Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

THE VILLAGE review

Shouldn't James Cameron... by Dolph	Jul 30th, 2004 06:09:44 AM
...get a co-writing credit for your butchering an otherwise great line from The Abyss in your conclusion, Harry?
go see it..its worth the 10 bucks.... by Jon E Cin	Jul 30th, 2004 06:21:24 AM

Forgive my ignorance, but what is a WMD? by Otter	Jul 30th, 2004 06:29:45 AM

Wow, nice review! by Redbox	Jul 30th, 2004 06:47:52 AM
A lovely, thoughtful review. Are you the same person who is pregnant with Ron Burgundy's ass child? Because this review actually makes it worth my time to read it. More of the same and Cheers!
He's trying to justify his Blade 2 review. by Crowbot	Jul 30th, 2004 06:55:00 AM
I was wondering when he was gonna do that.
evilvet by DocPazuzu	Jul 30th, 2004 07:01:38 AM
If you just want your easily-digested, microscopic soundbyte reviews, go find another site. Watching E! and MTV that much seems to have stunted your capacity to absorb info-morsels any larger than ones that would tax a fruitfly.
So where's the review, pt. 97 by NetSlut	Jul 30th, 2004 07:09:07 AM
Apart from describing how he managed to mentally scar a two-year-old, the only bit mentioning the film was that he liked the performances. Quint's review said he thought the performances were terrible, and yet Fatty Knowles loved them, without saying why. Can you spell 'sell-out' yet, Harry?
Once again... by DenRode Orm	Jul 30th, 2004 07:17:55 AM
Harry Harry Harry... I like your writing, the way you set the review up. Love the site and the talkback's - well some of them ;-). I have written something lika this before, but do you have some kind of wish ? - with the primary goal being working for Shameulei'ing ? this is one of the reviews where the rewiever spends more time justifing that he likes the film, guees you the the flaming from my fellow talkbackers was a sure thing. Now we just need the positive review from Mori, who probably forgot his scribt review, and the AICN is in total consensus. Shamy is left of the hook and future collaboration with him, Disney and AICN is insured. Is this the way you give Disney some credability back, after the the 2great" film of Arthur ?
Prepared to hate... by spazzmeister	Jul 30th, 2004 07:20:40 AM
I was throughly ready to hate this movie, but curiosity and free tic's to a screening got me into the theater. I have to say this movie was really enjoyable..not the disaster I thought it might be. In fairness, I knew of the twist and of the ending, so I wasn't let down. The joy was watching it all unfold, and how a love story was "snuck" into what looks to be a horror/suspense film. I had a real problem w/ the ending to Signs, as it was almost too 'Disney' in the neat little wrap up at the end. "Village" avoids that and is a great character piece. Just don't go expecting a horror flick, and you'll be fine. Oh, the reason the Hurt's character does not leave the village and instead sends his blind daughter is that he made the "oath", and the fact that she is blind won't allow her to see the world outside the village
New kinds of moviegoer problems by Anonymus Coward	Jul 30th, 2004 07:27:27 AM
Director well-known for his movie plot twists. The need to have lots of pre-release publicity to generate moviegoer interest so Hollywood can earn back their money. Film based on important plot twist. How to review it? Why to review it! Sometimes I want to go to the Tom Hanks "CAST AWAY" island for four years just so I can come back and watch four years' worth of new movies... While you're at it talking about "Why is there a Santa Claus, and why is there a monster that eats little boys?" take that thinking a little bit further to explain God and religion. Beats people murdering each other in the streets, though. Wasn't there some SCIENCE magazine study which discovered that morality is built-in to humans? Or was that language? (Pinker)
Harry's Diddling by Damer1	Jul 30th, 2004 07:42:46 AM
I hope Harry didn't diddle that little boy.
Shamalionionalon hasn't let me down yet... And I, Robot is the b by TheGinger Twit	Jul 30th, 2004 07:54:46 AM

Yet Another Confirmation ((i.e., the sycophantic ramblings))... by Sgt. Black	Jul 30th, 2004 08:16:02 AM
...that Harry does MASSIVE amounts of mary-jane, turning him into the pontificating democrat philosopher he is. He lambasts government for using fear; yet uses it TO CONTROL HIS OWN NEPHEW. Waste.
EW by jaminator45	Jul 30th, 2004 08:29:01 AM
I would have thought this review was written by EW's Owen Gleiberman, what with the busting out the thesaurus and all. Harry must be exhausted after this.
I agree, BATMAN RETURNS was underwhelming by Spacesheik	Jul 30th, 2004 08:37:15 AM
The shot that I found interesting was the Michael Caine (as Alfred) with a young Bruce. The rest seems well, Golden Childish.
Otter's question on WMD by Another Faith	Jul 30th, 2004 08:44:03 AM
WMD stands for Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's what President Bush claimed would go bump in the night in Iraq, and was our (his) ostensible reason for the war. Like all creatures under the bed, it was a lie to make children (or soldiers, or Villagers, or what have you) do as they are told without question.
No one was excited about the Batman trailer? by Judge Doom	Jul 30th, 2004 08:53:46 AM
Yeah rigth... That explaind why they like the shyaliaman crap.
Thanks Harry by nottoo	Jul 30th, 2004 09:07:17 AM
I very much enjoyed your column.
Jackass has seen The village by casmcthorn	Jul 30th, 2004 10:01:34 AM
and didn't have to lick Shyamalan penis...but he did anyway.
Mr. Fuck by Another Faith	Jul 30th, 2004 10:03:48 AM
You might want to consider decaf.
now, who's playing Giovanni in the movie? by Hud	Jul 30th, 2004 10:05:07 AM
Just kiddin', ya big, convex, movie-mad jabroni. The best thing about AICN is your rude, hearty love of movies, Harry. Even when I don't share your good opinion of a movie, I admire like hell your devotion to it. Prattle and enthuse on, Harry, and take good care of that nephew.
JESUS HARRY!!!! Please section these reviews off with a header by Russman	Jul 30th, 2004 10:26:14 AM
God damn it
This movie is great social commentary too.... It's what Bush and by Russman	Jul 30th, 2004 10:28:10 AM

formulaic? by Mr.Cunt	Jul 30th, 2004 10:32:04 AM
I suppose M. Night Shamalamadingdong is a little formulaic in his film-making, but he does tell a good tale worthy of repeat viewing. In a lot of respects he is this generations spielberg (Mr A.B.C himself) who, over time, will distinguish himself with the odd work of genius but mainly by-the-numbers fare! email me at mrhappyboy@hotmail.com so I can abuse you! - except pythagoras, because I don't like you apparently
OK, now that it's out, we can officially play "Here's How I Woul by FluffyUnbound	Jul 30th, 2004 10:35:15 AM
My twist would have been: it's not modern times, it's the future. And the monsters are genetically engineered monsters put there by the Elders to restore fear and wonder to human existence. Man has been on top for too long, and it shows. If you want to build a primitivist utopia in the woods, you can use fake monsters if you want, but you may as well use real monsters if you can get your hands on some. That way there are "no backsies". And my ending would be that the William Hurt character decides it was a bad idea and he wants to bring the people back to the real world, but it's too late - the monsters don't want to let him go.
If this is modern times, by DeCypher44	Jul 30th, 2004 10:45:27 AM
then why don't they see and hear airplanes? I haven't seen the movie, so maybe it is explained, but can you tell me?
Did someone hack this site and post a pastiche Harry-review? by raw_bean	Jul 30th, 2004 11:16:48 AM
That's the Harriest of Harry-reviews ever! Was it intentionally self-mocking?
It's nice that Harry Knowles loves movies. The problem is, he lo by heywood jablomie	Jul 30th, 2004 11:26:10 AM
Let's just start with his belief that "Blow" is a better movie than "Goodfellas." Conjure on that for a while. Or his intense crush on the excruciating Roland Emmerich "Godzilla." Or how about his "Let's pretend we're nine years old and just have FUN!" review of...er..."Van Helsing." With the exception of "The Punisher"--a kind of good-bad movie, actually--Harry has deep-throated pretty much every major studio release he has reviewed in the last zillion years. It's nice to be enthusiastic. It's nice to be a film lover who loves all kinds of different movies and has lots of excitable moments. It's not so great to have, essentially, no taste at all, and to go postal over every week's cruddy blockbuster-of-the-moment. Harry, help educate the teenaged film geeks of tomorrow! Separate some wheat from some chaff, man!
Yet another long winded "Where the fuck was the review" review by BibFortuna	Jul 30th, 2004 11:27:08 AM
Cut the fat and give us the meat.
Harry's rosy world view.... by TisketMaster	Jul 30th, 2004 11:32:13 AM
Yeah, Harry, I know how you think. You buy into Michael Moore's view that the world's only demons are Republicans, and that places only go to hell when America gets involved, and you have that faith in fundamental human decency. But if you think the sky isn't falling: Then go to Sudan and tell the blacks who are being murdered by Muslims that the sky isn't falling. Go find out that kids flying kites isn't the complete picture of Iraq before the war. Go find out that what our troops did to those Iraqi prisoners pales in comparison to some of the shit done by the Hussein family and by so many other horrible despots around the world. Torture is never acceptable, but there are so many things out there to be even more horrified at that you shouldn't let your furious but ultimately impotent indigation just be unleashed on dumb old W. Then, go find out how China will in a few decades surpass the US's consumption of oil and thereby put the world into a really bad energy crisis....or, just realize that the relatively easy and lazy lifestyle you are afforded is not the natural state of mankind that is occasionally interrupted by war. Instead, realize that our way of life is an exception that has rarely existed in the several hundred thousand year existence of humanity. This should let you see how precariously placed above your head the sky really is.
the great EL-KA-BONG is staring at you by dr.bulber	Jul 30th, 2004 11:38:22 AM
do they traumatize little two year olds in the new m.night movie too??
I'm sorry, is there no such thing as "terrorists" anymore? by banshee	Jul 30th, 2004 12:24:35 PM
Because both Harry and Mori's reviews of this film play up the notion that the "elders" in the film are really the Bush administration and that they are manufacturing "monsters" to keep the populace in line. So, is the war on terrorism over? I guess we must have won since , according to Harry and Mori we're completly safe inside the US, (the village)and the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Good to know.
Batman Begins by Cerebud	Jul 30th, 2004 01:17:10 PM
I liked the trailer for BB a lot. If I didn't know it was for Batman, I'd be intrigued by who this guy was, why he was so motivated, and what was he going to do with his training and mission. Then BOOM, you get the glimpse of Batman. It made me feel that this was a smarter, darker Batman than we've ever seen on film. I'm not 100% sold on the costume, but it's an improvement over the old one. I wish it was more like Batman: Year One though. Grey, black, and made of cloth, people. The armor's underneath.
saw it... BORING! by g_mo_d	Jul 30th, 2004 01:18:15 PM

So There Really Isn't Anything to Fear, Harry? by Fireball XL-5	Jul 30th, 2004 01:19:46 PM
That's great news. It will come as a relief to the 3,000 friends and neighbors I lost on September 11. All sarcasm aside, this column is a perfect example of what's wrong with the blogverse. Whereas the limitations of print have traditionally weeded-out at least most of the know-nothings, the Web has given voice to so much absolute nonsense. You're a cool guy, Harry, but dear God are you out of touch.
I'm still seeing this movie no matter what reviews say but I am by spectrebeeyatch	Jul 30th, 2004 01:23:59 PM

