MovieChat Forums > Honeymoon (2014) Discussion > Creature from the Black Lagoon

Creature from the Black Lagoon

posted 10 years ago by henrimaine
8 replies | jump to latest

I'm surprised so many people here talk about aliens. I didn't see any signs of aliens in this movie. This was much more likely a "creature from the black lagoon" type of situation (as in the classic horror movie of the same name from 1954). Some mysterious frog-like creature(s) lived in the lake, the local people knew about it, the girl probably also knew about it because she had grown up there, and as the girl came back she fell under the spell of the creature. I would call it an intelligent, though very loose, reworking of the 1954 movie.

That's my interpretation - in addition to the artsy-hipster-psych interpretation of the movie being an allegory of the horrors of marriage.

[–] essex9999 10 years ago

There were several signs of aliens in the movie, with the biggest ones being the probing lights and the shadowy humanoid figures. Those are classic images of alien horror fiction. Sure, in theory it could have been something else, but the obvious alien imagery seems to make the film's intent pretty clear. Why would they use classic alien tropes if there was something else going on ... and then never even hint at the "something else"?

Also, in her interview on the DVD, Rose Leslie actually refers to aliens, so it would seem that that's the interpretation of the people who made the film.

[–] henrimaine 10 years ago

I know that the director has mentioned aliens in the interviews. But that does not really matter what the director or writer says in commentaries. What matters most is what we see on the screen.

The light beams seem to imply that there is some intelligent being behind the light. But who says that the "creature" is not intelligent enough to use some light source. Also, the "creature" is probably quite humanoid looking.

What bothers me most about the alien story is that it seems completely random. The couple came to the woods and there just happened to be an alien invasion going on. The aliens had no connection to the place near the lake, the abduction could have just as easily happened in the city. The "creature" however, is connected to the lake, so its a local phenomenon. Its probably also connected to the girl's childhood, the girl said something about frogs, fishing and nearly drowning as a child. It was as if the past was taking over the girl, so she forgot about who she was or who her husband was.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] essex9999 10 years ago

The light beams seem to imply that there is some intelligent being behind the light. But who says that the "creature" is not intelligent enough to use some light source. Also, the "creature" is probably quite humanoid looking.

You are ignoring the familiarity of the imagery. Bright, probing lights are characteristic of alien abduction scenes. Ditto shadowy outlines of humanoid figures. Why would the filmmaker use such familiar images if she didn't intend the audience to believe aliens were at hand?

It would have been an interesting ending if, after all that alien stuff, it had turned out to be something else; that is, if the imagery had been deliberate misdirection. However, it wasn't. Since they don't tell us it's not aliens, they clearly want us to think it was.

[–] mystee_reyne 10 years ago

Aliens were the first and only thing I thought of.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tribalmaggot 10 years ago

In addition to the points made above, Bea very clearly states that the creatures cant go underwater and its implied that Annie reached the same conclusion and also tried to hide her husband in the lake.

[–] benman46 10 years ago

In one word, bollocks.