Ruined by the third act
-
Robrocop — 10 years ago(September 13, 2015 01:18 AM)
Even if they went the other direction posts would pop up recycling the same nonsense. What direction could they have gone and it be something that hasn't been done to death already. As for movies that have done this before and better, Tale of Two Sisters EASILY is a better horror film.
-
timolet — 10 years ago(August 10, 2015 03:19 PM)
You consider it ruined because the movie turned out to be really realistic and you were probably expecting some kind of grand Hollywood exposition where the spooky ghosts and special effects kick in.
The good thing about this movie, is that it takes a very tragic but 'simple' situation, injects the viewer at a certain point in the story and then we watch it evolve. The third act is the reveal, but realistically you can figure out what's going on earlier. It's the fact that it really is just a realistic tragedy and not some kind of doppleganger paranormal beep or whatever that gets the movie the praise, and it's not until the third act that you find out it really is that way. There's no major plot twist or anything, just a confirmation of your intuition. For some reason, that takes guts to do in this day and age of film. -
Giraffe_Monster — 10 years ago(August 10, 2015 03:34 PM)
Thank you. As you said, some folk who didn't like this movie were clearly hoping to be spoon-fed something else
Fine, fine, I'll leave! But first I'm going to bother these peanuts! Hmm? Yes? Hmm? HMM? -
nkavy71488 — 10 years ago(August 21, 2015 02:00 AM)
Or maybe they just didn't like it. Assuming that just because someone doesn't enjoy a movie, that they need to be spoon-fed information as if they can't use their imagination, is pretentious. I'm not even saying I didn't like it. Certain aspects of it were exceptional. But come on no need to be so presumptuous.
-
Giraffe_Monster — 10 years ago(August 21, 2015 04:25 AM)
Good sir, I'm only referring to those who said "the twist was crap" and/or that they "saw the twist coming" (seen a lot of those replies already), which to me is the same as missing the point of the entire movie since Goodnight Mommy isn't one of those that rely solely on the very final minutes/final jumpscare/twist to have an effect on its audience :/.
Just what I meant/think.
Fine, fine, I'll leave! But first I'm going to bother these peanuts! Hmm? Yes? Hmm? HMM? -
nkavy71488 — 10 years ago(August 21, 2015 11:59 PM)
Again, I shouldn't have bothered. I myself have gotten very defensive over films that I adore. I used to get pretty bent out of shape on The Descent's board at certain gripes people had about the film.
Similarly, I've gotten quite irritated with posters on A Perfect Getaway's board about how they thought the writing was either too lazy or too manipulative. There is a somewhat similar technique used to hide the big reveal in that film - though the circumstances within the plot are very different. -
adia07 — 10 years ago(September 02, 2015 07:42 AM)
It's unfair to say people who didn't like it expected Hollywood nonsense.
I am a film critic and watch a LOT of horror movies as it's my favorite genre. Because of this, I am pickier with horror films and also since I've seen so many, I recognize when a particular trick or plot has been done over and over.
So, like other people here, I too was disappointed.
SPOILERS**********************
The big "twist" in the movie is not hidden well. I figured it out in literally the second scene with the mother at the table. I also figured early on it wasn't paranormal because every time any paranormal event occurred it was a dream. (A cheap tactic overused in many horror films.) Furthermore, the great tone the director set in the beginning just became a series of misdirects that made no sense and led nowhere. (the dark cave, the other cave with human skulls in it, the "twin" in the picture, etc.) There were never explanations for those moments so it just becomes an easy way to misdirect the audience. The final act just became like a 100 movies I've seen before. It just wasn't an original ending at all. Had the final moment (with the mother in the house) revealed what the boys suspected - THEN I would have been surprised. Otherwise, it just was just a very well made film, with a story that ultimately felt stale. -
ichinr99 — 10 years ago(September 06, 2015 09:31 AM)
For me the ending sucked, wasted time tbh.
When the mother looked in the mirror topless, i thought the skin colors was different, so i actualy thought they writers was clever and maybe made it out to be a "man" who faked it. Maybe hiding or killed her mother or somthing like that.
