Hereditary (spoilers!)
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6wWKNij_1M


Hereditary is a cautious vague horror film, can't really get into the plot. Basically the grandmother dies and things happen over the course of the next 2 hours. Enough threads are kept around to keep the story interesting over scary. It's not a classic, but if you enjoyed Killing of a Sacred Deer but wanted the story to be less pretentious this is a good pick for you.

The big strengths of the film are mostly practical effects and a long story. A number of the best parts of the story we're told about at different points. You also have a great mix of subtle scares, the central theme's manifestations work very well. Toni Collette is very good for most of the parts of the story...but she's got some weak scenes. And really that's the big issue with this film the core cast isn't very good. Some of the crying scenes seem very fake and that was frustrating because the story is so good yet it's not grounded with a great performance.

I think this is going to be a very polarizing film, someone fell asleep during the first act in the theater. Be warned if you see this in a crowded theater I can see some heckling. But for those that did make it to the end they were very shaken and confused.

Re: Hereditary
 

I want to see this. Thanks for the write up and heads-up warnings. I remember some guy fell asleep during Solaris. There were all of like 7 people in the theater and he was there snoring. ugh.

I just checked showtimes. UGH!!!! It's only got 1 show time here where I live and that's at noon. Maybe I'll catch it tomorrow, but it's going to be a busy weekend already. Damn. If I miss it, it will surely be gone next weekend. From here at least.

I still need to get in Upgrade and Hotel Artemis as I don't expect those to last another week or so either.

This could be my nomination for most disappointing movie of the year. I do not understand the ratings or the hype behind this movie. The plot was somewhat suspenseful, but rather slow. There were few, if any, truly horrific parts.

I don't understand....

I think they were very relevant...that was the misdirect





I feel after page one we need to go big into spoilers.

I've only seen good viewer reviews so it will be interesting to compare but I'm staying away from the critics. I've also gone cold on Collette over the years so having the lead I think could be troublesome. I reserve my opinion, for the little it's worth until it's out here, but I'm expecting a lot of hype simply because aussie critics tend to build up films simply because they wet their knickers over aussie actors in hollywood movies.

That's probably a little harsh but I shall wait and see.

That's odd because I mentioned somewhere else that I find her off-putting. It's an irrational, unfair dislike because I don't know her work at all. This film does interest me though so it might change my perspective about her.

Re: Hereditary
 

I think she's a really good actress so I don't know what it is either.

Re: Hereditary
 

I've also seen some great reviews for Hereditary...wouldn't have caught my attention otherwise.

Re: Hereditary
 

Sorry to keep hating on this movie, but it does make me a laugh a little that the audience score on this movie is now down in the 50's on RT

Re: Hereditary
 

OMG, back in the 70's there was a movie that caused allot of controversy. Groups of people protested the movie and the general audience was some what shocked by the movie. That movie was titled 'The Exorcist'. The Exorcist was categorized as a Horror movie. But many felt that the movie was sacrilegious and offensive. It was scary for sure and you kinda had to watch it a few times if you dared. This movie, um where do I begin. One word, disturbing. I'll edit this post later. Okay, this movie takes it waaaaay a step further. Seriously, there should be an advisory on this movie. If you are dealing with a loss of a loved one AVOID THIS MOVIE. I REPEAT AVOID THIS MOVIE. Real talk, just as some one trying to look out YOU SHOULD NOT SEE THIS MOVIE IF: * you are morning someone * mentally unstable * dealing with depression * emotionally unstable * under the influence of any mind altering chemicals because you may get physically, mentally and or spiritually sick. This movie will have you looking up local religious organizations inquiring about how to become a member because this movie hints at occultism and gives you the impression that there are separate secret groups of people who are dangerous to normal every day society and unless you are aligned to a darker violent mentality you are at risk of becoming a victim to those groups of people this movie was in my opinion intended to send a message to an awaiting army that signafies the prophecies set in the Holy Bible.

Re: Hereditary
 

Lol take it easy it’s a movie. Scary though, very tense. I liked it but it left me with questions.

ask away

I'm in the same boat with you. After all the reviews and comparisons to past horror masterpieces like The Exorcist I had high expectations but for me Hereditary failed on almost every level.