Come on Harry, there's not much review in there and the LBEM sto by Durendal	Jul 30th, 2004 01:55:06 PM
We all know what you really did: You threatened to cook and eat the kid yourself, a threat I don't doubt you'd make good on. Shit Harry, you're a helluva lot scarier than any make-believe monster in the closet. You're a lumbering troll. I can't imagine any kid wouldn't be shitting his/her pants at the sight of you.
Fireball XL-5.... you missed the entire point... by Russman	Jul 30th, 2004 02:01:53 PM
... you're mad and that's understandable. But Harry's talking the use of Fear to control people and to get them to do things that are not really in their best interests or to give up their rights so that they feel protected. That's exactly what's happening in this country right now. I've actually heard people say "if it means giving up some privacy and freedoms then I'm all for it". What kind of lunacy is that?? For a malenevolant person (like a Bush, a Cheney and/or a Rusmfeld) that sentence is pure music. Why? Because those in power usually don't like to give it up. Case in point - The intelligence community - FBI, CIA, etc... all fighting over who gets to do what, who's in charge, who gets credit, who gets the bigger budget. While some of the complaints are valid (old laws preventing one agency from sharing info with another) a lot of the problems are basic human petty jealousy and territory beefs - and the result, things slip through the cracks and people get hurt. Even though the intelligence community needs a retrofit, the ones in charge are hesitant to change - it's not only a human instinct to resist change, but it's also a power issue - they don't want to give up control of anything. Why is that? Maybe it's ego, maybe its because their bosses may penalize them because a project or duty was removed from them. It's a whole bunch of stupid and silly things that go into the mix - and the result, things slip through and people get hurt. And the same goes for the Government - if they can keep us scared, enough fools will say "sure, take away some of my rights to protect me" and the goverment will - and guess what Fireball, they'll never give those rights back - because to do so would be to lose control and power. And as I said, those who get in control, don't like to lose power. They'll make up all sorts of excuses (like a corrupt police department (ahLosAngelesem) not wanting a citizen review board watching over them. Comes a time Fireball when you have to realize that WE THE PEOPLE hire these guys to run the day to day or to protect us, but not to rule us, control us or lie to us. And FIREBALL that's exactly what is happening right now to our country... and you have to keep an eye out for it, and speak out. If Bush decides to CANCEL The ELECTION - what are you going to do? If he decides to interrupt our democratic functions based on some unconfirmed "threat" - what are you going to do. Are you going to bow down? are you going speak up? or are you gonna pick up and take your country back? And you're laughing now "Russman that will never happen, you liberal blah blah blah" Keep laughing, but as you take a breath from your laughing, answer the question - What are you going to do? (hotshot ;-) )
RottenTomates just gathers reviews from a bunch of critics... by Russman	Jul 30th, 2004 02:27:03 PM
AICN are regular people. If you don't like the site, why are you even here?
IT'S OFFICIAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! by Forestal	Jul 30th, 2004 02:49:56 PM
I CAN'T FUCKING BELIEVE THIS: ROGER "I GAVE FOTR 3 STARS BECAUSE I'M AN IGNORANT FUCKHEAD" EBERT JUST GAVE HAROLD AND KUMAR 3 STARS!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND HE GAVE THE VILLAGE ONE STAR!!!!!!!!!!!!! I BETTER NOT BE THE ONLY GUY HERE WHO THINKS EBERT HAS LOST TOTAL CREDIBILITY!!!!! GENTLEMEN IT'S TIME TO LIGHT THE TORCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHO'S WITH ME!?
stilldragons: Answer these questions? by Russman	Jul 30th, 2004 02:57:12 PM
Which country has more nuclear weapons than all other countries combined? Which country has ever used a nuclear weapon? Which country has ever used nukes in war? Which coutnry has ever used nukes on civilians?
Russman, answer this question by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 03:11:29 PM
What the fuck do your questions have to do with anything? Does the US have more nukes than every other country combined - I'm not sure, and probably neither are you, but how is that relevant to anything? The US has more than enough. The US also could have used them without any significant fear of retaliation in kind in any number of situations over the last 50+ years, and didn't. But the US did use nuclear weapons in war, on civilians and, thank God, remains the only country to have done so. Was the US an evil country in 1945 for using nuclear weapons? Argue the point - I'm sure the families of those living in Nagasaki and Hiroshima would say yes. I'm sure those living just about everywhere in East Asia outside of Japan at the time would say no. And I'm sure the families of the US soldiers who did NOT have to die invading the country through conventional means would say no. Who's right? Probably both sides, to a point. Does the fact that the US used nuclear weapons in war, on civilians, in 1945 make the US an evil country in 2004? Easy answer - no - and to argue otherwise is absurd. You may have other reasons to believe the US is the evil empire, but if your rationale is that the US used nukes 59 years ago, you need to check your thinking. As for Stilldragon, his or her post is probably one of the most reasonable political posts I've ever read on this website. If more people on AICN posted with brains rather than vitriole and ignorance, talkbacks wouldn't quite the depressing morasse of idioticy that they are now.
How the hell did it digress like this? Re: nuclear weapons by Vegas	Jul 30th, 2004 03:31:34 PM
Actually, all the former Soviet warheads are still concentrated in Russia. However they are slowly disarming as are we. Lots of countries have nuclear capabilities right now, notably China, North Korea, India and Pakistan, but NOT Iraq. As for the reasoning behind going to war with Iraq because of a connection with Al Queda and/or the development of nuclear weapons, might I ask (seriously, I'm curious) why that reasoning does not apply to Pakistan, who actually DO have nuclear weapons AND supposedly harbored Osama Bin Laden post 9/11? I'm just wondering if anyone has the facts on that matter, because I get contradicting information everywhere it seems to come up. Oh, and I might see the Village in theaters, but I agree, he's got to let go of the twist endings. They're no fun if you go into the theater EXPECTING them, Night.
And by the way, Harry, you shouldn't be allowed within 100 yards by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 03:46:25 PM
Ban me, do whatever you like Harry, but, for the love of God, read this. I've been frequently appalled by the stories you've relayed of your interactions with kids, but this takes the cake! The kid's playing rough with your computer, and your options are physical violence or psychological abuse?! And you choose psychological abuse! What the fuck is wrong with you? Why would your mind even go there? Why didn't it occur to you to SPEAK TO THE CHILD AND TELL HIM HE'S PLAYING TOO ROUGH WITH THE COMPUTER! Tell him he could break it. Ask him not to. If he doesn't listen, take him away from the computer and tell him he's not allowed to touch it anymore because he's not listening. If he throws a tantrum, put him in a timeout. Why, seriously, would you invent a story of a monster that would eat him? And why would you, for a second, be pleased when the kid crawls into bed in terror? What the hell did you accomplish there? What did you teach the child? And what kind of mother does he have that she allows her child around you after what you did? If my brother did that to my son or daughter, I would kick his ass. I would beat him senseless for being that cruel to my child. You can be strict (which I am) without being cruel (which you are). Get help, Harry.
sad little children by Bouncy X	Jul 30th, 2004 04:04:32 PM
i read the reviews and the news about movies and tv series here and i see the funny talkback responses. do all of you kids who do nothing but bitch and moan realize everyone has their own opinion and just because you think something sucks doesnt make it fact? god forbid someone doesnt like what you do...oh no it's the end of the world, i mean really. i have no life and surf the net lots and have never seen so many childish, immature idiots all concentrated in one place. sure it makes for funny reading but damn....get over it and get a life or kill urself but stop whining cuz you're ideas and opinions aren't the center of the universe. i know this wont do jack shit to help anything and might only make them worse but i'm bored. :)
Who is "scared" of whom? by 77s	Jul 30th, 2004 04:15:05 PM
I keep reading about this film as an obvious political allegory against the current administration. In truth, both political sides believe the other is full of monsters. The name of William Hurt's character is a thinly-veiled reference to President Bush. Just who exactly is pushing more fear? The president for terrorists, or Hollywood for Bush(i.e. The Day After Tomorrow, Fahrenheit 451, The Manchurian Candidate, The Village, etc., etc., etc.)? The real fear-mongering is coming from the left much more than from the right.
I'd like to thank Prof. Pretorious for the free entertainment by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 04:22:58 PM
There aren't many people willing to make themselves look like a horse's ass for the amusement of others, but, damn, son, you sure do a good job of it. Thank you. Out of curiosity...what's your PhD in?
stilldragons: Keep on laughing.... by Russman	Jul 30th, 2004 04:28:10 PM
Clinton never suggested declaring martial law - there never was a reason too. Bush has entertained the idea of suspending elections and if he really wanted to, they could - because now they have a reason... the terrorists are everywhere, could be me, could be you, could be the guy down the street.... it's all about fear and it's not only real but now it can be manufactured and passed off as real giving them, meaning Bush, Cheney and Hilter -I mean Rumsfeld, a real reason to disrupt our democratic process. Keep laughing...
What's going on guys? by CurryIce	Jul 30th, 2004 04:46:36 PM
There are many directors who are considered as great film makers and who made even more bad movies than Shyamalan but there are so many people who just loves to hack on him??? I really hope that it's not because of his skin color!!!
CurryIce by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 04:52:48 PM
Part of the anti-Night sentiment is probably due to his early promise and quick critical acclaim. People love to bash anything or anyone who has early (and therefore perceived easy) success. For alot of people, though, it is his skin color. White rednecks aside (who hate everything not white), even the more moderate people in America tend to have intolerant views of Asians (both East Asians and South Asians). For some reason, while overt anti-African-American racism is called out and criticized, anti-Asian racism has taken root as an acceptable form of bigotry. Shyamalan is not going to get the benefit of the doubt that other directors who make a bad film get. He doesn't get a mulligan.
Hmm by MechaGhost	Jul 30th, 2004 04:52:48 PM
Harry, you should have at least taken his dick out of your mouth before you started writing. The globs of cum are everywhere.
stilldragons: Keep on laughing.... by Russman	Jul 30th, 2004 05:04:09 PM
I was at lunch buddy. And there hasn't been much outcry because everyone thinks that it wouldn't happen - just like they thought that 4 planes wouldn't be highjacked and flown into buildings. Your answers were all wrong. The answers were: USA, USA, USA, USA, USA. And the reason why I asked those questions was to reply to you saying that Sadamn used gas on his own people. Sadamn is a monster - but the last time I checked it was the US who had used the biggest WMD on a country. Translation - we're not all that good either.
Russman by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 05:13:11 PM
Please explain to me the exact parallel between attempted genocide (Saddam's actions toward the Kurds) and the use of nuclear weapons in World War II. Once you're done enlightening me on that one, go on to explain to me how the use of nuclear weapons nearly 60 years ago makes the US "not that good" now. Thank you for your help in this matter.
TheGingerTwit by suck_it	Jul 30th, 2004 05:13:58 PM
HAHAHA. Do you guys get it? HAHA, TheGingerTwit called him Shamalionionalon. Do you get it? That's actually not his name. He made fun of his name. Do you get it? Seriously, original and clever comedy with this sort of depth comes along once in a lifetime. You guys get it, right? E-mail me if you need me to explain it. HAHAHAHA. Do you get it? Here, I'll try one- Shamalamadingdong. OMG, you guys heard it here first. I made that up. LOL!!1! HAHA, please e-mail me if you want to use that joke because I made it up and it's really funny and no one has ever done it before.
Devil.... by Russman	Jul 30th, 2004 05:28:07 PM
I'll do better. During the expansion of the country the US had a standing policy that the only good Indian was a Dead Indian. Methods of removal (Genocide) included, bounties, military force and germ warfare, moral and psychological corrpution (alcohol) and concentration camps. Sadamn gassed his "enemies". Both are bad. In WWII we nuked two civilian cities with no military importance in JAPAN and not GERMANY where Hitler was. Yes Germany was heavily bombed with conventional weapons, but only the people with the different looking eyes got nuked - twice. Who's worse - well man, it depends on what historical and emotional point of view you're looking at the actions from. Simple answer - both sides are/were animals, both have done horrible things. Both are guilty. Neither one can claim any moral superority over the other. And if we play into the concept of fear that the Bush Administration is feeding us, we will fall - there will be no evolution of this society and we'll be deepening the hole that we've already started digging.
It's been fun boys.. but I gotta buy my ticket for The Village by Russman	Jul 30th, 2004 05:30:11 PM
later
Russman - I see where you're going with this, but I disagree wit by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 05:38:01 PM
Genocide - a very bad thing. Bad when the US practiced it against Native Americans, bad when the Spanish practiced it against Native Americans, bad when the Germans practiced it to the Jews, bad when Hussein practiced it against the Kurds, and on and on. The US being bad - genocide against the Native Americans, internment camps for Japanese Americans, replacing a legitimate socialist democracy in Guatemala in 1954 with a CIA placed dictatorship - all very bad. The decision to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki to scare the Japanese into surrendur - I actually disagree with the decision, but then again my son charging the beach wasn't the other option. Nor was I a Korean watching my sister or daughter get raped and murdered by Japanese soldiers trying to get their last bit of fun in before they lost the war. Was racism part of the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan rather than Germany - almost certainly. My point about the nuclear attack on Japan is this: you can ARGUE whether or not it was the right thing to do at the time - there is NO argument for Saddam's attempted genocide of the Kurds, therefore a parallel cannot be drawn between the two. My other point you still have yet to address - what do the actions of the past (59 years for the nuclear attack on Japan, much much longer regarding genocide of Native Americans) have to do with judging whether the United States of 2004 is a force of good or evil (or somewhere in between)? You have read your history, but you have yet to make a valid argument to defend your interpretation of today's world.
The wolf is real by Majseven	Jul 30th, 2004 05:39:29 PM
Nice review, Harry. I seriously enjoyed it. However, you and every other flaming liberal who claims that the terrorist threat, WMD, etc., is all just made up to perpetuate our fear is sadly mistaken. Last time I checked, that terrorist threat looked pretty real a few Septembers ago. Hell, it looked pretty real this morning when some idiot tried to blow up one of our embassies. I'm sick of everybody (and every pinko hack director) preaching to us that the Bush administration is just using this terrorist stuff to use mind control on us. Just as the essay in this month's Esquire says, Bush may seem like the Boy crying wolf right now, but what's gonna happen when the wolf actually shows up at the door long after the Boy is gone? Trust me, the wolf is gonna show up again one day, and when it does, how stupid is it gonna make all of you, "Ah, you're just trying to instill fear" guys look?
Ancient Lights by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 05:45:58 PM
