Did anyone else just burst out laughing at the twist?

Yeah, I'm not a fan of "it was all in his imagination" or "it was all a dream"; where anything can happen.

So what? So anything can happen. Whoop de doo. Now go away and write a real story next time.

WARNING!
Objects under T-shirt are larger than they appear!

I agree. When people started dying, I just knew that if there was going to be a "twist" ending, the kid would be the killer.

SPOILERS
Did you mean the twist with the kid or the twist that they were all one person. Because I guessed the one about the kid (and did laugh) but I thought the other one was a legitimately good twist

"This is a $4000 sofa upholstered in Italian silk. Its not just a couch"
"ITS JUST A COUCH!"

No, did not laugh - possibly because I´d used up my laughter reserves in the scene where John Hawkes´s character hysterically explains how he got to be a motel manager (at that point I thought it may be intentionally hilarious - after seeing the silly and pretentious third act though, I seriously doubt that). But the "twist", yeah... way to ruin a perfectly entertaining little thriller in order to reach for some lofty psychoanalytical realms that proved far beyond whoever wrote that stuff.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

i was laughing like a lunatic at the end when Amanda Peet's character is in her damn orange grove. She looks up at the kid and her lower jaw begins to shake but the rest of her head remains still. Peet is an OK actress but that scene just made me giggle.

I didn't.

Then again, I don't have a stick up my ass.

No, I didn't laugh. It made perfect sense to me.

The kid isn't the "killer", per se, he is a representation of the killer inside Malcolm. All of the characters weren't real -- they were only in Malcolm's head. The kid was only the most sinister "personality" of Malcolm's, so as he killed off all the other ones in his head, he is left only with little Timmy, his serial killer personality, thus the reason Malcolm killed his doctor and probably went onto continue killing elsewhere.

I didn't find the twist funny, or ridiculous, I found it made sense and cleared up the confusion of everything that had happened previously.

I guess psychological thrillers aren't your thing, perhaps you'd be better suited to movies that explain the plot to you, but I'll agree to disagree.

I can't understand why people are bringing up the "dream" scenario and saying "anything can happen". This was NOT a dream. It was in his MIND! One thing that should be apparent to everyone (once you've viewed the film in its entirety) is that these personalities are only represented in his MIND, and they are shown as people to us so we can understand that they are distinct entities within his mind. Also, showing people as the identities is a perfect way of demonstrating how different they can be when compared to each other. For example, one can be a cold blooded killer, while another is as innocent...the fact that the boy is the killer is irrelevant! In his mind, it's not about who can overpower who PHYSICALLY, it's about the doctor trying to help him eliminate the killer personality MENTALLY....however, his killer personality is clever (as most psychopaths are), and avoids being destroyed (as you clearly see in the end).....one thing people have to realize is that this movie is pretentious - something like this (to the best of my knowledge) has never been attempted as a cure for DID......and to be honest, that was a really fascinating part of the film for me; the fact that they went out on a limb (just like inception).

From what I've read, the thing that bothers most of you (the ones who don't like the child being the killer PERSONALITY) is something you're really not understanding properly! The child is a figment of his imagination, he has no concrete existence! Him being a child is ONLY A REPRESENTATION of a distinct personality (I capitalize this to just emphasis the most important point I'm trying to get across).....whether the killer is a child, a nun, a senior citizen, etc, is irrelevant! And you also have to remember that you cannot judge a book by its cover! The child is a perfect cover for a psychopath, as it's a manipulative way to disguise the true intentions of that identity. I mean, how can a child be a killer, right?

I honestly think this movie was brilliant! As someone else mentioned, the story wouldn't make much sense at all if the movie didn't end the way it did....the end is a way to piece together everything and it makes perfect sense to me (in the context of the film and what it was trying to convey). The fact that the people just disappeared when dead wouldn't make much sense otherwise, but some of you are actually saying that would have made more sense in the context of a normal slasher film? REALLY?

I could honestly go on for a while about all the little idiosyncrasies of this movie that helped it mold into the great movie I think it is, but if you read this thread, you'll get ample explanations to help clarify why the movie unfolded the way it did.....Maybe psychological thrillers aren't your thing, but I think this is one of the best (ever).....