Hated the ending!! Does anybody know if there's an alternate ending? Also was that the dad coming towards the boy (reflection in the picture?)
plus i thought the creatures were stupid looking and not scary.
I guess there could be a sequel to this and thats why the ending was so silly.
The figure stumbling towards the kid away from the fire was one of the creatures, not his father. Then of course we see another one coming up behind him. Cue end credits. Definately not s typical Hollywood ending, felt like they were trying to channel the European ending of The Descent. I must say it was an interesting film if not what I'd call enjoyable - the constant monumentally bad decisions of Costner's character at every turn are worth watching alone.
Two years, sweetheart. I'll be there as soon as it's done, and we'll never be apart again.
So tell me this: Had it had a happy ending, a different way of solving the problem, would you have been happy? I doubt that because you would just have the excuse that it was "so predictable". I think the end was done out of the ordinary because the author of the story didn't want it to be the same old happy ever after. And who really knows? Maybe the little boy WAS actually saved. You don't know that. Just assume it then. I am all for happy endings, truly, and this is no exception BUT being an author myself, I know that sometimes you have to fork off in an unobvious direction.
share
It's not the ending itself that bothered me, I'm happy to take a non-happy ending in a movie - especially a supernatural thriller or horror - it's more the way the writing was a bit lazy in hving the father make so many completely illogical decisions simply forthr conceit of him an his children being around the house until the dénouement. All it would have taken was a tiny bit if exposition from the scientist earlier in the film that once infected the kid couldn't leave the environment, and it would make sense for the father to stay there. But if you look at it here's the events as played out :
Family moves to house. Strange noises heard like someone climbing over roof immediately. Pet cat is decapitated. Eldest child starts exhibiting bizarre behaviour. Becomes apparent someone is watching the house and entering it when the father isn't around. Eldest child begins exhibiting signs of trauma. Hostile surveilance of the house continues and the father is aware of this. Still, inexplicably, leaves kids alone on house from time to time. Babysitter gets abducted in bizarre circumstances. Father still allows kids to remain in house. Body of babysitter found. Father still allows kids to remain in house.
I mean come on. If you moved to a new home an immediately it appears someone has got hostile intent, is mucking you around with nocturnal visits and kills your pets you'd be thinking of moving your kids away from that immediately. When it got to the point the babysitter was murdered and he still wasn't hooking the kids out of the house to the nearest motel while he put the house on the market, my suspension of disbelief quota for the day had long vanished. It could've been written better to give reasons to him staying and not just getting the hell out with his kids.
The final act where he leaves his son in the house, alone, the same house where the creatures had just attacked and entered while he runs off to find his daughter alone without help was just ridiculously bad. Who would make such a monumentally stupid choice like that? "I'll leave you here unprotected inthe monster house son, I probably won't e back because this is a suicide mission to find your sister ok? Sooner or later the police will turn up. I dont think loadig you up in the car, getting you to the nearest police station then coming back with armed state troopers is a good idea at all". I mean come on. The same ending could've been achieved with better writing, as it was he just let it all happen.....lazy.
Two years, sweetheart. I'll be there as soon as it's done, and we'll never be apart again.
I agree with you. I like Costner, but then I'm older (42). I remember when he was hot property and a Costner movie was a big deal.Oh well this was not a comeback movie for him. I wasn't wowed by this movie at all. Too bad.
shareYou guys just want to be a downer and spoil sport. Say you just moved into a house, put all into it you probably had. Things start going wrong and so, what are you to do? Stick it out and maybe see if there is something that will work out? Just throw up your hands and say, "Oh jeez, we made a mistake. Go pack up and we go back to the old place."
You know you would try to work it out. Movies are for entertainment. And why do you always lay all the blame at KC's feet? He's not the only ball player here. If you have to lay blame, lay blame on the screen writer. They're responsible for adaptation of novels, stories, etc. The past, Jefbecco, is just that. THE PAST. Everybody grows older. FYI---KC is a BIG DEAL and HOT PROPERTY to a lot of people. Give him some slack already.
