I’m glad I didn’t come across any Veronica over-hype videos or media in general. When I watched it I thought I came across some cool horror film nobody knows about so it was pretty much totally unspoiled for me and I thoroughly enjoyed it
Veronica was just meh. The effects are ridiculously hilarious. And the writing is lazy. But in general, every Netflix movie marketed as "the scariest movie ever", is beceause of tiktok teens that never saw a good horror movie. Same happening for "incantation", just beceause they discovered how scary found footage can be, they think its the scariest movie of all time.
All those blurbs are always taken out of context anyways when it comes to genre movies. They will be like “the New York Times called it ‘thrilling’…” when the rest of the review wasn’t necessarily favorable, but they technically aren’t lying because that one word was in the review.
NYT: “*What should have been **thrilling** was actually a steaming pile of dogshit that even the shiny green flies chose to ignore.*”
Movie Marketing Dept: *NYT calls it thrilling!*
While I personally didn't think it was all that scary, I think this is one of those movies where it's potentially scarier if you've experienced something similar. Like if you're someone that had an abusive childhood, then I could see this being a pretty rough watch (one scene in particular is rough even if you didn't experience something like that). The dad in particular is reprehensible. So I could see why someone could deem it that way.
Plus I also think that often times critics who don't really cover horror are giving those quotes. That's why I think people should check out horror-centric sites when it comes to how scary a movie could be. I read Bloody Disgusting's review before watching it and they specifically mention that it really isn't scary. So I dropped my expectations for that aspect since they were pretty high because of Sinister, and because Derickson was taken off of Dr. Strange 2 reportedly because he wanted to lean more into horror than Marvel was comfortable with. So I definitely thought he'd come out swinging in that area.
I've had to learn to do the same too. There was just a ton of hype around this movie and I couldn't ignore it any longer.
Horror is the biggest victim to misleading reviews and I tend to take them very lightly because of that.
Yeah, I ignore any movie reviews with superlatives until I hear about it from someone I know. Every horror movie will be "The scariest movie in years" that will "Have you on the edge of your seat" in a "Non-stop thrill-ride". It's all artificial.
I went into Black Phone completely blind and ended up really enjoying it. Favorite movie in a while. With that said, if I had experienced the battery of ads that others seemed to I likely would've been turned off it as well.
You might try [Letterboxd.com](https://letterboxd.com/film/the-black-phone/). I like that they have a ratings curve so you can see how many people are giving it what rating. Like The Black Phone had almost the same number of people giving it 3/3.5/4 stars, so it was definitely going to be a middle of the road movie.
> Horror is the biggest victim to misleading reviews
I'd say it's tied with comedy. It's mostly because what each individual person finds funny or scary varies quite a bit from person to person.
9n top of that people tend to use reviews as proof of their point while ignoring every situation when its ptherwise.
At this moment its kinda pointless to even read reviews since half have spoilers and other half is full of empty words.
I don’t understand who would say this because I found it barely scary and not even clearly horror. The “scariest movie of x” thing is subjective and I don’t like to say that a movie isn’t scary because different things scare different people, but this statement is just laughable. In the last year, to start, we have Fresh, The Sadness, The Feast, Censor, The Medium, Hellbender, The Innocents, The Feast, Motherly, The Cursed, Son, X, Last Night In Soho, Incantation, The Cursed, Malignant, In the Earth, Gaia, Till Death, Dashcam, No One Gets Out Alive… I mean I could list so many films that are out that are good. How is this the “scariest”? It is baffling.
>There is no explanation as to why "The Grabber" (yuck) is kidnapping these kids.
A villain's motivations don't always need to be revealed.
>There's no explanation as to why Finney's sister can see details of the kidnappings in her dreams. There's no explanation or even a look into why their father is an abusive, and aggressive alcoholic.
Alright, you lost me. Pay closer attention to the movie next time. That shit is 100% explained.
Also, like, the motivation can simply be that he's a sadist - though the fact he makes them misbehave before "punishing" them could very easily point to this being something he himself experienced. I don't know why some watchers really wanted to be spoon fed the villain's motivation.
Some people are saying the Grabber wasn't creepy and had no depth? I mean, you do you, but how are not creeped out about the fact that this man kidnaps young teenage boys and has them be "naughty boys"? I didn't need a flashback of his bad childhood, I got a satisfying scene of his death and that is all I need after he was being weird all of the movie.
I just watched the movie, I must’ve missed the part where they explained the girl’s psychic powers. Could you explain what that was. If you’re referring to their mother having the same powers, that’s just kicking the can down the road, doesn’t actually answer anything
Right. It’s like the writers knew the psychic sister was a plot hole so they decided add one piece of dialogue referring to a dead psychic mother, which is equally dissatisfying.
Why does their need to be an explanation for how they got psychic powers? I literally cannot think of a single movie with psychic characters where they “explain” why they’re psychic. It doesn’t matter.
Is The Shining a worse movie because there wasn’t a clunky exposition scene about why Danny can shine?
This is my biggest issue when people complain about The Black Phone. They literally could not have spelled it out clearer why both Finney and Gwen have psychic abilities that help them get the Grabber where the other kids fail. The filmmakers do this within the first five minutes of the movie. It’s laziness on the audience’s part truthfully.
>both Finney and Gwen have psychic abilities that help them get the Grabber
Oh OK. So are you saying that the phone thing was because of his special ability, and not as an external source? I just literally finished and didn't think about that this way.
🎦🙄👆
Glad to see this comment. I think this OP post sucks lol. Not liking the movie is fine of course, but not liking it because you need a concrete explanation for supernatural stuff is just silly.
Ok then can you explain why? Yes Finney's mother also had those dreams bur there is no explanation as to why Finney's mother and Gwen have those dreams
You don't get it it's not that we need to know why he likes kidnapping kids buy we do need to know more about him as a character and how he came to be the way he is just for basic character development. But they couldn't even do that. And they literally mentioned like one time her mom saw things lol. That'd IT. There was no other point to the whole movie. Just a bunch of pointless things that have absolutely nothing to do with the plot. Leaves you hanging on a lot of stuff. All the characters were annoyin ESPECIALLY the little sister who had the audacity to not only tell off full grown kidnapping detectives but JESUS himself! The definition of a BRAT.
I thought her telling off imaginary Jesus made her a badass and showed how strong her will to find her brother was. I think it also made her relatable in my opinion, I always wanted to say stuff like that as a kid but I was too scared lol.
Maybe because I didn't see the marketing I was actually pleasantly surprised. Also what do you mean what's the killers motivation? It's pretty obvious.
I agree , having kids myself made the storyline all the unnerving. I have doubts OP watched the movie , the little girl got her powers from her mother , Finn obviously the same - their Father pointed this out at least 4 times in the film.
Came here to say this. It had a nicely written story, which is so rare for horror. And yes it is more of a thriller than a movie that tries to “scare” you.
I don't even remember what the jump scare(s) was. I do remember that there were some people in my theater that got spooked throughout the movie and one person even spilled their popcorn lol
I agree with this take. When I saw it in the theater, the kids behind me looked 11 or so (I'm assuming they were just young looking 13 year olds), and I got nervous that they might be traumatized if this was as scary as people were hyping it to be. Well, of course it wasn't. But I think it was a positive story for them to watch and was the right amount of scary for a younger horror viewer to watch.
>>There is no explanation as to why "The Grabber" (yuck) is kidnapping these kids.
>So? I don't see why this is essential to the story, which is really more about Finn than it is about The Grabber
agreed, i always see that as a complaint but i see the lack of exposition for once as refreshing. really reminds me why i liked the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre too.
This movie was a solid 7.5/10 for me but the reason why I liked it so much is I didnt feel like I was being spoon fed any plots. The sister is psychic? Okay! The brother is psychic too? Sure! Oh, they got them from their mom who committed suicide because of her visions. The Grabber's mystery intrigued me also. I didnt need to know the back story of this deranged man. He was creepy on his own and had obviously felt safe in his patterns of kidnapping, torturing, theoretically raping and killing his victims.
Exposition is more of a recent thing with horror. One of the main ideas behind horror was “the unknown”. Jaws, TCM, Halloween etc had villains who’s motives were never explained and it made it even scarier. Now every horror villain has to have some sort of long form explanation for why they’re the way they are.
You said everything better than I could have. Reading OP's review, I was wondering if they even actually watched the movie or just played on their phone while the movie was on in the background.
Edit: This comment got me blocked by OP, preventing me from having a discussion in this thread. I never even commented directly to OP. Someone can give criticism, but can't take a contradictory opinion.
They obviously don't how reddit's blocking system works. If they block someone, neither of you can ever be in the same comment chain again. On Reddit, if you block someone then you're blocking yourself from posting if they ever get to a thread before you lol It's dumb as hell. Reddit must really not want anyone to block anyone.
Lol, the post was kinda written like someone who couldn't take their own criticism.
There wasn't anything wrong with his post either, I just personally feel he's scraping the bottom of the barrel for nitpicks and plotholes, but overall it's a solid opinion. But of course he blocked you, so now we know he was just using what I call "conditional rationality", claiming he wanted nothing more than a civilized discussion but practically dipping out the minute too many people agree. Damn shame.
Yeah I'm glad someone else said this. I literally just watched this yesterday and I really enjoyed it. I can readily agree that it is not "scary" as it may compare to more modern jumpscare heavy movies, but I felt it was a great suspense and thriller. The complaint from op about "knowing Finney was going to escape" like... OK? I assumed he'd win too but that didn't detract from the movie at all. It wasn't the type of movie that I was assumed everyone would die or lose.
OP was definitly not paying attention to the psychic stuff, it's explained pretty clearly. And the having two houses is not the twist.
I guessed what was gonna happen pretty early before things did but at least it was done satisfyingly, a lot of modern horror relies on shock value and stupid non endings, I was pleasently suprised that this had a conclusive, satisfying ending.
And finally, I understand the gripes about marketing but that's literally every movie. It's like reading "new York times best seller". I like reading reviews from people, like on this sub, so I feel like I need to comment because op's review is a little bit misleading.
Finney's fate was so touch and go with me. I figured he would win in the end but when he got kidnapped again, a heart breaking scene where people didn't actually give a shit or want to put themselves into danger, I thought he was a goner. Maybe it would have been a twist to show up to the other house to find Finney's body with the other kids but the death of the Grabber was so satisfying. I'm glad it wasn't a twist ending.
Really good post, you explained it perfectly.
I wasn’t “scared” watching it, but that doesn’t make it any less a damn good movie and worthy of a watch.
This movie was never meant to be Sinister. It really sounds like you set you expectations for the film prior to viewing and walked out disappointed that it didn’t fit them. The movie stayed pretty true to the short story. It was never meant to be a “scary” horror film.
The character development was nuanced, meant to be deduced and left up to interpretation. They didn’t beat you over the head with explanations. The girl’s psychic abilities were inherited. The Grabber didn’t have obvious motivation, the same as in most real life pedophiles/murderers.
In my experience, it’s always best to go into movies completely blind. I came to this realization when I watched “It Comes at Night” in theaters with my friends. I walked out pleasantly surprised while my buddies were all disappointed. They had watched the trailer and expected something completely different that what was delivered. I went back and watched the trailer after the movie and it all made sense.
Just go for the ride the movie takes you on.
I will say that it’s kind of hard to go into movies “completely blind” when going to see movies in theaters means that you’re forced to watch about 30 minutes worth of trailers beforehand…but I do agree with the sentiment. I try to keep an open mind about the movies I watch with the knowledge that trailers can really lie, but sometimes it’s hard to do if an aspect of the trailer that got you really interested in a movie in the first place isn’t actually part of that movie.
I know not everyone has this option, but I've started going to theaters with assigned seats. I buy my seat online, show up to the theater about 10 minutes after the film's start time, get popcorn, walk in about 15-20 minutes after trailers have started rolling. In about 3 years of doing this I've never missed a movie opening scene yet.
