The Village is a suspense/thriller by M. Night Shyamalan. I thought it was good, though a bit slow. To sum it all up, if you like typical M. Night movies and stories, you will like it quite a lot. It takes a little while to offer real explanations for the behaviors of the villagers, but it is also easily predictable. At times the movie can be a bit scary, but I would not call it a horror flick, as the scares are short and don't do much more than make you jump a little. The movie is relatively clean of plot holes, except for the blind girl being able to navigate her way through a dense forest alone with nothing but a stick. I was pleased with the beginning and middle of the movie, but the ending was extremely disappointing. It ends with a pretty bad cliffhanger, as is typical with M. Night's movies. The concept of the movie was well-thought out, and kept me captivated throughout the movie. It would have been a bit more exciting, however, if it was not so predictable. If you get lost in the movie, however, I believe it would be fun to watch and not hard at all to pay attention to. I also liked the costumes for the creatures, they were enjoyably creepy.
Reviews
3 Reviews
Frankenstein
(2004)
If you liked the book..........
19 April 2010
If you were disappointed with how loosely the 1931 Frankenstein followed Shelly's famous novel, you will be pleased with the 2004 TV miniseries version. It follows the plot of the book almost exactly, and I believe the most pleasing and refreshing detail is that the monster becomes extremely literate in much the same way as in the book, by spying on a foreign girl's education, then by finding and reading various novels, one of which being Paradise Lost.
The movie is not and I don't believe was meant to be a horror or even a thriller, but is more like a drama. There are also numerous references to the original 1931 version, such as: the monster appears behind a little girl throwing flowers into water. Instead of killing her, however, he befriends her and she takes him into her home, her family cares for him until her big brother comes in and drives him away. Another similarity would be when the creature stirs and comes to life; Victor exclaims toward the skies, "It's alive It's aliiiiiiiiiiivveeee!!!!" The actors in this film are perfect for their roles, Luke Goss perfectly portraying a tormented and emotionally crushed abomination of science, Alec Newman portraying the mad doctor responsible for such a creature, Julie Delpy playing the concerned fiancée who only wants to know what's going on in the head of her soon to be husband, and every other actor who fit their roles perfectly. There were a few major plot holes, however, such as the old fashioned gun being able to fire multiple shots in a row without needing to reload once, another would be that the monster chopped massive piles of wood for the family that took him in and no one noticed or heard him doing it once, but this is a plot hole in the book as well. All in all, the 2004 version was very well done, followed the book closer than any other version, and had better production value than any other.
The movie is not and I don't believe was meant to be a horror or even a thriller, but is more like a drama. There are also numerous references to the original 1931 version, such as: the monster appears behind a little girl throwing flowers into water. Instead of killing her, however, he befriends her and she takes him into her home, her family cares for him until her big brother comes in and drives him away. Another similarity would be when the creature stirs and comes to life; Victor exclaims toward the skies, "It's alive It's aliiiiiiiiiiivveeee!!!!" The actors in this film are perfect for their roles, Luke Goss perfectly portraying a tormented and emotionally crushed abomination of science, Alec Newman portraying the mad doctor responsible for such a creature, Julie Delpy playing the concerned fiancée who only wants to know what's going on in the head of her soon to be husband, and every other actor who fit their roles perfectly. There were a few major plot holes, however, such as the old fashioned gun being able to fire multiple shots in a row without needing to reload once, another would be that the monster chopped massive piles of wood for the family that took him in and no one noticed or heard him doing it once, but this is a plot hole in the book as well. All in all, the 2004 version was very well done, followed the book closer than any other version, and had better production value than any other.
Frankenstein
(1931)
Good for its time
24 March 2010
If you've read Mary Shelly's original novel Frankenstein and are expecting to see it come to life on the big screen (or whatever size your television screen is) prepare to be extremely disappointed. For one, the monster is completely illiterate the whole movie, all he does is grunt. Second, in the movie, the monsters desire to commit murder and cause terror among the town folk comes from the criminal brain the doctor's assistant, Fritz, accidentally puts in the monster. In the book, his desire to commit murder among other atrocities comes from his hatred of mankind from condemning him due to his appearance. The movie is the epitome of 1931 special effects, and it's as good as it gets for being made more than seventy five years ago. Boris Karloff did do a fantastic job as the monster, however, and the flat-head makeup and outfit are perfect for his role. Colin Clive was also outstanding at portraying the doctor who gave the monster life, and he captured the emotions that came with playing god and the eventual regret for creating such an atrocity after it began killing the citizens of the town below. The set was flawless, all the machines and devices and mechanisms in the laboratory running perfectly and perfectly portraying the sanctum of a mad doctor capable of producing life where there was once none. The movie opens with a warning from Edward Van Sloan, stating that what you are about to witness may "shock you, surprise you, and maybe even horrify you", and explaining the basic plot of the story. I wouldn't say it's scary or frightening or even surprising, but I believe that this is mainly due to the fact that I'm very desensitized, as is most of America, and I strongly believe that if I grew up in the 1930's, I would have been extremely frightened by this picture.
Tell Your Friends