Knock At The Cabin (2023) VS Book The Cabin at the End of the World
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 พ.ค. 2024
- Love Horror?! Support the channel! Join my Patreon & Discord community:
/ spookyastronauts
00:00 Intro
00:54
The Endings
01:14 The Movie Ending
3:00 The Book Ending
06:01 Key Differences
13:45 Messages & Meanings
23:47 My Ending & Theories
Get official Spooky Astronauts merch:
www.spookyastronauts.com
Instagram➜ spookyastronauts
Twitter➜ astroemma
Facebook ➜ SpookyastronautsYT
Letterbox➜ www.letterboxd.com/spookyastronaut
📦PO Box 8600 PERTH WA 6849 Australia
📧Business inquiries: spookyastronauts@gmail.com
💀Recommend me a Movie
forms.gle/jo9iEvQ4RoQDDJuTA
WANT MORE SPOOKY STUFF?
💀Recommendations playlist:
• Movie Recommendations
💀Spooky Stat Videos:
• Spooky Stat Videos
💀Horror Movie Reviews:
th-cam.com/users/playlist?list...
________________________________________________
OUTRO SONG:
But Enough About Me, Bill Paxton by Chris Zabriskie is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (creativecommons.org/licenses/...)
Source: chriszabriskie.com/dtv/
Artist: chriszabriskie.com/
The Real Faces of Horror Theme Music:
House Of Evil by Audionautix is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license
Artist: audionautix.com/
31 DAYS OF HORROR THEME SONG:
Cantina Blues - Take the Lead by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license
Copyright Disclaimer :
All the videos, songs, images, and graphics used in the video belong to their respective owners and I or this channel does not claim any right over them.
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing - บันเทิง
Just a key thing to add about the Trolley Problem: the trolley is going to hit the group of people if the subject chooses not to act. So inaction is still technically an action, even if you feel more removed from the consequences. Similarly with the family here; they can choose to stand by until time has run out, but that is still a choice in itself.
Yes!! You’re right I glossed over that! Thank you
Make it easier on me. So the us government was right to want to nuke New York City in avengers 2012?
Spock says it best, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
I was not too surprised that they kept Wen alive in the movie, but when they changed the number of planes crashing from 7 to 700, I knew there was no chance of there being an ambiguous ending.
I agree with you on how it should've ended, and I also loved the idea of the whole thing being fake, like there wasn't any Apocalypse, just mass histeria from 4 people
Sadly, FOX News will probably call that "woke" movie... Ben Shapiro attacked the Glass Onion film... hahaha..
Sabrina is my favourite character in the book and the movie, I think her actress was incredible and exactly how I expected her.
sabrina reminds me of the housekeeper in get out for some weird reason.
@@lh2354 she is the same actor 😂😂😂
I agree you Emma that the movie shouldn’ve ended with more ambiguity on whether the apocalypse was real or not. I liked that Eric chose to be the sacrifice because i thought the story arc of him going from skeptic to believer added emotional weight an emotional weight I didn’t get from the book. I viewed his sacrifice as not as a benefit for humanity but more as a benefit to Andrew; that his sacrifice would provide a sense of faith and hope that would break Andrew out of his jadedness so that he’ll raise Wen out of pure love vs out of fear based protection. My perfect ending for the direction of the film would’ve been to end with Wen and Andrew embracing in the treehouse after Wen asks “Did daddy Eric save the world?”. I loved that line and thought it would’ve been a poignant way to end the film on.
you are so right with that line! especially if it was all left up in the air!
It’s a spoiler video!
I so agree! That would have been the perfect final line for the film.
I thought the same thing about Leonard being a bartender. Honestly, I thought that either the group was in on it (Leonard being the bartender, Redmond the one who assaults, Sabrina the one who healed him at the hospital, throw in Adrian somewhere), or they were all playing a part in Andrew's mind because they were actually in a car accident on the way to the cabin (Daddy Eric is very distracted in that driving scene). I really didn't want Wen to be the one that dies in the book. I literally gasped when I read that part. I had started the book, watched the movie halfway through and was surprised to see the second half of the book was completely different.
Yes! We had very similar thoughts!
"the whole thing was a coma dream/hallucination" thing is pretty played out and pointless.
This video is why I appreciate you and your channel so much - you put in the extra effort to read the novel and then meticulously compare the film and book. Thanks so much!
That was really interesting when you pointed out the grasshoppers mirrored the human characters in the cabin - I would never have thought of that! Clearly I'm not too analytical :)
I discussed the ending with my sister after we watched it (I'd read the book and she hadn't), and we both felt that the film should have included Wen's death, as we felt it added even more gravity to the situation and the choice. We would have liked the ending of the movie better with the changes he made if maybe it wasn't shown who had died e.g. maybe there would be an outside shot of the cabin and the sound of a gunshot. No showing who killed who, no showing if there actually was an apocalypse or not as a result of it. I just felt personally that it needed some of the mystique that the book ending had. The diner scene was so so so pointless and I felt like it was far too neat an ending, and not satisfying.
