MovieChat Forums > Bereavement (2010) Discussion > Dreadful...Not even a real prequel

Dreadful...Not even a real prequel


I sat through the whole thing growing more and more tedious..and then to add insult to injury they didn't even stay true to what we know before.

Who's idea was it that the kid will NEVER say a word???? EVER?

It was filled with so many stupid moments I don't know where to begin.

I'll start with the girl...She follows the boy deeper and deeper and deeper into the abandoned slaughter house, gets trapped in there, then when she gets free, decides to carry!?(he didn't even need to be carried!) the evil kid all the way back to her own house, take him inside a burning house so and so fourth...

The kid can't feel anything, uh, that doesn't mean he won't stop bleeding if a knife is plunged into his hand.

The mother's husband is missing all day and the girl has been missing all night, and she doesn't call the police?

There was no development with the killer and the kid whatsoever, he watches him stab a few victims, is still scared presumably, then turns around and stabs the girl who tried to help him, then goes upstairs to kill the the little girl (and how did even know she was up there?)

Nobody hears the gunshot that killed the father(despite the fact that the plant was in between 2 houses.

The killer was pathetic, and why did they clearly show third person in when there wasn't one? I know he was talking to the skeleton like it was controlling him, but then they made it seem like there was actually a third person in the room.

Terrible...I can't even believe this was directed by the same person as Malevolence...Shame on you for betraying your won vision..a unique screw-up as usually a prequel is sabotaged by another party...not the original.

The diary wasn't believable for this type of killer(A Grunt) this movie made him out to be, it was just shown quickly and considering they changed the arc, it didn't even need to be shown at all.

I have seen a lot of bad movies these past few months, but this one really got me angry.

I've read bad reviews and good reviews, clearly the bad ones know their stuff.



"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"

reply

[deleted]

"I'll start with the girl...She follows the boy deeper and deeper and deeper into the abandoned slaughter house, gets trapped in there, then when she gets free, decides to carry!?(he didn't even need to be carried!) the evil kid all the way back to her own house, take him inside a burning house so and so fourth..."

Losing a large amount of blood makes you weak. Have you ever given blood? They make you drink and eat afterward to avoid fainting. Martin's blood pressure was probably low and he was weak from the blood loss, hence why she carried him. That, and he also didn't seem to be willing to cooperate on his own. As for taking him inside the burning house, she didn't realize it was on fire until she got inside.

"The kid can't feel anything, uh, that doesn't mean he won't stop bleeding if a knife is plunged into his hand."

A knife wound through the hand would not continue bleeding until the entire body had been drained of blood. There have been instances of people caught in hunting traps for days or losing limbs in the wilderness that managed to survive. All Martin had was a clean stab wound through his hand. And if you noticed, there was a large amount of blood left on the kitchen table that would be sufficient enough for that type of wound. His entire body wouldn't have bled out, and she did wrap a cloth around it to slow any more bleeding. What is your point here?

"The mother's husband is missing all day and the girl has been missing all night, and she doesn't call the police?"

First of all, the movie took place in 1994 in case you missed the jump from 1989 (Martin's abduction) to five years later. Cell phones were not in the mainstream back then, so her husband couldn't call from the road. Second, he was going out to search for her and therefore his whereabouts and purpose for being gone were known. Judging by the way she was waiting outside for him smoking a cigarette in the early evening, she was getting worried about him not returning home, but it would have been too soon to call the police. Also consider that a missing person's report can't even be filed until 48 hours have passed.

"There was no development with the killer and the kid whatsoever, he watches him stab a few victims, is still scared presumably, then turns around and stabs the girl who tried to help him, then goes upstairs to kill the the little girl (and how did even know she was up there?)"

There was development. Martin went from trying to escape as a little kid to willingly staying there as a young boy. There was nothing preventing Martin from leaving when we see him in 1994. I would say Sutter's murder is also development for their characters since it certainly changes the relationship when one murders the other, wouldn't you say? Also consider that Martin continued to stay at the slaughterhouse after Sutter's death, which speaks to his conditioning. And he knew the little girl was up there because for one thing, the mother lying on the floor tells Allison not to let Sutter get her and then Allison runs upstairs. Since Martin was only a few feet away during this exchange, I'm pretty sure he's able to put two and two together unless he thinks Allison ran upstairs during a fire for no reason whatsoever. Plus Sutter came down the stairs a few seconds later, indicating he was upstairs with someone.

"Nobody hears the gunshot that killed the father(despite the fact that the plant was in between 2 houses."

This is not a good argument because stranger cases exist even in real life. Have you ever read up on the actual murders behind the Amityville haunting? An entire family was murdered in the middle of the night with a Marlin rifle, which is a very loud shotgun, and not one neighbor woke up or heard this rifle going off several times. The houses in this case were also closer together than the plant and the houses in this movie.

"The killer was pathetic, and why did they clearly show third person in when there wasn't one? I know he was talking to the skeleton like it was controlling him, but then they made it seem like there was actually a third person in the room."

Sutter was crazy and having hallucinations which we, the audience, were able to see. How was that so difficult to understand? Please don't watch a movie like Black Swan if you had trouble with this.

reply

I cannot but agree with the OP, this movie used ALL clichés from similar b-movies. I confess I'm not a fun of these movies but the high rating convinced me to rent it, thinking I will see something different... Well my hand was most of the time on the remote control and the FF button. So BORED !!!

reply

I can't accept the advice of anyone who fast forwards through a movie and then proceeds to give an opinion on it as if they've actually seen it. You haven't. You skipped through it--it's not the same thing. Would you accept my book review of a novel if I skimmed through certain pages?

reply

^ THIS.

While I enjoyed "Malevolence" more, "Bereavement" was a pretty good flick. You're not a self-respecting horror fan if you forwarded through it. That's just lazy.

reply