|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:They both own. HUNDU laying down some solid truth.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
I didn't care for the vvitch but I have never understood the hate for The Village.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
I don't even understand why people complain about the twist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I don't even understand why people complain about the twist. Shyamalan baby
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
It didn't really even strike me as a twist when it happened, though maybe I had heard about it long before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I don't even understand why people complain about the twist. No monsters in a movie marketed about monsters in a dope as gently caress setting. And you weren't pissed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Immortan posted:No monsters in a movie marketed about monsters in a dope as gently caress setting. And you weren't pissed? That's not what people remember though, it's the twist about the Village actually being an amish cult in a nature preserve.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Immortan posted:No monsters in a movie marketed about monsters in a dope as gently caress setting. And you weren't pissed? I don't think too much about trailers and commercials when I see movies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
the thing people need to remember about Shyamalan is that his movies without twists, like Signs and The Happening, also blow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
The twist is dumb because it only serves as a twist to the audience and has no real impact on the characters. In The Sixth Sense the twist works because you realize it as Bruce Willis realizes so it has a greater emotional impact. At the end of The Village, everyone who didn't know about the thing at the beginning still doesn't know the thing. It changes nothing for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Conal Cochran posted:The twist is dumb because it only serves as a twist to the audience and has no real impact on the characters. In The Sixth Sense the twist works because you realize it as Bruce Willis realizes so it has a greater emotional impact. At the end of The Village, everyone who didn't know about the thing at the beginning still doesn't know the thing. It changes nothing for them. The park ranger knows now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The park ranger knows now. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
I'm fine with people not liking this movie for various reasons because opinions and tastes differ. I probably hate a bunch of movies they liked. It's when people try to convince others that the movie's bad and argue against people saying what they enjoyed about it that irks me. I've had people convince me a movie I thought was bad was actually good before, because I learned new things about the context or appreciated certain subtleties before a rewatch. But I've NEVER been convinced that a movie I liked was actually bad - recognizing some flaws maybe, but nobody's ever made me hate a movie by bashing it. So I don't really get the mentality of trying to change someone's opinion for the worse, unless they get some kind of odd pleasure out of ruining things for people, but even then it's a pretty futile process because it just makes people who like it defend it that much more fervently. Conal Cochran posted:The twist is dumb because it only serves as a twist to the audience and has no real impact on the characters. In The Sixth Sense the twist works because you realize it as Bruce Willis realizes so it has a greater emotional impact.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The park ranger knows now. I didn't really think about that since the park ranger is barely a character, but I guess that's a fair point. By the way, I actually liked the Village. Back to The Witch. One of the things that I like about the Witch is that I personally felt that the picturesque cinematography brought attention to the fact that you were an outside spectator to the events. I got the impression that you were, in a way, seeing things from the perspective of the dark supernatural forces that were pulling the family apart. So even though the Witch isn't physically present for most of the movie, you feel her presence throughout.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
I friend of mine used the village as a metric for things that are bad recently and I said "was it really bad or did people just say it was bad?" And he told me "oh it was bad" so I asked him why and he literally couldn't come up with anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Cinema Discusso > The Vvitch (2016): Let's talk about the Village
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:HUNDU laying down some solid truth. Cinema Discusso has come to this. Wasn't that Transformers thread bad enough?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Conal Cochran posted:Cinema Discusso > The Vvitch (2016): Let's talk about the Village Let's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
I wasn't aware people hated the Village. I thought it looked good and that William Hurt has the awesomest voice this side of Lorenzo Music and I could listen to him talk old-timey for hours. Good performances from Bryce Howard and Adrien Brody too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Shyamalan's a cool dude and he had a good year in 2015, I liked both The Visit and Wayward Pines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:Shyamalan's a cool dude and he had a good year in 2015, I liked both The Visit and Wayward Pines. The pilot of Wayward Pines was surprisingly good for being based on a book that's pretty much fanfiction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The pilot of Wayward Pines was surprisingly good for being based on a book that's pretty much fanfiction. I watched the pilot, which was good if almost embarrassingly Twin Peaks But Grimmer, and then forgot about it. Was the rest of it any good?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Of course not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Of course not. Lol that's what I figured. On topic, I'm gonna go see this tomorrow, not that anyone gives a poo poo about what movies I haven't seen
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:the thing people need to remember about Shyamalan is that his movies without twists, like Signs and The Happening, also blow. What's not to like about Signs? It's both really scary and intentionally hilarous. Shyamalan has a fantastic sense of humour.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:I watched the pilot, which was good if almost embarrassingly Twin Peaks But Grimmer, and then forgot about it. Was the rest of it any good? It's never as well made as the pilot but it's dumb fun and Terrance Howard is very entertaining. The plot takes some real dumb turns but it's silly enough to just throw your hands up and see where it takes you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
IM_DA_DECIDER posted:What's not to like about Signs? It's both really scary and intentionally hilarous. Shyamalan has a fantastic sense of humour. I will concede that it is up there with The Sixth Sense as his most watchable C+ movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
I remember enjoying the Village a lot and even liked the little twist. That was probably the last movie of Shyamalan I enjoyed. It's been poo poo ever since. I just started watching The Visit though so we'll see how that goes - had to stop as it was late and the gf was tired. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
I want k.waste to come in here and talk about this movie in relation to Ex Machina. My girlfriend saw this film the second time when she saw it with me, and she saw the film through a feminist perspective. Also, for the sake of sustaining the structure of our goon society, I will take the place as a person who thinks that if you thought this movie was bad then you are stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Just saw this. Liked it a lot. At first I felt like the period dialogue was a bit thick, but it did a really good job helping transport us into the almost alien mindset of 17th century Puritans. I think if the dialogue had been a little more contemporary that wouldn't have happened as quickly. The movie looks amazing. One of the very first shots is just a landscape with clouds and it really set the tone for "this is Heaven and Earth and both are tumultuous and confusing places". One thing that I noticed and really liked was you can see the exact moment when each of the two women becomes receptive to the Devil: when they lose their head covering. Katherine removes hers when she gets out of bed at the beginning of her dream/vision of the things that she covets. Almost immediatly after this is when the aftermath of the shed being torn open is revealed, and we see that Thomasin has lost hers well. Even before this, their hair is progressively revealed more and more throughout the film as tensions and emotions rise. During their final confrontation Katherine's hair is fully down, and it's not matted or ragged, it's luxurious and beautiful. Related to this, there is only three instances where clothes are removed onscreen: When Thomasin helps remove her father's soiled shirt, when Katherine removes her head covering, when Thomasin takes off her dress and replaces it with a shawl/blanket, and when she finally disrobes for Black Phillip. It should also be noted that Black Phillip was the cause of William's shirt being soiled necessitating its removal. I am curious about why they chose to shoot it with a 1.66:1 aspect ratio. I'm so used to 16:9 even for television now, I found it very distracting at first. Of course once I got into the movie I didn't notice or mind, but I'm curious if they had a specific reason for wanting it. I say they because I have no way of knowing who specifically decided on that aspect ratio. But if there was one thing I didn't like about the film, it was too many witches. I'm not joking. I understand the probably wanted to establish right away that it wasn't "all in their heads" but honest if it was up to me I would have cut basically ever shot that showed a witch on screen. For me the best part of the movie was the terror and confusion, the strife created by these people attempting to reconcile these events with their beliefs. Their fluctuation between directing blame inward and outward. The visual depictions of witches felt generic and passe in contrast to the gripping emotion of the other scenes. Not revealing the witch(es) until the very end would have worked better in my opinion because it would have let us be along for the ride with the characters, wondering which, if any of them, was a witch or under the influence of the Devil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Got super high and saw this a few minutes ago. Not totally sure how i felt. I liked it, certainly. A lot of tension, horror, I spent a lot of the first 60% eyes/mouth agape in horror Towards the end it was more horror mixed with nervous chuckling, some of it seeming both silly/too-far but still beautiful and horrible in its own way. While I'm not totally sure how I feel about the ending, I really liked how it felt like the movie was keeping you guessing and shifting in terms of what the nature of its genre and true reality really was. Just wanna say, Black Phillip is a pimp  Mods please change my username to Black Phillip. For cinema
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Anal Surgery posted:Yeah, if I have any complaints about this movie, it's that the goat's face is just so chill a lot of the time that he wasn't as creepy as he was probably supposed to be. Goats rule and Black Phillip rules, but several times the camera pans over to him and he looks like he just smoked a j. "Sssssup, puritans... "
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Just got home from this. There was one other person in the theater, which after reading this thread I'm supremely grateful for. I really enjoyed it - the prayer scene was horrifying One thing I don't think anyone mentioned was Thomasin's prayer at the beginning of the movie, in which she confessed she was having doubts about their faith. Homegirl was doomed from the first five minutes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Doomed, or saved?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:Doomed, or saved? This is a good question. While it's hard to argue that the witch(es) were good to the protagonistic family, there's something to be said for the idea that the wilderness was their main opponent. They went out into the wild and tried to make the land serve them. The opening of the movie is them being cast out, followed by a scene of them praying in thanks to God for the land that they believe will serve them. The look at the land and see a bounty for their taking. But they are not rewarded by the land. They face starvation and death because they believe that they are entitled to it yet they venerate God instead of the land. God does not save them, but when Thomasin sees the ruin of her family and faces certain death alone in the coming winter, she seeks communion with the Devil and will presumably live a long and prosperous life. It's also interesting that even by the characters own admittence, they are full of sin. William talks to Caleb about original sin, and he is guilty of pride and dishonestly, The twins are lazy, Katherine is envious, and while these characters occasionally express regret at these sins they continue to lie and lash out at each other because of them. They do not honor each other. But at the end, Thomasin answers Black Phillip honestly. She goes to him for answers. When Caleb asked William for answers, William told him that the answers was looking for were not his to give and that they were mysteries of God, not to be understood by men. Unlike God, Black Phillip is not silent, and when he asks Thomasin if she wants luxurious things, she answers honestly. She isn't consumed with guilt and judgement. If you look at the story from the perspective of the Puritan's being objectively wrong about how things work, some elements of the story are practically reversed. Now I'm not saying that I agree with this reading, but I think it's worth exploring. If we consider the witches and/or Satan/The Devil to have saved Thomasin at the end, and work backwards, does that not mean that they may have "saved" the baby at the beginning? From the puritan perspective, the child died before it was baptized and is in hell. But from the witches perspective, it died before the insidious and corrupt puritanical ideology could infect it. Now, I don't really think those ideas form a cohesive reading, they're just some of the ideas that have been bouncing around in my head since I saw it a few hours ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
I think it's funny that the devil promises butter and pretty dresses, but the character in question is lead to an open firepit with people without clothes writhing around it. You would think that's a "well poo poo, I backed the wrong horse" moment, but nope.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I think it's funny that the devil promises butter and pretty dresses, but the character in question is lead to an open firepit with people without clothes writhing around it. Well we do see a witch in a "pretty dress" earlier in the film, so I'll bet he makes good on his promise eventually.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Anyone stuck hanging out in the woods of Massachusetts for any length of time is objectively doomed to a life of madness, terror, and raccoons. Nobody is saved, not ever. Sometimes the raccoons are funny though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I think it's funny that the devil promises butter and pretty dresses, but the character in question is lead to an open firepit with people without clothes writhing around it. Yeah but then she flies off into the sky so uh
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Yeah but then she flies off into the sky so uh So you're an airborne naked person living in the woods.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 03:59
|
|