Well said!
The story reminds me a lot of 10 Cloverfield Lane. A stranger saves a young woman by bringing her to his underground bunker. He tells her that there was an alien invasion, and it's unsafe to leave the bunker. Over the course of the story you question whether there's anything dangerous above the bunker, or if the guy is just crazy.
A lot of people hated that they ended the movie with a definitive answer to this question as well. I enjoyed the ending, but would also have been fine with ambiguity.
I thought at some point that maybe the story will take on a 'killing of a sacred deer' turn, but i see that wasn't really in the picture and that wouldn't do well in cinema.
Well, as for the ending, it was really straightforward for an m night movie and for the whole premise of it.
I enjoyed the film. Bautista was amazing. I’ve never read the book. Thank you for sharing the differences between the two. I found that fascinating.
The movies ending was a lot better. Especially for a film.
Score: Book 5/5 - Movie 7/10 (spoilers below)
Preferred Ending: book 1000% I understand why M. Night kept Wen alive. I understand why he ended it the way he did. I understand, I beleive, what he was going for here. But it took so much nuance out of what Tremblay was trying to say with the book. It was so dark and ambigous and you're left with no answers in the book. At all. Real? Fake? But I'm always a fan of you take out of it what you bring to it. And M. Night took away the audience's ability to inject their own personal opinions/beliefs by taking the easy way out. The book is so traumatic and horrifying, but in the end, it's also about hope. Andrew and Eric have had nothing but adversity for the entire lives. And at the end, they could succumb to fear, or brainwashing or whatever it is you think the intruders might be up to. But they don't. They choose love. They choose each other. Tremblay presents us with multiple religious and political and societal ideas, but in the end, it doesn't really matter. Cause their love for each other saw them through whatever bigotry they faced as a couple. Their love for their daughter and her love for her dads trumped any and all hatred. And in the end, after losing Wen, the worst fear a parent can have, they still chose love. They still chose each other. Maybe the world ends, maybe it doesn't. But they chose to go on. They chose to be themselves. And that's human nature since the dawn of time. No matter what has happened, wars/famine/threats of disease, etc. Humanity has always gone on. Has always adapted and found a way. It's the most beautiful sentiment I think Tremblay instilled. And yea, maybe others would disagree with me, and that's totally ok. But by taking that ambiguity away, it took away SO MUCH of the messaging of the book. You could argue the movie ending still has the theme of love trumping all, given the sacrifice. Love for humanity. Compassion for others. Even though they have faced nothing but struggle at the hand of others, they chose to save them, as others have before them. Cause they beleive that humanity deserves another chance to be better. I just think I liked how we aren't spoonfed that like it is in the movie.I still loved the movie. M. Night, for as polarizing as he is, is a masterful filmmaker. It was really only the final 10 minutes that I was let down. Up to the point though, it was an excellent film and very faithful to the ideas Tremblay played with.
Love this comment! yes i agree the ending would have been better totally ambiguous to if ANYTHING was happening in the outside word.
Wow. So well said!!!!!!!
I think I would have preferred a more vague ending for the movie! I like your idea of the song playing and everything going dark, but I do think the interaction between them in the car turning the song on, then off, then on again was like... too soon. Like I think it was meant to symbolize their ability to move on from the event, but I never enjoy symbolism that is that on the nose. Ha! Thanks for sharing the book ending, definitely more food for thought!
I just watched the film, having read the book some weeks ago. I must say I rather prefer the book. Obviously, books have infinite words and minutes to convey their stories, so they are always more fleshed out. But I was disappointed that M Night did not stick more closely to Tremblay’s story (yes, even Wen’s death). And the ending was far better in the book. It seemed to me much more formulaic that one of the dads would sacrifice himself to save the world for his partner and child, and much more deeply felt that said child died during the “trials” and that the dads would choose to face whatever was coming (real or imagined) together. And Emma you are absolutely correct when you said that the ending was quintessential Shyamalan! Well spotted. I could have done without that. I read a comment that said that Wen asking if “ …Daddy Eric had saved the world..” would have been a perfect way to end the film, and I totally agree. Much more poignant. I enjoyed the movie, don’t get me wrong. Dave Bautista continues to amaze me, and the other casting was excellent. Maybe because I was raised with Catholic mystique I recognized the four horsemen right away, as soon as the clothing was described in the book. Or maybe it’s because I’ve watched the TV show Suoernatural on repeat for so so many years 🤣 Either way, I appreciated the imagery. Book rating: 5/5 and film 6-7/10. Thanks for another great and insightful video! I’d rate it 10/10! ❤️
Wow you read that so quick! 😆 Looking forward to watching this after I watch the film 😁
Thanks for your analysis of the book and the movie! 💜
I thought for sure Wen was going to jump out of that treehouse and die. She seemed very afraid for all the other children in the world. I still thought either Eric or Andrew would ALSO commit suicide, not knowing a sacrifice had already been made, leaving the final character left alone at the end, never to know if either sacrifice made a difference. Maybe I'm just f*cked up in the head, but that's where I thought that was going. 😀
That is messed up! The 3 main characters all kill themselves; thus, the apocalypse is not averted. So, the end is everyone dies???? I would have rioted in the theater if that happens... hahaha...