Try being an Asian in America. Listen to morning radio long enough, you'll hear the local morning zoo make an anti-Asian joke. How about Shaq - "tell Yao I said (non-sense pseudochinese follows)." Think if that little bit of racism went the other way Yao would have gotten a pass, as Shaq did? How about Halle Berry making some pseudo-Korean noises in that lousy Eddie Murphy movie not so long ago (can't remember the name of the movie, but I remember the laughter in the movie theater). Ask your typical white guy if Asian chicks are hot - hell yeah. Ask your typical white girl if Asian guys are hot - umm, not so much. Why? Watch carefully how the two groups are portrayed in the media. Asian women - sexy, subservient, love those white boys. Asian men - geeks, kung-fu masters, villians. As time goes on, we are STARTING to see some of that break down. Asian men appear here and there in modeling. Harold and Kumar is being embraced not so much because it's a new movie but because, my god, it actually features Asians as people rather than caricatures. But there is no denying, when you wake up, pay attention, and look at the world from another perspective, that racial slurs of Asians are treated with a "tsk tsk" and a chuckle, no more.
Why, thanks, Russman. by FluffyUnbound	Jul 30th, 2004 05:48:09 PM
Here I was getting ready to embark on a campaign of world conquest, complete with extermination of all those I don't like - but I was concerned that people would tell me that this made me a bad person, and would try to stop me. You have opened my eyes to the fact that the existence of injustice in the past means that everyone is tainted by evil now, and no one gets to criticize my plans. Thanks, I feel a lot better now. Your doctrine of moral equivalence has liberated my soul from its oppression at the hands of petty moralists.
Racism in the decisions of WWII by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 05:52:01 PM
First of all, saying that Japanese are racist is a sorry generalization at best, and even if true does not justify racism against them. Second, a careful review of the timing of the atomic bomb reveals that it COULD have been ready before Berlin fell. However, the Allies were already fully engaged in, and winning, the ground war in Europe, and Germany was poised to fall before the bomb was fully ready for deployment. But make no mistake, if rushed into early use, it could have been prior to V-E day. Third - no city in Germany was firebombed as was Tokyo - period. Name me the city. The death total in Tokyo from the firebombing was over 100,000. Which German city had that many deaths from a single bombing campaign? Name it. Now, before any flaming begins regarding my comments on the Japanese and racism - the atrocities committed by the Japanese throughout East Asia and the pacific during and before World War II are horrific beyond imagining, and were largely motivated by racism. I just object, on a very basic level, any time I see a statement that a group is racist. Such statements, in and of themselves, reveal racism, and should be avoided.
People, people... by tango fett	Jul 30th, 2004 05:58:21 PM
We're supposed to be bashing M. Night Somethingsomething's latest movie, not discussing politics. Also, I just watched the Batman Begins trailer again, and well, I think it's awesome. Come on, 2005, hurry up. Cheerio
You misunderstand Harry's agenda against Batman Begins by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 06:04:55 PM
You see, Harry actually despises this movie because it was made rather than his biopic, "Fatman Begins." Fatman Begins is a tense drama in which a child is raised with a mixture of neglect and psychological torture. In the times of neglect, he becomes morbidly obese from eating nothing but pizza and McDonalds, and he develops a worship of film (in his mind film is the loving parent) from being abandoned in front of the TV. When he seeks attention he is punished with tales of monsters that will eat him. As a grown man, he survives, finding a paying career despite a complete lack of job skills. But his childhood haunts him. Films are his life. His interactions with children are disturbing - he inflicts films on them which are not remotely appropriate for their age, and when they are bad, he invents monster stories of his own. Its a tragi-comedy, a magnum opus of sorts. But instead, we get just another comic book movie. Can you understand his hatred now?
hmm by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 06:06:23 PM
something stinks on AICN...
Prof. Pretorious... by Mahasamatman	Jul 30th, 2004 06:08:23 PM
Actually, there's been a re-evaluation of the Dresden bombing the last few years, including a very respectable book published just in the past three months, with strong evidence that suggests that Dresden was hardly a innocent city populated solely by smiling children and toothless puppie dogs. You might read up on it. It may indeed be the case that there were very GOOD reasons for the bombing, and so much of what we've heard about Dresden since are ideas that were first manufactured and promulagated by Nazi apologists -- not necessarily a group anyone knowingly would want to ally themselves with.
Is the secrect similar to Dark City. Are we are on their planet? by matthooper8	Jul 30th, 2004 06:31:46 PM
I hope not, that would blow. I've always liked Night. I just hope that this isn't finally the one movie where the secret is just too stupid. Signs didn't have a big surprise, and it was still good.
aphterburn by shutterghost	Jul 30th, 2004 06:43:47 PM
Harry has been openly excited about Batman Begins from the moment they announced the cast. Just because he critiqued a trailer unfavorably doesn't even remotely mean that he is going to sabotage this film.
wow, what a terrible way to end a review by wasp	Jul 30th, 2004 06:54:32 PM
I don't usually post just to bash Harry, but that last paragraph is just too ridiculous. As for Harry not liking the Batman Begins teaser, of course, it doesn't have any sweet action shots to make him orgasm.
Mutually Contradictory Conspiracies Dept.: Why would they cancel by truthseekr1488	Jul 30th, 2004 07:40:20 PM
Seriously though, let's stick to the films. I can get all the political commentary I want over at truthout.org and counterpunch.org.
Weird "Village" points to ponder....(SPOILERS) by truthseekr1488	Jul 30th, 2004 07:47:52 PM
Why set the "experiment" in a very specific time period (1897) and then have everyone learn to speak like 17th century Puritans or Shakers? (To fake out the audience, of course. Heh.) Didn't any of the brave young Village men every try to KILL one of these scary monsters that can't break down wooden doors? (I understand why the elders banned guns from the village, but still, an axe or something would do it...and the gig would be up). Lucky no one ever tried to break into the Shack that Must Not be Used (which I hear has now been turned into The Home Depot That You Cannot Find Anything In.) And how dumb is it to hide a Very Important Plot Element under the floorboards of the Silent Room?
Devil0509 & fire-bombs by JoseJones	Jul 30th, 2004 07:54:34 PM
Do you do think before posting? If you do not know enough about a subject, please do not throw out ridiculous assertations that are flat out wrong. The fire bombing of Dresden killed between 50,000 and 135,000. The Germans claim that more than 250,000 were killed. Also during three nights of bombing in Hamburg an estimated 100,000 were killed. Look it up. And in the future don't be such an ass.
Saw it, really liked it. Not "loved"...but REALLY liked... by Techtite	Jul 30th, 2004 08:00:51 PM
I saw this film fully aware of the "twist," and I have to say it helped. I did not go to the theater expecting thrills, and left having seen a wonderful character drama. All the kiddies expecting buckets of catsup heralding the imaginative (cough, cough) battle between "Alien Versus Predator"; you're in the wrong theater, friend. The point isn
devil0509 and fire-bombs by JoseJones	Jul 30th, 2004 08:16:37 PM
you had seemed reasonably intelligent prior to your latest post. do us all a favor and do a quick search for Dresden. Then post again and tell us all what country it is in. Then post again and tell us the estimated number of deaths (from low to high, I know the low estimate is not 100,000, but the high is much higher) Don't be such an ass. "no city in Germany.... - Period" makes you look stupid and you had been trying so hard to make yourself look smart. Oh, and also, an estimated 100,000 died in Hamburg during one campaign in 1943. So, please look up these figures and let us all know if you are still as emphatic with your previous assertations. thank you. period.
Last time I checked, that terrorist threat looked pretty real a by phil dearly	Jul 30th, 2004 08:47:08 PM
The chances of an American being killed by a terrorist in this country in, say, 1985? 0%. 1986? 0% 1987? 0%. 1988-2000? 0%. 2002? 0%. 2003? 0%. Chances of being killed by a terrorist in this country in 2001? 1 in 100,000 (3,000 dead out of roughly 300,000,000 pop.) The odds are much, much greater that you will die in a car accident or kill yourself before being the victim of imaginary terrorists planned, funded and executed by your American government and Israel. Wake up! Fuck the Zionist agenda and Fuck New World Order!!
phil dearly by JoseJones	Jul 30th, 2004 08:55:38 PM
what is your point? i couldn't understand what you were trying to write. Also, wasn't Oklahoma City in between 1988-2000?
We've been duped... by phil dearly	Jul 30th, 2004 09:02:23 PM
Not by Shymalan (for a change) but by our government. Nothing new here though, I guess. http://www.whatreallyhappened. com/ARTICLE5/ Iraq was invaded bacause of Zionism and big oil. "It was Afghanistan!" (BOOM!) No, wait, it was Iraq!" (BOOM! BOOM!) No, wait, It was Iran!" (BOOM!) Seeing a pattern yet? I'm 27, I can't get drafted, how about you guys? Good luck with that! This weekend, instead of seeing Shymalan's snoozefest, go rent WAG THE DOG. Ugh, forget it, go back to sleep, sheeple!
CLARIFICATION by phil dearly	Jul 30th, 2004 09:18:27 PM
I actually meant that there was no serious danger from a FOREIGN terrorist, but you bring up a good point. Let's look at the Oklahoma bombing. Let's go along with the official lie, I mean "story", and pretend it was McVeigh, a lone American nutjob (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) in a truck full of fertilizer that caused the building to explode from the inside out and the front of the building to collapse and cause barely a crater around the truck. Suuuure. Check these out if you care about the truth. http://www.rense.com/political /bombing1.htm AND http://www.davidicke.com/icke/ articles3/patsy.html -RESIST THE NEW WORLD ORDER!
sorry by JoseJones	Jul 30th, 2004 09:22:58 PM
I'm sorry, I didn't realize your position and credibility. I didn't mean to say anything that would instigate another post.
Garden State = BEST MOVIE EVER by AlwaysThere	Jul 30th, 2004 09:34:04 PM
Well, more like the best movie of the year. Nobody should waste money on a movie about a society surrounded by Woods.A
Boom Mics? (and WTF?) by DarWen	Jul 30th, 2004 09:39:37 PM
Did anyone else notice all the boom mics that kept coming into the picture? My girlfriend and I kept getting distracted by boom mics dropping in about every twenty minutes. M. Night Shyamalan is a powerful director... but with "The Village" he has used his powers for evil and not for good. Talk everyone you know out of wasting their money on this piece of putrid crap. No emotional payoff, no characters to care about, hokey dialogue... and, oh, yeah, the obligatory shot of Shyamalan himself. You owe us one, Night. We trusted you and you screwed us.
Ancient Lights, you fool by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 09:54:16 PM
I'm not sure what to say about my difficulty as an Asian man getting dates with white chicks. First of all, I'm white. Secondly, I've been married for 11 years to a woman I started dating in 1990, so I haven't actually looked for a date in quite a while. And as for my trouble with white chicks, well, I got married pretty young, had some dates here and there with white chicks, but ultimately married a beautiful Korean-American woman. So all the assumptions you made about me in reading my posts are wrong, but that's what happens when people like you make stupid assumptions. As for your "well, I have an Asian friend" line of reasoning, that shit doesn't flush. I've heard it way too many times from ignorant white boys who think their down with the colored folks because they have "this one Black friend", "this one Indian friend", "this one Asian friend" or whatever. It doesn't mean you know shit. Try talking to more than one Asian friend. Try listening to the world around you with open ears. Racism is there in many ways, some of it measurable, much of it not. Where are the statistics of the psychological impact every time an African-American gets followed by security in the mall, or pulled over for DWB? Is this then not racism because it can't be quantified? Step back and think about what I said originally, and your argument. I said that some of the hating that Shyamalan is receiving is based on the color of his skin. Your rejoined by saying that anti-Asian racism does not exist. Can you seriously defend that position? Do you seriously believe that white America does not have an element of anti-Asian racism running through it? Do you really want to argue that, if you were to talk to Asian-Americans, you would not find many who could give you specific examples of persecution? You argue that there is less tolerance for anti-African-American racism because of their history of persecution in this country. I would ask you to look at the laws leveled against Chinese-American immigrants in the 19th century. I would ask you to look at the incarceration of Japanese-Americans in WWII when German and Italian Americans were not incarcerated. I would ask you to talk to more Asians than your one good buddy. If you did this, if you, in effect, got your head out of your ass, you wouldn't begin to argue that anti-Asian racism does not exist.
Jese Jones, speaking of asses... by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 10:00:00 PM
War's hell. I'm not beginning to claim that German civilians were not slaughtered during the war. Have you read any literature regarding the perceptions of Germans versus Japanese in America during WWII? Racism against the Japanese was rampant (as could be expected) and played a role in the way in which the war against Japan was persecuted.
Regarding Dresden by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 10:06:53 PM
Despite the vitriole of Jese Jones, I'm forced to admit that a WWII history knowledge gap has been exposed. I humbly apologize. I stand by my original point, however, that the way in which the war in the Pacific was persecuted was heavily influenced by anti-Japanese racism. Now that hours and a couple of beers have passed since this thread started, I actually can't remember how we got from The Village to firebombings in WWII. Did it have to do with the question of whether or not Shyamalan gets less room for error because he's a man of color? Or is it some way stemming from the "is Bush the epitome of evil or not" thread that runs rampant at AICN nowadays? At any rate, I humbly apologize for submitting a factually incorrect post to this intellectually exalted forum. I will try to sit and research online more thoroughly, as Dr. Jese Jones seems to do, prior to posting.
racism by JoseJones	Jul 30th, 2004 10:15:24 PM
having lived in poor neighborhoods in both NYC and LA I have got to say that racism is obviously prevelent in our society, but it comes from everyone. I am not speaking about the government "man" or the racist cops, just speaking from my own viewpoint. Ask your wife why Koreans are so racist against the black community. Seriously, late at night they won't let blacks into their little stores, and if they do they follow them everywhere, much like you say the white security guards do in malls. Racism is everywhere, but it is far from a white against everyone else issue. Being a white man in a mostly black community I hear shit almost everyday. I'm sure whites do it everywhere as well. But don't think Asians or Arabs or Jews or any one group is not guilty on some level.
Jose by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 10:22:46 PM
You are now arguing that racism is pervasive against everybody. Thank you for agreeing with me and my original point that Shyamalan may be receiving some hating thanks to the color of his skin. As for my Korean wife, jackass, I said Korean-American. She does not own a shop, does not have lots of friends who own shops, and therefore couldn't answer a question I might ask her about racism leveled by Korean-American shopowners against African-American customers. Whereas you assume that, since she's "Korean" (born and raised in the US, but still Korean, of course), she can speak for all Koreans, I figure I'd rather just go to the stores and ask the Korean-American storeowners myself if I wanted the answer to your question. However, whether or not Korean-American storeowners are racist has nothing to do with the original statement that I made, to which such exception is being taken, which was, Shyamalan gets less room for error partly because he is of South Asian descent.
