The Village 2004 123movies

Watch: The Village 2004 123movies, Full Movie Online – M Night Shyamalan’s The Village revolves around a desolate town in Pennsylvania. The residents of this town live by strict rules – They are not to leave the village or the monsters beyond their boundaries will surely attack them. Lucius and Ivy have an attraction – a strong one. But when Noah – a man with an intellectual disability and who also has feelings for Ivy, finds out that the two are In love, Noah attacks Lucius. He will die if brave Ivy (who is blind) does not breach the borders and find help to save Lucius..
Plot: When a willful young man tries to venture beyond his sequestered Pennsylvania hamlet, his actions set off a chain of chilling incidents that will alter the community forever.
Smart Tags: #village #plot_twist #ambiguous_ending #creature #psychological_thriller #mysterious_creature #death_of_loved_one #surprise_ending #director_cameo #lore #superstitious #religion #stupidity #sibling_relationship #psychotronic_film #present_day #blindness #cure #medicine #sickness #illness

Find Alternative – The Village 2004, Streaming Links:

123movies | FMmovies | Putlocker | GoMovies | SolarMovie | Soap2day

Ratings:

	6.6/10 Votes: 262,963
	43% | RottenTomatoes
	44/100 | MetaCritic
	N/A Votes: 3500 Popularity: 19.863 | TMDB

Reviews:

A lovely shot tale that has resonance in the modern age.

This user comment is my own personal feelings, it is not a review that I make in the hope of turning anyone’s opinion to that of my own, no mater what anyone says or does, my feelings for the film will never change.

I see a smartly crafted movie about fear and hope, a community living in fear of the outside world, I see involving characters to follow with interest, I see a gorgeous setting that intrigues and engages me.

Manoj Night Shyamalan’s fourth mainstream picture is now, as we can all agree, a victim of a terrible marketing campaign, wasn’t it? For there are horror elements in the film, of which I don’t wish to spoiler write about, the horror elements are there, they just aren’t the boo jump scary monster variety that many had hoped for. The ending to the film disappoints many it would seem, but it doesn’t to me because it is here that the film has most resonance and the point is well and truly made. It’s acted out with style from the majority of the cast, and Shyamalan directs with a steady caring approach. It’s not without flaws for sure, but this is a very tidy piece that’s saying quite a bit if the viewer is so inclined to jump on board. All told, it’s a very solid and thought provoking piece that’s made with much film making care. 8/10

Great watch, will watch again, and can recommend.

Being this is in the Shamallama-verse, it catches a lot of flak for having a “twist”, and being a bit of a intellectual weight lift, but even knowing the “twist”, I find it to be a very interesting watch.

A blind protagonist is immediately interesting to me because it tends to lend itself to the non-traditional elements of a movie and is usually very refreshing for those of us that watch a lot of movies.

Bryce Dallas Howard, especially, does much of the heavy lifting in this movie, but there really is a stacked cast that all give a good amount of quality support through their roles: it’s not just about the blind girl travelling for days through the woods, it is about the community. Stories that focus on things larger than a single person as a “character” tend to lose people as they like to immerse themselves in a character and still feel they’re bigger than the world in the setting.

The initial concept of a “big bad wolf” in the woods is interesting, but they do go a different way with it: they’re almost a society of creatures the way they’re given to behave where werewolves might have actually been a more effective choice for a “monster”.

Likely this has been spoiled for you, but if not, then you should definitely give it a shot, and if so, then you should see how it is for yourself.

Shyamalan’s most under-appreciated film
I don’t think I’ve ever been more shocked by how much I liked a film. I had very low expectations when I decided to watch “The Village,” because I knew how much critics had panned it. I’m not saying that I regard the consensus of the critics as sacrosanct. But the movies I love are rarely ones that have earned critical scorn, so by the law of probability I doubted that this one would be any good. Besides, I had noticed a steadily downward slope in the quality of M. Night Shyamalan’s films since “The Sixth Sense.” When “The Village” was released and subsequently panned, it seemed to fit the pattern that I myself had noticed. So I didn’t go and see the film. Only recently did I take a look at it on cable, more out of curiosity than anything else.

And alas, I found the first fifteen minutes rather slow. The movie has a lot of characters, and it doesn’t quickly establish which ones are the most important. All we see is this primitive nineteenth-century village in the midst of woods that the villagers believe to be haunted by ominous, sentient creatures who will not harm the people as long as they don’t set foot in the woods. The villagers have all sorts of rituals to protect themselves from attack, such as avoiding the color red (what is it with Shyamalan and red?) and wearing yellow hoods. But rules are meant to be broken, and a quiet, mysterious young man played by Joaquin Phoenix wants to journey into the woods so that he can visit “the towns” on the other side, which boast superior medicine. Among other things, he wonders if he’ll find a cure for his mentally handicapped friend (Adrien Brody). In the meantime, he’s falling in love with the blind girl (Bryce Dallas Howard) whose role in the plot will expand as the movie progresses.