That would've been as f#$/ed up as the ending of The Mist lol
This is one of the rare books that made my grandma cry, when Wen died it affected her so much she didn't want to watch the movie. She ended up liking the movie more than the book. While this is one of my favorite novels, and shocked me as well, the film is still solid even if it changed the ending in a way I didn't like. I still think it's one of M's best in his late career, but I wish he had stuck to the original ending. Still a solid 4/5 for me though, and just seeing a normal family that happens to have to fathers, it was kind of refreshing. But Bautista was amazing. I even spoke to the author, Tremblay after the film and said while it was good, he did it better. He said he had no input on the adaptation at all, he replied with an emphatic 'THANK YOU!'
Being forcefully raised as a catholic and getting traumatised by some of the old testament reading the book made me thing of Abraham being told to sacrifice his son to prove his fate. After I started thinking for myself that story pissed me off really hard, so so called all-powerful being amuses him self with enticing a father to kill his son on a whim, and than again on a whim decides nah I'm ok with a sheep afterall. It's the same entity here delighted with bloodshed. What bothers me with Shyamalar's ending is that we are left with that version of a god, a bloodthirsty psychopath who forces murder of a loved one on people. I honestly don't like that idea.
I saw this movie tonight, and ran home to watch this video. Thank you for doing this, you always have such a beautiful and insightful way of looking at cinema. I couldn’t wait to hear your thoughts ❤
I can’t stop thinking about it since the Turkey earthquake. Saw it Saturday. Found it good, not great.. but definitely some good thought provoking ideas within.
Wow, too close to real life. So sad what is happening.
Imagine this happened because somewhere out there some "Andrew, Eric and Wen" decided not to believe and did nothing?
I read the book prior to seeing the film; the book for me was 3/5 and the movie was a solid 4/5 and I left the film feeling like I needed a hug. I thought it was very well done, stayed very true to the movie and as it progressed up until the bathroom/gun scene, I started to get more anxious hoping they *wouldn't* follow the book from that point on because of Wen (and was destroyed when the sacrifice happened.) I also agree that a more abrupt ending would have served it better, either them getting in the car and the radio immediately turning on with the song then cutting to black or something very ambiguous. I can see why he did the diner at the end, though, but I knew it would be polarizing.
I'm so happy you did this video, and I definitely plan to see this a second time in theaters to see if my opinions change!! xx
I just finished the book. Honestly it devastated me. I cried so hard over Wen I wasn't sure I could finish it. I really liked the movie even if the end was a bit of a cop out.
Great video Emma.
I wanted what could be considered a ridiculous ending.
I wanted them to chose who was going to die, carry out the murder and for it all to be fake.
Redmond would have found 3 people who had psychological issues he could convince of ‘the end of the world’ story who had a shared hallucination from the power of suggestion.
It was all to get revenge on Andrew for the time he spent in prison which had ruined his life. He could have met bartender Leonard in the bar he frequented. Sabrina was a nurse so she could have treated him after the bottle incident (maybe he cut his hand).
Thank you thank you for suggesting Tremblay's "Head Full of Ghosts" as it was the scariest book I've read in decades!
I prefer the whole it doesn't matter if it's real or not the situation's f***** up and we're not killing each other
We know that M. Night Shyamalan likes to use religious imagery in his movies, and I am sure that that is the case here. While we never learn for sure if there was a "fifth person" out in the woods (as Eric alludes to), I wonder if that fifth person was to represent the biblical Lamb, who follows the Four Horsemen.
Idk if the Lamb follows the Four Horsemen, but it definitely is the creature that breaks their seals and unleashes them on mankind. It would have been cool if that aspect had been worked into the film somehow, but I'm not sure how M Night would have done it.