just surfing over to CNN, this is kind of funny. Thank God Mich by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 10:30:31 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmp l=story&u=/ap/20040730/ap_en_m o/people_michael_moore_1
bourne allegory by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 10:38:06 PM
Of course, Stilldragons, Jason Bourne symbolizes the America that has forgotten its original identity. The various assassins out to get him symbolize the nefarious powers of the Bush administration trying to kill the sleeping freedom of America before it can fully awaken. And Franke Potente symbolizes that piece of ass that is really what life is all about. As for Harold and Kumar, the allegory is equally simple. The weed is the taste of freedom that the Democratic National Convention gave to America, and the munchies are the gnawing need of all Americans to escape the fascist regime that has been laid secretly overus. White Castle is, of course, true democracy, for which we struggle. And Doogie Howser represents, well, Doogie Howser.
Exactly by JoseJones	Jul 30th, 2004 10:42:16 PM
Thank you. I guess I am agreeing with your original post. I did not mean to offend you or your Korean-American wife. I was just trying to play devil's advocate to see what you might say. Nobody knows what their entire race feels or how anybody but her or himself thinks. Yes racism exists in all forms everywhere. You had posed a question asking why we (i'm guessing white america) think that asian females are hot but not asian males. that in itself was a blanket statement, as were some other broad assumptions you made. I was mearly pointing out that being Korean American maybe your wife knows why Korean shopowners are racist. It is a dumb, blanket assumption. just making a point. i apologize again if i offended.
Not sure what you're point is Stilldragons by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 10:43:27 PM
The total deaths in the Tokyo firebombing have actually been estimated to be greater than the deaths in either the Nagasaki or Hiroshima bombings individually, though I believe those numbers do not count later deaths directly related to radiation exposure (for an illustration of which I would recommend the wonderful "Black Rain" - not the Michael Douglas version). Therefore, by the count of lives lost at the time of the bombing, the Tokyo firebombing campaign (while, JoseJones et all, may NOT have been the only, or even the most costly firebombing campaign of the war) was actually a more devastating bombing than the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Psychologically, seeing a single bomb cause such destruction, the atomic bombings were probably more devastating.
JoseJones, give me a hug ya big lummox! by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 10:45:46 PM
Come here! No, seriously, hug! And Stilldragons, thank you, I'll be here all week. Actually, since my wife has taken the kids off to Disney World and left me behind, since I have to work this weekend, I may actually be on this damned website all week.
Don't blame Professor Pretorius... by Durendal	Jul 30th, 2004 10:49:14 PM
He's communicating with us From Beyond after having his head eaten by God knows what. Who the hell knows what's happened to him since the resonator was destroyed? I don't wanna know, but it probably involves numerous counts of some sort of mental rape. In any case, he seems to have regressed from his early fifties to a 13 year-old little shit that gets his little rocks off by yelling online and saying he's an adult. It may not be scarier than a massive, fleshy monster, but it sure is more annoying.
Stilldragons by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 10:49:50 PM
Ah, now I see your point. And a good point it is, actually.
by JoseJones	Jul 30th, 2004 10:58:02 PM
I don't agree with you trying to say that the bombings in Japan were racially motivated. America at the time of WWII was probably just as anti-semetic as it was anti-Asian, so why did we decide to help so many Jews? I think the only thing that might have unfairly influenced the A-bombs was revenge. But the bottom line is that Japan did NOT surrender and were not looking to surrender any time soon. A land assault would have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of both Americans and Japanese
Phil Dearly's point, as best I can understand it by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 11:02:00 PM
Either he's just too smart for my simple brain, or his logic doesn't quite fit together. Whatever the case may be, I think this is Phil's point: since the actual chances of getting killed in a terrorist attack aren't very high, we shouldn't, as a nation, take any action against terrorists. I assume then, he feels we should wait until the odds are much higher before we act. I wonder what the threshhold chance of dying in a terrorist attack should be before we act. Should it be, say 0.1% (meaning that approximately 30,000 Americans are killed in a given year by terrorists)? But 0.1% is pretty slim. I mean, that's a 99.9% chance of not getting killed by a terrorist. I mean, about 600,000 Americans die each year from heart disease, and another 500,000 from cancer. So, before we begin putting big resources into the fight against terror, maybe we should wait until we get to those numbers - like a 1% chance of getting killed by terrorists (about 300,000 Americans in a year). That still puts the terrorist death rate behind heart disease and cancer, but at least it up into the top 3. What about it Phil? High high should terrorism go on the cause of death rank list for the average American before the government takes action against terrorists? I vote for number 3, a nice round 1% chance of getting killed by a terrorist. How about you all?
Like I said in an earlier post by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 11:16:55 PM
Sitting back in my comfy chair I would say I disagree with the decision to use nuclear weapons to end the war, but then again, my child storming the beaches in Japan was not the other option. Nor was I a Korean watching my sister or daugter being raped and murdered by Japanese soldiers trying to get a little more fun in before the surrender came. If I were, I probably would have been all for doing whatever would bring about Japanese surrender the fastest! So I can argue intellectually about whether or not we should have dropped the bombs, but thank God I wasn't in Truman's position of having to make such a horrible decision. Was racism part of the decisions made about how to prosecute the war on Japan? I tend to think so, given the books I've read on the subject, but I was not there, I wasn't making the decisions, so I can't say for certain, and probably people who lived at the time and were party to those decisions being made couldn't have said so either. Racism is very subjective, very tough to pin down, and its definition changes all the time. I may say that America viewed the Japanese as less human than the Germans, and therefore found it easier to accept using nuclear warheads on them than they would have on the Germans. But I can't provide concrete proof because, fortunately, the war against Germany for all purposes over before the atomic bombs were ready for use. Ultimately, Jose, I won't argue the point any more. There are very legitimate arguments that there was no signficant racism in the decision to use nuclear arms against Japan. There are testimonials from the time that suggest racism was a part of the decision. Either way, it was two generations ago. My concern is more about the racism that persists in America today, and trying to make sure people like Ancient Light get their heads out of their asses and see that it exists.
What a silly, amateur review.What the hell has happened to this by nicola	Jul 30th, 2004 11:18:13 PM
Am I the only one that has grown increasingly frustrated and disappointed with AICN lately?From a look at the talkbacks recently I don't think so.And aphterburn you bring up some pretty good (if not scary) points.Honestly Harry, that Batman Begins comment just seemed purposefully and jarringly hateful.But you really want to see Cellular?Really??Man I just don't get it anymore.I hate to say this Harry, but your taste in movies, at least lately, is laughable at best.I'm a HUGE M. Night fan(Unbreakable IS a fuckin masterwork) but c'mon Harry...........
This site isn't what it used to be by devil0509	Jul 30th, 2004 11:23:11 PM
Harry, since becoming on the fringes of insider Hollywood, has become increasingly biased in his reviews - either pandering to the studios and directors he loves, or bashing those he has some beef with. Similarly, Moriarty now posts with this strange pseudo-intellectual arrogance that is astonishing given that he's posting about something as trivial as popcorn flicks. He name drops in the most pathetic way and tries to convince us he has deep friendships and rivalries with the top dogs in Hollywood. Again, there's something truly pathetic about trying to prove your importance by showing how tight you are with a bunch of pampered, indulgent, and ultimately purposeless entertainers. If you want a review of a movie, read anything Quint posts, then go elsewhere, because Moriarty and Harry simply are too busy pursuing their oddball agendas to give worthwhile reviews anymore.
You sorted out the movie's intended themes, Harry, but.... by Mosquito March	Jul 30th, 2004 11:59:38 PM
...you can't possibly believe that M. Night actually did them any justice. Every theme, every subplot, is merely suggested. None are brought to any kind of satisfying fruition in the film. M. Night dropped ball, on this one - into a big fucking bottomless pit. And, I'm a fan of his other films.
... by SoonerSean	Jul 31st, 2004 12:17:58 AM
Politics aside... I saw the movie this afternoon in a packed house and thought it was dreadful. The dialogue is painful at times, the pacing is slow with vast expanses of time where every member of the audience is seen struggling to check their watches in the dark to see how much longer the pain will last, and the ending is almost comical. My wife is a huge M. Knight fan and I thoroughly enjoyed Sixth Sense, Signs, and Unbreakable. But this is a piece of garbage and even she agreed that it was bad. I had read NOTHING about this movie beforehand and joked on the way end that the twist is that someone would walk through the woods and emerge in Philadelphia. Close! What a bad bad bad movie. It looks nice at times, but visuals can't overcome one truly bad script.
I'm late to the party, but re: Ebert by Blacklist	Jul 31st, 2004 01:22:22 AM
wow, what a childish review. I will probably see The Village sometime this weekend, and while I admire Shyamalan as a filmmaker, so far only Unbreakable is absolutely indispensible in my mind. Still, one star? This from a guy who's willing (just now in his Q&A) to make excuses for Garfield, Day After Tomorrow, etc? Come on, Ebert. You found nothing of value in the film? Whatever. I agree he's rapidly losing his position as a critic. Not just recently, but the malaise has already set in. He could regroup and gain some cred back by admitting at the start of a review he's biased one way or another. Sometimes his posturing as an objective critic gets annoying (look at his flippant review of America's Heart & Soul, then read his ejaculatory review of... well, you know). Since I don't know if there's a recent Manchurian Candidate talkback here: ManchurianGlobal? Corporate terrorism? Huh? What kind of fantasyland are these people oh fuck it. I will personally bronze my balls, mount them on a trophy, and give it to the first filmmaker with the gall to portray Islamic terrorism as the unspeakable savagery it is within the context of an exciting political thriller. Corporate terrorism! Oh! Enron! My nextdoor neighbor lost his pension! pfft
AICN is not a blog!!!!! by Rein	Jul 31st, 2004 02:17:37 AM
I don't wanna hear about Harry's friggin day and his "experiences" before, during and after her saw the fucking film! Just review the damn thing!
Yeah Blacklist that Enron thing was a real fucking joke huh? by IndustryKiller	Jul 31st, 2004 02:49:14 AM
Corporations are all wonderful companies that have Americas best interest in mind. Tell that to people who rely on those pensions for their way of life. Like Islamic Fanaticism corporations have to be watched and kept in check constantly as not to overstep their bounds and I dont see why making a film about it is such a horrible thing. In fact it's probably an easier topic to make a clear and concise argument against than the "evil Islamics".
Medicine? by EveKendall	Jul 31st, 2004 03:20:42 AM
I really wanted to like this movie, but just found myself irritated at the end of it. Unlike a number of posts I've read, I thought the performances were solid, definitely the best thing about the movie. The point that has bothered me most since seeing it is the hang-up about getting to "the towns" to get medicine for Lucius. If Mr. Walker was so wealthy, why didn't they keep a storeroom of medicine and medical supplies in case of emergencies? The answers I've heard were "so it would seem like a normal 1890's village." But the elders took all sorts of leniencies with what would have been considered "normal" at that time. Having their kids avoid the color red, paint posts yellow, and light fires to keep creatures out would not have been exactly par for the course. As much as they had brainwashed all of the children into thinking their entire world existed inside the village, it wouldn't have been such a hard thing to invent some reason for the medicine or simply hide it in "the shed that must not be used." Someone else told me that it could have been because they didn't expect anything to happen to anyone since they were leaving the violence of the world behind, but that's foolish because accidents and disease happen all the time without cause. I simply can't excuse this in my mind and it makes me feel like I spent two hours watching a movie turning in on itself and negating its whole reason for being.
The Village was fucking good by 9 Fingered Frodo	Jul 31st, 2004 03:25:34 AM
I loved every minute of it
WHERE'S THE REVIEW by Sepulchrave	Jul 31st, 2004 04:18:19 AM
A personal anecdote and a few pre-impressions is simply not enough. This is getting ridiculous. Do your job, you touchy-feely fool.
The Village by BillEmic	Jul 31st, 2004 05:04:06 AM
No one cares but I loved this movie. So there's at least a few of us here. Although it would have been cool to have that park ranger sitting in his car after Ivy leaves, kind of contemplating and then...WHAM! A real creature attacks and slaughters him. Right?
so wheres the reveiw of the movie? by The Data	Jul 31st, 2004 05:51:10 AM
i read through the first fifty paragraphs and fell asleep, can someone give me the jist of what harry said about the film he was appearently reveiwing.
Oh, yeah, the patheric "racism" card. by SalvatoreGravano	Jul 31st, 2004 07:07:58 AM
Yes, "Catwoman" flopped and got terrible reviews because the whole world - except for Taiwan, where, dear God, it opened as #1 - is racist. Not because it was a puke puddle of a film. And, obviously, the same goes for Shyalaman - he's criticized because his critics are racists. Not because he's an antitalented, anticreative, dull hack who would have Rod Serling's house bugged to steal "fresh" plot ideas, if Rod was still alive. I predict Shyalafuck will make a total of 156 films. Why exactly 156? Well, it's just a racist guess - http://www.tvtome.com/Twilight Zone/guide.html
by BlueNowhere	Jul 31st, 2004 08:21:19 AM
After reading all of the above i wonder if anyone on this talkback who is engaging in the moronic talk of nukes and so on realise that this site is a bloody MOVIE site not a goddamn- poitics - my dicks bigger than your dick - the matrix is a deep film - star wars is better than LotR - argument site. it nips my head to see other movie geeks slagging each other off for having differing opinions. grow up after all its ONLY a MOVIE. please keep on topic and on that point i liked m nights first 2 films i thought they were enjoyable enough bit predictible but never the less fun after that i dont know he has his way of making films but doesnt realise hes ruining it. If he went and did a movie with none of his usual ideas or even one he has not written or had anything to do with other than directing i think we would all see that he is indeed a masterfull film maker but i dont see that happening any time soon
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO IS DEEPLY DISTURBED BY HARRY'S CHILD-RE by fonebone	Jul 31st, 2004 09:05:19 AM
Sorry to shout, but Jesus! Last year he tells us about how his nephew messed hi pants while watching the Hulk. Now he explains how he and his sister have created a monster -- a flesh-eating, sound-making monster -- in order to discipline a TWO-YEAR OLD! That kid is going to be one fucked up little dude.
I CAN'T EVER READ ONE OF HARRY'S REVIEWS BECAUSE THE FIRST 4 PAR by Grabthars_Hammer	Jul 31st, 2004 09:13:45 AM

