I’m reading through other people’s reviews on IMDb as I consider what I’d like to say about this film. It’s amazing to me how polarizing everyone’s thoughts are. The majority seem to be either the extreme of “worst movie” or “why all the negative reviews?” Why all the negative reviews, indeed.
There are some viewers who consider this to be a man bashing movie, and in the midst of some rather extreme world views out there being so prominent at the moment, perhaps I can be understanding of that perspective. I can only empathize though, because I’m not a man and I can’t truly experience being one. Maybe this movie could hit differently if I were. Although, I feel that my boyfriend would have definitely expressed it if he’d caught a whiff of that sort of thing himself, and he did not.
Yes, there were a few generations of wives murdered at the hands of their husbands, but not every man in this film was bad and not every woman was good. That part of the general plot simply didn’t equate to, men = bad. There were actually many good men depicted in this. There was the professor, Floyd, and there were the other men that came along to the séance, which I’m going to assume were meant to be good people by association, and there were even the boys that also used to live in the house.
Now, when later reading articles about Things Heard & Seen I came across one in particular where the directors (a married male and female couple) discuss details about the movie and “feminine power/the power of women” was mentioned by both. Because of this, I have to wonder if there are those who read words like that referring to the film, or otherwise just heard that this is a feminist film, and then applied a certain mindset and expectation to the premise instead of letting it stand on its own. The movie is said to be set back in a time when women did have less power and men could have more control over their wives. Key word being, could. We could all choose to be ignorant assholes, but thankfully not all of us do.
Onto an entirely different note, this movie felt way less horror and far more suspense/thriller to me, so maybe there are those who have come away disappointed by the potentially misused genre. There are huge fans of horror out there, so I can see that being a let down in this instance.
There were two scenes that I felt were unnecessary and could have been plucked out altogether, one being the most “horror” type scene there was, at least to me.
I actually covered my eyes at the sink scene when I realized Catherine was pulling out something especially gross, and in a scary sense type gross. So, I never even saw “it” personally. I did watch this film twice, so the first time on my own I imagined it as some strange non-creature, creature that blinked at her or something. During a re-watch with my boyfriend along for the ride, he described it as a fetus. If this nightmare had somehow been an indication of the actual future dangers coming or assisted in signifying a dramatic shift in the movie’s mood, then it would have been more fitting. But it seemed to me something horrifying simply thrown in randomly for pure shock value. Many think this is true of the bloody/inky red eyes scene in One Hour Photo, but I felt that actually paired well with the roller coaster of emotions in that film, as I briefly explained in the tail end of my review there.
The other “unnecessary” scene was during Eddie’s posing for an artistic rendering of himself done by Catherine. She takes off her outer layer; her sweater, cardigan, jacket. Whatever you’d prefer to call it. Cole glances over and sees that her nipples are extremely perky under her thin, white top and quickly looks away uncomfortably. For starters, is it just me or wouldn’t it have made more sense for him to look over and then she put on that extra layer, because she was cold enough that her nipples were like fucking daggers? Regardless though, this kind of scene would have actually fit right in and made sense to include outside of pure titillation value if it were Eddie who had done the looking, because it could have alluded to sexual interest in her and been relevant to foreshadowing. Seriously writers, just invite me on to help proofread your shit before you fuck it up. As it was though, it felt really out of place.
Now, there were also some beautifully done shots that I couldn’t have helped make any better. One that immediately comes to mind is when George is standing in the doorway of the horse stables with the colorful fall tree in the background. There’s a review I read that mentions the scenery and it includes the words, “but nature did that, not Netflix.” As if credit shouldn’t be given to the person(s) who set up the shot and operated the cameras. My boyfriend is exceptional with operating cameras, both for pictures and video. I’ve always enjoyed taking photos myself and I’ve been proud of many along the way, but if I take shots of the same things alongside him? Then they all look like dog shit in comparison. Yes, nature played a massive part in those shots, for sure. But if someone with no camera work experience had been the one getting them? I bet you no one would be bragging about how great they are!
