The screen door and the heater (spoilers)
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Good Neighbor
felstein — 9 years ago(December 13, 2016 01:42 AM)
Why didn't Grainey try and find out what was making his screen door open and slam shut? Rather than chop it up with an axe, I think anyone would have examined that thing up one side and down the other and in doing so would have found the motor or coil or whatever it was, and then there would have been no movie. Same thing with the heater. Since it was so obviously on the blink, why didn't he have a repairman out to fix it? Well, because the repairman would have discovered the device causing the issue and then there would have been no movie.
It bugs me when a character (or characters) in a movie are required to act in a way that contradicts human nature in order to sustain a wobbly narrative. In this instance, perhaps Grainey's decidedly curious behavior can be explained away by his apathetic state of mind, but it all just seemed to neat, too contrived and cooked-up.
As for the rest the film had some decent moments of suspense, a solid performance by James Caan, and it did hold my interest. But it was fatally compromised by its sheer unbelievability, the two thoroughly repellent main characters, and one miserable downer of an ending. -
darkkatrina-1 — 9 years ago(January 14, 2017 12:00 PM)
while i was watching it i said the same thing "smash the goddamn door down"!!! so i agree, there's no thing such as normal people! also, the door wasn't moving "normal" at all! have you ever seen any door opening and slamming so fast and hard in your life?
-
leiastarkiller — 9 years ago(December 16, 2016 09:10 PM)
He thought his wife's spirit was in the house before the guys even started their experiment. It was just confirmation bias. That's why he never seemed scared. He "knew" his wife was communicating with him.
-
-
rbrtrbnsn — 9 years ago(December 28, 2016 08:53 PM)
My take on it was that, after the couple living in the house for so many years, accumulating so many memories, that no matter what the kids manipulated would result in triggering so kind of memory if his wife, and therefore feeding the belief in the haunting. They could've made the toilet seat never stay down and it would result in a flashback of his wife telling him to put it down when he was done. The bell just happened to be the straw that broke the camel's back.
-
TheManInOil — 9 years ago(December 17, 2016 11:03 AM)
I agree - this is one area where the movie didn't work. Apparently, he legitimately believed he was being haunted, but it didn't really come across. We only understand this later when we get that the scene where his wife wants the door fixed is a flashback and so on.
The truth is none of the 'haunts' they pulled would have any effect on a normal person. I guess we're supposed to assume Grainey was already half out of his mind. -
rbrtrbnsn — 9 years ago(December 28, 2016 08:51 PM)
My take on it was that, after the couple living in the house for so many years, accumulating so many memories, that no matter what the kids manipulated would result in triggering so kind of memory if his wife, and therefore feeding the belief in the haunting. They could've made the toilet seat never stay down and it would result in a flashback of his wife telling him to put it down when he was done. The bell just happened to be the straw that broke the camel's back.
-
felstein — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 01:01 AM)
Again what's up with chopping down the door?
If we can argue that Grainey loved his wife more than anything, and we can further argue that he has a belief in the afterlife, then it makes absolutely no sense at all that he would chop down the door.
Anything
that would give him a connection to the woman he loved so much even something as obnoxious as a slamming door would be something he would want to hold on to dearly, especially if it may be the conduit that allows communication between the two worlds.