Not Shyamalan's best, but still good.

Rating: Null/10 (11 August 2004)

*DEFINITE SPOILERS*
A few months ago, I read a rumor of the Village's ending, which turned out to be correct. So, even though I had suspected what was going to happen, I still found the movie enjoyable through the end. The acting was great, the storyline interesting, and there were a couple of scares in there for me.
However, once the movie was over, my group of fellow movie-goers and I discussed at some length the problems of the plot, or maybe more correctly, the execution of the plot "twist." The main problem I had (as well as many other people, it seems after reading other reviews) is that the final "twist" hinges on direct evidence purposely given to the audience that it was the 19th century, which I think is unfair to an audience. Also, if no one other than the council knew "the truth," why would the rest of the village need to be told that it was the nineteenth century? They wouldn't know the difference if they were told it was 2004, but still lived life like people in the 19th century. However, if they wore modern clothes and lived off the land, I guess they'd just sort of be hippies, which would make for a boring movie. They'd have to call it "The Commune" or something. Another question is, where did all the other people in the village come from?