‘Dream House’ Spoilers Discussion

Published 2 years ago by , Updated September 18th, 2012 at 8:08 am,

 Dream House Spoilers Discussion

While we do have a Dream House review where you can leave comments, we’ve set up this as a place where you can discuss Dream House spoilers without concerns about ruining the movie for folks who haven’t seen it yet.

If you’re posting comments here, assume that anyone in the conversation has seen the movie – if you haven’t seen the movie, I would recommend you don’t read the comments here until you have. 

There’s plenty to discuss about this convoluted movie, so lets get to it! Leave your thoughts and or comments below!

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: dream house

52 Comments

Post a Comment

Comment With Facebook

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. Demanding to see this movie for free. i spend a lot of money at my local cinema and i really do NOT want to pay for this movie but find myself somewhat curious

    • Do NOT. I repeat Do NOT pay to see this movie. Apart from pretty strong acting, and decent sound ambience, this movie was complete garbage. It was confusing and disjointed, I watched it for FREE and I still feel like getting a refund.

      • haha thats funny, cause i loved this movie, but the trailer gives it all away soo :( i was very impressed with this movie though.. but, that’s just my opinion.

  2. spoilers? just watch the first trailer. reveals everything. no need to see the movie.

    • @Bellcurve.

      It’s true. But there IS one more predictable twist to see…coming from a mile away.

      • Would you mind telling us the other twist, Kofi? Im pretty curious I just don’t think I wanna see the whole movie to find out ha

        • Sure – the twists are:

          1. Daniel Craig thinks he is a writer with a family – but in fact his family was murdered and the trauma left him crazy and delusional. Basically it’s “Fight Club”.

          2. Everybody thinks Craig is a psycho who murdered his family – but in fact it was his neighbor’s crazy husband and a hitman he hired. The Husband wanted to kill his wife (Naomi Watts) because of a bad divorce, but the hitman went into the wrong house, killed Craig’s family and Craig was wounded in the incident and his mind got all messed up.

          3. It isn’t delusions of his family that Craig is seeing in the house, they’re ghosts. The ghosts help save him when the crazy husband and hitman try to finish him off. Basically it’s “Ghost”

          There you go – no reason to ever see “Dream House” now.

          • Fantastic summary, thank you, Kofi. I agree with all of the above. However, would not you agree that there is a possibility that they were trying to bring even more twists to the story, however unsuccessfully?

            1.Unless I am grossly mistaken after only one viewing, I think I saw the same faces among his co-workers at the beginning of the movie and some people at the mental institution. So, which situation was real and which – delusion? (or just made up?)

            2. Again, at the end, the book is written. Is he still delusional about that, or (based on a happy smile on his face while looking at his bestseller, which is boldly displayed in the bookshop window) the whole story in the movie is just a plot in the book and actually never happened? And could it be that he created his characters in the book based on some real people in his life?

            I might be wrong about my conclusions, but regardless I do feel that there are more possibilities to the interpretation of the plot

            • I agree with the book idea. I got the distinct impression it was one of the ways they were giving as an interpretation. I think it wasn’t supposed to have a set in stone story, what really happened is left vague enough that the audience gets to decide which it was. He was an editor who left to write a novel and we got to see the book in process. Authors populate their novels with characters based on people they know so his co-workers all show up in the novel. Or it really happened and he went mad and imagined that he was a writer because he couldn’t deal with reality. Maybe it was a mix of both.

              • He does say at one point: “I can see the characters as clearly as…I can see you.”

                But if that was the intended interpretation, it was conveyed in an extremely ineffective fashion.

                • Here is the thing though, at the end, the book is written by Peter Ward. So if it was just a story, why would he use his real name? My only guess would be that he was imagining himself in his story the entire time? It’s still pretty confusing.

                • Its all fiction. It never happened. The whole movie is Craig’s charater’s struggle to write a “Novel”. A novel is a work of fiction. If the book at the end of the movie was about actual events, it would not promanetly say “a novel” on it’s cover.

                  • I agree with the book idea. I think the whole thing was him writing the book and seeing it in his mind as he wrote it.

                    I watched the movie and was pretty disappointed. It wasn’t really very good but I kept thinking it was going to get better because of Daniel Craig. I just didn’t think he would do a movie that was so cheesy.

                    • Daniel Craig is awful in comparison to Rachel Weisz and Naomi Watts.

          • If you are really going to even begin to compare this to “ghost” then none of you even know a good movie when you see one and should therefor not be asked for movie advice. I guess you probably liked the remake of total recall too.

