Talk:Joshua (2007 film)

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Other mentions

Shouldn't the 2002 film of the same name also be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmorgan (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warning

good spoiler warning morons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.203.218 (talk • contribs)

Spoiler warnings aren't necessary for sections clearly labeled "plot". See WP:SPOILER. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 06:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certain movies deserve to be spoiled. And spoilers are definitely much better than teasers. Without the spoiler, I was expecting a 'shocking' but satisfying conclusion. The conclusion was shocking indeed... it was so bad that it made the entire movie loose its credibility. Even if the conclusion involved little green men from Mars being the cause of everything, it would probably still be a whole lot better. It should be pointed out that just any twist at the end doesn't make a movie special. The twist should be believable.--Hirak 99 (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of perspective; I didn't feel it was a twist at all and quite enjoyed the film, ending included. I'm guessing you thought that the movie was an Omen or Good Son clone, as many others did. Understandable, as the marketing, right down to the dvd case, does a horrible job describing it. --Gero (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Style

Is it just me, or does this film seem like a trip up the autism spectrum? There are certain aspects to the sound, for example, that filmmakers ordinarily minimize but in this case are exaggerated - focus on background noise, more confusion of voices, more focus on specific tones (for example, the single notes of the kid violinist, which seemed to reverberate in a remarkable way) Likewise the display of single lines of text in focus and certain visual fixations, though to a weaker degree, and something of the detached nature of the social interactions. Wnt (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Error

Joshua doesn't get locked in his room as it says here. Joshua's dad locks himself in with the baby. Therefore, Joshua doesn't "sneak" out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.224.83.95 (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Gero (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Where the Hell is this sentence going? It certainly never gets there.

"As the baby's whines drive an already strained Abby to the point of a nervous breakdown, Joshua devolves from eccentric to downright sociopathic behavior, but the question of whether or not they are Joshua's fevered and psychotic doings or merely the result of happenstance."

KhProd1 (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

death of dog

Might have been worth mentioning.