Le Village des damnés

The movie is pretty well pasted with a clever script and some creepy scenes. We also get some good acting from the adult actors and one of the child actors (David), but when we consider the other children, they seem to be creepier when they're 3-years old. When the movie brings you to the part where they're somewhere around 8 or 9 years old, the movie starts to loose the creepy elements. Basically because the children's acting starts to loose its balance as they tend to act mature. I think those children are creepier when they're unable to speak than they are when they try to talk in the manner of adults (eg. the scene where they all lined up infront of the campus, they were muted and still, and that had a creepy effect along with the score!!!). But besides that, the movie does have powerful special effects and some really neat scenes. The movie did a great job on the visuals and the scores!

9.5/10 -0.5 for loosing the creepy effect, but later as the movie reaches its climax where we get the children lining up in front of the cops, from then, the acting didn't seem so weird anymore and they're "mature" way of talking didn't seem to mess up the eeriness.

Sure, it's not the best horror film ever made, but it was fun. I'm sure that people who grew up with the original would like it better, that's to be expected. But I thought the movie was a good B-level movie with some creepy scenes and a few shocks, and let's not forget the cheese. Most of John Carpenter's movies fall into this category. Halloween was a bit different, but come on, even In The Mouth Of Madness had some cheesy parts, and it was plenty creepy. Most of his movies are just fun to watch, and when they're over, you forget them. A horror movie that truly disturbs people only comes once every few years. Most of them shouldn't be taken so seriously. Pop some popcorn, grab a beverage, put your feet up and have some fun with this one.

My mother turned on Village of the Damned one evening because Christopher Reeve was in it. I knew absolutely nothing about it beyond the fact that there was a movie by that title. After ten minutes I was completely hooked. After it was over I thought about it and realized there were some flaws, but still, while it lasted I was fascinated. I recommend it.

Carpenter seems incapable of actually making something not worth watching... I have certainly yet to see something of his that qualifies. Even the ones of his films that I didn't expect to love, I've always at least liked. This isn't his very best, no, but it certainly delivers. It pulls you in and doesn't let go until the credits start rolling. I haven't seen the original, of which this is a remake, nor have I read the novel. Thus, I can make no comparisons, although I certainly have no problem with the prospect of pursuing them. The mood is expertly built up. Most of the acting performances are great, including those of the children. The majority of the effects are excellent, and they're never downright bad. Cinematography and editing are marvelous. The plot is well-told and develops nicely, with surprises along the way(I can, of course, not verify if they are expected by those already familiar with the story from earlier sources). This is terrifying, and there are no cheap "jump scares" that don't pay off. The dialog is well-written and quotable. All of the music is the relatively simple(if it ain't broke don't fix it), well-composed pieces that John usually gives us. I recommend this to any fans of him, and to a lesser extent, anyone else who helped create this. 7/10

I saw "Village of the Damned" in the theater (Fresh Meadows, NY) and several times since. It's an okay movie. I'm a big fan of most of the films of John Carpenter. This is not one of his best movies but it's not one of his worst either. It's a watchable movie. It has more than a couple worthwhile moments. It often feels like a weak Stephen King movie. The cast of B-listers do a nice job. John Carpenter makes this one worth a watch. In lesser hands it probably wouldn't be worth the trouble.