So I just saw "The Village"
...and liked it.
Thie movie has gotten some of the most strangely diverse reviews I've ever seen. This fact should tell you something: On Rotten Tomatos, it has a 47% rating(meaning 47% of movie critics gave it a positive rating), which is just about half. So, it's a so-so movie, right? Wrong. Most of the people who gave it a negative review just loathed the movie. They just ripped it to shreds. Here's a sampling: "Maybe the worst movie of the year"; "A maddingly miscalculated hack job"; "I see a dead movie". I can't say for sure why they hated it so much, since I have trouble figuring out this particular group of people (They didn't nominate Eternal Sunshine for Best Picture, for pete's sake), but I have my theories. This movie sure can be disappointing if you: 1) Go into it thinking it's a horror movie, or a even very suspensful (M. Night sold it as a thriller, so in some senses he deserves the criticism he gets for it not being very scary); 2) Can't get into the 19th Century dialogue they have going on; 3) Are expecting some sort of extra dramatic twist at the end that never materializes, just like the Sixth Sense; 4) Don't like stories that are told slowly.
You see, this movie is a story first, and an idea movie second. There is no third. Sure, there are a few cheap scares here and there, but the bulk of the movie is a slowly-told unfolding of events. That's it. People can't take that these days (especially when they secretly hate the director -- which I suspect also has a lot to do with the vitriolic reviews) because they expect something more from movies, like big monsters or a shocking ending. This ending doesn't telegraph its shockingness, but it is just as shocking as M. Night's other movies if you think about it. That's what he's doing -- making people think.
I don't want to spoil the movie for the rest of you if you want to see it, so I'll end my favorable review of the movie with this: It's about grief and people's reactions to it, more than anything else. I love a good allegory more than the next guy, but this is not one. Resist the temptation to make it one, and just allow the story to get into your head. Otherwise, you might just see what you think is the worst movie of the year.
(and that's not to say it's a superb movie, either. The aforementioned slowness does wear on you after a while, and the scares are cheap, and a couple plot elements are not explained completely enough for my taste. But the "worst movie of the year"? Come on. These reviewers need to remind themselves that last year included "Daddy Day Care" and that Scooby Doo sequal, plus at least one Pokemon movie (or did it? Is that guy dead finally?). So get a grip, people, before I smack you.
Thie movie has gotten some of the most strangely diverse reviews I've ever seen. This fact should tell you something: On Rotten Tomatos, it has a 47% rating(meaning 47% of movie critics gave it a positive rating), which is just about half. So, it's a so-so movie, right? Wrong. Most of the people who gave it a negative review just loathed the movie. They just ripped it to shreds. Here's a sampling: "Maybe the worst movie of the year"; "A maddingly miscalculated hack job"; "I see a dead movie". I can't say for sure why they hated it so much, since I have trouble figuring out this particular group of people (They didn't nominate Eternal Sunshine for Best Picture, for pete's sake), but I have my theories. This movie sure can be disappointing if you: 1) Go into it thinking it's a horror movie, or a even very suspensful (M. Night sold it as a thriller, so in some senses he deserves the criticism he gets for it not being very scary); 2) Can't get into the 19th Century dialogue they have going on; 3) Are expecting some sort of extra dramatic twist at the end that never materializes, just like the Sixth Sense; 4) Don't like stories that are told slowly.
You see, this movie is a story first, and an idea movie second. There is no third. Sure, there are a few cheap scares here and there, but the bulk of the movie is a slowly-told unfolding of events. That's it. People can't take that these days (especially when they secretly hate the director -- which I suspect also has a lot to do with the vitriolic reviews) because they expect something more from movies, like big monsters or a shocking ending. This ending doesn't telegraph its shockingness, but it is just as shocking as M. Night's other movies if you think about it. That's what he's doing -- making people think.
I don't want to spoil the movie for the rest of you if you want to see it, so I'll end my favorable review of the movie with this: It's about grief and people's reactions to it, more than anything else. I love a good allegory more than the next guy, but this is not one. Resist the temptation to make it one, and just allow the story to get into your head. Otherwise, you might just see what you think is the worst movie of the year.
(and that's not to say it's a superb movie, either. The aforementioned slowness does wear on you after a while, and the scares are cheap, and a couple plot elements are not explained completely enough for my taste. But the "worst movie of the year"? Come on. These reviewers need to remind themselves that last year included "Daddy Day Care" and that Scooby Doo sequal, plus at least one Pokemon movie (or did it? Is that guy dead finally?). So get a grip, people, before I smack you.
posted by Mike Pape @ 8:37 PM
2 Comments:
At 11:08 AM,
Brian said…
I'm going to agree, and I have to be honest and say I think "Unbreakable" and "Signs" sucked. But just because they sucked, and becuase this guy seems to feel obligated to have a twist at the end of the movie every time. Not even hitchcock had them every time. And this guy ain't hitchcock at all.
I figured out the "surprise" to the movie very early on, and I don't think it impeded my enjoyment of the movie at all. It was still good, and full of some occasional suspense and stuff like that. Anyway, that's all I got.
Also, I want to say that I just saw the Natalie episode of MSS16 (good abbreviation, eh?) and I think that MTV should spin off its own (reality or scripted, your choice) show starring the gay friend and the target shopper. Those two were already pretty much like the quirky friends on teen shows already. And that's really all I got.
At 1:41 PM,
Mike Pape said…
Brian,
I like that spinoff idea. IF they can spinoff something as dubious and contrived as the Brigitte Nielsen/Flava Flav relationship, they can certainly spin off those two. They do seem like the perfect quirky friends to put on like whatever the current version of "Sved By the Bell" is.
I figured out the surprise, too, and told Jill so who would know. Ha, ha.
Post a Comment
<< Home