Another thing I saw written by another reviewer was that the cheating narrative was pointless, but I thought it had a quite solid purpose in all this. It was one of the many ways in which it was shown that George was a horrible, scumbag piece of shit. It is a very commonly and perhaps overused way to show this in a person, but it’s one of the most scumbaggiest piece of shit things a person can do, so it works very well. However, I do think what made the whole situation feel so awkward was the fact that Willis was immediately shown as aware of and annoyed by George’s deceiving nature and thus was presented as quite perceptive and smart, yet she very willingly fucked him anyway. It makes zero sense to give an asshole cheater access to your body and the pleasure in general. To the women who do this, you’re just as bad as they are. Honestly, perhaps you’re sometimes worse. Yeah, it may be that he’s likely gonna sleep with someone else if it’s not you, but there’s plenty of sexual attention to be had out there, why do you need to resort to his? If you’re knowingly an active participant making cheating a reality, you are just as much a horrible, scumbag piece of shit. For this, Willis was. When Catherine and Eddie fucked? Completely different. Her relationship with her husband was obviously already over.
There are also those who feel Catherine’s eating disorder was pointless. I mean, could it have not been included and the movie still work? Well, sure. But I felt it was meant as a punchier, stronger indicator to the audience of how unhappy and unhealthy life was for her. Plus, conditions like bulimia can be in part about having control over something in one’s life. Well, so I’ve been led to believe; mostly via other movies. Since I’m not talking from experience I may be talking out of my ass. I did read a complaint that the bulimia was not shown true to life, but it also wasn’t necessary for that detail to be a bigger focus in this film; that’s why it would have worked fine with or without.
Now Justine’s character drove me mad, but not because I didn’t like her; I loved her! It was because from the moment she hit the screen and from then on I was scrambling in my brain trying to determine what else I’d seen her in without looking it up. After the movie ended, I gave in and omg, she’s Jimmy’s girl in Better Call Saul! I started that show back in the day before I decided being able to binge a show to completion needed to be a thing for me. I swear, I would have never remembered on my own. Maybe because I was trying to picture her elsewhere with the same dark hair and in BCS she’s a blonde. She is an amazing actress. There’s something incredibly unique about her that I can’t put my finger on to name. I’m disappointed to see she’s not played in more than she has.
I was so totally into this movie that I would have enthusiastically welcomed another half hour. Maybe even another few half hours! Seriously. Throughout the entire movie I just kept saying aloud to myself how damn good it was and questioning how in the everliving heck it got such low ratings, and the further I got into it the more surprised I felt, so I eventually began to get super nervous for the ending.
Now the ending, okay. Okay! I do get why it’d make some people so mad they’d throw away any accumulated kudos for prior enjoyment of the rest of the movie. I felt that way about Fractured (2019). Fuck you, Fractured. There’s a big difference to me between the two though. In Fractured, the ending was THE MOST STUPID FUCKING THING AND IT COMPLETELY RUINED EVERYTHING THAT CAME BEFORE IT. In this, as another reviewer said, “The ending was a little disappointing but not a reason to miss this film.”
The biggest problem with the ending is that the most popular search regarding the film has been, “Things Heard & Seen Ending Explained.” Sometimes a movie is complex enough that we need a little help to fully understand it. Sometimes leaving a movie open-ended or leaving it up to the viewer’s own interpretation works. Here it just doesn’t feel like it works. There are those who insist there’s no confusion to be had. That George rides off into the sunset straight into hell and that’s that. Some think that’s brilliant and many of us think that it’s immensely unsatisfying.
But I’m not the only one who was asking, was it literally hell? Or was it symbolic for the hell that Justine was about to make for him once she woke up? I prefer the latter scenario. I would have much rather seen more play out; like showing everything good in George’s life on Earth coming crashing down on him. I get that going to hell is supposed to be like the ultimate big, bad, completely worst thing that can happen to you, but… it’s just. not. satisfying for entertainment purposes here!
