User reviews

I don't think I've ever been more shocked by how much I liked a film. I had very low expectations when I decided to watch "The Village," because I knew how much critics had panned it. I'm not saying that I regard the consensus of the critics as sacrosanct. But the movies I love are rarely ones that have earned critical scorn, so by the law of probability I doubted that this one would be any good. Besides, I had noticed a steadily downward slope in the quality of M. Night Shyamalan's films since "The Sixth Sense." When "The Village" was released and subsequently panned, it seemed to fit the pattern that I myself had noticed. So I didn't go and see the film. Only recently did I take a look at it on cable, more out of curiosity than anything else.

And alas, I found the first fifteen minutes rather slow. The movie has a lot of characters, and it doesn't quickly establish which ones are the most important. All we see is this primitive nineteenth-century village in the midst of woods that the villagers believe to be haunted by ominous, sentient creatures who will not harm the people as long as they don't set foot in the woods. The villagers have all sorts of rituals to protect themselves from attack, such as avoiding the color red (what is it with Shyamalan and red?) and wearing yellow hoods. But rules are meant to be broken, and a quiet, mysterious young man played by Joaquin Phoenix wants to journey into the woods so that he can visit "the towns" on the other side, which boast superior medicine. Among other things, he wonders if he'll find a cure for his mentally handicapped friend (Adrien Brody). In the meantime, he's falling in love with the blind girl (Bryce Dallas Howard) whose role in the plot will expand as the movie progresses.

The love story between Phoenix and Howard is well-handled and believable, transcending the romantic clichés. The two characters seem to possess a common understanding and don't have to talk much in order for us to feel the developing bond between them. But what they do say to each other is intriguing. My favorite line is "Sometimes we don't do things we want to do so that others won't know we want to do them." Their personalities also transcend stereotype, particularly with Phoenix: while stoic and courageous, he's also shy and withdrawn, as revealed in scenes where he passes letters to the public council instead of speaking in front of them. His ultimate significance to the story turns the heroic convention on its head.

Everyone in the village speaks in an oddly formal manner, using big words and avoiding contractions. The accents are American, but the diction is like that of a nineteenth-century English novel. Amazingly, the actors make this language sound natural as it rolls off their tongues. The cast includes several familiar faces: William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, Brendan Gleeson, and the aforementioned Phoenix and Brody. But the star of the film is the as-yet unknown Howard, who delivers a performance so compelling that it's a shame the film was trashed by critics.

Much of the film concerns the relationships of the characters in the village, but the mystery of the creatures also dominates the plot. This is more of a quietly creepy "Twilight Zone"-style tale than outright horror. Like Shyamalan's other films, it ultimately carries a message of hope and optimism. But Shyamalan does not forget his horror roots. No other Hollywood filmmaker today is better at crafting scenes where a character is being haunted by an evil presence. These scenes work because of Shyamalan's acute sense of how nightmares feel. Like all skilled horror directors, he knows not to focus on the monster itself but on the panicked reaction of the character being stalked.

While the use of a blind character is hardly a new device, Shyamalan handles the scenes with Howard in an interesting way. Instead of the usual approach of teasing the audience by showing exactly what the blind character doesn't see, he practically makes us blind along with her. He has the camera follow her as she walks, so that we don't see what's in front of her. We soon realize that we are seeing little more than what she is able to discern about her surroundings. In crucial scenes, we are effectively almost as much in the dark as she is.

I cannot say much more about the plot without ruining the movie's surprises, which are abundant. Critics dismissed "The Village" as a crude exercise in plot manipulation. I couldn't disagree more. While I'm not certain that the logistics of the plot work in every detail, most of the criticisms I have heard reflect a superficial reading of the story.

The film has the same basic structure that Shyamalan always uses, where we are swept up in the events and only at the end do we find out what the movie was truly about. From there, we have to think backwards to understand the ultimate meaning of the story. I have seen the movie three times now, noticing new things each time. The social themes make me think that Shyamalan is familiar with Joseph Campbell's works on primitive societies and the origin of drama. The back story is very well thought out compared to that of the average thriller, and I feel some disappointment that more people aren't able to appreciate it. The beauty and genius of this film is a well-kept secret.