But no it was just a kidd once again who ruined the movie. -
Giraffe_Monster — 10 years ago(September 06, 2015 11:32 AM)
You thought the skin color was different?
Different to what? Wasn't that the first time that we were seeing the Mother "exposed"? What exactly could we compare her skin tones to/with?
Also, had it been an impostor/doppelganger/twin, or even a "man" Wouldn't that "fantastic" twist raise more questions than answers?
It's one thing to want an over-the-top, crazy mindf_cking ending just for the sake of it, and it's another different matter to give closure to the story itself in a "realistic" way, which is what I think this movie aimed at from the start, a "real" ending (although tragic) to something "real", everything that seems unnatural is really what the kid(s) think are "real" or "true", according to their warped sense of reality.
Fine, fine, I'll leave! But first I'm going to bother these peanuts! Hmm? Yes? Hmm? HMM? -
zombieDANCE — 10 years ago(October 14, 2015 02:39 PM)
The "big twist" is not a twist, it's a slow reveal. There's no "SHOCKER!' moment at all. And the dark cave and cave with skulls in it aren't necessarily misdirections. They show us insight into Elias' psyche. I thought the skulls part raised many questions that I'm GLAD weren't answered. It's creepy to not always know WHY in my opinion. What did he do in there? Did he kill lots of animals? Or what did the skulls symbolize? I don't think it was random and I personally love that ambiguity.
"You got big fat titties, and I like to kill babies. Unborn babies!" -
ThatNoodleLizard — 10 years ago(October 20, 2015 01:15 AM)
The "big twist" is not a twist, it's a slow reveal. There's no "SHOCKER!' moment at all.
Well, there is. There's a very clear moment where they reveal it and actually leave pause for the audience to gasp (which they did, in my screening). Also, the film wouldn't be very effective at all if you were meant to know that Lukas is dead/imaginary from the off. -
carjones51 — 9 years ago(January 15, 2017 09:00 PM)
I definitely agree that there is a "big reveal" moment in the movie. It didn't work for me b/c I had already guessed that about FIVE minutes into the movie.
Your last sentence is on point. The movie wouldn't be effective if the viewer knows Lukas is dead, which is why the movie was a failure to me and others. It was blatantly obvious - to me and my sister at least - that one twin was dead. No parent is going to feed one child but not the other, and when questioned why she wasn't giving that kid food, the response of "You know why" made it clear to me that the one twin was dead. And then you see she never speaks to that twin. By that point, I was just hoping the movie was about something else or would have another twist, which it, sadly, did not. -
indyj1 — 10 years ago(December 08, 2015 04:00 PM)
I agree that the reveal being what the boys suspected would have been more interesting. I have to admit, I got distracted when the key moment of the reveal happened, so I read the summary on Wiki. Upon reading the twist, my thought was "Oh, so they remade The Uninvited/A Tale of Two Sisters. Quite frankly, as you pointed out about all the misdirects that weren't really explained, just used as trickery, they made for a meandering plot that took too long to get to the finale.
I think this film had some of the ingredients of being much better, but all in all I found it did not live up to the hype. -
jenna-side — 10 years ago(August 12, 2015 09:52 AM)
You consider it ruined because the movie turned out to be really realistic and you were probably expecting some kind of grand Hollywood exposition where the spooky ghosts and special effects kick in.
Uh no. I find it laughable that you went with that poor, predictable argument to disprove my opinion on this movie since you don't even know me and know nothing about my tastes for movies. Well I would probably do the same if I were you That's why I thought it was so funny.
I actually like "realistic horror movies" (I suppose you're talking about movies who are apparently paranormal, horror tales and turn out to be a story about a mentally ill and/or delusional character and everything that was shown before was product of imagination or simply a misguided point of view of what was going on? - the last example being the case of "Ich seh, Ich seh"). Those are the ones I tend to like the most actually, instead of mediocre extravanzas like "Mama". But the problem is that "Ich seh, Ich seh" came in too late It has already been done before. In better and worse ways.