One might say that it’s obvious George died out there in the boat because of the prior explanation about the cover art that was on the book gifted to him early on at his new job. Floyd explained that the famous painting “The Valley of the Shadow of Death” by George Inness represents a soul transitioning into the afterlife. Unless, that scene is just symbolic to the fact that the fucking prick is damned and the use of the inspiration from the painting was just a way cool visual representation, and tie in, and a callback! Unfortunately though, I read that one of the directors explained that he “believes the spirits of the wives are delivering George to hell in that final scene on the water.” But again I ask, literally or symbolically?
Why am I so much more keen on it being symbolic? Well, Justine wakes up from her coma ready to wreck his shit. It’s way less exciting to think she does that while he’s off dying and escaping that particular wreckage. I mean, what, George Claire’s name is gonna be ruined? Everyone that didn’t already know will find out that he was an asshole? Big whoop if he’s not around to actually be ruined by it, so what’s the point? The truth coming out loses a lot of its impact if he bypasses that particular hell and just goes straight to literal hell. Plus, their daughter gets orphaned and very likely traumatized by the entire mess, but no justice gets to be served to the douchebag who caused it all by anyone still living. There’s also the consideration that maybe George’s body may never be found out in the depths of the ocean. If it's even in the ocean, since he supposedly went straight to hell. Will Justine think he’s out there somewhere living a new life? Will she be a part of some futile crusade to find him in order to put him into prison? Or are Ella and Catherine gonna pop into her head and let her know, “he dead”?
Some more miscellaneous thoughts and questions.
I wish that there’d been more connection felt to Franny’s character. Her part in the movie was understated and subtle enough that she may have not needed to even be in it. She really should have felt more important and left more of an impact than she did if she was going to be there in the first place.
Why did Ella’s spirit hang out in Franny’s room frightening her? There were other ways to get Catherine’s attention, starting with getting Catherine’s rather than Franny’s! The poor kid.
Some thought Calvin’s ghost must have possessed George and drove him to kill Catherine, but George was already a lousy human being long before they moved into the “haunted” house. No, his bad traits were just amplified by the bad spirit’s presence because there was already so much bad in him. (Yes, it figures that only the men who moved into the house had such bad traits to amplify to the point of murder. I can see getting to that impression. Sorry, men.) I think that Ella's spirit mostly gave Catherine support and strength through it all.
Did Calvin’s spirit go along with George in the boat in the end? If not, where did he go? If so, was it because bad was attracted to bad and George was exceptionally bad so he followed him “home”? Or was the reason his spirit left because the murdered women’s spirits combined were finally able to drive him out of the house and end the cycle/curse?
“Because of you, we are joined in spirit. Because of you, our powers grow. From tiny drops, to an endless sea.”
Did Ella’s spirit initially stay by choice or did Calvin somehow hold her there?
Calvin and Ella’s deaths were a murder-suicide, plus all the cows were killed, which sounds like the dude went seriously “insane evil” rather than George’s type of evil, where he just straight up did not care about anyone but himself and was willing to take out anyone who might get in the way of him getting what he wanted.
Were the two boys expected to die too when Calvin filled their home with exhaust fumes?
There was a video review I skimmed in which a duo were going on about it being confusing and out of character that George would kill himself, and they’re right because that would make no sense and I don’t know how in the world they came to that collective conclusion! If he was suddenly full of remorse and had taken the boat out there to off himself he wouldn’t have been trying so hard to control the boat up until the very end. He would have welcomed the storm and just let it take him.
A director basically said “George being delivered to his rightful place” was a metaphor for all the women who have ever been abused by men finally gaining some power. Or something like that. This could also be where a “man bashing” notion comes from.
Even while noting many of its flaws, I really thoroughly enjoyed this film, or else I wouldn’t have watched it twice within less than a fortnight, and given it a 9. Still, I absolutely understand many people’s utter detest for the ending. I feel like the majority of us just wanted to see or to at least know that George was going to begin to pay for his sins, but from a prison cell.
