Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
SgtScruffy
Dec 27, 2003

Babies.


Zeris posted:

Paul was an idiot. For all of his forward thinking and brutally logical actions, if there was a possibility of an infection in the house, the first thing to do would be to barricade the room shut or else kill everyone in it (if waiting a few days isn't an option).

What I suspect the director had in mind was for viewers to witness Paul becoming more empathetic and human, indulging himself in a little bit of illogical behavior in the name of compassion and hope for a human civilization which might one day return (embodied in his love for his son). But that didn't really come though. Maybe he should've smiled once or twice, and the drinking scene where Dad #2's "brother" is revealed as a white lie should've been cut. That was an unnecessary addition to the tension.

Also agreed on the dream sequences. Imparting narrative through dreams is the oldest mistake in storytelling.


I disagree that the "brother" should have been cut. I raised a huge amount of ambiguity to the whole situation of the other family - was it a white lie and the family still meant good things, and Paul was mistaken in all of his actions? Or was the other father actually a liar and did intend to murder all of them? It raised enough doubt that it could have been either.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • Locked thread