a review by the Crow.



Warning: This will be long.

After coming across the lovely /r/horrorreviewed subreddit (which The Corvid Review has already staked as one of our many home-grounds away from home), I was immediately recommended The Blackcoat’s Daughter. And I’ve spent a good while since I watched it trying to piece it all out.

This is the movie, explained:


The Blackcoat’s Daughter is a movie that has had a strange and troubled release history. Here’s what the summary of its troubles on the Wiki states:

The film had its world premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 12, 2015. Shortly after, A24 Films and DirecTV Cinema acquired U.S. distribution rights to the film. The Canadian distribution rights were then acquired by ABMO Films. The film had its U.S. premiere at the Fantastic Fest on September 24, 2015. In November 2015, it was announced that the film had sold to various international territories at the AFM including the U.K, France, Australia, New Zealand, Latin America, Poland, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Middle East. The film was re-titled from February to The Blackcoat’s Daughter. The film was scheduled to be released DirecTV Cinema on July 14, 2016. But was pushed back to August 25, 2016, before opening in a limited release on September 30. The film was then pulled from the scheduled and pushed back to an undisclosed 2017 date.

Now, you might remember the name A24 FIlms as the same company who distributed Green Room earlier this year (e: 2016).

With a trailer dropping for a (hopefully) wide release of the movie recently, what better time than now to cut ahead and take a look at this odd gem of horror cinema?


On my first viewing, I must say I quite liked the movie. But there was something about it that necessitated a second viewing. This is a movie that throws out questions which seem to warrant explanations, and there seem to be few full explanations out there on the net (that I’ve found, anyway); and so, I’m going to present to you my personal – unadulterated – take on the movie.

For those of you who’ve not watched the movie, I’ll leave the “Plot” section spoiler-free; and the analysis will effectively be a full-spoiler section (I’ll leave a click-skip to the next section for those of you who don’t want to be spoiled).

As for the “Characters” section that occasionally appears on our reviews, I’ll instead be talking about the “Actors” involved (apt; considering I’ve not seen most of the people in this movie ever before) in the “Execution” section.

So, without waiting for the snow to pile up, let this crow take you under his blackwing and tell you all about this movie.





The movie opens with an interesting establishing scene: we see Kat (Kiernan Shipka) asleep, having dreams of walking out into the snowy “outside”, her fingers twitching in bed as she approaches a mangled car (an unknown figure in a black coat walking alongside her). She says: “Mommy…?” and the scene cuts to black.

It’s revealed that Kat stays at a Catholic girls’ boarding school, and is waiting on her parents to arrive and pick her up for an upcoming holiday. She visits Father Brien (one of the heads of the school), and they share a short conversation. The Blackcoat’s Daughter is one of those movies which handles certain key scenes a bit too subtly; and this scene, in particular, is one I’d like to draw people’s attention to. The first time I watched it, it was late, and I wasn’t really running at full speed. I’d completely missed all the little touches going on, here.


Rose (Lucy Boynton) is another girl stuck at the school; only she is there by choice. She is afraid she might be pregnant by her secret boyfriend, and has told her own parents that the holidays begin later. The two girls are left to two chaperones – two stern-looking nun-types, since both Father Brien and the headmaster Mr Gordon will be leaving the school as well. They fail to adequately bond, and it’s when the two girls are left alone in the school for the following few days, that (for lack of a better word:) sinister things begin to happen.

The movie skips around with time a little, and following the story so far, we enter the second plot-line. But, for the sake of keeping this review a little more clear than the movie itself on a sleepy-night first viewing, I’ll stick to this first plot-line a little longer.

Following a night out with her secret boyfriend, during which Rose reveals to him she might be pregnant, Rose returns to the school. During her short absence, Kat has been through her things (against Rose’s instructions), and presumably picked up the payphone ringing in the hallway.

When Rose returns, there is no sign of Kat. However, once in the bathroom, she hears strange sounds coming through the heaters. She (like a child who’s never seen a horror movie in her life), heads down to the boiler room to check.

And what does she see? Kat vigorously prostrating herself over and over again to the boiler (see the header image).