  3. All right, I was just told that it’s a spoiler, and although I don’t think so, and it’s too late, I am moving it here anyway. There it goes:
    I have just watched the movie, and I liked it. I think, that all inconsistencies can be explained easily if you pay real attention to them. Did you notice that among the inhibitants of tne mental institution you see the same faces that of his co-workers from the beginning of the movie? Did you notice that you have seen the face of the killer at the beginning of the movie? I think, that the whole story is just a book that he wrote. It never happened in reality. That explains all the inconsistencies.
    By the way, no other reviews that I have read mention anything of this sort. So this is a totally subjective opinion.

    • did you notice the part where they were about to move their unconscious bodies to the basement. they said that this should have been easy but he went to the wrong house. The neighbor was trying to hire a hitman to kill his wife. but the hitman was an idiot. thats why the lady feels so bad for peter.thats why Anns husband seemed like an a**hole. he was. simple.if it was just him writing a book it would have been more like the secret window and then it would be lame.

  4. There’s usually some sort of argument on just about every post on this website that goes from casual movie fan discussion to just hurtful..so before this turns into something utterly ridiculous i would just like to say that Daniel Craig, Naomi Watts, and Rachel Weiszzzszwhateveritis don’t even like the finished product here. so lets just keep it real yo’s

  5. Kinda sounds like THE OTHERS. That movie came out not long after THE SIXTH SENSE, so I guessed the ending pretty quickly, but I still loved it.

  6. My daughter and I saw the movies tonight and both liked it, but had different opinions, she thought that it was just a book that he had written and was fiction and I thought that he had gone crazy after his wife and kids had been murdered and wrote the book, so in the end who is really right ? One is just as plasible as the other.

  7. ahhh so Toss a Little Inception in the list of like movies? :D

    • Okay this is what really happened. The whole movie was a flashback of what really happened i.e Libby was never alive during the movie but Peter was reliving through flashback when his family was alive. The creepy people outside the window really happened and it was probably the same people plotting to kill his family. SPOILER ALERT: Libby and the jerk ex-husband had the older dark haired child together and then split up (at the end of the movie when the ex was talking to the hitman the hitman told him that his ex was on the porch talking to someone) both the ex husband and Libby had black hair; just like the black haired daughter. The Jerk Ex Husband had financial issues and wanted custody (see beginning of movie)so in order to inheirate money/get sole position of the older black haired daughter, he plotted to murder libby by hiring a Hitman. The blonde haired woman was Libby’s best friend and therefore was watching over her eldest daughter and the ex husband was constantly pissed at her because the blonde woman and his daughter were not related at all but due to the Ex’s financial issues she had to look after her. Yes, Peter was insane because he did not know whether or not he murdered his family (the same people in the office at the beginning were in the assaine asylum). As Peter pieced together that he was not the murderer he becomes Sane and writes a book about it. The ex husband brought the blonde haired woman into the basement at the end of the movie to kill her in order to finally gain sole possession of his daughter. When the house is colorful and legit thats what really happened before his family died.

      • The storyline is not like that AT ALL. Where do you get the idea that Libby had an affair with the bad guy? It is clearly in the script where we know that the hitman had the wrong house and killed the wrong people — which is Will’s wife & kids. The bad guy hired the hitman to kill his wife after a bad divorce but the hitman had the wrong house and killed the wrong people. And Will finally knows the truth behind his family murder and write a book about it.

        The way some people write the comments, its like we were watching a different movie. xD;;

      • WOW that is so not the plot at all! libby was not really jack’s ex… the hit man mistook libby for jack’s ex. he was supposed to kill the blonde woman but got the wrong house!

  8. I think you got it Sam. The only thing I see differently is the part about the dark haired daughter. I thought when the hit man and the Jerk ex are talking on the phone. The hit man says she’s on the porch talking to someone on the phone. He thought it was the Ex jerk’s wife’s house, but had the wrong house.

  9. Sorry – I just flat out liked this movie. Just saw it at the drive-in and thought it was great. Can’t figure out what holes you guys are talking about as I thot it all fit together well. My friend was all nervous at the beginning, she’s a wimp and found it scary. Yes, it was a bit too blatant that the ex-hubby of the blond neighbor was gonna be a bad guy, but I couldn’t figure out why or how. So that was a surprise to me at the end. If I were to compare it to other movies, it would be Shutter Island (diCaprio) and Others. Only hole I saw in the story was that a guy who had just been released from the psych ward after 5 years would likely NOT look at good as Craig looks without a shirt on! LOL
    Anyway, color me – disagreeing with the popular vote – enjoyed it mucho!

