Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Hereditary- new horror movie


Hotsauce

Recommended Posts

that kid.....yow. creeps me out.

from the people who made the witch. gonna be watching it. the witch was pretty stinking unsettling. no resolution or end. just left you hanging through the whole movie thinking that something bad was going to happen and then the movie just ended. hitchcock said, "there is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it" and i think these guys figured out how keep that anticipation going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Saw Hereditary last night and...welp let's just say it lived up to the hype. I'm still trying to process some scenes 14 hours later. This is a film where it's definitely best to know as little as possible going into it.

It definitely has similar qualities as The Witch. If you liked The Witch and the general sense of overwhelming dread as you watch a family fall apart (if it was ever together in the first place), you'll love Hereditary!

Great horror movie is all I can say. It's hard to discuss without spoiling too much. I can't wait to see it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw it yesterday. It's not that good, IMHO. Similar to Get Out. More of a psychotic thriller than horror. It's unintentionally funny in many spots, the acting is subpar, the plot isn't really revealed until the end and even then you'll be asking Google, it's more creepy than scary, and it's overall just very flat. If you loved Get Out you'll like it, if you thought Get Out was overrated, you'll think this is too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the negative reaction from some subset of audience is because this isn't your standard horror movie in the sense that it doesn't hold your hand with the generic horror movie tropes. There isn't a well defined "bad guy" throughout the film. There isn't a "hero". There isn't a big showdown between said bad guy and hero. There aren't 30 jump scares. There isn't a standard horror score or sound design. I think this is all part of what makes it so brilliant.

And I can't help but lol at the "it's not horror" takes.

There's literally a floating possessed woman graphically sawing her own head off at one point lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate jump scare horror, so it was not what I was wanting. I'm all for dark, eerie, psychological films but this was just dull. Her kitchen table scene was great, I'll give you that. But the rest was her running around making dumb faces. Yes there was gore, but it wasn't trying to scare you nor was it horrifying. It was just creepy and odd. More like an M Knight Shamalalamamalaalalan movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2018 at 8:59 AM, Still Brooklyn said:

Saw it yesterday. It's not that good, IMHO. Similar to Get Out. More of a psychotic thriller than horror. It's unintentionally funny in many spots, the acting is subpar, the plot isn't really revealed until the end and even then you'll be asking Google, it's more creepy than scary, and it's overall just very flat. If you loved Get Out you'll like it, if you thought Get Out was overrated, you'll think this is too.

I enjoyed Get Out but also thought it was very overrated.  I really loved Hereditary for the most part however the last two or three minutes really took me out of the film and I did not like.  I feel like they had an excellent moment to end the film and the moment it came I thought “that is perfect.” Then they decided to add that last scene, maybe it was just me but I did not feel it was needed.

Thankfully in the day and a half since seeing it and thinking about it I have definitely decided the good stuff far outweighed it for me and I do want to see it again.  Now I just find it mildly annoying but it definitely took me out of the film in a way I think was unintended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2018 at 11:34 AM, Cary Kollins said:

Lots of buzz for Toni Collette being nominated for Best Actress so, yeah, different strokes I guess if you thought the acting was subpar. I can understand not liking the "slow burn" aspect but wow, I thought the acting was as good as it gets all around.

I agree, the acting was superb...expect for the son’s crying, that was bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I can't get behind a purely subjective re-draft as a method of defining "top-10 QB" status. That invites bias based on vibes/hypotheticals and can ignore actual on-field performance. You and others have said that Bryce has to be a top-10 QB to justify the pick. That's a high bar, which I'm not against, but we need a clear, consistent way to measure it. When I bring up metrics that Bryce has registered in the top-10 in like BTT%, P2S ratio, catchable deep ball rate, etc... they're waved off as either irrelevant or the expected baseline performance. Meanwhile, volume stats like passing yards or win-loss records, both of which depend heavily on roster talent, health, and coaching, are treated as definitive. That's where the inconsistency kicks in. If no performance metric ever counts in his favor and the answer is always going to be "he should be doing that," then we're not evaluating him... we're just holding him to a curve he can't win against. If this is really about performance standards, then let's define them. But if it's just about confirming prior takes based on height and weight, then let's call it what is it and stop pretending that this is a football analysis discussion.
    • Just to be clear: I'm not "downplaying" the talent around Bryce... I'm qualifying it. There's a big difference between saying, "we finally have building blocks that we're actually developing" and "we've done enough to say this is a finished product, NO EXCUSES!" It's possible to believe that the 2023 situation was bad and to believe that the current state, while improved, is still incomplete. That's not inconsistency; that's nuance. As for the footwork stuff, again, I've seen the same clips as others. The claim that Bryce is hopping to see over the line just isn't one I've seen corroborated by analysts or tape breakdown. "Both feet off of the ground to throw" happens a ton for QBs (ex: Mahomes, Rodgers, Purdy, etc.), especially when improvising. You're right that there were some encouraging flashes from Bryce last season, and it's nice to finally hear that after so much time was spent pretending otherwise. I'm not arguing that Bryce is elite, I'm just asking that we evaluate him using consistent, measurable criteria to determine his status as a top-10 QB... whether it's via 3rd down %, red zone efficiency, turnover-worthy plays, or yes, big-time throws (which, by the way, has been a valid part of QB evaluation across the league for years even if it wasn't used here during Kyle Allen or Teddy Bridgewater's years. For reference: Allen had 20 BTT at a 3.9% rate. Teddy had 17 BTT at 3.3%). Like you, I'm hoping to see a competent, entertaining offense this season. That's a baseline we can all root for, even if we don't have the same baseline for what makes a QB top-10 (which, to be fair, is what this conversation has been about... though I respect the attempt to reframe it).
    • I am optimistic that we might be on the verge of fielding a sustainable offense finally. The Bryce stats listed above are definitely encouraging. I don’t want to overly inflate this and disregard the previous 1 and a half seasons of production from Bryce and “cherry pick” stats but do hope the benching turns into an inflection point in his trajectory.      Lots of excitement heading into this season. 
×
×
  • Create New...