MovieChat Forums > Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011) Discussion > The biggest and most laughable plot hole...

The biggest and most laughable plot hole...

posted 13 years ago by import22
167 replies | jump to latest

***SPOILERS WITHIN***

Forgive if I missed something, but Mrs. Cruise walks into a library. She asks to see a private collection, and with no questions asked she is personally escorted by a young guy who knows more about the topic than the expert she's supposed to be. Did you want us to believe that someone who lived out of researching a specific artist didn't even know he had a child? Or that a library around the block conveniently has several drawings of his that have never seen the light of day, but she "bumped" into them because the gardner told her so? Please... But the librarian giving her access to the most sensitive material without even asking her name was the best part.

The movie lost me here. It's the most cliched I've seen in a long time. I got up to the washroom by the end and I was thinking I would've been fine with not seeing the end. The creatures seemed more annoying than scary. Plus, once they had escaped, they had many opportunities to take the girl but they never did. The myth of the teeth and the deal with the church was presented and rarely used after. It has more plot holes than any other horror movie I can remember.

[–] Lights_Camera_Reaction 13 years ago

It didn't really have many plotholes, you're just over thinking it
:D

-
http://jackpsmith.tumblr.com/

[–] davelanger 13 years ago

There were a lot of plot holes. The biggest being when Sally was being attacked in the libuary and snapped a ton of pics of the creatures, and even killed one by closing the bookcase door on it.

So why the hell did the stay in the house after all of that evidence and didnt even bother to call the police.
You had a dead creature stuck in the bookcase and they just leave it there to go to bed?

That defies all logic since they know there are creatures trying to attack here and htey just put Sally to bed by herself in the dark.

[–] import22 13 years ago

The movie began with stupid little plot holes and I thought "Ok, it's a movie. I guess not everything can make sense." By the end, it was unwatchable. There was no way these people would act like dummies and ignore major facts around them. Razzie for worst script of 2011.

[–] import22 13 years ago

Another awful plot hole: The creatures are scared of the dimmest light at the beginning of the movie. They won't come out even with a candle light. Conveniently, when the couple is having the dinner party they are all over the house with ALL the lights on! In the foyer, the living room, dining room. Grrrrrr....

[–] EveryoneLuvzCandace 13 years ago

Ahahaha they were weren't they!? I notice that too. They even had to get rid of her nightlight to come out.

See? That's Why You Keep Getting Molested - American Dad

[–] Black_PuddleT5 13 years ago

Agreed. This horror film was pretty darn good. People coming on this board shouting things like "it was so predictable and stupid!!!" are the same people asking stupid questions like, "why did they not touch those teeth for all those years if they eat teeth?" Though it was explained in the FIRST SCENE of the movie that the fairies require children teeth, which is why Blackwood's offer didn't work and they took him.

DURP.

_

I wish my lawn was emo so it would cut itself...

[–] MartinP666 12 years ago

Then why did the creatures take the tooth under Sally's pillow and replace it with a silver coin?

I agree that there are some flaws in the script. I still loved the movie though, because of the atmosphere, and the unbelievable camera work.

[–] thetrev 12 years ago

They took the tooth and gave her silver to get her to trust them.

[–] valetudodesign 12 years ago

So when did they explain that they weren't afraid of lights at dinner parties?

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

Another awful plot hole: The creatures are scared of the dimmest light at the beginning of the movie. They won't come out even with a candle light.

First of all, that isn't a plot hole. At best it would be a plot contrivance. But think about it for a second, they spend their entire lives living in a place where there is NO light at all. It isn't at all unreasonable for them to be extremely sensitive to light.

Conveniently, when the couple is having the dinner party they are all over the house with ALL the lights on! In the foyer, the living room, dining room. Grrrrrr....

Like I said, plot contrivance, not a plot hole by any means.

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

[–] TheBeardedWonder 13 years ago

You broke his one thought into two, read the sentences together. The poster wasn't questioning why they're afraid of light, they're questioning why they were able to go in the light when need be and not other times.

And yes, it is a plot hole in my opinion. The plot is that they're creatures who are afraid of light trying to get this little girl, yet as the other poster pointed out, they later defy this in order to have a scene shoe horned in that really doesn't make any sense.

When it effects the PLOT, as in, that scene shouldn't have been possible plot wise, it's a plot hole...

"No it's not you, I just don't like having dinner... with people..." - Paul Rudd

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

You broke his one thought into two, read the sentences together. The poster wasn't questioning why they're afraid of light, they're questioning why they were able to go in the light when need be and not other times.

It doesn't make a difference. They CAN go into the light, they aren't afraid of it. It simply hurts their eyes. They can go into the light whenever they want, they prefer not to. But when "it's on", they'll do what they feel they have to.

And yes, it is a plot hole in my opinion. The plot is that they're creatures who are afraid of light trying to get this little girl, yet as the other poster pointed out, they later defy this in order to have a scene shoe horned in that really doesn't make any sense.

Too bad your opinion is irrelevant. The plot is that they're creatures that live primarily underground. It should be understood that they would have increased sensitivity to light since they live almost exclusively in tunnels underground.

Once again, the light hurts their eyes, it doesn't cause them physical damage and they're not actually "afraid" of it. It causes them pain so they avoid it.

The creature went into the dinning room in order to goad her into following it to the study where they had an ambush set up. What doesn't make sense? It was clear that they were waiting for her in there.

When it effects the PLOT, as in, that scene shouldn't have been possible plot wise, it's a plot hole...

When it affects the plot. And it's an inherent character trait of a creature that lives underground. There's no reason the scene is impossible.

As I've explained, they're very sensitive to light, but they aren't afraid of it and it doesn't cause them physical harm(only pain). Similar to what you experience when you walk into a bright room after sleeping in a dark room. Only imagine you've been sleeping in a dark room for 100 years. That's why they would prefer to avoid the light.

It's not a plot hole. It makes absolute sense if you actually think about what's going on for a half second.

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

[–] TheBeardedWonder 13 years ago

I can tell you love the movie, which is cool, but it's blinding you to it's many downfalls (you pretty much just admitted there was NO POINT to the 'avoiding light' subplot if the light itself doesn't hurt them). I won't go into it any further than that, because your blind fanaticism won't let any of it get through anyway. Do you do anything but defend this POS?

"Too bad your opinion is irrelevant."
-On a movie board, it's equally as relevant as yours whether you like it or not. So does that make yours irrelevant too?

"it doesn't cause them physical harm(only pain)"
-I don't know if this is even a serious statement. What would the difference be exactly? You're really reaching in your attempt to pretend this is a good movie...

"No it's not you, I just don't like having dinner... with people..." - Paul Rudd

[–] king_of_bob 12 years ago

I can tell you love the movie, which is cool, but it's blinding you to it's many downfalls (you pretty much just admitted there was NO POINT to the 'avoiding light' subplot if the light itself doesn't hurt them). I won't go into it any further than that, because your blind fanaticism won't let any of it get through anyway. Do you do anything but defend this POS?

