Hereditary (spoilers!)

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.

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

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.

Sure thing.

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).

__________________
"A film has to be a dialogue, not a monologue — a dialogue to provoke in the viewer his own thoughts, his own feelings. And if a film is a dialogue, then it’s a good film; if it’s not a dialogue, it’s a bad film."

- Michael "Gloomy Old Fart" Haneke

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.

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!

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.

__________________

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.