I found this movie quite credible for the first forty minutes or so. A child goes missing in odd circumstances at hallowe'en; his parents split up (all too common when there are tragedies involving kids), and dad's desperate, fruitless attempts to find his son lead him to near collapse. Had the unfortunate child turned up (say) drowned in a ditch, and movie ended there, it wouldn't have been bad.
It was when the supernatural elements started ramping up that it all went wrong. Why is it that film-makers think that, just because the supernatural is involved, they can put in any old rubbish instead of a plot? Even in a supernatural story, people still have to behave credibly like people. There still has to be narrative continuity.
Why is it that film-makers think that, just because viewers are willing -- at least for a short time -- to accept that there are evil ghostly presences at work in the world, they will also be willing to accept that 2+2=5? The plot doesn't fail for lack of realism -- well, not entirely -- but for lack of logical, narrative consistency.
Watch the first half, then make up your own ending. It can't fail to be better than the one we're given.
It was when the supernatural elements started ramping up that it all went wrong. Why is it that film-makers think that, just because the supernatural is involved, they can put in any old rubbish instead of a plot? Even in a supernatural story, people still have to behave credibly like people. There still has to be narrative continuity.
Why is it that film-makers think that, just because viewers are willing -- at least for a short time -- to accept that there are evil ghostly presences at work in the world, they will also be willing to accept that 2+2=5? The plot doesn't fail for lack of realism -- well, not entirely -- but for lack of logical, narrative consistency.
Watch the first half, then make up your own ending. It can't fail to be better than the one we're given.