That’s fair. In all seriousness, I make an effort to avoid trailers in the theater. If I see something I like, I’ll stop paying attention and think about something else lol
>This movie was never meant to be Sinister
I’ll be damned if that surprise appearance from the Deputy didn’t make me fucking gasp in the cinema though! The contrast between him and the Grabber was so fucking funny it’s unreal
I think there’s a difference between approaching character development with nuance, and hitting the least amount of beats necessary to be considered character development. I felt like the movie held your hand the whole time for character arcs, they were just shoehorned in which makes them feel lackluster.
I try to avoid trailers now so I never watched it, and so I wasn’t hyped up for it. I ended up thinking it was alright.
In my opinion a lot of what you mentioned didn’t really need an explanation. In real life serial killers and pedophiles don’t really have an explanation for what they do, they’re just messed up in the head.
The sister’s psychic abilities was inherited from her mother, and I think it was a nod to Stephen King because his stories usually have at least one character with psychic abilities. Although I agree that it wasn’t 100% necessary. The father’s alcoholism and abusive behavior also didn’t really need an explanation in my opinion, although I think that may also have something to do with Stephen King. The short story was written by his son, and King was alcoholic for a period of time so maybe it’s a personal thing. I also think it may have something to do with the fact that his wife (from his point of view) was mentally ill and died young. That would mess you up I guess.
I also did feel suspense towards the end, it made me think for a moment that maybe the police were too late and what we were seeing with Finn already happened days before. But once we find out that he’s in the house across the street and escaped on his own, I agree that the whole thing feels pointless.
While I enjoyed the movie, I don’t think I’ll feel the need to watch it again any time soon.
You think it didn't explain why the dad is an abusive drunk or why his sister is seeing details of the kidnappings in her dreams? Did we watch the same movie?
The Grabber, in my opinion, doesn't really need to be explained. Not every horror movie killer needs to have some sort of psychological explanation. God forbid a horror villain does things just because they feel like ot just like in real life.
And then there's the Sinister comparison. Which immediately loses my interest as soon as it's brought up in every single post about The Black Phone.
So there was no jumpscares or gore or on screen in depth killings. Doesn't mean it's not a horror movie. There's bloodied and abused ghosts, supernatural elements and... a guy kidnapping kids and killing them. Would be pretty damn horrific in real life.
I did love the end, the way he overpowered and outsmarted the Grabber and then strangled him looked akin to somebody slaying a monster. It was very well filmed.
I personally loved that they didn’t attempt to humanize the grabber more with a backstory. They hinted in ways that made it clear that there WAS a why, but didn’t explain it which I personally felt was appropriate- the kids wouldn’t have known the why, and they also wouldn’t have cared.
I actually thought throughout the whole movie the killer was not actually a killer, that he wanted the kids to help him to deal with something. Like the whole mystery around him, he being "kind" with Finn, crying while watching him, telling he would not do him any harm, that gave me the "misunderstood villain", but at the end there was no mystery at all. Its a thriller mystery movie with actually no mystery at all and with a predictable ending. The acting was very good overall, aside from some weird kid acting at some scenes.
Yeah he mentioned about a him when he first talks to the kid in the room so I thought that too. I thought he was the one who caught the kids then someone else was the killer for a short while.
The father was an alcoholic because his wife died and he was dealing with grief in an unhealthy way. Maybe pay more attention rather than worrying about the movie being "scary" also yes it was from Scott derikson who did sinister but it was written by Stephen kings son Joe Hill. They adapted his work. So I'm sure there's things like you mentioned that were left out. The movie was fine.
I watched the movie and understood all of it but it still felt bland and really unsatisfying. Not every film will be for everyone. There were some nice elements but the film lacked some tension and mystery I the right areas and was superficial in others.
How does that make the father less of a shallow caricature? There just isn’t anything there. He’s abusive, the kids fear him, his character does nothing to redeem himself or grow, and then the movie ends.
The sister’s premonitions are just a lazy plot device to get the sister at the home at the end of the movie. The movie *does* explain it, but hardly in a satisfying way.
This movie uses its supernatural elements to avoid coming up with satisfactory ways to drive the story forward.
The father being the way he is makes it even scarier, finn escaped the grabber, but he doesn’t even have a loving home to return to. He had to go back to his alcoholic abusing father.
That's not scary at all. I mean TBH even the grabber wasn't scary. It was obvious he was going to escape and nothing about the film created the sense that he was in actual peril.
When does the movie actually stress that? If the father had shown up at the end and acted like a dick, maybe. But he doesn’t. He cries and asks for (unearned) forgiveness.
Finn is also *happy* at the end of the movie. He gets to be the cool kid and he gets the girl he had a crush on. It’s almost like the movie is portraying murdering and escaping your kidnapper as a good, fun time.
Exactly, he cry’s and begs for forgiveness and they react like they’ve seen it all before. That they know he won’t change, and know they’re still stuck in that house for some time. It’s sad.
Finn being happy at the end is showing he can finally stand up for himself. Kinda the whole theme of the movie.
Sorry it’s not black and white, 1st grade level for you
Yes that is true. I guess it’s moreso the confidence that the situation gave him.
I found it odd how he was walking through school and how he’d reacted to the girl it was like he just took “ how to be cool classes”.
It appears like not much time has passed and you would think he’d have some trauma and be somewhat apprehensive.
Nah, getting kidnapped by a child murderer is the best thing that could happen to you. Builds character.
It is really a ridiculous ending. Completely makes a mockery of what a terrifying situation that would have been.
Almost all of Joe Hill’s stuff is more dark magical realism than straight up horror. This definitely fit that criteria and executed it very well imo. I could see how someone expecting a more hardcore horror movie would be disappointed though, but I knew what it was going to be like going into it despite the inaccurate hype up blurbs. Really enjoyed the portrayal relationship between the Finn and his sister as well as the overall 70s aesthetic which I thought they nailed. Was it perfect? No, and some things needed more fleshing out (like the sister’s visions), but it was definitely one of the better new releases I’ve seen this year so far regardless of how you categorize it.
I didn't like it either. I mean, I didn't hate it but I didn't like it. It certainly wasn't better than Sinister (which was what one reviewer had said.) It felt like a pale imitation of Sinister, if anything. I thought the Grabber was played well but he didn't feature in the film much and I just didn't like the kid. He just wore the same expression on his face the entire movie. I was like meh about it.
I think the reason that Finn had the character development is because the film was a horror style coming of age film
The film is all the more better because nothing is really explained
"it's never explained WHY the grabber is grabbing kids"
That was my favorite part. Why do I need that? Sometimes, I just want a cool villain who's a sadist just to be sadistic. The thing about the original Halloween that made it terrifying was not knowing his motivation.
There's a resurgence in these "kids against all odds" style films and they're all fairly predictable, it's super rare that a film like this would kill off a main character, but it's like Miller Lite. It's not fancy, it's not new, but you know what you're going to get, and if you just want beer, you can do way worse.
I loved it, personally. I loved the tone, I didn't think it was scary, but it was well done, I loved Ethan Hawke especially. I've watched some mediocre films lately, so this was a welcomed surprise.
I loved it. I’m old and it captured the feel of the time perfectly. I grew up in a time where kids were being snatched off the streets by men like this and people didn’t understand it at all. Where you could smash a rock on another kid’s head and not get in trouble. The little girl’s acting was awesome, Finn’s less so. The only thing that took me right out of the movie was his crying scene. That was not good.
A lot of terrible things happened to kids in the 70/80s and a lot of the time, as a kid, you were on your own.
I hate the term “thriller” in reference to genre. The academy awards invented the term so they could nominate Silence of The Lambs without the stigma of “horror movies.”
Very rarely do I think a movie actually qualifies as a “thriller.” Most of the time people just use it when a movie doesn’t scare them. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a horror film.
Despite its origins, thrillers are often very distinguishable from horror films. Look into it and you can see the differences for yourself.
For example, many thrillers have happy endings, while many horror films don’t. This isn’t a hard and fast rule, but it clues you in on thematic differences.
Also thrillers have faster cinematography and typically have more “action” scenes, while horrors are often slow burns.
The list goes on, but the terms definitely have meaning.
I think it's a useful distinction. Thrillers are movies based heavily around suspense. This is as opposed to horror movies, which might include suspense but pay off the suspense with scares.
I enjoyed the movie but I fully agree with every point you shared. I wish they provided more background info on the grabber, especially why the black phone doesn’t work since he was a child. The grabber’s brother was somewhat irrelevant when I felt like they could’ve done a better job making him more relevant. Your thoughts are well thought out.
It’s made clear why the father is an abusive drunk and why he is so upset with his daughters dreams. The mother also had visions and eventually killed herself, according to the father because the voices or visions told her to. He’s afraid of seeing the same happen to his daughter and the alcoholism is likely a coping mechanism after losing his wife. Maybe you missed the scene where he recounts this story to his daughter?
I’ve started to notice that movies with higher marketing budgets, that more people are aware of, or movies that are from a famous filmmaker and highly anticipated, tend to get hyperbolically rated—they’re either amazing or trash to a wider audience.
But a movie that “no one has ever heard of” that was made for $ 50k by a bunch of unknowns will tend to get more nuanced reviews.
There is no explanation as to why "The Grabber" (yuck) is kidnapping these kids. There's no explanation as to why Finney's sister can see details of the kidnappings in her dreams. There's no explanation or even a look into why their father is an abusive, and aggressive alcoholic. He just is.
When did it become the norm for the audience to demand an explanation and backstory for every single aspect of a movie? Why does he kidnap kids? He's a kidnapper. Why does Finny's sister have visions? Because she's like her mom. Why is the Father a piece of shit? He thought his wife was crazy and she had visions to the point where she killed herself. But those are what you want explained? Not why is a disconnected phone a gateway to the murdered kids?
I agree that it wasn’t scary. The biggest surprise to me was that Ethan Hawke’s character was a minor player in the whole movie. The kids were the stars. For a story about kids living a messed up life in the 70s I thought it was pretty decent. I agree that there was no point where I thought Finn would die. Not the greatest movie ever but I enjoyed it.
>There is no explanation as to why "The Grabber" (yuck) is kidnapping these kids. There's no explanation as to why Finney's sister can see details of the kidnappings in her dreams. There's no explanation or even a look into why their father is an abusive, and aggressive alcoholic. He just is.
This is such a terrible take. I don't know why everyone needs everything spelled out for them nowadays. I guess you don't like Alien because the origin of the Alien isn't spelled out for you. I'd guess you hate Halloween for the same reason. I could go on and on. Not to mention there are plenty of subtle hints as to why The Grabber is the way he is. For instance, his brothers substance abuse. Besides the fact that most abusive behavior comes from past trauma which doesn't need to be spelled out. Then if it was spelled out for you I'm sure you'd complain that the movie is too long. Make sure you hate on The Shining as well because it is never explained why Jack Torrence is abusive, unless you think The Shining is simply a spooky ghost story. Ridiculous. I suspect you don't like The Thing either because that's not fully explained with bullet points in some awkward exposition?
I think it's because the character is not well fleshed out that I felt the same as OP. I didn't find him ultimately creepy. At there's a few points where he suddenly becomes non threats because you know he will escape him and it doesn't have the same suspense. They needed a bit more of tension. He needed more menace or something. He was a boring caricature that added nothing new or did anything particularly scary at all.
I 100% agree. The grabber was very one dimensional and not interesting so adding more backstory is an area where more horror could be added. Or just having him around more walking into the basement. You're telling me he never noticed the hole in the ground, the hole in the wall, or the bars being off the window? That he never once came down while Finn was trying to make an escape plan? Also why were all the escape plans just randomly deserted half way into them with no explanation (except the fridge). Everything was ridiculously surface level which is why the horror fell so flat.
I would go as far as to say you missed the entire point and literally every point against it is actually a plus and it just went over your head.
You don't have to like a movie, but nothing you said is accurate as a negative. And most has a valid explanation in the movie.
