MovieChat Forums > mr159 > Replies
mr159's Replies
Not so much the characters but personally, it was difficult enough to keep track of who is related to who. In the 6th episode, I didn't know which family the "Ross family reunion" was referring to. Plus I never realized that Lor's husband was Erin's uncle.
In the new reality, her father is killed in the house in front of her eyes. So why would she grow up and return 20 years later and talk to the crazy girl who murdered her father? It's the Grandfather Paradox, and I'm willing to overlook it for this discussion.
But the OP is right, the rules of time travel are very inconsistent in this movie.
For example, in 1999, the crazy girl murders her mom instead of vice-versa. This changes the future. In the altered 2019, the main girl reads about the crazy girl's arrest even though it is yet to happen in 1999. So the rules of time travel as per this major plot point are that though certain new events are yet to take place in the new 1999, its consequences will already have happened in the new 2019.
OTOH, certain other plot points imply that there is a real-time connection between 1999 and 2019. That changes in 1999 will directly mirror consequences in 2019. For example, the strawberry farmer and the dad don't disappear from 2019 until the very moment the crazy girl kills them in 1999. In the final act, everything the crazy girl does in 1999 leads to spontaneous changes for the main girl in 2019. Which is different from the newspaper headlines scenario, which implies that all actions in a new reality are pre-ordained.
Yea, that's my concern. The movie picks up many interesting narrative threads (the bulemia, the Christian allegory, the real life philosopher, the historical oppression of women in the house etc) that end up going nowhere. So the plot threads, and the horror element by extension, end up feeling like a cheap gimmick.
I prefer to ignore the ending because it creates unnecessary plot holes. There is no way the daughter is sneaking in those pills and feeding them to the mom, without the hospital staff finding out at some point. The mother simply can simply tell them when the daughter is not visiting.
The 1981 version of the mom couldn't even be nice to Juan for 2 minutes when he confronted her about the affair. She slapped him in the face! No wonder Juan lost it. He was a very sympathetic character.
I really liked it.
Especially that they didn't go for a cop-out happy ending.
Even I was reminded of that movie. Similar themes of women consumed by pettiness and jealousy bringing each other down. But otherwise very different movies.
If the bus left before either of the mother or daughter got on, they would have died immediately. Like you said, this is not explicitly shown but heavily implied. The husband bringing the girl on board kept her alive a little bit longer.
Mom was an idiot. When she found out what Scarka wanted, she should have first gone to Arthur Jacobson. That guy had made literally every single breakthrough in that movie up until that point - from deciphering the audio recording, to performing the hypnosis, to figuring out Scarka's identity. But no, she'd rather drive to Ohio than make a phone call to him FFS.
1. The movie incorrectly differentiates between 'possession' and 'reincarnation'. Reincarnation would mean Scarka is reborn as a baby, not possess a baby that already has a soul. Minor hiccup that doesn't affect the plot.
2. Crazy killer doing crazy killer things. Wouldn't read much into it.
3. She didn't die, probably complained to the parents. But had no proof, which is why the mother asked Miles what happened.
4. Agreed. Mom didn't even ask Arthur Jacobson for help on this one. That guy single-handedly made all the breakthroughs with her son.
5. The guy with the gun just had a knee-jerk reaction seeing a gun pointed at the kid. I would let it slide.
6. 'Prodigy' is just a reference to how mistaken the parents were about their own child, thinking he was some genius.
7. Agreed. No way kid was getting away clean when there's the dad who'll wake up any minute, the therapist and the hypnotist who know the truth, and fingerprints on a murder weapon. This was the big pain point for me.
8. Jaconson is the Van Helsing character, a trope used to establish the 'rules' in the movie. And the stuff he sayd about ghosts possessing someone to complete unfulfiled wishes from a past life is common lore in Asian countries. It's why he cited an example from India.
9. The kid uses his mother's love to manipulate her. His schtick won't fly in a boarding school, other kids would beat the crap out of him.
Nice movie but the ending brought it down a bit.
The kid has a known history of violence in school, was seeing a therapist and a hypnotist who both know he's fucked up, made a murder attempt on his dad who will wake up any minute, and has his fingerprints on a murder weapon.
And we're supposed to believe none of that catches up with him and he can continue his killing spree?
No love for Independence Day?
Nothing from the makers. What I meant was the real life version of this story is even crazier. Though I wouldn't be surprised if the makers took inspiration from the case, there's way too many similarities for it to be a coincidence.
The husband didn't kidnap the girl from the mother, he separated the mother from the girl, by taking the mother's place on the bus. The girl and mother were trying to get on the bus. If the girl hadn't gotten on board, she would have been shot down along with her mother.
Came here to make a thread about how the 2 movies are practically the same. JW doesn't take itself as seriously though and had a little fun with the concept.
It's closer to Midsomnar than anything else (although Midsomnar didn't exist when this movie came out)
That reveal changed nothing in the show, except to give Henry something of a character arc. Except his character did not add anything to the main storyline.
"things they didn't even understand" like it was some high-concept Ingmar Bergman production lmao. This show was supposed to be a no-brainer entertainer and it even failed at that. You're not smart for 'getting it', you're dumb for watching it. And I count myself among those who lost IQ points watching this drivel.
Many questions is what this terribly written show will leave you with.
Why can't the ghost of Peter and Jessel even touch anything, while the ghost of Mrs Grose can do housekeeping for the entire house?
Why is there a sub-plot about Flora and Miles' mom having an affair with her husband's brother?
How did the gardener and the cook have a bad dream simultaneously?
Why does the Lady of the manor leave footprints walking into the bungalow but no footprints walking out?
What happened to Flora using voodoo dolls to seemingly control the ghosts?
What was the point of Dani and Henry having their own personal ghost haunting them?
Why did I sit through this dumb show?
This was a soap opera disguised as a horror show. What was even the point of some of the subplots, like the mom having an affair with the brother?