I enjoyed the movie, but I wouldn't say I love it. And I'm not blinded to anything. It makes perfect sense for a subterranean creature to not like bright light. As their eyes would be extremely sensitive to light. There's no point to it, but logically it makes sense. It's like you going out into the sun after sitting in a dark room for awhile, only these creatures have been sitting in that dark room for hundreds(thousands, maybe millions) of years.

I'm not defending the movie either. What I'm doing is pointing out that the complaints you and others are throwing out against the movie are not really valid complaints. And the "plot holes" in the OP are not actually plot holes.

On a movie board, it's equally as relevant as yours whether you like it or not. So does that make yours irrelevant too?

An opinion is only relevant to the person who has it. When talking about quality, your opinion doesn't matter for squat. There may be things in the movie you don't like, but the complaints that have been brought up are not abject truth. Just things that you didn't like.

If I were stating an opinion, yes, it would be irrelevant to this particular conversation. But my opinion of the movie hasn't entered into anything I've said.

I don't know if this is even a serious statement. What would the difference be exactly? You're really reaching in your attempt to pretend this is a good movie...

Physical harm as in what happens to say, a vampire, when exposed to sunlight.

Again, the discomfort they feel is akin to you going into a brightly lit area from a dark room. Your eyes ache, but you're not bursting into flames. The affect on the creatures would be much more acute, since they live in a place with very low light levels, so their eyes have adapted to that about of light.

I'm not reaching at all, since this is an effect you can easily replicate yourself on a smaller scale. Sit in a dark room for a couple hours then go outside on a bright sunny day. Your eyes will hurt because your dilated pupils are allowing too much light in for your eyes to handle. The longer you're in a dark environment, the greater the effect would be. So take your short term experience and multiply that by however much longer these creatures have been living in the dark.

It doesn't take much thought to realize this particular complaint is flat out idiotic. They're not vampires, they don't burst into flames when they're exposed to sunlight. But they could be blinded.

I'm not pretending this is a good movie. I thought it was halfway decent, and there are things I definitely would have changed. But the complaints you're making don't make sense if you apply even a little critical thinking.

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

[–] jmbwithcats 12 years ago

No offense but the way you make excuses out of thin air for plot discrepancies smacks of genre apology.

http://www.imdb.com/user/ur2533227/ratings
www.kittysafe.net

[–] aaron_33 12 years ago

Nah, he doesn't want to admit it, but he loves the movie. That's why there's no plot holes to him.

[–] grrrdevin 12 years ago

Too bad your opinion is irrelevant.

Most pussy comeback ever.

"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

[–] king_of_bob 12 years ago

Most pussy comeback ever.

I'd say most irrelevant post ever, but this is IMDb, and folks like yourself run rampant.

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

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

What little plot holes did it begin with? And I think you overestimate peoples rational, especially when it comes to matters of money.

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

[–] MrBelette 12 years ago

"Razzie for worst script of 2011. "

Or is it the remake of the worst script of 1973 ?

[–] alanmcooley 13 years ago

The creature getting killed in the book case almost made me walk out of the theater. There's a dead thing right there, there's about 20 people in the room, and nobody notices it. Not even later on when (presumably) someone would have cleaned the room. I'm sure the other creatures could have taken it away, but that wasn't shown or mentioned.

Basically after the horrible opening sequence that left no surprises for the rest of the movie as well as the scene I've mentioned, I really didn't care how the movie ended.

Also... what's with the R-rating? Because someone's leg gets broken at the end? Was that really the deciding factor?

[–] night_wolf873 13 years ago

It didn't make me walk out but that just didn't sit well with me. Why such a big plot hole?!

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

The creature getting killed in the book case almost made me walk out of the theater. There's a dead thing right there, there's about 20 people in the room, and nobody notices it.

Ya know, you're right. How weird that they didn't look at the space between the book shelves and instead focused entirely on the little girl freaking out. Totally unbelievable.

Not even later on when (presumably) someone would have cleaned the room. I'm sure the other creatures could have taken it away, but that wasn't shown or mentioned.

Nobody had a chance to clean the room. The attack happened, Kim and Alex talk about leaving and begin to pack. Then all hell breaks loose. We aren't shown anyone cleaning the room either, yet you still assume someone eventually did.

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

[–] grrrdevin 12 years ago

Ya know, you're right. How weird that they didn't look at the space between the book shelves and instead focused entirely on the little girl freaking out. Totally unbelievable.

Which totally excuses the fact that she never once drew attention to the carcass or the Polaroids. Stop being desperate.

"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

[–] king_of_bob 12 years ago

She tried to get people to look at her pictures throughout the movie, and nobody took her seriously. What made her think people would pay attention now? She's already under the impression that nobody is going to believe her anyway, so why would she bother?

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

[–] grrrdevin 12 years ago

All I remember is Billy Madison actually hiding the first Polaroid from people and in fact sitting on it, potentially damaging it. I wasn't Einstein at her age (hell, I'm still not), but after the bathtub incident, I would have felt nothing but desperation. It just seemed like a lazy way of getting it within the tooth fairy's reach so he/she could destroy it.

Beyond that, I'd have found it pretty hard to believe that a little girl could have run around the entire library knocking books off high only-reachable-by-ladder shelves in the space of about two minutes, and, on that note, I'd have investigated the room a little more thoroughly than not at all. Being in a state of extreme duress is not the same as being in a state of lazy writing.

"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

[–] prickles 12 years ago

only believers can see them, derp

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

There were a lot of plot holes. The biggest being when Sally was being attacked in the libuary and snapped a ton of pics of the creatures, and even killed one by closing the bookcase door on it.

How are either of those plotholes? Even in the face of hard evidence you're going to be incredibly hard pressed to find a person who would actually believe that they're fairies, much less that they're murderous.

So why the hell did the stay in the house after all of that evidence and didnt even bother to call the police.
You had a dead creature stuck in the bookcase and they just leave it there to go to bed?

Maybe you missed it, but they stayed so long because Guy was in complete denial that anything was actually going on until the very end. He had ALL of his money invested in that house, and he wouldn't accept that he would have to let that all go.

And after Sally gets attacked in the study she goes to bed while Kim and Alex talked about what happened and started to pack up.

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

[–] Eve_of_Destruction 13 years ago

Plus the cover of Architectural Digest at stake.

"It's a little far fetched" --Judge Judy

[–] ravenx25 13 years ago

OK after looking at your past post most of them are you arguing with other people and putting them down in some cases, which leads me to believe you are a gay little troll who needs to delete there imdb account and get a life, do not bother replying as it will just confirm how much of a troll looser you are.

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

Reading this post makes me question whether you ever have anything of value to add or if you just go around calling people trolls. And there's only 1 O in "loser", idiot. I'm not sure what a troll looser is. Is it anything like a buttfor?

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

[–] cwdawg 12 years ago

A troll looser is someone who loosens trolls... I'll let you paint your own picture of that.

[–] Eve_of_Destruction 12 years ago

I don't know why he called King of Bob a troll when King was defending the movie. Wouldn't a troll be someone who comes on to bash the movie? Just for the sake of bashing?