The love story between Phoenix and Howard is well-handled and believable, transcending the romantic clichés. The two characters seem to possess a common understanding and don’t have to talk much in order for us to feel the developing bond between them. But what they do say to each other is intriguing. My favorite line is “Sometimes we don’t do things we want to do so that others won’t know we want to do them.” Their personalities also transcend stereotype, particularly with Phoenix: while stoic and courageous, he’s also shy and withdrawn, as revealed in scenes where he passes letters to the public council instead of speaking in front of them. His ultimate significance to the story turns the heroic convention on its head.

Everyone in the village speaks in an oddly formal manner, using big words and avoiding contractions. The accents are American, but the diction is like that of a nineteenth-century English novel. Amazingly, the actors make this language sound natural as it rolls off their tongues. The cast includes several familiar faces: William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, Brendan Gleeson, and the aforementioned Phoenix and Brody. But the star of the film is the as-yet unknown Howard, who delivers a performance so compelling that it’s a shame the film was trashed by critics.

Much of the film concerns the relationships of the characters in the village, but the mystery of the creatures also dominates the plot. This is more of a quietly creepy “Twilight Zone”-style tale than outright horror. Like Shyamalan’s other films, it ultimately carries a message of hope and optimism. But Shyamalan does not forget his horror roots. No other Hollywood filmmaker today is better at crafting scenes where a character is being haunted by an evil presence. These scenes work because of Shyamalan’s acute sense of how nightmares feel. Like all skilled horror directors, he knows not to focus on the monster itself but on the panicked reaction of the character being stalked.

While the use of a blind character is hardly a new device, Shyamalan handles the scenes with Howard in an interesting way. Instead of the usual approach of teasing the audience by showing exactly what the blind character doesn’t see, he practically makes us blind along with her. He has the camera follow her as she walks, so that we don’t see what’s in front of her. We soon realize that we are seeing little more than what she is able to discern about her surroundings. In crucial scenes, we are effectively almost as much in the dark as she is.

I cannot say much more about the plot without ruining the movie’s surprises, which are abundant. Critics dismissed “The Village” as a crude exercise in plot manipulation. I couldn’t disagree more. While I’m not certain that the logistics of the plot work in every detail, most of the criticisms I have heard reflect a superficial reading of the story.

The film has the same basic structure that Shyamalan always uses, where we are swept up in the events and only at the end do we find out what the movie was truly about. From there, we have to think backwards to understand the ultimate meaning of the story. I have seen the movie three times now, noticing new things each time. The social themes make me think that Shyamalan is familiar with Joseph Campbell’s works on primitive societies and the origin of drama. The back story is very well thought out compared to that of the average thriller, and I feel some disappointment that more people aren’t able to appreciate it. The beauty and genius of this film is a well-kept secret.

Slightly overlong, but works.
Actually, I’ve been avoiding this film because of all bad press, bad reviews and people telling me it sucks. But I was surprised to see a film which actually wanted to say something, and did it in a good way.

For me, THE VILLAGE is probably the best Shamalayan film I’ve seen, since this is not only good cinema – it also has an underlying theme and story that tries to criticize our world. It’s well done.

The twists and turns are good, and the last twist is best.

Best are the actors, dialog and feeling/mood. However, the film is too long and could’ve used some editing.

Nice little movie that could’ve been filmed for $1 Million, and still worked wonders. Shamalayan is overpriced, and he’s not worth his salary, but at least he gives us some good entertainment for the moment.

I want to give this one a 6 out of 10, since it has some great ideas, even though it’s painfully slow and boring at some times. Nice to watch alone a rainy day.

Other Information:

Original Language en
Runtime 1 hr 48 min (108 min)
Budget 60000000
Revenue 256697520
Status Released
Rated PG-13
Genre Drama, Mystery, Thriller
Director M. Night Shyamalan
Writer M. Night Shyamalan
Actors Sigourney Weaver, William Hurt, Joaquin Phoenix
Country United States
Awards Nominated for 1 Oscar. 4 wins & 24 nominations total
Production Company N/A
Website N/A

Technical Information:

Sound Mix DTS, Dolby Digital EX, SDDS
Aspect Ratio 1.85 : 1
Camera Arriflex 535B, Cooke S4, Cinetal and Varotal Lenses, Moviecam SL, Cooke S4, Cinetal and Varotal Lenses
Laboratory EFILM Digital Laboratories, Hollywood (CA), USA (digital intermediate), DuArt Film Laboratories Inc., New York, USA (color), Technicolor, Hollywood (CA), USA (prints)
Film Length N/A
Negative Format 35 mm (Kodak Vision2 500T 5218, Vision 200T 5274)
Cinematographic Process Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format), Spherical (source format)
Printed Film Format 35 mm (Kodak Vision 2383)