weird and involving, but what was the point?

Rating: 5/10 (3 November 2006)

First off let me state that I thought this was a very unfairly criticized film. It's actually quite good. The pacing, acting (more on that shortly), and atmosphere were excellent. As social commentary, the film is fine, ranking with the best films of this short decade.
It is rife with problems though. Firt off Bryce Dallas Howard is simply awful in every scene. Has anyone ever seen a worse portrayal of a blind person? Justine Bateman was ten times more believable in a TV-movie! She simply doesn't register at all with me. Sort of like Particia Arquette, who is much better on television.
The look of the film is great. It invades you with dread and misgivings. William Hurt is so into his part here it hard to understand him at times. Much like I would think a 19th century person would be to us. Sigourney Weaver is good, but underused. Adrien Brody reminds you why he won an Oscar, and will win more. Joaquin Phoenix is great, as always, but why does he play three different roles here? Did I miss something?
The "twist" in the village, I wont reveal it all but... Is good, just a bit unrealistic. Sort of like the old Twilight Zone where Roddy McDowall ends up in the zoo. Okay, but not exactly true to life. The reason for the village is good, but lets face it, utopias don't work. Endowing this one with its own myths was a good idea though and works very well with Brody's character.
Overall I thought the film was OK, just not as good as it should have been, with such a talented cast. It haunts you, but leaves too many holes to be really satisfying.