I don't see how anyone can think Simon was supernatural
-
FourthYear — 12 years ago(August 09, 2013 05:54 AM)
Some people can sadly only see things literally. The "psychological/ supernatural" argument is wildly beaten to death here, and to each their own, but yeah, I think it comes down to this:
If this movie is about someone getting "possessed by Simon," then this is an awful and stupid movie.
If it's about psychologically falling apart, then this is an awesome and intelligent movie.
And since the director/ writer isn't a FearNet-writing moron -
MovieBeth — 12 years ago(August 15, 2013 08:41 AM)
The beauty of this film is that many things were left ambiguous. The viewer is allowed to "use your imagination".
Yes, if this was just another demon possession flick, none of us would still be thinking about it over a decade after the movie's release. -
Foxbarking — 11 years ago(June 09, 2014 02:17 PM)
The beauty of this film is that many things were left ambiguous. The viewer is allowed to "use your imagination".
No disrespect intended personally, but this is the most tired cliche in film making right now. There are so many films with ambiguous endings and everyone says that the ambiguous ending is what makes the film good since it is left up to the viewer to use their imagination.
The problem is that this has become the accepted way to end a movie that the writer is incapable of ending any other way. While ambiguous endings are good and have their place, they are used way too often in horror and mystery films today. It has become so overdone that the definite endings are now the rarity.
Although using one's imagination at the end of an ambiguous ending is a good thing, sometimes it's nice to have a film that has a definite ending. This film had a lot of promise, but I wasn't looking for an ambiguous ending. I've had my fill of them. I would have liked to have seen some resolution worthy of the amazing buildup this film had.
I still give this movie a really good rating, but come on, it would be nice to have some movies that actually have endings again. -
ChanceX74 — 11 years ago(June 23, 2014 08:19 AM)
You would prefer, perhaps, spoon-fed narratives? There are plenty out there for you to pick from should that be your fancy.
This may be, in your opinion, the most tired cliche in film making right now but it should be noted that this film is not from right now nor was ambiguity commonplace in film productions that weren't foreign in 2001.
Holding an older film to today's trends in order to label them as part of something that wasn't commonplace at their inception is interesting if not logistically flawed. -
novimovieman — 12 years ago(August 10, 2013 09:13 AM)
Allowing people to have their own opinion means:
If this movie is about someone getting "possessed by Simon," then this is an awesome and intelligent movie.
If it's about psychologically falling apart, then this is an awful and stupid movie.
"The unexamined life is not worth living for man." Socrates/Plato -
Reallusion1 — 12 years ago(August 24, 2013 10:43 PM)
Simple. Simons voice spoke in the same roon that Mary's chair was in. The tapes of the old events played as the new events occurred. The demon said it prowled on the weak and wounded. I understand that you think its all symbolic, but the same reasons you think it was symbolic could easily point to something demonic. Many people seem to hate anything spiritual because of their personal ideals. Neither synopsis is better than the other.
-
vojkan087 — 12 years ago(August 30, 2013 08:05 AM)
How closer can we be to true demons than some psychiatric disorders, like psychopathy, SPD or DID.
Isn't mental disorder something that ''lives'' only in weak or wounded?! Even those with genetic predisposition to psychopatic behavior usually have to have a social trigger for them to become predators.
I think this movie is exactly about thatThose who claim this movie is a ghost story is claming it to be shallow Halloween scare flick, and it is so much moreGeneration obsessed with Vampire diaries, wizzards and witches can't grasp the deeper meanings in movies, or true horror of mental ilness, I get itbut you could try sometimes. -
Reallusion1 — 12 years ago(August 30, 2013 12:49 PM)
A subtle demonic possession isn't cheap. Its not nearly on the same level as some simplistic slasher. I'm easily open to the notion of psychological causes in movies, but with the undeniable supernatural implications, this seems to be demonic. I'm not the one failing to see how demonic influence goes hand in hand with severe mental damage.
-
kurt-2000 — 12 years ago(September 05, 2013 08:05 PM)
There were too many coincidences occurring through out the movie for it to simply being a movie about people having mental breakdowns. Generator outside going down right when people were in key locations? That's an entity setting up everyone at the same time. Kid just happens to be in the tunnel when the generator goes down, and the tape machine hadn't played Session 9 yet. Everyone was in a critical spot.