Horror: I mean its clearly a horror movie. Undead, mutilated children, a serial killer and implied child rapist("you don't want to know what hell do to you if you get caught" is the general sentiment each kid reinforces. He knows he's going to be killed and they tell him he will get beaten so that only really leaves one option. Pet alone just how he acts), supernatural elements pouring out of every inch, and while you didn't feel tension(I suspect because you were on your phone most of the movie), it was riddled with it and built throughout the film up to the climax.
There is character development for each dead kid and of course it all builds to help Finn grow, but considering the movie is basically just focused on him, The Grabber and his sister, I don't see any issue here. It's Finn's movie. His sister also learns to stick up for herself and communicate with her traumatized father to help his son get home safe. Also the dad gets development too. He started drinking because he couldn't take his wife slowly losing her mind due to the visions she was having and that led to her death, and he's TERRIFIED of losing his kids, so knowing how much his daughter is like his wife, he feels like his only option is to scare them into pretending everything is fine hoping it will just go away. Not to mention this was the late 70s and parenting and handling emotions was very different.
The Grabber is an extremely believable name in line with killers of the 70s both in reality and movies. They weren't the most creative or scary but it got the point across and was named after the literal only thing they knew about him. He grabbed kids. This is just the era it was set in. I loved the name BECAUSE it was campy and believable that a 70s paper would name him that.
The house across the street. It's supposed to be a fake out. Clearly. They built it up that we knew the Grabber was that druggy conspiracy theorists brother and they seemingly lived together, but it seemed absurd that even as a coke fiend he still didn't notice anything abnormal, so it would've been deeply disappointing if the kids were being held in his basement and everything he was doing was flat out in front of his bro. No, it was a great twist that he had a second house across the way for his dark shit, and it would naturally have a similar layout. I loved this twist because it kept you wondering "how?" As for Finn whooping his ass, he still would have been lost and exhausted, wandering the streets aimlessly without his sister leading the cops to him. Sure he would've gotten home but finding the bodies wasn't just for Finn. It was closure for the dead kids that helped him escape by teaching him what they tried and failed at, each teaching him a valuable skill to help with his inevitable escape. For me, the fear was less is Finn gonna die, and more, IF Finn dies then The Grabber will keep doing this to kids, as well as if Finn even stepped out of line like the others he could have beaten and even sexually abused by this monster. He survived with minimal trauma, and a new sense of inner strength.
In conclusion, horror doesn't require gore or on screen murder. It doesn't need brutal violence, it just needs the threat that these things may happen. The building tension of a growing or ever looming threat, combined with the supernatural elements that brilliantly wove the movie together it is 100% horror.
If you in fact weren't checking your phone or only paying part attention I apologize, but a lot of people do that these days and then complain they didn't get something or it didn't do a good job executing what it set out to because THEY missed the many small or more subtle scenes that flat out explain everything they're complaining about, and everything you complained about is just straight up in the movie. The one exception being it wasn't super scary, I agree, but even in horror that isn't required for it to be an excellent movie. It had great writing, beautiful cinematography, great child actors, and a deeply compelling narrative told in a totally unique way as well as a fun 70s nostalgia piece.
I honestly think this is another case of CinemaSins (and similar online movie critic personalities) poisoning an audience’s ability to detect nuance and interpret things for themselves. I really don’t understand the seemingly very common desire to have literally every element of a character or story explained to the viewer. Especially when dealing with horror, which is usually strengthened when things are left to the imagination.
He did do all the killings and keep the kids in the basement of the house he shared with his brother though. The house across the street was empty and only used to burry the kids afterwards. There's no twist there.
Dude. There are SO many movies/shows that everyone else seems to love. I will watch it and think I MUST have seen a different movie/show than these people.
I’m right there with you on this one.
I will take flack for this, but I have also learned Mike Flanagan simply isn’t for me. But, hey, I still love horror, and if people out there are digging this movie and other stuff I don’t like, I’m happy for them.
To be fair, the TikTok community also thought that the film Megan is Missing was some utterly horrifying film due mostly to the goofy pictures shown at the end. I really don't trust an app known for theft of personal information, short videos of people dancing together and dangerous 'challenges' that regularly harm people or damage public property for their opinion on horror films.
The movies is a thriller, not a scary movie, marketing made it seem as if it was a scary movie, almost like Sinister.
The fact that The Grabber which is a good name btw, doesnt have a clear motive, its one of the things that make everything scarier. Think about serial killers, some of them if not most, dont have a real motive to do the horrible things they do. Trying to understand such a sick mind is the scary part.
Well Finn had character development, he is the main character. Also for as little but impactful screen time as the dad had, he also grew with his daughter Gwen. At the end he learns to listen and not deny his daughters psychic dreams. And by the end apologizes to both of them for his terrible actions.
This is a thriller with paranormal elements, not a full on paranormal movie.
Finally I thought that the reveal of the second house was clever, for a moment I thought Gwens dreams werent 100% accurate, and that Finn would ultimately die.
I actually really enjoyed it! Horror movies don’t have to be the scariest thing you’ve ever seen in order to be good. It felt very “starter horror” to me, like something I would show a middle or early high schooler to introduce them to the genre, which isn’t a bad thing. Is it my new favorite? No, but the story was interesting and suspenseful and that’s enough to deserve the ratings it got in my opinion.
i don't necessarily agree with your points. i loved the movie but i do have my own gripes about it. yes it was predictable, but a movie doesn't have to take the audience by surprise to be good. otherwise would anybody go watch prequels or movies based on real life events?
the powers and the abuse by the father are both explained. the grabber's reason for kidnapping kids is that he was clearly a sexual sadist and a p\*do. sometimes there doesn't have to be a deeper meaning to that.
i thought the scares were predictable, i would have liked to know more about the dead kids, and the initial comment by one ghost was never addressed (when finn asked if anybody else had heard the phone ringing, a kid mentioned that the grabber heard them but refused to acknowledge it. does that mean he's psychic, is it guilt, or is it psychosis?). also, the phone "breathing" was just out of place and kind of took me out of atmosphere.
but overall it was an incredibly refreshing and creative story, you really root for the characters and feel for the ones that don't end up getting a happy ending, and seeing someone try again and again to overcome a situation and watching it fail almost made me believe that finn might not get out of it.
Couldn’t disagree more.
You need an explanation as to why The Grabber was doing what he was doing? The sick part of it all is things happen like this all the time. That’s the HORROR of it.
Plus, you can imply many things about The Grabber’s past with all the things he does.
Is it as scary as Sinister? Absolutely not. I just think the premise of this movie is all the horror you need.
I disagree. Easily it ended up being one the greatest movies I've seen this year, it was just something I threw on the TV not knowing what to watch, but I'm glad I did. The film, the writing, and the fact that it was such a twist with the ghost plot. I was rooting for his escape, because they could've easily gone the route where he doesn't.
Couple thoughts about your thoughts, having watched this last night:
1. The dad was an alcoholic jerk because the mom committed suicide because of whatever she learned from her visions and he's afraid
2. The kid had visions because it was a late-70's early-80's period piece, and there was lots of "psychic detective" nonsense in the news at the time (check the dates here: [https://www.rd.com/list/mysteries-solved-by-psychics/](https://www.rd.com/list/mysteries-solved-by-psychics/))
3. Horror doesn't have to be startling, gory, or gross. It can be creepy, which this was based on the implications. You're left to wonder what kind of abuse led the killer and his brother to develop into those kinds of adults. And Finn takes a LOT of abuse. From his dad. From bullies. From the killer. And now he has killed a man before he has turned 14 years old. Finn's life is not going to be OK, most likely. He escaped the dungeon, but...
4. Growing up in the 1980's there was always some house in the neighborhood that kids just knew to avoid. But what if it's not just the creepy looking house? Again, creepy. But I wasn't relying on this "reveal" for my enjoyment.
Couple other thoughts:
1. The coke-head brother was fantastic.
2. It's kind of interesting that the police were both competent and they listened to the little girl. If this were a real 80's movie, the police would have made the situation worse and would have completely disregarded the child psychic who was pointing them in the right direction.
3. I wondered if Finn really heard voices. Did the phone really breathe? This was a traumatized child who was being abused and starved. If we accept that Finn and his sister might have suffered sufficient psychological trauma that they would have lucid violent fantasies, could we imagine a version of this story in which THEY are the real killers? Or at least in which they are willing participants in a violent, symbiotic relationship with the dude in the mask? For example:
1. Finn had a personal connection to every single victim?
2. Finn's sister can just smash a kid in the head with a rock and not freak out?
3. If Finn and his sister were in on it, then her unexplained psychic visions would be much easier to understand. She knew because she knew.
4. Clearly a history of mental illness in Finn's family.
5. And so forth...
How though? The story is driven by incredibly convenient supernatural elements rather than the characters actually doing/earning anything that drives the story forward.
I felt exactly the same, saw it in theaters and really didn’t know how to feel after. I got the idea that “The Grabber” has some past trauma inside that house as he made a minor comment about it when he originally grabbed Finney but like you said we never get concrete answers. I really wanted more from this movie and was left with a “meh” feeling, haven’t thought about it since til I saw this post.
This I agree with. I was hyped for it but I’ve been traveling. Ended up splurging on the $20 purchase because I haven’t seen a new movie in months.
Took me three tries to get through it. It wasn’t bad, but the pacing and runtime were way off. It would have been perfect as an episode rather than full length for sure
I definitely don’t think the movie was all that scary. I agree with a lot of what you’ve said here aside the dad being an alcoholic. My assumption is that he hasn’t be able to cope with losing his wife and becoming a single father.
While I agree with a lot of what you said, I still really enjoyed watching this. But for the reasons I would enjoy watching a thriller movie. So again, I agree, definitely not a super scary horror masterpiece.
I respect your opinion. But most of what you think wasn’t explained was 10000% explained.
You need to know the Grabber’s motive? Why?
You don’t know why she’s a psychic? Her mom was.
You don’t know why the dad was an alcoholic? The mom committed suicide due to her visions, so he tried to stop the daughter from reaching the same fate.
I question whether you watched the movie at all, beyond having it on in the background while you studied or something.
>There's no explanation as to why Finney's sister can see details of the kidnappings in her dreams. There's no explanation or even a look into why their father is an abusive, and aggressive alcoholic. He just is.
Except there absolutely are explanations. Whole scenes are built around them. I don't know how anyone comes away from *The Black Phone* not understanding why Gwen has visions and why her father was abusive toward her, unless they failed to pay proper attention.
>I had zero doubt that Finn was going to escape. It was spelled out in the beginning of the movie when his friend said he was going to have to fight for himself, and the suddenly went missing. Obviously this friend was unable to escape, and now we're going to see Finn prove he's a fighter, and finally believe in himself.
So, when Finn's much tougher friend Robin went missing and was presumed dead, to your mind that indicated that Finn was definitely going to make it? Not the opposite, that if a kid who fights like Robin couldn't save himself, how will Finn?
The black phone was nothing like I expected it to be, but I didn't think it was bad. I'd say it was ok. It was definitely lacking something to make it a great film.
I agree that it was more of a thriller, I liked it for what it was. I thought the actors of Finn and the sister did great. Love Ethan Hawke and thought the grabber was nuts but cool. 7.5/10.
The sisters dreams had to do with her mom.. I guess her mom had similar visions and then killed herself and everyone assumed it was mental illness.. the dad was depressed alcoholic because his wife died and the sisters dreams I believe were related to the moms visions she had
Honestly the trailer spoiled way too much. If I had gone in completely blind I might have gotten more out of it. I also saw it the night after seeing Resurrection so I was just spoiled after seeing that.
PS- Go see Resurrection! It IS intense - don’t let anyone spoil it for you tho.
I loved the movie and thought it was great. While I do think you have some valid criticisms, most of the reasons you disliked the movie are reasons that I enjoyed it.
I love when a horror movie keeps things open for interpretation instead of wasting time explaining everything for the viewer. It’s not necessary in this movie. We don’t need to know why the villain kidnaps kids or why the fathers an abusive alcoholic. Not everyone has a reason for being the way they are… sometimes people are just fucked up. It’s not integral to the story for it to be explained for either of them.