I wasn't scared, I wasn't disturbed but I was heavily bored for the first 90 minutes or so of the film. As a concept I liked where the story went in the end but even there the execution didn't work.

Re: Hereditary
 

Alright...Spoilers...can’t do that thing I’m
Using my phone. When did the mother become possessed, wa she possessed? Surely she wasn’t in on it.

Well we don't really know that, but you've got three possibilities.

1.) The Cult(it's been going on her whole life)
2.) The Ceremony(Ann Dowd manipulated her into doing the ceremony which made her and Steve vulnerable to Paimon taking over)
3.) The Vessels (the dead bodies of the grandmother and Charlie)

I think based on the backstories, Paimon becomes more powerful after each death. So I can't recall if the brother starves himself to death and the father hung himself but I think those deaths made Paimon into a trickster god. Once Charlie died Paimon became a fully powerful spectre.

*SPOILERISH*

Yeah. I dont think she was in on it but was tricked into possession by chanting the spell thinking she was talking with her daughter.

Something thought was GREAT was the intro transition to the model house then reversal at the end if I remember correctly. There was a strange light that kind of following some of the characters around during the movie. In one of the scenes where the mother is detailing a model, she is wearing a head-mounted flashlight that cast this exact light onto her model creations. I got a vibe that maybe all of this story was a fiction fantasy by the builder kind of inventing a story imagined through the eyes of her model characters. Like how an author would project character decisions in a story. I don't know if that's at all on point but there were enough implications for me to interpret this at least.

Re: Hereditary
 

I watched it last night, it was amazing. Toni Collette was out of this world! It was also pretty convenient how it was quite the windy night for me here, so my door kept opening and closing by itself, thus creeping me out even further.

Re: Hereditary
 

Yea I don’t think she was in on it until the fire scene. Yes she was tricked in doing the seance. That apparently made things much worse. Can’t really pinpoint when she turned or really why other than she completely lost her ssshhtttt. This is why up the end I really thought it was all mental health rather than supernatural. They said the grandma had DID the same illness in the movie Split and obviously the delusions/hallucinations.

Re: Hereditary
 

Spoilers!!!

Ohhh I just remembered...the mother did get possessed. She spoke the child’s voice and that child was the ‘king’. So she was probably 50/50 possessed after that...lol maybe..battling being herself or the possession.

Re: Hereditary
 

Watched this over the weekend. While there were aspects of the film that I enjoyed, such as the opening scene and Toni Collette's performance, I was ultimately disappointed in the entire experience. Various oversights and leaps of logic compounded as I watched; things that kept pulling me out of the movie as I considered how silly they were, or how it was just plain old lazy writing. Here are a few examples:

Re: Hereditary
 

Just re-watched that car scene. Truly unsettling stuff, not only in the scene itself, but the aftermath as well.

That scene and the opening with the miniature house were both really well done. When the car scene happened, both my wife and I found our jaws on the floor.

Absolutely, I can't remember a time where I audibly gasped and shot up my palm over my mouth. Not only the shocking suddenness of the scene, but followed by Alex Wolfe's penetrating look of shock, Toni Colette's gut-wrenching wailing and screaming, and then that one extended close up of the aftermath, it felt all too realistic I really couldn't bare.

Totally get your feelings on it all though. I'm straddling here, but I get you.

Just an FYI the big reason I made this thread was for open spoiler discussion I should likely put it in the header. Because after all this is a film where you want to talk about the ending.

perhaps @Yoda could put the spoiler discussion in the header.

Re: Hereditary
 

Sure thing. :up:

Re: Hereditary (spoilers!)
 

Someone explain the theory regarding the burning book and the burning effect it had.

What exactly was so embarrassingly bad about the ending? Also, the film not showing the investigation doesn't mean that it didn't happen. It would honestly just be a drag, to waste running time on it. As for the family not mentioning the accident, or questioning Peter, again, it not being shown doesn't mean it didn't happen. (Although, I do wish the film delved into what that conversation would've been like, that really would've been interesting to see).

Re: Hereditary (spoilers!)
 

Yeah, I'm not sure I got that one either. Re: Larry's question, I mean.

