August 22, 2004

• So yeah, yesterday, I went to the movies and saw the one movie that didn't seem to do too well.  The one movie that everyone seems to despise.  The one movie that everyone seems to be disappointed in.  The one movie that everyone says sucks, or is corny, or is horrible, or is the worst movie ever. The one movie that one ex says is cool, but the other says is stupid.  The one movie that everyone feels is a waste of the precious few bucks that they'd otherwise spend on what...a meal from Denny's?  *rolls eyes* The one movie called, "The Village."

  
  

  SPOILERS AHEAD (For those of you who don't easily guess the movie's supposed "twist" like the apparent rest of the freaking country claims to, anyway)

  
  

  SERIOUSLY, THERE'S SPOILERS AHEAD

  
  

  So what did I think of it?  Well then.  *cracks knuckles*  I thought it should get more freaking credit than it's getting, because it was damn good.  I thought it was thoughtful and imaginative and creative.  Sure, it was slow in some parts, but it had to be.  That was the only way to get the story across so it would make sense.  Plus, it developed the characters.  The last thing he wanted to do was throw the audience into random scenes and not prepare them for it.  He's gotta get the story out first, and that's what this movie does: tell a story.  A good one that makes one ponder about what else M. Knight Shyamalan is troubled with when it comes to this screwed up planet.  His movies were all great, including this one.  All have some type of lesson to be learned.  For "The Sixth Sense" it was learning to let go, and realizing that action to be the best one to take if for the sake of the peace between two parties. Plus, it's learning to be strong in your gifts.  "Unbreakable" was similar in the gift area, but it was also a lesson of developing a determination to strive to be the best that you can be, superhero or not.  "Signs" taught on having faith, and what it can do in the worst of times, and how it can continue to work if you learn to hold on to it.  And then there's "The Village," which, to me, teaches how precious innocence is, and the extremes that people might go to protect it and all they hold dear.  There's so little of it left in the world nowadays, but people can still crave so badly to keep it alive, even if it means separating themselves completely.

  
  

  But my sis was clever in digging further into it.  She liked the movie too, by the way, maybe more than even me.  Anyway, she suggested that the fact that a crime was committed should have proven to the villagers that, despite their attempt to escape from the modern world and its share of the crime that accompanies it, you can't escape an evil deed.  It's practically in human nature to be bad, even when surrounded by goodness.  That's why William Hurt's character was upset at the attempted murder of Lucius.  That's why he felt it was reason enough to allow his blind daughter, who'd never know where she was going or what she was witnessing, to go through those forbidden woods.   That's why he was like, "What happened here was a crime!"  And it's crime that the elder villagers wanted to escape from, and raise their families away from.  For the most part, it worked.  Until someone tried to kill someone else.  Well, guess they didn't get as far as they hoped, right?  But foolishly enough (or maybe NOT foolish?  Hmmm), at the very end, he and the elders still wanted to maintain their way of life, when it was rather obvious that crime can still find them no matter how far they are from normal civilization.  But the ending of the movie doesn't really END.  We have to imagine the rest on our own.  

  
  

  All in all, though, I liked this movie.  It wasn't the best, of Shyamalan's films, but it surely wasn't the worst.  It's just another addition to his already impressive list of movies.  I don't need a special twist or a surprise ending to be satisfied.  I don't go in expecting a scary  movie like I'm sure the rest of the country was.  But I guess it's not their fault.  The trailers do kinda lie to the people, making the movie appear to be a scary monster flick. Eh, in a way though, they had no choice.  I don't think it would have been as good in attracting an audience if they didn't make it appear to be a scary flick, especially by such a well-known director.  I actually liked how they weren't real monsters.  Because when I saw the first image of it, I was like, "Oh geeze.  There's seriously going to be monsters in here?"  Early on, it already seemed too good of a movie to harbor something as meaningless and typical as monsters.  It just didn't scream monster flick.  So yes, I was glad that it turned out the way it did, the monsters being some fabrication created by the elders in the village.  I already had monsters in "Signs." I already had the twist ending in "The Sixth Sense."  That's probably why I liked "Unbreakable" in the same way I liked "The Village."  The originality.  I'm glad Shyamalan doesn't repeat himself in his movies, such as always having a twist ending, for example.  I'm sure that's why so many people think this one sucks. Because it's an obvious "twist."  But whatever.  Obvious or not, I still liked it.  I for one didn't think it was obvious, but maybe that's because I was so caught up in waiting for it be as stupid as people say.  