[–] king_of_bob 12 years ago

It's a typical tactic of posters who can't actually defend the point of view they present. Anyone opposing their point of view is automatically a troll.

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

[–] nizzemancer-265-952005 12 years ago

a troll can do either ot both...

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] prickles 12 years ago

the monsters doesn't real though

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AloysiusWeasley 11 years ago

I definitely enjoyed this movie, but yes, ignoring the faerie stuck in the bookcase and the photos undoubtedly strew over the library was rubbish. If that had been worked on, I think the ending could've made this a much better movie.

[–] trgreen5045 11 years ago

I couldn't understand why they kept leaving the child alone and wandered off alone. Even when the lights went out she left the girl alone with no excuse as to why anyone with half a brain would do that. I wonder if it was editing that messed up or if the script was written that way. If the script was written that way the writer was and idiot as well as anyone who wanted to be a part in making this movie. If that one thing were fixed, this would have been a really good movie instead of pissing off everyone who has seen this movie. That totally ruined it for me. I give this movie 1 star because of that.

[–] mazardeus 9 years ago

That is not a plot hole. Think about what happened after that scene…after she smashed that creature. These gaps that you are trying to criticize are not even legitimate. You need to understand that films left those gaps on purpose to be filled by the audience. The fact that you are talking about these things shows just how demanding you are as a viewer. You want everything clearly explained to you, and spoon-fed for your stupid little brain.

[–] mr-razzberry 9 years ago

The biggest being when Sally was being attacked in the libuary and snapped a ton of pics of the creatures, and even killed one by closing the bookcase door on it.

there's even a shot of the creature's severed arm...if that's not prove enough, i dont know what is. if the father needed money? broadcast that to the world and watch his investment quadrupled - im sure someone wants to own a house with access to a newly discovered humanoid creature...

[–] Sovereign_x2000 12 years ago

Seriously?????? SO you bought the fact that the grounds keeper with bandages all over his arms and body wouldn't have had the bleeding slices in his face disinfect
and dressed?? Over thinking it?? The squashed creature and arm lying on the floor along with a dozen pics in the library during the dinner party??? Are you on crack???

[–] artcurus-1 12 years ago

There were at least 20 of these creatures during the library attack. They could have easily picked them up and destroyed them.

The groundskeeper went to the hospital?

The arm/squashed creature is a plot hole,and ironically, if KIM had noticed the arm, many of the major plot holes could have been closed.

[–] Montmartre1 8 years ago

couldn't agree more.


   

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 13 years ago

While I agree the movie had plot holes, I don't really see this as one. We already knew the gardener knew about the things. He had some never fleshed out connection to them but clearly wanted to help Kim protect Sally. The only way it was possible was to make Kim believe. The librarian told Kim the collection wasn't generally known. Kim may have known everything in general knowledge about Blackwood, but I see no reason to assume she would have known specifically about a hushed collection of his work surreptitiously donated to the local library. Thus, I don'tt really see this as a plot hole.

Now why no one examined the gardener's "accident" more deeply and why no mention was made of the crushed humunculus or all the pictures taken of the little things after the library scenes I definitely have to chalk up to plot holes.

Carthago delenda est.

[–] pajamawolfie 8 years ago

Yeah, the gardener "accidentally" cut himself all over with box cutters and knives before stabbing himself a few times with scissors. Someone really should've looked into that. There had to be some blood smears or something indicating he was attacked rather than had a crazy self-injuring spree.

There is no objective reality... and that's Sucker Punch

[–] oscarbound-2 13 years ago

I think you people are waaaaay overthinking this. None of these are actual plotholes if you think about them. Let's start:

1. It's not a plot hole that the librarian knows more about Blackwood than Kim does since he openly stated that the pictures were never allowed to be publicly shown. As a librarian, wouldn't you be TOLD that upon starting your job? Wouldn't you be given detailed instructions as to what is kept in the backrooms of the library? And it's entirely possible that Kim didn't know he had a child. By all accounts, the child was very young when he was taken and thus probably did not leave enough of an impression on people to warrant much thought. In fact, its entirely possible that the only reason anyone actually knew he HAD a child is when they researched his drawings and writings. Also, library material is PUBLIC. Even if he didn't ask her her name (there was a cut so we can assume that he might have) people can ask to see the material, but not to take it. It's not like it was locked away, never to be seen again; it was only never to be publicly published. Also, the gardner openly states that his family is somehow related to Blackwood (I think his grandfather worked for him) and thus he WOULD know about the paintings since Blackwood would have had to entrust SOMEONE to make sure his affairs were in order before he went crazy.

2. The 'plot hole' of the gardeners injuries IS explained; they believe he fell down the stairs and got cut up by his tools. Is it a little farfetched? Yes, but are you really expecting people to suddenly say, "Oh, yes, he was attacked by little monsters! Of course!"? It's sort of like how Alex and Kim don't fully believe Sally; she doesn't have much a reason to lie, but why would you believe in little monsters that you have never seen?

3. The monsters are not HARMED by light; they just don't like it. It's entirely possible for them to run around in brighter areas if they need something badly enough (what, they can't close their eyes?). Also, they only don't like the light because they live in dark areas and thus their eyes are adjusted for that. After spending so much time above ground, trying to take Sally, isn't it possible that their eyes adjust a little better to the light? I mean, it's not like they spend much time in the light anyway. The brightest they are ever in the light is the two seconds the one spends scurrying from the dining room into the library.

4. The monsters don't take Sally because they CAN'T until she's in the perfect position. Think of it in terms of swallows and coconuts if you want to. These creatures are numerous, but they are still small and probably aren't that strong. Even if they were to lift her all at the same time, she'd still have the chance to fight back. In fact, it's BECAUSE she fights back that they can't take her. Yes, in a normal horror film the fact that it takes them so long to capture her would be a plot hole, but here, where she is an active and smart character, it isn't. In fact, the only reason they actually get her at the end is because she is in the perfect spot for them to tie her legs and drag her down the stairs. How exactly would they get a rope that long for her bedroom? The bathroom? I'm failing to see how you would think it was logical that they could have gotten her earlier. The creatures say numerous times that they want her to go down to the basement, meaning they can't just get her wherever.

5. As for the library, do you really think, after breaking into the library and being confronted by a sobbing child, they would have searched the place? Wouldn't it be more logical if they took care of her FIRST and then went back? And is it so hard to believe that, in that time, the creatures could have shredded the pictures she took and gotten their squashed comrade out of the bookcase? This isn't that hard to figure out, people. These creatures work because they need to make sure people disbelieve Sally and thus force her to be alone and come to them.

I honestly don't see any plotholes. Yes, there is some logic that seems fudged, but nothing that openly shouts, "Hey, wait a minute!"

[–] vicious_123 13 years ago

Those are all plot holes that you're attempting to fill.

Where was it even hinted that they were able to adapt to light? The writing was not well thought out or the directer over looked this aspect which resulted in confusion.

Why would they put Sally to bed right after she was yelling and screaming with pics laying around every where. Books and other objects from out of her reach were on the ground. The writer or director CHOOSE to over look that in order to advance the story to it's eventual climax.

