Have you ever thought that the idea is stupid a priori and based on american egocentric thought? OK, they wanted to leave the full of crime society. So, is the only solution to isolate themselves in a forest a few minutes away from this society? Couldn't they move to a nice calm village in a small secluded island in Greece, for example, like Anaphe, where the society is like this secluded village of theirs, no crime has ever been heard of, but there is also a doctor, the opportunity to go to hospital, to study, etc?
2006-07-16 07:20:31 · 11 answers · asked by cpinatsi 7 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
Miss M,
I agree that the point was the turn at the end, but I am saying it was week, because it was unjustified, exactly because there are simpler solutions than creating this extreme situation
2006-07-16 07:43:34 · update #1
and yet, so
I don't remember what you are saying, you might be right, but wasn't it inside a national park or forest? Because the rangers outside guarding it were not private security I think
2006-07-16 08:07:18 · update #2
The plot was in america. That is why I said american egocentricity. If it was happening in Greece, I would say greek egocentricity. Don't be so touchy!
2006-07-17 03:21:05 · update #3
the only reason ppl didn't like or get this movie is because you actually have to have a BRAIN to understand its meaning.
where it was is irrelevent to the story!
it is a WARNING, a warning that no matter where you go, or how protected you think you are, you CANNOT hide from human nature. you cannot bury yourself in a "community" outside of reality because the truth, WILL come back to haunt you. they were trying to form a "perfect" society...one that can NEVER be obtained. and in the end..that fact was made all to clear!
you ppl totally didn't get the movie because you were hoping this movie would be some cliche suspense thriller, or mystery.
that you actually had to really think about the movie and analyze it is the BRILLIANCE of M.Night Shyamalan. his ability to see into the human experience and translate that on flim is awesome.
you idiots were hoping for a mindless movie to entertain your under developed brains for 2 hours....HA!
this is what happens when morons don't understand artistic expression. they call it crap or that it suxs! they don't even try to use their head a LITTLE bit, and think on a deeper level...your all a bit shallow!
not every movie that comes out will be a hit first off, and second...who are you to judge someone else's art...do any of you have a movie out?? do any of you know the work that goes into making a movie, let alone writing a screen play and then producing and directing. your overly harsh criticism of Mr. Shyamalan's work is pathetic! your worse than the critics...who just sit on their @sses all day and judge movies...the only difference is they get PAID for their ignorance.
2006-07-20 08:31:00 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but then the author's "template" is to have a major twist at the end, after which the audience goes back over everything they saw in the movie and understands it in a completely different way. That wouldn't be possible if they had all just moved to Greece. Also, they didn't just want to escape the city, but also to sort of go back in time and adopt the way of life and values of an earlier century.
I think the author made his name on those plots twists at the end, and in this case it was sort of forced and didn't work really well. It did work quite well in his earlier films, namely Signs and The Sixth Sense, and perhaps to some degree in Unbreakable.
Later addition: Yes, it was definitely weak because it seemed like the whole story was set up just to build to the twist at the end, but the story itself didn't make much sense. As you wrote, there are numerous options for people who want to get away from crime and 'city life'. The extremes they went to, even letting some die instead of getting needed medicine, was just plain silly, since they claim to have set up the village in order to live in safety and peace. The whole thing was just so forced in an effort to make it match up to that twist. And was there anyone who watched who wasn't expecting the twist to be exactly what it was? This was a big disappointment after Signs and The Sixth Sense, both of which had stories and twists in those stories that were brilliant.
2006-07-16 14:36:32 · answer #2 · answered by Miss_M 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They wanted to get out of the modern world back to a simpler time (if there ever was such a thing). He owned enough land and had enough influence to get it done where he was. If he moved to Greece, he would still have been in the modern world (I presume, perhaps not?) receiving news and so forth. They would also not have had complete control of the morality of their world as they did in the Village (or, as it turns out, they really didn't).
Shyamalan is from India for crying out loud. Is everything the fault of American egocentric thought?
2006-07-17 08:59:58 · answer #3 · answered by Steve W 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
American egocentric thought?
First of all, I have to question your motives. Is this about a movie or politics?
The movie is just a story... like so many before and all those to come. It's for your entertainment and represents only the screenwriter and the director's views and vision.
If you want to dislike Americans, you don't need to use a movie as a crutch. Just go ahead and hate. We really don't care.
2006-07-16 14:26:54 · answer #4 · answered by sincityq 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's an incredibly dumb idea, but then, The Village was not all that bright a movie.
In fact, a pretty lame effort from a gifted filmmaker. I especially like Sixth Sense and Unbreakable from M. Night Shamalyan, but The Village was a disappointment.
Here's hoping Lady in the Water is a return to form for M. Night.
2006-07-16 14:26:02 · answer #5 · answered by aross07 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I get what you're saying but the message was that it was happening in our time AND in our space. It was the juxtaposition between the two, the modern society exists while the older society did as well. The message was the fine line between our wants of the two societies and what lengths we'll go to in order to keep our own morals.
2006-07-16 14:50:55 · answer #6 · answered by carboncopy3570 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If I remember right, the land the village is on was owned by one of the founders .... maybe it was just easier to put themselves in a familiar territory, and it was much easier to protect themselves on private property. Anywhere else could still warrant outside intrusion.
It was the weakest of all M's movies, to say the least.
2006-07-16 15:00:07 · answer #7 · answered by and yet, so .... 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's a movie. Movie's are generally made up fantasies. This movie in particular made $114 million in the States alone ..two years ago. Get over it.
2006-07-16 14:28:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The movie was a total waste of my $8. I would've rather spent the money at McDonald's over watching that movie. 2 hours of my life wasted.
2006-07-16 14:24:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
to me the movie was just stupid and a waste of money
2006-07-16 14:25:37 · answer #10 · answered by Jim S 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