MovieChat Forums > The Hide (2009) Discussion > Some thoughts (contains spoilers)

Some thoughts (contains spoilers)

posted 15 years ago by Riverman86
9 replies | jump to latest

I caught this on Film4 last night after spotting it on the Radio Times website. It sounded interesting from the brief description given. But as there was no star rating supplied, I thought I'd better look up a review of it elsewhere first just to ensure that I'd not be completely wasting my time.

The review I found on the Channel 4 website was praising, and whilst I didn't read any spoilers, one sentence remained with me: "It's the sort of film with an impact that will be impaired by even the barest description of the narrative".

OK. Fair enough. Firstly, the good points. It's very well acted and well shot (the outdoor scenes are particularly beautiful). The set up of the film is also interesting and different which is always nice to see. The various banalities spoken between the two characters were fairly well scripted and delivered in an engaging way. And the atmosphere created helped to make the film eerie throughout. The plot in principle was also delicious (pun intended).

Now for the not so good. I saw it coming. Well, a fair chunk of it. Admittedly, this may just have been me and was possibly influenced by the sentence in that review. Here was my thought process...

OK, so we've got two characters thrown together in a bird hide. One's an obsessed middle aged birdwatcher who's a bit geeky and socially inept but has some endearing qualities about him. The other is a slightly younger man who's fairly laddish in terms of behaviour and interests, and who is ambiguously implied to be either dangerous or to have performed some horrible murderous act. The film goes by for a while. Because of the perceived dullness in proceedings, there's obviously going to be more to the story than meets the eye. It's already been "given away" that there's danger in the air as we've seen the deadly flashbacks and the younger man appears vaguely threatening to the birdwatcher. If the younger man was on the run after committing murder then what would be the point of giving this away so early in the film? No, there's more to the story. What?

My first thought: Role reversal. The birdwatcher is obsessive, awkward, short tempered (although he keeps this to himself) and is estranged from his ex-wife, who he "curiously" keeps a photo of by his side. Infact, he probably suits the psychopath bill more than the younger man! Jokingly and perhaps worryingly for myself, when the birdwatcher offered the paste sandwiches, I thought they were probably human flesh. Paste is a peculiar term when not preceded by some other food type. Anyway, I didn't seriously consider the cannibal route until the actual reveal at the end which was a nice semi-surprise.

I've just realised how much I've written, so I'll try to make my point now. The role reversal just seemed too obvious and over-elaborate when judged against the first three quarters of the film. Yes, it's a clever idea. But for me, the film had already given you most of the clues to work it out for yourself much sooner. The birdwatcher's personality traits, the cliched photo of his ex-wife, she leaving him for another man and mocking him to boot, his job history at the meat factory, the radio call from the police describing a "white male" on the run. This lessened the impact of the big reveal which could almost have been iconic. Perhaps what I'm saying is that the film wasn't ambiguous enough in the first three quarters, or maybe it should even have led you more down an alley to get a bigger pay off. If you've worked it out, I don't think the characterisation and plot devices are sufficient enough to sustain your enjoyment of the film.

On a good note, I hadn't worked it all out. The younger man being suicidal was a decent ploy. The idea of the birdwatcher keeping the younger man as an audience for his big finale was something I hadn't fully considered. The face-off ending was tense and satisfactory enough. Although the idea of having the poem finished by the younger man seemed a tad far-fetched and forced considering that his interests were drum 'n' bass and thriller films. I know it's stereotypical of me, but I just don't buy a laddish type character like that remembering and reciting a poem - no matter how melancholy he may be.

Disappointingly, while I think it's a decent film (better than most), I have no real desire to see it again. If I did, it would only be to see if there were any hidden meanings in any of the earlier dialogue.

I'd be interested to see how many other people had worked it out much sooner than revealed.

[–] jamiewharton 15 years ago

I hadn't worked it out at all, I thought the reveal was darkly brilliant, although I knew NOTHING about the movie on watching it. Just watched it on Film 4 randomly.

I think it's fair enough that David would remember the poem though, he said he read it three days ago at his brothers funeral. Why would he forget it?

But yeah, I wouldn't watch it again, I don't need to, the experience stays with me. It doesn't need to be watched again.

[–] Riverman86 15 years ago

Oh OK, I didn't realise that he had actually read the poem at the funeral. For some reason I thought that he had just heard it being read. That's more understandable then.

Perhaps I was a little too rough on the film. Don't get me wrong, I actually liked it. It's the type of film that restores some faith in the modern film industry. But maybe I wanted it to be excellent instead of merely good.

If I appear to be the only one here who saw it coming then I'll shut up.

[–] ezra-thomas 15 years ago

Riverman86 - A good review that, I pretty much agreed with everything you said. For an interesting insight into the movie yet you have no desire to see it again it would interesting to have your rating out of ten.

6/10 from me.

"Mother is the name of God on the hearts and lips of all children"

[–] Riverman86 15 years ago

Thanks! Ratings, erm, I hate ratings. Certainly no less than a 6 and perhaps a 7 given the general quality of the film which was by no means bad. Above average stuff.

[–] stefan-599 15 years ago

i watched this film from about half way through, and yeah kind of saw it coming too, but you get that with a lot of films, but the acting from the two i found to be above average. I actually thought that david was seeking revenge for his brother who roy had killed for sleeping with his wife and that the flash backs where the remains that he had seen, but this was not the case at the end

[–] LAT71 15 years ago

I was always half expecting some kind of twist - not because of the film's own build-up but becuase more and more films are going for the "unexpected twist" angle these days.

My first inclination that Roy rather than Dave might be the one the helicopter is looking for came when Dave got upset over Roy's comments about water sportsmen and stormed out of the cabin.

Roy was genuinely anxious to keep Dave at the cabin - if he was as he seemed he would have been glad to see Dave leave, any attempts to make him stay would have been half hearted at best.

Roy then appears anxious for the helicopter to find them - which threw me off a little - back to the actions of a man who is just a mild mannered bird watcher.

That was enough to keep me guessing - so for me at least - the twist actually did have a decent impact when it hit.

[–] bogwart-1 14 years ago

Extraordinary. Just about every professional reviewer had the same problem as the Radio Times because to reveal anything about the film would spoil what was coming.

Yet, and especially given the date of your post, you chose to give chapter and verse without any warning of spoilers, even down to the detail of the contents of the paste sandwiches.

What a prize twat you must be. I'll bet when you were a kid you had to sneak a look at your Christmas presents before 'officially' opening them.

[–] Olvar 13 years ago

The title of the thread is "Some thoughts (contains spoilers)".

I read that and took it as a warning of potential upcoming spoilers.

Who is the prize twat now?

Pretty decent film I thought. Well acted, especially "Roy", who I thought was brilliant.

I guessed there was some sort of role reversal twist approaching, but didn't quite clock the details. I didn't see the paste sandwich thing coming at all, just because we ate paste sandwiches a lot growing up, so it didn't strike me as an obvious plant. They came in two varieties: "meat" and "fish". They struck me as just the sort of thing the character would eat, largely because of how anachronistic it was. After all, who still eats paste sarnies these days? Only a man terminally stuck in a routine.

[–] bogwart-1 13 years ago

I think the thread title has been edited since I made that comment. In fact I'm fairly sure of it. Even so, as I said at the time, it's one thing to reveal some plot points, it's another thing completely to give so much detail that it makes the actual viewing of the film redundant.

I'd already seen it, so it didnt make any difference to me. But anyone flicking through the threads and reading that would have been somewhat annoyed by all that detail, especially as it was more than two years ago - some four months before the film was released in the UK.