I'm kind of surprised that they watched this movie and were satisfied with all these clichès and plot holes. Maybe they got to the point where they just HAD to release the movie after frustration with it during post-production? I don't know, but it's frustrating.

[–] oscarbound-2 13 years ago

If they can be filled logically, which they can, then they aren't plot holes.

What, were you demanding a line that says they could adapt to light? Where? How could they possibly have fit that in? Since film is a visual medium, you can use what you SEE rather than what you HEAR. I mean, it's like if someone was making a film of how I'm responding to your comment then I just said out loud, "Well, there, I've typed out another sentence in response to someone who disagrees with me." It doesn't work that way. You can't always have a line explaining everything and, frankly, with monsters like this mystery is always better, which is why I think the biggest weakness of the film is that they show the monsters too early and too often.

Why would they put Sally to bed after she was yelling and screaming? Okay, reread that sentence and see if you really don't see the answer in there. She is a child, who has just been terrified, and her father, who doesn't really know what to do as he doesn't have a lot of experience being a parent, thinks the best thing to do is give her a pill and put her to bed. It's called staying in character. I'm sorry, you're demanding these people immediately think that there are little monsters running around when they have no reason to think so. I mean, let's say you were the father; you're child has been acting up, she's always at the scene of problems around the house, and you're trying to get your career off the ground. You hear her screaming in a locked room and stuff being tossed around. When you eventually get in, she's all alone with no one else in the room. Now I ask you, which do you think is more likely: she had a fit and was tossing stuff around, or that little monsters, which you had never seen or had any reason to suspect existed, did it? In fact, he doesn't even really think it WAS her. Don't you remember immediately afterwards he started to pack up to get them out of there? He certainly suspected something was up.

And as for the pics laying around, there were none. If you watched the scene, the monsters were shredding them as they fell to the ground. The only one that survived was the one of her screaming face.

What cliches? What plot holes? Just because you can't immediately explain something does not mean that it is a plot hole. If that was the case, The Matrix, Inception, and 2001: A Space Odyessey are FULL of them. And Hell, the only real cliche in the film is that the parents don't believe her, but that is EXPLAINED: the father is busy and Kim barely knows her and who in their right mind, in a real world with real people, would automatically think monsters? No one would. But really, no one has brought up a plot hole that really is a plot hole; at worst, they've been deux ex machinas, which are legitimate plot devices, not contrivances.

[–] tuffysmom 13 years ago

Whether there were plotholes or not, I found it a pretty silly movie.

[–] import22 13 years ago

"1. It's not a plot hole that the librarian knows more about Blackwood than Kim does since he openly stated that the pictures were never allowed to be publicly shown. As a librarian, wouldn't you be TOLD that upon starting your job? Wouldn't you be given detailed instructions as to what is kept in the backrooms of the library? And it's entirely possible that Kim didn't know he had a child. By all accounts, the child was very young when he was taken and thus probably did not leave enough of an impression on people to warrant much thought. In fact, its entirely possible that the only reason anyone actually knew he HAD a child is when they researched his drawings and writings. Also, library material is PUBLIC. Even if he didn't ask her her name (there was a cut so we can assume that he might have) people can ask to see the material, but not to take it. It's not like it was locked away, never to be seen again; it was only never to be publicly published. Also, the gardner openly states that his family is somehow related to Blackwood (I think his grandfather worked for him) and thus he WOULD know about the paintings since Blackwood would have had to entrust SOMEONE to make sure his affairs were in order before he went crazy."

I'm sorry but at some point she asks if she can see more of the works he mentions are ultra valuable and rare. He then says something like "I'm not allowed to, but I'll do it for you" with a grin on his face - uhhh, you don't even know who she is?! and suddenly you're opening the vault of valuable unkwon drawings for her? As if...

I won't argue more about the other stuff, it's obvious that some people her are so in love with the film that they fill the holes with their own assumptions. The movie has a suspension of disbelief I haven't seen in a while. Maybe if the script didn't show like it took 10 minutes to write, the movie would have been more effective.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jharju 13 years ago

I thought she asked if she could get copies and he said "I'll see what I can do." Not 100% if something else was mentioned but I don't remember it.

[–] ThatGuamGuy 13 years ago

He actually said "I'm not allowed... but I'll see what I can do." Or "I'm not supposed to... but I'll see what I can do." Because the stuff was donated by a rich powerful family that didn't want it getting out, but was still being forced to act a certain way by the requirements of a bad screenwriter, so they didn't just destroy them.

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

I just watched it last night and he didn't say either of those things. He just gave a coy smile and said "I'll see what I can do".

And he wouldn't be allowed to make copies in case someone tried to make money off those copies by selling them as prints.

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

[–] Belle-Et-La-B 13 years ago

I'm sorry but at some point she asks if she can see more of the works he mentions are ultra valuable and rare. He then says something like "I'm not allowed to, but I'll do it for you" with a grin on his face

That's not true. She gave him the lot number and he said he could show her the works. They were his last works and his family asked that they NOT be advertised. They're available to the public but they felt it would be best for his memory to keep it private. And she didn't ask to see more, she asked if copies could be made of the work to which he said 'He'd SEE what he could do.' And yeah it's more likely he did it because she was pretty but it's also possible he would try because he's just simply a nice guy and he's doing his job by trying to keep the people happy.

I won't argue more about the other stuff, it's obvious that some people her are so in love with the film that they fill the holes with their own assumptions.

Well it's very obvious that you're not afraid to put in YOUR own assumptions so why should you be hypocritical and assume that's how other people are doing it. I paid attention to the whole movie and there's definitely still the chance that my views on certain events are wrong and could either be disproved or argued but I still have my reasons and evidence from what I saw during the movie that made me think so in the first place. And I'm not in love with this movie either. It was just average to me and I was expecting better. But it wasn't totally horrible.

Got Balls of Steel got an automobile at minimum wage.

[–] flyoverland 13 years ago

Lesson #1: Never argue with the screenwriter of a sorely flawed movie.

Lesson #2: If oscarbound-2 isn't the writer of this movie, he sure is taking the gaping plotholes rather personally.

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

I won't argue more about the other stuff, it's obvious that some people her are so in love with the film that they fill the holes with their own assumptions. The movie has a suspension of disbelief I haven't seen in a while. Maybe if the script didn't show like it took 10 minutes to write, the movie would have been more effective.

In other words, you're too lazy to come up with an actual argument. And if you're going to talk about poor writing ability, you should take a good long look at yourself first.

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

[–] rick_oelfke 13 years ago

no plot holes? try this one on.... how does the father explain where his girlfriend is?

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

That's not a plot hole because we never see anyone go looking for an explanation. That would be something that happens after the movie ends.

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

[–] rick_oelfke 13 years ago

Dear sir,
we don't see anyone looking for an explanation is exactly my point, the movie didn't end just as she is taken it ended sometime later. No investigation? If we are to assume there was, he would obviously be a suspect. The house would be searched, including the strange hole in the basement, and yet we see nothing of the sort, not even glimpse of police tape.