  10. I love the movie but it is too confusing it has a great twist to it and it keeps the watcher watching because if you miss something it will get u set back. Overall it was a good movie i would give it 4 out of 5 stars because, it was a little boring at times, there was little blood in it(that might be good or bad), and it keep the watcher engaged in the movie and they would think about it till’ they know the whole thing that happened.

  11. I think the movie we are watching is based on a book he wrote and that it didnt really happened. Even in the previews I remember Daniel Craig saying “once upon a time…so on and so on” so that indicates that the movie is just a book he wrote which is what we see at the end of the movie.

  12. I am trying to find the audio book to this
    who wrote the book please
    thank you Terry

  13. The darker haired daughter is NOT the killers daughter. Libby did not have an affair. The reason the hitman says he sees the ex on the porch is that he HAS THE WRONG HOUSE. I’m pretty sure thats even in the dialogue.
    You would have to be utterly blind to not notice the mental patients and the employees are the same people. Its part of his fantasy – the chinese woman who takes his office/room is accompanied by burly security guards in the fantasy – probably orderlies. The patients echo their own lines from the ‘job’ fantasy when they ask about his novel and if they’r in it. The ‘non-disclosure agreement’ he signs in the job fantasy is actually his discharge papers.
    For previous commenters to think anything else I have to wonder if we have seen different cuts of the movie? With different scenes/lines?
    The ending of this movie is utterly, laughably appalling. Like a parody of a bad movie ending and I wonder if theres anything significant in it or if it was just tacked on by a studio who wanted to end the movie on an up note. The house burns with almost no smoke, the sickeningly sweet fantasy where he says goodbye to (a very understanding and selfless) ghost wife and children is bad enough but is also impossible. In the time it took the flames never progressed and there’s hardly any smoke – not to mention the convenient explosion just as he was close enough to the door to survive.

    As for the book – I think he originally intended to write about his wife and family. It would be a form of therapy and his line about almost being able to see the characters would make sense. But the reason he doesn’t much progress with the writing until after its all over is that he doesn’t know where to take the book – he cant finish it til he has the whole story.

  14. Did anyone notice that the book in the window at the end had the words “a novel” on the front cover. If Peter Ward’s family really died and he was writing about his life, the cover would have said “an autobiography”. It was fantasy. Peter Ward used some of his own life experiences to develop the idea for the novel. I’m not sure he even had a family. In the Manhattan office a colleague commented that he didn’t even know he had a family. At the end he was still in Manhattan. He is an editor turned novelist, imagining himself in the storyline of the novel.

    • I just watched the movie & i found myself a bit confused. I do know that the ex husband meant for the hitman to kill his ex-wife (blonde lady) because when the ex-husband & the hitman were on the phone, the hitman sed “she’s on the phone probably talking to her young boyfriend.”Peter Ward IS NOT young & is married. Obviously he had the wrong house. She (blonde) lived across the street from the family. He was spose to be looking @ the
      house across 4rm the family which wldve been blondies house. BUT i
      feel that Peter Ward was devastated
      4rm the murders that he went
      insane & the book came 4rm that
      journal he was keeping in the stairs. So the book (i feel) ended up being about wat happened. Then again the beginning of the movie alters my thoughts just a lil, it cldve been a look into what his book was about……..idk

  15. Did anyone notice these few things:
    1) when Peter was following the footsteps in the snow and as he was approaching the room were Libby was in, one scene shows the room as dark and there was a ladder etc… And then it cuts to a scene of Libby in the room but now it is very colorful.

    2) When watching the videos of himself in the asylum he is properly groomed and is wearing some nice clothes. After realizing that Peter was actually him, his hair and clothes was different.

    Overall I liked this movie. I was able to follow the entire movie. It’s not as confusing as some people are saying.