In the second plot-line, we follow Joan (Emma Roberts) as she makes her way towards Bramford (where the school is), stopping at a bus station on the way. Bill (James Remar!) stops by her and offers her a lift. Immediately, he comes off as a nice guy; almost too nice to be true, and Joan tells him she’s headed to the next town over from Bramford.

She travels with them until they reach a hotel, where she catches some sleep. Waking up, she takes a shower, during which we start seeing the first of our “flashbacks”. I won’t go into too much detail about these flashbacks, but on a first viewing, they carry hints of her past (especially when matched with the scar we see on either side of her left shoulder).

Bill intrudes upon her (and I use that word pointedly). While the man has nothing but good intentions, his intrusion upon her post-shower is almost creepy, especially during the bits where he talks about religion with her while she’s in nothing but a towel. He invites her to an early breakfast at a close-by restaurant. While there, he shows her a photo of the person he’s mentioned she reminds him of: his daughter.

This kicks off an interesting revelation, and from there, both of our plot-lines are destined to a collision course that runs us to the climax of the movie.





Click here to skip to the next section.

This was going to be a really, really long section; but since it’s been over a month since I first drafted it, I realised I should probably hold back on some parts here and there. This won’t be a 100% explanation, but it will still explain what the movie is trying to be.

Remember that interesting establishing sequence I mentioned? Let’s break it down play-by-play. When we first see Kat, before her dreaming, this is how she’s sleeping:


Notice her hands. What do they look like they’re doing? Looks like the hands of someone praying, don’t they? After a shot of the snowy “outside”, we cut to her on her side, one arm (her right) over the edge of the bed, and someone passes between her and the camera. The twitching begins, and she gets up to look at this person. She says: “Daddy, you came early.”

When she steps outside, the scene cuts between her wandering into the open space, her sleeping with her hands changing position, and her walking alongside this person who’d come into her room (wearing a black coat and scarf). Finally, she is shown the mangled car (see the image above). She says: “Mommy…?” and the scene cuts to black.

Why am I going over the scene in such detail? The answer is: I think it’s an incredible opening sequence. A lot of what happens in the movie is summarised in this first minute and a half. As I continue with this analysis, those clues will come to light.


Just some time later, Kat goes and sees Father Brien. During this scene, she keeps looking off to the side, and she eventually smiles in the direction, which picks at Father Brien’s interest. The connection Kat has to Father Brien is hinted at as being special, somehow. And I propose that this short moment of her smiling off to the side hints at one very important detail of the movie’s plot.

I could go over each scene like this; but hey: I’m not writing a book. Now that I’ve covered what I think are the two most important scenes to unravelling the movie’s secrets, let’s go over what the movie’s trying to be.

This is a movie after fathers and daughters, yes. However, it is also a movie about Christianity (and by extension: Atheism), mental-illness, and finally: it is a movie about shifting loyalty.

To be very blunt: this is a movie about a girl (Kat) starting off from a very conservative background (she cannot check her “cellular phone” when Mr Gordon asks her if she’s checked it, because she’s waiting until her next birthday), and becoming “seduced” by the devil.

That seems pretty simple, but the movie doesn’t stop there. She has foreknowledge that her parents are dead, as shown to her by the man who takes her out to see the mangled car (her “dad”). This man has been in contact with her for some time, appearing to Kat as if her father (or accepted by Kat as her father). This is the same man – I propose – who is standing behind Rose, looking at Kat, when Rose is trying to scare Kat with stories of how the nuns at the school are actually devil worshippers before she leaves to meet with her boyfriend early in the movie (pictured below; look in the corner).


Hey! It’s a giant bunny-wabbit!

But no. It isn’t at all. No. Not one bit. Nope. Nada. That is no bunny rabbit. Now: say you take a man, wearing a heavy black coat, a scarf around his neck, and presumably a hood or hat of some form. Then, you focus onto something in the foreground so that it blurs out. Now, he’d look a bit of a blob too, wouldn’t he? I guess I don’t have to explain much about the “ears”, then. Ears, those are not.

This, I say, is the same person speaking to Kat over the phone on occasion. This is the stereotypical depiction of demons (and the devil himself). In a way, Kat is coming to the realisation that the person she calls “daddy” in her dreams is Satan himself (or one of his ilk).