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

we don't see anyone looking for an explanation is exactly my point, the movie didn't end just as she is taken it ended sometime later.

Thus displaying that you do not understand what a plot hole is, as a plot hole has to actually be part of the plot. Not something that may or may not happen after the film ends.

The movie ends exactly when it ends. What happens after is NOT part of the plot.

No investigation? If we are to assume there was, he would obviously be a suspect. The house would be searched, including the strange hole in the basement, and yet we see nothing of the sort, not even glimpse of police tape.

And you don't think that happened when Blackwood and his son went missing? And yet the only information to be found on the subject was at a library.

"Ever weird, there's a dead girl here with her teeth knocked out and a plate of teeth in this fireplace. Oh well, it's clearly natural causes."

He maybe a suspect in whatever subsequent investigation there is. But it doesn't matter because it isn't part of the movie and as such cannot really be discussed as a plot hole.

A plot hole is something that runs counter to previously established logic. It isn't something left out of the movie.

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

[–] rick_oelfke 13 years ago

the setting is a part of the plot, no hint of an investigation is a plot hole. the Blackwood case was investigated as mentioned by the librarian. "a plot hole is something that runs counter to previously established logic." now that I understand what a plot hole is (thanks by the way) let me re state that an investigation would happen and he would not be able to explain what happend, the basement would have been explored as well as the hole leading underground and yet we see no sign. That is not logical.

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

the setting is a part of the plot, no hint of an investigation is a plot hole.

You have no idea what you're talking about. "Investigating" the hole has nothing to do with the setting. Once again, it isn't a plot hole because what happens after the movie is not part of the plot.

the Blackwood case was investigated as mentioned by the librarian.

And NOTHING came of the investigation. Basically you're saying you want a whole other movie tacked onto to end of this one, for an investigation that's not going to turn up a damn thing of value.

let me re state that an investigation would happen and he would not be able to explain what happend, the basement would have been explored as well as the hole leading underground and yet we see no sign. That is not logical.

Except that it didn't happen in the movie, and as such is not part of the plot thus not a plot hole. I don't understand why you're having such a hard time with this concept.

And as I said, an investigation would have turned up nothing just like the Blackwood investigation. It would be completely pointless and a total waste of time.

What happens after the story ends is irrelevant. As I said, most likely Alex would go on trial for Kim's disappearance.

And when I said a plot hole is something that runs counter to previously established logic, I meant within the story. Nothing came of the Blackwood investigation, so we can safely assume nothing would come of this investigation. It was established within the story that nothing comes of said investigations, as such it's logical within the confines of the universe the story takes place in. In other words, even if it were part of the plot, it's not a plothole.

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

[–] rick_oelfke 13 years ago

"you have no idea what you're talking about" rude and not necessary. Bolding and capitalizing words, also pointless. I don't need you to suggest inflection via message board, I would however like to discuss our opinions.
What I'm suggesting is that an investigation would have involved some excavation of the basement yet we don't see one. "it was established within the story that nothing comes of said investigations, as such it is logical within the confines of the universe the story takes place in" very good point, however the two investigations took place in different time periods. I would accept that the investigation in Blackwoods era would be less in depth, but I wouldn't expect one today to be so.

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

rude and not necessary. Bolding and capitalizing words, also pointless. I don't need you to suggest inflection via message board, I would however like to discuss our opinions.

And what exactly is necessary here? How are you contributing to the conversation with this?

Bolding and capitalizing for emphasis. That is a point.

What I'm suggesting is that an investigation would have involved some excavation of the basement yet we don't see one. "it was established within the story that nothing comes of said investigations, as such it is logical within the confines of the universe the story takes place in" very good point, however the two investigations took place in different time periods. I would accept that the investigation in Blackwoods era would be less in depth, but I wouldn't expect one today to be so.

And excavation would be pointless. If you're attempting to save Kim, or even recover the body to find out what happened. In both cases they would have to go extremely slow in order to not destroy the body.

There's no reason for us to see an excavation because the movie ends before any investigation can begin. It's not part of the plot. As I've said repeatedly.

And don't forget that there's some kind of conspiracy going on here involving the Pope and the Church. Who's to say they wouldn't keep this under wraps? It's not out of the realm of possibility within this movie.

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

[–] rick_oelfke 13 years ago

it was necessary to keep the discussion civil, which in turn contributes to the conversation. I understand what the point of capitalizing and using the bold function is, I'm suggesting it's pointless to yell during a discussion. For example your last line "And don't forget that there's some kind of conspiracy going on here involving the Pope and the Church. Who's to say they wouldn't keep this under wraps? It's not out of the realm of possibility within this movie." no inflection needed here and you have proven your point. I forgot about this element and it makes complete sense, while I don't agree that there is no reason not to see something of an investigation I do see now why we possibly wouldn't.

[–] MarioTee 13 years ago

I don't read these boards often, and I reply even more rarely. But what you gave is one of best replies I have ever read.

This movie is not perfect, but its one of best horror movies lately. Story is creepy, actually everything works just fine.

The guy you reply is probably one of people who find it "stupid thing to do for character" - to go, for example, to dark basement (his one - like (s)he knows its danegrous in any way). First scene of this movie.

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

Horror movies wouldn't exist if fictional characters always did the logical thing.

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

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

Those are all plot holes that you're attempting to fill.

No actually, not a single one is a plot hole.

Where was it even hinted that they were able to adapt to light? The writing was not well thought out or the directer over looked this aspect which resulted in confusion.

You need to be told? This exact same thing happens to you almost daily I'm willing to bet. Wake up in a dark room and flick on the lights, your eyes aren't adjusted to all the light you've just created so you squint. After a while you don't have to squint anymore. You have a similar situation occur at night. You turn off the light to go to bed and you're essentially blind until your eyes adjust. It's completely natural for a creatures eyes to adjust to the light conditions they're experiencing. So, not a plot hole.

Why would they put Sally to bed right after she was yelling and screaming with pics laying around every where. Books and other objects from out of her reach were on the ground. The writer or director CHOOSE to over look that in order to advance the story to it's eventual climax.

They put her to bed because she was freaking out. When you have an overstimulated child what would YOU do with them? And there may have been pictures laying around, but there was a HUGE mess in that room. And there's no book out of her reach in that room. The shelves are plenty strong enough to support her climbing on them.

And this isn't a plot hole anyway. A plot hole is something that runs contradictory to the rest of the plot, and this does not. As throughout the entire movie it's made clear that her father does not believe her and willfully ignores any evidence she presents. And it's actually the scene in the study that makes him finally believe her. So whether they went over the evidence in the room in detail or not, your complaint is moot.

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

[–] President_Ackbar_Impeached 13 years ago

"The monsters are not HARMED by light; they just don't like it"

Sorry, but you are wrong.

They even said "IT HURTS US"

[–] claemoore 13 years ago

I have arthritis, housework hurts me, but it needs to be done, so I do it! Why wouldn't monsters be able to work through pain for a brief amount of time if they felt they needed to? I've seen vampire films where vampires ran through sunlight and got a bit burnt out of necessity. Same thing!

