Larcen26

I see a similar disagreement with this movie that I saw with “Inside Out” If you watched Inside Out as a visual representation and metaphor for how emotions work within humans, it was a lovely tale showing you that you don’t have to be happy all the time, and trying to do that could ultimately destroy you…that all emotions are valid and important and nuanced. But if you watched it as a film about tiny beings that operate humans as giant bio-mechanical machines, it was a fairly bland and predictable “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” riff with little to no internal consistency or logic. In the first option, the characters you see for much of the movie don’t exist, even within the world of the film, and are purely manifestations of Haley (the little girl). In the second, the world of the film is one where the characters DO exist, and are equally as important, if not more important, than Haley. The same thing happens with Drop Dead Fred. If you see Fred as nothing more than a visual manifestation of Lizzie’s Id, and she is ultimately the one with all of those thoughts and impulses, it is a nuanced tale of growth and ultimately female empowerment. If you see it as a world where Imaginary friends truly exist and are there to be friends for the friendless (this would be a world similar to Pete’s Dragon) and can only be seen by the children they accompany, it’s an odd, disjointed and almost bipolar film with unsettling sexual undertones between Fred and Lizzie. June and Jason saw the first movie. Paul and Kacey saw the second. It’s a great example of people seeing the exact same thing with vastly different, but equally valid, interpretations.

One thing nobody mentioned is that the way they identified which mirror held the real Jack Palance made no sense. Somehow in a room full of mirrors, they found the one reflection that didn't look like the rest? Somehow the dead giveaway was a monogram or a ring? How could those things be inverted and not, let's say, THE HAND HE WAS HOLDING THE GUN IN?