This was a common theme among older horror movies, especially during the 1970s. Halloween is a great example of this, and it’s why Rob Zombies Halloween remake totally missed the mark. Creating an origin story kills the mystery behind the killer, and it’s a major complaint I have for modern movies and viewers wanting everything explained instead of leaving anything to the imagination.
I appreciate you opinion, but I may.
It IS described why Finn and his sister can communicate/be a little psychic. His (Finns) mom was psychic and could hear things and see things in her dreams and they eventually starting telling her to do terrible things so she killed herself. This sends the dad into a deep depression that turns into the alcoholism. This is why he freaks out when the daughter tells the cops she's seeing things in her dreams. One of the ghost kids, I think Bruce, also explains that the phone rang for all of them but only Finn has been able to see it. The Grabber can also hear it but it's never really explained why. And I agree I wish I could've learned more about the murderer.
I appreciate the op's opinion...I respect it...but I don't agree with his assessment. It's not a film for everyone though...
It's a nice little scary movie with disturbing touches. It has just enough unease to keep you watching and all the actors involved were pretty good.
Although I wouldn't call it the scariest movie I've seen (maybe even this year) fear is measured by the individual. Some people's greatest fear is their children being abducted and murdered. Some are frightened of being abducted and some may even be afraid of being the killer.
While not super scary, it's a solid thriller/horror film that's easily in the same vein as Fritz Land's M
Again not a film for everyone's horror tastes....
It's like I wanted chocolate gâteau, and instead I got fairy cake. Now there's nothing wrong with fairy cake, and it's not objectively worse than the gâteau, it's just not what I really wanted. I wanted something like Sinister, but I didn't think it was bad. If I'd found it by random chance, I'd have been pretty happy.
watched 2 minutes of it and dipped didn’t know that the grabber was inspired by John Wayne Gacy who is a pedophile and that just icked me didn’t help that it’s implied that the boys were raped because that’s what John Wayne Gacy did to his victims
That one scene where the camera pans back to Finney and Billy is standing behind him scared the living bejesus outta me both times I saw the movie in theaters.
Yeaahh, I feel like a lot of the reviews were VERY generous. I still liked it as a thriller movie, but it definitely wasn’t scary or anything really innovative.
I mean you said it all OP. I think people just like mediocre films. Ethan’s a cool actor and he did well with what he had. The child actors were good but the movie was basically a coming of age horror movie or some weird shit. It wasn’t scary at all. It’s not thrilling because we know he will escape. Even the final act was a let down. I didn’t hate it. I’m not mad I watched it. It was alright. It’s just 4 maybe 5 out of 10 for me. I wanna watch a scary movie that has some scary scenes lol
Fuck this movie! Chris Stuckman told me this shit movie was going to be better than Sinister and he fucking lied! What a corporate shill, I want my fucking money back.
Forgot the horror, the movie was a complete joke and meaningless. Yeah, it's called "The Black Phone" because The Black Phone mysteriously rings without any explanation. Garbage terrible cringe worthy teen drama.
Actually upset that 'The Grabber' just falls asleep in a chair, who lets Fin get away, to later just fall in a trap and get his neck broke by a kid whom was alreadya pretty famished. Ok sure, we were all rooting for his escape anyway, but what was the point? It felt like it was half a film which makes sense considering it was based on a short story. I praise the production, setting and everything, the kid actors were great, but they did Ethan a disservice actually having done anything in this movie other than put on a mask then fall asleep in chair and die so easily. I guess if you went in expecting to be scared or be an actual horror film it was pretty disappointing.
> There is no explanation as to why "The Grabber" (yuck) is kidnapping these kids.
I definitely picked up on 'cycle of abuse' themes. The Grabber was probably abused as a kid and now is inflicting the same abuse on other kids as an adult, hence the 'Naughty Boy' game. (Though that doesn't really explain the brother, but the brother was obviously on drugs and had a strong sense of justice, which you might also attribute to childhood abuse)
When The Grabber takes Finney, and Finney doesn't play the game because Finney has been playing this game with his dad for a long time. It's why The Grabber thinks Finney is 'special'. He senses that they have shared experiences. Also, likely they both share some kind of psychic abilities, along with the sister.
> There's no explanation as to why Finney's sister can see details of the kidnappings in her dreams.
There are multiple mentions that their mother had similar abilities. Also, I saw somewhere else that the original short story was written by Stephen King's son, so there might be a connection between The Grabber, Finney, and Gwen and shiners from The Shining and Doctor Sleep.
>There's no explanation or even a look into why their father is an abusive, and aggressive alcoholic.
Just being an alcoholic can make you aggressive. And you don't need some tragic backstory to lead to alcoholism. Some people are just naturally setup for addiction. That being said, it's inferred his wife died or was put in a mental hospital due to her psychic abilities.
All that being said, I was expecting more from this movie. I didn't really watch trailers and only had posters and tiktok buzz to go off of and I was expecting something more similar to Jeepers Creepers or It Follows (some boogeyman type with a lot or small town lore) than just a creepy serial killer. The R rating was underutilized for a 'horror' movie.
Extremely boring and predictable movie. Literally everything you think will happen happens and that's all there is to it. The big reveal as you say is the house across the street but it's a completely irrelevant detail. It changes nothing and it never made us question anything about the other house. When the kid escapes and just casually and quietly runs on the street is where I started wishing it would end.
God this was a terrible review. “Why didn’t they explain why Finn’s sister can see those dreams?” Because it didn’t really need explanation. Did they explain why the family in haunting of hill house were psychically linked? No, it didn’t need to. Some people just are sensitive to the supernatural.
“They didn’t explain why the grabber kills kids.” To quote Arthur Morgan from rdr2 “sometimes, folks is just evil.” Not everything needs an explanation. Sometimes, characters are just pure evil and do the things they do because it’s who they are. Michael Myles didn’t need a motive in Halloween 1. Stu macher was just sadistic in scream.
Sure I wouldn’t call the movie scary, but I’d say it was creepy and tense.
My take on the movie is the villain and the protagonist, both have two things in common - an abusive childhood and psychic powers. Both can listen to the phone rings. The villain avoided it and the protagonist accepted the call. Watching the protagonist sleep and telling him that he would not do anything he doesn't like clearly suggest he is a pedo. He intentionally keeps the door unlocked means he expected the boys to escape so that he could punish them. So, he was a sadist. I was wondering whether protagonist's mom and the villain were related or not (may be they were siblings like protagonist had a sister with psychic abilities...who knows?? Keep wondering)
I wish marketing for movies like this could find a new angle that resonated with audiences because marketing this as a horror felt straight up misleading. Same with Nope. Two terrible horrors but decent thrillers.
I saw this film recently and I would have to say if you lived in 1970’s this film hit the target completely. Everything about this film is a master class of understanding a certain place and time; and getting it right. Kudos to the production design, wardrobe, cinematography, sound design, SOUNDTRACK, location scouting, and all the actors; it is often said to not work with kids or animals if you don’t want the film to fail; but they all knocked it out of the park.
As for it being scary two things came to mind. 1) how feral the children of the 1970’s and 1980’s were. Parents were divorcing and working for the American dream; and children were left to grow up real fast. Kidnapping was a frequent thing growing up, kind of like these mass shootings we have today; but even more frequently with horrible outcomes. I truly feel this film was intended for an older audience. Pretty much a homage to all the childhood trauma of just growing up in your messed up environment. The great Satanic Panic was in full swing with kids listening to heavy metal and hard rock; and these missing kids often time were associated with sacrificial lambs to these hidden evils. 2) the lack of technology is very evident in the film. No cell phones. No cameras. No nothing. You were lucky to have a color tv. Mix all this lack of technology with an emergency; the world is against you.
This film is for the feral children who probably grew up in the most modern violent times; and learned to fight and survive anything. I know a lot of Gen X loved this film but it would be interesting to see what generations dig it as a form of entertainment. Today people pay money to escape rooms but back in the day you escaped rooms so you didn’t get raped, killed, and then dumped on the side of the freeway with your underwear inside out.
My biggest gripe with this film was the extrasensory stuff. I would have preferred this movie stayed more grounded in realism. I didn't mind the big reveal at the end. I guess for those who didn't like the film (including myself) I'd say the issue was with expectations. I was expecting something close in nature to Prisoners but got a more fantasy-ridden version of it.
What really got me was how they spend half the movie building up the sister’s dreams leading her to rescue him… and then he escapes completely on his own and she leads the cops to the wrong house… like what? What message was this movie trying to deliver? What was the point? Filler? Because the story was too thin to warrant a feature length film? It was so ridiculous when it ended I was like are you effing serious? I spent the entire movie wanting to walk out and decided to stay and see how the ending wrapped everything up… only it didn’t at all.
I did too. I read the short story right before sitting to watch the movie and I was so excited; the book was a 10/10. Then the movie starts and the Grabber shows up, who in the book was absolutely terrifying and not a bumbling idiot, and I was like, nope, this movie is going to suck... And it did.
But to me, the grotesque part is exactly what was missing. In the book, he was someone who you'd shudder at and turn away from IRL; a skeevey guy who's presence really makes you uneasy. I liked Ethan Hawke's bad guy performance, just not for this movie. Personally, I got more greasy creep than grotesquely terrifying from him.
The big reveal at the end was the kid saves himself. That never happens in movies and that's what made this movie so pleasantly surprising. It's more like a survival thriller than horror, but if people knew that going in it would make the happy ending less effective.
As a rule, I ignore every time ANY movie is described as the scariest ever. It is always a marketing ploy.
Netflix marketed Veronica as the scariest movie ever. The backlash killed what was actually a pretty solid movie.
I’m glad I didn’t come across any Veronica over-hype videos or media in general. When I watched it I thought I came across some cool horror film nobody knows about so it was pretty much totally unspoiled for me and I thoroughly enjoyed it
Oh? it's actually good? I passed it up due to Netflix trying to hype, which usually means it's shit.
Yeah it was a solid film. Scariest movie ever? No. But definitely enjoyable!
Yep, Veronica turns out to be really solid, good movie.
It actually is really good.
It's really good. I was so pleasantly surprised, even going in blind. I've seen it about 3 times now.
Yeah it’s very good.
Veronica was just meh. The effects are ridiculously hilarious. And the writing is lazy. But in general, every Netflix movie marketed as "the scariest movie ever", is beceause of tiktok teens that never saw a good horror movie. Same happening for "incantation", just beceause they discovered how scary found footage can be, they think its the scariest movie of all time.
Veronica sucked
I thought Veronica was very weak compared to other Spanish horror movies
It's the usual Netflix fare, where it's a decent watch at the time but immediately forgettable.
All those blurbs are always taken out of context anyways when it comes to genre movies. They will be like “the New York Times called it ‘thrilling’…” when the rest of the review wasn’t necessarily favorable, but they technically aren’t lying because that one word was in the review.
NYT: “*What should have been **thrilling** was actually a steaming pile of dogshit that even the shiny green flies chose to ignore.*” Movie Marketing Dept: *NYT calls it thrilling!*
Once I see enough of a teaser or trailer about a movie I try to tune it out. Too easy with the wrong edit to give away too much info.
While I personally didn't think it was all that scary, I think this is one of those movies where it's potentially scarier if you've experienced something similar. Like if you're someone that had an abusive childhood, then I could see this being a pretty rough watch (one scene in particular is rough even if you didn't experience something like that). The dad in particular is reprehensible. So I could see why someone could deem it that way. Plus I also think that often times critics who don't really cover horror are giving those quotes. That's why I think people should check out horror-centric sites when it comes to how scary a movie could be. I read Bloody Disgusting's review before watching it and they specifically mention that it really isn't scary. So I dropped my expectations for that aspect since they were pretty high because of Sinister, and because Derickson was taken off of Dr. Strange 2 reportedly because he wanted to lean more into horror than Marvel was comfortable with. So I definitely thought he'd come out swinging in that area.
A little late for this but Barbarian is marketed as that and I actually think its up there
TCM has something to say about that.