From here, we have two options: One: this is about full-blown mental illness. Kat is just broken (the flashes of the mental institute we see now-and-again serve as definitive proof that she is considered severely mentally ill); and Two: this is about a child falling prey to the wiles of the left hand path (and I therefore wonder if the first position we see her hands in after she’s in “prayer” whilst asleep is all that accidental).

The only clue that points to the reality being the second option is the foreknowledge Kat has of her parents’ death. However, this can be answered! Near the beginning, we see Kat leaving a message to her dad (her real one) over the phone about his upcoming visit. Her so-called “foreknowledge” can therefore be chalked up to supposition following her hallucinations.


Rose exists only to serve as a contrast to Kat. She is a rebellious girl who ends up staying on the straight path, and even becomes more comfortable with the awkwardness of the nuns as Kat deteriorates. Every little detail in the movie serves to show Kat’s descent into insanity. When she goes into Rose’s room, the first thing she does is check her brush for hair. This immediately follows Rose’s story of how the nuns are devil-worshippers and have no real hair on their bodies. Her expression following this tells us a lot about her mental state.

In the end, the “rampage” Kat goes on is justified in her disappointment in Rose and the nuns for not being what she has supposed them to be – worshippers of her “father’s ilk” – and therefore, they must be offered as lambs to him.

During her “exorcism” by Father Brien, she looks to the rabbity-figure and whsipers: “Don’t go.”. But the figure turns and leaves her. And after this scene (when she finds it next), the boiler has gone out.

And just look at the man she’s accepted as her father in his appearance during the exorcism scene:


To conclude: This is a movie about mental illness. No more. And it’s a very good one at that. While it’s not the best movie in the world, and I pushed myself to find meaning in it, what I’ve found has been nothing short of amazing. A little caveat I’d like to mention is that Mr Gordon (who I’ve been calling “Mr G” until I looked the movie up to help me conclude this review on this second drafting) can be seen as an allegory for the Christian god. Usually, the “good guys” in these conflicts are quite useless, and Mr Gordon and Father Brien are adequately so.

The final scenes showing Kat’s reaction to being (to her) abandoned by her father, despite her multiple offerings to him to buy herself into love; and her reaction (to us) at having both lost all semblance of sanity, and taken a hit to her faith.

With that, I hope I’ve managed to present the truth of the movie to you without much fuss (despite being so long-winded). I’ve left out key spoilers for those of you who might have not seen the movie, but for those of you who have, I’m sure I’ve left all you need to know in.



The Blackcoat’s Daughter could certainly have been edited better. It’s not too bad, but it’s a touch messy. The movie, while amazingly subtle for the keen-eyed repeat viewer, isn’t going to draw in new audiences as effectively, and will leave people with questions they might not care enough to look for the answers for.

I initially (following my second viewing; when the first draft of this review was written) thought this might be a movie steeped only towards the religious reading of it. And that’s no problem as long as the universe the movie exists in agrees with it. On my latest, third, viewing, I realise that there’s a further level to it (analysing a movie always brings the best out of it, I find), and am actually moving my rating for this movie up a whole point thanks to it.

Far as the actors go, the men (Bill, Mr Gordon, and Father Brien) are all quite good in their roles, and the supporting cast do their jobs well. As far as our main three actresses go, they are each amazing in their parts.


Kiernan Shipka as Kat steals the show. It might just be good directing, but every nuanced motion she performs has a point to it. I’ve never seen her ever before, and I’m honestly blown away. Lucy Boynton and Emma Roberts are both just as good, but don’t quite steal the show like she does.

A bit more emphasis on which plot-line we’re following would also have been nice for the benefit of first time viewers.

The movie’s twist (if it can be called such) is quite nice, but I instantly knew what it would be within minutes of the second plotline’s introduction. I think, however, that it’s fine as it is. It’s important to point out here that the movie doesn’t rely on the twist; just as it doesn’t rely on jump-scares.

I counted maybe four moments in the movie which qualify as jump-scares, and only one that really has any real punch. And I love it. The movie – thanks to its lack of reliance on the twist and shock-value – works in the vein of terror, which is by far the superior sibling when compared to horror. It’s far from perfect, but by heck is this one of the best efforts I’ve seen in some time.