"...it's probably an easier topic to make a clear and concise ar by Blacklist	Jul 31st, 2004 10:52:56 AM
IndustryKiller, couldn't agree with you more. That's why I'd offer The Bronzing of the Balls if they did. Corporate bad guys are nothing new in movies, admit it. It's such a ridiculously easy target, and of course I mean with regard to the public letting it slide. If everyone got up in arms over every anti-corporate movie, where would that get us? Now with Islamic bad guys, here's what you'd do: show them sawing off heads, blowing up busloads of children (well, not show that exactly, it could still be a subject), whatever. The real test would be whether the filmmakers could withstand the wrath of organizations like CAIR and the legions of PC sympathizers crying racism once they got word about the movie's subject matter. That would be a challenge. The makers of Sum of All Fears skirted that issue entirely. Remember they changed the Islamists to Neo-Nazis. Of course I'm not saying we should move beyond anti-capitalist movies. If George Romero stops getting work because of it, I'll kill, maim, and stab until he does. Same with Brian De Palma or John Carpenter, though Carpenter might have to do some of the maiming himself until he gets back his inspiration. I'm saying some filmmaker needs to show the fortitude to make a movie (preferably an exciting edge-of-your-seat political thriller) portraying militant Islam as the savagery it is.
The Village sucked by guerillatokyo	Jul 31st, 2004 11:09:07 AM
The enitre theater booed it when the credits rolled. Bad writing, bad acting, bad cinematography, bad everything! Whoever Harry saw the Batman trailer with are just as stupid as Harry. It got a round fo applause. Maybe Texas is really full of retards.
On Dresden by Mahasamatman	Jul 31st, 2004 12:25:10 PM
For anyone who insists that Dresden was an American atrocity, check out Frederick Taylor's _Dresden : Tuesday, February 13, 1945_ for some insight into what the bombing was all about. Among the book's revelations are that approximately 25,000 to 40,000 people were killed, not the 100,000 to 250,000 thrown around today and first cited by such a reliable authority as Josef Goebbels (the Nazi's minister of propaganda). The book offers compelling evidence that the city was actually integral to the German war machine, as a center of transportation and as manufacturer of provisions for the military, and that the Germans refused -- several times -- Allied warning to cease and desist military operations within the city or face bombing. Taylor also illustrates the lie behind oft-repeated stories (now commonly accepted) like Allied planes strafing innocent civilians.
Moriarty - WRT the alleged conclusions drawn between VILLIAGE's by Immortal_Fish	Jul 31st, 2004 12:39:16 PM
Are you folks suggesting that "there is no 'credible' link" between the AICN staff reviews and the suggestion that Bush is hyping public fear for political gain? Please. AICN is about as unbiased as the New York Times. I have more respect for a liberal McWeeny that can freely admit he's a liberal weeny. Despite your constant evasion, your political stance is crystal clear. As is your candidate's I may add.
Good points and bad by devil0509	Jul 31st, 2004 01:23:53 PM
As usual, the fanboy quest to classify everything under the sun as "rocking" or "sucking" doesn't quite get the whole picture with The Village. Shyamalan is a phenomenal director. You could watch his movies just to appreciate his dirctorial skills. However, as time goes by, we're finding he's got some limitations as a writer. How rare is it to find someone who can do both incredibly well? He is so gifted as a director, I only hope that for his next project he at least finds a strong collaborator to write with him. I would hate to see his talents as a director wasted on poor stories.
Bubba's Review from themovieblog.com: by Forestal	Jul 31st, 2004 01:43:17 PM
I would like to preface this review by saying that teenage girls are stupid. Or, at the very least, the teenage girls who were sitting next to me at The Village are stupid. Here's a hint, girls: when a film goes out of its way to repeatedly demonstrate and state outright that a particular character is blind, well hey golly, it's because that character is, in fact, blind. Suddenly looking up a solid hour into said film and loudly asking "Hey, is she blind? Is that girl blind? What's up with that? Is she blind?" both reflects very badly on your level of intelligence and is extremely irritating to those people around you who have actually been paying attention to the film they just paid a wildly inflated price to watch. So don't do it. Yes, she's blind. Questioned answered. Move along. I should also point out that while I will not be talking any specific plot points here - you're better served by not knowing very much going in - I will be talking some about themes within the film, and if you're the attentive sort what I've got to say could give away some significant stuff. So if you don't want to know, don't read. Otherwise, continue on in ... Shyamalan, at this point, has become something of a victim to his own success. When The Sixth Sense hit that ending sent people through such a loop that they've been looking for Shyamalan to repeat the experience with every successive film. Well, here's the thing. It's not possible. The Sixth Sense shocked people because they didn't know what to expect and that initial surprise has been downplayed with every successive film - the law of diminishing returns in action - not because the later films aren't as good, or because the writing isn't as tight, but because it's very nearly impossible to be surprised when you're expecting to be. This would be a problem if the twists were the point of Shyamalan's films, but they're not and honestly I don't think they ever have been. The Sixth Sense is primarily a coming of age story looking at the pain of growing up different while also pointing out how we take life for granted; Unbreakable is about the nobility of the common man and the importance of being true to yourself; Signs is about the restoration of a man's faith. The twists are really there as a simple narrative device to keep the audience paying attention to the underlying themes of the film and unfortunately a large segment of Shyamaln's audience has entirely missed the point and gone looking purely for a shock that Shyamalan has little interest in providing and couldn't provide even if he did want to. The Village has received a highly mixed response to this point and every negative review I've seen thus far, every single one, revolves around the idea that Shyamalan has failed to surprise them. Well, get over it people. He's not trying to and if you stop trying to impose what you WANT the film to be over top of what the film actually IS you'll see that The Village is one impressive piece of work. That's not to say there aren't any surprises along the way - there are a few - just that the twists are not the underlying point so if you go in focused purely on those you're going to miss that point entirely. At its heart The Village is a morality play: a study on the nature of evil, what lengths people will go to to escape it, and how the very act of trying to escape from evil can both require and perpetuate the very thing you are trying to escape from. You could go as far as to read The Village as a continuation of the religious themes Shyamalan began to raise with Signs, particularly in the handling of Adrien Brody's character. If you want to go that road watch the film bearing in mind the notion that mental illness is a mark of a special connection to God, a divine innocence, which was a belief common right up until modern times. That's pretty much as far as I'm willing to go down the plot and theme road for fear of spoiling the film, so on to other matters ... Shyamalan has assembled here a dead solid group of actors. Any cast that includes the likes of William Hurt - a fairly love or hate sort whom I happen to love - Brendan Gleeson, Sigourney Weaver and Adrien Brody in support roles is going to have high expectations on it and the cast here delivers on all counts. There is a hidden and repressed history between all the key figures and it comes through in quiet ways - looks exchanged, gestures aborted, awkward starts and stops - that are subtly effective. The real keys to the film, though, are the performances of the leads. It feels like it's been a while since I've seen Joaquin Phoenix in anything and it's good to have him back. He's the sort of actor who never seems to be actually doing much of anything on screen but he has such a quiet intensity to him that his characters always stick around long after the film has ended. Yeah, he's good. Absolutely anchoring the film, though, is the stunning performance of Bryce Dallas Howard. Yes, she's Ron Howard's daughter, and yes she was a last minute fill in for Kirsten Dunst but put those two things out of your mind. She's incredible. She absolutely owns this role to the extent that this would be a radically different film, and likely far inferior, if Dunst hadn't been tied up with Spider-Man 2 and I say that as someone who has a lot of respect for Dunst's abilities. If she's smart about choosing her future roles Howard is a major star in the making, emotive, fearless and intelligent. As far as more practical matters Shyamalan is as close to a perfect technical film maker as is working today. He seldom wastes a frame, the cinematography is beautiful, every shot is perfectly composed and the music and editing are both exactly right. This won't be the film to do it but it does confirm my opinion that it's only a matter of time before a Shyamalan film takes home a stack of technical Oscars, cinematography likely being the first. Is this his best work? No. It's not the best film I've seen on this theme, either. But it is a good film. Very good, just remember not to check your brain at the door on your way into the theater.
What is the significance of 106 minutes? That's the running time by Prof. Pop-Cult	Jul 31st, 2004 04:22:01 PM
Is that a lucky number for him?
NEW REVIEW: Are Critics Really THAT Stupid? by scrivener	Jul 31st, 2004 04:46:02 PM
I'll start off by saying that I am NOT a fan of M Night Shayamalan. I figured out 6th Sense in the first 5 minutes - same goes for Unbreakable. Signs had some holes in logic so big you could drive a truck through them. The point is this: if you liked those pretentious pieces of cinematic crap, then you will HATE The Village. Really, the movie is a victim of it's audiences own preconceptions. The fact that it's being advertised as a thriller/horror dosn't help one iota. There's no twist, no gimmick, no great revelation. The story is carefully revealed piece by piece rather than in one giant exposition like Shayamalan's other films. If you've read the reviews then you've heard the same thing over and over "Night spoils the twist and so you are just waiting for the movie to end." THERE IS NO GOSH DARNED TWIST FOR HEAVENS SAKES!!! This is a movie about love, hope, and overcoming great obstacles in the name of good. Walker spells it out quite clearly in his speach to the council - The Village is place where people can hope for a better future... and you should do everything to nurture that hope. What's this? A REAL MOVIE with REAL VALUES from M Night Shayamalan? GASP By now I think it's safe to say I absolutely LOVED The Village. It's Shayamalan's best work. It pays off for those who are paying attention to details. This is not a sit-and-watch film - you have to be actively engaged and paying attention. When you walk into a movie called Death to Smoochie expecting something akin to carebears, and instead get Reservoir Dogs - you're bound to be upset (I remember people bringing gangs of kids to that movie, it's the same story here). Well, when you walk into The Village expecting Sixth Sense - you're not going to happy. Go into this movie expecting a drama/suspense/love story - not a supernatural thriller. It really has more in common with Anne of Green Gables than The Thing, but there's plenty to love if you know how to look at it. SCORE: 9/10 - marked down a point for an overdone running-through-the-woods scene. SPOILERS ENSUE - I believe going into the movie with this knowledge could drastically enhance your appreciation of the film. Knowing this, you will spend less time trying to figure out the nonexistant 'big secret', and actually watch the movie. . . . . . . . . . . There are no 'real' monsters - they are a story perpetrated by the council, who founded the village on the idea of creating a crim-free society. The Village is hidden in a modern-day forrest and disguised as a wildlife preserve - paid for by Mr. Walker who is one of the richest men in the world. The village does have one bad apple, however... some of the younger ones were raised in The Village, and grew up being told stories about the creatures in the woods. They have no reason to doubt. Noone is allowed to leave the village - not even for medicine, to protect their way of life - mostly to keep the world outside from intruding into their little world. When something bad happens, one person has to venture through the woods and into the world outside for medicine, that person has a hard time coping with the years of lies they grew up with and still partially believes in the creatures. But will they get the medicine and make it back in time? . . . . . . . END SPOILER See the Ebert & Roeper review. Roeper got it, Ebert didn't. Again, I'd give The Village a score of 9/10.
Loss of life and loss of love by doug scott	Jul 31st, 2004 04:57:08 PM
So, Harry thinks THE VILLAGE is about the lies adults tell their children to move ahead with LIFE. Wrong. It's about GRIEF, hence the first scene. Everybody seems to wait M Night's neding? He gives it away in the very first scene. Hitchcock was the master of misdirection for a horror film. M Night is always misdirecting us? And the critics, too. Why does every critic tell us it's 1897. The film doesn't. Like why did every critic of ANCHORMAN tell us the stupid guy has an IQ of 48. It wasn't in the movie. Are the critics watching the movie or reading the production notes? I knew something was up when Edward used the word "Bonded". That word was coined in 1980's. Funny, actually this film is all about misdirection, with the enemy at the gate. Some claim it's a fable of post 9/11 grief. Maybe, and it's funny Lucuis is badly in need of medication. I kept thinking she'd better not find a friendly HMO. Israel builds a wall around it's "village" country to stop outsiders blowing them up. But those allusions are far off this village. This movie is about grief, plain and simple. Grief over a lost of life, grief over the loss of a potential love. Ironic that the two intersect with the village idiot. sorry, Harry, no kids involved, this is for grown-ups.
1897 by JoseJones	Jul 31st, 2004 06:27:56 PM
In the beginning of the film they are attending a funeral of Brendan Gleeson's son. On the grave stone it says 1890-1897. This is why the audience is led to believe the year 1897.
squandered concept by Manatee	Jul 31st, 2004 06:54:23 PM
The only thing worse than seeing a movie that completely sucks is seeing a movie with a terrific concept that sucks. M. Night Sham-a-lama-ding-dong is so obsessed with the surprise ending he
The VILLAGE is not original !!! by doug scott	Jul 31st, 2004 07:10:26 PM
Shakespeare, 1593 wrote TITUS ANDRONICUS. See if you recognize part of the plot. Lavinia wrote gets tongue cut out (Ivy is blind) is daughter of the Roman Emperor (Edward is village elder). Demetruis (demented Noah) and Chiron (Lucuis) are in love with her. They kill Bassianus (=creature, but also Noah dressed up as creature) and dump him in a pit. Titus is grief striken by death of his son. A funeral starts the play. Disney remade Rome setting in modern times (Village time is 1897, ends in modern time). Yeah, very original M Night.
FIVE-WORD SUMMARY: "beautifully crafted," "very relevant" and "e by PogoOfGo	Jul 31st, 2004 07:10:41 PM
It only took five words to wrap up Harry's actual feelings about the movie... I just ate pages and pages of anecdote to get to the actual movie review, and then I get a few adjectives with zero explination? SEE: INDULGENT. ...Don't bother explaining themes I haven't even been exposed to yet, let why I'll even blink at these themes and stories! Harry just barely makes his real commentary before he signs off, like the miracle bucket at the buzzer. BLAH!
The VILLAGE is not original !!! by doug scott	Jul 31st, 2004 07:10:55 PM
Shakespeare, 1593 wrote TITUS ANDRONICUS. See if you recognize part of the plot. Lavinia wrote gets tongue cut out (Ivy is blind) is daughter of the Roman Emperor (Edward is village elder). Demetruis (demented Noah) and Chiron (Lucuis) are in love with her. They kill Bassianus (=creature, but also Noah dressed up as creature) and dump him in a pit. Titus is grief striken by death of his son. A funeral starts the play. Disney remade Rome setting in modern times (Village time is 1897, ends in modern time). Yeah, very original M Night.
I thought my point was clear, but here goes.... by phil dearly	Jul 31st, 2004 07:15:16 PM
The point is that the globalists (who are in fact zionists) are trying to take more and more of our rights and freedoms (and we're letting them!!) The Patriot Act anyone? So, before you line up to get your inplants (for your "protection", of course), consider for a moment the possibility that maybe the terrorist threat is exaggerated (to the point of preposterousness in my opinion)! Folks, they want to delay elections, because of suppposed evidence that Al-CIAda might strike. Please! It's like Lenin said (no, not
doug scott.....joking? by JoseJones	Jul 31st, 2004 07:30:10 PM
I think you are joking but not sure. There are very few similarities between the Village and Shakespeare's most violent play. Many would argue that there has not been a story written since 1623 that is not influenced in some way by shakespeare. The man basically invented humanity.
Scrivener by user id indeed!	Jul 31st, 2004 07:33:20 PM
Do you really think The Village has no twist? Really? Are you seriously that... wait, are you serious? You're not joking? You HONESTLY don't think there's a twist in The Village? You think they make it perfectly clear from the beginning of the film thast it takes place in present times and there are no creatures? You actually think that? Really? Well... you might want to keep that to yourself.
can't be by JoseJones	Jul 31st, 2004 07:58:03 PM
doug, upon further review you may not be joking. "bonded" coined in the '80s? where do you get that? were there no bonds before the reagan 80s? are you just thinking about junk bonds? what do you mean? also, 1897 is on the head stone of Brendan Gleeson's dead son. That is the very obvious reason why every critic says its 1897. should they be telling us that it is the present day? Also, the movie is about much more than grief. It is about choices, love, fear, society, grief etc. etc. you are wrong about everything you have said, and you have said alot. So does this mean that Titus Andronicus is also only about grief? Did you just finish reading that in your summer reading program? Can you read?
Another visit to the village... from FILMSTEW.com by scum_buster_onit	Jul 31st, 2004 08:08:41 PM
http://www.filmstew.com/Conten t/Article.asp?Pg=1&ContentID=9 309 The Village The difference between the craft of The Village and most of what passes for a thriller in Hollywood these days is like Night and day. By Todd Gilchrist For all of those fair weather M. Night Shyamalan fans who think his movies boil down to a bunch of forced-perspective shots and twist endings, The Village provides a revelatory explanation of the prodigiously talented filmmaker
Another visit to the village... from FILMSTEW.com by scum_buster_onit	Jul 31st, 2004 08:12:17 PM
http://www.filmstew.com/Conten t/Article.asp?Pg=1&ContentID=9 309 THE VILLAGE. The difference between the craft of The Village and most of what passes for a thriller in Hollywood these days is like Night and day.... By Todd Gilchrist .... For all of those fair weather M. Night Shyamalan fans who think his movies boil down to a bunch of forced-perspective shots and twist endings, The Village provides a revelatory explanation of the prodigiously talented filmmaker
If you didn't like this. . . by STRIDER355	Jul 31st, 2004 08:23:57 PM
You have crap taste. Go enjoy Catwoman, instead. That will be more at your level.
Shitty "Signs" made $200 million by Rupee88	Jul 31st, 2004 08:38:58 PM
M Night will always have a great career as long as Joe Average 100 IQ continues to support his films.
NOMAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHH by FluffyUnbound	Jul 31st, 2004 08:57:46 PM
That is all.
(Inadvertant?) Neocon Propaganda by Pabodie	Jul 31st, 2004 09:04:50 PM
Film's POV seems to be that ignorance = innocence. Living shielded by the lies of the powerful, in a retreat from reality... Hmm. Sounds familiar. Anyway, a big "WHOOPS" to MKS. I doubt he meant to make such a morally muddled film. Better luck next time.
Bana is Bond - It's Official by Forestal	Jul 31st, 2004 09:06:24 PM
Eric Bana has been confirmed as the next 007....
manatee by JoseJones	Jul 31st, 2004 09:29:10 PM
If you thought that the village elders should have been evil, then you missed a major point of the film. Having them be evil would have played to convention, and not to mention, would have given liberals more fodder for their belief that this has anything to do with our current president. The elders being evil would have truly fucked what is a great film. The fact that they are not evil lets the audience decide what is right or not. It would have thinned most all of the subtext. But it makes sense, if you thought that they should have been so one dimensional, then you missed the point of the entire film and have every right to hate it, given your poor analysis and conventional mindset
phil dearly by JoseJones	Jul 31st, 2004 09:59:33 PM
I think everyone on this site should go to the links that phil dearly tells us to go to. I went just out of curiosity. this is quite possibly the most amateur conspiracy theory bullshit i have ever seen. Granted, if i suffered from mental illness and thought that the ENTIRE WORLD was involved in one giant conspiracy that only I and a select few knew about then I might buy into this shit. I am thankful that I am quite sane. Also, I thought Nazis only believed in the power of the Aryan race. When did you guys start joining the Islamic terrorist front? I tried very hard to avoid responding to you or your bullshit, but I think everyone should read the sources you are quoting. It is basically a high school essay on why Islamic terrorist could not be responsible. It says that they believe in the Koran and then quotes the Koran saying that Islam is about piece so therefore anyone Islamic could be nothing but pieceful. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE A RADICAL FRONT AND 99% OF THE ISLAMIC COMMUNITY DOES NOT AGREE WITH THEIR PRACTICES!!! I feel very very sorry for you and hope that one day you get the medication and full team of doctors that can one day help you. Please, phil dearly, do not respond to this, or subject anyone else on this site to your Jew-hating propaganda.
pieceful??? by JoseJones	Jul 31st, 2004 10:01:51 PM
sorry about the grammar of the previous post
Losing it... by ewokstew	Jul 31st, 2004 11:31:32 PM
Weak and predictable twists. (among other things) Why? Because we all know twists are something that Mr. Night can't seem to live without. He's programmed us enough so when we watch one of his movies we can literally predict the outcome of any given situation without expending any energy thinking about. Someone once compared Shylaman to Spielberg. Sorry, not on his best day and Spielberg's worst.
spelling by ewokstew	Jul 31st, 2004 11:37:25 PM
Meant Shyamalan. Sorry ...uh...wait. Not really. Who cares if you mispell a name everyone will forget in ten years?
?????????? by ewokstew	Jul 31st, 2004 11:39:43 PM
Hey, cool! I misspelled misspell. I'm going to sleep now.
Village was better than most of the crap movies this summer by spectrebeeyatch	Aug 1st, 2004 12:16:31 AM
It also made 20 million on its opening day. So it possibly could break 100 million or even 150 so that forgetting his name 10 years from now, I doubt that
Sheesh, is this why they took away the links that allowed you to by cherrycola	Aug 1st, 2004 01:58:08 AM
Because of all the damn spooky shit said in here? Damn...some of you are screaming about some crazy stuff. lol. And now that people can't email you and tell you off I guess its a safe zone to say whatever the hell you want without some crazed, righteous liberal, conservative, or whatever infests this board emailing you telling you go fuck yourself. Can't we all just get along? And, can't someone just post the end of the damn movie so I can save my money? lol. Sixth sense is the BEST m.night whatever film. Period. Followed closely by "unbreakable" which was simply amazing. Thanks!
Damn, harry....You really want to keep people arguing over stuff by cherrycola	Aug 1st, 2004 02:10:06 AM
Saying the "batman begins" trailer left you cold, or that it just did'nt DO it for you..... is not only silly but just plain sad. You don't have to be a batman fanatic to see that the film makers are showing us a TEASER!!!!!! Meaning: THEY DON'T WANT TO GIVE AWAY THE WHOLE GODDAMN MOVIE AWAY A FUCKING YEAR BEFORE IT OPENS!!!!!! JESUS CHRIST ON A MOPED ARE YOU THAT DENSE?? ARGGH! Or is it that they did'nt allow you on the WB lot to watch filming? Or that you don't hang out with christian bale or nolan? Or because nolan wont return your calls? whatever. Village sucks. But then again, you LOVED armaggedon. Go figure.
Some people will never appreciate movies that ... "take their ti by JDanielP	Aug 1st, 2004 02:20:13 AM

