|
Saw this last night and loved it. The whole scene with Caleb dying and reciting scripture was a real stand out moment for me. The lil lovely kids pretending to be sick in the back, Caleb having a flash before your eyes death speech, both parents trying to pray the devil out and all that overlapping made for a kind of tension and unease I haven't got from a movie in a while . Got kind of worried after reading about some crowds with not-so-great audiences, especially when I saw mostly what looked like teens filling the theater but everyone was pretty quiet and glued to the screen for pretty much the entire movie. Only scenes that got a laugh were Raven Titty and Black Phillip talking which make sense because they're both pretty ridiculous (in a really good way).
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
Everything about goats rules.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Anal Surgery posted:Yeah, if I have any complaints about this movie, it's that the goat's face is just so chill a lot of the time that he wasn't as creepy as he was probably supposed to be. Goats rule and Black Phillip rules, but several times the camera pans over to him and he looks like he just smoked a j. "Sssssup, puritans... " What specifically is "wrong" about goats is the same thing that makes crows and cats seem sinister. An evil cow doesn't really read, but goats are so easy to anthropomorphize.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:What specifically is "wrong" about goats is the same thing that makes crows and cats seem sinister. An evil cow doesn't really read, but goats are so easy to anthropomorphize. I was surprised at how terrifying they managed to make a rabbit, an animal I'm predisposed to finding adorable. I find goats adorable too, but like you said they're also much more naturally evil looking. that shot of the goat rearing up on his hind legs was already very striking in the trailer, but coming where it does in the context of the movie it's seriously freaky.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
What's that line from Antichrist? "Nature is Satan's church."
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:What's that line from Antichrist? "Nature is Satan's church." I even thought Antichrist was better and more unsettling! It did a better job w/ tension imo
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Was it just me, or did the dad say "Corruption is my father" before he dropped the axe after getting gored by Black Phillip? I took that as him accepting Satan but it seemed really out of nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Now you'd think Puritans would if nobody else be creeped out by their kids talking to a goat. Not to get all nitpicky but it seems like that's the kind of thing they'd have beat out of them immediately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:Was it just me, or did the dad say "Corruption is my father" before he dropped the axe after getting gored by Black Phillip? I took that as him accepting Satan but it seemed really out of nowhere. probably said "thy", not "my"
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
So I've been thinking about this for a day or two and I wonder... Would this have been a better movie if we weren't shown basically right off the bat that there is a witch and she's evil enough to grind up a baby? Without that one scene we'd have the baby disappearing and the movie turns into an "Is there a witch, or are they all just going crazy?" question until the very end when Black Phillip finally speaks. Obviously they'd have to change what happens to Caleb also... The director did an interview where he mentioned that perhaps the corn fungus is ergot, which is a powerful natural hallucinogen. Buncha Puritans tripping balls and killing each other itm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
JonathonSpectre posted:So I've been thinking about this for a day or two and I wonder... I think the movie is more menacing without that ambiguity, personally. Sets up the stakes right at the beginning and then puts the family in a pressure cooker while we wait for everything to go to hell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Movies are passive entertainment; the audience spends money for for the film to engage them. Be funny, be scary, be inspiring, be ~whatever~. If audiences aren't being engaged, the movie is at fault. Movies are not by necessity a passive entertainment. I consider myself an active participant when I watch a movie. Cause, ya know, I use my mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Norse Code posted:probably said "thy", not "my" Huh, yeah that would totally change how I read the scene. Can't wait to see this one again. I'm going to have to read up on witch lore first though, I feel like I missed a lot. JonathonSpectre posted:So I've been thinking about this for a day or two and I wonder... I'm kind of tired of the "It was all in their heads the whole time" trope in horror movies. I feel like that's almost more common than there actually being a monster now, it's kind of played out. I liked The Babadook but all people talked about was how the Babadook was just a manifestation of the mom's depression and none of it was real . I think that witches being imaginary would be more cliche, at this point, than a straight up witch-horror movie. If there was any ambiguity as to whether there was actually a witch then I bet people would interpret the OctaviusBeaver fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Yeah, I've gotta say I found the lack of ambiguity on that point pretty refreshing. The movie is better for the audience knowing and the family not knowing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
I thought the ambiguity, early on, was going to be whether the old lady in the woods was magical monster or just a murderous human being. I'm glad it went the way it did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
I'm not accusing this thread of this (although I've seen the sentiment a handful of times) but I can see why a poster earlier said that he found people that loved this movie to be obnoxious. Reviews and comments around the internet really bring out the smug pretentious rear end in a top hat in people. I can't believe the amount of times I read the sentiment that people won't like this movie because they are "too dumb" or something similar while reading opinions and reviews on it today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Norse Code posted:probably said "thy", not "my" I heard "my" too. I figured it was him going "I've really hosed everything up."
