About the movie, well… I’ll just say that (in my opinion) it doesn’t even deserve a “MEH”. It’s just horse crap my man. Whatever you say about the screenplay and all these things, I still don’t understand why they have to change everything that happened in the book.

If sb is reading this comment, I’ll just advice you to NOT watch the movie, READ THE BOOK (at least read the book first and then watch the movie). The only thing that the movie and the book have in common is that in fact, if somebody sees “the creatures” that person will end up committing suicide.

I understand it’s complicated to make “a movie where everyone that removes their blindfolds die”. Until there we are cool. What I don’t understand is why they have to change the storyline. Just to make it more commercial, to earn more money? That’s what really pisses me off.

Just to cite a few differences for those who are interested (there are millions):

SPOILER ALERT

0.- Malorie decides to go to the river 4 years after everything happened, not 5
1.- At the beginning Malorie didn’t know she was pregnant
2.- She never went to see a doctor
3.- When she realized she was pregnant, she was only for a few weeks. Not months like in the movie
4.- Malorie and her sister were in their house when the latter saw “the creature” from the window
5.- They never had a car accident
6.- Her sister actually stuck a pair of scissors in her chest. She didn’t jump in front of a truck to kill herself
7.- Malorie discovered the house in a neswpaper’s ad
8.- The name of the owner of the house was George, not Greg
9.- George was dead already when she got in the house
10.- And wait a minute, George was gay? Don’t misunderstand me please, I have nothing against that. Just, wtf? Where does it say in the book that he was gay?
11.- Olympia’s husband was in the airforce
12.- There is no guy called Douglas
13.- There is no guy called Charlie
14.- The grandma is not a grandma
15.- The couple that had sex in the laundry Lucy and… (I forgot the tattoos guy’s name) They don’t exist in the book. They are one of the best examples I could give you. You’ll tell me what’s their function in the movie. They just show up a couple times, have sex and then disappear without actually interfering at all in the main story.
16.- They never went to a supermarket
17.- They never drove a car with GPS
18.- Tom found the birds in another house, not Malorie in a supermarket
19.-The birds were IN A BOX hanging outside of their house as an alarm system, not inside
20.- Where is Victor?
21.- And Jules?
22.- And Felix?
23.- And Don?
23.- Where are the huskies?
24.- They didn’t have guns
25.- Gary’s story wasn’t like that (long story about his brother and Frank)
26.- There weren’t any psychopaths
27.- Nobody escaped from any mental institution
28.- Gary had a notebook, not drawings
29.- Olympia hanged herself with her own umbilical cord
30.- Boy never fell down from the boat
31.- They never left the boat until the end of the book
32.- Malorie never fought with the man from the river

and so on my man… I could be enumerating stupid differences for days.

But the most disturbing bullshit from the movie it’s that Malorie and Tom end up having a relationship and “raising” the children together. Really???? Remember Tom is really affected through the WHOLE book because the loss of her daughter Robin, who committed suicide by cutting her veins in the bathtub.

Anyway… No offense intended bro. This my own opinion about a movie that (for me) has been very disrespectful to the author of the book. They could’ve done a great movie from a great book but they just did one of the most commercial sh*** I’ve ever seen :) They used the name of a great book with completely different story only for making money!

Greetings from China!

Pd: keep up the good job with your website! I like your reviews and you already have given me lots of movies to watch and “THiNC” :D

Was I scared (not saying).
Either way I was engaged from beginning to end.
Strong performances
Focus on character
Might adopt some budgies.

This is my version of the understanding of this brilliant film

Overall I think this film is open to several interpretations. My favorite being that the creatures represent our shadow side being presented to us. If we can’t handle the dark truth inside of us we immediately off ourselves. On the other hand the insane have lived with their darkness and accept it. They think it’s beautiful. I think the movie is a spiritual metaphor about understanding ourselves and doing the inner work so that when that final judgement comes what is reflected from within isn’t steeped in fear and ugliness. Most of our society thrives on fear and pain. If we learn to conquer fear, jealously and separation we move into a different heart and head space. But people who have spiritual awakening are often considered hippies or flighty or “crazy” Anyway it’s interesting to me that many people have reacted by reaching for the blindfold. Its like everyone would rather stay blinded and ignorant out of fear rather than face their own darkness. I had a mini awakening and the world was literally more vibrant I felt like I was in a cloud and I’m sure most people who encountered me would think I was off. But when I actively work on releasing anger, fear and the like I felt lighter and more awake. It was only a glimpse but led me to continue working on myself. Strangle enough I have a friend who tried explaining why the ugliness currently surfacing is “good”. He literally used the phrasing. It’ll be beautiful, you’ll see. I thought it was weird at first but now I understand it more. I still have a ways to go to fully grasp what’s going on.

Oh interesting. That makes sense. Thanks for that. Not sure how I missed that. I’ll edit that presently. You are the best Helen!
Taylor

Also wanted to point out the house was owned by Greg (BD Wong) and not Douglas (John Malkovich) in the movie, which is also why Greg looked at the monitor and not Douglas. If the house was owned by Douglas the movie would have taken a very different turn, as it’s possible no one would have been allowed in.