This movie came out a few years ago, but I searched and found only one short thread on it.
I just watched it last night, and I thought it was worthy of discussion. I’m hoping that the passage of time and the fact that it’s available to watch on Netflix’s website will result in a few more people wanting to talk about it.
I thought the movie was interesting on a few levels. First, I loved the fact that it’s not clear until the very end whether there’s anything but superstition to the Hoodoo. Until after the climax, the only thing we see is vague shadows in mirrors and people voluntarily not crossing brick dust.
I wish the ending had been as circumspect. It seems like the filmmakers really wanted to beat us over the head with it, but the ending easily could have been as elegant as having Caroline pick up the cigarettes and light one. It is strange and refreshing to have a movie like this where not only is the magic real, the bad guys win.
I liked how self-consistent it all ended up being. They appear to be horrible at keeping secrets because they have to slowly lead her into believing.
I think I’d like to watch it again and see how many clues there are. One I’ve already retroactively noticed is that the lawyer lies to Caroline the first time he meets her. After he tells her all this stuff about the couple, the house, etc. she asks him a question he doesn’t want to answer, and he says “All I know is the checks clear”. He clearly knows a lot more than that; he’s just told her as much. I pointed it out the first time through as bad writing, but it’s just deceit.
I saw this movie when it first came out, and liked it a lot. I’ll have to see it again to discuss it intelligently, though, as most of the details have escaped my poor alcohol-soaked mind!..TRM
I’m saying that, when I first watched it, I thought that it was just bad writing. I thought that the lawyer character wasn’t lying so much as that he had been written clumsily. I remarked on it to my girlfriend (who had seen the movie before and to her credit did not give anything away). At the time I thought the lawyer was just a throwaway character, so I didn’t think anything of it. By the time he came back, I forgot his “lie”, but if I had remembered, it would have been a clear clue that he was sinister.
I never thought of it this way. This adds a whole new dimension to the film, imo. I guess I sort of took for granted that he was the one picking the next victim.
I’d say it was the rare triple twist. The first twist was that there was some body switching going on, but that was telegraphed by the flashback with the kids. The second twist was that the preacher and his wife was somehow involved, which was also telegraphed. The third twist with the nanny finally realizing the truth was very surprising.