I would have preferred a new outcome altogether (following more the book’s footsteps). What I liked about the book ending was the fact Eric and Andrew ultimately chose each other over everything and everyone else - a true testament to the power of pure love (the reason why they were chosen to make the decision, right?). When time runs out and they decide not to sacrifice either of them, they suddenly *wake up* back at the beginning, back where they were, reading books and just existing as a happy family, with Wen playing with the grasshoppers. Basically, making the whole apocalypse real, but the true trick to saving humanity is to choose love over humanity, because at the end of the day, what proves our humanity and our worth in this planet is our devotion to our loved ones and the unmovable force that is unconditional love, above all else. And this would be the way God recognises us as worthy of surviving. By not giving in to some cruel way to salvation, but rather standing our ground. In this sense, Wen could have still died (like the book) or not (like the movie), but with Eric and Andrew choosing not to sacrifice either, they still “go back in time” to where they were before their arrival, and all is well. Might be too nice of a way to end things, but I like the idea of love being the ultimate testament and salvation to humanity.
I really like the way you put this. Thanks for this perspective.
I don't know. I guess it depends on your definition of love. But if their love only extends to each other, that is a very "small" love. You call it "pure love" ; I call that selfish love. In that world, there won't be police, firefighters, or soldiers because that all requires sacrificing for others.
I think the movie presents a better discussion point when Andrew says people do not deserve to be saved because they never loved them. But for Eric, for Wen and everyone else, he was willing to sacrifice.
I like that ending. I acctualy tought we are going to find out that the tv was somhow rigged and Eric died fir nothing.
Honestly, the fault, blame, lies with the person forcing them to make this choice, in this case, the supposed 'God'. Like they asked in the book, why should the follow the whim of a cruel god that cannot even accept the death of their child to stop the apocalypse. It's the rejection of the classic Isaac and Abrahams story which I like.@@brianng8350
Thanks as always Emma! 🙃👍
Enjoyed the movie (very much) & will check out the novel.
Awesome Emma 😎
Thanks for the Comparison Video 😀
I saw this tonight, and as I was leaving the theater, no joke, the song playing on the radio when I started my car was "It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)".
@ 22:02 I was confused here, who is Stroge lol and then I got that you mean Schrödinger's cat, shro-deen-gr
EMMA" I do ENJOY your vids..keep em coming, mike n ri
Thanks!
Thank you !!!!
Thanx for breaking down the differences between the book and movie, if M Night Shyamalon's films all connect with each other then i have a theory that the diner at the end is the same diner at the end of Split
There's another way to look at the movie. Sometimes an event comes up that offers a threat that needs to addressed but it's so strange and so out of the ordinary of experience that a portion of the population just refuses to believe it. For example a global pandemic. Or a climate change crisis. So it's people with knowledge and understanding and they are trying to convince others that something is happening, and they need to take drastic action or it will effect everyone. And the people who they are trying to convince won't believe them until the worst case actually happens. It could have been avoided, but wasn't, because of stubbornness and cynicism.
I haven't had a chance to see the film, but I had to hear how they chsnged the ending. I absolutely hate the film ending as you've described it.
Yes, everything the cultists are saying may be true. But if this what "god" requires for the world to live, then maybe the world isn't worth saving. My feelings are likely rooted in severe childhood religious trauma, but I am vehemently against negotiating with evil monsterous beings.
To me, the book ending felt akin to Cabin in the Woods, where they willingly let the world die. And I'm all here for it.
It's an interesting discussion about the larger meaning behind the themes in the book and film. However, I don't feel like everything is hopeless when it comes to things like climate change.
I found the book rather convincing on this all being real. Granted, perhaps I underestimate the ability of mass hallucinations. However, my overall takeaway would be the same either way: do not do what "god" demands.
I saw this Friday past and really enjoyed it 😊. Was it as good as the book 🤔 I'm still on the fence.👍👍
I really wish I could get on with Tremblay's books, he always has such an interesting premise but I just don't gel with his writing style. I hope that this adaptation does well so more of his stuff gets the big (or small) screen treatment, that way I can scratch my Tremblay itch (ew) without having to read his stuff. 😅😂
I read the book while the film was already out (& before I saw the film). After I read that Eric saw the figure I was sure it was going to be about aliens manipulating humans like puppets, and I was thinking the whole time that this is right up M. Night's alley, a Signs moment -- but I was wrong of course.
On a side note, I think it would've been awesome if the aliens were made of energy and with the performed rituals, the people who were offed would turn into this energy. The "god" people have been worshipping for centuries is an alien.
I read the book twice before the movie came out. Course I did know it was going to be a movie. I actually thought that he was overreaching when he said that for representations of humanity were visited by them also.
I think the entire point of the story was to be ambiguous. It's all about the conversation, not the answers.
