Postcards from London : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
| 21 |
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
I felt the evil spirit didn't make much sense. Warped from hanging around in the water rotting, sure, but why did it move through the floor looking like a wig on a string? Why did it promise the girls it wouldn't hurt the parent figures? Why wasn't it placated by the baby bones?
And other stuff irritated like the secretary librarian woman doing an info dump about what a ghost is... The old bloke randomly going into the cottage to have a chat with the ghost, certain he knew what it wanted but not bringing it along.
I loved the creepy funny bit where Lily was playing tug of war with Mama, though. And the scary aspect of the kids when they'd gone feral. There were good bits and overall it entertained me but all the nitpicky bits were a bit overwhelming.
(no subject)
When you give the Ancient Evil the plot token, it's surely supposed to disappear in a puff of logic? And if it doesn't, and the film is breaking the genre convention rules, which other ones is it breaking?
Archivist was not even convincing about what a ghost is. But an archive is no place for human remains.
The kids were great, and well played. I didn't like the sacrifice at the end, it didn't cry out satisfactory plot resolution. I wanted rehabilitation. But maybe a message of the ending is that sometimes people just get too broken?