  16. I’m sorry but you’ve all made it sound good. now i want to see it.

  17. O.K. I read all the comments, and you all bring up some good points. I personally think, everything happened to him as it happened in the movie. The neighbors ex husband hired a killer, who went to the wrong house, and he gets blamed for the murder, goes to an asylum, get out and goes back home. Sees his dead family as ghosts and his dead wife’s ghost helps save him from the ex at the end. O.K., that all makes sense. Then we see him walking down the street, seeing his book in the window, with the authors name as Peter Ward. O.K., now I’m confused, and to make me more confused, as the credits roll, Daniel Craig’s character is who? Will Atenton!!!! So, the character is the made up identity? I got the movie up until the credits. It’s the credits that throw me off. If he is a retired book editor who writes a novel, and we don’t see the novel up until the very end, when we see him walk down the street, and see him look at his novel with the authors name as Peter Ward, why is his character name his made up identity? Wouldn’t it be credited as Peter Ward/Will Atenton? with both characters listed? Either it’s bad writing, or, it’s bad credits- because he’s either both characters, Peter Ward who makes up an identity of Will Atenton – or, he’s Peter Ward who wrote a novel in which he creates an alternate identity of Will Atenton. If this is confusing, that’s my point, who is he????? Is he Peter Ward or is he as the credits list, Will Atenton. And, if he is Will Atenton how does the ending with Peter Ward writing the novel, make any sense?

  18. What everyone is missing is the murder journal under the stairs. This “book” was written by a psychotic killer — easily seen by the demonic imagery scribbled over the text. Only Daniel Craig knew where the book was and we see him fetch and rehide it and then at then end as he is leaving the burning house he takes it with him.

    As he is leaving the house the policeman asks if there is anyone inside and he answers no. That’s because there wasn’t anyone (no murderous neighbor or hitman). The business about the neighbor hiring a hitman who kills the wrong people is total fantasy. The business about publishing a book is total fantasy. The business about quitting his job as a high paid editor is total fantasy. Peter Ward (Will Antenon) killed his family and this movie is a journey through his twisted mind as he invents an alternate reality to shield himself from the truth that he did indeed kill his family.

    • Just watched this movie for the first time. Thank you, Mark Century, for the only conclusion that makes complete sense. I agree with everything you said. All of the other comments made me think I was completely off-base.

  19. Ok, I just watched it and here’s what I don’t get:
    1. When the hitman and the blonde woman’s ex (jack, I believe) are on the phone, why does the hitman say ‘ JACKS wife is outside the house/ I’m looking at JACKS wife’ when he’s talking TO JACK. And the hitman must know he’s speaking to jack as jack says something about his wife taking his daughter etc.

    2. Why would he say there’s noone in the house as its burning when the hitman and husband are in there?
    I don’t buy it was fantasy as the blonde woman, Ann, would be freaking out if Peter had tied her up. But also why do they not say anything in order to prove peters innocence? And why does Ann not tell her daughter that her dad is inside?

    It’s like they ran out of money and slapped THE END without explaining anything. The more I think about it the worse I feel the movie is.

  20. WOW! Everyones conclusion is great! Overall you all have totally identified this movie as the true meaning of “Thriller” Thanks for making this movie A Must See!

  21. I’m not sure why there are so many negative comments about the film. I thought it was great! Rather than just dumping these left turns on us (as quite a few films have done lately), this one had subtle hints all through it about what was really going on. Admittedly, there were some strange moments which didn’t make much sense to me (like who that woman was who drove Will home from the train station at the beginning, and why the electricity was on in some parts of the house like the basement, but not others) but overall I found it very well done, and excellently paced.

    As for Will being crazy, I dunno. You do have to take into account that he was shot in the head which could have caused all sorts of damage.

  22. I saw a lot of scenarios close to what I saw — but not spot on. The closest I saw was posted by Kofi. I think the murder of his family drove him insane and he couldn’t make sense out of what happened. But gradually he got to the point where he could work it out. His family was his memory of them, not ghosts. And as he gets closer to the truth about the murder his memory begins to return — culminating in the house fire — where he rescues the original target (again), gets revenge on the murderers of his family, and says goodby to his family (even as he understands they are merely projections of his own mind). Then to make sense of it all — he writes a book (he IS a writer) but since no one would believe the story — called it a novel. What do you think — did we see the same movie???

  23. I just have something bothering me,why the blonde woman daughter ask Peter “My mom told me that you see them” “Did you told them that i miss them? That’s the part that i don’t get yet.

    • She was close to the children, remember it was 5 years ago and lets say she was probably around 10/11 maybe? so she’d play with them sometimes maybe.

      Her mum probably always tried to tell her that peter wasnt guilty but she obviously kept reserved just incase, abit scared of him etc but she grows to see hes a good man.

      she asks him this because she wants some hope too that maybe he does see them, and is simply sayiny, well if you do, say hi from me and i miss them. She is assuming he isnt seeing them in a psychotic but that maybe they are ghosts which still have souls n awareness (which they are)

    • Just for dramatic effect, I’d say.

