Nope (dir. Jordan Peele)

Granted the trailer's been out for a little bit but just to kick off the thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In8fuzj3gck

aliens are real

i think it it had a big enough budget to do what the script wants it to do

And one last trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUgmq_8PlRY

sight unseen, i have to think Nope falls comfortably under the cultural category of "films that really need to be seen for the first time in the theater, preferably in a full house, preferably early in the run"

Goddamn it, I just looked at the release date and for about 5 minutes misread it as June 22 instead of July 22.

Yeah, opening weekend for me.

probably my most anticipated film this year

the second trailer made me far less excited, but i'm still looking forward to it

https://www.avclub.com/keke-palmer-dozens-of-takes-nope-monologue-1849194931/am

I’ve gotta figure out where and when I’m seeing this over the weekend.

Whoa.

Non-spoiler: a character wears a Jesus Lizard tee in this movie.

Enjoyed this a lot

psyched.

Tickets bought for tomorrow, really looking forward to it.

It's a bit different from his other two. Dialogue mumbled and piecemeal and could be easy to miss bits, but it's not at all hard to follow. Beautifully shot and a creative yet simple premise.

Polar opposite of Us, which I also loved.

utterly awesome movie

not one but two visual references to akira??? omfg

I kinda want to go see it again in the theater - feels like I might’ve missed some details or subtleties (and dialogue, it does get a little mumble-y).

Also I should probably see Us eventually

the scene with the blood flying out of the alien-flying-object and dripping onto the ranch house was fantastic

it was everything i dreamed

*bumps fist*

cocking my eye at ppl on letterboxd describing this as too convoluted and/or messy but then again i loved us. i just think this was much sparer and more balanced on the whole, and the times it did veer from the main narrative only made the world feel deeper (and scarier)

i also thought the character work was excellent. the snl monologue is demonstrative of this. at first it seems like exposition until you realize, when peele (like really exquisitely) overlays his actual experience of the event, that the character isn’t saying what he means

to some degree no one in this movie is saying what they mean until shit really goes down. typical hollywood

can’t tell if i’m saying utterly daft shit about this movie or not, need more ppl to see it yesterday

That monologue was head spinning

Otm brad

letterboxd needs to stop putting negative reviews of this movie in my feed. anyway seems like some ppl are struggling with the extremely understated quality of daniel kaluuya's performance, but imo he is an amazing character, and all of that character is brimming in the negative space around his performance

this ultimately ties into how i feel about the ending, which, idk if i'm right or anything, it's just a reading, but i read it as commentary on the nature of making art, that we only ever access truth through the most indirect paths, and even then it's only the briefest glimpse, a single snapshot we took when we weren't even looking directly at it. imo this contrasts pretty deliciously with the cosmic gumbo-ass director's approach to documenting truth as well as with the extremely-online-fame-chaser on the bike during the climax

I’ve seen that criticism of DK, too. Like, what, you don’t realize that he’s playing a particular kind of person?

I read him as someone who was hurting from the sudden death of his father who was I over his head keeping the family business alive but feeling like he's ill-equipped to do it

And if that was you, would you be verbose? Nah

Sorry I mean "Nope"

The moments when he went “nope” were among my favorites in this movie (there were many favorites).

I was listening to a podcast review, and one of the reviewers had been around horse dudes growing up, and this is apparently how a lot of horse dudes are - they’re very quiet and relate more to horses than to other people.

my friend jim wrote a spoiler-heavy letterboxd review that is among the more thoughtful i've read so far https://letterboxd.com/jimmc_grath/film/nope/

i feel like i was paying pretty close attention but i love that the film didn't(?) explicitly explain how the gordy's home incident tied into the rest of the plot, if it does at all... it could just be an inexplicable event that shaped the rest of steven yeun's character's life or it could have some resonance with the thing hovering behind the clouds. i'm suggesting the latter purely because of the suspended shoe, which also could just be an impossible image that yeun gets obsessed with and which feeds into his obsession over controlling and displaying this impossible image for others in the sky. anyway it's good to not tie these things up sometimes, because when i was talking about the movie with my gf and her friend we had three totally different ideas of what happened and how the incident figured into the present day events of the film

I think it may have tied in because Jupe used the incident for publicity purposes when opening his theme park, and having that little Gordy's Home museum in the back of his office, which he jokes that he 'charges' people to tour. To me that suggests that he is exactly the narcissistic opportunist type, who has a "UFO experience" and instead of telling anybody, secretly decides to create a ticketed event one mere month later featuring said "UFO/alien" without properly vetting the danger he was putting himself, his family, and the audience in. and of course, it blew up in his face.

oh yes absolutely! there's def a persistent theme of people exploiting their own tragedies for attention and money

and ppl having to process something inexplicable and horrible and unprocessable that happened to them and thus doing it in all the wrong ways

I understand the criticisms of DK's performance, but I also think they're wrong. I wasn't too fond of either of the main characters initially -- OJ too reserved, Emerald too self-absorbed -- but that changed by the end of the movie. I'm glad Peele is on a level where the studio can't force reshoots to make his leads "more relatable" or w/e. (Obviously there is also a whole racialized element to this, which I feel unqualified to speak to.)

