Reviews

I give this film nine stars......almost a ten! There's several aspects of the film that really resonate with the viewer that enjoys a story that carries one down many avenues.

First and foremost, the setting of the film was fabulous. The isolated mountainous region gave it an excellent atmosphere that one would fully expect a great mystery to ignite. It does help create the tone that one is on the edge of world. The story being placed in the Late Middle Ages also drives this feeling of despair, helplessness and ignorance. Every history buff should probably give it a watch. The fact that the author used a few historical characters in this story shows us that there was a desire to capture some realism of the time period. I think it was successful. It gives an excellent snapshot of monk life, the inquisition, the Catholic control and the tragedy of the library, which is fascinating and heartbreaking.

The casting is excellent. I loved how the characters were stand-alone figures that were intriguing to see on the screen. They did a great job making the monks stand out from one another. How in this world did Ron Perlman not receive an Oscar nod for his portrayal of the hunchback? Most of the acting was very believable. Even Christian Slater did well as an innocent.

A lot of working parts made it a great film and the minor plot of this peasant girl as Adso's love interest did solidify why that character is the narrator of the tale. The final scene......very emotional.

I'd probably have given it a ten if it had been filmed in foreign languages rather that English and if some of the acting was a little more polished. Overall, it was great!

Of course, this was totally unintentional. This was to be a high octane adventure. The story centers around a Native American out for revenge against a huge party of bandits that murdered his wife. The film is full of violence and mayhem. A lot of this is unrealistic with our hero being almost invincible. The acting is lacking, the characters goofy and the editing is hilarious. Burt Reynolds was young and trying to get his footing in the business. This is one opportunity that he should have skipped. It's difficult to take him serious in this role. The film is exaggerated action that will keep you laughing. You'll enjoy watching the banditos get picked off one by one. The film feels like the inspiration for a lot of corny action films. Invite your friends over and watch this turkey. You won't be disappointed.

This feels like a rendition of a literary work, but I can't identify what it's supposed to be. Clearly, it isn't a story about vacationing in France! It's one of those films that you feel like you should watch over and over, scene by scene, breaking it down until you figure it out.

I think the statement that our main character wrote on the tree is the theme of the film. "I miss them all." It would appear that he is reliving events of his life, but in an extremely exaggerated context. When he makes the proclamation on the tree, he is expressing his sadness due to loss. This is primarily speaking of the loss of friends, family and most likely a wife. It could also be referring to love, experiences, youth, memories, etc.

The interesting aspect is how the film makers made it so vague that a single viewing will not suffice for those who need to understand the story. It's definitely open for interpretation. There's some really strange scenes as well as some meaningful drama mixed in.

The lack of dialogue really plays into the probability that this is a memory sequence. It's interesting that there are several scenes where someone is telling a story. It's a fact that there are some things that we hear in our lives that stick with us whereas most of what we hear is forgotten. Some stories stick with us forever. When we reflect on our memories, it seems we remember things that happen rather than the dialogue we participate in, so this may explain why there's very little speaking in the film.

It's a beautiful film and feels like one that you might leave playing in the background in your home, even when you're not watching it too closely. It just has a pleasant ambiance.

It isn't a good one. I think the creators missed the mark. There's so much to criticize.....

The troubled family relationships weren't necessary. The viewers need to somewhat like the main characters unless you're going a specific direction with the story. This story did not go that way. I think most viewers wanted them all to die rather than redeem themselves. Of course, the old white oil man died. Why? Because apparently he's no better than a poacher......unless he offers his life for his family. SMH

Why do the characters have to be so dumb. There's not a single logical human in that van. The character development doesn't connect our players with the viewers. The acting and script is subpar.

The CGI.....WHY? It would have been better for them to change the script in any way possible just so this horrific CGI could be omitted.

Considering the subject matter, this film could have been easily modified to hit closer to the target of what they were aiming for. Make the family likable, make it more about the poachers instead of the family surviving the African Plains and use real animal footage to generate compassion for the wildlife that are being hunted.

Also, there's no reason for it to be R-rated. Take out a few choice words and it becomes what it should have been. A story to bring awareness to the plight of African animals. Right now, it's a poorly done action film drama-thing.

This is a pleasant film centered around an eccentric character who is definitely worth the attention. Cumberbatch does an excellent job depicting Louis Wain who was an intelligent, yet insane artist! The film is beautiful and is easy on the eyes. I did enjoy it. The quirkiness of Wain is worth the watch alone. The story is a nice mix of drama and comedy, but concludes in a very depressing tale of tragedy. Even though the film is one that I could watch again, it does fall a little short of greatness in that the story tries to cover too much of the life of Wain. Maybe it should have focused on a smaller chapter of his life or even used flashbacks to adequately summarize all the years that it tries to cover. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it was much too short a film to cover the entire life of Wain. Still, I could watch it again, if only for the cinematography and Cumberbatch.