I've had to learn to do the same too. There was just a ton of hype around this movie and I couldn't ignore it any longer. Horror is the biggest victim to misleading reviews and I tend to take them very lightly because of that.
Yeah, I ignore any movie reviews with superlatives until I hear about it from someone I know. Every horror movie will be "The scariest movie in years" that will "Have you on the edge of your seat" in a "Non-stop thrill-ride". It's all artificial. I went into Black Phone completely blind and ended up really enjoying it. Favorite movie in a while. With that said, if I had experienced the battery of ads that others seemed to I likely would've been turned off it as well.
Remember when movies used to be called “tour de forces”? Oh, the good old days hahah
You might try [Letterboxd.com](https://letterboxd.com/film/the-black-phone/). I like that they have a ratings curve so you can see how many people are giving it what rating. Like The Black Phone had almost the same number of people giving it 3/3.5/4 stars, so it was definitely going to be a middle of the road movie.
> Horror is the biggest victim to misleading reviews I'd say it's tied with comedy. It's mostly because what each individual person finds funny or scary varies quite a bit from person to person.
9n top of that people tend to use reviews as proof of their point while ignoring every situation when its ptherwise. At this moment its kinda pointless to even read reviews since half have spoilers and other half is full of empty words.
I don’t understand who would say this because I found it barely scary and not even clearly horror. The “scariest movie of x” thing is subjective and I don’t like to say that a movie isn’t scary because different things scare different people, but this statement is just laughable. In the last year, to start, we have Fresh, The Sadness, The Feast, Censor, The Medium, Hellbender, The Innocents, The Feast, Motherly, The Cursed, Son, X, Last Night In Soho, Incantation, The Cursed, Malignant, In the Earth, Gaia, Till Death, Dashcam, No One Gets Out Alive… I mean I could list so many films that are out that are good. How is this the “scariest”? It is baffling.
[удалено]
>There is no explanation as to why "The Grabber" (yuck) is kidnapping these kids. A villain's motivations don't always need to be revealed. >There's no explanation as to why Finney's sister can see details of the kidnappings in her dreams. There's no explanation or even a look into why their father is an abusive, and aggressive alcoholic. Alright, you lost me. Pay closer attention to the movie next time. That shit is 100% explained.
Also, like, the motivation can simply be that he's a sadist - though the fact he makes them misbehave before "punishing" them could very easily point to this being something he himself experienced. I don't know why some watchers really wanted to be spoon fed the villain's motivation.
Some people are saying the Grabber wasn't creepy and had no depth? I mean, you do you, but how are not creeped out about the fact that this man kidnaps young teenage boys and has them be "naughty boys"? I didn't need a flashback of his bad childhood, I got a satisfying scene of his death and that is all I need after he was being weird all of the movie.
I just watched the movie, I must’ve missed the part where they explained the girl’s psychic powers. Could you explain what that was. If you’re referring to their mother having the same powers, that’s just kicking the can down the road, doesn’t actually answer anything
Right. It’s like the writers knew the psychic sister was a plot hole so they decided add one piece of dialogue referring to a dead psychic mother, which is equally dissatisfying.
Why does their need to be an explanation for how they got psychic powers? I literally cannot think of a single movie with psychic characters where they “explain” why they’re psychic. It doesn’t matter. Is The Shining a worse movie because there wasn’t a clunky exposition scene about why Danny can shine?
True, good point. Still felt awkward to me, though.
Explained as deeply as a kiddie pool. "Oh her mom saw shit" Must've took em weeks to figure that out
It’s a metaphor for their shared abuse and trauma. All of the characters with psychic ability in this movie were victims of abuse
This is my biggest issue when people complain about The Black Phone. They literally could not have spelled it out clearer why both Finney and Gwen have psychic abilities that help them get the Grabber where the other kids fail. The filmmakers do this within the first five minutes of the movie. It’s laziness on the audience’s part truthfully.
>both Finney and Gwen have psychic abilities that help them get the Grabber Oh OK. So are you saying that the phone thing was because of his special ability, and not as an external source? I just literally finished and didn't think about that this way. 🎦🙄👆
Glad to see this comment. I think this OP post sucks lol. Not liking the movie is fine of course, but not liking it because you need a concrete explanation for supernatural stuff is just silly.
Ok then can you explain why? Yes Finney's mother also had those dreams bur there is no explanation as to why Finney's mother and Gwen have those dreams
You don't get it it's not that we need to know why he likes kidnapping kids buy we do need to know more about him as a character and how he came to be the way he is just for basic character development. But they couldn't even do that. And they literally mentioned like one time her mom saw things lol. That'd IT. There was no other point to the whole movie. Just a bunch of pointless things that have absolutely nothing to do with the plot. Leaves you hanging on a lot of stuff. All the characters were annoyin ESPECIALLY the little sister who had the audacity to not only tell off full grown kidnapping detectives but JESUS himself! The definition of a BRAT.
I thought her telling off imaginary Jesus made her a badass and showed how strong her will to find her brother was. I think it also made her relatable in my opinion, I always wanted to say stuff like that as a kid but I was too scared lol.
Maybe because I didn't see the marketing I was actually pleasantly surprised. Also what do you mean what's the killers motivation? It's pretty obvious.
He's a sexual sadist, who probably endured horrific abuse and/or neglect as a child himself, which isn't very fun to think about
It’s a horror film…
That’s the extent of what they imply though I’d like to know more.
I kind of wouldn't at all. I don't need to hear a child murderers justification and motivation for killing teenage boys
I agree , having kids myself made the storyline all the unnerving. I have doubts OP watched the movie , the little girl got her powers from her mother , Finn obviously the same - their Father pointed this out at least 4 times in the film.
I really liked it and I think it’s a horror/thriller that will age well
ya i wonder how watching the trailer affected the score - i didn't watch any trailers. I thought the movie was pretty damn good.
I think OP was just looking for more. Like WHY is this person into murdering/molesting kids. Gimme some back story.
I’d argue most people who murder and molest kids don’t have a very compelling reason for it. It seemed realistic in that way
I meen that's fair! I just feel like they have this interesting character and I would've liked to know more about him
It wasn’t really scary, but it was a good movie. More of a horror/thriller.
Came here to say this. It had a nicely written story, which is so rare for horror. And yes it is more of a thriller than a movie that tries to “scare” you.
Exactly. And the one jump scare was shown in the trailer so that wasn’t even bad.
I don't even remember what the jump scare(s) was. I do remember that there were some people in my theater that got spooked throughout the movie and one person even spilled their popcorn lol
I’m glad it got the reaction it was going for with some people. Like a said, good movie I just didn’t find it scary. To each their own.
All i remember was the floating kid in the corner of the basement?
Agreed I wasn’t scared at all but I had a lot of fun watching it!
I feel like if they dropped the supernatural element it would have made a much better movie.
I agree with this take. When I saw it in the theater, the kids behind me looked 11 or so (I'm assuming they were just young looking 13 year olds), and I got nervous that they might be traumatized if this was as scary as people were hyping it to be. Well, of course it wasn't. But I think it was a positive story for them to watch and was the right amount of scary for a younger horror viewer to watch.
[удалено]
>>There is no explanation as to why "The Grabber" (yuck) is kidnapping these kids. >So? I don't see why this is essential to the story, which is really more about Finn than it is about The Grabber agreed, i always see that as a complaint but i see the lack of exposition for once as refreshing. really reminds me why i liked the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre too.
This movie was a solid 7.5/10 for me but the reason why I liked it so much is I didnt feel like I was being spoon fed any plots. The sister is psychic? Okay! The brother is psychic too? Sure! Oh, they got them from their mom who committed suicide because of her visions. The Grabber's mystery intrigued me also. I didnt need to know the back story of this deranged man. He was creepy on his own and had obviously felt safe in his patterns of kidnapping, torturing, theoretically raping and killing his victims.
Exposition is more of a recent thing with horror. One of the main ideas behind horror was “the unknown”. Jaws, TCM, Halloween etc had villains who’s motives were never explained and it made it even scarier. Now every horror villain has to have some sort of long form explanation for why they’re the way they are.
You said everything better than I could have. Reading OP's review, I was wondering if they even actually watched the movie or just played on their phone while the movie was on in the background. Edit: This comment got me blocked by OP, preventing me from having a discussion in this thread. I never even commented directly to OP. Someone can give criticism, but can't take a contradictory opinion.
They obviously don't how reddit's blocking system works. If they block someone, neither of you can ever be in the same comment chain again. On Reddit, if you block someone then you're blocking yourself from posting if they ever get to a thread before you lol It's dumb as hell. Reddit must really not want anyone to block anyone.
Lol, the post was kinda written like someone who couldn't take their own criticism. There wasn't anything wrong with his post either, I just personally feel he's scraping the bottom of the barrel for nitpicks and plotholes, but overall it's a solid opinion. But of course he blocked you, so now we know he was just using what I call "conditional rationality", claiming he wanted nothing more than a civilized discussion but practically dipping out the minute too many people agree. Damn shame.
How dare you giving your opinion about their precious opinion?! /s LOL
Welcome to reddit lol
Yeah I'm glad someone else said this. I literally just watched this yesterday and I really enjoyed it. I can readily agree that it is not "scary" as it may compare to more modern jumpscare heavy movies, but I felt it was a great suspense and thriller. The complaint from op about "knowing Finney was going to escape" like... OK? I assumed he'd win too but that didn't detract from the movie at all. It wasn't the type of movie that I was assumed everyone would die or lose. OP was definitly not paying attention to the psychic stuff, it's explained pretty clearly. And the having two houses is not the twist. I guessed what was gonna happen pretty early before things did but at least it was done satisfyingly, a lot of modern horror relies on shock value and stupid non endings, I was pleasently suprised that this had a conclusive, satisfying ending. And finally, I understand the gripes about marketing but that's literally every movie. It's like reading "new York times best seller". I like reading reviews from people, like on this sub, so I feel like I need to comment because op's review is a little bit misleading.
Finney's fate was so touch and go with me. I figured he would win in the end but when he got kidnapped again, a heart breaking scene where people didn't actually give a shit or want to put themselves into danger, I thought he was a goner. Maybe it would have been a twist to show up to the other house to find Finney's body with the other kids but the death of the Grabber was so satisfying. I'm glad it wasn't a twist ending.
Well said. The story that the movie is based on was super short. I liked how the movie expanded on the concepts from the story.
Really good post, you explained it perfectly. I wasn’t “scared” watching it, but that doesn’t make it any less a damn good movie and worthy of a watch.
This movie was never meant to be Sinister. It really sounds like you set you expectations for the film prior to viewing and walked out disappointed that it didn’t fit them. The movie stayed pretty true to the short story. It was never meant to be a “scary” horror film. The character development was nuanced, meant to be deduced and left up to interpretation. They didn’t beat you over the head with explanations. The girl’s psychic abilities were inherited. The Grabber didn’t have obvious motivation, the same as in most real life pedophiles/murderers. In my experience, it’s always best to go into movies completely blind. I came to this realization when I watched “It Comes at Night” in theaters with my friends. I walked out pleasantly surprised while my buddies were all disappointed. They had watched the trailer and expected something completely different that what was delivered. I went back and watched the trailer after the movie and it all made sense. Just go for the ride the movie takes you on.
I will say that it’s kind of hard to go into movies “completely blind” when going to see movies in theaters means that you’re forced to watch about 30 minutes worth of trailers beforehand…but I do agree with the sentiment. I try to keep an open mind about the movies I watch with the knowledge that trailers can really lie, but sometimes it’s hard to do if an aspect of the trailer that got you really interested in a movie in the first place isn’t actually part of that movie.
I know not everyone has this option, but I've started going to theaters with assigned seats. I buy my seat online, show up to the theater about 10 minutes after the film's start time, get popcorn, walk in about 15-20 minutes after trailers have started rolling. In about 3 years of doing this I've never missed a movie opening scene yet.
That’s fair. In all seriousness, I make an effort to avoid trailers in the theater. If I see something I like, I’ll stop paying attention and think about something else lol
>This movie was never meant to be Sinister I’ll be damned if that surprise appearance from the Deputy didn’t make me fucking gasp in the cinema though! The contrast between him and the Grabber was so fucking funny it’s unreal
Right?! I loved that little surprise.
