Please, enough with the -----!! [**SPOILER**] - Case 39 (2010) Discussion

[–] DeadSetMisawa 13 years ago

So what you're saying is that everything in movies has to coincide with stuff that is possible/probable in the real world? What a dull outlook on cinema. Away with ye, imagination! Away!!

Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.

reply

[–] okusdokus 13 years ago

Not at all. I think I was pretty clear about being tired of the same worn-out device of THE DEMON. I've enjoyed plenty of movies in which highly fantastic things happen because there is a basis for believing what you're seeing. If stuff gets explained away as being because of a demon in the last 30 minutes, yeah, I'll probably think it's irredeemable. How probable is it that the world will become overrun with zombies? Not likely, but as I said in the OP, people have come up with some pretty imaginative ways to introduce/explain such a phenomenon. You think THE DEMON is imaginative? Please...my point is exactly that the people/filmmakers/studios resorting to THE DEMON are lacking in imagination!

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] okusdokus 13 years ago

@purplerick13:
demonic presence wasn't "explained away" at any point during this movie. it was always there and I'm sorry you didn't realize from almost the beginning like I did that her "parents" were truly trying to kill her to be freed of her.

No need to be condescending--there was nothing in the trailer (at least the ones that I saw) that made it clear that the girl was possessed. I disagree that "it was always there" and even if you knew from the beginning that her folks were trying to kill her to escape from her, how does that equal the girl being possessed by a demon?!? If anything, the studio was saving this as a surprise, so I took the trailer at face value and went the "little girl is probably psycho" route. My point is, the explanation of a demon is so lame that even the studio didn't want to reveal its presence from the start, otherwise why not just show the girl as a demon in the trailer? Because it's weak storytelling, that's why. You simply cannot expect to get away with a demon as "the big reveal" these days, at least not the way this was executed! But the final insult was the incredibly awful CGI stuff they pulled.

reply

[–] Paulination 13 years ago

After seeing the trailor I actually thought it was going to be about a girl who was being haunted by a demon, not that she was the demon. Either way, it was pretty clear going in that this was going to be a supernatural flick and not like The Orphan. I loved it.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

I didn't even see a trailer but from the plot outline(which tells me less than the trailer) I figured out there was definitely going to be a supernatural twist.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

[–] The_Grither 13 years ago

I'm curious what you would have considered more acceptable. The only scientific explanation I can think of would be secret government experiments or aliens and those are even more overused than demons.
Or would you have preferred the old "nothing was wrong, it was all just a dream/hallucination" mega-cliche?

I don't even know what you mean about Silent Hill. Yes, it's based on a game, a game about a town plunged into a hellish world populated by demons or demon-like creatures. There's no "realistic" way to portray that. Except for the whole dream lameness again.
It sounds like you just don't like movies that aren't realistic. Maybe you should stay away from movies like this.

reply

[–] okusdokus 13 years ago

@The_Grither:
To be honest, I would have preferred it if the girl had just been straight up psycho. There was nothing in the trailer that made it clear that she was possessed--you didn't know if her parents were crazy, or if she herself was, but as the movie was about the girl, I assumed she was. So yes, had I known that it was about what it was, I probably would have stayed away (obviously I don't like the demon explanation, which made me feel gypped after having sat there and investing a good hour or so before people started dying around her because of her phone shenanigans). [Silent Hill--okay, my fault because I didn't know what the game was about until after I'd seen the movie. It was very atmospheric and creepy and I enjoyed it except for the CGI.] As I said in response to a previous poster, I object to having to accept a demon as the "big reveal" these days, at least the way it was done here. Also, I think it would have been better if they had just used makeup to make her look creepy. And I agree that dream sequences are overused and would have been even worse than the demon thing!

reply

[–] Diabolicael 13 years ago

I have trouble with the idea that the demon was the big reveal. Honestly, I don't think there was a big reveal in this movie at all. There were no twists, it was a fairly straight road. The parents think the girl is evil, they must be crazy. Oh. No, they weren't crazy, she is evil. It's pretty formulaic.

Now, from the previews, I thought it was going to turn out that something was haunting her when I decided to rent the movie. But as soon as they called her Lilith, I knew what the deal was. Was bummed.