Review by Bunny HarvestmanBlockedParent2022-02-10T01:30:20Z
I’m reading through other people’s reviews on IMDb as I consider what I’d like to say about this film. It’s amazing to me how polarizing everyone’s thoughts are. The majority seem to be either the extreme of “worst movie” or “why all the negative reviews?” Why all the negative reviews, indeed.
There are some viewers who consider this to be a man bashing movie, and in the midst of some rather extreme world views out there being so prominent at the moment, perhaps I can be understanding of that perspective. I can only empathize though, because I’m not a man and I can’t truly experience being one. Maybe this movie could hit differently if I were. Although, I feel that my boyfriend would have definitely expressed it if he’d caught a whiff of that sort of thing himself, and he did not.
Yes, there were a few generations of wives murdered at the hands of their husbands, but not every man in this film was bad and not every woman was good. That part of the general plot simply didn’t equate to, men = bad. There were actually many good men depicted in this. There was the professor, Floyd, and there were the other men that came along to the séance, which I’m going to assume were meant to be good people by association, and there were even the boys that also used to live in the house.
Now, when later reading articles about Things Heard & Seen I came across one in particular where the directors (a married male and female couple) discuss details about the movie and “feminine power/the power of women” was mentioned by both. Because of this, I have to wonder if there are those who read words like that referring to the film, or otherwise just heard that this is a feminist film, and then applied a certain mindset and expectation to the premise instead of letting it stand on its own. The movie is said to be set back in a time when women did have less power and men could have more control over their wives. Key word being, could. We could all choose to be ignorant assholes, but thankfully not all of us do.
Onto an entirely different note, this movie felt way less horror and far more suspense/thriller to me, so maybe there are those who have come away disappointed by the potentially misused genre. There are huge fans of horror out there, so I can see that being a let down in this instance.
There were two scenes that I felt were unnecessary and could have been plucked out altogether, one being the most “horror” type scene there was, at least to me.
I actually covered my eyes at the sink scene when I realized Catherine was pulling out something especially gross, and in a scary sense type gross. So, I never even saw “it” personally. I did watch this film twice, so the first time on my own I imagined it as some strange non-creature, creature that blinked at her or something. During a re-watch with my boyfriend along for the ride, he described it as a fetus. If this nightmare had somehow been an indication of the actual future dangers coming or assisted in signifying a dramatic shift in the movie’s mood, then it would have been more fitting. But it seemed to me something horrifying simply thrown in randomly for pure shock value. Many think this is true of the bloody/inky red eyes scene in One Hour Photo, but I felt that actually paired well with the roller coaster of emotions in that film, as I briefly explained in the tail end of my review there.
The other “unnecessary” scene was during Eddie’s posing for an artistic rendering of himself done by Catherine. She takes off her outer layer; her sweater, cardigan, jacket. Whatever you’d prefer to call it. Cole glances over and sees that her nipples are extremely perky under her thin, white top and quickly looks away uncomfortably. For starters, is it just me or wouldn’t it have made more sense for him to look over and then she put on that extra layer, because she was cold enough that her nipples were like fucking daggers? Regardless though, this kind of scene would have actually fit right in and made sense to include outside of pure titillation value if it were Eddie who had done the looking, because it could have alluded to sexual interest in her and been relevant to foreshadowing. Seriously writers, just invite me on to help proofread your shit before you fuck it up. As it was though, it felt really out of place.
Now, there were also some beautifully done shots that I couldn’t have helped make any better. One that immediately comes to mind is when George is standing in the doorway of the horse stables with the colorful fall tree in the background. There’s a review I read that mentions the scenery and it includes the words, “but nature did that, not Netflix.” As if credit shouldn’t be given to the person(s) who set up the shot and operated the cameras. My boyfriend is exceptional with operating cameras, both for pictures and video. I’ve always enjoyed taking photos myself and I’ve been proud of many along the way, but if I take shots of the same things alongside him? Then they all look like dog shit in comparison. Yes, nature played a massive part in those shots, for sure. But if someone with no camera work experience had been the one getting them? I bet you no one would be bragging about how great they are!