"Of COURSE I hurt you, how ELSE would you know I love you?? You're so silly sometimes!"

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

Yes, just like when you get up in the morning and turn on your lights, only multiplied many times since they live in almost complete darkness all the time. It's not like they're vampires and they burst into flames.

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

[–] ryleyemenaker 13 years ago

child was 8, they mentioned that. I want to know why she goes all the way to the library and the librarian suggest a book to get familiar with the creatures, she like nah I just look at pictures. You dont think that the audience might want to know what the *beep* is going on, I dont read 50 words a second to read and understand all the symbols at the beginning.

[–] anitalansing 13 years ago

Hi oscarbound-2. I appreciate how you have done a thorough job reviewing the movie and trying to find logic within the plot.....but, to say it nicely, this movie was NOT logical no matter how much it is analyzed.

I understand everything you mentioned about how the librarian knew detailed information about the Blackwood stories, how the gardener was "accidentally" injured by the tools, and even how the creatures were adapting to light....I get it.

However, the biggest holes in the story's plot are:

The creatures enjoyed eating teeth. Why would the creatures leave a bowl of teeth untouched in the ash furnace for almost 100 years?

How did Kim (Katie Holmes) become one of the creatures at the end? Why didn't they just eat her teeth and then kill her??

How could the Polaroid have so many flashes without ever changing bulbs?

How were the creatures able to speak English? Even the smartest animals, dolphins, are not able to speak. Were these creatures intelligent beings from another planet because that would be the only way to explain the creatures having the ability to speak and carry on conversations with Sally.

This movie sucked. Not matter how much logic you search for within the movie. It sucked.....BIG TIME!!! :-)

[–] xic71130 13 years ago

Hrm, well it's been a while since I've been on here but I'll chime in on a few things.

"The creatures enjoyed eating teeth. Why would the creatures leave a bowl of teeth untouched in the ash furnace for almost 100 years?"
- First thing that came out of my mouth at the end as well. I try and give the benefit of the doubt until the very end because you never know what may be explained, albeit commonly in a terrible manner. But that doesn't make sense to me either. I mean, maybe leave one or something to "intrigue" Sally but there were a ton... as often as they don't see people, you think they'd be all over that haha.

"How did Kim (Katie Holmes) become one of the creatures at the end? Why didn't they just eat her teeth and then kill her??"
- This, if I recall correctly, was vaguely explained during some scene; possibly the library (public) one. I recall some sort of agreement being made in exchange for teeth, though I can't quite remember what it all encompassed, but I do remember them saying they need to take one life every time they come "above" to (now simply paraphrase me) 'replenish their numbers' or something along those lines. Now as for how? That goes along with my explanation for the last comment you made.

"How could the Polaroid have so many flashes without ever changing bulbs?"
- I don't know anything about polaroids so I can't honestly comment with anything of value lol.

Now to continue, as to the english speaking part, I said to myself; they're not dolphins. They're not chimps, they're not 'animals.' I believe it was trying to go more of the 'demonic' route. Perhaps not in a religious way but along the lines of a supernatural creature. Now it DID say creatures pre-dating mankind so that could back up your animal theory, it depends on how you look at it I suppose but in this case I think it's best left unthought about.

From what I've read I'll probably be attacked for this but I don't really care but I'll say, in my opinion, this movie wasn't bad, and certainly not terrible. It wasn't phenominal, and I don't know if I'd say good, more of a so-so but if I had to pick black and white I'd say good.

I think a lot of the people on this board seem to get too involved with debating and enjoying their forum discussions on art, because that's what movies really are to the people making them, that they force themselves to hate it unless it explains itself as well as most books do. Movies try and get a lot of information out in a short time and have to rely on visuals and audience perception and common sense to fill out some things they don't want to waste time explaining. I enjoyed watching the movie because I knew what the plot and prupose was 'supposed to be.' I got what they were going for, thinking too deeply is like getting mad at abstract paintings because it's not specific enough. It's the 'feel' you need to focus on. Try to not forget that. You can see how hard it is to make a 'perfect movie' in your guys' eyes because not many of you even agree with what that entails lol.

My 2cents. Or dollar, depending on how much I really typed I guess ;).
forgive the spelling if I messed up, don't really wanna edit the whole thing.

[–] MarioTee 13 years ago

1. Creatures loved only theets by children. That was very obvious and clear from first scenes.

2. Is that really plot hole? What do we know about these creatures? They are evil, small, hate light... We dont know if they are lonely, or anything else.

3. No argue there, however its common mistake in Hollywood.

4. And how come Brad Pitt in Troy spoke English? Or 95% of aliens? Again, reed number 2. We don't know much about creatures. They could be smart. At the end, they are tooth faries. Why do we even discust about how come they speak English? Should they speak in Croatian? Or not speak at all?

ThIS MOVIE IS GReAT.

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

The creatures enjoyed eating teeth. Why would the creatures leave a bowl of teeth untouched in the ash furnace for almost 100 years?

They wanted children's teeth. The teeth in the bowel were adult.

How did Kim (Katie Holmes) become one of the creatures at the end? Why didn't they just eat her teeth and then kill her??

They're fairies, who knows how they do anything. But if you want a why, it was part of the deal they struck way back when. To replenish their numbers.

And again they don't want to eat adult teeth\bones. They want kids bones and teeth.

How could the Polaroid have so many flashes without ever changing bulbs?

I wasn't paying that close attention to what kind of flash bar she was using. But typically between 10 and 16 pictures can be taken before you're out of bulbs. I'll leave it up to you to count how many pictures she actually took in the scene.

How were the creatures able to speak English? Even the smartest animals, dolphins, are not able to speak. Were these creatures intelligent beings from another planet because that would be the only way to explain the creatures having the ability to speak and carry on conversations with Sally.

They take humans to become part of their group. It stands to reason they would learn English from the ones they're taking. Notice how clearly Fairy Kim speaks at the end of the movie.

They're not intelligent beings from another planet. They're intelligent beings from a time before humans existed according to this movies mythology. But as I said, they're incorporating former humans into their group, the better question would be why don't they speak better English?

This movie sucked. Not matter how much logic you search for within the movie. It sucked.....BIG TIME!!! :-)

Well like... That's just your opinion, man.

Honestly you're perfectly entitled to dislike something. But don't go looking for excuses. None are needed. If you don't like something, you don't have to bend over backwards to find reasons why. Especially when those "reasons" can be so easily refuted.

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

[–] ThatGuamGuy 13 years ago

"Yes, but are you really expecting people to suddenly say, "Oh, yes, he was attacked by little monsters! Of course!"?"

No, I would expect them to think "Gee, I wonder if the crazy little girl who just last night took a razor to all Katie Holmes's clothes might be the person who repeatedly stabbed this guy who has clearly been repeatedly stabbed."

"Also, they only don't like the light because they live in dark areas and thus their eyes are adjusted for that."

And then, at the end, they suddenly realize, "Hey, wait, we know enough about electricity to shut off the lights." And one of the others says, "Why didn't we do that sooner?" and they all shout "SHHHHH!"

"Wouldn't it be more logical if they took care of her FIRST and then went back?"