The Blackcoat’s Daughter is Oz Perkins’ (the son of the late, great, Anthony “Norman Bates” Perkins) directorial debut, and is also written by him. Elvis Perkins, his brother, also serves in the movie to provide the music (a complete surprise when the credits rolled). The two have made another movie (for Netflix, nonetheless) in 2016, and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t interested.



The Blackcoat’s Daughter is a fine movie. It comes highly recommended far as I’m concerned, but maybe it’s not for the casual viewer if they come across it without any clue as to what it is.

I’m very happy I was recommended this movie (and a little surprised I stuck through with it), and I credit those who told me so much about it as well. Again: hopefully I’ve cleared up some of the confusion regarding the movie to you, and I’d like to know what your thoughts on the movie were. If you have a different take on what unfolds in the movie, please let me know in the comments, I’d be highly interested to know how you viewed it!

And now, for the final rating:



The Blackcoat’s Daughter, by our friends at /r/horrorreviewed.

40 thoughts on “ Review / Analysis (& Answers!): February / The Blackcoat’s Daughter [2015] ”

  1. I think it works better as a demonic possession film, although it works well as a portrait of mental illness, too. I would think that mental illness wouldn’t really show a change in her from an exorcism. If it’s a possession of some sort, it explains how she knew her parents were dead, why she blankly went through the action of crossing off the days until her parents were supposed to arrive–she knew they wouldn’t be. Also explains her awkward phone call to her dad, she knew already her father wouldn’t be hearing her message but had to act out the part of calling him to satisfy the nurses left in charge.

    It would also explain seeing her bend her body backwards and her raising a bit from the bed as the exorcism was performed. Her pained anguish at the very end at realizing she wouldn’t be having her “daddy” back with her again was haunting…might be the first movie where the possessed wanted to be re-possessed again; where the victim preferred it.

    And you said you instantly knew the twist within moments of the 2nd plotline’s introduction? You knew the 2nd plotline occurred almost 10 years in the future from the 1st plotline The only thing I had figured out (or assumed) was that the couple were probably either Kat’s parents or Rose’s parents. I had actually thought Joan may be the girl who graduated 3 years earlier and had supposedly walked in on the nurses worshiping the devil (might explain her apparent time in a mental ward).

    Also, didn’t see you mention this but the sound and score for this movie were phenomenal.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Somehow, I missed this. So sorry I didn’t see this before.
      I think the movie works both ways. However, I still interpret it (and lean very much towards the side of the film) as being more strongly on the side of being a mental illness scenario.

      To address your points (and I haven’t seen or thought about this movie for some time, so I might be a little shaky): I think she already knew her parents were dead. And I think the phone call was just her ‘acting things out’.

      Now, you’ve got a point with the bending backwards scene. I think that it was so obviously shot in reverse that it might’ve just been a red herring. As for her rising from the bed scene, again, I think that because we’re seeing the scene from afar (as in not by direct experience), this could again be fudged and be more of the same.

      All of that said, you could very much be right. But that’s pretty much why I enjoyed the movie. It causes this sort of conversation. And that’s what all good art does.

      As for me knowing, I didn’t of course know for certain at the time. But I guessed right. I was talking to someone who’d seen the movie before and I just sort-of blabbed out the right thing. It’s something that comes from my mum. She loves playing detective, and it’s sort-of passed on to me. I was at the time perhaps 60% convinced, and just happened to get it right. Now, I didn’t know how far in the future or not it was, but it was something about the casting choices, and the way both Shipka and Roberts seemed to have a common thread that pipped me. I did, at one point, thing the same thing you said, though. I did think that perhaps I was wrong and that it was Kat’s missing parents. But the moment the photograph showed up, that was out the window.

      I did mention the sound/score elsewhere (probably still somewhere on Reddit), but I left it out of this post. I find the lyrics to the intro song quite intriguing, but apparently it never showed up in the original release, so until the movie actually releases and we find out what changes are made, I don’t want to really go into it.

      I’d be more than happy to hear any more opinions or arguments you have in this regard.

      And again: apologies because I’ve just found this comment at an awkward time, and that it’s taken so long for me to get back to you.

      Thanks for your interesting reply! I love comments like this!

      And again: sorry.