The tone of the film is well established and directs our path to what we expect to be a tragic ending. At face value, I do think that most viewers are actually hopeful for a conclusion where the characters reap what they sow. In the end we receive something that ignites disappointment, but when we examine our characters more closely we're surprised to see more brilliance than a missed opportunity.

Hank is a bullish simpleton with very little concern for anything outside of his hard occupation as a heavy who shovels coal into the broiler on an ocean freighter. Mildred is a sharp beautiful socialite that is only concerned with what she can get and doesn't care who she hurts to obtain it. She is a conqueror of men and unlikable to say the least.

Her use and abuse of others is so irritating that by the end of the film you're hoping that Hank does "smash her up." Alas, we don't get that ending. Instead, we get a bizarre scene where Hank and Mildred realize that they are exactly the same. They look different, act different and exist in different realities, but they are both brutish and users of people. They only care about themselves and their own agenda.

Mildred was able to rob Hank of his "strength" by looking at him in disgust and calling him a name. This would not have fazed him in any type of setting......except in the one place where he was in his prime, the one place where he was king. The broiler room. She imposed into his kingdom and degraded him. It broke him. She basically stole his manhood. It didn't require any of her charm, her deceitfulness, her sensuality. She just simply reacted to the disgust and fear that he ignited in her. This wasn't her style and it wasn't even her intention which is a direct contrast to what she was doing to Tony. She was slowly and strategically conquering him in his own environment where he should have been his strongest as well.

In the end, Hank goes on a mission to conquer Mildred by killing her, but when he arrives he learns that murdering her isn't necessary. He only needs to bring her under submission. He does this by terrifying her. She faints in fear when he puts his hand around her throat. My question is, was the fainting authentic or was she faking? Whatever the case may be, when she awakes on the sofa Hank is staring at her. His eyes have changed from that of hatred to infatuation. Hank caresses her hair. When Mildred sees that he is spellbound, her facial expression changes back to the smug manipulative witch that she is. Hank is on to her and knows she's going to make a dash for the door. She leans in like she's going to kiss him, she makes a dive, Hank grabs her and they just stand there staring at each other. Hank has her by the shoulders. She probably thinks that Hank is this sexual predator that is smitten by her beauty. She's not looking at him in fear, but defiantly. She believes that she may have to endure something rough in the next few moments but if she plays along and pours on the charm she will have another opportunity to escape. That opportunity doesn't come. Hank shakes her violently and throws her on the sofa. Her face is one of surprise. When Hank turns to walk away, her facial expression goes from surprise to shock. He stops, turns back to her and reaches in his pocket. Her face returns to fear, she thinks it's going to be a knife or a gun. It's a coin! As we've already seen in the beginning of the film, Hank is a crackerjack coin flipper. He flips the coin down Mildred's blouse and the fear disappears from her eyes and turns to insult! Hank smirks and walks out the door.

Mildred is left alone, she looks at the coin and smirks, but the smirk quickly fades to defeat. Hank has gotten his revenge. Mildred had came into his house and stole his dignity, now he has returned the favor. He entered into her house and stole hers. What can she do? She could retaliate by lying to accuse him of harm. It's no good. She's a socialite and admitting that you have been the victim of a sexual assault by someone from such a low class in your own home would be class suicide........she would be damaged goods. She didn't have any bruises or proof that he had attacked her. Hank was smart. He wanted to hit her, but he only shook her around a bit. She knows Hank has won.

We can only guess if this ends Mildred's endeavor to conquer others by stealing their dignity. I think the low drums playing also leaves her unsettled in that Hank could return and murder her. He truly did scare her and that fear will not be leaving anytime soon.

Maybe just as profound is the scene that follows where Hank stops into the bar to find a drunken Tony who is devastated over Mildred's treatment of him. He is passed out. Hank stands over him with a perfect opportunity to get revenge for how Tony had treated him earlier in the film. Instead, he picks him up and carries him back to the ship. After returning Tony back to his room, he does something very interesting. The flower that Mildred had given Tony to help manipulate him is laying in the room. Hank picks it up and throws it overboard. This is an act of power to display Hank's ability to forget Mildred and toss her memory overboard. This indicates that she isn't welcomed there. It can also be translated as an act of sympathy towards Tony so that when he sobers the flower will not be there as a reminder of Mildred.

