This movie would've been a lot better if….(spoiler)
-
whitespirit26 — 9 years ago(October 16, 2016 01:47 PM)
Geez Colty. If she HAD died, the parents would have been distraught instead of calmly disbelieving of Mark (therefore changing their whole mindset) and it would have changed the entire tone of the story, dulling the suspense with tragedy most viewers wouldn't want. Plus, the whole thing with Connie was a warning to Mark from Henry; he knew she'd be saved from the start and just wanted to show his power. If she had died, the story would have taken a huge jump forward that it wasn't ready to yet. And if you had a grip on your morbidity, you might have seen that.
-
ColtyTP — 9 years ago(October 17, 2016 09:04 AM)
dulling the suspense with tragedy most viewers wouldn't want
Oh that's nice. So you know what most viewers want, do you? We all think the same and have similar reactions, don't we? We actually don't so stop generalizing. They could have gone with her dying. What's your point about this changing the tone of the movie? Every scene has an affect on the tone of a movie so of course altering one would do the same. It would have been a darker tone, that's all.
the whole thing with Connie was a warning to Mark from Henry; he knew she'd be saved from the start
Nonsense. Why would this sociopath even care about warning shots? He doesn't. Just assuming that she would be rescued is just ridiculous. He didn't. He wanted to kill her. -
whitespirit26 — 9 years ago(October 18, 2016 12:05 AM)
Most viewers would not want to see a small child die. That's a very safe statement. How exactly is it nonsense that Henry would warn Mark? All his taunting of his cousin (rather than just killing him, as you say he does to anyone) shows his love of control and how he likes to display it.
-
ColtyTP — 9 years ago(October 18, 2016 12:16 AM)
So you're proving my point. It was spineless writing, because they were afraid that people wouldn't "like it". I would suggest a family flick for those people instead then. This is why we can't have nice things.
It's ridiculous, because he had no way of being sure that she would get rescued successfully. -
whitespirit26 — 9 years ago(October 18, 2016 04:37 AM)
There are movies where infants and children are murdered, siblings have sex and gruesome torture methods are shown; I don't consider those nice things, but they and plenty of other nasty pieces of work are out there for the ditch-minded and the macabre. This movie was daring without resorting to higher body counts, bothering many with its dark psychological portrayals and goading Roger Ebert into expressing his more traditional sense of things, by demanding whether a child that young could say or do the stuff Henry did in his original review. Even though 1993 wasn't that long ago, child psychopaths were still an unusual thought.
-
ColtyTP — 9 years ago(October 19, 2016 01:17 AM)
Oh so now people who expect bad things to happen and want to see realism in its darkest form are "ditch-minded and macabre" people? You seriously need to get over yourself. This movie was never intended to be "nice" in any way or at least it shouldn't have been.
Anyway you are constructing a strawman at this point. I never said that the movie needed a high body count. Just this one. -
whitespirit26 — 9 years ago(October 19, 2016 07:54 AM)
"Oh so now people who expect bad things to happen and want to see realism in its darkest form are "ditch-minded and macabre" people?"
I just made it very clear what kinds of people fit that description and it had nothing to do with "wanting to see realism", which is a ridiculous charge. Refer to my actual comment: "There are movies where infants and children are murdered, siblings have sex and gruesome torture methods are shown; I don't consider those nice things, but they and plenty of other nasty pieces of work are out there for the ditch-minded and the macabre." None of those things are "realism at its darkest form" and yeah, people who want them are ditch-minded.
"This movie was never intended to be "nice" in any way or at least it shouldn't have been."
I never remotely said it was; I was responding to your statement that we can't have "nice" things because of the darn prudishness that doesn't want to see children dead. -
ColtyTP — 9 years ago(October 19, 2016 11:36 AM)
I think you are confusing mindless and over the top gore with the
very realistic
alternative to the little girls fate - that being her drowning. I'm pretty confused to why you're even comparing the drowning of a little girl underwater with (I suspect) crazy gore you get in Saw or Hellraiser. Honestly, you're not making a whole lot of sense right now.
How is her drowning not realism in its darkest form? I'm pretty sure that in a real life situation she was quite likely to drown there so why is her being saved any more realistic?