You got red on you.
--That was longer than a heartbeat.

reply

[–] bill-mcdermott 8 years ago

What trailer was this

The trailer I saw while not saying she was a demon made it clear demonic forces were involved. As far as I know there is no other trailer that hints at anything other than tge supernatural

So I don't see why you were so suprised that it was a demon story

reply

[–] fiatlux-1 13 years ago

I didn't think the demon storyline was badly used here, in fact, the film was quite scary! It did borrow a bit from films such as "The Omen", "The Ring", and even "Paranormal Activity" but those are very good films as well and deserve to be film influences.

It would have been good to have her be insane instead, but it wouldn't have been as terrifying. The CGI, if anything, is what bothered me here. It wasn't that good.
For that matter, who says demons don't exist? You may not believe in them, but that doesn't mean they do not exist!

"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus."
"Didn't he discover America?"
"Penfold, shush."

reply

[–] okusdokus 13 years ago

For that matter, who says demons don't exist? You may not believe in them, but that doesn't mean they do not exist!

This is beside the point. I don't think I said whether I believed in demons or not, and people are certainly entitled to their beliefs regarding them. I'd even be the first to admit demons have their place in cinema. The Exorcist is a classic, and I actually liked all of those films you listed in your post. Once again, my point is simply this: after having sat in a movie for a half hour or an hour or whatever it was, and having been reasonably entertained during that time, I felt very disappointed and frustrated by the demon explanation. If it's a demon movie, why don't they just say so? It's not a big enough plot twist to keep that fact hidden in trailers. *If you're not going to be straightforward about a major plot development, then it had better be something more worthwhile than a demon!* Whether or not they exist, or you believe in them or not, it cheapened the movie especially when they used the less-than-impressive CGI creatures in conjunction. Hopefully I have cleared up my stance on this topic. I don't really want to keep repeating myself so let's leave it at, This is just my opinion. If you disagree, fine; if not, even better!

reply

[–] Ava36 13 years ago

I think what a lot of people missed is this is not about her being evil but here is a social worker stuck with her, in her house and her friends are dying. How does she get rid of her and get her life back? How doe sshe protect herself, her friends and the people who this monster is after? The big reveal was pretty easy to figure out because the parents has deadbolts on their door but not on their daughter's.

I saw multiple flaws in the film - for example, how did they manage to get the girl into the oven and her now fight them? That made no sense.

reply

[–] MystMoonstruck 13 years ago

I don't know if anyone answered this, but they were able to get her into the oven because they had drugged her. Remember the phone call, with her voice slurring? That's the only time anyone could do something, which is why she drugs her with the prescribed sedatives before setting fire to the house. Obviously, Lilith was so powerful that the drugs/narcotics had only a brief effect on her.

If you will note the scene in which she is carried to the oven, her body is limp. She is unconscious. Then, she manages to shake off some of the effects, but her parents are still able to overpower her long enough to trap her.

~~MystMoonstruck~~

reply

[–] SirBH 13 years ago

A demon child is more scarier than a crazy killer child. So you didn't like The Omen?

reply

[–] okusdokus 13 years ago

@ SirBH:
I didn't think the demon child in Case 39 was particularly scary, and actually I LOVED The Omen (the original, anyway--haven't seen the remake). The Omen was a great film and the reason I like it so much even today is that the story unfolds SO well--there is so much atmosphere and suspense that when you find out who Damien is, it is genuinely creepy! And referring back to my original post, they accomplished this by virtue of sheer storytelling talent, without the excruciating CGI stuff they pulled in Case 39! Damien doesn't suddenly look at the camera and, OMG, he has a demon face! That's not what is scary--the story itself, how it is told and shot, should be scary. CGI has its place, but it was horribly misused here. It was insulting for them (filmmaker, studio, writer, whoever) to have used CGI the way they did because they did it as icing on the cake, hoping that no one would notice that the cake itself tasted lousy: "Oh, if you treat my eyes to something unbelievable and spectacular, I'll just sit here and be satisfied and think I've gotten my money's worth!" I think my main problem with Case 39 was that they tried to spring her demonic possession as some big surprise (please read previous posts), but it's a tired device and they didn't lead up to it well at all. I didn't like that they offered this lame explanation after I had already sat there watching for some time without experiencing the suspense and buildup that should have preceded this kind of reveal, and I didn't appreciate their trying to win me over with bad graphics. We're talking almost 35 years after The Omen--this demon thing has already been done in supreme fashion, and I think it was executed poorly here.

reply

[–] Ava36 13 years ago

She knew she was one before the CGI effect. Her father told her. That's the reason why she hid everything and didn't let her in her room.

reply

[–] screen14 13 years ago

I don't think the girl's demonic transformation was set up as a surprise. The movie tells you what she is well before the end, and what we're supposed to see is the more terrifying and full-fledged form of what the movie gives glimpses to throughout the story.

reply

[–] badmofo6662004 13 years ago

Would you be happier if it turned out Lily was Shiva?