I think there’s a difference between approaching character development with nuance, and hitting the least amount of beats necessary to be considered character development. I felt like the movie held your hand the whole time for character arcs, they were just shoehorned in which makes them feel lackluster.
I try to avoid trailers now so I never watched it, and so I wasn’t hyped up for it. I ended up thinking it was alright. In my opinion a lot of what you mentioned didn’t really need an explanation. In real life serial killers and pedophiles don’t really have an explanation for what they do, they’re just messed up in the head. The sister’s psychic abilities was inherited from her mother, and I think it was a nod to Stephen King because his stories usually have at least one character with psychic abilities. Although I agree that it wasn’t 100% necessary. The father’s alcoholism and abusive behavior also didn’t really need an explanation in my opinion, although I think that may also have something to do with Stephen King. The short story was written by his son, and King was alcoholic for a period of time so maybe it’s a personal thing. I also think it may have something to do with the fact that his wife (from his point of view) was mentally ill and died young. That would mess you up I guess. I also did feel suspense towards the end, it made me think for a moment that maybe the police were too late and what we were seeing with Finn already happened days before. But once we find out that he’s in the house across the street and escaped on his own, I agree that the whole thing feels pointless. While I enjoyed the movie, I don’t think I’ll feel the need to watch it again any time soon.
Good call on avoiding this one’s trailer. It was just 90% of the film. Ruined my motivation to go see it in theaters.
Honestly, since I completely gave up watching trailers, I've enjoyed films SO much more.
It wasn't scary at all but I really liked it. Didn't watch any trailers though because I never saw any.
It wasn’t very scary but I enjoyed it. Will probably buy it.
Same. Not scary, still really liked it.
You think it didn't explain why the dad is an abusive drunk or why his sister is seeing details of the kidnappings in her dreams? Did we watch the same movie? The Grabber, in my opinion, doesn't really need to be explained. Not every horror movie killer needs to have some sort of psychological explanation. God forbid a horror villain does things just because they feel like ot just like in real life. And then there's the Sinister comparison. Which immediately loses my interest as soon as it's brought up in every single post about The Black Phone. So there was no jumpscares or gore or on screen in depth killings. Doesn't mean it's not a horror movie. There's bloodied and abused ghosts, supernatural elements and... a guy kidnapping kids and killing them. Would be pretty damn horrific in real life.
I did love the end, the way he overpowered and outsmarted the Grabber and then strangled him looked akin to somebody slaying a monster. It was very well filmed.
Outsmarted is very generous. The grabber wasn’t very smart to begin with
I personally loved that they didn’t attempt to humanize the grabber more with a backstory. They hinted in ways that made it clear that there WAS a why, but didn’t explain it which I personally felt was appropriate- the kids wouldn’t have known the why, and they also wouldn’t have cared.
I actually thought throughout the whole movie the killer was not actually a killer, that he wanted the kids to help him to deal with something. Like the whole mystery around him, he being "kind" with Finn, crying while watching him, telling he would not do him any harm, that gave me the "misunderstood villain", but at the end there was no mystery at all. Its a thriller mystery movie with actually no mystery at all and with a predictable ending. The acting was very good overall, aside from some weird kid acting at some scenes.
The killers in the hole movie were some sort of subterranean proto humans.
Yeah he mentioned about a him when he first talks to the kid in the room so I thought that too. I thought he was the one who caught the kids then someone else was the killer for a short while.
[удалено]
The father was an alcoholic because his wife died and he was dealing with grief in an unhealthy way. Maybe pay more attention rather than worrying about the movie being "scary" also yes it was from Scott derikson who did sinister but it was written by Stephen kings son Joe Hill. They adapted his work. So I'm sure there's things like you mentioned that were left out. The movie was fine.
Yep. And the sister had visions because she was psychic, like their mother.
I watched the movie and understood all of it but it still felt bland and really unsatisfying. Not every film will be for everyone. There were some nice elements but the film lacked some tension and mystery I the right areas and was superficial in others.
people are tearing op apart for their problems when i. essence it was more that nothing felt that tense, scary, or impactful. A very mediocre movie
How does that make the father less of a shallow caricature? There just isn’t anything there. He’s abusive, the kids fear him, his character does nothing to redeem himself or grow, and then the movie ends. The sister’s premonitions are just a lazy plot device to get the sister at the home at the end of the movie. The movie *does* explain it, but hardly in a satisfying way. This movie uses its supernatural elements to avoid coming up with satisfactory ways to drive the story forward.
The father being the way he is makes it even scarier, finn escaped the grabber, but he doesn’t even have a loving home to return to. He had to go back to his alcoholic abusing father.
That's not scary at all. I mean TBH even the grabber wasn't scary. It was obvious he was going to escape and nothing about the film created the sense that he was in actual peril.
When does the movie actually stress that? If the father had shown up at the end and acted like a dick, maybe. But he doesn’t. He cries and asks for (unearned) forgiveness. Finn is also *happy* at the end of the movie. He gets to be the cool kid and he gets the girl he had a crush on. It’s almost like the movie is portraying murdering and escaping your kidnapper as a good, fun time.
Exactly, he cry’s and begs for forgiveness and they react like they’ve seen it all before. That they know he won’t change, and know they’re still stuck in that house for some time. It’s sad. Finn being happy at the end is showing he can finally stand up for himself. Kinda the whole theme of the movie. Sorry it’s not black and white, 1st grade level for you
Lol exactly what I said to my friend when the movie ended. “ all you gotta do is escape a serial killer to get the girl to like you”
She already liked him, very clear in their previous interactions.
Yes that is true. I guess it’s moreso the confidence that the situation gave him. I found it odd how he was walking through school and how he’d reacted to the girl it was like he just took “ how to be cool classes”. It appears like not much time has passed and you would think he’d have some trauma and be somewhat apprehensive.
Nah, getting kidnapped by a child murderer is the best thing that could happen to you. Builds character. It is really a ridiculous ending. Completely makes a mockery of what a terrifying situation that would have been.
Yes this is exactly right.
Almost all of Joe Hill’s stuff is more dark magical realism than straight up horror. This definitely fit that criteria and executed it very well imo. I could see how someone expecting a more hardcore horror movie would be disappointed though, but I knew what it was going to be like going into it despite the inaccurate hype up blurbs. Really enjoyed the portrayal relationship between the Finn and his sister as well as the overall 70s aesthetic which I thought they nailed. Was it perfect? No, and some things needed more fleshing out (like the sister’s visions), but it was definitely one of the better new releases I’ve seen this year so far regardless of how you categorize it.
I didn't like it either. I mean, I didn't hate it but I didn't like it. It certainly wasn't better than Sinister (which was what one reviewer had said.) It felt like a pale imitation of Sinister, if anything. I thought the Grabber was played well but he didn't feature in the film much and I just didn't like the kid. He just wore the same expression on his face the entire movie. I was like meh about it.
I think the reason that Finn had the character development is because the film was a horror style coming of age film The film is all the more better because nothing is really explained
Why doesn't it explain why the Grabber abducts kids? There doesn't need to be an explanation for everything, for gods sake.
"it's never explained WHY the grabber is grabbing kids" That was my favorite part. Why do I need that? Sometimes, I just want a cool villain who's a sadist just to be sadistic. The thing about the original Halloween that made it terrifying was not knowing his motivation. There's a resurgence in these "kids against all odds" style films and they're all fairly predictable, it's super rare that a film like this would kill off a main character, but it's like Miller Lite. It's not fancy, it's not new, but you know what you're going to get, and if you just want beer, you can do way worse. I loved it, personally. I loved the tone, I didn't think it was scary, but it was well done, I loved Ethan Hawke especially. I've watched some mediocre films lately, so this was a welcomed surprise.
Ethan hawke is hot tho
>The Black Phone smokeen
No argument here 😃
I loved it. I’m old and it captured the feel of the time perfectly. I grew up in a time where kids were being snatched off the streets by men like this and people didn’t understand it at all. Where you could smash a rock on another kid’s head and not get in trouble. The little girl’s acting was awesome, Finn’s less so. The only thing that took me right out of the movie was his crying scene. That was not good. A lot of terrible things happened to kids in the 70/80s and a lot of the time, as a kid, you were on your own.
It was fine. Definitely a thriller with supernatural elements not a horror movie.
I hate the term “thriller” in reference to genre. The academy awards invented the term so they could nominate Silence of The Lambs without the stigma of “horror movies.” Very rarely do I think a movie actually qualifies as a “thriller.” Most of the time people just use it when a movie doesn’t scare them. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a horror film.
Thank you. This sub is too obsessed with the "[gore, torture porn, thriller, insert subgenre of horror that they don't like] isn't horror" argument.
Despite its origins, thrillers are often very distinguishable from horror films. Look into it and you can see the differences for yourself. For example, many thrillers have happy endings, while many horror films don’t. This isn’t a hard and fast rule, but it clues you in on thematic differences. Also thrillers have faster cinematography and typically have more “action” scenes, while horrors are often slow burns. The list goes on, but the terms definitely have meaning.
Fair. I just think it’s misused a lot
I think it's a useful distinction. Thrillers are movies based heavily around suspense. This is as opposed to horror movies, which might include suspense but pay off the suspense with scares.
I have been describing it as "very tense, but not scary"
It was ok definitely not scary just kind of creepy
I enjoyed the movie but I fully agree with every point you shared. I wish they provided more background info on the grabber, especially why the black phone doesn’t work since he was a child. The grabber’s brother was somewhat irrelevant when I felt like they could’ve done a better job making him more relevant. Your thoughts are well thought out.
It’s made clear why the father is an abusive drunk and why he is so upset with his daughters dreams. The mother also had visions and eventually killed herself, according to the father because the voices or visions told her to. He’s afraid of seeing the same happen to his daughter and the alcoholism is likely a coping mechanism after losing his wife. Maybe you missed the scene where he recounts this story to his daughter?
>their father is an abusive, and aggressive alcoholic let me guess, it is also set in Maine
I could understand not liking it, but hating it? lol it wasn't that bad.
I’ve started to notice that movies with higher marketing budgets, that more people are aware of, or movies that are from a famous filmmaker and highly anticipated, tend to get hyperbolically rated—they’re either amazing or trash to a wider audience. But a movie that “no one has ever heard of” that was made for $ 50k by a bunch of unknowns will tend to get more nuanced reviews.
There is no explanation as to why "The Grabber" (yuck) is kidnapping these kids. There's no explanation as to why Finney's sister can see details of the kidnappings in her dreams. There's no explanation or even a look into why their father is an abusive, and aggressive alcoholic. He just is. When did it become the norm for the audience to demand an explanation and backstory for every single aspect of a movie? Why does he kidnap kids? He's a kidnapper. Why does Finny's sister have visions? Because she's like her mom. Why is the Father a piece of shit? He thought his wife was crazy and she had visions to the point where she killed herself. But those are what you want explained? Not why is a disconnected phone a gateway to the murdered kids?
I agree that it wasn’t scary. The biggest surprise to me was that Ethan Hawke’s character was a minor player in the whole movie. The kids were the stars. For a story about kids living a messed up life in the 70s I thought it was pretty decent. I agree that there was no point where I thought Finn would die. Not the greatest movie ever but I enjoyed it.
>There is no explanation as to why "The Grabber" (yuck) is kidnapping these kids. There's no explanation as to why Finney's sister can see details of the kidnappings in her dreams. There's no explanation or even a look into why their father is an abusive, and aggressive alcoholic. He just is. This is such a terrible take. I don't know why everyone needs everything spelled out for them nowadays. I guess you don't like Alien because the origin of the Alien isn't spelled out for you. I'd guess you hate Halloween for the same reason. I could go on and on. Not to mention there are plenty of subtle hints as to why The Grabber is the way he is. For instance, his brothers substance abuse. Besides the fact that most abusive behavior comes from past trauma which doesn't need to be spelled out. Then if it was spelled out for you I'm sure you'd complain that the movie is too long. Make sure you hate on The Shining as well because it is never explained why Jack Torrence is abusive, unless you think The Shining is simply a spooky ghost story. Ridiculous. I suspect you don't like The Thing either because that's not fully explained with bullet points in some awkward exposition?