There were no twists. by scrivener	Aug 1st, 2004 02:49:06 AM
It's that simple really. If you thought any part of the movie was some kind of great fanciful plot twist then you must have the IQ of a dead horses ass. There's more to movies than blood, gore, grand expositions, and cheap fucking scares. It's people like you who are responsible for Hollywood ass-trash like The Ring and (upcomming) The Grudge. Go see Catwoman, it might be easier for your limited brain to process. Boobies = thumbs up.
I hope to see M. Night Shyamalan grow as a filmmaker, over the y by JDanielP	Aug 1st, 2004 03:21:22 AM
My point is that people grow and change ... including working artists. Our own perception of the world around us changes. How can that not impact our art, our vision, and even our lives? I enjoyed this film, as I have every Shyamalan film I've seen. And this slow pacing remains a part of his style, his "staple", if you will. But this style isn't for everyone. -- I remember reading about M. Night Shyamalan's interest in directing a Batman movie and/or a Superman movie ... yet Warner Bros. seemed to have trouble convincing themselves to add Shyamalan's "staple" to these valuable "properties". I figure that over time, Shyamalan will spread his wings and push beyond his own boundaries, as a filmmaker. Perhaps ... if he develops interest (over the years) in choreography ... and the change of film pacing ... and the overall visual artistry of how action scenes play out on screen ... then just maybe, in combination with his storytelling abilities, he could become a director that Warner Bros. would have him be. And when he is able to do this consciously, to blend and alter his style according to the needs of the material and story, the student will become the teacher, ... and satisfy even those whom have a distaste for his work, thus far.
To the hypocrites telling us that... by nsomnia	Aug 1st, 2004 01:30:01 PM
This movie is NOT about twist ending but about character development, please explain me why the entire fucking marketing program was ENTIRELY about the
To the hypocrites telling us that... by nsomnia	Aug 1st, 2004 01:31:30 PM
This movie is NOT about twist ending but about character development please explain me why the entire fucking marketing program was ENTIRELY about the
The movie was brilliant. by HappyHamster	Aug 1st, 2004 02:23:55 PM
Hard to discuss critics various points about the movie without going into spoiler territory, but suffice it to say that most of their issues are easily explained within the framework of the movie (assuming their issues have any basis at all). Great movie.
"It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state o by phil dearly	Aug 1st, 2004 02:30:06 PM
Sigh. "It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel." -- Colin Powell. Check this out
Saw this Friday. by mrfan	Aug 1st, 2004 02:50:46 PM
Not bad. Loved the Howard girl. The cast did good. The scenary looked beautiful. Wish that the director would not have to be in the movie. Should have got someone to cameo in that role. I give it three out of five stars.
Monsters? Pilgrims? I thought this movie was about GAY people! by LeFlambeur	Aug 1st, 2004 04:07:12 PM
Harde har har. Hey wasn't this flick a Star Trek episode?
Ebert giving Shyamalan the George Lucas treatment? by nazismasher	Aug 1st, 2004 04:21:55 PM
Seems like Roger Ebert has once again switched brains lambasting a director's latest project with the very logic he had previously used to praise his other films. Hey, maybe SIGNS had two or three or certainly less than a half-dozen "issues" with its plot but that's just small potatoes so let's just give this young, "Next Big Man" director a break, right! Guess a media hyped reputation only gets you 1 free pass at the Chicago Sun-Times because the Star Wars prequels similarly slid from being visual feasts for the imagination to fx-bloated wormwood with seemingly little change from film to film. Hey! I can understand if Ebert feels the need to change his outlook, but consistancy is also a great virtue with readers. The man writes terrific essays on film, but his judgment on current releases has left me spinning every which way from Sunday the last couple of years. "So, which Ebert is going to write the review today?" I sometimes ask myself - the champion of independent films, classics, animation and science-fiction... or the guy that endorsed XXX, FAST AND THE FURIOUS and the TOMB RAIDER movies?
He Lied! by dvdbob	Aug 1st, 2004 05:27:15 PM
I must say that I am a huge M Night fan and of course as every film geek should I own all of his DVD's BUT, Warning, Spoiler ahead. DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM! I figured out the "suprise" ending of the village about 5 minutes into the film. M Night, the gifted story teller that he is, made one unforgivable mistake. He lied to the audience! There is NO need for the shot of the tombstone with the date on it in the first few minutes of the film. The children of the village would not know the difference between 1890 and 2004!! M Night did not need this shot! All it did was trick the audience when we already believed that it was the 1800's. He used a trick rather than his talent for this film. Take "The Usual Suspects" for instance. Kevin Spacey, a character in the film is the one who is not telling the truth to the audience. Bryan Singer even shows you Gabriel Byrne getting killed by Keyser Soze in the first 2 minutes. Thumbs down for the Village and especially thumbs down for M Night.
I think Harry way over analyzed this movie by SexyBeast	Aug 1st, 2004 06:04:36 PM
Harry is trying to do some Bush bashing , or more accurately, he's bashing "the powers that be" that have ruled America since the revolutionary War. The movie however, has very real monsters, they are the pyschopaths of humanity. From the man child Noah to criminals in the "towns". M.Night isn't telling people not to be scared of the boogeyman, he's saying there is a very good reason why we have a boogeyman. A man without fear will get himself killed. Which is why that stupid Rachel Leigh Cook show about the girl with no gene for fear was so awful.
Politics, WMDS, Bush, Kerry, Republicunts, and Demohacks.... by J-Dizzle	Aug 1st, 2004 06:18:51 PM
SHUT UP!!!!! ALL OF YOU, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP!!!!! FOR GOD'S SAKES, PLEASE, LEAVE POLITICS TO THE POLITICIANS!!!!
dvdbob by JoseJones	Aug 1st, 2004 06:22:16 PM
The way I looked at both the gravestone reading 1897 as well as the way they talked in the film was, yes to dupe the audience a little bit, but more importantly for the villagers themselves. They had decided to leave a very modern society to pursue life the way it was way back when. We do not need to suspend belief if we are to think the villagers decided to go all out. If I created my own little world, I would probably try to do whatever I could to reinforce the "new reality" If they wanted to live like it was in 1800s what is wrong with reinforcing that idea by actually telling yourself that it is 1897? If I created the 1950s in my backyard, and if I truly wanted to buy in to that fact, I would not tell myself everytime I stepped into my backyard that it was 2004. Do you get my point? sorry if it is a little rambling, but I think Night did the right thing.
wouldn't it have (SPOILERS!) made a lot more sense if... by ar42	Aug 1st, 2004 07:40:07 PM
The revelation about the nature of the creatures didn't come until AFTER the scene where the girl is chased through the woods... then when we see the human body underneath the mask as it's dying at the bottom of the pit... it's one of the village elders... the one who'd gone nuts and started mutilating animals? Wouldn't that have tied up more loose ends, made more sense, and had more dramatic tension?
"SIGNS" was an "A" version of a "B" movie, if you catch my drift by JDanielP	Aug 1st, 2004 08:06:49 PM

