Suspension of Disbelief Required

Rating: Null/10 (3 August 2004)

Normally I do not comment on movies, I just sit back and enjoy them.
The Village required a lot more "suspension of disbelief" than I was expecting to have to give. Having seen it twice; once for the entertainment and again to pick up on the clues that lead you to the ending, I did enjoy the acting. The director set the bar very high for himself and his audience with the Sixth Sense and Signs and it is unfortunate that this movie has to be compared to his earlier work. As a stand-alone effort it is good but not what is expected when compared to the others.
The difficulty I had with the movie was the lack of explanation of the details of how the Village came to be and how it is sustaining itself (It apparently had been going on for about 20 years).
For example, the only time I saw farm animals (alive) was near the beginning when there was a flock of sheep in a long shot. Where were the other animals needed to support a commune: cows for milk, horses for plowing, pigs for ...whatever?
It also seemed strange to me that there were no other live animals present like dogs and cats. (The one exception was a sheep dog seen herding sheep in the distance) It was also strange that when the skinned animals (dogs?) started showing up, why were the villagers not upset at loosing a pet?
Also, where were the villager's crops (the time line went from summer into winter)? All I saw was small gardens and from what I could gather they appeared to be vegetarians.
Finally, how did the villagers get items like kerosene for the lamps (and they used a lot of lamps!), where did they get nails and other hardware from, and simple items like shoe leather, buttons, etc.?
I would like to have seen more set-up in the beginning or am I expecting too much?