Actually, now that I think about it, that might be interesting :)

Now that I think about it some more, Lily turning out to be Fury would be perfect. At the end it could be revealed that everyone she killed was out of vengeance for child abuse. I think I'm going to start writing a novel, lol.

reply

[–] okusdokus 13 years ago

@ badmofo6662004:
Actually, that would have been preferable! Interesting idea there, maybe sort of a Bad Seed/Christina-from-Mommie Dearest/shades-of-Audrey Rose mashup--at least it would have been more thought-provoking than what was offered! And there could be more of a layered, conflicted point of view from the "child" because of the different facets of the deity. Hmm, too complex? I like that, though...I think you should start that novel! :)

reply

[–] Diabolicael 13 years ago

Do you mean Kali?

You got red on you.
--That was longer than a heartbeat.

reply

[–] okusdokus 13 years ago

@ kcj414:
Thank you--my opinion exactly! But I guess it's typical that they would go the more outlandish route, the one that would support the obligatory CGI rather than focus on a coherent theme or message. I'm not implying (as one person accused me of doing) that all movies HAVE to be realistic; they could have done this movie with something other than a demon, though. I guess ultimately I just think this would have been a much better movie if they had laid off of the supernatural.

reply

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

Then you're an idiot. Your personal beliefs shouldn't affect your ability to suspend disbelief.

And are you saying that the Resident Evil movies are better than The Living Dead movies because Resident Evil gives a pseudoscientific explanation for the outbreak while the Living Dead movies never specify a cause?

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

[–] okusdokus 13 years ago

@king of bob:
If you can't be civil, then please don't respond. And no--I'm not saying that RE movies are necessarily better than Living Dead. Please don't drag in movies that have been around for years just to be argumentative. This is about Case 39! My initial post was pretty much a rant because I found the demon thing unsatisfying, which was then made much worse by the CGI, as I have explained now countless times. BTW, what personal beliefs of mine are you referring to? While I agree that personal beliefs shouldn't affect ability to suspend disbelief, there is skillful film making and unskillful film making. I don't think it's unreasonable to question film makers' choices and/or techniques, or to simply express an opinion.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

If you can't be civil, then please don't respond.

I'm as civil as you were. You think the demon thing is stupid, which in turn implies anyone who thinks it's an interesting plot development is equally stupid. While I wasn't the hugest fan of this movie, the introduction of a demonic entity was not one of my issues with this movie.

To your comment regarding the trailer being misleading, it was infinitely less misleading than the trailers for Cabin Fever in the opposite direction. The Cabin Fever ads make it seem like something supernatural is going on, then it turns out to be a viral outbreak. This isn't a problem with the movie or the movie makers, rather it's a problem for whoever edited the trailer together.

Nobody tricked you, or even tried to trick you. It seemed pretty obvious from the plot description that there was something supernatural going on. My wife read it to me and as soon as she was done I said "Oh so she's possessed or something". And yes, I'm talking about the plot summery on this site.

And no--I'm not saying that RE movies are necessarily better than Living Dead. Please don't drag in movies that have been around for years just to be argumentative. This is about Case 39!

You're the one who started bringing other movies into this kiddo. You can't change the rules of the debate when someone brings up something that counters your point. And I used your very own argument against you. You said you can enjoy zombie movies where an attempt at a scientific explanation is attempted, what I just did is prove that your point is moot. How? By getting you to admit that a movie that did attempt to scientifically explain the existence of zombies is worse than a film that makes absolutely no attempt to explain the outbreak.

Don't bring up points if you're not willing to defend your position on them.

My initial post was pretty much a rant because I found the demon thing unsatisfying, which was then made much worse by the CGI, as I have explained now countless times.

