Better in the good old days?

Rating: 6/10 (18 February 2005)

How goes the saying: "it was so much better in the good old days"? Or was it worse? The quest for a more natural - therefore "safer" - way of life is threatened by the absence of medicine, and someone may die. Therefore, the quest itself becomes threatened less its fantasy is revealed. Escapism is then proved futile. But the movie doesn't tell us that, it implies it only. We may ponder what future awaits the Village. What is depicted, is an Amish or Quaker-like society that is artificially re-created. But like the boys in Lord Of The Flies, a return to "original" values has warts, lots of them, in the woods, monsters to whom sacrifices are due and whom we are to fear. And that's not the only fear in this movie: we learn also to despise disarray and mistrust; we cannot live with fear, we must deal with honesty. Photography is very good, if as plain as the required costumes. The script lacks the twists we expect after The Sixth Sense, too much is hinted before revealed, therefore predictable. The assumption of a restricted airspace is incredible, unless one never spent sometime in the remote woods of Pennsylvania, or any other Northeastern State. Don't expect stunning effects, unbearable moral drama or shock of sudden gore: this film is  and somehow to its credit, and to the credit of its actors - plain, as plain as the Society its participants aim for. It's not the kind of movie you need to own and watch again to discover hidden tricks of the trade; it's worth renting, watching it once, and return it to its vault. Or is it woods?