Back in the broiling room Hank is back to his old self, yelling and giving out commands to the other workers. Except now he is blowing the whistle that Tony had dropped in the bar. This signifies that he is the victor. He accomplished what Tony could not. He had retrieved his dignity. As a man, as a member of the lower class, as a Hairy Ape. He had overcame the adversity and even had improved his character.....a little!

The film is worth a watch and possibly a second viewing is in order to pull out the subtle messages that are only apparent in the slight facial expressions.

It's definitely worth viewing, but does it deserve a second watch. Considering this film is part of the cult genre, it has a straightforward plot. Similar stories typically have a heavy amount of mystery and often spiral into horror by the end. Split Image.......not so much.

The first three acts do a fine job of establishing the theme. The simplistic journey we are taken on is not too dissimilar to what we've seen before in these types of plots. I think this honest approach to cultic mind control is very intriguing as it gives the viewer a more accurate glimpse into communal living that is a reality. It was especially familiar to viewers in the early 1980s, after a decade of cults being in the headlines.

The reason that the film falls short for me is basically the same reason that it may excel for other viewers. Where others like the toned down evil rhetoric so that we get a more realistic view of nonfictional cult behavior, I sort of feel that the lack of a legitimate threat disconnects me from the conclusion. There's always a possibility for harm to befall the protagonists, but it isn't looming......it isn't creepy......it's not life-threatening. James Woods is the creepiest character in the film(as usual)! Again, this may be the brilliance of the film for many.

The film being a study of "control", it's important that the last act leaves no question in the mind of the viewers as who is the final victor. The battleground is the mind and independence of Danny(& Amy). He must defeat any desire to be Joshua, but must also find the "Real" Danny.

I think if the last act(last 20 minutes) would have been slightly different, this film could've jumped 2-3 points for me. It could do this without betraying its narrative. As Danny begins to settle back into his former reality, he is surprised to learn that Charles(J. Woods) is trying to convince his parents (E. Ashley & B. Dennehy) to release his story to the public. A family argument ensues after Kevin(Dennehy) asks Charles to leave. Danny's mother is coming down heavy on him. Danny grabs his mother and Dad threatens Danny. There is a heavy atmosphere of hopelessness that begins to change the viewers opinion of the parents......."Maybe Danny would be better off with the cult." I like this scene because it displays that the parents desire to control Danny and it calls into question if they really care about him as much as they think they do. The last scene of the parents are the two of them staring out at the pool mumbling some jibberish......I don't like that. They should have been on site when Danny stood up to Neil(P. Fonda). In fact, Charles(Woods) should have been present as well. This climax would have of improved the film. When Neil slaps Danny it is out of his frustration to control him(Neil basically gave into his carnal image and sinned.) Danny is the victor! He controls himself. He and Amy run away together. It would have been so much better if Danny's parents were left behind also as the two go running and laughing to freedom from those that want to control them.

The icing on the cake would be Charles(Woods) and Neil(Fonda) having words that gave us some insight of why Charles hated him so much. Maybe a glimpse into a backstory. Even have a few of the cult followers not reentering the van after witnessing Neil's outburst, Danny's concerned parents, Charles's personal testimony of why Neil is dangerous and the scene of Danny and Amy running happily away. That would have stuck, and could have been so climatic that I might would watch the film a second time.

If someone was to describe the plot of this film to you, it would sound intriguing. However, this film does not accomplish what it appears to be setting out to do.

Clearly, the storyline has a message directed towards those that would lead a very loose promiscuous lifestyle. At face value it would seem that it should be an easy task to drive this message home, so it is somewhat confusing how this film failed so miserably.

When dealing with such a delicate subject that has developed into one of the most divisive in our political and social order, one must be careful who deserves the brunt of the punishment. I say that due to the amount of harm that is dispensed upon women in this film. The theme could have easily been carried with only a couple of victims. Instead the filmmakers pushed the envelope off the table to include many more than was necessary. When this approach is taken it weakens the impact on the viewer. It's like children giddy with the demise of so many victims. The result is weak!

Throw in unlikable characters......Christian Slater...oh gosh! WHY? Ray Liotta showed up with one of his worst performances. The overall acting from every player was stale. It actually felt like a TV movie, and it would have probably been better if it had been. Cut all the senseless dehumanizing female scenes, cut half of the murders, replace most of the script, make the characters smarter, stretch the storyline to a realistic time frame, change the baby's eye color to something normal and you have yourself a watchable film................... MAYBE!