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
I didn't find this movie terrible or incredible. It was decently entertaining. I enjoyed the atmosphere, the cinematography, the acting, but it just never came together for me into some great thought-provoking piece.Many review summaries called it thought-provoking, and that's a term I personally wouldn't apply to this movie. It was just a nice little film. Comparing it to the last two movies I saw, I enjoyed it more than Deadpool, but not as much as The Revenant. Fit bearded Stephen Fry was a lot of fun to watch though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Now you'd think Puritans would if nobody else be creeped out by their kids talking to a goat. Not to get all nitpicky but it seems like that's the kind of thing they'd have beat out of them immediately. The treatment of Black Philip in this reminds me of how they treat Captain Howdy in the Exorcist. Both movies are of course super archetypal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
NESguerilla posted:I'm not accusing this thread of this (although I've seen the sentiment a handful of times) but I can see why a poster earlier said that he found people that loved this movie to be obnoxious. Reviews and comments around the internet really bring out the smug pretentious rear end in a top hat in people. I can't believe the amount of times I read the sentiment that people won't like this movie because they are "too dumb" or something similar while reading opinions and reviews on it today. You aren't wrong, but that attitude definitely cuts both ways. It's equally annoying to see people rolling their eyes at anyone who tries to dig beneath the surface of a film or talk about movies beyond "I liked it" or "I didn't like it." There are groups of people who love it and groups who hate it that both refuse to enter into a good-faith discussion, and it's usually best to just move on when you run into a person like that. If anything, CD is remarkably tame when it comes to both extremes - a while back someone linked a reddit thread where people were literally trying to argue that subtext - as in, the entire concept of subtext - didn't exist. And I tend to see people asking for elaboration / having genuine discussions more than I see people just being assholes to each other, but maybe I don't lurk around in the right threads. It really comes down to people at both ends of the scale getting frustrated with the inability to really communicate effectively with each other (which is kinda inevitable, honestly) and resorting to exaggeration / straw-man arguments / personal attacks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Let me start by saying I generally hate jump scares and slashers and usually only appreciate them for the campyness. I love a good slow burn and a movie that builds tension and dread, this movie was not that. It sucked. I am also left wondering if I even watched the same movie as some of the posters in this thread. Magic Hate Ball posted:The who-dunnit aspect was also really well-done I really loved the atmosphere they set up as far it being a period piece goes. There was incredible tension to detail, the shooting was excellent, and they did a good job of showing the hardships of being a settler. They did a horrible job of being a horror or setting up any kind of unnerving atmosphere. All of the horror moments were very spares and in direct contrast to the rest of the film. The film has this great gritty realism to the whole thing and then throws in a litteral cackling witch and a comedic relief ending. It attempted to include themes of the evil within, but these were undermined with how out of place the outward evil was portrayed. It suffered from a major identity crisis and lack of direction. On one hand the movie is about the family tearing itself apart and Tomasins persecution, but the audience has little reason to care about that when you show the witch in the opening act. On the other hand its about a witch stalking a family and tearing them apart, but her influence is minimal and they would have done that without her. The characters were all established early, and then re-established over and over. It quickly became apparent how the movie would end and that the only interesting plot thread of the movie, the family itself was going nowhere. There was no tension or payoff to any of the events that took place and I was left just waiting for it to end. The sound mixing was pretty atrocious as well. I'm ok with period speak, but the words themselves were often intelligible, the fathers voice especially had way too much reverb. There were several scenes in the movie where I think the characters were speaking in tongues, but I am really not sure because of how poorly the audio was mixed. CubanMissile posted:I think it shows that that when you make a film into a pretty, well acted art project designed to see how long you can go before giving the audience the movie they thought they were paying for in the end, the critics will eat that poo poo up and call it original. I saw a comparison to bone tomahawk earlier and its a much better example of what they were trying to accomplish. BT is just thick with tension and the entire movie has an incredible sense of urgency that keeps you engaged. The payoff at the end also shared the same brutal realism and tone as the rest of the film. With The VVitch, there was no sense of urgency, it made it clear from the start they were all doomed and the ending was already written. There wasn't much reason to continue to be engaged. The ending was completely out of place and in huge contrast to the tone of the movie. eSporks fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Feb 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