  2. I liked your review. And I agree with almost all your thoughts about it except the ending. I understand her new crimes like a way for Kat to make her demon -it could be real or her allucintions, either way she doesn’t know the difference- back and it did. It seems because of her sobbing that she realizes that he won’t appear but the way she stops sobbing and look at the end, the way she stares it seems as she saw/discover something. What do you think?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. First of all: thanks for the kind words!

      You’ve got an interesting way of looking at the ending (and Kat’s perspective at that moment). I haven’t seen the movie in some time, but when I get another chance to watch it (which I intend to do within two weeks or so, now that it’s actually out and I can easily access it).

      I don’t think I noticed anything out of the ordinary about the ending so far, but I’ll keep an eye out for it this time and get back to you. You might very well be on to something!

      And thanks for the insightful comment!


  3. Really great review. There are only a few movies and TV shows that I feel deserve a deep dive into analysis and this was one of them. I especially liked that you touched on the relationship between Father Brien and Kat because I felt like I was reading too much into that scene and got nowhere with it.
    One lingering question that I still have, did you catch what was heaped at the bottom of the stairs by the door? It is after Rose leaves the bathroom in her robe. She goes towards the stairs but then sees whatever it is in the stairwell, turns away in terror, and then returns to the hallway, which is where she finds her fate. It looked like old rags to me and I didn’t understand what was so scary about it to Rose.
    Thank you for helping me out!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Father Brien and Kat definitely had some undercurrent between them. I actually had a bit of a deduction about it, but decided to leave it out of this review since I’m not 100% about it (and honestly, it would change a LOT of things).

      Okay, I remember the scene, but not in clear detail. I’ll tell you what, I’ll give the movie another watch over the weekend and let you know what I think it is.


  4. Good movie, nice review, although I thought it would need a couple of things more spelled out. You’re giving a lot of hints, but often I thought “hey, I would love to hear more.”. Well, maybe time for a second viewing.

    I had the weird feeling in the movie that there is something more between Mr Gordon and Kat, but I couldn’t get it right. There is a usual suspicion I have in such cases, but … I don’t know. Maybe I have just a filthy mind. The exorcism was remarkable, though. It begins with a scene, when Mr Gordon stands next to her bed and tells her, that she will leave this place. He actually tells her “you are not wanted here”. The scene is interrupted and will continue later with the exorcism. But the interruption itself is interesting. Who did he talk to? The girl or the demon. The exorcism afterwards implicated it was the demon, but did this scene actually happen in the real world or is it just her mind in protective mode. Did he talk to the girl and her mind made stuff up because she could not face the rejection, or did it really happen, because he is a religious lunatic, who thinks she killing people is just because of the devil inside her…? Did he get the cop’s statement, what she whispered when she got shot? Or did he just think that such things always have the devil inside them? Maybe he talked to the girl, that she is not wanted here, of course, since she just killed a bunch of people. And afterwards he exorcised the demon nevertheless. There are so many possibilities. And I cannot continue to think about that in a productive way when I don’t know whats the actual relationship between them. Any clue? You’re giving hints! 😉

    But her making stuff up could explain the one unexplainable thing for me. That’s the bed movement. That is not humanly possible. What IS possible is that the whole sequence is more about how she feel in this moment. Then again … wouldn’t be a good director’s job to cheat on the audience that way. I don’t have a problem with anything else. The boiler movement is humany possible, the raising from the bed during the exorcism as well, since we see only parts of her body and on the other hand I am not even sure the whole thing happened.

    Different topic, you talked about that above me:

    The ending is maybe interesting, maybe not. She’s sobbing a lot, then she calms down. I see the scene right now and there is that moment the sobbing stops and then she looks up for a second. That CAN mean, that she sees something, but maybe she doesn’t. I think the movie lets it open. Does she see the demon, does she just calm down and stare into nothingness? We cannot know and it depends on how we saw the movie. On the other hand… there is a reason why the director wants us to see this moment. Well, unless he is cheating again.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. So, it turns out that my partner-in-crime had been approving comments, which led to my missing a ton.
      Sorry for the delay.