This film did drag a bit. It could have been cut by at least fifteen minutes. There was a lot of repetition. Too many scenes of Tom sitting at a piano. This being a B movie, there was plenty of cheese. Still it is worth a viewing for the vintage horror enthusiast. The special effects are dated, but fun. The last 5-10 minutes actually moved it up one star for me. I did like the wedding scene and the very last frame.

It's horrible. I only watched about fifteen minutes and had to call it quits. The two guys in the gas station was the final straw. They were eating scrambled eggs........in a gas station. Notice the line about "blue blazes." That doesn't make any sense!

I'm very surprised at this film. It would seem that if you're going to film a story that deals with such a serious subject as the wrongful sentencing of a minority that you would want to go the serious route. Instead the creators decided to go with the quirky approach. Now, quirkiness can be good, but you have to fully commit to it. Unfortunately, this film lacks the right kind of quirk. It's going to take more than Martin Starr putting on a big moustache and glasses for this film to fit into that genre. This film doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a comedy or a tragedy. It is most definitely amateur. Poor Perlman......what a waste. I wanted to give this film 1 star.....but it could've been worse. At least there were some nice retro vehicles here and there. I'll never watch this again.

I fully understand how many were disappointed with the execution of this film. After viewing it I initially felt the same way. My annoyance was centered around the direction that the film took with the creatures. Learning that they were farce was a big "let down" for me personally. Fortunately, the film continued on a path that over time began to replace my disappointment with intrigue. Anytime that a story makes one feel like there's a need for another viewing is a win on the director's part. So, even though I was sad that the film wasn't what I wanted it to be, which was a battle between villagers and creatures in the forest, I watched it a few more times to fully appreciate the effort.

What makes The Village a good film?

1. - THE SETTING: It pulls the viewer into a setting that is unique within itself. As soon as the film begins, the viewer is curious to what time period, nation, culture or medium(fact/fiction) in which this story is taking place. The brilliance of this is that we soon forget its importance due to the developing plot, and then later its significance returns at the end of the film as a dynamic plot twist! This isn't a new tactic but the film stays within the boundaries of realism unlike many of the other films that use this twist. This strategy is more common in Sci-fi, mindbenders, dream sequences, hallucination banter, imaginary pieces and horror that defies all reason. This film does not fit into any of these categories.

2. - THE TONE: The film has a continuous looming of dread throughout with very few "happy moments." I believe that this helps create the sense that the village is controlled by fear. It's interesting that the fear that has been created by the careful planning and execution of the elders that not a single character is driven by a private narcissistic desire. We see a group of individuals that share a common bond and determine not to sway from their oaths. With that being said, the characters are very similar and don't attract much attention by the viewers. In other words, they're simplistic. This is typically a no-no, but the presence of "the ones we don't speak of" had our full attention, so it actually worked. When the creatures turned out to be farce, I thought "Oh no, a blind girl and a mentally challenged dude have taken center stage." and even though there's nothing wrong with that it didn't fit into my expectations! Still, the tone was kept intact and felt very smothering and oppressive to the viewer. At no time is it lifted and with the standing vote of the elders in the end, they determined to continue the farce of fear. It is somewhat disturbing to think that Ivy and others will be responsible for carrying out the lie that has kept the village in check. We must also remember that this film does not actually have any "real" monsters in it except for the criminals in the towns that pushed the elders to take such drastic measures for the safety of those they love. Even Noah can't be hated but pitied by the viewers as there was no true malice in him.

3.- THE ARTISTRY: The overall use of a simplistic set, music, lighting, colors, props, etc. to create the story was very artistic. Thankfully, the creators didn't take it too far as many films do. It is pleasant on the eyes with drops of symbolism throughout, but not overkill. I believe most would agree that the cinematography was fantastic and the images stick in the mind. Excellent camera work and the acting was good to great! The image of Adrian Brody in the pit wearing the monster costume..........that was an excellent shot! That single shot makes this film score at least FIVE STARS....

In conclusion, I gave it EIGHT STARS, and consider it one that I could watch again and again. It really seems like something that gets better the more you view it. Watch it 2-3 times and see if you agree.

This film is an oddity.......but in a good way. The story is centered around kindness and weaves the lives of common citizens together for an overall "feel good" experience. The interesting aspect is that even though the film is a positive tale, it deals with several negative elements of the real world. Child abuse, homelessness, drug use, loneliness, loss, etc. It intertwines these hopeless tones with a shimer of light at the end of the tunnel. The characters have just enough quirkiness to draw us in and hold our attention until each storyline has arrived at its respected destination.

Beautiful cinematography, great acting and fantastic story. I would watch again.