Another thing I saw written by another reviewer was that the cheating narrative was pointless, but I thought it had a quite solid purpose in all this. It was one of the many ways in which it was shown that George was a horrible, scumbag piece of shit. It is a very commonly and perhaps overused way to show this in a person, but it’s one of the most scumbaggiest piece of shit things a person can do, so it works very well. However, I do think what made the whole situation feel so awkward was the fact that Willis was immediately shown as aware of and annoyed by George’s deceiving nature and thus was presented as quite perceptive and smart, yet she very willingly fucked him anyway. It makes zero sense to give an asshole cheater access to your body and the pleasure in general. To the women who do this, you’re just as bad as they are. Honestly, perhaps you’re sometimes worse. Yeah, it may be that he’s likely gonna sleep with someone else if it’s not you, but there’s plenty of sexual attention to be had out there, why do you need to resort to his? If you’re knowingly an active participant making cheating a reality, you are just as much a horrible, scumbag piece of shit. For this, Willis was. When Catherine and Eddie fucked? Completely different. Her relationship with her husband was obviously already over.
There are also those who feel Catherine’s eating disorder was pointless. I mean, could it have not been included and the movie still work? Well, sure. But I felt it was meant as a punchier, stronger indicator to the audience of how unhappy and unhealthy life was for her. Plus, conditions like bulimia can be in part about having control over something in one’s life. Well, so I’ve been led to believe; mostly via other movies. Since I’m not talking from experience I may be talking out of my ass. I did read a complaint that the bulimia was not shown true to life, but it also wasn’t necessary for that detail to be a bigger focus in this film; that’s why it would have worked fine with or without.
Now Justine’s character drove me mad, but not because I didn’t like her; I loved her! It was because from the moment she hit the screen and from then on I was scrambling in my brain trying to determine what else I’d seen her in without looking it up. After the movie ended, I gave in and omg, she’s Jimmy’s girl in Better Call Saul! I started that show back in the day before I decided being able to binge a show to completion needed to be a thing for me. I swear, I would have never remembered on my own. Maybe because I was trying to picture her elsewhere with the same dark hair and in BCS she’s a blonde. She is an amazing actress. There’s something incredibly unique about her that I can’t put my finger on to name. I’m disappointed to see she’s not played in more than she has.
I was so totally into this movie that I would have enthusiastically welcomed another half hour. Maybe even another few half hours! Seriously. Throughout the entire movie I just kept saying aloud to myself how damn good it was and questioning how in the everliving heck it got such low ratings, and the further I got into it the more surprised I felt, so I eventually began to get super nervous for the ending.
Now the ending, okay. Okay! I do get why it’d make some people so mad they’d throw away any accumulated kudos for prior enjoyment of the rest of the movie. I felt that way about Fractured (2019). Fuck you, Fractured. There’s a big difference to me between the two though. In Fractured, the ending was THE MOST STUPID FUCKING THING AND IT COMPLETELY RUINED EVERYTHING THAT CAME BEFORE IT. In this, as another reviewer said, “The ending was a little disappointing but not a reason to miss this film.”
The biggest problem with the ending is that the most popular search regarding the film has been, “Things Heard & Seen Ending Explained.” Sometimes a movie is complex enough that we need a little help to fully understand it. Sometimes leaving a movie open-ended or leaving it up to the viewer’s own interpretation works. Here it just doesn’t feel like it works. There are those who insist there’s no confusion to be had. That George rides off into the sunset straight into hell and that’s that. Some think that’s brilliant and many of us think that it’s immensely unsatisfying.
But I’m not the only one who was asking, was it literally hell? Or was it symbolic for the hell that Justine was about to make for him once she woke up? I prefer the latter scenario. I would have much rather seen more play out; like showing everything good in George’s life on Earth coming crashing down on him. I get that going to hell is supposed to be like the ultimate big, bad, completely worst thing that can happen to you, but… it’s just. not. satisfying for entertainment purposes here!
