MovieChat Forums > NukaCola > Replies
NukaCola's Replies
Granted, the title was very misleading - it sounds like a monster film.
"Why did they make this movie?"
* To show what it feels like to have to kill someone you love because they got infected
* To show what it might feel like to live in a world where you can't trust anyone.
Not saying it's original or great, most zombie films do this, but I think the concept is pretty obvious.
My theory:
* It was Travis. He was sick the whole time.
* We know that it can vary how long it takes for the sickness to manifest itself.
* The film makes a big point out of saying the dog was grandpa's dog, and showing how much Travis loves the dog. They also make a point of showing how Travis kisses the dog etc, which no one else does.
* An infected person will experience sleepwalking etc. This is why we see both the kid and Travis sleepwalking and having
nightmares.
My dude. Paul already said, flat out, that he wouldn't let anyone leave cause he thought they would come back to steal their shit if they got desperate.
Paul can be seen as a bad guy of this movie. He's not that far from John Goodman in Cloverfield Lane.
You haven't seen Conan the Barbarian?
The kid would come back to avenge his father :)
Most film plots could be crammed into 20 minutes, if you threw away all the atmospheric scenes and non-essential dialogue and just told the story as effectively as you could.
But then you'd lose out of a lot of the point of cinema: emotion, atmosphere, world-building etc. A lot of that stuff takes time.
I'd even argue that sometimes a scene can make you feel a lot more just by having longer shots, instead of rushing through it.
For example: They decided to spend a good 5 minutes on the intro with the grandfather's death and funeral - because they wanted to give the audience a sense of what it might feel to be forced to kill someone who had a sickness that would otherwise kill you.
I think the point of films like these are more about giving the audience that kind of emotion, rather than telling a dense plot.
There was plenty of obvious ambiguity in the film like:
* Was Will a liar? Did he lie about his brother and did he in fact plan to rob the house?
* Then maybe he wasn't, and in that case: was Paul the real bad guy of the film?
* Who opened the door?
* Was Travis infected the entire time?
Not saying it was a good film because of this, just saying it had those elements of doubt.
He stood nothing to gain from making up a story about some brother he did not have.
In no way did the situation call for something like that.
There was no alibi to gain from saying he had a brother.
My theory:
Will did have someone he called his 'brother'.
The director intentionally threw in some scenes to make him seem like a liar, just because the film needed a red herring.
The idea was to make the audience become just as paranoid over Will as the main character was.
Yeah, they were real.
After all, it's an absurd grindhouse flick.
Either they are real or the entire movie is just trick, like a visualization of one of Mandy's dreams - but I think it's a bit too silly for that.
Sometimes I think we give too much credit to films that are original and not enough credit to films that are just good.
If one thinks Hereditary would've been a great film if it had been released a long time ago, then I think you might as well call it a "classic"
I mean, it would still be an amazing experience for someone who hasn't seen those other films.
Side note: I'm not saying
Side note: I know one can argue that many shitty films from 2018 would have been called "classics" if they had been released in the 60s, simply because they would have been ground breaking back then.
But, to me, a "classic" is not just a ground breaking film. If you ask "would this have been as good if it was released in 2018?" and that answer isn't YES, then maybe it's not really a great film. It can still be a milestone in film history, but if it doesn't hold up today it's more of a historical document than a great watch.
I often think film buffs give too much credit to films just because they were ground breaking.
I hate when someone says: "Ok, this film is not the best film in this genre. But it was a pioneer, so it's still a great movie".
If that was the case then it would mean all films who were released a long time ago would deserve higher scores, and films that are released later in the same style, are automatically punished with a lower score.
What was so dull about it?
You had more variation and interesting details than most horror films.
Just some examples:
1. the miniatures. Not a huge deal. But a fun detail. The way she told stories of terrible persona events was eerie and a bit interesting. Instead of just making the main character have a generic job that was uninteresting, they added something more unique and fascinating.
2. I liked the plot about how the son had a long hatred towards his mom because he thought she tried to kill him while claiming to sleepwalk. That's a kind of weird background story that many horror films have. But Hereditary did a good job of making it show in the interactions between those characters. Like in the dinner scene, and the scene where Annie told her son she didn't even wanna have him.
3. Scenes that are intense as hell without relying on horror. Like the decapitation in the car.
4. I thought they did a good job of combining drama and suspense. In most horror films you would not have had the dramatic aftermath of how Peter felt while driving home after the accident, and seeing Annie dealt with the grief etc. They would've just glossed over that part. But here they actually made me pay attention to the drama, instead of just "waiting for the next scare", as I normally do during the mundane parts of regular horror films.