  24. Right, why are people complicating this so much haha. It’s not a great film really, so unfortunately it’s not got these inside twists n endings youre all routing for

    His family got killed by a hitman that the ex-husband of blonde woman hired- he hated her because bad divorce. However, after peter recieves a bad head injury he becomes slightly dellusional about what happened and forgets and blocks it all out

    Everyone believes he did it, but he didnt and blonde girl always thought he was innocent.

    He is living a double, dellusional life in a way because obviously the house is all nice(ish haha) and bright, no graffiti etc. Even though his fantasy life and real life can inter-cross e.g. the kids in the basement happened..remember lad saying ‘ hes back?’ thats because they saw him and were like omg its peter ward. Also, remember the man in the window and the man tryna run him over, circling his house at night etc…that is blonde-womans ex husband.

    Libby n the kids are actually ghosts in his world though, he can see them probably due to so much love etc. she is also in denial and confused and struggles to see at first that shes dead

    Anyway, ex husband of blonde girl gets angry, goes back and tries to kill her and peter himself and shoots the hitman in anger for screwing it up, in addition to him trying to create a wall of fire to keep him away.

    At the end, he writes about what happened. we dont know if he talks about seeing them as ghosts etc n admits his psychotic ways but explains to people what actually happened. however, it is a novel so maybe he calls it that so he doesnt have to justify what may be to some people, impossible things to have happened e.g. seeing dead people.

    I thought there was going to be some amazing twist. however as it got to 15 mins left i realised it was going to me a medioca and boring ending.

    hope thats helped some people!

  25. OK, SO TO SET THIS STRAIGHT FOR EVERYONE WHO’S SEEN IT AND IS CONFUSED.
    DANIEL CRAIG QUITS HIS JOB AT THE START LOOKING TO DO SOMETHING HES ALWAYS WANTED, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS SETTLE DOWN WITH HIS FAMILY OR IN REALITY, ‘ANY’ FAMILY. AS SOON AS HE LEAVES HIS JOB HE BECOMES A FICTIONAL CHARACTER IN HIS OWN MIND, CREATING A STORY OF EPIC PROPORTIONS IN ORDER TO BE A SUCCESSFUL WRITER. WHICH HE DOES SUCCEED IN AS THE END HAS HIS NOVEL ON THE SHELF, ACCOMPANIED BY THE GRIN OF THE CRAIG, HIS SUCCESS IS IN ANOTHER FIELD OF WORK. NONE OF THE OTHER CHARACTERS EXIST, OR DID IN HIS LIFE AT SOME POINT BUT HE USED THEM AS FICTIONAL CHARACTERS TO CREATE HIS NOVEL. AS WE ALL WOULD IF WE SAT DOWN TO WRITE SOMETHING, HMM WHERE DO I START, OH YEH THIS GUY DID THIS, THIS GIRL DID THIS, IL WRITE ABOUT THAT AS INSPIRATION :D ETC ETC, ULTIMATELY I FEEL THE MESSAGE OF THE MOVIE IS NOT IN LOVE OR IN DEATH, OR IN HORROR OR EVEN MYSTERY, BUT IN THOUGHT, AND THE DELAYS WE AS HUMANS CREATE OURSELVES IN NOT PROGRESSING AND DWELLING ON THE PAST, OR STAYING IN THE SAME JOB. IN THIS CASE DANIEL CRAIGS CHARACTER LEAVES HIS BORING JOB, (OF WHICH THE FIRST SCENE OF HIM STARING OUT THE WINDOW CLEARLY SHOWS HIM IN A STATE OF BOREDOM AT HIS JOB AND LONGING FOR HIS FREEDOM TO BE CREATIVE) ANYONE AGREE WITH ME??? ITS A WAY OF SAYING TO THE WORLD OR VIEWER, TO THOSE WHO ARE CLEVER ENOUGH AND CREATIVE ENOUGH TO FIGURE IT OUT…THAT YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE, SO INSTEAD OF 9-5 CORPORATE SELL OUT JOBS, INDULGE IN SELF FANTASY AND CREATIVITY, FOR WE AS HUMANS ARE NOW ENCAPSULATED IN A WORLD OF THINGS ALREADY SET OUT FOR US, WE HAVE NO PURPOSE TO SERVE, WE ONLY SERVE PURPOSELY. THIS VIEW OF THE FILM CREATES A WHOLE NEW ASPECT AND ACTUALLY MAKES IT A VERY CLEVER FILM. PERHAPS UNDERLINING THE OVERALL DEPRESSION WE AS HUMANS FACE NOW AS CREATING NEW WAYS OF LIFE IS NIGH IMPOSSIBLE. EVERYTHING HAS BEEN DONE, WE ARE CLEVER, AND WILL FIND NEW THINGS, BUT THE MASSES SUFFER IN THE RELATIVITY OF NEGATIVITY AND MUST BE SLAVES TO THE BIG CHEESE WHO KNOWS THE NEXT STEP. OUR SANITY LIES IN OUR CREATIVIY. MIND BLOWN AFTER REALISING THIS INTERPRETATION. LITERALLY GATHERED AS I WAS WRITING AND WISH THERE WAS DEFINITIVE PROOF FROM THE WRITER THAT THIS WAS AN OVERALL MESSAGE TO THE VIEWER. ANY AGREE WITH ME PLEASE WRITE SO INTERESTING…P.S SORRY FOR THE ABSOLUTE ESSAY :))