In recent years, M Night Shyamalan's reputation has taken a serious beating, having directed universally panned Razzy films (such as The Last Airbender and The Happening), and even some recent successes (Split, Glass) haven't been enough to salvage his career. However, slightly earlier in his directorial filmography sits this genuine horror-mystery masterpiece, criminally underrated and judged undeservedly.

The Village is a different take on a horror trope, detailing an isolated community's resolve against a hidden threat in the surrounding forest. As this genre goes, the cast does not get any better: Sigourney Weaver, Joaquin Phoenix, Adrien Brody and Brendan Gleeson all feature prominently, as well as relative unknowns Jesse Eisenberg and Dallas Bryce Howard in some of their earlier roles. All are individually excellent and well-cast, perfectly depicting the repressed fear of a society without outside influences.

The plot of is consistent and of genuine quality, which doesn't often translate in the horror genre; however, do not be dissuaded by the premise of horror - The Village plays more off the resulting drama than cheap jump scares, and slow burns until the revelations in the second half blow the script open. The forest village is the ideal setting for this hidden evil, sparsely populated and somewhat bleak - the integral use of red and yellow elevate the cinematography further, making the environment more distressing.

The Village should be a must-watch purely on the merit of the plot: some may not connect with the subtleties of the script and the nuances of the story, but those who take the time to invest will be thoroughly rewarded with a quality film.

This appears to be a really divisive movie. It seems to me that people wanted another Sixth Sense and when The Village arrived, people were disappointed. Maybe the distributor didn't help by giving the impression it's a horror movie. It isn't. Or maybe some have taken against the writer/director.

It's a story of someone going to great lengths for someone they love. It just so happens there's a twist on the way.

I've recently rewatched The Village after many years. And whilst I knew the twist, there was plenty to keep me entertained and I think it's held up well. Put it this way, I persuaded my 14 year old to watch it with me, and she thoroughly enjoyed it. There were jump scares, good performances and it looked good. The twist completely wrong footed her, and we both thoroughly enjoyed it.

I went to see M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village" today.

First things first... I won't even discuss a SINGLE aspect of the plot, here, so you can read this safely. I will say this: If you plan to see the movie, do not read a single review (besides mine!). As with most of Shyamalan's films, the less you know about the plot going in, the better.

As far as the quality of the film... it is solid. Beautifully directed, well acted, dramatic, scary, sometimes funny, and with some great plot twists. It is not as good as "The Sixth Sense", but it's probably not fair to keep comparing Shyamalan's work to his first big hit, one of the best psychological horror films ever made. A director could work his entire career and never make a SINGLE film as good as "The Sixth Sense", let alone recapture that movie's amazing brilliance.

But, I hear you asking, is "The Village" better than "Unbreakable" and "Signs" (Shyamalan's second and third films)??? Well, that depends on what you thought of those films. Personally, I'd probably say that it is a better film than those two. At the very least it is more sophisticated, with stronger themes, a much bigger and better cast, and more subtle surprises than in those two films.

"The Village" continues Shyamalan's pattern of there being twists in the plot, but this time there are SEVERAL of them and they occur sporadically throughout the film... not one big one at the end. You WILL be surprised by the film, but don't expect to be bowled over.

I would describe this as his most subtle film, and also as more of a character study than a horror film. The characters here are very rich, and their interactions and relationships with one another are very rewarding in big and small ways. The acting is phenomenal, most noticeably by Academy Award winner Adrian Brody and Joaquin Phoenix. But first time actress Bryce Dallas Howard (Ron Howard's daughter), William Hurt and Sigourney Weaver all give solid performances as well.

"The Village" is a character study of how a community and individuals respond under pressure and fear. And while it has elements of horror, I'm not even sure I would describe it as a horror film.

But don't get me wrong, there are some real scary moments in the film... just don't go in expecting a roller coaster ride. While I was watching it, I kept thinking about some of the better episodes of The Twilight Zone that had a few thrills but left you thinking about human nature more than anything.

Go see "The Village", but bring someone with you.

As with M.Night's other movies, I enjoyed this latest outing, especially the performances of the leads. I think the movie suffered in overall response due to a poorly conceived marketing plan.

