The kind of movie that is guaranteed to annoy a lot of people. For two very different reasons though. Some people will be extremely confused by the second half, while others will hate the movie despite understanding it because they'll hate the way it was done.
I'm neither. I not only understood the ending, I predicted the censor's insanity early on. It was pretty clear that the option that she is losing her marbles is a very viable option. One of her colleagues even says at one point "I think she's losing the plot".
It is very clear that the censor was so distraught by her parents' decision to declare her missing sister dead, that she went bonkers soon thereafter. There is much mystery regarding HOW her sister disappeared. There are vague hints that the censor killed her sister when they were kids, but that is an asinine option, not just because little girls never kill their younger sisters (or anybody else) but also because how many little girls could hide a corpse so well that nobody finds the remains, or even signs of violence. So obviously, the censor didn't kill her. The fact that she was so shaken up by the movie scene in which a girl kills her sister has to do with the trauma of this childhood disaster, the sense that she blamed herself all her life for her sister's disappearance. She was riddled with guilt, not because she killed her (she didn't) but because she took her to the woods that day.
Sure, one can criticize the script for being extremely vague about what actually happened on that day in 1965, because it makes little sense that one sister survived without any injury, wasn't even attacked by anyone - whereas her sister simply vanished into thin air. This was a bit of a cop-out by co-writer/director Prano.
Does the movie have a great ending in terms of dramatic significance? Yes. Censor fell into a schizophrenic state; she invented a perfect world in which she solved the mystery, found her sister and reunited her with their parents. The director's over-the-top morbid Disney feel made that abundantly clear to the audience - not to mention the very brief glitches when this fantasy was shattered by the reality of Alice Lee screaming in terror. So why are so many people confused by the ending?
It is pretty obvious what had transpired. Censor lost her mind, projected all her suspicions and guilt onto Frederick North and his movies, concocted a "film" in her head that North had abducted her sister decades ago and was using her for snuff horror films - only to get rid of her when he no longer found a use for her. Sure, there are PLENTY of movies and directors dumb enough to use this shtick, but this movie appears to be too smart to expect us to believe such a nonsense theory. Which is why I was increasingly sure censor was going insane.
Does the movie's director handle the complexities of portraying a double-interpretation conclusion in a way that is elegant, neat, and logical? No, she doesn't. (Prano is a woman.) This is where criticism is valid. Prano's messy handling of the events in the last 15 minutes show some ineptitude, both in terms of writing and direction. She tries to cheat the viewer and offer him truth at the same time - a feat that very few film-makers can pull off convincingly.
Still, not for a lack of trying.
But what is most important of all is that the movie is interesting throughout. Anyone who claims it's boring is maybe as insane as the central female character. There are logic holes and far-fetched situations on occasion, but how is that a boring movie? Corny zombie films and generic haunted house flicks are boring. This one is at least quite original, offering a plot-line that may not be ultra-unique but in terms of how corny 95% of all horror-film plots are, it is a standout of sorts.
Some haters of this film were clearly VERY disappointed by the lack of anti-Thatcher propaganda (the film takes place in 80s Britain), and some horror film fans were annoyed that the movie suggests that extreme horror films can in fact affect certain audiences in a negative way.
But come on... Anyone who actually believes that a person will be the same regardless whether they watch 1000 kiddie animations or 1000 butcher orgies is deluded. Naturally, the vast majority of horror fans don't go out killing anyone, but there is no question that extreme trash negatively affects morons - and morons do make up a significant % of the population. It is a given among left-wingers to fanatically oppose any form of censorship (except when it suits THEM; you know who you are), but this is based on an extremely naive belief that people are so emotionally stable and so intelligent that they are impervious to any negative side-effects from "the arts". Very delusional indeed.
Besides, who the hell's talking about art here? We're talking about trash, i.e. Movies not much better than 10-dollar snuff films.
I'm neither. I not only understood the ending, I predicted the censor's insanity early on. It was pretty clear that the option that she is losing her marbles is a very viable option. One of her colleagues even says at one point "I think she's losing the plot".
It is very clear that the censor was so distraught by her parents' decision to declare her missing sister dead, that she went bonkers soon thereafter. There is much mystery regarding HOW her sister disappeared. There are vague hints that the censor killed her sister when they were kids, but that is an asinine option, not just because little girls never kill their younger sisters (or anybody else) but also because how many little girls could hide a corpse so well that nobody finds the remains, or even signs of violence. So obviously, the censor didn't kill her. The fact that she was so shaken up by the movie scene in which a girl kills her sister has to do with the trauma of this childhood disaster, the sense that she blamed herself all her life for her sister's disappearance. She was riddled with guilt, not because she killed her (she didn't) but because she took her to the woods that day.
Sure, one can criticize the script for being extremely vague about what actually happened on that day in 1965, because it makes little sense that one sister survived without any injury, wasn't even attacked by anyone - whereas her sister simply vanished into thin air. This was a bit of a cop-out by co-writer/director Prano.
Does the movie have a great ending in terms of dramatic significance? Yes. Censor fell into a schizophrenic state; she invented a perfect world in which she solved the mystery, found her sister and reunited her with their parents. The director's over-the-top morbid Disney feel made that abundantly clear to the audience - not to mention the very brief glitches when this fantasy was shattered by the reality of Alice Lee screaming in terror. So why are so many people confused by the ending?
It is pretty obvious what had transpired. Censor lost her mind, projected all her suspicions and guilt onto Frederick North and his movies, concocted a "film" in her head that North had abducted her sister decades ago and was using her for snuff horror films - only to get rid of her when he no longer found a use for her. Sure, there are PLENTY of movies and directors dumb enough to use this shtick, but this movie appears to be too smart to expect us to believe such a nonsense theory. Which is why I was increasingly sure censor was going insane.
Does the movie's director handle the complexities of portraying a double-interpretation conclusion in a way that is elegant, neat, and logical? No, she doesn't. (Prano is a woman.) This is where criticism is valid. Prano's messy handling of the events in the last 15 minutes show some ineptitude, both in terms of writing and direction. She tries to cheat the viewer and offer him truth at the same time - a feat that very few film-makers can pull off convincingly.
Still, not for a lack of trying.
But what is most important of all is that the movie is interesting throughout. Anyone who claims it's boring is maybe as insane as the central female character. There are logic holes and far-fetched situations on occasion, but how is that a boring movie? Corny zombie films and generic haunted house flicks are boring. This one is at least quite original, offering a plot-line that may not be ultra-unique but in terms of how corny 95% of all horror-film plots are, it is a standout of sorts.
Some haters of this film were clearly VERY disappointed by the lack of anti-Thatcher propaganda (the film takes place in 80s Britain), and some horror film fans were annoyed that the movie suggests that extreme horror films can in fact affect certain audiences in a negative way.
But come on... Anyone who actually believes that a person will be the same regardless whether they watch 1000 kiddie animations or 1000 butcher orgies is deluded. Naturally, the vast majority of horror fans don't go out killing anyone, but there is no question that extreme trash negatively affects morons - and morons do make up a significant % of the population. It is a given among left-wingers to fanatically oppose any form of censorship (except when it suits THEM; you know who you are), but this is based on an extremely naive belief that people are so emotionally stable and so intelligent that they are impervious to any negative side-effects from "the arts". Very delusional indeed.
Besides, who the hell's talking about art here? We're talking about trash, i.e. Movies not much better than 10-dollar snuff films.