So, I don’t know what the rest of you thought. I for one think that the scrunt is a reference to Satan. And the more I have thought about the latest Shyamalan, the more I am thinking about how it seems to show a wisdom of man that fails, and is replaced by something that makes no sense to us, but it does work. I am refering to the film critic. At first I thought he was just an obvious joke, placed there by Shyamalan, who probably harbors no love for them. Then in the movie I thought he was the guardian. After his demise I deduced he was not. Later on I realized that his death was a turning point in the movie. I first want to say that I am not touching the greater purpose of the characters, or the narf, or anyting else with ten foot pole. I just want to point out this. At first, Giamatti goes to the movie critic for help. Who knows stories better? But the critic leads him to the wrong people for the roles he needs. The movie critic leads him to what he has always seen, and it fails. It is shown to be defeated even more so by the demise of the movie critic. He sees the scrunt, sees it finally for what it is, but does not recognize it. Instead he explains it away, and decides it is not a threat. It seems a lot like Pagans when they are confronted by their helpless estate. They explain it away, “after all there has been no nudity or drugs before; past experiecne shows that I will be okay, and will be rewarded for my mediocrity since I have done nothing truly deserving of death.” But the critic is eaten, and Giamatti turns to a different group of helpers. I think that this is the other point. The people that he turns to are not those who we would think of. They were a crew of misfits who were introduced as misfits. Much like the wisdom of the world would tell us to scorn those who Christ reached out to. Thoughts?