We watched this last night at work, we didn't think it was too bad. We all like KC which is why we got the movie. I agree, he is still a big deal. So he made some flops, who doesn't? He was great in Mr. Brooks.
shareOne189, I'm not "down" on Kevin Costner in the least. He's a great actor and an even better director. The guy's great as far as I'm concerned but this film's writing regarding his character stretched credibility. It's one thing to try and make a new house 'work out' when you've got bad neighbours, or heavy renovations to do. It's something else to believe a guy would leave his kids alone in the house when he knows a: it's being watched by someone hostile. B: is being entered by someone hostile. C: the family pet is butchered. D: your babysitter is abducted and found murdered - eaten - on your property and e: where your kids are showing signs of trauma. If you think it's more unbelievable that someone would grab the kids and move to the nearest motel while they sold the place, you've got more suspension of disbelief than I can muster.
Two years, sweetheart. I'll be there as soon as it's done, and we'll never be apart again.
Ok but how many people are actually going to immediately suspect the weird things are of an inhuman nature? A coyote or something else could have killed the cat. Old houses by nature have eerie creaks and groans. I just think that is not the first thing somebody's going to suspect. The assumption that the daughter was acting funny wasn't unusual at first because she was mad about having to move; loathing her adulteress mother; having conflicts during a normal growing up time, as all kids do. She seemed quite shy at school. It's just if you want to disect a story and/or a movie, do it in a class where you can make an A or a B or whatever. The writer wrote it the way he wanted it.
shareYes, of course the writer wrote it as they wanted. That doesn't mean it's a quality bit if screenwriting though. And the Costner character wouldn't need to assume it was happenings of a supernatural nature. Their cat was beheaded for crying out loud, and he's aware the house is being watched and entered when he's away. It's one thing not to leave straight away, but by the third act - regardless if knowing the supernatural element - he knows something very bad is happening, that his pet was murdered, his home invaded, his children traumatized. And then his babysitter is murdered and he STILL allows the police to let his kids stay at the house. Insane. Let's be honest, if it was a real situation, he'd be basically one of the biggest idiots on the planet. The final part where he leaves his son unprotected in a house that could still have the creatures in it to gofind his daughter who for all he knew was dead already, rather than grabbing the son, the police cruiser and heading for the police station to get help was simply ridiculous. No wonder he basically caused the death of his son as well as his own completely unecessary suicide. Umm, what was wrong with running and throwing the flare from a distance?? It's just bad writing to make events happen, as opposed to writing that supports events happening.
Two years, sweetheart. I'll be there as soon as it's done, and we'll never be apart again.
***SPOILERS***
I don't entirely agree with KC making bad decisions as a dad.
First of all, it's not clear at all a creature is entering the house, we as viewers see much more than the dad. She just acts weird (with puberty as reason for the dad) and comes home dirty with a puppet. In real life a sane person would NOT suspect something supernatural, just because your cat died or something. You would certainly not just leave the house you've just bought.
When the dead babysitter was found he was practically arrested and had to beg to the police to even call his kids. Not much opportunity to get them to a motel or anything.
As for the final scene, here's something you won't do if you see your daughter being dragged away in the distance by monsters: wait for help. Especially if you're living in a remote area. Ask any dad, you would risk your life without thinking clearly and run the hell after here not caring if you yourself will survive. A mother will jump in a tiger cage to save her baby without missing a beat.
He didn't have much choice as to leave his son, thinking all monsters there were dead.
Of course in the final scenes he realizes that his daughter has changed forever ("the new daughter"), seeing her face change and all and decides to kill her and himself (so it seems).
That I actually have a problem with, you would at least TRY to get help find a cure for her. You would have nothing to lose, he could always kill her later.