A little girl who has been begging her father to believe her since the beginning and has been shown repeatedly to be quite stubborn would say, "I'm not leaving until you take two seconds and look at the monster that I just crushed in the bookcase."

[–] eeggers-2 12 years ago

Haha I just like that you start your post with "you people are wayyyyy over thinking this" then continue on to practically write an essay of detailed analysis.

That hilarious irony being said...I think this movie was a waste of time and money simply because those creatures are more comical than scary, and they can't drag a little girl more than half a foot a min but they have enough force to break a grown woman's leg and quickly drag her down a hole?

Ahh Katie Holmes, I'm disappointed.

[–] movieman-232 12 years ago

"(which begs another question: With 2 flashlights in the house why did her Stepmother give her a Polaroid Camera?)"

Easy answer: because it produces a quick bright light to keep them away long enough, and it's a camera which could prove to everyone that these things she claims exist do indeed exist.

"You dont think that the audience might want to know what the *beep* is going on"

I thought it was pretty clear as to what was going on. Those creatures wanted the little girl so as to keep up their ranks, and they got her father's girlfriend instead. They also like to torment. Pretty straight forward if you ask me.

"The bedroom scene was NOT scary. You clearly see the monster go under the sheet 1st. Hence, you know it's coming. It makes it less suspenseful. All you get is a cheap jump instead of a scare."

Never heard of Hitchcock? He said that the best way to do suspense in movies is to allow the audience the knowledge of what is coming while leaving the characters in the dark. But with this one, yeah they let the little girl become just as aware, but still there's somewhat of a feeling of suspense, just because your mind says it ain't so that doesn't mean that it sucked for me nor for anyone else.

"The gardner had an "accident"? He's near death by tripping repeatedly over lawn tools, which stabbed him several dozen times over and over again?"

Either you've never been in an old rusty house or... You see, that woman didn't know what was down there. For all she knew she didn't really get to see everything the way we got to see it. It's possible that movies not reflect logic all the time, it's just a movie.

"That's lazy. We as audience members are bored b/c we're hearing stuff we know."

"We"? "You"! Just because you feel this sensation of boredom doesn't mean that every other audience member was. It's been called ADD, where you can't sit still for too long before you need something else to present itself. I find learning things more than once can keep I up to speed, and I also learned that I might have missed something in a scene before, and thus when I hear someone else telling it I might catch something I hadn't before. But we're talking about "you" here, so I guess whatever I say means absolutely bupkis.

"I have arthritis, housework hurts me, but it needs to be done, so I do it! Why wouldn't monsters be able to work through pain for a brief amount of time if they felt they needed to? I've seen vampire films where vampires ran through sunlight and got a bit burnt out of necessity. Same thing!"

Sorry to hear about your arthrits. :(

Have you ever seen Blade 2? There's a scene when a vampire played by Ron Perlman subjects his hand to a little bit of sunlight. For some monster, that might just get their temper up to make them go for what they want. And some monsters aren't like humans, some might enjoy the pain, or like a human, maybe they can be called masochistic. That might be a bad addition to your explanation but I tried.

"The creatures enjoyed eating teeth. Why would the creatures leave a bowl of teeth untouched in the ash furnace for almost 100 years?"

Picture William Hickey as Uncle Lewis trying to tell Mae Questel as Aunt Bethany in National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation that she's supposed to say grace here when I say: They eat CHILDREN'S teeth. Not adult teeth.

"How could the Polaroid have so many flashes without ever changing bulbs?"

HA!

"How were the creatures able to speak English? Even the smartest animals, dolphins, are not able to speak. Were these creatures intelligent beings from another planet because that would be the only way to explain the creatures having the ability to speak and carry on conversations with Sally."

Mein GOTT! This is what I'd call a serious lack of imagination. They were fantastical creatures, like orcs, or trolls. Not dolphins!

"I think the A.D.D generation enjoy cheap jump moments."

Or some people just like to throw their popcorn all over everyone in the vacinity of the theater when a jump scare comes. Me, I like seeing all the wet heads as my pop splashes everyone around me. Reason I wear a rain coat to the movies ;)

"That's what the bedroom scene is. If there was a noise, that she goes under the sheet to investigate and you didn't know if it was real or just her imagination, then suspense builds and when the creature appears it's a genuine scare moment."

And this is called DSM-IV modern day what-if-she's-mentally-ill-and-these-creatures-are-part-of-some-mental-illness? codswallop.

"And why do the monsters wait until the film's climax to try to take her?"

Easy answer: then the filmmakers wouldn't be running to their bank while you sit in your seat glancing repeatedly at your dayglo watch. OR, monsters like to torture little girls...?

"Del Toro: "Si! Si! Chills! Chills! I always wondered about that! I thought I was only person in the known universe afraid of the tooth fairy. I am sure now that there are other people just as frightened by a visit from the tooth fairy as I am! I smell HIT, clever boy! Jou are hired!"

HA!

"Then why did the creatures take the tooth under Sally's pillow and replace it with a silver coin?"

They were PLAYING with her! Why not give her a dang coin? These things are monsters, they like to screw with people, especially little kids. Giving her a coin will lure her into believing these things a cool. Much to her dismay later on. Can you say: "DER!" ?

"Haha I just like that you start your post with "you people are wayyyyy over thinking this" then continue on to practically write an essay of detailed analysis."

Anyone ever heard of joining a discussion to help get a point across? It's called trying to help your fellow man, no matter how much of a BLEEP they are. Sorry, just couldn't be helped. Call it touerets. He was just doing that. You people are hopeless! You think that you are consumately right, no matter what anyone else brings to the table there is always another way you can play your game of telling others how stupid they are, and bullying is such fun. Tis why this world is going to the dogs. But don't get me wrong, I like dogs, they just bark too much and get on my nerves.

"That hilarious irony being said...I think this movie was a waste of time and money..."

Then why not go to a Redbox and picket instead of coming here? It would make your goal come true faster to do that. No, you don't wish to tell people how you hated this movie, you want to shove your opinionated mind down our throats and try to make us choke.

Funny thing I noticed is their banter towards each other. If I remember right, one would sound worried and then one would say she'll come back, they always do. They aren't creatures that anyone has ever seen in this world. They are simply creatures that make no sense because they do not exist. And neither do I.

[–] slicesandbogeys 12 years ago

(oscarbound-2) "5. As for the library, do you really think, after breaking into the library and being confronted by a sobbing child, they would have searched the place? Wouldn't it be more logical if they took care of her FIRST and then went back? And is it so hard to believe that, in that time, the creatures could have shredded the pictures she took and gotten their squashed comrade out of the bookcase? This isn't that hard to figure out, people. These creatures work because they need to make sure people disbelieve Sally and thus force her to be alone and come to them."

I'm not TRYING to start an argument, or sugest I'm a better father than this guy, but in the past when my daughter has freaked out about something I've made it a point to check it out however rediculous it sounded. Honestly, money and magazine cover aside, how hard would it have been for this clown to have the maid (or whatever she was) take Sally to bed and stay to look around the library. Especially since he was fixing the place up. Wouldn't you at least want to look for damage that you'd have to get fixed?
That's just me, though.

