First: Thanks to Nilay for posting! Nice to see you're still watching movies despite the demands of your profession (I, of course, would expect nothing less). Now you just need to send a pic, so I can place you on the side panel next to me.
Now to your counterpoint. I'll try not to spoil either.
If by the "room's little trick beforehand" you mean the part of Enslin's experience during which there is no "countdown" -- the one that in no way fits in with the rest of his experiences in the room-- then I agree that it sucked. I, perhaps erroneously, lumped this part of the movie in my definition of the "end." I didn't get it, and it really took me away from the core attributes of the movie.
The one part of the "actual ending" that I did like was Enslin's attitude, which is a departure from that of most horror movies. However, the technique that he uses to express his attitude (I'm trying to be as vague and specific as possible here-- bear with me) is not only arbitrary in its effectiveness, but doesn't seem to jive with what's actually going on inside the room. For example, we, the audience, see things from both Enslin's perspective and from "reality's perspective," but it is not clear how much Enslin is actually doing vs. what he is hallucinating. We can assume that he doesn't actually crawl into a vent, right? We assume that he really didn't throw the lamp out the window, right? But lighting a match? Why should that be any different?
0 comments:
Post a Comment