First of all, it's not clear at all a creature is entering the house, we as viewers see much more than the dad. She just acts weird (with puberty as reason for the dad) and comes home dirty with a puppet. In real life a sane person would NOT suspect something supernatural, just because your cat died or something. You would certainly not just leave the house you've just bought.
It is clear though and he does know it - he sees the muddy footprints which sometimes he attributes to the girl, other times knows aren't hers. He knows someone is around the house watching and entering. Not doing anything about that alone makes no sense.
When the dead babysitter was found he was practically arrested and had to beg to the police to even call his kids. Not much opportunity to get them to a motel or anything.
They've got an officer taking him home to them - at that point, they don't suspect him as they know the woman was killed by an animal at the house. A house they know the kids are alone at. A small town sheriffs department isn't so busy they can't send a couple of units to get the kids AS SOON as they know that, they'd know they were in danger. They wouldn't be sending a single officer into a situation like that where someone was already dead in a vicios attack and you now knew there was danger of it happening again.
As for the final scene, here's something you won't do if you see your daughter being dragged away in the distance by monsters: wait for help. Especially if you're living in a remote area. Ask any dad, you would risk your life without thinking clearly and run the hell after here not caring if you yourself will survive. A mother will jump in a tiger cage to save her baby without missing a beat.
Yes, you would, if doing so didn't mean abandoning another child. He had no idea if she was alive or dead. He did know he had his son with him, in a house that wasn't cleared and had just been attacked by the creatures. I'm sorry, but I don't believe he'd immediately decide to abandon the son in the knowledge doing so could kill all three of them. It makes no sense, any father that did that would be an idiot. He didn't even try and use the radio on the cop car to call for help. It is an impulsive act that's understandable ONLY if he doesn't have his son right there with him.
He didn't have much choice as to leave his son, thinking all monsters there were dead.
If he thought they were all dead, why was he saying goodbye to the kid as if never coming back? It makes no sense and is a terrible choice in those circumstances. It kills his entire family unecessarily.
Of course in the final scenes he realizes that his daughter has changed forever ("the new daughter"), seeing her face change and all and decides to kill her and himself (so it seems).
Again, a ridiculous decision. There was nothing - NOTHING - stopping him from grabbing her and running for it, chucking the flare behind. There was NO reason to kill himself, and her, knowing some creatures had survived and his son would be alone and defenceless. It's purely sloppy writing to hit certain beats - SHOCK! Father goes on suicide run to save her! SHOCK! It's futile and he kills them both! SHOCK! His son is about to get eaten, end credits! That'll wow the audiece! Now, how do we make that all come about? With the most ridiculous decisions possible!
The thing is they could've had the same ending but with a bit of tighter writing to make it genuinely necessary that he did that. As it was, it wasn't - it was irresponsible and worse, stupid and without reason. Hence my problem with it.
That I actually have a problem with, you would at least TRY to get help find a cure for her.
Agreed, he had no idea if all she needed was a shot of vitamin c for heavens sake. He didn't know it was irreversible, and killing himself and her wasted both their lives, and his son.
I get your point about how you'd run to save your kid, I do. But not if you didn't know they were alive and you had another child right there with you who would be dead if you left. I can't see a person making the same decision unless they were an absolute fool - and it's not like he was acting irrationally in any other way. He was acting clear headed and like he knew what to do. It's just everything he did was idiotic.
Two years, sweetheart. I'll be there as soon as it's done, and we'll never be apart again.
I have to laugh at all the psychoanalizing you posters are doing. Crimany sakes, it's FICTION. It's ENTERTAINMENT. It's a story. Now, really, do you honestly think there are zombie creatures for real? Why do you have to spoil it for everybody? either you liked it or you didn't. Just kick back and relax and enjoy the movie. I did. I've now seen it 3 times, and I get more out of it each time. As for a miracle cure, come on. you'd be all over the writers if they'd gone that route and you know it. Louisa's facial features pretty much gave away what was happening. Don't know that plastic surgery would do anything for it. The father thought that at least the little boy might have a chance. And he made a vow to Louisa that he would never leave her. He kept his promise.