      Just a point I’d like to make off the bat: I believe you’re talking about Father Brien, not Gordon. I don’t think it’s just your having a filthy mind. I was of the opinion that there might be something going on as well, but I didn’t have any evidence to know what it was exactly. It might just be Kat seeing Father Brien as a surrogate ‘father figure’, but their dialogue and connection is quite suggestive. I’m putting it down to the director being deliberately ambiguous with what he’s showing us.

      I really hope you’ve got email notifications turned on, because — as I told another person in comments I would do — I really need to watch this movie again before I continue to theorise. It’s been a while, and I haven’t been able to get around to it.

      One little touch, though. The “bed movement”, I feel, was quite a deliberate misdirection, although I’ll have to read my own post after watching the movie to better know what I think of it 😛

      Thanks for the comment!


      1. Got an email 😉

        Yes, you’re right. I am confusing Brian/Gordon.

        My personal suspicion was, that they had something sexual going on. But when thinking about it… not necessarily. She was expecting him to behave in a certain way towards her, like she was special. But if she sees him as a kind of surrogate father, then that’s enough for me. If that holds true, I see when/if watching the movie again.

        The whole concept is actually a great idea, if we agree that this is a psychological story hidden in an appearent demonic-possession-cliché-movie. I don’t remember, when I first thought this was just about mental problems. The rejections of the father, telling her she has to go were like a slap into my face. The demon moving away from her. She telling her classmate that “she had her chance”. That was all a bit too weird. And the classical “hey, it’s a demon, that scene here proves it!” was missing (the bed-movement being the only exception).

        So much did not add up, that I started looking for answers and ended up here. The question is… is it too subtle or just right. It’s actually a real horror movie. For me far more than if it was a demon.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I will admit that the thought did cross my mind as well, but I’m more leaning towards the surrogate father angle, overall.

          I do strongly think this movie’s more about the psychological than the supernatural. I’m pretty sure I started picking up on the psychological angle during my first watch of the movie, but I can’t be sure.

          I think it’s just right in terms of the director and the rest of the team leaving the story open to debate.

          And yes: I agree that it works better for me personally with a psychological reading of the plot. I’ve in the past wondered if I should reach out to someone who worked behind the scenes on this production and pick their brains a bit.

          And on a side note: I’m happy that this review shows up as high on search results as it does. We’re doing *something* right, after all.


  5. My take is that the entirety of the movie is about this one girl’s psychotic break around being abandoned by her father, and her attempts to replace him with various patriarchal avenues that fail her. First, the Church, but Father Brien is leaving for vacation too. Then, Authority, but Headmaster Gordon also leaves, and moreover tells her she “can’t live here,” a line she focuses on. Eventually she succumbs to “Satan,” as the only father she has left, and Joan’s arc is her attempt to reconnect to her estranged “father.”
    I like the other commentor’s suspicion that the only real parts of what Father Brien said to her in the hospital were the rejections, and the rest was her mind’s defense mechanisms.
    I also wonder if her mother definitely *did* die in a car accident, and she knew because her (real) father actually told her on the phone, but he had previously abandoned her and so wasn’t coming to retrieve her. His voice was distorted on the phone because that is just how she heard voices (like Rose’s) when she was having an hallucination. And that’s why Gordon and the Sheriff were coming at the end – to tell her the news she already knew about her mother.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. There’s one particular scene that (I think) you overlooked, one more that contributes to demonic possession After she blasphemes during grace (or just mocks it, I can’t recall exactly which it was), and proceeds to throw up, whilst the nuns are checking her out, Kat says “Get your hands off of me, c*nt”. C*nt is verbalized by two distinct voices. The nuns and Rose are all mortified. I took this as they all heard the voices, buuuuuut, on the other hand, nun 2 responds with “You should be ashamed of yourself”; something she probably wouldn’t say to someone without control of all their mental facilities. But then, why would Kat just hear her own voice like that when she clearly sees blackcoat at a seperate entity? BTW, loved your review/analysis and sorry for being a taaaad late to the party.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I can’t remember to hear 2 voices, watched the movie too long ago. But it’s a good catch.

    The fact that the nuns react in that way shows that they don’t hear a second voice. Otherweise they would have reacted differently. Something more like running, screaming, praying. So, when we hear a second voice, we can assume now that it’s the girl’s internal perception we get, and not the physical world, right?

    So. SHE is hearing that voice. No one else (but us).