I loved the movie, but I can totally see why people were put off by that ending. It felt tagged on and incomplete. After he jumped through the window, the light that targeted him seemed a little too heavy-handed. Then, after he woke, watching the body float to the tree house and rise up as if to shout to the audience, "HEY! LOOK HERE!! Something OBVIOUSLY significant is playing out up here in case you haven't picked up on that just yet!" The movie was pretty subtle for the most part. Those last few bits felt out of sync with the rest of it all.

I think the scene after he actually enters the tree house was great! But those two moments before were probably enough to ruin the suspension of disbelief for anyone not totally committed to the whole thing.

I personally had no issue with the presentation of the scene you're referring to, and I didn't think it was any less subtle than the rest of the film, and I also don't see how it could've been presented any other way. The light is very recurring throughout the movie, so how come it is now heavy-handed near the end, when it makes total sense for it to appear. I don't agree either with your interpretation of what the intentions were behind showing the body floating, I mean what would you even change about that? I also don't get how a beaming light, and a floating body, would ruin a viewer's suspension of disbelief, especially after everything that's been happening way before that. It's not like those two short happenings, contradicted anything that has come before.

I actually would expect people to complain about what happened after he entered the tree house, since that was easily the least subtle part of the film, since the dialogue literally spells out what's occurring.

Good discussion here. Let’s hope it doesn’t get too argumentative. This movie really has left me wanting to know more...and I’m getting that from the discussions. I think it warrants a rewatch but I have to be honest...I’ve turned into a massive pussy and don’t think I could watch it by myself and I doubt my partner wants to watch it again. Also yes that car accident scene is seriously disturbing. The director was great at not showing us too much so it let our imagination run rife. I thought it was fine there was no visible investigation. Also the way he handled the situation being that he was stoned and shocked and is part of this new generation of not taking responsibility (there’s a dig) fit the bill. Also apparently that was planned. That she was already paimon and I guess that’s why she was disfigured and it was rejecting the female body. In terms of it being planned well I read that there was that demon sign on the poll that took her head.

Re: Hereditary (spoilers!)
 

The sign was there and it was a great cut. The camera panned left with the car as he was driving toward the party. Tge pan was in sync with car then abruptly stopped once the pole entered center frame. It stayed there, still, for a beat before cutting to the next scene. The symbol was dead center in frame. So great!

Re: Hereditary (spoilers!)
 

Like I stated, i enjoyed the movie but can empathize with anyone who might have had issue with the ending. I cited what I believe could be a reasonable breaking point for this particular camel with a few scenes that felt less than the rest of the movie's average.

It wasn't enough to bug me personally, but I can see how it might for some. Or how anything in this movie could considering so many people expected a more lively horror---or at least by the friends that went with me to two theater showings. As an honest critique though, I believe those moments plus the son's cry after the séance were the weakest.

Being one of the people who didn't like this and who thought the ending felt somewhat out of place I'll try to explain why. Also considering the effect I seem to have on some people I'll need to emphasize that these are my opinions and others are free to have their own. These are based on one viewing and it's entirely possible that I've missed something.

1) Early parts (and by early I mean something like 90 minutes) were extremely dull. Charlie's death (around 40 minutes if I remember correctly) was the first actual thing happening in the whole film. Before that the only relevant thing seemed to be the mother's speech in the grief counseling group.

After that the film tried to focus on the aftermath of Charlie's death but all we got was couple of outbursts from the characters (it didn't help that I disliked Alex Wolff's performance) and repetition of earlier described sleep walk incident. Also it's hard for me to engage in the grief of fictional characters unless they're at least somewhat likable.

2) The spiritualism twist was horrible. I assume that it (and the Ouija board) are somehow bigger part of US "horror" culture but I've never liked it at all. It felt like a cheap plot device.

3) Like @Sedai I thought it really weird that there was no legal action taken against Peter. He was under the influence of drugs while driving a car and someone died as a result. It's a wrong kind of leap of faith for a film like this.

4) About Paimon. First of all why was he possessing Charlie in the first place? Peter was male and much older so why did the granny choose to use the girl as a vessel when she knew Paimon preferred male bodies?

