The Village. Char near the ending question Spolier

At the end “Kevin” goes in the guard shack and gets some antibiotics from the cooler. In the glass we’re made sure to see the guy behind the desk after his spiel. I couldn’t make him out very well.

Who was it? A Walker relative?

Thats M. Night Shayamalan (sic) in his cameo appearance.

It’s M Night Shamalyan himself.

I like his movies, but he’s a sucky actor. If he insists in appearing in his films, he should stick to really short, barely speaking cameos like in Sixth Sense or Unbreakable. He was just distracting in the Village and Signs.

Thanks.

But he was great in Scary Movie 3. “Those In The Know” know that he’s (I know its not really him) got the greatest line ever.

After running his SUV into Charlie Sheen’s wife, he says to Sheen’s character:
Peter! I’m going to need a ride home!

BWAAHAHAHAHA :smiley:

Actually, the acting isn’t all that bad, it’s just the whole concept behind “The Village” that is the problem.

I interpret that scene as meaning that while Kevin isn’t on the secret of the Vilage, his boss certainly is.

You know, I never gave The Village much thought, and certainly never planned on watching it. I thought Unbreakable was pretty good but I hated The Sixth Sense (sit through 2 boring hours for a decent payoff!) and Signs (sit through 2 boring hours for no payoff!)

Then my girlfriend rented The Village, popped it in, and I swear to god - I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t always see movie twists coming - I guessed the twist the very instant the movie started. I can’t remember the exact shot but there was a shot within the first 10 or 15 seconds that sent a little shock to my brain saying “it’s the present day.” I spent the rest of the movie supporting my hypothesis and by a few minutes before the payoff I was 100% sure of it.

And despite this, I somehow still liked the movie. I thought it was a decent lovestory and period piece.

Yeah, that’s how I felt about it too. I still think M Night’s self-insertion was distractinga nd unnecessary.

I didn’t even notice it was him. Didn’t he have like 2 lines?

He sat at a desk behind a newspaper. How was that distracting?

Ya know. . .his movies aren’t a guessing game. No one wins for guessing it before it ends. Just from picking up bits and pieces of conversation about the movie, I knew the “twist” before seeing the movie. It didn’t lessen my appreciation of the movie at all.

Signs wasn’t even supposed to have a twist. It was just a series of seemingly unrelated things that he tied together at the end. Ever since Sixth Sense, people seem to approach his movies with a mind of “figuring it out” early. I don’t think that’s a good way to view a movie.

Still, his movies continue to do well, and I look forward to them. I think he’s one of the more interesting directors out there today.

Because he revealed hismelf ever so artfully in the reflection on the glass case, as if his ID was something mysterious and important. Also, while his part was brief, it was important. it confirmed that the Village had outside help in keeping its secret. Pulled me right out of the film.

Well-put, and I agree completely.

Yes, the way he sat here, kind of mysterious, made me think his character was someone very important. I actually went back and watched that scene over two or three times to see what I was missing. It was very distracting.
It wasn’t till the end when I watched the credits and saw his name that I realized it was just sort of a vanity shot.

I also figured out the twist right away. I think it was something about

the shot in the graveyard with the date on the headstone that made me think, “That’s fake. It’s really present day, and they’re all on some sort of hidden compound.”

They are to me. Don’t you remember me saying that I don’t really like his movies? Part of the little motivation I had to sit through The Village was to see if I could guess the twist, since I missed it in the previous movies. I ended up guessing the twist and liking the movie. What harm was done?

Wait, I missed that part.

What did the date on the headstone say?

I know this is off topic, but doesn’t “sic” mean that someone is quoting a mis-spelling or grammatical error from a previously written work?

Maybe. I just figured it meant that I was pretty sure I had misspelled the previous word. :smack:

Mahaloth, yes, sic means that someone is quoting a mis-spelled (sic) word. :smiley:

For years I thought sic meant “spelling incorrect” as a disclaimer that the author knew it was wrong but that’s how it was written. See how easily shit could be explained if I were in charge? :smiley:

Anyway. I knew the premise of this movie long before I saw it and would have easily figured it out myself anyway. Especially when I saw The “beasties” in the lame costumes]

But even knowing what was happening and what was going to happen, it was fun to watch. Details are a wonderful thing if the story is good enough. And I didn’t know M Night did cameos. Now I’ll have to watch the rest of the movies again.

And The 6th Sense pissed me off for one reason only I knew as soon as Willis was shot that it would be a ghost story with him already dead

Pretty much same with The Others

It started with the funeral the child. They showed the date on the headstone and it said 17-something. There was just something about it that made me think it wasn’t right. Maybe because the camera lingered on it for a bit too long. After all, we could have guessed the time period from the style of dress and the houses and other things. It was almost like the director was trying to drive home the point of, “Look! See what year it is!”