I think Shyamalan stripped all ambiguity in favor of his own narrative. Unfortunately, what could be a solid story about the unanswerable questions in life is boiled down to two gay men sacrificing their love for the "greater good." I hate to have what feels like a very reactionary internet take on this movie but it's how the movie made me feel.
Like, why confirm O'Bannon as a homophobe who commits hate crimes and also the apocalypse is actually happening? I think they should've gone in one direction or the other.
Shyamalan did a good job adapting the first two thirds and then seemed to do his own thing with the ending. The problem is he didn't make the proper changes to make his ending work. Instead we go in a drastically different direction without the build up to make me believe in those characters' actions.
As usual, the writing was muddled and unfortunately I think it ends up putting out a pretty problematic message for me
I'm finally getting around to watching this because I finally got around to watching the movie! Despite it being M. Night, I was not excited about the subject matter so I delayed - and I was right, I did not enjoy the subject matter so much. So, I'm still thinking about everything but I really appreciate your extra insight from the book to add to my thoughts.
The only things I think I can say this early in my thought process is that I felt myself disappointed that I didn't get enough of an attempt at a reason why one of them had to be sacrificed. Now, I know sh*t happens and god's motives are ambiguous so that certainly all tracks, but that was the part that I found the most interesting so I was quite unsatisfied there. There's one statement about maybe their love being pure, but maybe I wanted a peek into god's mind. OR, I actually would have liked more supernatural content around the cabin, like the audience gets to see that this cabin - yes isolated, but is also some kind of supernatural place where if you happen to be unlucky to stay in it, then you are the 'random lottery loser' and that this happens cyclically.
As far as the ambiguous ending, I don't mind the ending and I really am not sure if I would prefer the ending to be different or not. What I would like to have been different is that I wanted to be convinced along the way that this was real and I didn't feel like the tv was convincing enough. I think that certainly was the point - we were on the same journey of questioning that the characters were on, but I didn't feel like I came around like the characters did by the end of it.
Anyway ... more thinking! Thank you so much for this - I love these kinds of videos. I do a little 31 days of horror thing for people every year and my theme last year was book to movie comparisons. I love to compare differences and think about why those differences were chosen, etc.
I read the book first, was so distraught when Wen was shot 😢 that it took me 3 or 4 months before I was able to finish, so I didn't want to see the same ending in the movie. I liked your idea for the ending with no diner scene
Eric was a believer from the beginning, there was a brief scene when Andrew and Eric were waiting to adopt their daughter. There is a religious picture posted in front of them on the wall. Andrew catches Eric looking at the post, r and says something along of the lines of "I won't be mad if you prey". Eric was a spiritual person from the beginning, I don't think he's evangelical or anything, but I definitely think he was a believer of something greater
I absolutely loved the books which I had read a while back. I was very anxious to see the movie and felt it was similar enough for me not to be disappointed. I often read a book after watching a movie I enjoy as it does add so much more depth. I liked the ending of the minister than the book. That might have to do with the fact that if felt that Wen's death wasn't considered a sacrifice. I also interpreted the ending of the book as the world ending. Read more Paul Trebley. I love his books
Hey Emma. A question, did the planes fall as well in the book? That was the only thing that made me "believe" the strangers
Great video!
Thank you
think i might have to read the book after watching this today! i enjoyed the movie on the whole but just felt like i wanted more the whole time… i know they were leaving it ambiguous for a reason but i almost wish they’d showed some of their visions for what was about to happen to humanity to really amp up the stakes?? i thought the ending was a bit disappointing too, and i didn’t really understand why all those people were sitting so casually in the gas station seemingly unbothered by everything that had happened?!
Happy Monday 💘💜💋💋👼🏻👼🏿🌹
Come to think of it. I would have acted like Andrew. But I would have changed my decision soon after seeing the doomsdayers’ sacrifices. Seeing how they’re so dedicated to their beliefs in their visions that they were willing to die for said beliefs
I haven't read the book and I really enjoyed this movie. I would have liked it to end where...
The sacrifice is made and Wen and Eric drive home but everything seems normal. They only saw apocalyptic evidence on the TV, not in the real world. so it's leaning towards thinking these people were having a shared delusion, but there's still some ambiguity because what if the world being reset and no one remembering the tragedies is because they made the sacrifice? I thought it was kind of depressing in the movie how they eventually made the sacrifice, but lost so much along the way.
22:05 Stroger's cat? what?
I think this is the only Shyamalan flick that doesn't have a twist at the end
It wasn’t very clear to me. So the mnight movie twist was the the doomsdayer were actually right?
I thought I had figured out the film within a few minutes watching when Wen was catching the crickets in the glass container. I thought they are living in a bio dome without knowing, as some kind of experiment. (Lol. I was totally off). And the 4 people that came broke in and had to kill them because the experiment had to end without the cabin family knowing. I would actually have liked my version better.