  
  

  I've only ONE complaint, though.  Noah being in the suit.  That seemed too...weird a thing.  The concept of having someone in the suit was just fine.   But it's the fact that it was HIM in the suit for that certain scene that bugged me.  Why have the urge to break the floor in his home to find the suit?  And why, upon finding it, would he want to wear it?  And why, upon wearing it, would he decide to go into the woods to scare Ivy?  How'd he even get out?  He was locked in, after all. Why would he want to even scare her?  How did he even know she was IN the woods?  Surely the villagers didn't go advertising it with a speakerphone, "Ivy's gone into the forbidden woods alone and might possibly run into those we don't speak of! Hint, hint Noah!" Heh, though it's funny they kept saying "those we don't speak of," since when they say that, they're technically speaking of them.  But anyway, I'm guessing he just wanted to scare her back into the village so he wouldn't lose her again like he almost did to Lucius before he stabbed him, which was, I must say, a very eery scene for some reason.  It was slow and subtle, but yet so...real.  I dunno.  And last but not least, how did he seemingly go right through her when he ran after her?  Cuz I could have sworn he succeeded in grabbing her and even ran with her a bit, almost smothering her, until he somehow magically appeared on the other side of her leaving her...well...standing there perplexed really, not knowing what just happened.  But eh...that's not a big enough reason to hate the movie.  I have small complaints about every movie I see anyway. 

  
  

  In conclusion, I'm not fond of building up unrealistic expectations, but there's at least one expectation that I think is a reasonable one when it comes to Shyamalan.  I expect a damn good imagination brought to life on the big screen to tell a story, especially a moral one.  It was all so clever.  Nice try in trying to ruin it for me all your reviewers out there! Guess you'll have to try a little bit harder.  But then again, I always formulate my own opinion anyway.  Oh well.  Long live movies, especially Shyamalan's.

  
  

  ************************************

  
  

  Heh, and by the way, I think my first ex Derek is oh so desperate to get me to swoon for him.  Take note of this small convo chunk:

  
  

  HIM:  Hi Miss Linda
  ME: Hi mr derek
  HIM: You are a sweet girl.

  
  

  Need I say more? Haha, he was all buttering me up, trying to make me giggle all girly like, I'm sure.  And so fast into the convo too!  Seriously, where did that even come from?  It was a totally abnormal spot to compliment me.  Heck, even if he was a boyfriend at that moment it still would have been weird.  So I was smooth and was like, "Yeah sometimes. Heh, just kidding."  And there was no response after that.  I'm guessing that to him, his attempts to compliment me leave me unfazed.  He didn't respond at all, so I had to brush it off completely and change the subject so the boy will be less embarrassed, as I'm sure he probably was.  Heh, so it's rather funny how he's all trying, and I don't respond like I used to.  Before I would have been like, "Awww really?  Well thank you! You're sweet too."  How times have changed, and he sadly doesn't realize it.  Well, that's partly my fault since I was always insistent of how I never hold grudges or never NOT forgive people for wronging me.  He's probably using that to his advantage.  However, there's another thing he doesn't know.  I may forgive people, but I don't really forget.  If I forget what triggered the lesson I learned, then I might just forget my lesson and make the same mistake all over again.  And THAT'S where he's going wrong.  Thinking that I'm forgetting, and even seemingly trying to win me over in the same way he did before.  Of course, that's not going to work.  All it ever does is remind me of how I felt when he first started doing those things, but that's the key word right there...FELT, as in past tense.  The present is not the past.  The present is where I'm at when it comes to my feelings for him.  The past me isn't here, and unfortunately, he still thinks she is.  Well actually, I AM still here, still the same girl he once liked with the same ethics and morals and spirit, but I'm different in that I learned a lesson that I didn't know before.  And that lesson is what I'll never let go of.  You can't be with someone who makes you feel bad about the person you are, even if it IS inadvertent.  Eh. Oh well.  It's cute anyway how he still tries like it matters.        

  
  

  Dang, I guess this is a long enough entry. You may all awaken from your slumber. Oh wait, barely ever do people read this far down...lol.  My mistake. Bye bye for now.

  • 7:51 am
  • 2 Comments