Saw this at a double feature. There was NOTHING, literally NOTHING good about it.
"Nighty night naughty boy?" - Really?! That's an actual line from the movie and it is done with emphasis placed on it.
The tone was so all over the place why the fuck did audiences gravitate towards this as a good movie? And Ethan Hawke? C'mon man you are supposed to be better than this.
It's an engaging, suspense thriller. Simple and sweet. Didn't see any tonal issues. The whole thing comes off pretty cold and bleak from beginning to end, and I thought Ethan Hawke did a great job with his little screentime.
shareIt goes from pretty dark child abuse and kid on kid violence to ghosts helping the main character solve an escape room.
shareThe kid on kid violence was pretty dark too, and there's even a thread on this board on it. It was violent to the point of caricature. And it's all in keeping with the protagonist's narrative arc. He's always been a victim, and he's never stood up for himself.
The ghostly help didn't break tone either. I'm thinking maybe instead of tone, you're talking about film genre or something? Cause the movie has a very consistent aesthetic going on. At any rate, I think the supernatural influences fit pretty well in the movie, and I could see it all being kinda hallucinatory anyways.
The movie is about a kid, who's been kidnapped from a serial killer, trying to escape. I think it does a pretty good job of making a feature linked film out of a story that could be told in 15 minutes, and I don't think it ever leaves that premise. The dark child abuse and the kid on kid violence and supernatural help form the tortured/killed all kinda just kinda serve as flavor for that.
It's not the greatest thing ever, but it is simple and mostly very subtle. Stuff they rarely do these days. I think people are respecting it because of this.
shareI liked Invaders better : https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091276/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0
shareAnything that is steeped in ghosts is just a cop-out to me. It's just "Magic". Trying to root something in reality is what scares people.
shareWell, the ghosts in the movie weren't supposed to be scary per se. The Grabber is what's scary in this film, and he's a real person.
shareThe Grabber just seemed like bargain-bin (Joaquin Phoenix') "Joker". But he was the most interesting character by far. The kids were trash-actors per the usual.
shareDid it ever explain why he just sat with the door open, on a small chair in the kitchen, with his shirt off?
How about his brother's reaction to finding the kid? Something like "Jesus Christ I knew he was hiding something behind all these locks, but I never imagined this!" Lmao. And he actually vocalized it.
One of the ghosts explained it to the protagonist.
The grabber wanted the kid to try escape so he could punish him (by beating him with a belt). The grabbers a deranged madman who's playing games with his captors so he can live out his sick fantasies. He likes to roleplay as the disciplinarian and wants the kids to be 'naughty'.
As for the brother character he's the comedic relief aspect, he played a similar slightly goofy local cop role in Sinister (2012). Scott Derrickson seems to love casting him in those roles.
This movie has magic-phones and spooky ghosts. They aren't going to be concerned with fleshing out such details.
shareYeah I agree. There was nothing. It was very slow and quite boring.
shareYou have hurt me today.
Ioved this movie