sharePart of the fun for movie watchers is the discussions afterwards. If you don't like discussions about movies, why the heck are you reading/posting on these boards? Go away if you don't like to read people discussing movies. Sheesh.
shareThe father believed the little boy would stay inside because he was so afraid. The father never thought Sam would venture out and see what was going on. He felt obligated to save Louisa because at least he cared where the mother didn't give a fig. When he could see Louisa already morphing into one of the creatures, it was too late. Does anyone know where we could read the original story? That might enlighten us all on what happened or if it was merely the screen writer's interpretation. If you find out, please let all of us know so we can read it and then say something more.
share
It is clear though and he does know it - he sees the muddy footprints which sometimes he attributes to the girl, other times knows aren't hers. He knows someone is around the house watching and entering.
They've got an officer taking him home to them - at that point, they don't suspect him as they know the woman was killed by an animal at the house. A house they know the kids are alone at. A small town sheriffs department isn't so busy they can't send a couple of units to get the kids AS SOON as they know that, they'd know they were in danger.
u would, if doing so didn't mean abandoning another child. He had no idea if she was alive or dead.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe he'd immediately decide to abandon the son in the knowledge doing so could kill all three of them.
He didn't even try and use the radio on the cop car to call for help.
If he thought they were all dead, why was he saying goodbye to the kid as if never coming back? It makes no sense and is a terrible choice in those circumstances.
It kills his entire family unecessarily
Again, a ridiculous decision. There was nothing - NOTHING - stopping him from grabbing her and running for it, chucking the flare behind.
Again, a ridiculous decision. There was nothing - NOTHING - stopping him from grabbing her and running for it, chucking the flare behind.
Actually, there was something stopping him. There was one of the mound walkers/creatures hovering right over her. If he had tried to run and grab her, it would have killed him. If he had just tried to run, it might have killed him anyway, and he would have broken the promise to his daughter. It was a bit of a ridiculous ending, but him not 'just grabbing her and running for it' does make sense.
So it made more sense to kill himself, his daughter and leave his son unprotected and about to be eaten? To not even try and grab her before dropping the flare? If he was ready to die for her, then at least trying to grab her away or try and fight the creature away from her until he could do so, would make sense first. He's got nothing to lose and EVERYTHING to gain. Doing what's presented in the film truly makes no sense whatsoever - even miserable and stressed as he was, he still knew he had to keep his son safe, his daughter was STILL ALIVE even if changed (and frankly in the movie world, if she can change one way, she can be changed back lol) but he simply chooses to kill himself and her. It's one thing to try and save his daughter, but when it came down to it, he gave up right at the moment he had a chance to get her and killed her, himself, and by default his son. His decisions were not even bad decisions, they were insensible decisions pushed by the writers need to get to the next 'plot' point. They just had no organic or realistic way to get from point to point so instead they simply had him make ridiculous decisions to get to each showpiece scene.
It's simply bad writing.
Two years, sweetheart. I'll be there as soon as it's done, and we'll never be apart again.
The whole point is this: the author of the story wanted this to end with a teasing suspense. Did the little boy die too? Did Dad and Louisa miraculously survive in spite of the fire? Did the cops get there in time to save Sam? Apparently the writer wanted it suspensful and maybe intended a sequel of some sorts. I accept it as it is. We're supposed to wonder what the conclusion really was. I still like the movie a lot.
shareI don't think there's much suspense in the conclusion though - it's laid out pretty well. The creatures only have use for a female. The boy is nothing but a target, especially since the attack on their nest. The last shot is of one in front of the boy, stumbling from the fire and another behind him. Cue to credits. Not much left to the imagination considering no police were ariving on scene that very second. It's obvious the writer wanted a bleak ending with the twist being that the father didn't even manage to save his son. It was just bad writing to justify the decisions made to get to that ending.
Two years, sweetheart. I'll be there as soon as it's done, and we'll never be apart again.
