MovieChat Forums > ruffianclone
ruffianclone (10)
Posts
Replies
Thank you!
Haha, I think you're right! That really was an understatement. I kind of can't believe how bad this was. Some of Wingard's other stuff impressed me, and I'm being generous with this one because of it.
If you decide to check it out, best not to think of it as an adaptation at all. It's a completely different story with only surface-level elements in common. I definitely enjoyed comparing the two, especially considering that Wingard specifically aimed to Americanize Death Note.
All that being said: Yep. It's a pretty bad movie.
You're absolutely right. Mia could have simply stolen the book and used it to her content. After seven days, it wouldn't even have belonged to Light anymore. I think she tried to get it from him in a more convoluted, manipulative way for the sheer fun of it. This fits her character, but can be frustrating from the audience's perspective, especially since she wasn't terribly clever about it.
As for the point of ownership, I couldn't make out any real benefits. You might say that it helps to have the death god around to explain any rules or loopholes that you missed. Balance that against the fact that the death god will also be constantly laughing at and rooting against you, and I'd have to say no thank you.
I like the theory that Travis sleep walks! Especially with the dream sequences blurring the line between what's real and what's imagined.
My theory was that there's some kind of monster on the very fringe of the movie. Maybe something that people turn into after they get infected? That's why they kill the infected and burn the bodies, why they don't like to go out at night. You see a brief glimpse of some kind of humanoid something sitting in the woods during the driving scene. My guess is, that's the monster. The dog eventually goes after it and gets himself killed. It brings the dog back, opening both doors. The little boy gets into that room, and the infection begins.
That's just what I thought in the theatre. It's been awesome reading other people's interpretations.
My interpretation was that she does age, just very slowly. I'm not sure about the second part. Maybe because of her violent, traumatic birth? Maybe a side effect of growing up drinking the serum? Couldn't tell you for sure.
This is driving me crazy, too! I'll keep trying to find it and post here if I have any luck.
I wish the movie had explained this better. You could infer that her violent "birth" and incestuous origins resulted in developmental problems. In that way, the baron would sort of be telling the truth when he said early trauma was to blame. I think it's possible to come up with an explanation based on the rest of the movie, but they might have done better just to come out and say what was going on in this case.
You've got a great point! There was one scene where the baron dabbed his forehead and found blood seeping out a little. He immediately took a drop of the serum. Maybe if they stop taking it, they don't start aging normally, but just die? That makes for a pretty bleak ending for our girl Hannah, though!
She is the same girl, yes. The serum gives them both long lives. She seems to age very, very slowly, having been an infant two hundred years ago. The baron wasn't hanged, but burned along with his wife. He survived. That's why he had all those fake faces, why his real face looked like that at the end. I wonder if she'll age normally now that she won't be taking the serum anymore?
View all replies >