The whole audience cracked up at the interaction between OJ and Em when the documentary filmmaker showed up with his non-electrical camera. Later I realized it felt like a moment straight out of the Key & Peele valet sketches.

as soon as Jupe mentioned the Gordy incident, I immediately knew exactly why there was someone in Jupe's audience with facial disfigurement in the trailer. and that they were going to show the incident in all of its horror (well-staged)

haha yeah i loved the appearance of his co-star

also loved the alien looking like a cowboy hat. kind of mad that the last set of trailers spoiled that a bit.

Saw this yesterday with my daughter and we loved it, though with a few reservations. One big way that Jupe's story ties in is that he didn't learn his lesson the first time that you can't tame or befriend a wild/predatory creature. Reaching out to knuckle bump your costars' apparent killer and feeding an alien horses, so much wtf Jupe! I haven't read every hidden text in this thread so sorry if I'm repeating the obvious.

Another random thought/connection:

When Parasite came out, I remember reading an interview, either with Bong or with his cinematographer, talking about how the whole set design process worked backwards from the director's hyper-specific vision for the film's final sequence (the father ascending the stairs out of the basement, into the sunny living room, with his son waiting there).

In my headcanon, I like to imagine a similar process played out as Peele set up that last shot of OJ framed by the gate, coming up out of the valley on horseback as the dust settles all around him. Like, How can you get a Black character into this iconic 1950s Western shot, and have the shot "make sense" in the context of the surrounding movie and carry the same affective weight that it would have in a classic Western, while telling an entirely original story in a contemporary setting?

Someone on the internet said the shot looks like the Muybridge film, which I don't agree with, but since the movie is sort of about spectacle, I do wonder if the entrance to Jupiter's Claim has the aspect ratio of a film frame

Also my idiotic fan theory is that all of Angel's band T-shirts have some narrative logic to them. Earth is mother nature, the Wipers is an apocalyptic event, Jesus Lizard is obviously the mix of the spiritual with the animal, being a Mr. Bungle got us into this mess and RATM will get us out

huge return to form after us which sucked ass. last 30 mins were peak spielberg level, nearly brought a tear to my eye in awe of the spellbinding magic of cinema. not as great of a script as get out, but i'm v relieved peel's still "got it"

Us is great, foh

other than tethered lupita (one of the craziest performances ever) i thoughtus was boring as hell and a clear sophomore slump

on the "good movie to write a thinkpiece about" v.s. "good movie to watch" spectrum, get out perfectly balances the two, us goes full thinkpiece, and nope leans more on the watchable end. the thinkpiece stuff in nope wasn't as flawlessly weaved into the narrative as in get out. i personally would've cut the whole steven yeun subplot (i couldn't follow the logic of keke palmer stealing his sign)

that is not a real spectrum!!!

or if it is it's the most reductive one possible through which to view these films

Discourse brain

or if it is it's the most reductive one possible through which to view these films

― flamenco drop (BradNelson), Tuesday, July 26, 2022 12:32 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

Discourse brain

― Whiney G. Weingarten, Tuesday, July 26, 2022 12:40 PM (fourteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

i know it's painful when someone doesn't like a movie you like, but i don't think it's reductive or discourse brain. part of what's cool about peele's movies is how topical they are and how he packs them with metaphors and symbols that self-consciously gesture at Big Ideas. i'm surprised it's a controversial claim--it's like the signature trait that sets him apart from other current big name hollywood directors? imho he's able to pull it off better than almost anyone, tho us and candyman were misses that left me cold

the career arc key & peele -> get out -> us -> nope is such a great distillation of vibes from peak obama era to obama-trump interregnum to trump term 1 era to biden era

like to the extent get out feels dated, it's cause it's a movie from when rich white lady racism was the centre of the discourse, before the conservative populist white revanchist movement exploded onto the mainstream

The T-shirts, explained.