eSporks posted:How is the who-dunnit aspect well done when you very blatantly find out the witch dunnit in the first act? I meant moreso with regards to who's engaging with the which/Satan, which is kind of unclear until the last act, but also the actual who-dunnit that occurs within the family that gradually casts Thomasin out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
I might be reaching here, but it seems like everyone aside from Thomasin had their own pet Deadly Sin. Will's was easily and most obviously Pride. Katherine's was Wrath. Caleb's was Lust. The Twins, it's a reach but I think you could make the case for Sloth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
There's an argument to be made regarding the twins that, since Black Phillip encourages their inane playing and singing, sloth is indeed their sin to showcase. Their silliness serves to distract the family and, later on, divides them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:I'm kind of tired of the "It was all in their heads the whole time" trope in horror movies. I feel like that's almost more common than there actually being a monster now, it's kind of played out. I liked The Babadook but all people talked about was how the Babadook was just a manifestation of the mom's depression and none of it was real . I think that witches being imaginary would be more cliche, at this point, than a straight up witch-horror movie. If there was any ambiguity as to whether there was actually a witch then I bet people would interpret the
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I meant moreso with regards to who's engaging with the which/Satan, which is kind of unclear until the last act, but also the actual who-dunnit that occurs within the family that gradually casts Thomasin out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
Space Fish posted:There's an argument to be made regarding the twins that, since Black Phillip encourages their inane playing and singing, sloth is indeed their sin to showcase. Their silliness serves to distract the family and, later on, divides them. I believe this would be referred to as "idling," which comes up a lot in the movie
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:...a while back someone linked a reddit thread where people were literally trying to argue that subtext - as in, the entire concept of subtext - didn't exist. When I was in my fourth year of college I was in a class that focused on literature by Paris expatriates, and we were talking at length about the existence of homosexual subtext in a Hemingway novel (this was hardly a groundbreaking discussion) and all of a sudden this kid stands up, slams his book shut and yells, "These are fictional characters, they don't do anything that's not on the loving page" and storms out of the classroom never to be seen again. I think about that a lot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:I might be reaching here, but it seems like everyone aside from Thomasin had their own pet Deadly Sin. I think Thomasin would be wrath. She scared the twins by saying she's a witch and threatening them in a really creepy way, and then she lost her temper with Will (though I can understand that one) and finally made a pact with Satan probably partly out of spite. Katherine might be closer to envy or greed. I think her possessiveness towards her family is more of a defining trait than wrath. Granted she did do the strangling thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Saw this tonight and walked away a bit underwhelmed. As it's been said a ton its technically brilliant and beautiful to look at. But for a horror movie - especially with that the trailers and the basic premise is - it wasn't evil enough. It's my own fault for hyping it up to be Satan roaming around but I barely got a sense of dread or fear. I imagined the goat from the trailer would transform into something when it jumped up since it cut away fast in all the promos but in the end... nothing. And when I say evil - I mean more occult, more menace, more anything - something to let my imagination run wild. The first Paranormal Activity did this for me - I believed that a giant goat man was terrorizing that couple (and the sequels poo poo on me since its just some creepy man named Jacob? I forget) and stomping around. It hosed me up even though it's just a movie. I walk away from this with no dread, no fear, no nothing except - "well, that sure was a thing".