I think it's because the character is not well fleshed out that I felt the same as OP. I didn't find him ultimately creepy. At there's a few points where he suddenly becomes non threats because you know he will escape him and it doesn't have the same suspense. They needed a bit more of tension. He needed more menace or something. He was a boring caricature that added nothing new or did anything particularly scary at all.
I 100% agree. The grabber was very one dimensional and not interesting so adding more backstory is an area where more horror could be added. Or just having him around more walking into the basement. You're telling me he never noticed the hole in the ground, the hole in the wall, or the bars being off the window? That he never once came down while Finn was trying to make an escape plan? Also why were all the escape plans just randomly deserted half way into them with no explanation (except the fridge). Everything was ridiculously surface level which is why the horror fell so flat.
I would go as far as to say you missed the entire point and literally every point against it is actually a plus and it just went over your head. You don't have to like a movie, but nothing you said is accurate as a negative. And most has a valid explanation in the movie. Horror: I mean its clearly a horror movie. Undead, mutilated children, a serial killer and implied child rapist("you don't want to know what hell do to you if you get caught" is the general sentiment each kid reinforces. He knows he's going to be killed and they tell him he will get beaten so that only really leaves one option. Pet alone just how he acts), supernatural elements pouring out of every inch, and while you didn't feel tension(I suspect because you were on your phone most of the movie), it was riddled with it and built throughout the film up to the climax. There is character development for each dead kid and of course it all builds to help Finn grow, but considering the movie is basically just focused on him, The Grabber and his sister, I don't see any issue here. It's Finn's movie. His sister also learns to stick up for herself and communicate with her traumatized father to help his son get home safe. Also the dad gets development too. He started drinking because he couldn't take his wife slowly losing her mind due to the visions she was having and that led to her death, and he's TERRIFIED of losing his kids, so knowing how much his daughter is like his wife, he feels like his only option is to scare them into pretending everything is fine hoping it will just go away. Not to mention this was the late 70s and parenting and handling emotions was very different. The Grabber is an extremely believable name in line with killers of the 70s both in reality and movies. They weren't the most creative or scary but it got the point across and was named after the literal only thing they knew about him. He grabbed kids. This is just the era it was set in. I loved the name BECAUSE it was campy and believable that a 70s paper would name him that. The house across the street. It's supposed to be a fake out. Clearly. They built it up that we knew the Grabber was that druggy conspiracy theorists brother and they seemingly lived together, but it seemed absurd that even as a coke fiend he still didn't notice anything abnormal, so it would've been deeply disappointing if the kids were being held in his basement and everything he was doing was flat out in front of his bro. No, it was a great twist that he had a second house across the way for his dark shit, and it would naturally have a similar layout. I loved this twist because it kept you wondering "how?" As for Finn whooping his ass, he still would have been lost and exhausted, wandering the streets aimlessly without his sister leading the cops to him. Sure he would've gotten home but finding the bodies wasn't just for Finn. It was closure for the dead kids that helped him escape by teaching him what they tried and failed at, each teaching him a valuable skill to help with his inevitable escape. For me, the fear was less is Finn gonna die, and more, IF Finn dies then The Grabber will keep doing this to kids, as well as if Finn even stepped out of line like the others he could have beaten and even sexually abused by this monster. He survived with minimal trauma, and a new sense of inner strength. In conclusion, horror doesn't require gore or on screen murder. It doesn't need brutal violence, it just needs the threat that these things may happen. The building tension of a growing or ever looming threat, combined with the supernatural elements that brilliantly wove the movie together it is 100% horror. If you in fact weren't checking your phone or only paying part attention I apologize, but a lot of people do that these days and then complain they didn't get something or it didn't do a good job executing what it set out to because THEY missed the many small or more subtle scenes that flat out explain everything they're complaining about, and everything you complained about is just straight up in the movie. The one exception being it wasn't super scary, I agree, but even in horror that isn't required for it to be an excellent movie. It had great writing, beautiful cinematography, great child actors, and a deeply compelling narrative told in a totally unique way as well as a fun 70s nostalgia piece.
I honestly think this is another case of CinemaSins (and similar online movie critic personalities) poisoning an audience’s ability to detect nuance and interpret things for themselves. I really don’t understand the seemingly very common desire to have literally every element of a character or story explained to the viewer. Especially when dealing with horror, which is usually strengthened when things are left to the imagination.
He did do all the killings and keep the kids in the basement of the house he shared with his brother though. The house across the street was empty and only used to burry the kids afterwards. There's no twist there.
Dude. There are SO many movies/shows that everyone else seems to love. I will watch it and think I MUST have seen a different movie/show than these people. I’m right there with you on this one. I will take flack for this, but I have also learned Mike Flanagan simply isn’t for me. But, hey, I still love horror, and if people out there are digging this movie and other stuff I don’t like, I’m happy for them.
I persobally loved it
I liked it. That is all.
I actually liked this one, wasn't a ground breaking movie or the scariest, but pretty solid
To be fair, the TikTok community also thought that the film Megan is Missing was some utterly horrifying film due mostly to the goofy pictures shown at the end. I really don't trust an app known for theft of personal information, short videos of people dancing together and dangerous 'challenges' that regularly harm people or damage public property for their opinion on horror films.
The movies is a thriller, not a scary movie, marketing made it seem as if it was a scary movie, almost like Sinister. The fact that The Grabber which is a good name btw, doesnt have a clear motive, its one of the things that make everything scarier. Think about serial killers, some of them if not most, dont have a real motive to do the horrible things they do. Trying to understand such a sick mind is the scary part. Well Finn had character development, he is the main character. Also for as little but impactful screen time as the dad had, he also grew with his daughter Gwen. At the end he learns to listen and not deny his daughters psychic dreams. And by the end apologizes to both of them for his terrible actions. This is a thriller with paranormal elements, not a full on paranormal movie. Finally I thought that the reveal of the second house was clever, for a moment I thought Gwens dreams werent 100% accurate, and that Finn would ultimately die.
I actually really enjoyed it! Horror movies don’t have to be the scariest thing you’ve ever seen in order to be good. It felt very “starter horror” to me, like something I would show a middle or early high schooler to introduce them to the genre, which isn’t a bad thing. Is it my new favorite? No, but the story was interesting and suspenseful and that’s enough to deserve the ratings it got in my opinion.
i don't necessarily agree with your points. i loved the movie but i do have my own gripes about it. yes it was predictable, but a movie doesn't have to take the audience by surprise to be good. otherwise would anybody go watch prequels or movies based on real life events? the powers and the abuse by the father are both explained. the grabber's reason for kidnapping kids is that he was clearly a sexual sadist and a p\*do. sometimes there doesn't have to be a deeper meaning to that. i thought the scares were predictable, i would have liked to know more about the dead kids, and the initial comment by one ghost was never addressed (when finn asked if anybody else had heard the phone ringing, a kid mentioned that the grabber heard them but refused to acknowledge it. does that mean he's psychic, is it guilt, or is it psychosis?). also, the phone "breathing" was just out of place and kind of took me out of atmosphere. but overall it was an incredibly refreshing and creative story, you really root for the characters and feel for the ones that don't end up getting a happy ending, and seeing someone try again and again to overcome a situation and watching it fail almost made me believe that finn might not get out of it.
Couldn’t disagree more. You need an explanation as to why The Grabber was doing what he was doing? The sick part of it all is things happen like this all the time. That’s the HORROR of it. Plus, you can imply many things about The Grabber’s past with all the things he does. Is it as scary as Sinister? Absolutely not. I just think the premise of this movie is all the horror you need.
I disagree. Easily it ended up being one the greatest movies I've seen this year, it was just something I threw on the TV not knowing what to watch, but I'm glad I did. The film, the writing, and the fact that it was such a twist with the ghost plot. I was rooting for his escape, because they could've easily gone the route where he doesn't.
Couple thoughts about your thoughts, having watched this last night: 1. The dad was an alcoholic jerk because the mom committed suicide because of whatever she learned from her visions and he's afraid 2. The kid had visions because it was a late-70's early-80's period piece, and there was lots of "psychic detective" nonsense in the news at the time (check the dates here: [https://www.rd.com/list/mysteries-solved-by-psychics/](https://www.rd.com/list/mysteries-solved-by-psychics/)) 3. Horror doesn't have to be startling, gory, or gross. It can be creepy, which this was based on the implications. You're left to wonder what kind of abuse led the killer and his brother to develop into those kinds of adults. And Finn takes a LOT of abuse. From his dad. From bullies. From the killer. And now he has killed a man before he has turned 14 years old. Finn's life is not going to be OK, most likely. He escaped the dungeon, but... 4. Growing up in the 1980's there was always some house in the neighborhood that kids just knew to avoid. But what if it's not just the creepy looking house? Again, creepy. But I wasn't relying on this "reveal" for my enjoyment. Couple other thoughts: 1. The coke-head brother was fantastic. 2. It's kind of interesting that the police were both competent and they listened to the little girl. If this were a real 80's movie, the police would have made the situation worse and would have completely disregarded the child psychic who was pointing them in the right direction. 3. I wondered if Finn really heard voices. Did the phone really breathe? This was a traumatized child who was being abused and starved. If we accept that Finn and his sister might have suffered sufficient psychological trauma that they would have lucid violent fantasies, could we imagine a version of this story in which THEY are the real killers? Or at least in which they are willing participants in a violent, symbiotic relationship with the dude in the mask? For example: 1. Finn had a personal connection to every single victim? 2. Finn's sister can just smash a kid in the head with a rock and not freak out? 3. If Finn and his sister were in on it, then her unexplained psychic visions would be much easier to understand. She knew because she knew. 4. Clearly a history of mental illness in Finn's family. 5. And so forth...
It was more of a thriller than a horror but the story line tied together so well. I absolutely loved it.
That’s what I loved about it. The movie played out the story so well.
How though? The story is driven by incredibly convenient supernatural elements rather than the characters actually doing/earning anything that drives the story forward.
I felt exactly the same, saw it in theaters and really didn’t know how to feel after. I got the idea that “The Grabber” has some past trauma inside that house as he made a minor comment about it when he originally grabbed Finney but like you said we never get concrete answers. I really wanted more from this movie and was left with a “meh” feeling, haven’t thought about it since til I saw this post.
I agree with you, it felt like a 30min twilight zone ep stretched to an hour and a half. Far far better horror films from this year on Shudder etc.
Which new Shudder movies do you recommend? I’m looking for something decent to watch tonight.
If you haven’t seen The Medium watch that ASAP, genuinely one of the best found footage films ever made imo
This I agree with. I was hyped for it but I’ve been traveling. Ended up splurging on the $20 purchase because I haven’t seen a new movie in months. Took me three tries to get through it. It wasn’t bad, but the pacing and runtime were way off. It would have been perfect as an episode rather than full length for sure
I definitely don’t think the movie was all that scary. I agree with a lot of what you’ve said here aside the dad being an alcoholic. My assumption is that he hasn’t be able to cope with losing his wife and becoming a single father. While I agree with a lot of what you said, I still really enjoyed watching this. But for the reasons I would enjoy watching a thriller movie. So again, I agree, definitely not a super scary horror masterpiece.
I respect your opinion. But most of what you think wasn’t explained was 10000% explained. You need to know the Grabber’s motive? Why? You don’t know why she’s a psychic? Her mom was. You don’t know why the dad was an alcoholic? The mom committed suicide due to her visions, so he tried to stop the daughter from reaching the same fate. I question whether you watched the movie at all, beyond having it on in the background while you studied or something.