5) About Paimon II. This is more subjective than previous but was Paimon supposed to be little slow? Charlie acted all weird and felt really slow. Also in the end Peter just stared with empty eyes and had this feeble minded grin. I'd personally expect demon kings to have above average IQ :)

6) About Paimon III. This didn't actually affect my opinion of the film but I'm just curious. Why did Paimon (I suppose) make Peter break his nose in school?

7) Then the ending of the film (and by ending I mean the last 20 minutes or so starting from the death of the father). First obvious question is why did the father burn with the book? I'm not entirely sure why the mother caught fire earlier but the effect suddenly changing to father doesn't seem to make any sense.

8) Ending II. So was the mother possessed by Paimon or why did she go after Peter? If she really was possessed by Paimon then why did he choose her, again, over Peter who was also present during the seance and viable target after mother's death?

9) Ending III. I found it really weird that, in the middle of a scene, the mother suddenly gains the ability to levitate. Also what's with Paimon's fixation to decapitations or, in other words, why go to such trouble in killing the mom?

10) Ending IV. Mother's headless corpse flying to wood house just looked silly. And why did Paimon himself walk and climb the ladder when even the corpses of his worshipers flew?

11) Almost forgot. Why bring granny's corpse back to house?

Some of the above is nitpicking but I decided to write down everything I remembered thinking while watching the film. Some of these are really subjective and I won't be arguing for them too much.

Well, I'll give you all the kudos for the most hysterical reaction I've seen so far to this movie. Just reminded me of all the panicked prayer circles church going women would get involved in prior to watching The Amityville Horror. :lol:

Unless I misunderstood, in the movie Annie says that she wouldn't let her mother near her son, but relented with her daughter even though she knew that would be a bad idea.

Yeah, but still the possession goes "smoothly" even after Annie's mother is dead so it's hardly a good reason.

Re: Hereditary (spoilers!)
 

Why wouldn't it?

How could mother's lack of access to the son explain it if the possession fell through just fine even after her death (no mother > no access in my opinion)?

Re: Hereditary (spoilers!)
 

In the blood perhaps? Not saying I know...didn't think it was all that great so I may zoned out for an important second that explained it.

I'd thought it strange the son looked nothing like his parents, unless one of his grandfathers was Mediterranean or something.

Maybe I'm misreading your question. When you say mother, do you mean Peter's mother, Annie? Or Annie's mother that died before the movie started? I'm assuming you mean how the grandma possessed Peter.

Annie made a statement I think during her group counseling that she would not let her mother near Peter when he was born, else the grandmother would have placed King Paimon into him soon after birth. In guilt, I think Annie said she let her mother in when Charlie was born. I assume the grandmother then placed Paimon into an infant Charlie instead.

The grandmother was apparently unable to transfer Piamon from Charlie to Peter before grandma's death. I mean, she would have had to kill Charlie I assume to set it into motion so I'm not sure how she could have pulled that off really. Luckily for her, her buddy cultist tricked Annie into doing the ritual that gave the now disembodied Piamon access to Peter.

Yes, the previous discussion was about the grandma (obviously).

I think this is just the long version of what @cat_sidhe was saying so my reply stays the same; grandma's lack of access to Peter doesn't seem valid reason when things go more or less smoothly even after her death. The cultists had always been there so even killing the rest of the family to get access to Peter would have been perfectly valid scenario (as the film proves because that's what basically happens).

Maybe the ritual didn't have to be performed by grandma.

Quite obviously because Paimon possessed Peter after her death :)

But seriously I'm just nitpicking here because I was bored during the film and had too much time to think its problems. Pretty much every (horror) film has similar issues and the worse the film the more these things bother me. But I do hope writers would be little more careful in general.

Re: Hereditary (spoilers!)
 

I guess it all depends on where your line of disbelief is. It seems reasonable that at anytime grandma and/or the cultists could murder all but peter and be done with it years ago. I guess that might not be as good of a story to tell though. Of course if the audience can't buy grandma and the cultists stalling as necessary, then it's probably not so enjoyable anyway.

Maybe there was some other stuff playing out that could explain it but Iderno.

I saw this last night. I was deeply upset by it.

