I prefer explanations

I do agree with the others here who have said that they prefer the non explanation. It's kinda funny as when it was finished, I said to my partner that I was glad that they didn't try to spoon feed us an explanation. It would make no difference to these characters if it were an alien invasion or something biological. Perhaps if they were scientists or something then I could see it, but if there wasn't anything they could do about it then I don't think it would add to the story.

I prefer trying to come to my own conclusion. That has almost always been my preference. I liked not knowing what really happened in the Blair Witch. I preferred the original Halloween to the remake as I didn't need to feel empathy towards Michael because of his trashy upbringing. I like not knowing for sure where Cobb is at the end of Inception. I just find it more entertaining.

You can have your opinion and I'm cool with you wanting explanations, but I do disagree with labeling something that you don't like as lazy.

I too prefer explanations, ideally early on.
If you have no idea what is causing the mass [whatever] then you have no idea if or how it can be fought or if any of the characters are doing anything helpful towards solving the problem..

I think there are solid intellectual arguments for movies or books with "unexplained elements" that drive their story line, but most of the time when this happens I don't find the story compelling or the missing explanation is so annoying that it serves as a distraction. I'm fine with being labeled simple or unimaginative for this, so be it.

The only movie I found compelling that was missing an explanation was "The Road" because it didn't really change the predicament of the character or the story, and it was so brutally well acted by Viggo Mortenson. Later, though, as I thought about I did get kind of nitpicky about the cause of the apocalypse.

Here it was annoying because the "entity" is both unexplained and not even portrayed very consistently -- moving apparently at will, and fast, through the air yet somehow stopped by the most minor of obstacles. That its effects worked over video was also kind of disappointing because it doesn't make any sense when the entity is essentially invisible.

The apparent lack of physical presence also bothered me, since it apparently has an effect that is somehow different based on physical differences between insane people and sane people. And unless the story is explicitly about some religious phenomenon, like the Exorcist, "spiritual" explanations are pretty unsatisfying and these seemed kind of in that vein.

Strangely though, I found it fairly entertaining despite this. Sandra Bullock is pretty good and her scenes with the kids were pretty intense. But I would have liked it better if the entity had some kind of explanation, even if it was religious, and more consistent rules.

The less explained it is the more people feel compelled to think about it and debate it. I like that in a film where it leaves you to think after it ends.