Dunno why they took this route, but the deleted scenes DO show police and EMS cars approaching, presumably seconds after Sam walks out of the house.
Given that, the ending isn't SO bleak. But, for whatever reason, they decided to go a completely DIFFERENT route, which is the exact same route films have been taking for the last couple years.
IMDB Comments. Because apparently, we let retarded people use computers.
You summed up my thoughts perfectly! To answer your question of why he didn't throw the flare from a distance...my thought on that is b/c both kids had already been left by their mother. When the daughter was laying on the ground she started to change into one of the creatures but whispered, "don't leave me, Daddy." I think that's why he chose to die with her. Which would have made sense if he had only one child. But why was it ok for him to die with the first child that didn't want to be left, but totally disregarded that he had a healthy, normal child who didn't want to be left either, and who had a chance at a normal life? That part is what baffled me.
shareYou are so spot on HapHazard! I kept thinking to myself, are you kidding me? He's not getting the heck out of there with his kids? Plus I cannot imagine that the man that Costner has built up with subtle layers is going to leave his little boy alone and sacrifice himself for his daughter. Sacrificing himself I can certainly see, but not to the detriment of his other child. I was incensed. Kevin spent time in this film (it didn't look like it was simply scripted, but a choice on Kevin's part to add these things) to add subtle little things in the way he hugged and kissed his little boy and the obvious love and devotion and patience he showed toward them (Costner is crazy about his children and his dogs, so he always shows that in his films, whether on paper or not). There is no way he would abandon his little boy. He would have gotten Louisa help and he would have kept Sam out of harm's way. He seemed shocked by the cat's death, but at the same time, that could be explained away, but everything else points to mortal danger to his children. Was his head so in the sand that he would deny what was taking place? Even so, wouldn't he say well just to be safe, let me get my kids out of here?
shareYou are all missing an important thing. Dad didn't think Sam would go out for all the honey in the hive. He was a little scaredy cat. Dad told him to wait for the police. Dad had no idea Sam went out to watch what was going on. He thought he'd be safe and expected the cops to show up any second. I think Dad was in shock over everything happening. He mistakenly thought the only way out was to do away with Louisa. Maybe he still did run for it, but we are to assume everything blew up. That's what I have said all along and I stick to it.
shareI have no problem with what you're saying in theory, but in reality, it is ridiculous that he would do this. If you have a child, you know this. I think that blurry figure in the distance was NOT a live John James (Costner) but the long shot of the police and rescue people that were coming just as the creature was creeping up on Sam. He may have been in shock, and he may not have been thinking clearly, and he may have only had Louisa's salvation on his mind, but I fail to believe he wouldn't have done more to protect Sam first before going into the fray. I guess we can agree to disagree, certainly, as it is left up to interpretation! :)
shareone189teen50five
Movies are for entertainment. And why do you always lay all the blame at KC's feet? He's not the only ball player here. If you have to lay blame, lay blame on the screen writer. They're responsible for adaptation of novels, stories, etc. The past, Jefbecco, is just that. THE PAST. Everybody grows older. FYI---KC is a BIG DEAL and HOT PROPERTY to a lot of people. Give him some slack already.
Okay calm down. I own many of KC's movies (seven or eight at last count). I still like him, but it is a fact of life that things change. The white hot glow of Superstardom doesen't last.And yes I am well aware of the fact that everybody grows older. Everyday I look in the mirror I'm aware of that.
I just didn't think this was a very good movie and KC used to make better movies when he could still pick and choose.Well if you don't include Revenge. It strikes me that now he's making movies for the paycheck and that isn't always a great way to do things. I understand that he's had some bad luck over the past few years with investments and I imagine he needs the income. I also understand that he is expecting his seventh child and even for rich people kids are expensive.
Personally I hope that one of the cable channels offer him a starring role in a good cable television series and he settles gracefully into the role of the Grand Old(er) Man. Most actors can't be Clint Eastwood or Sean Connery.