The movie was sold as a horror film and fans of that genre went into this with that mindset in place. When the film actually turned out to be a look at how we try and protect those we love from the horrors of the "real world", fans were upset and rightly so. As anyone that has enjoyed M.Night's movies, all is not what it would seem. I think the marketing pushed too hard the horror aspect which created an expectation that was not going to be met.

I think if you go into this movie expecting another commentary on spiritual and moral themes, you are going to like this. If you are going into this for the scare factor, you are going to be left empty.

I read somewhere that The Village was M. Night Shyamalan's best and most underrated movie. I wouldn't agree with that as The Sixth Sense was his best to me. But that's my opinion. The Village is entertaining though, like most of his movies, with the right amount of suspense. The cast is great as well, all top class actors and actresses so bad acting isn't present in this movie. To be honest this is my second viewing of this movie, and I liked it more the first time but that's just because of the element of surprise that plays a big role in his movies. It's a good movie for a first time viewing.

I like clever movies, and I like scary movies. And because of my disposition I already spent money on two very awful movies that came from Hollywood this year: abysmal "Godsend" and at first glance promising but ultimately stupid and disappointing "The Forgotten".

That's why I proceeded with care to the latest Shyamalan's work: "The village". The trailer looked promising: a desolate turn-of-the-last-century village, sorrounded by the forest in which some horrible creatures live. Promising, but being careful lately, I first checked around the net...and was amazed to see a big load of negative reviews. Roger Ebert for instance, whose opinion I usually respect, gave it a horribly low grade! Great.

Nevertheless, I chose to see it, and I must say was quite pleasantly surprised. Here, ladies and gentlemen, you have a very nicely shot, atmospheric thriller with great cast, good story and a few finishing touches of Shyamalan's cleverness (which could be simply called brilliant when compared with the latest scripts that the Hollywood vomits over its audience!).

Why the lousy reviews? Well, there are basically two kinds of people that will want to see this movie: first the horror fans, who will expect a gruesome and chilling and potentially bloody tale, and the puzzle-movie fans, who are more or less not interested in the movie itself, but in "solving the latest Shyamalan's puzzle" of what the movie is all about.

The horror crowd will be disappointed. There are scares in this movie, but way too much characterization and drama for their taste. As for the other crowd, well people, the twist is there, but this time it's very guessable (although Shyamalan still has some tricks up his sleeve, as you'll see).

It seems that Shyamalan will always live in the shadow of his masterpiece "The 6th sense". People still remember getting their socks knocked off with its powerful ending, and keep expecting that to happen again with every following movie. What's worse, Hollywood realized that the twists are trendy, so lately we have lots of movies with a final twist, most of which are stupid/cheap/illogical. People today set their expectations too damn high, especially if they see Shyamalan's name at the movie poster.

This movie is great. The atmosphere is great, the cast is fantastic, and what I mostly love about it, it's clever. It's logical. And whatever you say about it, it's CONSISTENT. Compared to the other Hollywood crap we are getting served lately, this is a VERY good movie.

Watch this, but not as a puzzle, but as a great movie in itself.

Well, just my 2 cents.

The Village is set in a small, rural community living in a kind of 19th Century self-supporting agrarianism. Woods surround the town, and the villagers maintain a strict perimeter, as there are creatures in the woods with whom they've reached a truce so long as the borders are not breached. Tension mounts as the creatures start breaking their normal pattern, and one of the villagers, Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix), seeks permission from the town elders to travel through the woods, to the towns and "those we don't speak of", so he can acquire medicine for his fellow villagers.

For anyone seriously interested in the art of film, The Village is worth a viewing just for its cinematography and score. That's not to say that the story isn't good. It's a captivating tale of a very odd small town, complete with a twist, as is characteristic of director M. Night Shyamalan. The twist may not be as shattering here as it was in some of his previous films, such as The Sixth Sense (1999) and Unbreakable (2000), but it is still a change that catalyzes an eye-opening recontextualization and reassessment of the previous material, making the film and the final resolution of the story even more poignant. It is also interesting to note the many possible metaphorical readings, ranging from political insularism to religion, or even more literal comparisons to social and geographic segregation (from ethnic enclaves to gated communities).