R.C.'s opinion: M. Night lost it. No mysticism, ok twist, and by R.C. the "Wise"	Aug 1st, 2004 08:34:54 PM
On the plus side, fine acting, beautiful cinematography, and a solid score. Ron Howard's daughter is going to be a big star.
White women won't date Asian men because they have been told the by FluffyUnbound	Aug 1st, 2004 09:35:03 PM
No really, I heard this at a party... // I realize that if you're an Asian guy this is a hard cross to bear, but it isn't like there are lynch mobs for small dick guys. [If there were, I would never leave the house without a shotgun.] On the sliding scale of racism, there's really no comparison to the African-American experience. Frankly, it seems apparent that most whites have declared East Asians and people from the subcontinent [depending on their degree of assimilation] "honorary whites" and don't think of their relations with people of these groups as being "race" relations at all.
Harry & the Batman Begins trailer... by Red Raider	Aug 1st, 2004 09:52:34 PM
Harry: "The BATMAN BEGINS trailer, which didn
Ghosts and/or werewolves/vampires = a positive review by Rupee88	Aug 1st, 2004 10:37:21 PM
I only read one or two sentences of this one...I've learned by now not to waste my time getting an update on the happenings in Austin and how Harry's beloved family is doing.
Critics Are Too critical of NIGHT by Voicedude	Aug 1st, 2004 10:58:32 PM
Ma-aan, give the guy a BREAK! Most film critics are so wrapped up trying to have Night live up to THEIR hype - trying to pigeon-hole him into a box of THEIR making - that they won't give the guy any elbow room at all. What do they all expect - 'Sixth Sense, Part 20'....FOR LIFE? Speilberg had the same problem...as soon as he tried to break away from the action/awe/wonderment mold that we ALWAYS expected him to stay in, he was lambasted. Then he made 'Schindler's List' and DARED them to say a bad word about not fitting his previous style. Night is a film director aand a storyteller. A damn good one, too! If he decides to make a comedy, then he's ALLOWED to, and we should allow him the room to express hiself DIFFERENTLY. The Village is about fear, the kind of Grimms Bros. fables they used to tell children to keep them in line. (Boy Who Cried Wolf, Hansel & Gretel, etc. - these kids DIED! Don't do what they did or you will too!) If you want, you could even make a parallel about modern America with our Terror Alerts and Society of Fear, although I'm sure Night was just telling a story, not engaging in politics. I loved the language and the pace in which they spoke it. (There were new meanings to everything that was repeated.) Iliked the love story, the tragic surprise, the resurgence of the 'villian' after we thought we knew it all, and the whopper at the end (including it's subtler 'Walker family history' wrap-ups missed or dismissed by many). Did we figure out the villian early? Yes, and no. If someone was disappointed because it wasn't a ghost or alien or werewolf (like my daughter & I assumed from the trailers), then they missed the real point. The 'villian' is secrets and lies and those who perpetuate them, even if they believe their reasons to be noble. No, the 'villian'...is US!
This movie will probably bomb by Fatty McJones	Aug 1st, 2004 11:47:37 PM
Ok, I didn't have a problem with the story of this movie. It's a little bit improbable, but I can deal with that. The idea was clever. However, Night needs a new editor. At least 30 minutes could have been trimmed from it and it would have been much better. The pacing was like a snail. Do we really need 3 people in a row saying that Ivy is "going to get medicines"? And btw, it will probably not make 100 mil. Word of mouth will kill it. Everybody I saw it with hated it, and I heard one girl in the theater say it was the worst movie she ever saw.
thinking it through by ewokstew	Aug 2nd, 2004 12:05:17 AM
If this had been Night's first movie, and we hadn't all been jaded by his previous outings, this may have actually have been half decent. Seems he's a victim of his own writing style.
Fear is justified, but less in the U.S. than in other parts of t by AntoniusBloc	Aug 2nd, 2004 12:13:16 AM
President Bush has kept us safe. After 9/11 many were making predictions of numerous terrorist attacks taking place in the United States, comparable to the terrorism that has spread like a cancer in Europe, Asia, and of course, Israel. Yet, since 9/11/2001 we have yet to have the predicted terrorist attacks in the United States. Why? Because of the decisions and leadership of President Bush. Even the badly timed 9/11 commission concludes in its report that we are safer, although, obviously, not yet completely safe. But who, including the experts, would have predicted that there would be no attacks in the U.S., not even a lone suicide bomber. Make no mistake about it, the credit goes to the leadership of President Bush for keeping us safe, so far. His strategy must not be interrupted. In order to have any hope of safety in this country, President Bush must remain in office. Make no mistake about it, the war in Iraq is a major part of the strategy that has kept us safe. The terrorists who would have been murdering innocents here are now drawn to Iraq. President Bush has brilliantly moved the battlefield away from the homeland. Despite the lies of Michael Moore and John Kerry, Iraq was a haven and training ground for terrorists, including Al queada, a fact also confirmed by the 9/11 commission(no, it could not confirm specific cooperation for 9/11, in terms of evidence, but they found plenty of evidence of cooperation and communication). Moore put a negative spin on President Bush challenging the terrorists to "Bring it on" in the early stages of the Iraq war, but this was a brilliant move to draw the battle away from the United States, and allow our brave and heroic military to sacrifice and fight the terrorists in their own backyard, and eliminate them before they can reach our shores. Make no mistake, the last thing the terrorists want is a free and prosperous Iraq, based on democratic ideals of individual liberty and a free market, because once a people taste just a little of freedom and prosperity, they are less likely to become desperate and brainwashed suicide bombers who are influenced by those who have no sincere interest in religion but use fundamentalist religion as a tool to hold political power and influence, and expand that power. The true leaders of these terrorist groups do NOT have any sincere belief in the Muslim religion any more than Hitler sincerely believed the Germans were a superior race. They use religion, as Hitler used patriotism, as a tool for control,deception, and slavery of the will. Such tools are more effective against a desperate people who live in the dark ages and aren't allowed to freely participate in the dealings of the rest of the free world.Don't be fooled by those who call this a religious war. This is freedom versus slavery; liberty versus oppression. That is why the terrorists fear a free Iraq, because once freedom spreads, the people will fight for themselves to keep it. Liberals who say the Iraqi's can't handle freedom, and were better under Saddam are racists. Our founding fathers understood that liberty and freedom is a Natural Right, granted by the ultimate authority who created Nature, and is deserved by all people, no matter what race or religion. To deceptively portray an enslaved Iraq as some kind of utopia as Moore does is deception. To imply that Iraqi's are better off as slaves, and can't handle freedom, is racist. Defeating Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do on many levels, including being vital in the success of the war on terror and keeping us safe here at home in the U.S.,. President Bush has made us safer and liberated Iraq thanks to his leadership, despite the deception of our so-called "allies". Moore puts forward his own deception by claiming that we are less safe because President Bush "alienated" our allies, like France, Germany, and Russia. The fact is, these "allies" along with the United Nations were helping Saddam Hussein oppress his people. So, Michael Moore told Ted Koppel on nightline, when Mr. Koppel brought up the comparison of the difficulties of the Iraqi's fight for freedom with the American Revolution, and the help America got from its allies. Moore argued that it was ok for other countries to fight along side with the americans because americans initiated the uprising. What Moore deceptively does not mention is that the Iraqi people did try to initiate it but were overmatched by Saddam's military. Now , with the facts of the oil for food scandal coming out, we realized that the Iraqi people not only had Saddam's oppressive rule to deal with, but countries such as France, Germany, and Russia, and the entire United Nations was against them, and keeping them down. These are not the allies we need to be relying on to keep our country safe. These so called allies who are sympathetic and appease terrorists and terrorist nations, also would keep a people enslaved to keep their financial interests and not have their corruption revealed. Don't fall for the rhetoric that we would be safer with these corrupt governments on our side. Thank God for a true leader like President Bush. No one believed President Reagan could defeat communism in the same way no one believes we can win the war on terrorism. Thank God for true leaders like President Bush. God bless our troops and the people of Iraq who are seeking liberty.
Fear is justified, but less here in the U.S. than in other count by AntoniusBloc	Aug 2nd, 2004 12:20:05 AM
President Bush has kept us safe. After 9/11 many were making predictions of numerous terrorist attacks taking place in the United States, comparable to the terrorism that has spread like a cancer in Europe, Asia, and of course, Israel. Yet, since 9/11/2001 we have yet to have the predicted terrorist attacks in the United States. Why? Because of the decisions and leadership of President Bush. Even the badly timed 9/11 commission concludes in its report that we are safer, although, obviously, not yet completely safe. But who, including the experts, would have predicted that there would be no attacks in the U.S., not even a lone suicide bomber. Make no mistake about it, the credit goes to the leadership of President Bush for keeping us safe, so far. His strategy must not be interrupted. In order to have any hope of safety in this country, President Bush must remain in office. Make no mistake about it, the war in Iraq is a major part of the strategy that has kept us safe. The terrorists who would have been murdering innocents here are now drawn to Iraq. President Bush has brilliantly moved the battlefield away from the homeland. Despite the lies of Michael Moore and John Kerry, Iraq was a haven and training ground for terrorists, including Al queada, a fact also confirmed by the 9/11 commission(no, it could not confirm specific cooperation for 9/11, in terms of evidence, but they found plenty of evidence of cooperation and communication). Moore put a negative spin on President Bush challenging the terrorists to "Bring it on" in the early stages of the Iraq war, but this was a brilliant move to draw the battle away from the United States, and allow our brave and heroic military to sacrifice and fight the terrorists in their own backyard, and eliminate them before they can reach our shores. Make no mistake, the last thing the terrorists want is a free and prosperous Iraq, based on democratic ideals of individual liberty and a free market, because once a people taste just a little of freedom and prosperity, they are less likely to become desperate and brainwashed suicide bombers who are influenced by those who have no sincere interest in religion but use fundamentalist religion as a tool to hold political power and influence, and expand that power. The true leaders of these terrorist groups do NOT have any sincere belief in the Muslim religion any more than Hitler sincerely believed the Germans were a superior race. They use religion, as Hitler used patriotism, as a tool for control,deception, and slavery of the will. Such tools are more effective against a desperate people who live in the dark ages and aren't allowed to freely participate in the dealings of the rest of the free world.Don't be fooled by those who call this a religious war. This is freedom versus slavery; liberty versus oppression. That is why the terrorists fear a free Iraq, because once freedom spreads, the people will fight for themselves to keep it. Liberals who say the Iraqi's can't handle freedom, and were better under Saddam are racists. Our founding fathers understood that liberty and freedom is a Natural Right, granted by the ultimate authority who created Nature, and is deserved by all people, no matter what race or religion. To portray an enslaved Iraq as some kind of utopia as Moore does is deception. To imply that Iraqi's are better off as slaves, and can't handle freedom, is racist. Defeating Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do on many levels, including being vital in the success of the war on terror and keeping us safe here at home in the U.S.,. President Bush has made us safer and liberated Iraq thanks to his leadership, despite the deception of our so-called "allies". Moore puts forward his own deception by claiming that we are less safe because President Bush "alienated" our allies, like France, Germany, and Russia. The fact is, these "allies" along with the United Nations were helping Saddam Hussein oppress his people. So, Michael Moore told Ted Koppel on nightline, when Mr. Koppel brought up the comparison of the difficulties of the Iraqi's fight for freedom with the American Revolution, and the help America got from its allies. Moore argued that it was ok for other countries to fight along side with the americans because americans initiated the uprising. What Moore deceptively does not mention is that the Iraqi people did try to initiate it but were overmatched by Saddam's military. Now , with the facts of the oil for food scandal coming out, we realized that the Iraqi people not only had Saddam's oppressive rule to deal with, but countries such as France, Germany, and Russia, and the entire United Nations was against them, and keeping them down. These are not the allies we need to be relying on to keep our country safe. These so called allies who are sympathetic and appease terrorists and terrorist nations, also would keep a people enslaved to keep their financial interests and not have their corruption revealed. Don't fall for the rhetoric that we would be safer with these corrupt governments on our side. Thank God for a true leader like President Bush. No one believed President Reagan could defeat communism in the same way no one believes we can win the war on terrorism. Thank God for true leaders like President Bush. God bless our troops and the Iraqi people who are fighting for individual liberty.
There's a good review in there, somewhere by Billy_Oblivion	Aug 2nd, 2004 01:41:33 AM
For me, M. Night is a storyteller whose firelight is sprung from a projection booth behind me, and whose shadow plays of morals & lessons, simple truths and complex choices
My Thoughts by Darth Melkor	Aug 2nd, 2004 03:48:06 AM
No matter how bad some of you think this movie is, it's still better than 99% of what's out there. Shyamalan is just sooooo good that if he doesn't score a 10 every time, it's a bust.
Billy_Oblivion by JoseJones	Aug 2nd, 2004 05:14:01 AM
well said, dead on. could not have said it better myself. look at some of my other posts. i have a hard time with the fact that there were not many who saw the film as we did
INBREEDING, anyone? by Kage	Aug 2nd, 2004 09:57:08 AM
i mean, come on! an entire Village from 8 people? it accounts for Adrian Brody, anyway.
An easy way to find really smart people by Olsen Twins_Fan	Aug 2nd, 2004 09:59:04 AM
Locate those who "figured out the Sixth Sense in - the first five minutes, halfway through, during the trailers, etc." They won't be hard to find, because they bleat on about it in EVERY FREAKING M. NIGHT FORUM!! We get it scrivener & co., you are huge geniuses.
M. Night Shyamalan raped my childhood by mbaker	Aug 2nd, 2004 10:20:14 AM
M. Night Shaymalan raped my childhood...Hulk Hogan should be in the film, "I see dead people, Brother!"...Bruce Campbell should play a ghost...Bruce Willis has a beer, and cheats on his wife, Joaquin Phoenix is the sexiest beanpole on the planet, This movie needs warewolves, and vampires, Sam Jackson has a bomb in his ribcage, All your signs are belong to village, George Lucas blah blah blah...God Bless the AICN Talkback Cliches!
R.C.'s opinion: Forget the "twist"; just going from M.Night's c by R.C. the "Wise"	Aug 2nd, 2004 11:17:27 AM
The "startling" event that occurs during the wedding reception is completely unneccessary to the true characters's intentions. Phoenix's character was the only person who truely exhibited any heretic antics toward the Village's mystism. During the preceding event, he was a believer. So WHAT THE FUCK was the proceeding scene supposed to do for the mindset of the Village people? And what was with Brody's character? Is it just me or did he only exhibit the personal relationship of a sibling with Howard's daughter; not that of a passive love interest? That was weak! M. Night is going to have to write his best stuff to get out of this disaster of a film ( of course it will probably still make over $135 million dollars)
The Village is full of idiocy by gilker	Aug 2nd, 2004 12:05:08 PM
M. Night Shyalaman tries to make 'serious' movies about truly stupid ideas. He almost pulled it off in trying to play a superhero funny book as a serious movie but the idea disintegrates on the least amount of consideration. Signs was the height of moronic writing with its naked aliens that react to water the way we'd react to concentrated sulfuric acid (would YOU be stupid enough to wander a planet full of the stuff sans clothing?) And now there's The Village, inhabited, literally, by a bunch of actors who think that people in 1897 would talk like the road company of The Crucible (wake up, Shyamalan - 1897 was 3 years before the turn of the 20th Century. Even in Pennsylvania people used contraction pretty regularly at that time.) Of course, that's a conceit that's supposed to make you go "Oooohhh!" when the final twist is revealed. But along with that truly wretched twist you have to put an actress who plays blind by waving a stick occassionally but runs over uneven ground without the least stumble - several times. Then there's the monumental stupidity of positing isolation of a village where the isolators don't bother to take into account illness or little things like giving their children a choice in whether they want to live without running water. Sheesh, this movie sucked.
Small Town with a secret not Monster in a Closet by trashotron	Aug 2nd, 2004 12:22:31 PM
Harry, having seen this movie, I'd suggest that it's not 'monster in a closet' or 'boogeyman', but 'Small town with a a secret'. It has all the hallmarks of this including the adults who conspire, the kids who want to escape, the secret location... Did you consider this? --Rick Kleffel
You forgot about Love by Juvenal	Aug 2nd, 2004 12:57:05 PM
Great review Harry, but the things that go bump in the night is only one side of the coin in this movie. The monsters scare the Village into acquiesence, but it's love that ultimately holds it all together. The love triumphs over all bit is obviously on display in the ridiculously notion of sending a blind girl for medicine, and yet it works. I think there's much more in love angle, take Weaver's subplot and the idea that people don't do things because they don't want people to know they want to do them. The mythology is obvious and clear, but the idea's M. Night is playing with in love are just scratching the surface. He should totally do a romantic comedy, replete with his signature surprise ending.
M. Night Patel is a lazy storyteller... by IWantMy2Dollars!	Aug 2nd, 2004 01:14:17 PM
Sixth Sense is punctuated by a gimmick at the film's end. It's a gimmick because the theme of the film has NOTHING to do with the fact that Willis is a ghost. It's tacked on like an extra drop on a roller coaster. Fun? Yes. Good popcorn fare? Yes. Goo Art? No, it's quite shit. Signs was a Night of the Living Dead rip off with another abusrd ending. Why would aliens, who die at contact with water, invade a planet consisting of 75% water? M. Night Patel loves to have his cake and eat it too way too much. The Village is a two hour Twilight ZOne episode. Why do the characters have to have stilted accents? There are so many details in that movie that make no sense but exist for one reason - to fool the audience and set them up for the twist at the end. If the blind chick had come out of the woods and it was, in fact, a town from the 1890's it would have made no difference to the theme of the film. Poor editing too on that film. m. night patel is a lazy storyteller.
How The Village could've worked by gilker	Aug 2nd, 2004 01:20:26 PM
You can check out my other post to get a glimpse of the iceberg of stupid problems that The Village suffers under. The most frustrating thing about the whole movie is the waste of potential. The thing could've worked, it could've been a serious movie that not only touched people but also could've spoken to some of the circumstances we face today. It wouldn't even have been that hard: 1) Drop the reference to the 19th Century. It made what 'The Elders' did to their offspring one big lie and regardless of rationalization, you don't protect people by lying to them. That is the definition of arrogance. 2) If 1) is done, there's no need for that cloying Crucible-speak with its lack of contractions and stilted grammar. It's not the way people in the very late 19th Century talked and a history prof would know that. 3) Less emphasis on "19th Century bootcamp" and more on how blind people really function in a sighted world. 4) Less Blair Witch and inbreeding hints and more authoritarianism. Do loving parents terrorize their kids or do they try "because I said so" first? The Village should have existed on its own plane, a world apart, not a world in another time. It could've been laid out along the lines of Shirley Jackson's village in her classic short story, "The Lottery." It wouldn't be a village from history but from fable. That would've made everything fall into the mode of idealized story rather than blood-and-dirt realism. Even the stupid twists would've worked better (though they're still the stuff of second-rate Twilight Zone episodes.)
Soooooooooo ..... by Prof. Pretorious	Aug 2nd, 2004 01:20:52 PM
Can anybody CONFIRM the Spoiler that was posted earlier???
The "stilted" speech patterns by Billy_Oblivion	Aug 2nd, 2004 01:56:51 PM
Yeah, it may have been a device, a cheap one at that. On the other hand... I've often wondered if the complex sentence construction and considered phrasing of the old days was more than just the way they did it back then. When you aren't dumbed down by years of TV and movies catering to twitchy video game devotees with the attention span of a 3 year old, maybe an ability and tendency to form and phrase complex ideas is natural. Also, conversation would be a primary entertainment in the village. Who would want to spend a lifetime conversing with someone who was limited to sentences with a single clause? Turn the idea around. Lucius walks into the council meeting. The grave, dignified, but friendly elders look up and ask him to proceed. Quoth he, "Yo Yo Yo, Lucius in the hizzous. These monsters ain't nuthin. Me 'n my boyzz gonna hit the town and score some drugs." Shakespeare's groundlings certainly understood ideas, complicated turns of phrase, and wordplay that puzzle college students today. Cyrano was honored more for his words than for his martial abilities. Those people weren't smarter than us, all appearances to the contrary. Perhaps they just had more time. Would it not be the same in the Village? Might that not the original villagers have made a conscious decision to emulate the discourse of the golden age, even as they embrace the technological limitations of the time?
"I by matrix69	Aug 2nd, 2004 04:26:09 PM
I know you don't mean to imply that you actually THINK about the drivel you post.
Shyamalan by allhailthomyorke	Aug 2nd, 2004 06:51:25 PM
I love his films. They're a refreshing retreat from all the mindless drivel that's being released nowadays. I suppose the biggest problem with Shyamalan's films lies with the expectations of the audiences. After Sixth Sense, everyone wanted dark thrillers/horror films with twist endings. But Shyamalan moved on from that. He started exploring different subjects and layering his films with subtext. Yes, he still gives us "twists" of a sort, but people need to understand that he's not your everyday filmmaker. Have some of the things he's done been done before? Of course, he's obviously heavily influenced by Hitchcock. But all artists are inspired by someone/something and it's up to a good artist to use their inspiration constructively and in a new, original way. I, personally, feel that Shyamalan has done this. And yes, the Village's "twist" does remind one of an old Twilight Zone episode-but last time I checked, most peoplee loved that series. And isn't it better that he shock us with an ending that, although not completely original, is evoking a concept from a GREAT tv show than throw us a lame conclusion that insults our intelligence?
Not your typical movie reviews... by Laza-rus	Aug 2nd, 2004 11:51:57 PM
Jesus, Harry - these reviews of yours are an event in themselves. Pure fucking poetry, man. I'm a little obliterated at the moment and feeling a bit gushy so bear with me. As an aspiring paper jockey (read: writer), I only hope for the spontaneous word salad / stream of conciousness / utter pouring of your heart and soul into these rabidly- consumed reviews way-with-words sort of thing you've got going to infuse into my own writing. Anyway - I obviously enjoyed the hell out of your opinion and I'm off to see The Village sometime this week - I'm not expecting too much - I doubt M. Nizzle could top Unbreakable (screw all who don't like it), but I'm an automatic fan of his films. See you all at he movies or back at bar, which is where I am now going.
Why...? by allhailthomyorke	Aug 3rd, 2004 06:30:48 AM
Okay, just one more thing, and this is a general question-not really for "The Village." You assholes who deliberately come to this site, read Harry's reviews, and then bitch about them-if you find Knowles to be a long-winded, inarticulate moron (which I certainly don't), and despise his writings so much, why do you continue to come here? Be honest-it's because you have nothing better to do, and you enjoy pissing faceless people off-since there's no threat of them physically retaliating. You're worthless, spirit-crushing, self-loathing fuckheads-all of you! That being said, I should point out that you also never fail to point out that Harry is overweight-way to go! Geez, there's no more intellectual a person than one who can point and laugh at another's weight problem.
spoiler by matthooper8	Aug 3rd, 2004 10:18:44 AM
I guess no airplanes ever went over the village.
Lets face it, Harry has sold his soul by afflecks Toupee	Aug 3rd, 2004 02:06:55 PM