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
I figured the "corruption is my father" line was the beginning of some prayer of his. When the father goes out hunting with Caleb he quizzes him on what I'm guessing is his religious teaching and it's all about how they are born from and full of corruption and that they must always strive to godliness because of it. Was Caleb's death spasm speech supposed to be strangely sexual in tone? If his sin was lust it would make sense, and emphasizes that even clinging to their faith as hard as they could, Big D's temptations still win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Dr. Red Ranger posted:Was Caleb's death spasm speech supposed to be strangely sexual in tone? If his sin was lust it would make sense, and emphasizes that even clinging to their faith as hard as they could, Big D's temptations still win. That's definitely how I read it. I thought he was gonna bust a nut but it went a different direction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
Dr. Red Ranger posted:
Definitely seemed like it. It made me think of religious ecstasies as in St. Theresa of Avila, where it's called an ecstasy by the faithful but is also extremely sexual if you read between the lines. "Being pierced by Christ" etc etc. That scene horrified me like the sexual violence of the Exorcist did. It was just so... wrong. Great scene!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
I went into this movie blind with a couple friends tonight. My opinion is that it was a very well made boring movie. The story was too slow for me. Also it could have benefited with some subtitles. I appreciate the authentic language, but I had trouble following a lot that was being said. I didn't feel ripped off after it was over though. The acting was great, it was shot well, but it just felt like a chore to sit through until the end scenes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
I really enjoyed this; but I also had the privilege of a nearly empty theater. I saw it on a whim knowing nearly nothing about it. I read it was an art-house-horror-movie akin to "It Follows" and that Black Phillip was an avid Twitter user. I understand the ending being so polarizing, but I'm a bit surprised the rest of the film didn't hold up for people. I thought it was wonderfully shot and paced. [Spoilers:] OctaviusBeaver posted:My main problem with it was the plot during the last 1/4 of the movie. Everyone turns evil out of nowhere for some reason. I guess I get the mom doing it because she wants to see her kids again. But the father decides not to kill the goat for no reason that I can tell, he just says "Hail Satan" and dies. It was strange because in the scene right before that he broke down, realized he was prideful and prayed for forgiveness. I didn't see how that led up to him turning evil and abandoning his family. I could understand Thomasin (sp?) going with the goat out of fear or shock, but it doesn't seem like that. She really just wants material possessions and goes from good Christian->Witch for the hell of it. She doesn't even seem scared. And she's just going to join up with the people who murdered her brother, who she seemed to love based on what we saw. Is it implying that Thomasin really was involved in witchcraft from the start? Or the twins were? They just vanished. I'm probably missing something, it just seemed odd and un-fulfilling to me. I saw it as him sacrificing himself. When he prayed for forgiveness, he also begged God to do unto him whatever he wanted; but to spare his family. He saw it as a sign of God hearing his prayers. It was his punishment, and he was accepting it to save his family. As for Thomasin - someone already addressed the logical choice of her signing the pact.On her own, she would starve. If she returned to the village she would be tried for witchcraft, kept in exile, or married off. Thematically, it was to show the freedom from the Puritan/religious misogyny, oppression, etc. Anal Surgery posted:Yeah, if I have any complaints about this movie, it's that the goat's face is just so chill a lot of the time that he wasn't as creepy as he was probably supposed to be. But the part where Phillip is standing next to the twins. The way he creepily tilts his head slightly at the camera was perfect. Black Phillip owns. Related: He has heard my offerings  
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
lol nice
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:I loved it overall, I'm definitely planning on seeing it again. Somebody earlier said it best I think: it didn't feel like a movie, it felt like somebody stuck a camera on a farm in New England in the 1600s. I think the "Corruption, you are my father" thing with the pa was about what his wife saw as the absence of the Lord and the presence of Evil and him finally seeing it, having to kneel to it and acknowledge its power. He set out as a man of faith, believed that it was a test and that he was being humbled only to be slain by an icon of Evil with no warning. I think it's the movie's grimmest declaration of Evil and I think it works. I also, and maybe this is just me, think Thomasin had a similar revelation but coupled with the fact that she was a lone girl in the woods who would never survive by herself; who else could she turn to? Ah I see some of these points were already brought up. WASDF fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Feb 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Anal Surgery posted:Definitely seemed like it. It made me think of religious ecstasies as in St. Theresa of Avila, where it's called an ecstasy by the faithful but is also extremely sexual if you read between the lines. "Being pierced by Christ" etc etc. That scene horrified me like the sexual violence of the Exorcist did. It was just so... wrong. Caleb's ecstatic 'encounter' with Christ and Thomasin's with the coven was a really good juxtaposition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Roasted Donut posted:This movie is ridiculously good and Black Phillip is a loving homeboy. It's ya boy black Phillip I mean THE DEVIL
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
Lol at the dummies in this thread going like "look at the cliches in the witches" The subtitle of the movie says loving folklore. This hits every 17th century idea of witches and magic exactly. Even got 17th century curses like the botchling chicken. Also lol at the people complaining about the zealotry of the family. Welcome to loving 1600s protestants. The family was exiled for heresy by God damned puritans. Also the supernatural was real so. I get if you just didn't like it but if you bring up that poo poo you're just a dummy. Especially the people saying there weren't enough jump scares or scary parts. Way to miss the loving point. Anyway I bet the audience reaction wouldvery been better if they left out the Black Sabbath at the end. You really have to know about 1600s witch stereotypes to know what's going on or else it comes off strange. There's just so many little historical details I'm fawning over but what I did like was Thomasins joining of the coven essentially freeing her from a repressive and misogynistic society. And Caleb showing signs of luster ND ultimately being seduced and having a religious old school ecstacy before dying. Do you guys think his ecstasy was fake though? It seemed disingenuous which would throw off an exorcist vibe Phi230 fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 02:43
|
|
