Sinister. You would think with a title like that I'd have known better, but the premise hooked and reeled me in . . .
Washed-up true-crime writer Ellison Oswalt finds a box of super 8 home movies that suggest the murder he is currently researching is the work of a serial killer whose work dates back to the 1960s.
Writer. Researching. Mystery. Hmm. It had potential . . . until the very end. This may or may not be a spoiler, so if you're going to watch this one, quit reading now.
Still there? Oh yeah, I should also let those of you who are squeamish know that you don't need to panic -- I'll spare you the gory details.
Now then, here's what riled me up: evil won. The hero did not escape. All was lost. There was absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever. The wicked Satanic villain walked away the victor. Yeah, I know there are people out there who don't have a problem with that, but I do and here's why: that's a big, fat lie, folks.
And I hate being lied to.
Evil cannot win -- ever -- in story or in life because good killed it 2000 years ago on a cross. Evil has boundaries that are kept by God. Writers who cross that boundary by allowing evil to win are fundamentally shaking a fist in God's face.
But does having good win every time make stories too predictable? I'd argue not because every writer's voice is different. And good takes on many forms, too many to predict which outcome will end a story.
I'm still turning this whole idea around in my mind, so there will likely be a few more posts on this in the future. In the mean time, feel free to share any of your thoughts in the comment section, even if you disagree.