Shyamalan could be said to have a directorial gimmick, although that might not be the best word because it's usually taken negatively, and I don't mean it to undervalue his approach. He makes genre films in the guise of realist dramas. So far, all of his films since he hit it big with The Sixth Sense have used this interesting device, each in a different genre. The Sixth Sense was a horror/ghost story. Unbreakable was a comic book film. Signs was sci-fi. The Village is fantasy/adventure. It also has some horror elements (as do Unbreakable and Signs).

Part of Shyamalan's genius as a filmmaker is that he can achieve the usual responses associated with those genres using such unusual, relatively mundane and realist material. For example, in The Village, he is able to build up an incredible amount of suspense in relation to two very simple things--flowers of a particular color, and beginning a walk into the woods. A simple walk into the woods is also the beginning of an adventure just as grand as any depiction of a quest for the Holy Grail, say. And the ensuing plot developments, although very ordinary on one level, have a profound, redemptive effect. Many of the most important developments in the climax aren't even directly stated; they're just subtly implied in what we're shown, yet they all work extremely well. While Shyamalan's style may require some adjustments for viewers more accustomed to chaotic, MTV-paced genre films, or on the flipside, for viewers less accustomed to elements of fantasy in their films, it is worth altering your preconceptions about pacing and content.

The cast is excellent. I'm not usually the biggest fan of William Hurt, but I even loved his performance. Joaquin Phoenix and particularly Bryce Dallas Howard are amazing. The film wouldn't have worked without the right person in either actor's roles. Both were perfect choices. There is also a wonderful, very slight surreal quality throughout most of the film shown in the behavior of the villagers towards each other.

James Newton Howard's score may be his best to date in a very long list of credits. The music always provides just the right atmosphere, sense of wonder/mystery, pathos and suspense. Roger Deakins' cinematography is equally brilliant, capturing a slight eeriness, sense of foreboding and comfort all at the same time, and with an ingenious use of colors. Much of the film leans towards rich yellow/orange hues and tints, with strong green accents in the grasses and trees. Whenever red is introduced, it is appropriately intense. The framing of shots and staging of scenes is equally impressive.

I know that this film has had its detractors, but I cannot see why. For my tastes, The Village is yet another masterpiece from a very creative, innovative filmmaker.

I will not go into details about the plot of the movie, or how good or bad the movie was. What i would like to tell is how good i felt that evening as i went to bed. As I was resting my head on my pillow, i felt extremely good about humanity. My heart and mind were filled with hope about the future. That is what the movie did to me. In am writing this 10 years after seeing the movie, and i can still recall with clarity how i felt that evening in bed. Hence, the movie gets a 10 from this reviewer.

Shyamalan has enlisted an impressive cast in this film who all give fun performances. Unfortunately, like the plot itself, the great cast is ultimately left to dry. I'm beginning to wonder if Shyamalan makes the same film over and over again. The films always open with such promise, creepy, suspenseful. Like with his other films this one revolves around the "suprise" plot twist, but this time around it doesn't quite work. The "surprise" is pretty obvious and revealed much too early, pretty much killing the suspense.

The film is beautifully shot, but all visual quotation of classic landscape paintings seem to distance the viewer more than bring them into the story. Sometimes the film sweeps you away with its sensuousness, but in the end it leaves you feeling cheated.

I had no idea what to expect from M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village," since I had heard nothing but awful things about it. It wasn't awful; there was a lot good in it, as Shyamalan, unlike some, is a thoughtful filmmaker. I don't think he's the man with the problem. I think it's his audience. They go, as they did in Signs, expecting to see a scary alien movie and are disappointed. With Shymamalan, it's never what's on the surface; it's always what lies beneath. And no matter the plot, what lies beneath an M. Night Shyamalan film is spirituality and some of life's fundamental questions.

The question here is: Can we really isolate ourselves from evil? A little village, bordered by a forest that contains some sort of evil creatures, is threatened when the creatures, for the first time, seem to be encroaching on the citizens' territory. When a near tragedy strikes, one of them (Bryce Dallas Howard) must go through those woods into the town - something never done.

