The beginning of Bird Box is gripping. The idea of a visual essence capable of adversely affecting a person's mind is truly frightening. It recalls David Langford's short story BLIT and the concept of the 'basilisk', an image containing patterns that effectively crash the human brain.

The suspense is here, the possibilities are here.

Sadly - and this is the movie's biggest crime - the potential is wasted. The frightful idea is reduced to a monster without substance. And I don't mean physical substance. The monsters need to a have an unconscious meaning for the story to work. And the decision to actually show or not to show them is irrelevant. Mallory's inner struggle to connect with others simply isn't enough to give life to the beings.

Maybe there's some deeper symbolism here that would tie things together, but I can't find it. There are some attempts at substance in the theme of parenthood in a new and hostile environment where the rules have changed. It's precisely the same thing A Quiet Place did, only worse. The only interesting thing is this particular meta-narrative that keeps popping up in contemporary stories.

Ultimately Bird Box boils down to a group of survivors weathering a storm. It explores their relationships instead of the motives and nature of the beings. Many questions are left open, and not in the way an open mystery is used to let the viewer's imagination play a part in the experience.

Why can't the monsters come indoors? They are seemingly unable to cause direct physical harm, so why would anyone run away? Why neuter the threat like this, only to bring other people - the 'crazy ones' - to be the actual physical danger. This reeks of writers trying to patch up the limitations they've created themselves.

And finally, why exactly is the sanctuary a sanctuary? While they cannot be harmed by the beings, how are the blind any match to the crazy ones?

The form of the movie is problematic as well. For one, the movie is too long. The inter-cutting flashbacks quell all suspense. Eventually the movie starts repeating scenes only to underestimate viewers. One quickly loses connection and the emotions no longer come through. The ending falls flat.

It's easy to turn this into a critique of Hollywood movie makers trying not to exclude anyone. The main guideline still seems to be: movies cannot be too smart or too vague or they will alienate potential paying customers. Even Alex Garland's brilliant Annihilation stumbled when forced to explain itself.