The premise is that if you make a sound, monsters will get you. I am fine with a film creating whatever rules or framework it wants. You want a film with Magic, fine. Supernatural powers, fine. Or a film where If any sound is made, the monsters attack in seconds and make lighting quick work of their prey, fine.
There is a lot I like about the film, but when you routinely break the very rules you create, the movie becomes frustrating and unenjoyable.
In this film the creators establish that sounds of a beeping space shuttle toy bring monsters in under 10 seconds. And they kill the living thing holding the toy so fast you barely see it. That's fast. Also, the sound of a falling silo door brings a monster, also in a very fast time. A scream will bring a monster in a matter of seconds. And kill you just as fast. Normal talking will also bring a monster so you must use sign language. Also, the sound of a raccoon just making normal night time noises will bring a monster to kill the raccoon.
So, how is it the loud sound of the same raccoon falling on the roof one minute before not bring the monster? How is it that the same raccoon, a full raccoon size, did not get killed every single day before the scene shown? Is he using raccoon sign language and forgot that night?
The silo door falling brings the monster but the roof noise from the raccoon does not? The roof noise was louder and the monster was clearly in the area because the monster killed the raccoon a moment later.
How is they show birds in the sky making noises early in the film, but no monster attack? Do the birds only make noise when flying? Do they ever nest? Of course they must land. Do they always stay quiet when they nest or land? How did the creatures not attack then? Birds are noisy but they survive. They monsters can easily and swiftly get to the top of a silo, why not a tree? They can cut through a silo wall, so why not a tree or whatever the birds are in?
They establish that non-living things making noise bring the monster. The afore mentioned door, and also a gun, fireworks, etc. also, there is an object that falls that nearly hits the ground and the family shows their collective relief when it is caught before hitting the ground. Obviously, they are afraid a falling object will bring the monster.
But, a river or waterfall does not bring the monster. Maybe they attacked the river and gave up? If so, why not live a bit closer to the water. The rustling of leaves of a tree or corn stalks does not bring the monster, apparently? Leaves are alive. Why do they ignore that? The family can't make a creaking sound in the house because it will bring a monster, so they walk around barefoot. But, anyone who has lived in a home knows that homes make a random, creaking sound on their own from time to time. What happens then?. And the wind would make sounds against the house frequently. Of course, they have to live in a house with wood floors and no carpets or rugs to help muffle any sound, but take serious care to make the paths outside sound resistant to their feet.
Also, did no one cough during the last year? Does no one snore? What about flatulance? Surely someone must have had a good sneeze. These sounds are louder than a whisper and often louder than normal talking. Yet, they avoided the monster for over a year. And, why do they have to keep reminding people to be quiet by putting their finger over their mouths? You'd think after a year the people alive would have figured that one out.
Why do monsters ignore the creaking, rusted swing during the walk home with the dad and son? Because a creaking, rusted swing sounds erie and adds to tension? They also ignore the newspaper blowing in the wind at the beginning of the film, because why again? Is it Becasue a newspaper blowing in the wind sets a mood?
The monsters move incredibly fast, faster than any animal, but then move as slow as a sloth, painfully slow, when moving against the people the director does not want killed.
There are so many ways this movie could have been better. The concept is not bad, but the execution is frustrating. It's not a bad movie, and I enjoyed parts, but you must turn off your brain and ignore facts to give this anything more than a mild recommendation.
I liked the actors and thought they did well with the material. I liked the family concept. You felt like everyone mattered and no one was expendable, except the old dude of course.
There are plenty of other things buggy about the movie but the lack of consistency is what really bothered me. I wanted the film to succeed and I found myself trying to make excuses for the story, making assumptions to try and explain how the story could work and be believable, but the inconsistencies were too much. I liked the premise but the film felt incomplete. Partially baked idea and I think the director knew it. But he will make money and move on, even if his art was a mediocre, incomplete effort.
220 out of 410 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.