5. I didn't know where the film was heading. I was surprised by the direction it took and that is rare these days.
> "We can assume secure military installations like Cheyenne Mountain are still up and running, actively engaged in efforts to study the aliens "
That's one thing I like about the film's premise. The fact that it takes place just a few years after the monster invasion started means that there could still be lots of organizations alive, who are working on a solution, but just are not there yet and/or can't communicate with the outside world. Just like in the Walking Dead.
In theory, maybe the world isn't even completely destroyed. Maybe it's just that the part where this family lives was hit extra hard, and aren't the top priority in terms of areas to rescue.
I think we should give the movie some benefit of the doubt here.
We can assume that biological warfare has already been attempted (it would not be that far of a step for the military to take. When they realized that bullets did not work on the monster's hard shells, they would have tried using some kind of small scale bio weapons)
> " Draw them into a cave/ enclosed area"
Yeah, just put a toy rocket inside a bomb shelter, let them walk in, close the door on them.
We know the monsters are quite powerful and can cut right through thin sheets of steel.
But the film didn't make it seem like they were so overpowered that they could smash through anything.
A huge ass bomb shelter door might stop them.
And even if you couldn't kill them, just being able to trap one would be a huge success.
Yeah. Everyone in this world would be coming up with concepts based around sound making devices
* Bring some noise making toys with you at all times. In case you happen to make a noise that draws the monsters to you, just throw one of these toys as a "sound grenade" to divert the monster's attention.
* Place remote triggered sound devices everywhere in the area around your home, for the same purpose.
* Attract monsters to certain areas to attempt to destroy them, or just to study them. Use a drone, a kite with a speaker or whatever.
Being able to stand around silently and control a noise-making device would be very easy. And everyone would wanna study these monsters in order to figure out how they work, and what their weaknesses might be.
> I am supposed to believe that individual people can survive the threat of a zombie outbreak but somehow it manages to destroy the government.
IF there was some kind of outbreak (of any type; zombie, medical, or military) I wouldn't be surprised that a few people would be able to survive in remote areas, even if the government was brought down.
It's happened before, in war etc.
No, that's silly.
The overall vibe of the film is more pro-woman than pro-man.
The main character is a woman. The cult is lead by a grandma and her female friend. Meanwhile the husband is powerless to stop himself from being burnt to death. And we also have Annie's brother who committed suicide cause he couldn't handle grandma.
Lots of powerful females in this film.
The fact that one dude is becomes chosen by a demon can't be the film's way of sending some message about gender superiority.
Grandma was the cult leader.
There was a photo album of the cult standing around her in a circle, praising her.
And obviously she wasn't a demon herself - cause she had a lot of books about demons - something a demon themselves wouldn't need..
Not necessarily scarier.
But I'd argue it's got more variety, which makes it stand out as a great movie.
It's got it all: at times it's relentlessly intense, but at the same time you have these slow depressing scenes.
They manage to combine really dark drama with brooding spooky vibes, weird shit, psychological horror, genuine scares, and more.
Conjuring and Babadook were not as varied, much more focused in their own niches (Conjuring being a straight forward haunting where you know the supernatural stuff is gonna be 100% real and Babadook being a stylized, intimate drama combined with horror)
He was 19 or 20 when this was filmed, playing 16. Just 4 years off.
But I agree he looked far too old for the part.
I also felt like he was miscast.
I assumed it was just one of the pills she took before drinking the coffee.
(It could've melted a bit and turned dark after coming into contact with the coffee.)
And she just caught it on her lip instead of swallowing it, and then decided to spit it out.
But it doesn't make sense to include a scene like that.
The only time I've seen this mentioned was in a fan theory that argued it might just be a sign that she was mentally ill, as
A) It's common for schizophrenic people to imagine people are putting stuff in their food
B) Maybe only Annie saw this thing. Cause if Joan had seen it too - wouldn't she have mentioned it?
(even if she tried to put some weird cult shit in the coffee, she would've had to mention it if she got caught, just to say something like "Oh, sorry, must have dropped something into the coffee pot")
I agree. It's got a backdrop and some characters, but you feel it's a bit aimless and lacks a tangible story.
We just get to follow some girls getting into prostitution, Gyllenhall who might be switching from hooker into porn movies and James Franco who's getting involved with the mob.
But their stories just plod along a bit too slowly without a clear goal.
So it feels more like a "slice of life" kind of deal, than a good solid story.
Totally agree it's not something you'd want in a book.