I think that it could be deliberately left ambiguous whether the mirror consumed Dog or if he got released, possibly in a kind of homage to Mason, whose fate is also left open to interpretation. Did Mason get locked in the office with the mirror and disappear, like Kaylie remembers, or did he get sick and have to be put down like Tim remembers?
But if we assume that Dog was consumed, and Tim releasing him is just what the mirror wants them to believe, I still don't think it's a plot hole to not show it happening when the tapes are reviewed. Personally, I'm glad it wasn't shown. Partly because I don't like animals dying on camera but mostly because I don't think they could have shown it in a way that didn't look stupid. I really like Oculus because it manages to be seriously creepy but in an understated way that's actually kind of believable. Yes, it's about a haunted mirror, which isn't that believable a premise but if you just accept that as a truth of the film (or even just accept that the family (or at least the children) believe it's haunted) then everything that happens is plausible and more scary because of that. Basically what I'm trying to say is that I think an actual shot of a dog being sucked into the mirror, or of one of those freaky shiny-eyed apparitions eating the dog (or however you think Dog-consumption would have been shown on screen) would have cheapened the film and looked a bit ridiculous. Whether this is what the filmmaker intended or not I don't know.
Kind of how like Jeepers Creepers was creepy until you full-on saw the Creeper and then it just became silly. The best horror for me is in what you don't see.
Knowledge is knowing tomatoes are fruit. Wisdom is not putting them in fruit salad.
reply
share