That's not what you said in your OP at all. Go back and read it. Your first post was a rant about how you don't like Demon plotlines in ANY movie. You also bring up Silent Hill as an example of another movie that somehow destroyed your suspension of disbelief by taking a supernatural rout(which makes no sense since it's incredibly obvious that Silent Hill was meant to be supernatural).

BTW, what personal beliefs of mine are you referring to? While I agree that personal beliefs shouldn't affect ability to suspend disbelief, there is skillful film making and unskillful film making.

Your belief that demons do not exist. I don't believe curses exist, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying Thinner or Drag Me To Hell for what they are. Again, while I don't think this is the greatest movie ever made featuring demonic possession, I wouldn't say that the whole demonic angle was even part of the problem.

I don't think it's unreasonable to question film makers' choices and/or techniques, or to simply express an opinion.

You're not questioning anything. As you yourself said, you were just ranting.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

[–] shaunwtx 13 years ago

Just say you don't like supernatural thrillers, and move on. That is fine, just know that everyone in the world doesn't have to think exactly like you.

I "sorta" figured this one out early that the girl was the evil one, and the parents were trying to do the right thing. But still, sat back and was pleasantly surprised in the route they took.

Personally, I find these type movies more interesting then the "went insane from abuse" or just crazy person movies. Man isn't all knowing; and sometimes it is the unknown that can get under your skin.

Just because you don't believe in the Devil, Demons, Evil Spirits, etc. doesn't mean they don't exist. I wish the had explained more exactly what she was and where she came from - That's the part 2 I want to see!

reply

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

Just say you don't like supernatural thrillers, and move on. That is fine, just know that everyone in the world doesn't have to think exactly like you.

Exactly. Just because the OP does not like the inclusion of Demon plotlines does not mean they are in and of themselves bad, cheap or lame.

Personally, I find these type movies more interesting then the "went insane from abuse" or just crazy person movies. Man isn't all knowing; and sometimes it is the unknown that can get under your skin.

I was thinking similarly actually. For example the movie Four Horsemen. They spend the whole movie hyping up the idea that something supernatural is going on, then it turns out to be a couple crazy people. I never at any point felt that Case 39 was going to be based on a situation that could realistically happen.

Just because you don't believe in the Devil, Demons, Evil Spirits, etc. doesn't mean they don't exist. I wish the had explained more exactly what she was and where she came from - That's the part 2 I want to see!

Indeed, belief does not equal fact, and similarly personal belief should never affect ones ability to enjoy a work of fiction.

Personally I think the movie works better without an explanation as to where the Demon came from. It's like a horror movie where you just get hints of a supernatural presence without being shown a closeup everytime it does something. The unknown aspect of it's nature makes it more frightening because it allows your mind to fill in the blanks, and often times our own minds can conceive of things that are infinitely more frightening than anything you'll ever see on screen.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

[–] Andy-1981 13 years ago

Personally I think the movie works better without an explanation as to where the Demon came from. The unknown aspect of it's nature makes it more frightening because it allows your mind to fill in the blanks, and often times our own minds can conceive of things that are infinitely more frightening than anything you'll ever see on screen.

I'm glad somebody else joined me in saying this. Much obliged.

reply

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

Not a problem. It's what I've believe makes good horror movies for quite some time. The problem as I see it is with the people who think that since they spent so much money on the costume or CGI effect for the creature(whatever it may be) that they feel the need to show it whenever possible.

One of the reasons I liked Paranormal Activity so much is that you never see any demon\spirit and nobody tries to give it an in depth explanation. We're given a brief explanation near the beginning, but the explanation isn't very extensive. At the end you know about as much about the thing that was haunting them as when you started the movie. Since what they're told about the thing can be read about ghosts\demons anywhere on the internet.

Implied violence is always worse than shown violence. Like the Live Organ Transplant portion of Monty Pythons The Meaning Of Life. You don't actually see what the "doctors" are doing, all you see is one of the doctors being sprayed with blood while pulling out organs and the character having his organs removed screaming bloody murder.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

[–] john_stevensfiredragon 11 years ago

One of the reasons I liked Paranormal Activity so much is that you never see any demon\spirit and nobody tries to give it an in depth explanation.

Paranormal Activity is stupid.

reply

[–] king_of_bob 11 years ago

Oh okay. Well that certainly is a well reasoned argument which presents many valid points. Oh wait... No. That's just like... Your opinion, man.

