The Village (2004) (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

I unashamedly love Lady In The Water. It just clicks perfectly for me every time I see it.

 

[TonyD]

...edited

Oh no. I wonder what I said originally.

I do remember not liking the movie much.
From what I remember I was disappointed about the reveal.
Didn’t like it and thought something more supernatural or fairy tale related would have been more interesting.

 

[TonyD]

I unashamedly love Lady In The Water. It just clicks perfectly for me every time I see it.

I didn’t think it was as bad as The Happening but still pretty bad.
My problem with it isn’t helped by the original preview.
When I first saw the first trailer I thought it was one of the best previews I ever saw.
Beautiful and haunting including the music and then I saw the movie and well…

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

If he's sole producer and financier on his recent films, he's been raking it in as they've all done pretty well at the worldwide box office (far right column) compared to budgets (middle column):

View attachment 140376

He usually has producing "partners" and distribution by Universal, so I'm not sure what agreements he has with them for fees or box office split, but he seems to be doing well by betting on himself.

Wow, I had not seen those numbers but that shows all of those pictures were successful. You would think that this would be a model that would attract financing. He obviously did make the right choice with his Unbreakable trilogy. The Visit did well on a small budget. I did not like the film but if he is making these to be self-sustaining that appears to be working. Perhaps with those numbers he would/could work with a company like A24 on something. Sure he won't attract the big players as he is not hitting the numbers they want to see but he is making financially successful projects.

I assume on the next couple of pictures he is making he will keep the budgets down under the $20 million number as it looks like outside of his two Unbreakable sequels his work is not hitting the $100 million mark. Good business model for him to keep making pictures.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Surely Glass and Split were a return to form, no? The ones before them, since The Village, went from bad to worse, last I saw was the horrible Lady In The Water, and then I didn't watch any more, but Glass and Split caught my attention again, and I quite liked them. Maybe because I have always held Unbreakable as one of his best.

Yes, Split and Glass appear to have been a bit of a comeback for him in terms of more of an audience saw those pictures. I thought it was a good trilogy and I think a big part of that is it was his series that he was steering.

My favorite film from him is Signs, I thought that was great but I've not hated anything from him I have seen. I did not see The Last Airbender or After Earth which really looked like dismal films. I have not seen Old yet either but will eventually check that out.

 

[Clark Green]

Funny you mentioned "Old".

I saw it listed as a current movie on HBO so being bored, I turned it on because I thought the premise was interesting. Sadly it was another drawn out schlockfest made in a really weird directing style. Of course M.Night incorporates himself into the story as usual.

I made it to the end, but not without several rolling eyes moments.

1 out of 5

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Funny you mentioned "Old".

I saw it listed as a current movie on HBO so being bored, I turned it on because I thought the premise was interesting. Sadly it was another drawn out schlockfest made in a really weird directing style. Of course M.Night incorporates himself into the story as usual.

I made it to the end, but not without several rolling eyes moments.

1 out of 5

When I saw the trailer it did not do much for me so, it has not been high on my list. I think most people describe it as a Twilight Zone episode taken to feature length. I like Night's directing style and I like that he is making films that are mostly stand alone original pictures. I mean, honestly, this is not the way of the current marketplace so that he continues to work this way impresses me.

He does often start with a ridiculous premise and then builds a twist around it. This typically makes his pictures easy to criticize and tear apart. I basically approach them as fantasy films so don't really look for any sort of realism in them which mostly makes them easier for me to digest.

I think his story instincts are pretty questionable but find his directing solid.

 

[Clark Green]

The look and style of this one, compared to his past works, is very washed out looking and the camera work is very odd and distracting many times during the show. I liked the premise, but once it was all done and the reveal was done I just felt let down.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Funny you mentioned "Old".

I saw it listed as a current movie on HBO so being bored, I turned it on because I thought the premise was interesting. Sadly it was another drawn out schlockfest made in a really weird directing style. Of course M.Night incorporates himself into the story as usual.

I made it to the end, but not without several rolling eyes moments.

1 out of 5

I’’m sick of his “cameos”. He’s not satisfied to do a Hitchcock, he gives himself significant roles and he can’t act. His role in Signs is important and he blows it.

 

[Clark Green]

His role in Old was significant but he comes across so cheesy and out of his element when he speaks more than a few words or is being shown onscreen for more than a minute.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I’’m sick of his “cameos”. He’s not satisfied to do a Hitchcock, he gives himself significant roles and he can’t act. His role in Signs is important and he blows it.

I thought he was alright in his Signs part. I certainly think he does not have to do that but the guy is obviously a huge Hitchcock fan and so is doing his thing to tip the hat. I think the only issue with continuing to do it is that it can pull you out of the film because we all know who he is and what he looks like. So, doing it is kind of screaming "Hey, you are watching my movie!"

Hitchcock at least did it in such a way as to make it a bit less distracting and lowkey.

 

[Malcolm R]

Wow, I had not seen those numbers but that shows all of those pictures were successful. You would think that this would be a model that would attract financing.

At this point, he may be content to continue self-financing and not have anyone providing "notes" on what he's doing. He can make the film he wants to make, the way he wants to make it, without studio or producer interference.

I think the success of the films is what keeps the bigger studios (such as Universal) interested in acting as his distributor.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

At this point, he may be content to continue self-financing and not have anyone providing "notes" on what he's doing. He can make the film he wants to make, the way he wants to make it, without studio or producer interference.

That’s exactly it. He’s spoken about how he could take financing but he’s not interested. He’s doing exactly what he wants - making projects he believes in and having the freedom to control everything about his films from who he works with to where they’re made to final cut and control over marketing and distribution. Each film’s profits are reinvested in the next project. He doesn’t spend more than he can afford to lose, so he won’t find himself in a Coppola/Zoetrope situation. He only works on stuff he believes in, which makes the work satisfying. He keeps his base near his native Philadelphia, allowing him to support his local community and stay close to family when on the job. He’s making the films he wants on his terms. There aren’t many filmmakers who can say the same.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

Yes, Split and Glass appear to have been a bit of a comeback for him in terms of more of an audience saw those pictures. I thought it was a good trilogy and I think a big part of that is it was his series that he was steering.

My favorite film from him is Signs, I thought that was great but I've not hated anything from him I have seen. I did not see The Last Airbender or After Earth which really looked like dismal films. I have not seen Old yet either but will eventually check that out.

Signs started out well, but fell apart at the end. Maybe it's because I am not religious, but I really hated the end.

 

[Johnny Angell]

He’s making the films he wants on his terms. There aren’t many filmmakers who can say the same.

Very true, till this thread, I had no idea he was self financing. I thought his films were mostly BO failures and how does he keep making them?

Signs started out well, but fell apart at the end. Maybe it's because I am not religious, but I really hated the end.

I am also very non-religious but I love signs. If you tell me a story I enjoy without preaching to me, I’ll accept certain subjects. I love the movie except for his cameo.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

Very true, till this thread, I had no idea he was self financing. I thought his films were mostly BO failures and how does he keep making them?

I am also very non-religious but I love signs. If you tell me a story I enjoy without preaching to me, I’ll accept certain subjects. I love the movie except for his cameo.

I hated the fact that in the end, he reconciled with his belief and his god, despite the fact that his wife was killed, without reason, which made him lose his faith, and that his son lived, no thanks to his god, and still that brought him back to god, who had no part in either.
Totally ununderstandable, for me.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I really loved Signs but it’s not a film I watch often. It takes me on a really intense emotional journey and limiting my viewings helps it retain that power. What was especially noteworthy for me was the religious aspect of it. I wasn’t raised in a house of faith and as a child and young man, I just didn’t understand what it meant to believe, how it felt to have faith. They were almost alien concepts to me. I never intended to judge or denigrate anyone who did believe, and I even read the Bible cover to cover as a teen to try to understand it all better, but I had a hard time feeling it as opposed to understanding it as an intellectual concept. “Signs” was probably the first thing I ever experienced (along with Scorsese’s Last Temptation of Christ - talk about two wildly different films) where I really had that visceral experience of feeling what it was like to have faith. The movie took something that was an abstract and maybe even obtuse concept and portrayed it in a way that I could feel. It really opened my eyes to faith and belief in a way I never would have thought possible for me. All these years later, whenever I see it, I still have that same profound experience.

I think it’s a beautiful film.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

I really loved Signs but it’s not a film I watch often. It takes me on a really intense emotional journey and limiting my viewings helps it retain that power. What was especially noteworthy for me was the religious aspect of it. I wasn’t raised in a house of faith and as a child and young man, I just didn’t understand what it meant to believe, how it felt to have faith. They were almost alien concepts to me. I never intended to judge or denigrate anyone who did believe, and I even read the Bible cover to cover as a teen to try to understand it all better, but I had a hard time feeling it as opposed to understanding it as an intellectual concept. “Signs” was probably the first thing I ever experienced (along with Scorsese’s Last Temptation of Christ - talk about two wildly different films) where I really had that visceral experience of feeling what it was like to have faith. The movie took something that was an abstract and maybe even obtuse concept and portrayed it in a way that I could feel. It really opened my eyes to faith and belief in a way I never would have thought possible for me. All these years later, whenever I see it, I still have that same profound experience.

I think it’s a beautiful film.

I could see it, but I couldn't, and can't still, understand it.
To me, his reaction to what happened was more alien than the aliens.
I never understood his reason for coming back to his faith, but then again, maybe I just don't understand faith.
It is a well acted and executed movie, I just don't agree with the plot.
It makes it an interesting movie, but not one I'd like to revisit.
And that is my fault, not Shymalayan's.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I could see it, but I couldn't, and can't still, understand it.
To me, his reaction to what happened was more alien than the aliens.
I never understood his reason for coming back to his faith, but then again, maybe I just don't understand faith.
It is a well acted and executed movie, I just don't agree with the plot.
It makes it an interesting movie, but not one I'd like to revisit.
And that is my fault, not Shymalayan's.

It’s not your fault, it’s your reaction. An artist creates his art and then must let his audience react to it. I got why he returned to his faith, but it didn’t persuade me.