A film from that good old era, when 3 minutes of credits on black at the beginning of the film was the norm. . .
Well, what to say, the film is praised by everyone who is not lazy for its mega-unexpected ending. Don't know, don't know. The ending was obvious to me almost from the beginning of the film. I don't understand how you can't guess it when it's all straight to the forehead.
But the movie doesn’t just have an ending, does it? Acting is great. All the main characters did not just play, they lived this movie. Just amazing fear, excitement, grief, soothing - everything on the faces, in the eyes ... The tears are real. It is especially great to see such a game in a child, as they usually play at the level of a children's matinee. Very competent suspense serving, a couple of times there were good boo-effects, but they did not overdo it, they are completely in their places. The film is simple and unhurried, without any action or deliberately terrifying scenes, it is very harmonious.
For some reason I want to compare it to The Shining (1980), probably because both are old-fashioned thrillers. In that film, ghosts were deliberately shoved, those and these, they were given unnecessary timekeeping minutes in the plot, they were looking for a reason to insert a terrible scene, deliberately made all the characters crazy and so on. And in the "Sixth Sense" everything is so right, it's good. For those who haven’t seen it yet, it’s worth watching. For you, the review is over, then it will be for those who have already seen and are ready to think about the twist.
Seriously, there's going to be a fat spoiler.
So, the final twist is absolutely not unexpected. We were shown right at the beginning that the Glavhero was shot. Yes! He got shot! So why are you surprised he's a ghost? Yes, of course, there is a possibility that a person could be pumped out, but this was not shown, and we are watching a thriller! Isn't this scene worthy of thinking, "Isn't the hero dead?" And it's really weird that at the beginning of the movie they show how the character was killed, and at the end the audience goes "Wow, so he died!" He doesn’t talk to anyone except the kid, nobody sees him, he doesn’t use the same objects as other people. It's obvious.
Because of this twist, there are scenario holes:
The boy is clearly afraid of ghosts before a psychologist advises him to help them. But then how could he be friends with the psychologist himself, who is also a ghost?
- And why would a boy promise not to reveal a secret to anyone if he couldn’t?
- If ghosts come to him for help, why do some look normal and others look ugly hangers? They wanted to ask for help, hanging like this?
- The ghost of the girl asks her parents to show her a tape with proof that she was poisoned. There's a lot of questions. If she died right away, who put the tape in the box? If not immediately, why didn’t you watch the tape? Then I could report the poisoning myself. Why does a poisoner even go to the room with poison when she should have done everything in the kitchen? Finally, why even a boy medium? Would parents not find a bright box under the bed in their own house?
Unfortunately, these holes exist only to distract the viewer and create an artificial opportunity for the heroes to act, while directly contradicting the logic of the described world. So, unlike most people, I liked pretty much everything about the movie except for this obviously over-hyped "surprise twist."