[–] itrhymeswithoranges 13 years ago

That's not a plot hole. That's a bit of deus ex machina at work, but not a plot hole. At all. Do you even know what a plot hole is? And I think it's perfectly believable that this woman not know EVERY detail about the artist's life. Also she didn't "bump" into the gardener. She went to visit him and he told her on his deathbed (presumably) in an effort to try to help. And it's also no that bizarre that a man who works in a library would be informed about an extremely rare and interesting collection. Or that a family would donate private work to a local library.

There were plot holes. Like how did they explain Kim's disappearance? What about all those people at the party, why did they never ask questions? etc.

formerly not_so_much

[–] oscarbound-2 13 years ago

Good explanation, but I don't think those plot holes you raised at the end were really plot holes. Yeah, we don't see how they explain Kim's disappearance, but that's because it never came up. We can just assume they came up with a reason, or that they didn't want to talk about it. It wasn't a big issue since it was at the end of the film. As for the people at the party, they probably just assumed that the child was sick or upset; it's one of those things that's like, "Well, she's crazy. Let's get out of here." I mean, what were they supposed to say? It was none of their business and they probably didn't care.

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

Yeah, we don't see how they explain Kim's disappearance, but that's because it never came up.

Exactly. Hell, we could assume Alex gets picked up by the police at some point and goes to jail for Kim's disappearance. It wasn't part of the movie though, so there's no way it can be a plot hole.

As for the people at the party, they probably just assumed that the child was sick or upset; it's one of those things that's like, "Well, she's crazy. Let's get out of here." I mean, what were they supposed to say? It was none of their business and they probably didn't care.

Indeed. I mean, when I'm at a friends place and their kid is freaking out about something I don't instantly think something supernatural is afoot. And if I enter a room with a child freaking out I don't search the room for evidence of a supernatural occurrence.

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

[–] Eve_of_Destruction 13 years ago

"Indeed. I mean, when I'm at a friends place and their kid is freaking out about something I don't instantly think something supernatural is afoot. And if I enter a room with a child freaking out I don't search the room for evidence of a supernatural occurrence"

Of course lol, why is this person so set on picking apart a fantasy/horror movie anyway? It's fictional first of all.

--This should be fun it's a movie

[–] ThatGuamGuy 13 years ago

"Or that a family would donate private work to a local library. "

What is strange is that they didn't want the work being made public, so they refused to allow it to be published in any way... but they donated it to a library instead of destroying it.

It only makes sense from a screenwriter's perspective, "We've got to find some way of having them find this information out." But from the perspective of a rich family that doesn't like the fact that their family member apparently went crazy, it makes none.

[–] Black_PuddleT5 13 years ago

It only makes sense from a screenwriter's perspective, "We've got to find some way of having them find this information out." But from the perspective of a rich family that doesn't like the fact that their family member apparently went crazy, it makes none.

.....WHAT!?? Their family member went crazy so obviously they wanted him to be remembered for the good stuff and not for the latest crazy psychotic monster stuff he obsessed over! But it was still his last works so destroying it would have been a big insult to him so they donated it to the library but didn't want it fully out there in the public.

It makes perfect sense! I'm not trying to act like this movie is perfect because it's not but it's so weird how some of you are complaining about things that actually made sense....

_

I wish my lawn was emo so it would cut itself...

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

What is strange is that they didn't want the work being made public, so they refused to allow it to be published in any way... but they donated it to a library instead of destroying it.

You know people sometimes have a hard time destroying things that have sentimental value. Rather than throwing it into some dank room somewhere, they gave it to the library who they knew would take care of it. How is donating it equal to destroying it to you?

It only makes sense from a screenwriter's perspective, "We've got to find some way of having them find this information out." But from the perspective of a rich family that doesn't like the fact that their family member apparently went crazy, it makes none.

When did they ever state why they didn't want it published? I certainly don't remember anyone saying that the family didn't want anyone to find out this information. Only that they didn't want it published. There could be a million reasons for that. I could be wrong, but I don't remember.

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

[–] Sh0-Nuff 13 years ago

I completely agree. That's the first thing i mentioned to my friend was how the *beep* the young librarian knew so damn much?

I agree with everything you said.

[–] ostermjr 13 years ago

It's a movie about child eating gnome-like creatures and you don't like that the private library access is too unbelievable? Come on.

"More Special!!!"

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] theflyingsaucers 13 years ago

My biggest issue is that its obvious to the audience that gardener knows about the evil in the house, and as they discover the basement, he says nothing. Later, when he's talking to the creatures and saying to them he didn't help the humans. Why wouldn't he say anything to them as they discover the basement? They were locked in the underground vent and at that point no threat.

I'm a horror fan and can over look mistakes and such, but this film is riddled with them. The dinner party when Sally freaks out, but they stay at the house. I was yelling at the screen "Just get a damn hotel room and end this stupid movie!" I expect more from Del Toro.

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

My biggest issue is that its obvious to the audience that gardener knows about the evil in the house, and as they discover the basement, he says nothing. Later, when he's talking to the creatures and saying to them he didn't help the humans. Why wouldn't he say anything to them as they discover the basement? They were locked in the underground vent and at that point no threat.

I think the implication is that the gardener was actually a descendent of Blackwoods family, and as such "bound" in some way to the agreement made with the creatures.

The dinner party when Sally freaks out, but they stay at the house.

That's simply not true. That incident happened and then while Sally is recovering from her freak out Alex and Kim decide to pack up and leave. It's that event that makes Alex realize that Sally isn't just acting up.

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

[–] IndustrialJones 13 years ago

I'm thinking it's a case where a local is going to know more than an expert that's not a local. It didn't bother me... suspend your disbelief ;)

[–] Black_PuddleT5 13 years ago

The only "plot hole" I see is the fact that no one ended up seeing all that evidence. (photos and the dead creature)

BUT, it's not like a "OMG this movie now makes no sense at all!" plot hole, but more like a, "Hey, they forgot to explain this scene." plot hole. Because it's a part of the PLOT that could've been FILLED IN. Hence it really being a plot hole, though very mild.

All we needed was a small 2 second glimpse of a creature grabbing the photos just after they fell down, or the dead one getting taken away with the other creatures last minute. But the fact that we did not see those events, doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Maybe Del Toro thought that since he already showed one creature ripping up a photo, that his viewers would be smart enough to assume they'll hide any evidence of their existence with great haste.

_

I wish my lawn was emo so it would cut itself...

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

All we needed was a small 2 second glimpse of a creature grabbing the photos just after they fell down, or the dead one getting taken away with the other creatures last minute. But the fact that we did not see those events, doesn't mean they didn't happen.

To be fair, people ignore photographic and physical evidence all the time. Look at pictures\videos of aliens and UFOs(not to imply any of this is real). Even if a video or picture is unexplainable, it goes mostly ignored except by fringe elements.

Hell, there was even a case between 1917 of a pair of sisters supposedly taking photographs of fairies. Nobody believed it then, why would anyone believe it now?

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