I don't understand, though, why everybody just deals out grief to the man!!! Look at Eddie Murphy. Outside of Shrek, he has flubbed a lot. I don't see everybody anxious to blow his lights out. Clint Eastwood and Sean Connery have had some bad stuff too, but same thing. KC doesn't just make movies for the money. He sees something in a script that interests him. TND had that something. I was pleased to see him in a genre he wasn't used to. It is simply another branch on a tree. The "new" age, as I call it, which means the teens and pre-teens, and younger set, dominate the movies these days. Everything is geared up for their likes and tastes. Everything has to have laser flashes, or fast cars and spaceships...special effects are their stars. How many times do you hear of the old, old stars of the 40's and 50's and so on mentioned these days? You don't. But actors from the 80's and 90's are not that old for crying out loud. Never mind.
share
I don't understand, though, why everybody just deals out grief to the man!!! Look at Eddie Murphy. Outside of Shrek, he has flubbed a lot. I don't see everybody anxious to blow his lights out
We know what you mean about KC, but citing Eddie Murphy is a bad choice. He gets a LOT of flack for his current movie roles - he can be a great actor when he wants to be, and genuinely funny, but he picks mostly family friendly mindless 'comedy' roles these days. And they mostly fail hugely at the box office - it's why it's currently so hard for the producers who want to make Beverly Hills Cop 4 to get funding to get it going. They looked at the recent success of Sly Stallone in going back to the kind of roles and harder stories that made him famous in the first place, and wanted to return the BHC movies to the original vibe, and it could have worked out brilliantly for Eddie Murphy's career. But he's done so much pap lately the studio's are unwilling to spend the money on it. That's how much he's damaged his own career.
As to KC, the guy gets a lot of respect for me, especially for the way he got Open Range made - the best western ever imho - by paying for shortfalls in budget with his own money. He's always, always been a great actor and a brilliant director. He just picks a bad movie here and there, and I agree that in his case it is more that it seems 'trendy' for film fans to knock him. The production quality in The New Daughter was very high, everyone worked really hard and it shows - the problem was in the writing, too many illogical decisions and unrealistic reactions to situations. It could've been a great, tight, supernatural/monster thriller but the writing was too lazy. Not Costner's or anyone else's fault in the cast or crew. This film was sunk by the writing.
Two years, sweetheart. I'll be there as soon as it's done, and we'll never be apart again.
I agree with you on not throwing your hands up and giving up at the first sign of trouble when you've sunk all you've got into a new hoome...that is, if you are facing plumbing or electrical issues. But the magnitude of what was happening to this family makes it utterly ridiculous that he wouldn't have gotten at least the kids out of there early on. If he's going to stay and figure out what's going on, fine, but at least get the kids to a safer location.
shareJust downloaded this from the net and watched it on my computer
Biggest problem is with the script writers, but that is just the way that script writing is going these days. I just find myself in hysterics watching the crap that is passed off as entertainment at the movies or on TV. The number of illogical decisions and impossible outcomes turns every movie into a riotous comedy.
I thought this was a great movie, and the fact that the ending was left open to interpretation was even better. The only problem with movies like these are as a writer you have to make movies like "Vampires Suck" to get people to shut up... you also have to spell everything out for them. If YOU are reading this, and feel offended... GO BACK TO WATCHING AMERICAN PIE, YOU PIE *beep*.
Mr. Singer. What an appropriate name for a man who can't shut up.
I have to agree with you jctherippr! I LOVED THIS MOVIE!!! So refreshing not to have it all tied up neatly at the end, with a typical Hollywood ending and a whole bunch of blood and gusts for shock value. This movie, even from a parents perspective made a lot of sense to me. If My husband was left all of a sudden all alone to raise one of our teen adolescent daughters I could see many of the same errors, this dad made. This was a great story!
shareI like movies to end tidily even if the conclusion is depressing, so . . . Throughout the movie the horrors of the entire situation are channeled through the son. He always expresses the greatest terror about the circumstances.
