I'm totally confused with the ending; why did the Dr. hold onto Alex's "privates"? Was she one of them? Who were the beasts? How did he land up on the park bench (From the first scene) HELP!
If it can be written, or thought, it can be filmed - Stanley Kubrick
i tried to make sense out of it here
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417745/board/thread/49133081?d=49355374#49355374
why she touched his dick:
well since imo she couldnt have been possessed at this point of time she might have just been wanting to touch it (being horny/pervert/whatever) out of her own free will! other idea would be that she just touched him one time on his face and the rest of the touching/transformation is all just a vision of the protagonist. i do NOT think that there was anything but visions (only in his head) after the brother killed himself.
since he didnt die at the and the intro scene might happenend in the following period of time (insane for life).
Thanks for the reply, but You know, I love these ending usually when one has to think and interpret what is happening; but this particular one was pure hogwash.
If it can be written, or thought, it can be filmed - Stanley Kubrick
The ending doesn't make much sense at all, unless that woman is in fact a link, which is quite possible, why would the demons want to damage a point of traversal?
sharei have no idea what you guys are on-about....but it looks funny!!??
shareShe was definitely odd -- what was with the bandage on her hand every time he came in for a session? I think she was using that an excuse NOT to touch him, so why touch him at the end? Was she a demon all along? I am soooo confused.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Exactly, ghostshell.
A whole slew of 'intellectual' horror movies have been released in the last few years masquerading as deep, thought provoking films. This one reminded me a lot of Reeker, a pretty average movie as far as horror goes, but with a denser 'plot' meant to broaden the appeal of the movie. But as with Reeker, Headspace stumbles blindly from plot point to plot point, stopping anyone watching from enjoying the horror by trying to involve them in some badly written, half-baked attempt at an intellectual script.
Yes, the acting and cinematography were decent, but if you have a budget as big as this movie obviously did, it's hard to screw that up. Most every movie that gets this wide a distribution has acceptable acting, fine lighting, interesting camera work and good sound (Unless the director tries something different and falls flat on their face, see The Fountain). The only thing that sets any modern B-grade horror movie apart from the pack is a good script.
That's why we have movies like this, as ghostshell said, throwing up ideas about mental illness, the power of the mind, trauma from the past or split personalities (Secret Window, awful), with writers trying to fit such concepts into scripts that are obviously shooting much lower. A thought-provoking story that involves completely redundant sex scenes, 'monsters' that would be at home in a 1950's swamp horror movie, dialogue like "You wanna play chess like a man, then you DRINK like a man!" and a loony Russian scientist called "Boris Pavlovsky"? Not happening. Make a good thought-provoking film, or make a good cheap horror, stop trying to do both.
Its a thought provoking cheap horror film!
What's wrong with that?
It missed, but sometimes it hit. A welcome relief to the one tracked no imagination required for most attempts at horror. Remember that most B horror flicks don't exactly deliver the goods either. At least these guys were trying to do something a bit more intellectually challenging.
Clearly the filmmaker had a thing for Jacob's Ladder. While they fell well short of that impressive film...what they did come up with was a cheap horror flick...that made you think. Not bad considering Dee Wallace was in it.