I can already tell that you're a very judgmental person. You clearly think that there is a correlation between peoples intelligence and the willingness/desire to see bad things happen in movies. You did called them "ditch-minded", didn't you?
Even people who enjoy movies with lots of gore in them are not necessarily "ditch minded". You're just calling them that, because you want to present yourself as more proper. Really now, get a grip. -
whitespirit26 — 9 years ago(October 19, 2016 02:00 PM)
"You did called them "ditch-minded", didn't you?"
Yes, if they want to see the VERY specific things I already mentioned, lol.
You don't seem to be following the line of argument. I explained why, logically, the kid didn't drown, while you complained it was because the movie wasn't gutsy enough and that it's because of people who complain about awful things in movies that we can't have "nice things". I then responded that we have plenty of awful, dark movies and even horrifically graphic ones for people with their minds in lower places.
"I'm pretty sure that in a real life situation she was quite likely to drown there so why is her being saved any more realistic?"
Because there were loads of people around, she'd surfaced immediately and people moved fast. Again, if she'd died, the entire mood of the film would have gone from suspense to deeper and darker tragedy. -
ColtyTP — 9 years ago(October 19, 2016 02:39 PM)
All you really did was prove my point that the real reason that they let her live was because, as you said, the audience apparently couldn't have handled it. Which is exactly my point - they don't go all the way in fear of displeasing some part of the audience. The part that should just stick to family flicks instead anyway.
You seem to be forgetting about the part where the current took her away under the ice and that they had to break the ice to get her out. Handy thing that they had axes around just for that occasion even though there is no way you're making a hole big enough on ice that's thick enough to have a crowd of people skating on it in time anyway. Not to mention the fact that she would have to stay at the same place for all that time (hopefully that dreaded current doesn't come back in the meanwhile) and hope that you don't smash her face in with the axe either.
Look man let's be honest - there is no way that kid would have survived irl. No way. -
whitespirit26 — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 11:22 PM)
The crowd of people weren't on the thin ice, they were further back; only a few people were on the thin ice. I have to disagree about there being no way she could survive and I don't see it as unrealistic they had axes, since they could have been chopping wood or even had them in case of such an emergency (they live in Maine, after all). But I did change my mind somewhat on Henry's intentions.
-
ColtyTP — 9 years ago(November 01, 2016 03:10 AM)
I thought about that too, but the ice was still thick enough to hold both those men saving him while they stood up with the girl in their hands right next to the hole. So the ice would still have to have been pretty thick there. So I really don't see how that girl could have gotten saved.
-
Zach126 — 11 years ago(November 05, 2014 07:37 PM)
There was no need for a high body count to convey that Henry was a sociopath. I think it was pretty clear that he was a disturbed kid who enjoyed killing. Especially after he killed the dog & his lil brother.
-
soapstef — 10 years ago(December 26, 2015 09:39 PM)
I wish there had been more drama..not necessarily kills..that Wallace, Susan and even Mark's doctor finds out about.
It always bugs me that we get no payoff of anyone finding out the important details.
Wallace & Mark's doctor are only there to treat Mark like he's crazy. No one besides Susan EVER catches on to Henry! His little sister never has a scene where she tells someone that she thinks Henry tried to kill her. Plus, why don't we ever get a reunion scene between Mark & his dad?!
I like this movie, but wish so badly that they went full trottle with the story! It would have been amazing. -
lvince-33387 — 9 years ago(September 01, 2016 07:06 PM)
It always bugs me that we get no payoff of anyone finding out the important details.
Wallace & Mark's doctor are only there to treat Mark like he's crazy. No one besides Susan EVER catches on to Henry! His little sister never has a scene where she tells someone that she thinks Henry tried to kill her. Plus, why don't we ever get a reunion scene between Mark & his dad?!
I totally agree with you on that. Just finished watching the movie and I would have liked a different ending. Henry got off too easy
( well, except for the dying part)
. It would have been better if he had had to face everyone once they all knew about the things he had done. He could no longer lie his way out of everything after what he did to his Mom.
And she wouldn't have had to live with the guilt of the choice she made at the end. -
ElectricWarlock — 9 years ago(May 10, 2016 11:47 AM)
I agree. He just didn't do enough to make me truly hate him. It seemed like the writers held back and played it safe. I think they should've showed there is no limit to how evil a person could be, even a child.