If you've seen it, you probably know which part did it. Messed up things happen in movies sometimes, but I can't abide it when they wallow in them, or when they turn not to have been a crucial part of the story being told. In this case, it scarcely seemed to factor in. I understand the connection, but it was such a tiny and relatively insignificant part of what happens in the last 30 minutes. If anything, when viewed from a distance the story seems a little contorted to provide an excuse to do it. The shock and the wallowing, I guess, was the point.

It's a real shame, too, because everything else about the movie is exceptional. Collette's performance is tremendous, and I always admire films that "go there," as I like to put it.

Re: Hereditary (spoilers!)
 

I wanted to write a non-spoiler post first, but I'll expound a little:

Re: Hereditary (spoilers!)
 

Yes.

Re: Hereditary (spoilers!)
 

@Yoda Can you add to the spoiler exactly which scene? I'm thinking two characters but not sure in context.

Re: Hereditary (spoilers!)
 

Yeah, sorry, I figured it would be obvious. Sedai's spoiler question clarifies it.

Re: Hereditary (spoilers!)
 

Yeah, thanks for giving us the heads-up.

Re: Hereditary (spoilers!)
 

When that scene played out, My wife and I both looked over at each other, jaws on the floor. Super disturbing scene, for sure.

Re: Hereditary (spoilers!)
 

Was the upset due to the fact that neglect exists in the world or that you felt the movie exploited neglect unnecessarily to push the movie forward?

Re: Hereditary (spoilers!)
 

The latter, I think, and that's a good distinction.

Re: Hereditary (spoilers!)
 

Spoilers

So are you saying it was upsetting him neglected to help his vulnerable sister at the party? Or someonething else. I’ve done done some reading and watching YouTube on it and her death was pivotal...apparently. Releasing the demon. It was seriously disturbing that scene but necessary I thought.

Do you mean the initial scene in the car ? Or the second shot of the aftermath of that scene? Or both?

It was certainly a very upsetting scene - but there is a callback subplot to the aftermath - in that Toni Collette's character visualises the same awful outcome in her son, as happenned to her daughter.



While it may seem a touch exploitative at first, it certainly rammed it home.

Both. Though the latter is part of what I mean by "wallowing."

I think that's kinda backwards, though. It makes sense if it's foreshadowing, I suppose, but if it's only purpose is to create a reason to call back to itself, I guess I don't see the point.

Pretty much any time I think about the parts of the last act that seem a little out of place or tacked on, they end up related to that part. It really sticks out, to me, from the rest of the film.

Anyway, as you said, a touch exploitative, either way. Everyone's line on what's necessary and what's gratuitous is going to be a little different. This was just well beyond mine, I suppose.

.

Re: Hereditary (spoilers!)
 

That scene is without a doubt, my most memorable scene of the year.

Re: Hereditary (spoilers!)
 

Many scenes supposed to be serious felt pretty silly or cheap to me. It's a technically competent film but it's also deeply American at its core and highly derivative of Rosemary's Baby including the over-the-top silliness of some scenes. I have a hard time digesting this particular approach.

Not emotionally effective in the least either so the strong reactions from many of you seem all the more surprising to me. Watched the first 30 minutes of this with somebody who would laugh at the looks of the girl and then in the pivotal scene say "that's gotta hurt" which probably ruined the scene for me but then the aforementioned person left so I could experience the rest of the film alone and still be unamazed and unmoved.

I liked Midsommar more. Aster is a competent director but Eggers is a much more accomplished filmmaker.

Although me saying this is the most predictable thing in the world by this point, I couldn't agree more; yes, it was fairly impressive on a visual/technical level, with some strong cinematography & art direction, but Ari Aster's overall direction undermined its positive aspects by going so over-the-top with the tone of everything (especially in the second half) that even Collette's performance eventually lost its impact, and the Horror side of the film served as a round peg to the square hole of the domestic drama that was awkwardly juggled together, and like you said, the emotional effectiveness of the film was completely undermined as a result. In the end, it couldn't help but feeling like what it was, which is a series of setpieces and imagery that were conjured up first, and then attempted to be connected through the plot (which Aster admitted in an interview is how he wrote the film, which is a bad method in general, and this is no exception), and despite his auteurist pretensions, his complete lack of tonal control and reliance on genre cliches revealed him to be kind of a Horror hack in the end, IMO.