    • There’s no need to shout! :-)

  26. ACTUALLY FACT: The blondie(jack’s ex wife) was never tied up…jack and no killer was actually there…remember during jacks flashback the hired killer tells jack, jack’s wife is on the phone..why will he say that?…all this is fantasy…no blondie, no libby, no Lil daughters, no peter ward..just will atenton(Daniel craig)…hence after the movie Daniel Craigs character is acknowledged as will atenton..in my humble opinion this movie is a work of genius and probably went over the heads of the actors as well lol

  27. What most (if not all of you) seem to have missed from comment is the opening scene which explains the entire plot.

    Will is seen resigning from his day job as an editor in the city to pursue a career as a novelist, he then goes home to give the good news to his wife. WRONG! This is Peter’s fantasy, the reality is he is being discharged from the mental hospital. The last person Will hugs and says goodbye to is the old grey haired lady who reappears as the psychiatrist.

    In fact, all of the office workers are seem again as patients or staff when he returns. One even asks him how the book is going.

    It also explains why the killer follows him off the train, he is under surveillance, he is a key witness in a murder after all, if he regains his sanity, two people go to jail, the jealous husband of Ann and the hired killer.

    Once you get that, the rest of the plot falls into place. Most of the time we seen him as he sees himself in the fantasy, we see him as clean cut, well dressed and blonde hair combed to one side, until he starts to doubt his own version of events, when reviewing the CCTV footage of himself. The head injury that contributed to his memory loss, starts to hurt and his insane fantasy starts to unravel and then we seen him as the released patient, dishevelled, combed back hair, grubby clothes etc.

    He goes to see the psychiatrist that ann gives him the business card to.

    Clearly, he is regaining his memory and his fantasy is fading, Ann is helping him, as is Ann’s daughter. The ex husband can see this and decides to kill his wife and the only surviving witnesses to the first murder.

    Personally, I thought it was a great movie that kept moving and I am surprised that Daniel Craig and Rachel Weisz didn’t like the final cut. I had the benefit of NOT watching the trailer though, so the twists and unravelling of the story were enthralling.

  28. Colin that’s a good assessment but it’s not entirely true..please explain why the movie lists Daniel craigs character as will atenton. The fact he wasn’t listed as peter ward to me indicates the entire movie was infact will atentons novel fantasy. So the only thing real in the movie is the fact Daniel craig wrote a novel and the only mistake in the movie script is that the novels author shouldve been will atenton not peter ward.

    • Hi Vince. I take your point but: the beauty and problem of artistic licence is that it sometimes fails to be logical or consistent.

      Firstly, Will Atenton was his first and main character and the name Peter ward himself changed to. Credits could have given either name or both and it wouldn’t prove, beyond doubt, anything to my mind.

      Secondly, you could be right about it all being a novel, but whose to say that the last scene was real life, it could have been the last chapter of Will’s book where his hero Peter Ward writes a novel. A novel about a novel being written. That way everything is the enactment of Will’s novel apart from the opening scene. This is the only interpretation that wholly could be true possibly.

      So to my mind the opening scene tells all. If that was real life, then Will went off to write a novel and everything from then, including the last scene, is part of the novel.

      If the first scene was fantasy, then he was really a mental patient being discharged from GPH hospital but convinced in his own mind that he was an editor at GPH publishing resigning to write a novel.

      Take your pick I guess!

  29. Peter Ward could have been a pseudonym.

Be Social, Follow Us!!