I saw this last night, and liked it. I was wondering what you thought of John Malkovich's performance. I thought he wasn't trying very hard, and could have been having more fun. However, thinking about it, that could be just from not having much to do.

Is what your talking about different from "going to the mansion"? I think the kinds of things you're pointing out is a complete shift in tone, as opposed to something that slows down the movie's plot. Or is this two flavors of the same thing?

THE SCENE. All horror movies put together have not effected me like that single scene did the first time I watched it. Thank you for sharing that nightmare fuel with me. However, when I started to think about it, questions started to arise, and the scene began to break for me.

SPOILERS:

The question that kept coming up for me is that if they were willing to horribly disfigure Paul Dano's character (Seth) in order to get his old self to come back, why not just kill the the young Seth? They wouldn't have to worry about a body, because the old Seth would just disappear like Bruce Willis did. I understand if they did this you wouldn't be able to have that scene, but its still broken for me now when it was intially jaw dropping.