It had potential with the ghosts. It had potential with the sister and brother. But why was it all squandered on gore and a loose, watered-down interpretation, if not plagiarism, of significant parts of all of the following: Misery, The Shining, The Others, and even the Woman in Black (strictly for the isolation, to me)? I feel there's too much character action without any character depth or development, especially in the case of Edith's friend, played by Charlie Hunham, except for Thomas. All the character development that does happen is shut out till the end, but not for a plot twist- just affirmation. There was more character development in the side characters than amongst the main, all put together.
The gore was unnecessary not for the genre but for what they made you expect from the trailer. There is no hint of it except for the hilariously brightly red clay everywhere. By the way, as a metaphor, that would have been such a funny departure if they explained in depth what the clay was to represent.
But on the whole, it was too contrived, and all the good and great acting in the world, and all the cute dogs in the world, and all the pretty imagery in the film, could not further a story that is 1) being retold and a) poorly so. Please let us either invert the genre or completely be true; else it is just a confused mishmash of style and hollow action.
The gore was unnecessary not for the genre but for what they made you expect from the trailer. There is no hint of it except for the hilariously brightly red clay everywhere. By the way, as a metaphor, that would have been such a funny departure if they explained in depth what the clay was to represent.
But on the whole, it was too contrived, and all the good and great acting in the world, and all the cute dogs in the world, and all the pretty imagery in the film, could not further a story that is 1) being retold and a) poorly so. Please let us either invert the genre or completely be true; else it is just a confused mishmash of style and hollow action.