One might say that it’s obvious George died out there in the boat because of the prior explanation about the cover art that was on the book gifted to him early on at his new job. Floyd explained that the famous painting “The Valley of the Shadow of Death” by George Inness represents a soul transitioning into the afterlife. Unless, that scene is just symbolic to the fact that the fucking prick is damned and the use of the inspiration from the painting was just a way cool visual representation, and tie in, and a callback! Unfortunately though, I read that one of the directors explained that he “believes the spirits of the wives are delivering George to hell in that final scene on the water.” But again I ask, literally or symbolically?
Why am I so much more keen on it being symbolic? Well, Justine wakes up from her coma ready to wreck his shit. It’s way less exciting to think she does that while he’s off dying and escaping that particular wreckage. I mean, what, George Claire’s name is gonna be ruined? Everyone that didn’t already know will find out that he was an asshole? Big whoop if he’s not around to actually be ruined by it, so what’s the point? The truth coming out loses a lot of its impact if he bypasses that particular hell and just goes straight to literal hell. Plus, their daughter gets orphaned and very likely traumatized by the entire mess, but no justice gets to be served to the douchebag who caused it all by anyone still living. There’s also the consideration that maybe George’s body may never be found out in the depths of the ocean. If it's even in the ocean, since he supposedly went straight to hell. Will Justine think he’s out there somewhere living a new life? Will she be a part of some futile crusade to find him in order to put him into prison? Or are Ella and Catherine gonna pop into her head and let her know, “he dead”?
Some more miscellaneous thoughts and questions.
I wish that there’d been more connection felt to Franny’s character. Her part in the movie was understated and subtle enough that she may have not needed to even be in it. She really should have felt more important and left more of an impact than she did if she was going to be there in the first place.
Why did Ella’s spirit hang out in Franny’s room frightening her? There were other ways to get Catherine’s attention, starting with getting Catherine’s rather than Franny’s! The poor kid.
Some thought Calvin’s ghost must have possessed George and drove him to kill Catherine, but George was already a lousy human being long before they moved into the “haunted” house. No, his bad traits were just amplified by the bad spirit’s presence because there was already so much bad in him. (Yes, it figures that only the men who moved into the house had such bad traits to amplify to the point of murder. I can see getting to that impression. Sorry, men.) I think that Ella's spirit mostly gave Catherine support and strength through it all.
Did Calvin’s spirit go along with George in the boat in the end? If not, where did he go? If so, was it because bad was attracted to bad and George was exceptionally bad so he followed him “home”? Or was the reason his spirit left because the murdered women’s spirits combined were finally able to drive him out of the house and end the cycle/curse?
“Because of you, we are joined in spirit. Because of you, our powers grow. From tiny drops, to an endless sea.”
Did Ella’s spirit initially stay by choice or did Calvin somehow hold her there?
Calvin and Ella’s deaths were a murder-suicide, plus all the cows were killed, which sounds like the dude went seriously “insane evil” rather than George’s type of evil, where he just straight up did not care about anyone but himself and was willing to take out anyone who might get in the way of him getting what he wanted.
Were the two boys expected to die too when Calvin filled their home with exhaust fumes?
There was a video review I skimmed in which a duo were going on about it being confusing and out of character that George would kill himself, and they’re right because that would make no sense and I don’t know how in the world they came to that collective conclusion! If he was suddenly full of remorse and had taken the boat out there to off himself he wouldn’t have been trying so hard to control the boat up until the very end. He would have welcomed the storm and just let it take him.
A director basically said “George being delivered to his rightful place” was a metaphor for all the women who have ever been abused by men finally gaining some power. Or something like that. This could also be where a “man bashing” notion comes from.
Even while noting many of its flaws, I really thoroughly enjoyed this film, or else I wouldn’t have watched it twice within less than a fortnight, and given it a 9. Still, I absolutely understand many people’s utter detest for the ending. I feel like the majority of us just wanted to see or to at least know that George was going to begin to pay for his sins, but from a prison cell.