Paul Tremblay books always end up being ambiguous. all build up with no pay off. i've read three books of his and all of them infuriated me lol.
I absolutely love Paul tremblays books because of the ways he uses ambiguity. Whenever I finish one I can't stop thinking about it for days because of this.
Maybe I’m so very unsophisticated more than I thought but I always want to know, I like certainty so I wished the movie had more answers but again it’s only me
The book was very frustrating and hated the ending. Like it was a cop out. There are much better ambiguous endings than that one. I liked your suggestion a lot.
I read the book first, then watched it the day after. It's been a week and I still don't know how I feel about it. Weird.
Aha! Good recap before the upcoming DTOY
I just finally watched the movie... my goodness. When I read the book I wasn't a fan of the ending; after seeing the movie's ending I appreciate and like the book's so much more!
Thanks for the additional video since I did not read the book.
I enjoyed the movie because it was not overly complex. I think that is where Mr Shyamalan's other movies failed because all the surprise reveal or twist just did not stick.
And I loved that Mr Shyamulan gave us definite answers. I hated the ambiguity of the book.
As to what you wished, I think you would have gotten more hate if Leonard and Redmond were conspiring the whole thing - people will say this is "woke" movie and liberal media trying to shove gay lifestyle to everyone. The comparison would be too close to reality. So, I think Mr Shyamalan did the right thing staying away from trigger some people.
As for the butterfly effect, I think that would be more like Men In Black or what Mr Shyamalan would do as a twist and I would have hated it... hahaha... I really like that he kept this movie simple. I understand the ending might not be as rewarding, but as a thriller, I had fun while watching it without thinking about the messages of the movie or the book.
oh oh, doesn't great parents say: don't talk to STRANGERS and STAY away from STRANGERS , emmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm , mike n ri
I liked the fact it was baso conformed to be real, gives the buildup and suspension a lot of payoff imo
Saw the movie earlier.
I liked it overall although I thought some scenes felt glossed over and rushed. I didn't like the ending, especially the diner scene...
The apocalypse should have been more ambiguous. The TV coverage while horrific was also.. Kinda of empty. Felt off to me.
I liked the movie after old which was ok but not great this was alot better I think the ending was fine the way it is
When I watched the film and it got to the ending I was kind of slapping my forehead at how unambiguous it was, so your explanation of the book makes me think I'd have enjoyed that lot more. Also somehow I find the complete reversing of theme in the movie to be very regressive. I had a kind of offended reaction to it and I just put that down me reading too much into it but everything you say about the book seems to aggravate those ideas even more 😆The more I think about it and the more I hear about the book, the more I hate the movie.
Wow
One big difference you didn't mention: the titles! Which one do you prefer?
I feel like M night is like wow this would be a great movie idea/concept but shoots it within a month or two and sends it off. I liked the movie to a point until it got repetitive. As soon as the guy got the concussion I knew they would play off of that. Following the book more would have been better off imo
I read the book the day before going to the movie and I was so disappointed that they didn’t GO THERE like the book does - the movie really felt like a watered down version of the book; book was 10/10 movie was a. 5/10
did no one else feel like there should've been more explanation about how they all met & their visions? i think that would've added a nice layer to the story overall. it felt kinda rushed. i wasn't really rooting for any of the characters besides Wen. i'm not gonna read the book so i that's why i watched this. but it's sad to know Wen died in the book.
Is there some allegory to the four horsemen of the apocalypse and the four strangers or is that something I’m just inferring. Lol edit I just reached that point in your video, and I prefer your ending better. As far as theories…bear with me. I believe true change for better isn’t often achieved unless there’s pain and struggle sometimes. I believe the group are given visions to target people that would usher us through the apocalypse if they had not been sacrificed. By their sacrifice they stave off the apocalypse but leave us trapped in a status quo that is in some ways worse than what would happen if it were to “end” and we would rebuild with these key people helping us. Of course that sounds so very Christ like now that I mention it so maybe not lol.
I was a really big fan of the book so I was looking forward to this as my most anticipated of the year. And I didn’t like it, the first half was good but it just went shite and the ending was stupidly dumb
Would’ve liked for the sacrifice to have taken place (either husband) and then we are left with a hint that none of the impending apocalypse was real. Maybe a picture of the 4 attackers together left in the car or a saved file of the tv news broadcast. Show that and then immediately cut to black.
Hi Emma, big fan of your videos writing from spain! Maybe you've watched them but I wanted to recommend you As Bestas and Mantícora, two spanish films nominated to our awards (the Goya), they are not strictly horror but I think you'd like to check them out! love your videos btw
ooo thank you! I LOVE SPANISH FILMS!
