This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
Well - sounds like the book just HAS to be better than what you described - is this the one with John Cuzack ? - if so it is a shame, as I like him as an actor (normally).Just finished watching the movie. I realize now why it was only in theatres for a couple days. I'll admit I haven't read the book....but this movie was terrible. Characters were bad, acting was bad, ending was bad. And pretty much everything in between. I hated it so much that I am not at all interested in reading the book, which I know is the wrong way to look at it. But wow.....this was such a let down. And the ending left me totally confused. Just bad.
Advice here.... Don't watch it.
Well - sounds like the book just HAS to be better than what you described - is this the one with John Cuzack ? - if so it is a shame, as I like him as an actor (normally).
Actually I have read the book and the book is very enjoyable - maybe give it a shot?
I'll second that. I'm very sad to hear that the movie is awful.
I just watched it yesterday and I agree - it wasn't great but it wasn't horrible. I read the novel so long ago, I can't compare the film to the book but the film definitely made me want to read the novel again. I loved the Phoners - I thought they were more like victims of body snatchers than zombies, not that they were spose to be zombie-like - it's just that there are sooooo many zombie flicks, I expected them to be zombies y'know? Body Snatcher hive-minds are much cooler than zombiesI watched this last night. It wasn't great, but it wasn't horrible. This could have been such a good movie! If anyone can explain the ending (!?WTF?!) to me I would be grateful. Some of the actors phoned it in. Pun intended.
You understood the film a lot better than I did lol - your post has made me want to watch it again and I enjoyed the video you posted as much as the film I'm going to watch the advertised Cloverfield Ending Explained video too lol.I thought the ending just meant that the Pulse made him believe he had succeeded in blowing up the tower, while in reality he was now part of the hivemind and the tower is still there. It was probably the only way for the Pulse to control him as he posed a threat.
I'm not sure though how everyone dreamt and knew about Raggedy Man if he was only a character from Clay's graphic novel. I could understand it if only Clay saw him, as he created him as a prophet of the apocalypse and the apocalypse was suddenly real. He also saw him as what drove him and his wife apart (his work driving them apart) and finally mistakes him for his wife when he arrives home. But I don't get why everyone else saw him too (well, we only know about Tom seeing him on Clay's wall before).
I think maybe Stephen's original script got reworked by the other writer who tried to put a clever spin on it that didn't quite work?
Here's more, although it doesn't really explain everything neatly:
I still like the film though. A film doesn't have to be perfect for you to like it as long as you're entertained by it and I was.
I'm curious as to how closely SK's script was followed too.If a film turns out this way, with lots of loose ends and an ending that confuses many, you gotta wonder what went wrong. It wouldn't surprise me if it had to do with the budget. I can't find the actual budget, but the filming apparently took only 25 days - that's real tight for any film, but certainly for a film that has a certain scale. (I think it actually still looks good if you take that in mind.)
I would guess that they simply weren't able to do the original script Stephen wrote on their budget and in that time, so they cut out a lot and went for an ending that leaves it all up to the interpretation of the viewer.