There are some scary scenes, to be sure, but Shyamalan for me is never about the scary scenes so I'm not going to object that "The Village" wasn't terrifying enough. What I will say is that it does not have the pacing of his other films. It is drawn out with some slow patches in which nothing happens. Atmosphere is one thing, and it has plenty of that - but when that's all there is, a little judicious editing is called for.

Bryce Dallas Howard, as the blind Ivy, seems to have inherited the family acting talent - she is a real find and does a marvelous job with a large and difficult role. Joaquin Phoenix as well is very good. And then there are the actors with whom I was young - Sigourney Weaver and William Hurt - class casting for sure, and the two pros give beautiful performances. Hurt is really making a niche for himself as a character actor. Weaver is still beautiful enough to play leads if she can get cast in one. Broadway star Cherry Jones seems to be a favorite of Shyamalan's, and she is again on hand in a small role. To cast even a bit part with a double Tony award winner shows good taste.

Adrien Brody has had an odd career since his Oscar win. I advise him and Halle Berry, while we're at it, to get new agents. He plays what can best be described here as the village idiot. At first, I thought the character had Tourette's syndrome - well, there was something wrong anyway, and while I suppose he was good, I agree with one of the posters. He was annoying - a manic in a sea of soft-talking, well-mannered people.

Be advised - M. Night Shyamalan doesn't make horror films. Strange sometimes, surprising, spiritual, romantic. But the aliens et al are just bogeymen asking us to confront what needs to be confronted.

M. Night Shyamalan definitely did himself a disservice in releasing "The Sixth Sense". Brilliant as the film was, its "twist" ending was so powerful that audiences the world over expected nothing less from the talented young director. And so, Shyamalan has been trying with every single outing since to recapture that sense of awe.

Although many have made scathing remarks about the ending of "The Village", it is perhaps his most perfect since "The Sixth Sense"; though by no means a huge surprise, it nevertheless settles into the ambiance and leaves the film with a tinge of melancholy that belies the trailers.

It is a film of startling imagery, with a theme of 9/11-inspired innocence versus corruption that creeps into the mind and stays there until it unfolds over and over again. Many have called the acting "wooden", but a second viewing of the film would change that opinion; it is, after all, part of the point. Bryce Dallas Howard (Ron's daughter) lights up the screen in an astounding premiere performance as the blind Ivy, Adrien Brody delivers a searing portrayal of longing as the dim-witted Noah and Joaquin Phoenix heightens the moody tone with his strong, silent-type Lucius. "The Village" is about these people, this community living in fear, not the monsters of which they have been warned; it is about the psychology of fear rather than a horrific portrayal of it.

It must be said that the only thing wrong with "The Village" was the promotion for it. The adverts made it seem like a thrill-ride of Gothic horror, like the scariest film yet to be filmed - and audiences were running in their droves to catch yet another Shyamalan Twist. Instead of investing their emotions in the characters, viewers kept their distance in the knowledge that they would be hoodwinked, that the entire thing was a set-up to catch them out anyway. Wrong as this is, it was ultimately the undoing of the movie; had it been promoted as a thoughtful, stark, moody piece of film-making, then both the critics and the public would have been satisfied.

This is not a film about The Twist Ending, but about wrapping its beauty around your mind, and the quiet, haunting finale is what helps to keep it there.

I disagree with other commenter. the ending twist was not obvious. I found this to be a thoughtful, deep movie with effective dialogue. I had to give Shamalan props as the result was not the typical Hollywood plot. If you go into watching it wanting a horror action movie, you will be disappointed. However, if you go into it with an open mind and like drama/suspense with a good premise, this is a very nice movie! The camera work was effective. Adrian Brody plays a good role albeit not a large one. Rating the Shamalan movies, I'd say The Village was second only to Sixth Sense. It was better than both Signs and Unbreakable. Definitely turned out to be a pleasant surprise.

I really do not understand why so many people disliked this movie. I remember walking out of the theater in awe of how amazing this movie truly is. Bryce Howard plays Ivy wonderfully and Joaquin Phoniex as in everything I've seen him is plays the characters just the way it was meant to be played.

This movie is extremely moving if you look past the obvious and really pay attention to the amazing love story and passion involved in the story. And as far as the climax goes I thought it was brilliant and thoroughly enjoyed it clichéd or not. Once again M. Night makes another movie the way a movie should be made.