subplots, symbols and statements, we end up with a story that is as murky and fun as the lining my toddler son makes for his diapers. Either Shamalamadingdong is for organized religion or he’s against it. Either he is arguing for the goodness of mankind, or he is arguing against it. Either civilization is needed or it is not. Read other reviews of this film. Find me one that is not confused on what is being said with this film. It’s not clever or fair to leave people guessing in this fashion. It’s okay to leave em’ guessing on some plot point or final reveal – but it’s never okay to have large questions surrounding the whole thesis of your piece. That’s just bad storytelling.
Again, it is the result of the third act not carrying its weight. The answers to the questions must make some sense. Perhaps he didn’t know what he was asking. I don’t know. The problem is, no one else does either.
Related Reviews:
M. Night Shyamalan movies
Lady in the Water (2006)
Signs (2002)
Other Critic's Reviews:
Decent Films Guide
PopMatters
Labels: Adrien Brody, Joaquin Phoenix, M Night Shyamalan, William Hurt
posted by Michelle Obama's Left Nut at 8:00 AM
Share
Previous Posts
Friends & Reads
Christian & Culture
Film Resources
Christian Sites
Faithcom
Featured On
Good News Film Reviews LLC 2004-2010 - used with permission
Images, video and titles are the property of their respective copyright holders. Good News Film Reviews LLC claims no ownership or connection to them.
The views expressed on this site are not the opinion of any advertiser or external entity.
While we take care to only link to responsible entities, Good News Film Reviews LLC takes no responsibility for the content linked from this site. There are sharks in the waters. Surf at your own risk.
The Template is generated via PsycHo and is Licensed.
3 Comments:
We were in agreement for such a short time over the whole Christian fiction thing ... and then this. I am among the few who really liked this movie. I found it quiet and different from Shamyalan's other movies but still a very good look at our connectedness to each other, the importance of each individual's finding their own purpose, and also at how we cannot avoid violence in our lives.
Scott,
You make some interesting points here. I like this in a "it's a lazy Sunday afternoon where it's too cold outside to really do anything interesting and I don't want to do anything productive inside so I guess I'll watch this" kind of way. Ultimately what kills every single Shammy movie for me is the serious as a heartattack way he approaches everything. Like he's curing cancer with every frame. Yet the plots are ridiculous and childlike and don't need to be taken seriously at all.
But you're right that movie takes no stand. It could have been something bigger and instead it comes off as an okay Twilight Zone episode.
Julie,
"I am among the few who really liked this movie" Yeah, you and M. Night's immediate family.
Post a Comment
<< Home