    It doesn’t give prove in either direction though. Whether the nuns hear the second voice or not, it might still be real, because it might be only Kat and us hearing that real voice of the demon. She can feel it and the director let’s us know it exists. A common thing in horror movies. On the other hand it might still be just her imagination. Maybe she just feels the entity in her or uses it as a scapegoat. It’s even possible, that she really HEARS the voice herself. It’s actually the brain that hears anyway, the ears are just slaves.

    / But then, why would Kat just hear her own voice like that when she clearly sees blackcoat at a seperate entity?

    I dont see a contradiction. She can see an outside force moving around the room and after accepting it, she can feel it. The thing can be real or unreal, in both cases she feels the same.

    There is only one solution. Just to be safe… burn the witch! 😉

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I hear you, it does work on both levels, damn near everything in this film does, that’s part of it’s charm; it caters to both sides without fully, undoubtedly commiting to either side. Either way, I love the Perkins’ work. “Pretty thing” was great as well, hope to see more from these guys in the future. Cheers!

      Liked by 1 person

  8. I think it’s the original concept of this movie and it is done well. I say that we will never have any indication what the solution is, unless the director made a mistake.

    This is something I experienced once. Does anyone know “Life on Mars?” That is a BBC-Series (forget the US Version, that has a different ending and different idea). This series was about a cop from 2005 having a car accident and falling into a coma. While being in coma he “lives” in the 70s. Well, everything is different there, like on a different planet, hence the title of the show. The concept is now, that this cop does not know if he is from the 70s and insane, or from 2005 and in a coma. Beautifully done. Without spoilering too much, they leave it open as well. But they made a mistake and I have found it. I also think, that they didn’t think of it, so it’s worthless knowledge. But I have found it nevertheless! 😉

    I like this concept, whether it’s about virtual realities, different dimensions, dreams or insanity. You don’t leave the movie after seen it, it stays with you and you think about it from time to time. IF it is done well. This movie is.


    1. Agreed, whole heartedly. My “Life on Mars” is “Jacob’s Ladder”. I’ve watched it countless times,and have interpreted it differently almost as many times. I don’t go out and search for the one difinitive explanation for it, quite simply because I don’t want to know. It’s one of my favorite Psych movies of all time, all of my theories support the movie in every aspect, so, I wanna leave it a bit mysterious….speaking of JL, haven’t watched it in a while, think I’ll throw it on, lol. Cheers!

      Liked by 1 person

  9. I think it’s the mental illness grown from molestation at the hands of the priest. I think he was molesting Kat at the school (see: initial meeting with priest, Kat stating Rose had a chance to save her but was too late, coming to see her recital, “exorcising” her). I also think he was molesting Joan in a different area (see: referencing Albany in detail which was 4ish hours away and perhaps roughly the same amount of time taken to drive Joan from where she was pickup up by Bill to the school, also in the motel it appears as though there is a subtext of of a moment of the precipice of crossing into a sexual interaction)
    The fact that the parents aren’t coming to pick them up may be due to the fact that Kat has killed them for the indiscretions.
    The nuns, I believe, were killed because they were worshipping the priest, as nuns are know to do, and perhaps turned a blind eye to the actions of the priest.
    When Bill’s wife talks about how he says it to lots of girls that he sees his daughter in them but it’s not really true, could be taken as his molestation form.
    I really think the demonic idea is a red-herring. It’s so secondary that it could not realistically be called the centrepiece of the movie. It’s the human relationships and interactions here which are the primary focus. IMO

    Liked by 1 person

  10. I’ve read all the theories, but am still in the dark who joan is… she an older kat? Was Kat sent to a mental institution? And later went back to look for her demon? And how coincidental she ran into Roses’s parents…I need closure lol. Possibly one of the most baffling movies I’ve seen lately. I have my own theories but I think most have been covered, so this is just a simple question.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. However did I miss the fact that I never replied to this comment?

      It’s been a while since I last watched the movie, but yes. Joan is Kat, grown up. Kat was indeed sent to a mental institution, and the way I see it in my mind is that the night she runs into Rose’s parents might have been an anniversary of her death, but I can’t be sure on this last point. I don’t think Joan expected to run into them, but all the better for her boiler-father.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s