Intriguing for the first hour, "Take Shelter" falls into a repetitive doldrum of doubt for about 45 minutes and dream sequences fail to shock after the eighth or ninth one rolls off the protagonist's sweaty pillow. The film finally picks up speed again during a party confrontation (the best scene in the movie) and then is relatively tense until the end. The problem is the film double crosses itself with cleverness and the result is an unsatisfying resolution instead of an apocalyptically dramatic one. If you buy into the "rational" reason for the protagonist's behavior the film's ending, while emotionally dramatic, winds down effectively, although all the intrigue that was previous setup seems let down. But there would be little point to all that has been going on without that "big" payoff and so it finally appears. Unfortunately, when it does, it proceeds to wipe out all the poignancy that the "rational" ending had, and makes the "Hollywood" twist ending feel like a phony, after-the-fact addition, cheapening all that has been already resolved. Instead of surprising the viewer (How could it? Who wasn't anticipating that "big" ending?) it feels more like an attempt to satiate disappointed popcorn-movie viewers. Meant to be delivered as a one-two punch, it's a weak climax because the director has been ducking and weaving too much. By investing so much time in diverting our attention to the "cold hard facts of the story," the "surprise" payoff kills the real poignancy he has managed to create, diminishing that aspect of the drama to nothing more than a slight-of-hand trick. It's a cheapening effect as if, at the end of "Citizen Kane," we would see a long, black hearse slowly pulling away from the castle to reveal "Rosebud Funeral Parlor" painted on its side, making all the wonderful drama that came before merely hourglass filler.