I find it interesting that you're projecting your own world ideology onto how you wanted the story to end.
Art is subjective. This is why I don't like that they changed the ending tho. Personally a balance between the two would've been preferred.
I got to watch the movie yesterday, and I too have thoughts. About the ending, it went on too long after everything was done. It explained too much. If it had ended earlier I would have liked it better. From what you said about the book ending, it ends too soon, explaining nothing. I like a middle ground, some explanation, no gas station scene, the storm was enough.
I don't know, I can 't help but think I would have liked the movie much better if it was directed by someone else. The cringey director cameo, the flat tone of most of it, the odd pacing of information, and dialogue, it all felt like it could have been so much better. The script was fine, the plot was fine, it just felt like directing was missing something.
I read the book decided not to watch the movie. Poor little Wen. Glad she survived the movie version! Ha. I agree this story needs an ambiguous ending.
I don't think the ending was clear cut at all. Sure it seems that they were really talking to God but we will never know
i read the book first and i like the ending of the movie better. wen's death doesn't explain the books ending. i think if wen would have died in the movie, then there would have been no purpose to sacrifice anyone in the end.
haven't read the book, but i think that m. night probably chose to paint a better picture of religion / religious people in the movie, because the book could be viewed as a cynical or darker portrayal of people and that religion is basically just a man-made cult. again, i haven't read the book, but just basing this from the spoilers. the book could also be an f-u to the idea of human sacrifice to appease a god or gods. it could be a calculated risk assessment that shyamalan decided to NOT paint religion / religious people that way and not get accused of demonizing religion.
dave batista and the kid are the best thing about the movie. i thought it was kinda cheesy that the movie ended with a definitive "the apocalypse was real" and that they "stopped it". also, the ambiguity of the book allows for a more critical scrutiny of the characters.
edit:
all in all, this is still one of shyamalan's good movies. he's either a hit or miss kind of film maker, and this is still a hit even with the flaws. i enjoyed the movie and the casting is pretty good, particularly that of dave batista and the kid actress.
tell me why it was rated r but then again THERE WAS FAMILIES going to go see this movie 💀
whos family?!
It had a 15 Certificate in the UK
I thought the book was 5 stars but the movie i have to give 3 stars - it felt a lot less tense, and a lot more surface level and just fell a bit flat - i think they couldve made this movie a lot more disturbing and deep but decided to make it more basic to appeal to a wider audience :/
I have to say I really prefer the movie ending to book by a mile. I think there are so many stories already about killers or crazy people that use religion as a justification for their mental illnesses and things like that, but there are very few stories where the religious aspects are actually undeniably true. I think removing the ambiguity allows us to ask deeper questions. Think of the perspective of our two surviving characters: how will they possibly go on like this? Living in a world where they know the existence of a god who constantly asks humanity to prove its worth over and over again by torturing a select few to decide the fate of them all. And even more questions arise when we think about what that means to god. Why does god behave the way it does? Is the god that watches over us the god that also created us? Or is their more to that as well? In the book if we never get an answer to was it real or was it not then that becomes the only question we ask, and doesn’t allow us to go deeper into one choice or the other. Also as a side note I’m extreme glad the movie did not kill Wen because I can not for the life of me see how that serves the story in any way and feels like something done for shock value
I don't mind the things you're saying, I think that religious aspects can be interesting in the right stories.
But for this specific one, I just can't accept it. The ending of the movie basically gives the 4 people the satisfaction of being right, basically forgiving them for holding a family (with a child) hostage, forcing them to sacrifice one of them, forgiving them because they did it for a "heroic cause".
I think the ambiguity works better because it allows the reader/watcher to come to their own conclusions based on their own biases. If you see it as God's work, then you get to relish in the metaphors about the grasshoppers, especially in the book. When Wen realises the grasshoppers had died, I see it as the fragility of life, and that God has to tend to everyone's needs, if he becomes careless, people suffer.
I think Eric's death works better for the movie, because it was clear cut, the apocalypse was real, his own sacrifice saved everyone. But I think Wen's death works better for the book. Because of the ambiguity, Wen's death is more impactful. There's nothing more innocent than a child. So ambiguity of whether the things happening are real or not, they killed a child. And then ultimately, her death doesn't even count as a sacrifice, which is even more heartbreaking for Eric and Andrew because her death was futile, and we never find out if was all for nothing, or if world genuinely ends.
The movie really messed with me. That ending wasn't "easy" it challenged everything I know to be true
What do you mean by that? Interesting comment, genuine question.
I can understand this! I’m a dad of a single sex family with adopted kids and the ending absolutely broke me. I was so sure I would never sacrifice my family for an apocalypse, because they’re my world. My M Nights inclusion of Wen’s future was too much. I sobbed for 30 mins. Completely challenged my viewpoints.
