Comprehensive Review

Rating: 7/10 (30 July 2004)

The Village
M. Night has thrilled audiences with three very solid movies in Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs. As a fan of M Night, and movies in general, the line between the two when reviewing his movies is very difficult. I will do my best.
In spite of Ebert's recent review that trashed this movie with a 1 star rating, I had to remain open minded. The first thing is, is Ebert reviewing the movie on the basis of other Night's movies, or is he reviewing based on movies as a whole? I have never felt comparing the other works of the director is effective, but Ebert as always seemed to do this. He gave Gangs of New York a not so positive review based on the fact that it did not reach the level of Goodfellas or Raging Bull. Do you think this is how you should review a movie? Now if he did review The Village as a movie on its own merit, than he rated the movie the same as White Chicks, Catwoman, and any other ridiculous movie. Does this seem fair? Was it really that bad? I watched the movie today....
This is not a 1 star movie, but by no means a masterpiece. I felt the dialogue was a bit too lax and dry, and at times the movie moved really slow. It was not a long movie, yet it felt like the movie should have been cut up a bit. The cinematography was great, score was also good. But let's get a little more in depth.
M Night's trademark twist has now left him with a label or brand. It's unfortunate that most people now watch his movies looking for that very twist. I prefer to look at his movies with conflict and swift climatic resolution. I believe that is true story telling and film making. In the Village, the resolution is visionary again, however I felt the execution was a bit off the mark. The audience was able to guess, or infer the end before the end. This wasn't a terrible thing; it was still fun to watch how it played out. I just think in this movie, they really could have gone with a planet of the apes (original) type resolution. That is, a bang at the end leaving audiences breathless. To do that though, you cannot give a lot away during the movie. The urgency to progress to the secret or ending seemed evident in the acting. While Brody played his character verywell, I didn't really seem to agree of him. He felt more like a plot tool than a character. And again, the urgency in Hurt, somewhat slanted the story.
The movie has a short story feel to it. And that is maybe because it plays off the political foreground of today. Many connections can be made, and I will refrain from doing so for the sake of people who haven't seen it. Is it scary? The audience should jump a bit. As trademark M Night, not for what you see, but how little or what you don't see.
This is a good movie, with a few problems and minor holes that who knows, may be fixed on 2nd viewing. But this is by no means a disaster. It is the weakest of his four major movies I feel, but no slouch either. A mediocre M. Night movie is still better than most. The best directors always make quality movies that are never atrocious. Scorsese, Spielberg, even Mann. Is M Night equivalent to Spielberg. Not yet, of course not. But my theory is that a director has to make at least 4 really good movies to be considered legendary. It's unfortunate that I cannot consider M night in this category at this point simply because The Village is not great, it's only above average. However, I ask viewers, since when is it a sin to make only a good movie? If anything, I hope it will allow fans and audiences to realize not to label and have preconceived notions of his movies, but instead to go with no expectations except for quality. I am also glad that his next movie is a book adaptation (Life of Pi) which should broaden him as a filmmaker. It would prove his uncanny storytelling ability by directing someone elses story.
Rating: 3 Stars (out of 4)
M Nights other movies
Signs: 3.5 stars Unbreakable: 3.5 stars Sixth Sense: 4 stars