Mary's sub-conscience entity would have had to possess Gordy, or Simon was the murderous entity. So this was a movie about a paranormal attack on Gordy.
At first glace at this thread, I thought the OP was suggesting that the security guard set up the story line of the film when he said: "the former inmates do return here" But that would suggest Gordy was a former inmate released back out into society, gets married, then murders his wife and baby, puts silver dollars on the floor to set up one of crew members, happens to turn off the generator just at the exact right time when everyone was in place, just happened to know two of his crew were in tunnels when the generator was turned off, just happen to set Mary's session box in a place his crew member would find it, etc. -
kinaiscute — 12 years ago(September 07, 2013 08:33 AM)
Exactly! You just summed up exactly why this is not simply a psychological movie. What stood out to me was how Mary's other personalities claimed they lived in her eyes and mouth indicating that they were exclusive to Mary. Simon spoke as if he did this all the time with many different people. I don't know how anyone can deny the supernatural aspects of this movie.
-
kurt-2000 — 12 years ago(September 08, 2013 07:25 AM)
You neglected to debunk all the coincidences I was referring to, so you need to go back and re-read. No one turned off the generator just at the right time, when everyone was in a vulnerable position at the facility. That was paranormal. Simon was an entity that possessed people and preyed on the weak like all evil entities do. Should we discuss all the coincidences that occurred that couldn't have been created by people?
-
beierfilms — 12 years ago(September 08, 2013 04:33 PM)
I always find threads like this interesting because they seem to go in contrast to the intent of the movie. There are a great many films which drop hints as to more than one possible explanation but leave the final choice up to the viewer. This is clearly one of those.
Yes, most things in the film point to Gordon being crazy and Simon being symbolic but there are plenty of odd coincidences that are clearly meant to get the view to CONSIDER that Simon might be something more. This film is effective because it cleverly walks that line where the audience is unsure of what Simon is and why Gordon murders his wife. The "wounded and weak" bit is a great example of this. It can certainly be read symbolically BUT it's certainly interesting that both Gordon and Mary were LITERALLY wounded before they went nuts and were taken over by Simon.
According to the wiki page, the filmmakers actually filmed footage of a homeless woman living in the hospital who was responsible for a lot of the "super-natural" phenominon. When they finished editing the movie, they realized that this took away from a lot of the tension so they cut her out to allow more of a possibility of Simon as a super-natural being.
Given this, it's odd that you are so against anyone noticing a touch of the supernatural here. -
lazarillo — 12 years ago(September 08, 2013 08:11 PM)
It is ambiguous, but if you notice NO ONE IS LISTENING to the tapes when Simon starts talking. The voice that talks to Gordon doesn't necessarily have to be THE Simon that the tapes refer to when Mike is listening to them earlier. So if Simon is not the EXACT same entity as what Gordon hears, it doesn't have to be supernatural and may just be symbolic.
If he is the same entity though, it would be supernatural. The key is whether "Session 9" is really playing when there's no one there to hear it or if the whole thing is in Gordon's head (as half the movie is by that point). The "Session 9" does refer to Mary and her other alter egos, but since Gordon was hanging around the hospital at night, he COULD have listened to the tapes himself and incorporated them into his own insanity.
I think it's very intentionally unresolved. It's kind of like another great scene in "The Shining" where the ghosts seem to somehow open the pantry door, but there are other possible explanations. . . -
wishiwasapopstar — 12 years ago(September 16, 2013 09:41 AM)
I thought they pretty much told you it was supernatural at the very end of the Simon interview. Simon says he lives inside the weak and the wounded, then the psychologist asks Simon why Mary listened to him and he replies with something along the lines of "Because they all do." Implying that he regularly convinces people to commit acts of murder.
Seemed pretty supernatural to me. -
vojkan087 — 12 years ago(September 16, 2013 04:05 PM)
Not quite.
It was a metaphorein other words, agressive alter ego lives in weak and wounded people, where it develops to protect the original identity from being hurt further.That is D.I.D. and that is why it is such a complex diagnosis, some would say controversial.
Also, you can hear Billy, protective but not agressive alter ego, saying he lives in the eyes.
Princess, her childish alter ego, lives in the mouth.