No I didn't think "mama" was going to be a real ghost, that the resilutiin was that there had to be a logical explanation for the events surrounding the mystery of who saved the girls. Like the father - who could have been in hiding and *spoiler* not really dead because he had to run from the law. But a true ghost? I was not prepared for such a shift in tone. The movie became silly and bizarre after the first half. As the events were introduced in the first half, the viewer(me) wasn't really thinking that, "Oh yes of course, this mayhem and maternal protection is being caused by a paranormal-y spirit." I was expecting a real world explanation and never thought it was a culprit from another dimension, ie a ghost. And then the baby sister
*spoiler*
taken away after so much had been
done to save her over the years was another wtf moment. (No police force or police officers would ever conclude that a ghost created all of the mayhem, unless they wanted to lose their jobs - but that's just too unscary or too unhopeful for a 'ghost who loves children' story.) I still think that a real entity ghost is a cop-out or simplistic ending, but if the ghost represents an emotion then that's a better way to look at the shock-ending.
reply
share
Ithilfaen
9 years ago
The real question is: were you wearing your glasses when you watched the movie? Or were you distracted by tweeting about it or something? It's pretty obvious from the start that a ghost kills the Dad. There's no "shift in tone" unless you've been completely unaware of what was going on 10 mn in and forward
For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco
reply
share
NeedysBoy
9 years ago
Ithilfaen writes: "The real question is: were you wearing your glasses when you watched the movie? Or were you distracted by tweeting about it or something? It's pretty obvious from the start that a ghost kills the Dad...."
Yes!
You took the words right from my mouth -- err, keyboard!
Celebrating 100 Years of DADA * Feb. 5, 1916 * Zurich
reply
share