... on the shot of the dead woman with a bullet in her eye staring into the camera, this film would have been so much better.
Never finding out the culprits identities or even hinting at anything at all would have sent my mind reeling and unsettled me a lot more.
Yeah, I know, another 'ending sucks' thread.
But basically, stop it right before the camera is picked up and continues filming, and you have one very solid horror psuedo-footage film.
I can agree with you. The ending didn't necessarily spoil the movie altogether for me, but it gave the movie a far too unbelievable "reveal", in an already far fetched premise. I actually enjoyed the movie, but i would have preferred being left in the dark, so to say, as to who the culprits were. I'm a firm believer that what you can't see, or don't know, is far scarier than what a lot of movies inevitably end up presenting to you, which will always be a disappointment compared to the dread you were building in your imagination.
shareI'm a firm believer that what you can't see, or don't know, is far scarier than what a lot of movies inevitably end up presenting to you, which will always be a disappointment compared to the dread you were building in your imagination.
This. Through and through. Though it can feel like a bit of a cop out to just to lave it that open-ended. However, unless you can reasonably tie together a motive through the plot and character development, it seems ridiculous to just tack on a pack of creepy kids at the end as the culprits.
First you ask if you can be red, knowing that I'm always red.
They weren't random creepy kids. It was the kid in the opening sequence who gets shot in the head in the bathroom. I could have taken the ending either way but I didn't mind them throwing in one little extra twist. It kind of got me actually considering I didn't think they were going to do a reveal and were just going to leave it open ended. I mean there were no other characters in the film than the 3 groups so really who else could it possibly have been.
share