Note how I said I liked it, not that it was good or intelligent. And I gave an actual reason why I liked it. Instead of the typical "I liked the movie, thus it was good" or "I didn't like it, thus it's bad." Why? Because unlike some people on IMDb, I'm aware that my enjoyment of something does not necessarily speak to it's inherent quality.

In other words, grow up.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

[–] okusdokus 13 years ago

@shaunwtx:
Actually, supernatural thrillers are among my favorites. I just didn't like the inclusion of the demon in this particular movie, and I loathed the accompanying CGI.

Some of you seem to have assumed that I don't believe in demons/the supernatural in general, and that's okay, because it doesn't matter if I do or don't, I can still enjoy movies with these themes. I have posted elsewhere in this thread that I loved The Omen and The Exorcist, and I could add that I also enjoyed The Ring, The Grudge, The Other, The Mephisto Waltz, Paranormal Activity, The Fog (1980), The Shining, Poltergeist, and of course others that don't immediately leap to mind. Yes, all right, after some consideration, I have to admit that I don't always need a *scientific* explanation for supernatural stuff as long as I think film makers did a good enough job so that I am able to suspend disbelief.

BTW, I hardly think everyone has to think exactly like I do; I respect that people have different tastes. I would not insult or belittle someone for disagreeing with me about a movie as, unfortunately, some people on this board enjoy doing (I don't mean you).

reply

[–] okusdokus 13 years ago

@king of bob:

While I could respond to every nitpicky point you have flung at me, I choose to use the time more productively. Some of the stuff you brought up has already been addressed in previous posts. The only point I would like to respond to is this:

You think the demon thing is stupid, which in turn implies anyone who thinks it's an interesting plot development is equally stupid.

Are you serious with this? I am not here to call anyone stupid (that seems to be your job). First, I have already said there are demon movies that I have very much enjoyed. Second, I understand and accept that everyone has different tastes. There have been PLENTY of instances when I have loved a movie that my friends or family have not, and vice versa. Do you truly think that I would think someone was stupid for such a reason? Why are you so defensive? I think you should just accept that people have different opinions and likes/dislikes, and not take it so personally when someone has the nerve to think differently from you. Best of luck.

reply

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

While I could respond to every nitpicky point you have flung at me, I choose to use the time more productively. Some of the stuff you brought up has already been addressed in previous posts

In other words: I don't feel like actually defending myself against anything you said, so I'm going to pretend it doesn't exist.

Are you serious with this? I am not here to call anyone stupid (that seems to be your job).

I'm sorry, do you not understand what the word imply means?

First, I have already said there are demon movies that I have very much enjoyed.

You also said that this movie is stupid because of the demonic element. So which is it. Did you just not like this movie, or do you not like the demonic element?

Second, I understand and accept that everyone has different tastes.

You may understand, but you clearly don't accept. As you suggest the movie itself is bad, again because of the supernatural element. Which is a matter of taste, not fact.

Do you truly think that I would think someone was stupid for such a reason? Why are you so defensive?

Once again, the implication in your opening post is as follows; This movie employs a stupid plot device. Anyone who doesn't think this is a stupid plot device is in turn, also stupid.

How am I being in anyway defensive? I'm not trying to defend against your suggestion that anyone is stupid for enjoying the supernatural elements of the movie. I'm arguing against your assertion that it's a stupid plot device. I would say the defensive one is the one who avoids answering direct questions as you did when you ignored the majority of my above post.

I think you should just accept that people have different opinions and likes/dislikes, and not take it so personally when someone has the nerve to think differently from you. Best of luck.

I accept the fact that you didn't like the supernatural elements of this movie, and that's just fine. However this isn't what you said, at any point in this conversation. You said this movie uses a stupid plot device, this is where we're disagreeing, which you seem unable to see. Further I disagree with your assertion that the opinion you're expressing in your OP is fact. Before you ask, the verbiage you used implies a factual argument rather than an opinion.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

[–] john_stevensfiredragon 11 years ago

In other words: I don't feel like actually defending myself against anything you said, so I'm going to pretend it doesn't exist.

NOPE. He just thinks you're a waste of time.

Obviously.

reply

[–] king_of_bob 11 years ago

If he thought that, he would have stopped conversing with me rather than telling me they're leaving the conversation. But you appear to be of a similar level of intelligence to the above poster, which does not speak highly of your ability to comprehend these things.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply