We know the triplets jumped out of the window at least 7 years before the events of the movie. There’s a line in which Aberforth tells Harry that the Jerome’s decided to “try again” after the death of their daughters. Considering that the girl who burned in the cellar looked to be at least 7 years old, you have to guess that the cold open was perhaps as long as a decade prior.
I enjoyed the movie well enough. it was a good old-fashioned haunted house/ghost story with a fairly uncomplicated story. No more grue than needed (way more effective that way IMO), good performances, nice suspense build, great location, etc. Certainly worth a watch, if not a re-watch. Other people in the theatre were pretty annoying, with lots of teenage giggling and chat.
The tripletts were the innkeeper’s kids, not Jerome’s, or did I miss something?
No, you are correct. The room they jumped from was the attic room in the inn at which Kipps spent his first night in Crythin Gifford.
And how is that road even passable when it’s flooded out twice a day?
Also, it was remarkable that the townsfolk knew the times of the tides seemingly off the tops of their heads.
after Arthur puts the boys’ body in the house, when the ghost appears and comes at Arthur screaming, he ducks and she continues on to the boy. She reaches down as if to pick him up, and you hear him say, "No!! You’re not my mother!! " and then she screams at Arthur again and departs. That may be why she keeps on killing, because the boy thinks his aunt is his mother, which is why she was pissed in the first place. A lot of people missed this small part.
the ghost tried to pick the boy, or his ghost, up from the bed when she came in the room. the boy said “no!! you’re not my mother!!” then she screamed at Arthur again and departed. This could be why she keeps saying “never forgive”
He said that? Really? I didn’t hear it.
I didn’t hear it either, but now it makes sense. Thanks.
I had to play it back three times to make sure - he said that. It cleared up why she was saying “never forgive” and killed Arthur’s son and him.
How did you play it back? 
i watched it on a movie site
I saw this over the weekend. Eh, I didn’t not enjoy it; there were a few pretty good scares. It’s already been mentioned that Arthur was notable for not taking the haunting lying down, grabbing an axe and a candle and chasing after ghosts. But that felt a little odd to me, because frankly someone in his situation should be pretty epically freaked out. Fuck the solicitor gig — as soon as it’s clear a malevolent poltergeist doesn’t like you, you shouldn’t be so terribly eager to spend the night in its house.
I’m also unsure what the audience was supposed to make of the final scene. Did Arthur’s son escape the woman in black because his mother and father were there to lead him? Why the final close up on the woman’s face? She didn’t look any more pissed off than usual.
However: all the Victorian wind-up toys were just unspeakably awesome.
I didn’t hear that either, FWIW, and — not doubting you — but it seems like the scene went too quickly for that. At the very least it’s clearly something not meant to be picked up on easily.
Just finished it.
Well, good for Daniel Radcliffe. He needs to be in as many movies as possible and we may eventually move past his Potter typecasting. He was really good in this movie.
However, the movie is only average to forgettable. It’s a mediocre script made by some very talented people. Much better than dreck, but worse than something I’d call good.
Just saw it and liked it well enough, except for the way the WIB was introduced, which as AuntiePam pointed out, doesn’t make much sense. IIRC, in the book, Arthur sees her at a funeral and she sees him, which gets things rolling.
I also thought far too much time was spent wandering around the almost hilariously cool scary house waiting for ghoulies to pop out. When they did, it scared me, though. shrugs
To me it seemed kind of like the next Potter sequel as well. I mean:
- By setting it around the end of the 19th century (I guess) they de-emphasize the presence of hi tech (only one car, trains, no electric light)
- Arthur travels via train to his ultimate destination which
- is set in a moor, far away from civilization and looks like a castle
- Inside you have supernatural events and even a staircase filled with portraits. Albeit non-moving ones
It’s what would have happened if Rowling had decided to write the next Potter book as a tragic continuation of Harry’s life, an adventure where he’d lost his magic wand somehow…
I think the reason why arthur kipps is reunited with his wife and kid is because, he was the only one who actually tried to save his kid, I didn’t see any of the others at least trying, also the message in the wall is “you could have saved him”
Arthur didn’t get the axe to defend himself - he needed it to break down the locked door, as none of the keys would open it. When he reached the landing the door was open.