Skeleton Key --thoughts after seeing it
08-18-05 | 10:05 AM
#27
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 9,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Guelph, Ontario
I thought it was a pretty solid movie. Much better than I had expected.
So I thought Kate Hudson was great and did a good job carrying the movie with the help of the excellent supporting cast. A solid thriller not a scarefest, but worth seeing.
MATT
Spoiler:
So I thought Kate Hudson was great and did a good job carrying the movie with the help of the excellent supporting cast. A solid thriller not a scarefest, but worth seeing.
MATT
08-18-05 | 09:11 PM
#28
Cool New Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Cherry Hill, NJ, USA
Okay, I have to ask a couple of questions.
First, the year 1962 seems to be of specific importance but, to my thinking through of this, it doesn't fully make sense. Justify and Cecile take the kids and watch them die. Okay, that makes sense. Great twist too when you realize later that this is what happened. But then you're told that the kids died of a stroke in 1962. Thus Justify and Cecile were now in the kids bodies and they were getting old so they made their next switch around 1962. If that's in any way accurate, something doesn't make sense. We seem to have missed an entire generation here.
The suggestion is that Justify went from Justify to Martin Thorpe (the boy child) to the lawyer. If he took the lawyer in 1962, the lawyer would now appear to be roughly 70 years old. It appears as if he took the lawyer just recently. If so, who did Justify inhabit between 1962 and 2005? Remember, they said the kids died of strokes in 1962. If you assume they were 70 at the time, that means the original switch happened about 60 years prior or sometime around 1900, which fits the look and presentation of the clips showing the original story.
What am I missing here?
First, the year 1962 seems to be of specific importance but, to my thinking through of this, it doesn't fully make sense. Justify and Cecile take the kids and watch them die. Okay, that makes sense. Great twist too when you realize later that this is what happened. But then you're told that the kids died of a stroke in 1962. Thus Justify and Cecile were now in the kids bodies and they were getting old so they made their next switch around 1962. If that's in any way accurate, something doesn't make sense. We seem to have missed an entire generation here.
The suggestion is that Justify went from Justify to Martin Thorpe (the boy child) to the lawyer. If he took the lawyer in 1962, the lawyer would now appear to be roughly 70 years old. It appears as if he took the lawyer just recently. If so, who did Justify inhabit between 1962 and 2005? Remember, they said the kids died of strokes in 1962. If you assume they were 70 at the time, that means the original switch happened about 60 years prior or sometime around 1900, which fits the look and presentation of the clips showing the original story.
What am I missing here?
08-22-05 | 05:41 AM
#34
DVD Talk Legend
Did anyone catch Ebert and Roeper's review of this? What exactly were they talking about? They didn't want to give spoilers, but it confused me.
Regardless, I saw it and really enjoyed it a lot. Much better than I expected. A lot like
IMO, which I really enjoyed as well and thought was vastly underrated.
Regardless, I saw it and really enjoyed it a lot. Much better than I expected. A lot like
Spoiler:
Last edited by movieking; 08-22-05 at 12:14 PM.
08-22-05 | 08:14 AM
#35
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 9,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Guelph, Ontario
Originally Posted by movieking
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
MATT
08-26-05 | 01:44 AM
#37
DVD Talk Special Edition
Decent Thriller. I give it a Solid 'B'.
09-04-05 | 01:20 PM
#39
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
I know what u mean. I saw it Friday and I had forgotten where the movie took place. Then I was like Damn.
Good movie. It wasn't boring, so that's a good thing.
Plus it has Goldielocks in it.
Good movie. It wasn't boring, so that's a good thing.
Plus it has Goldielocks in it.
09-04-05 | 03:10 PM
#40
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Vancouver, WA
Knowing nothing about the writer and his penchant for twists, I caught this on Friday night. I was pretty fed up with the story and found it to be extremely okay, up until the ending. Like the Usual Suspects, I thought I had the ending figured out, only to be duped in the film's final moments. In retrospect, the twist made the movie better for me, and I thought it was a solid film.
