MovieChat Forums > NukaCola
NukaCola (24)
Posts
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.
View all replies >