>There's no explanation as to why Finney's sister can see details of the kidnappings in her dreams. There's no explanation or even a look into why their father is an abusive, and aggressive alcoholic. He just is. Except there absolutely are explanations. Whole scenes are built around them. I don't know how anyone comes away from *The Black Phone* not understanding why Gwen has visions and why her father was abusive toward her, unless they failed to pay proper attention. >I had zero doubt that Finn was going to escape. It was spelled out in the beginning of the movie when his friend said he was going to have to fight for himself, and the suddenly went missing. Obviously this friend was unable to escape, and now we're going to see Finn prove he's a fighter, and finally believe in himself. So, when Finn's much tougher friend Robin went missing and was presumed dead, to your mind that indicated that Finn was definitely going to make it? Not the opposite, that if a kid who fights like Robin couldn't save himself, how will Finn?
Yea, it's overrated. The trailer was bait and set everyone's opinion before it even came out.
The black phone was nothing like I expected it to be, but I didn't think it was bad. I'd say it was ok. It was definitely lacking something to make it a great film.
I agree that it was more of a thriller, I liked it for what it was. I thought the actors of Finn and the sister did great. Love Ethan Hawke and thought the grabber was nuts but cool. 7.5/10.
The sisters dreams had to do with her mom.. I guess her mom had similar visions and then killed herself and everyone assumed it was mental illness.. the dad was depressed alcoholic because his wife died and the sisters dreams I believe were related to the moms visions she had
Honestly the trailer spoiled way too much. If I had gone in completely blind I might have gotten more out of it. I also saw it the night after seeing Resurrection so I was just spoiled after seeing that. PS- Go see Resurrection! It IS intense - don’t let anyone spoil it for you tho.
I loved the movie and thought it was great. While I do think you have some valid criticisms, most of the reasons you disliked the movie are reasons that I enjoyed it. I love when a horror movie keeps things open for interpretation instead of wasting time explaining everything for the viewer. It’s not necessary in this movie. We don’t need to know why the villain kidnaps kids or why the fathers an abusive alcoholic. Not everyone has a reason for being the way they are… sometimes people are just fucked up. It’s not integral to the story for it to be explained for either of them. This was a common theme among older horror movies, especially during the 1970s. Halloween is a great example of this, and it’s why Rob Zombies Halloween remake totally missed the mark. Creating an origin story kills the mystery behind the killer, and it’s a major complaint I have for modern movies and viewers wanting everything explained instead of leaving anything to the imagination.
I appreciate you opinion, but I may. It IS described why Finn and his sister can communicate/be a little psychic. His (Finns) mom was psychic and could hear things and see things in her dreams and they eventually starting telling her to do terrible things so she killed herself. This sends the dad into a deep depression that turns into the alcoholism. This is why he freaks out when the daughter tells the cops she's seeing things in her dreams. One of the ghost kids, I think Bruce, also explains that the phone rang for all of them but only Finn has been able to see it. The Grabber can also hear it but it's never really explained why. And I agree I wish I could've learned more about the murderer.
I appreciate the op's opinion...I respect it...but I don't agree with his assessment. It's not a film for everyone though... It's a nice little scary movie with disturbing touches. It has just enough unease to keep you watching and all the actors involved were pretty good. Although I wouldn't call it the scariest movie I've seen (maybe even this year) fear is measured by the individual. Some people's greatest fear is their children being abducted and murdered. Some are frightened of being abducted and some may even be afraid of being the killer. While not super scary, it's a solid thriller/horror film that's easily in the same vein as Fritz Land's M Again not a film for everyone's horror tastes....
It's like I wanted chocolate gâteau, and instead I got fairy cake. Now there's nothing wrong with fairy cake, and it's not objectively worse than the gâteau, it's just not what I really wanted. I wanted something like Sinister, but I didn't think it was bad. If I'd found it by random chance, I'd have been pretty happy.
watched 2 minutes of it and dipped didn’t know that the grabber was inspired by John Wayne Gacy who is a pedophile and that just icked me didn’t help that it’s implied that the boys were raped because that’s what John Wayne Gacy did to his victims
That one scene where the camera pans back to Finney and Billy is standing behind him scared the living bejesus outta me both times I saw the movie in theaters.
Yeaahh, I feel like a lot of the reviews were VERY generous. I still liked it as a thriller movie, but it definitely wasn’t scary or anything really innovative.
Are you taking TikTok people as a credible source!? Anyone who likes TikTok is mentally deficient. I love TikTok!
I mean you said it all OP. I think people just like mediocre films. Ethan’s a cool actor and he did well with what he had. The child actors were good but the movie was basically a coming of age horror movie or some weird shit. It wasn’t scary at all. It’s not thrilling because we know he will escape. Even the final act was a let down. I didn’t hate it. I’m not mad I watched it. It was alright. It’s just 4 maybe 5 out of 10 for me. I wanna watch a scary movie that has some scary scenes lol
I agree. Shit movie. Not scary AT ALL.
Fuck this movie! Chris Stuckman told me this shit movie was going to be better than Sinister and he fucking lied! What a corporate shill, I want my fucking money back.
The grabber was a real thing in the 70s
Forgot the horror, the movie was a complete joke and meaningless. Yeah, it's called "The Black Phone" because The Black Phone mysteriously rings without any explanation. Garbage terrible cringe worthy teen drama.
Actually upset that 'The Grabber' just falls asleep in a chair, who lets Fin get away, to later just fall in a trap and get his neck broke by a kid whom was alreadya pretty famished. Ok sure, we were all rooting for his escape anyway, but what was the point? It felt like it was half a film which makes sense considering it was based on a short story. I praise the production, setting and everything, the kid actors were great, but they did Ethan a disservice actually having done anything in this movie other than put on a mask then fall asleep in chair and die so easily. I guess if you went in expecting to be scared or be an actual horror film it was pretty disappointing.
> There is no explanation as to why "The Grabber" (yuck) is kidnapping these kids. I definitely picked up on 'cycle of abuse' themes. The Grabber was probably abused as a kid and now is inflicting the same abuse on other kids as an adult, hence the 'Naughty Boy' game. (Though that doesn't really explain the brother, but the brother was obviously on drugs and had a strong sense of justice, which you might also attribute to childhood abuse) When The Grabber takes Finney, and Finney doesn't play the game because Finney has been playing this game with his dad for a long time. It's why The Grabber thinks Finney is 'special'. He senses that they have shared experiences. Also, likely they both share some kind of psychic abilities, along with the sister. > There's no explanation as to why Finney's sister can see details of the kidnappings in her dreams. There are multiple mentions that their mother had similar abilities. Also, I saw somewhere else that the original short story was written by Stephen King's son, so there might be a connection between The Grabber, Finney, and Gwen and shiners from The Shining and Doctor Sleep. >There's no explanation or even a look into why their father is an abusive, and aggressive alcoholic. Just being an alcoholic can make you aggressive. And you don't need some tragic backstory to lead to alcoholism. Some people are just naturally setup for addiction. That being said, it's inferred his wife died or was put in a mental hospital due to her psychic abilities. All that being said, I was expecting more from this movie. I didn't really watch trailers and only had posters and tiktok buzz to go off of and I was expecting something more similar to Jeepers Creepers or It Follows (some boogeyman type with a lot or small town lore) than just a creepy serial killer. The R rating was underutilized for a 'horror' movie.
Extremely boring and predictable movie. Literally everything you think will happen happens and that's all there is to it. The big reveal as you say is the house across the street but it's a completely irrelevant detail. It changes nothing and it never made us question anything about the other house. When the kid escapes and just casually and quietly runs on the street is where I started wishing it would end.
God this was a terrible review. “Why didn’t they explain why Finn’s sister can see those dreams?” Because it didn’t really need explanation. Did they explain why the family in haunting of hill house were psychically linked? No, it didn’t need to. Some people just are sensitive to the supernatural. “They didn’t explain why the grabber kills kids.” To quote Arthur Morgan from rdr2 “sometimes, folks is just evil.” Not everything needs an explanation. Sometimes, characters are just pure evil and do the things they do because it’s who they are. Michael Myles didn’t need a motive in Halloween 1. Stu macher was just sadistic in scream. Sure I wouldn’t call the movie scary, but I’d say it was creepy and tense.
My take on the movie is the villain and the protagonist, both have two things in common - an abusive childhood and psychic powers. Both can listen to the phone rings. The villain avoided it and the protagonist accepted the call. Watching the protagonist sleep and telling him that he would not do anything he doesn't like clearly suggest he is a pedo. He intentionally keeps the door unlocked means he expected the boys to escape so that he could punish them. So, he was a sadist. I was wondering whether protagonist's mom and the villain were related or not (may be they were siblings like protagonist had a sister with psychic abilities...who knows?? Keep wondering)
I didn’t think it was a bad movie, but I was also very bored by it. I was expecting more horror, and not a suspense-thriller with a few ghosts.
I wish marketing for movies like this could find a new angle that resonated with audiences because marketing this as a horror felt straight up misleading. Same with Nope. Two terrible horrors but decent thrillers.
this was like an after school special, with some gnarly scenes thrown in to get a horror rating. I like it but it wasn’t horror at all
I saw this film recently and I would have to say if you lived in 1970’s this film hit the target completely. Everything about this film is a master class of understanding a certain place and time; and getting it right. Kudos to the production design, wardrobe, cinematography, sound design, SOUNDTRACK, location scouting, and all the actors; it is often said to not work with kids or animals if you don’t want the film to fail; but they all knocked it out of the park. As for it being scary two things came to mind. 1) how feral the children of the 1970’s and 1980’s were. Parents were divorcing and working for the American dream; and children were left to grow up real fast. Kidnapping was a frequent thing growing up, kind of like these mass shootings we have today; but even more frequently with horrible outcomes. I truly feel this film was intended for an older audience. Pretty much a homage to all the childhood trauma of just growing up in your messed up environment. The great Satanic Panic was in full swing with kids listening to heavy metal and hard rock; and these missing kids often time were associated with sacrificial lambs to these hidden evils. 2) the lack of technology is very evident in the film. No cell phones. No cameras. No nothing. You were lucky to have a color tv. Mix all this lack of technology with an emergency; the world is against you. This film is for the feral children who probably grew up in the most modern violent times; and learned to fight and survive anything. I know a lot of Gen X loved this film but it would be interesting to see what generations dig it as a form of entertainment. Today people pay money to escape rooms but back in the day you escaped rooms so you didn’t get raped, killed, and then dumped on the side of the freeway with your underwear inside out.
My biggest gripe with this film was the extrasensory stuff. I would have preferred this movie stayed more grounded in realism. I didn't mind the big reveal at the end. I guess for those who didn't like the film (including myself) I'd say the issue was with expectations. I was expecting something close in nature to Prisoners but got a more fantasy-ridden version of it.
What really got me was how they spend half the movie building up the sister’s dreams leading her to rescue him… and then he escapes completely on his own and she leads the cops to the wrong house… like what? What message was this movie trying to deliver? What was the point? Filler? Because the story was too thin to warrant a feature length film? It was so ridiculous when it ended I was like are you effing serious? I spent the entire movie wanting to walk out and decided to stay and see how the ending wrapped everything up… only it didn’t at all.
Wouldn’t say I hated it but it definitely isn’t *that* good. A lot of wasted potential there. Blumhouse can do better.
I did too. I read the short story right before sitting to watch the movie and I was so excited; the book was a 10/10. Then the movie starts and the Grabber shows up, who in the book was absolutely terrifying and not a bumbling idiot, and I was like, nope, this movie is going to suck... And it did.
[удалено]
But to me, the grotesque part is exactly what was missing. In the book, he was someone who you'd shudder at and turn away from IRL; a skeevey guy who's presence really makes you uneasy. I liked Ethan Hawke's bad guy performance, just not for this movie. Personally, I got more greasy creep than grotesquely terrifying from him.
[удалено]
I was super grossed out by his smooth, naked upper body.
yeah, i was disappointed by it. it was decent, but not worth a rewatch.
The big reveal at the end was the kid saves himself. That never happens in movies and that's what made this movie so pleasantly surprising. It's more like a survival thriller than horror, but if people knew that going in it would make the happy ending less effective.