Therefore at the end, the creature coming out of the fire toward the boy is Louisa as the newly established "queen." The creature behind the boy is there to show you that the boy will not escape but will actually become the first "meal" for Louisa. This explanation epitomizes the horror for the boy because one of man's greatest fears is to be eaten alive by another animal.
How Louisa escapes the blast and the fire is left to your imagination, but this explanation is perfectly in synch with the rest of movie. Think about it!
No, I don't buy that. I think the cops got there and saved the kid, killed the rest of the creatures. Why would you say one of man's greatest fears is to be eaten alive? What do you base that on? I've never heard that at all. Louisa would not have escaped. The father might have, but Louisa was lying on the ground weak from the morphing. Dad could have pitched the flare and then ran off, realizing he might could still save Sam, since Louisa was beyond help. I think a sequel would have to take up where the first let off to quench the desires of what happened later.
shareI rented the movie out of the red box last night and I just got done watching it. I have to say that I liked the movie. It wasn't my favorite movie ever but it was interesting.(favorite character was Sam. That little boy was adorable. He played Jesse on Supernatural. The episode from this past season/season five called, "I Believe Children are Our Future.) I don't think that the little boy should've died though. That's what the ending hinted at in my mind atleast. I figured/hoped that the little boy would survive.
shareIt kind of reminded me of "The Mist" in that it was effectively creepy for a while, but the explanation of the horror was kind of ridiculous and then it gets dark at the very end.
shareUm. People really should pay attention better. Whenever I come on here I am astounded by the amount of people bitching about things that are either clearly explained or implied in films. The New Daughter is no exception.
Why did Costner's character leave his son to rescue his daughter and also kill himself in the end? EASY!
Costner had promised his daughter earlier in the movie that he would never leave her like their mother did - no matter what. That's called foreshadowing. It also makes it so that the ending does not cheat! It's also a heartfelt promise he made. He is able to leave his son to try and save his daughter (and eventually leave him in death) because he ensures his son is safe (we don't need 20 minutes to show this) he believes his usually easily scared son will stay put, his daughter was taken and is in grave danger so he needs to act immediately, but most of all - he knows the creatures are truly only after his daughter (as the scientist explained earlier the creatures choose a girl to mate with). The last shot of the creatures around the kid is admittedly just a cheap, unnecessary scare even though it doesn't show them killing him. It's true to the boy's character though as he does become more brave during the film. In the original ending it appears the police do arrive.
If the statement above about Costner believing the creatures only want his dughter is true, then why did the creatures kill the babysitter and bury her in the mound?
Well, she wasn't exactly still in her childbearing years! More appropriately, she had no weapon to defend herself, they clearly get hungry from time to time and she was probably meatier than the boy, a missing person would force the family to have to stay, and if the mound was going to be destroyed it's a good way of stopping that since a fresh corpse near the surface will usually put landscaping on hold. I'm sure the creatures aren't completely stupid, deaf and blind as to the current events surrounding them and probably understand something about human behavior.
The reasons why Costner remains in the house after certain events in the film take place is usually clear as well and is often self-explanatory to viewers as we are made more aware of certain things than his character is. He also believes his daughter's behavior to be relative to her recent abandonement by her mother, their recent move, and her entrance into puberty and womanhood.
This is not a perfect movie by any means and yes there are some unexplained things in the film, but not everything needs to be over-explained and handed to you on a silver platter in a film like this.
This is not a perfect movie by any means and yes there are some unexplained things in the film, but not everything needs to be over-explained and handed to you on a silver platter in a film like this.
I think once in a while it never hurts to have a surprise ending and people actually have to think and use their imaginations to come to their own conclusions (also like in Swing Vote). People would have been complaining enough had it been a neat and tidy ending, the happy ever after, everything worked out ok kind of ending. I just don't understand why so much complaining about this. Other movies have had blunt endings and nobody says anything.
share