Very well made! by Lord_Soth	Aug 3rd, 2004 06:14:03 PM
I mean the film, not this... well, review?
Very well made movie. by Lord_Soth	Aug 4th, 2004 03:12:31 AM

If you did that to my child, Harry, by don_gately	Aug 4th, 2004 10:37:24 AM
I'd kick your balls up into the back of your throat. I hope your memorabilia and film collection goes up in flames, and soon. Yes, I just invoked fire as a well-deserved retribution for your horrible act against a two year old, and I know full well the connotations of that for you. In fact, I hope this post causes you pain. Go and fuck yourself, asshole.
Dearly is severely misinformed about Israel by Judge Mental	Aug 4th, 2004 12:40:38 PM
I must concur with Jose Jones about the misinformed and misinforming Phil Dearly.... Zionism is not evil and "racist" and The Jews are not trying to take over the world, you irrational Judeophobe. Any decent Orthodox rabbi who knows Torah will honestly answer any questions you may have about what Israel means... And to tie this into the topic of M. NIGHT, has anyone else realized the Messianic biblical themes in UNBREAKABLE. Willis' savior character is named DAVID, as in King David. His son is JOSEPH. Jackson is ELIJAH, as in Elijah the prophet, who heralds the Messiah, a descendent of King David. ...Also, I haven't seen "VILLAGE" yet, but the bloody door in the trailer was reminiscent of PASSOVER, if there's any parallel there... I'm moving to Israel in a week. Shalom Aleichem, everyone. You too, Mr. Dearly.
Ripped off the book "Running Out Of Time" by Mr. Profit	Aug 4th, 2004 12:54:47 PM
And Harry, why are you so obvious with your hatred toward Warner Brothers? The Batman Begins trailer may have been underwhelming, but you know everyone will still go and see it.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PLOT (SPOLIERS): by goonie	Aug 4th, 2004 04:29:54 PM
1. Who was skinning the animals? Walker claims that it's an elder, but do we ever really find out? What was the point of the skinned animals anyway? they made no sense! 2. Why did the elders dress up and invade the village the 2nd time, after Phoenix's character apologizes before the town? What was the point?
wasted potential, and why does he have to show is face in his mo by hanksummers	Aug 5th, 2004 06:27:01 PM
This could have been great. I love the premise, even the twist (which of course, he has to have). But -- why reveal the lame fake looking creature in the beginning of the movie? of course it's the townspeople! and the pacing! I thought there was an emergency to get medicine! No, there was time to talk, and talk, and pause, and pause, and cry and talk some more. Then when she comes back, a townsfolk can announce "Ivy's back" and wait, and talk, and wait, and WOULDN'T SOMEONE HAD SPOTTED HER AND RAN TO GET HER AND GET THE MEDICINE IN AS FAST AS POSSIBLE?? But the worst was MNS's ego, to put himself in it so cutely -- see, I'm reflected in the door! you almost don't see me, but I'm here! I even think I detected a smirk on his face, laughing at us for giving up our $. The entire audience I saw it with groaned at that part -- and up till then, the audience was into it. MNS, you are so not Hitchcock, stay out of your films.
M Night has now had two misfires by JAGUART	Aug 6th, 2004 01:35:06 AM
He needs to find a damned story again that is worthy of his skills. This is such a shame. Signs and The Village were overblown Twillight Zones episodes. This guy has the potential to a make a film that will stand the test of time, and I'd like to think he has one more Sixth Sense in him somewhere. He is one the best modern directors working today.
...I'm sorry, but the review? by SlightlyCharred	Aug 6th, 2004 07:37:01 PM
My misgivings about using bogeymen to raise "Good" children aside, where was the movie review in all of that?
Joaqin's Harelip Surgeon? by MajorMajor	Aug 7th, 2004 01:55:15 PM
I know, they had a baby picture of Joaquin with Weaver in the momento box, so he got sewn up before he left the world. It was an enjoyable movie with characters you cared about and the twist is not that there is a modern world, but the conspiracy of the Utopians. The farce people. Very plausible depiction of what white liberals with a billion dollars to spend could do with 100 acres per person and a completely homogenous citizen base. Have the whole thing go tits up over a knife attack. Enjoyed the movie immensely. Only thing that could have improved it would be Hulk Hogan as the ritalin deprived tard... "Those We Don't Speak Of, Brother."
Phil Dearly, you are great! by Ninja_Master	Aug 9th, 2004 07:29:56 PM
I never get tired of reading your fantasies! What an imagination! No evidence against Bin Laden, cause he's hooked up to a kidney dialysis machine in a cave... you should throw in some dragons too... and a wizard! Of course, you do know Michael Moore (another great fictional writer) got his "Bin Ladin/Kidney" information from a January 19, 2002 New York Times article, but left out the quote that says "While there have been a lot of rumors about the status of his health, we do not have evidence to support that he has had kidney failure or is on dialysis." His other source, an Associated Press article of March 25, 2000, notes that in spite of questions about his health, "it has been business as usual for Bin Laden," and "He is still operating an enormous terrorist network around the world." But I'm sure you've researched all of this thoroughly, and don't just believe everything you read like a gullible retard. I'm not sure how you can believe Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11, then recommend "Fahenheit 9/11", the movie that attacks Bush for not doing ENOUGH to go after Bin Laden.... but of course anyone that reads Alex Jones' crap isn't worried about logic.
The Village by WoodyStiffer	Aug 10th, 2004 04:54:23 PM
I was surprised with this one. I thought it was actually well done - and I'm not a big Shamalama fan - I thought Unbreakable and Signs were retarded. I think Shama (I'd have to look up the spelling and I refuse) was victimized a bit by the marketing. They made it out to be a quasi-horror film that would scare the crap out of you, yet it was actually more of a love story than anything. Less about the politics of fear than it was about the pain of real loss. Good film, again, a real surprise. I think most of the truly negative reviewers were heading in expecting something vastly different.
Not impressed by Kaitain	Aug 11th, 2004 09:52:32 PM
Spoilers Sorry, Night, but this is a bit of a duffer. Liked Sixth Sense, loved Unbreakable, thought Signs was occasionally brilliant. This time, though, the "twist" is dull, and doesn't make sense. (Night's cameo exposition to try to pre-empt the obvious questions is laughable inadequate.) We've also seen it all before. Not only have comparatively recent films like The Truman Show primed us for all this kind of stuff, there were lots of elements here that reminded me of an old Harry Harrison novel, "Captive Universe". Indeed, I wondered if we might be going a little further in that direction, with suggestions of inbreeding and its subsequent problems (blindness? mental retardation?), but we didn't get anything so interesting. Also, once the trick is revealed 2/3 of the way through, what is there to be scared of? You can't carry on the movie as though we're supposed to fear the bogeyman when we know he isn't real.
"why did every critic of ANCHORMAN tell us the stupid guy has an by minderbinder	Aug 12th, 2004 04:59:26 PM
As a matter of fact it was, in the character's opening monologue. Learn to pay better attention, fuckwad.
Not quite as bad as Catwoman by Homer Sexual	Aug 19th, 2004 09:19:50 PM
I am so late spouting off, but I finally saw this movie and it was just awful. I guessed the "twist" before ever seeing the movie, and my friend thought that it was a given because it was just so obvious, he never even thought it was supposed to be otherwise. It was so apparent that I kept expecting something else to happen. And, like Signs, it was a borefest. The script is so simplistic that (no disrespect to the disabled intended) it seems like it was written for retarded people. It is a rare movie that I feel insults my intelligence, but this was one. At least Alien Vs. Predator doesn't have lofty aspirations. In fact, only the futile hope that at some point the movie would get better made me regret seeing this less than I regret seeing Catwoman. And now that I have read Harry's review, I can again state that he is the worst reviewer on this site. But kudos to him for creating AICN.
by mART	Aug 24th, 2004 09:06:20 AM

Bodged the Twist by mART	Aug 24th, 2004 09:09:59 AM
Anyone else think he bodged the twist? I only got it when someone mentioned the word Dumpster while they were looking at their boxes. A better way to reveal would have been after Ivy lowers herself down from the fence and encounters the car. This would have been a visual way rather than listening to someone talking.
a little late by fokke	Sep 11th, 2004 01:08:17 PM
Loved The Village. The colours, the acting, the camera-movements, simply everything. Even the slightly weak twist. This was sooooooo much better than Signs. And Howard just might be the hottest girl since... she's hot.
never forget 03/21/98 by Mr Brownstone	Sep 14th, 2004 12:31:27 PM
http://www.aintitcool.com/disp lay.cgi?id=758
sure,the movie was alright but.......... by jonleeus	Jan 21st, 2005 11:59:27 PM
I was watching the shooting featurette on the dvd and there is a shot of bryce dallas howards ass in spandex that justifies some serious slo mo. ouch!!!!!anyway, a good fairy-tale ,pretty original, but you all GOT to see this chicks ass. OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Talkbacks

THE VILLAGE review

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks