What Was The Last Movie You Walked Out Of ?

The Villiage is one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. Bottom 5 that I have ever seen.

OU wrote:

The Villiage is one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. Bottom 5 that I have ever seen.

Thank you. Wolf thinks he's smart because he found it entertaining.

It wasn't clever, it wasn't intelligent, it was just extremely stupid. I couldn't believe how bad the movie I just watched was when the credits started to roll, I was in shock it was so bad. I thought "WOW, what a shitty, shitty movie".

OU wrote:

It wasn't clever, it wasn't intelligent, it was just extremely stupid. I couldn't believe how bad the movie I just watched was when the credits started to roll, I was in shock it was so bad. I thought "WOW, what a shitty, shitty movie".

Was Johnny Depp in it?

Depp is ok. I remember saying to my chick it would have been more entertaining if I smoked the $30 it cost to watch the movie.

I can't comprehend someone not liking the movie Blow, unless they have never really watched the whole thing or just hate the name "Johnny Depp".

Blow was a good movie. Donnie Brasco was awesome.

OU wrote:

I can't comprehend someone not liking the movie Blow, unless they have never really watched the whole thing or just hate the name "Johnny Depp".

Ding Ding Ding. Winner Winner Chicken Dinner.

Yeah even if I did like it I cant admit it because Depp is in it.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

The Villiage duped everyone and some couldn't hang with it. The switchero they pulled was awesome. There was no reason not to like that. Blown away. Intelligent movie.

Kingdom of Heaven was insulting to the intelligence.

LOL

Honestly what was wrong with the village? Expecting a monster movie and were unable to come to grips with a critique of society?

Wolf, your the 1st person I have ever heard that said they liked that movie. When people go to a horror movie they expect horror not a life lesson. It was a boring movie that as you can see on this board people hated.

Yo I don't watch many movies so criticisms of film making technique and all that don't register with me as much, but I found the premise awesome. Maybe if you saw through the story and knew it wasn't a monster movie you'd dislike it. I usually figure shit out within 30 minutes of a movie and am bored the entire time. I totally relate with wanting to ditch society for a less insane time. Most people don't understand stuff like that. They want zombies to be real.

My movie taste is fundamentally different than nearly everyone I know though. Taken was predictable unwatchable garbage, the world sucked it's contrived dick, Watchmen was an amoral masterpiece, the world sat in dejection scratching their head. For example.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Honestly what was wrong with the village? Expecting a monster movie and were unable to come to grips with a critique of society?

It was so, so awful and one of the worst "twist" I have ever seen. I was in shock about how bad that movie was. I think you are fucking with us here Wolf. I don't see any way anyone could possibly enjoy that movie. Bad movie made even worse by the "twist". Just as awful as they come.

Now Watchmen was a great movie, I enjoyed that very much Wolf.

Meh, different wave lengths.

Here's another involving dramatic thriller from Shyamalan, which of course has some surprises up its sleeve. But there's a lot more than a few good plot twists in this clever, important film.

It's 1897 in a tiny village surrounded by dark, menacing woods. A whole series of rules have evolved to help the villagers live in a kind strained coexistence with horrific creatures that prowl amongst the trees. The villagers are self-sufficient--they never need to visit the towns beyond the woods--and their life is rather idyllic. In this setting, the strong-but-silent Lucius (Phoenix) falls in love with the feisty-blind Ivy (Howard), daughter of the town's leader (Hurt). But Ivy's simpleton friend (Brody) is unknowingly stirring up something scary in the woods.

Shyamalan is an expert at creating multi-layered, insinuating, inventive storylines and characters (see also The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs), even if his films are very slowly paced. And the issues he examines here are especially strong--and extremely timely, due to the juxtaposition between the villagers and "Those We Don't Speak Of", which is frighteningly familiar in today's us-versus-them world.

Besides being a gripping story all its own, this is a moving parable about the state of the planet. And Shyamalan directs it steadily, building both the plot and the characters and digging way beneath the surface. The cinematography, sound and music are perfectly moody and textured--like Snow White meets the Blair Witch! And he edits the film with a fiendish glee (his cameo appearance near the end is mischievously witty) while keeping the characters real--we feel their desperate longing even before we know what they yearn for. Their warm respect, humour and energy are all sharply felt.

And the superb cast relishes these strong characters. Howard is especially compelling in a tricky role, while Hurt, Weaver (as Lucius' mother), Gleeson, Jones, Weston, et al, are fascinating as the secretive, jingo-spouting elders. To be honest, there isn't a big twist at the end. It's more a gentle revelation as we begin to understand the truth here. This is a powerful tale of isolationism, a desire for innocence and hope, and a fear of the unknown. Or maybe not so unknown after all.


This review is what I felt.

OU wrote:

Now Watchmen was a great movie, I enjoyed that very much Wolf.

I am pleasantly surprised, scratch that, shocked that you'd even like that movie at all.

I didn't know this is the same guy who did Sixth Sense and those other "twist, gotcha" movies, so that helped me dramatically, but here is a review that sums up why people think they don't like it, but then reveals why they actually don't like it.


It Takes an Ego “Is M. Night [Shyamalan] a filmmaker or is he a marketing plan?” asked writer Michael Agger in a recent article in Slate. The question is a valid one; ever since "Unbreakable" -- Shyamalan’s brilliant follow-up to "The Sixth Sense" -- failed at the box office, he has been obsessed, not with writing another great script, but with repeating the earlier film’s winning formula. And in interviews conducted prior to the opening of "The Village," Shyamalan was clearly more concerned about the level of audience anticipation for his film than on the quality of the product itself. Rightly or wrongly, Shyamalan has decided his power over audiences lies in The Big Reveal, and has therefore focused all of his energy on concocting these twists -- irrespective of logic or the demands of characterization. This decision has painted him into a brutal artistic corner, demanding obsessive pre-release secrecy and on-set firewalls. No press screenings of "The Village" were permitted until the day before opening, and the cast was denied complete scripts -- much to the derision of star William Hurt, who thought his director’s behavior “ludicrous.” Even so, the film’s ending had to be re-shot when Internet chatter correctly intuited the twist. This self-imposed pressure to shock inevitably takes its toll on filmmaker and audiences alike, the relentless hype creating impossible-to-meet expectations. It’s no surprise, therefore, that "The Village" is an enormous disappointment -- not because the ending is so banal (and obvious), but because Shyamalan has become a director who no longer trusts his talent. His beautifully-composed shots, his control of even the most inexperienced actors, his attention to vital detail, his magnificent pacing -- these are the reasons we can enjoy "Sense" and "Signs" and "Unbreakable" over and over again. But though these traits are minimally present in "The Village," they’re used to support a story so weak and carelessly written you can’t help but feel you’re being frog-marched from one “boo!” to the next. Continuing the theme of hallowed rural spaces, the cornfields of "Signs" have been replaced with an isolated, vaguely 19th-century village surrounded by dense woods. From time to time, weird moaning sounds emanate from the perimeter, presumably produced by creatures referred to as Those We Do Not Speak Of. The villagers would be happy not to speak of them, except they’re sneaking into the village at night to skin the livestock, and the rotting carcasses are hard to ignore. But when a clawed, cloaked creature appears, driving everyone into their cellars, Joaquin Phoenix is forced to stick his head out of his sackcloth hood and declare his intention of going to “the towns” for help. First, though, he must pledge himself to the local blind lass (Bryce Dallas Howard), who is also adored by the hyperactive village idiot (Adrien Brody, drooling and capering for the benefit of Academy Voters We Don’t Speak Of). A crime occurs, the woods are traversed, the twist is revealed. "The Village" has decent performances -- though Phoenix seems rather too old for his part and Hurt, as a village elder, is rather bored by it all -- and beautiful set pieces (a funeral, a wedding) that evoke the misty, ethereal world of old English landscape paintings. Shyamalan, in fact, doesn’t like cities much at all; think of the dank, threatening streets of "Unbreakable," the isolated farmhouse in "Signs," the urban ghosts of "The Sixth Sense" who are all victims of crime. A faintly religious fear of modernity hangs over his work, expressed more overtly in 'The Village" than ever before. The movie’s answer to that fear, however, is far more terrifying -- and ultimately more dangerous -- than any number of unspeakable woodland beasties. © Jeannette Catsoulis, August 3rd, 2004. All rights reserved.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

OU wrote:

Now Watchmen was a great movie, I enjoyed that very much Wolf.

I am pleasantly surprised, scratch that, shocked that you'd even like that movie at all.

Great movie. Very refreshing IMO. Now that is something I can get into, talking about it now makes me want to watch it again.

More dangerous? Please. As an advocate for a world in its death throws, I'd like to remind everyone that people like this are responsible for the deconstruction of our society and planet as we gorge ourselves.

Consumerist whore.

Go watch Legally Blond or something else that allows you to preserve your illusion of a healthy society.

I suppose most didn't get the village. They were waiting the entire time for a monster to kill someone and when the ending was just a bunch of cooks in a forest park they totally missed what the director was saying.

Best movie of 2010 in my opinion was the Lovely Bones.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

I suppose most didn't get the village. They were waiting the entire time for a monster to kill someone and when the ending was just a bunch of cooks in a forest park they totally missed what the director was saying.

No, it's nobody gave a fuck what he had to say. They go to the cinemas to escape reality not be given a lesson about it.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Wolfgangsta wrote:

I suppose most didn't get the village. They were waiting the entire time for a monster to kill someone and when the ending was just a bunch of cooks in a forest park they totally missed what the director was saying.

No, it's nobody gave a fuck what he had to say. They go to the cinemas to escape reality not be given a lesson about it.

Escapist consumerist mentality. So damaging. And they don't go to escape. They go to be secretly reaffirmed that their beliefs and morals are ok and everything is peachy keen. When that doesn't happen, especially without teenagers fucking and then being killed, they don't what to think. With as much of a lynyrd skynyrd "Simpleman" archetype as you are I'd actually think you'd appreciate "The Village", especially with all your "Science was created to destroy faith" insulting/damaging babble.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

I suppose most didn't get the village. They were waiting the entire time for a monster to kill someone and when the ending was just a bunch of cooks in a forest park they totally missed what the director was saying.

No I got it, I wasn't expecting some horror movie with a Big Foot like figure ripping people in half. Not sure how fast you are suppose to see the "twist" before it happens but it didn't catch me off guard. I'm pretty sure I have read a story similar to that before, maybe why I saw it coming and just found it to be extremely retarded. I was seriously amazed at how bad that movie was.

What made it bad? There was a book already that that borrowed a lot from.