@@scottg9149 man I hope you haven't been convinced to kill anyone
It's kind of like he liked the book ,and he didn't like the ending ,and that's the only reason he made the movie
Omg same thought I was waiting for a grand twist at the end but nothing happened so I was quite disappointed n feel like this movie was a waste becoz most of the things were already shown in the trailer n everything stayed the same as in trailer nothing new why even make it 😭
The only apocalypse we have to fear is from Big Tech and DEI.
A fascinating analysis and comparison of the two stories. I have my own opinions, but they’re not relevant to this comment, which is really a question. Why did the family have to be gay? Couldn’t the same story, ending and all, be told had they been a straight couple?
Several friends have pointed out that one reading that the movie invites is that God set up a situation in which the only way the world can be saved (in the movie) is for a gay man to kill his husband. While it seems to me that other readings are possible, this doesn’t seem like the kind of message that should be sent out into the world, especially in the current political environment. (Not to mention how insensitive it is to a minority that, like many others, has endured so much violence and death to get to where they are today) I’d be very interested to read any (rational) arguments about why the couple had to be gay in the movie and the book. Thanks
Did not like this movie I don’t know if maybe I’m just not the right audience. I would’ve wanted them to lean into the skepticism a little more? went with my friend who is a believer in religion and we both have different options so I think it really does depend on your personal beliefs on faith in general, but I would’ve liked it to be more ‘oh they’re all full of shit and going crazy’ but I can understand someone wanting it to be more biblical? I think I’d rather just re-watched Signs It kind of gives off the same vibes without it being too allegorical.😂
Interesting. I was going to read the book, but after watching this I’m glad I didn’t. 😂 Killing a kid and having it end ambiguous? Blah. I enjoyed the movie. The only reason I would be ok with an ambiguous ending is if they were going to do a sequel. 😮
"Wen has two daddies."
The social engineers in Hollyweird enlisted M Night Shyamalan this time to direct a thrilling cinematic celebration of gay marriage.
In this story, two queer men show the hetero normative class once and for all that they are not only as good as them but maybe even better.
And what is the surprise twist ending to the film that Shyamalan is known for?
Perhaps it's that those who cannot reproduce in order to perpetuate the species will at least rescue it for those who can with an act of super moral bravery and courageous self sacrifice.
the book sounds cool, a bit like the play/movie BUG by letts/friedkin. i think Bug has come up on this channel before. ambiguity can have some great outcomes if it truly, fearlessly goes to the extremeeeeee*
*extremity, rather
The book is much scarier. That a group of people come and say the world is ending. And then it's just their imagination that makes it so much worse. And I did not like the movie.
yeah i did enjoy the movie but the book is 10x better than the movie also because the book had guts enough to go to that place of killing wen
It's not implied that it's their imagination. It's left ambiguous so the reader is left to come to their own conclusions.
How i took it as : Sodom and Gomorrah were two legendary biblical cities destroyed by God for their wickedness. Their story parallels the Genesis flood narrative in its theme of God's anger provoked by man's sin. They are mentioned frequently in the prophets and the New Testament as symbols of human wickedness and divine retribution, and the Quran also contains a version of the story about the two cities. The legend of their destruction may have originated as an attempt to explain the remains of third-millennium Bronze Age cities in the region, and subsequent Late Bronze Age collapse. ..MY TAKE--> THE TWO GUYS REPRESENTATIVED WICKENESS ...mike n ri
I enjoyed the movie. It's fucking wonderful to see gay characters leading a movie and portrayed as normal people with a family. I just did not like the ending. I agree. I like the idea of it ending with them getting away, driving off into a backdrop of ominous clouds and lightning and fade to black and leaving it ambiguous. I was convinced they were all completely unhinged mentally ill fanatics and it was creepin me out so much and triggering. Great video and ideas Emma.
Yeah it annoyed me that the four of them get to have the satisfaction of being right about the apocalypse, and basically being forgiven for their actions because it was for a "heroic cause"
I liked the movie up until it diverged from the book. I dont think adaptations need to 100% faithful to be good, but the aspects I found most compelling about the novel (religious indoctrination, brainwashing, ecochambers and the ways media can exacerbate these) are lost completely by the changed ending. (Imo) The movie felt like a watered-down hollywoodified version of the novel.
It's kinda like movies take a look, look at EVERYTHING that makes the book perfect, and then say "we'll use none of that, we'll change it because we can"
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I didn't like the movie ending either, it felt quite lacklustre. I would've liked to have not seen anybody at the gas station
Oo very true, why was everyone there instead of on the run with their families?