The explanation: "They're [the character's] band T-shirts"

i really liked this! palmer and kaluuya were great and the set piece at the end was extremely clever. i'd love to know what inspired peele to cast michael wincott.

that voice, probably. everybody associates dust and cowboys with deep voiced people

"And it's Kattan, so he's CRUSHING it."

that bit was great because that is totally who would have played the chimp in that era of SNL

Lots of chatter about the band t-shirts but the fact that there was an Exuma needle drop and they showed the cover in a big studio release is wild.

the documentary filmmaker showed up with his non-electrical camera.

Hooray for analog media! The classic vinyl, the film cameras, the old Haywood promo videotape showing the Muybridge short....

Like, How can you get a Black character into this iconic 1950s Western shot, and have the shot "make sense" in the context of the surrounding movie and carry the same affective weight that it would have in a classic Western, while telling an entirely original story in a contemporary setting?

It's definitely a detournement of the classic Western trope of the (white) hero in a white hat riding a white horse.

I've grown to appreciate how Peele sets up the opening credits where you go 'what am I looking at and what does it have to do with anything I've heard about this film so far' -- and this time around he did it twice. (And when I realized what the black box with the cast names in it it was, yikes.)

Also, between the opening quote here and the one for Mad God, good few for deeply fucked up Bible quotes kicking off a movie.

Few weeks, I should say.

https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/4470/buck-and-the-preacher#overview

There was a prominently displayed poster for Buck and the Preacher (1972). Conveniently this will be shown on TCM on August 4, 2am (EST), as part of Sidney Poitier's Summer Under the Stars day. I know I want to check this out.

I...quite liked this movie. Other than the OJ dad backstory, the lack of "humanizing" elements and tedious exposition felt right -- even about the UFO.

TMZ dude looked like a Daft Punker.

Worth a read: http://reverseshot.org/reviews/entry/2959/nope

xp and sounded like Nicolas Cage! (I really want to believe this was an uncredited cameo)

If only, but it was this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devon_Graye

We took the kids yesterday, we all enjoyed the heck out of it. My older son, who pays attention to this kind of thing, said that he liked "how many metaphors there were for filmmaking."

Your son OTM

Brandon Perea is my new crush.

he reminds me of riz ahmed

Brilliant casting. Very much captured that kind of SoCal dude.

I'm supposed to be cheering, I know. As I posted at the time, I thought Peele's first two films were audacious--even though they drifted into conventional horror-film stuff towards the end, the conception of each was great. "We're Americans"--I still think about that line, thought it was brilliant.

I liked the Gordy story here, and wished the whole film were about that. (Even though, beyond the Jupe connection, I either missed or am too lazy to figure out the deeper connection to the main story.) I thought the Muybridge stuff at the beginning was really promising--again, if there was follow-through, I missed it. Three of the four principals were pretty good. Couldn't stand the cameraman's Sam Elliot imitation.

Thought the last half-hour was an ordeal, and quite silly. It kind of reminded me of why I got tired of Stranger Things--I can only take so much of a rag-tag crew banding together to defeat the monster. (And the way Emerald actually did it--was that an Austin Powers tribute?) And dialogue like "Are we still rolling?" "You're goddamn right we are!" They really needed George Kennedy to deliver that line.

Now about them fashions

Talking with @roxana_hadadi, #NOPEMOVIE's costume designer explains each and every decision that was made to complement the film’s considerations of celebrity, spectacle, and storytelling https://t.co/dpWJXO2spG

— Vulture (@vulture) August 1, 2022

Walter Chaw had very mixed feelings.

Whatever my responses to his three films, I don't get how Peele has become "bunkered and solipsistic."

the reverse shot piece that alfred linked was excellent

first paragraph of that walter chaw piece is exhausting just watch a fuckin movie man

Who is Walter Chaw, this shit sucks

Not much to chaw on.

Thought all those questions in that first paragraph were perfectly valid. I stopped caring enough to have any questions at a certain point.

Walter, you know a movie is just a bunch of made up shit, right?

Are you saying a film's internal logic shouldn't be questioned? That would be a new development in film criticism, for sure.

i watch every movie with a paper and a pen to make sure that every question is answered on screen and deduct points when they aren't

This all strikes me as very strange. Questioning points of logic was second nature for someone like Pauline Kael. Just one example that comes to mind: the idea that De Niro would shake Walken's head at the end of The Deer Hunter. Pointing these things out is one of the things film critics do, or at least used to.

There's a powerful opening scene where something happens involving a nickel that is very effective up until the moment it's explained, at which point it no longer makes sense; why did it do what it did and not what it does for the rest of the film?

I don't get this one. At several points, we see the UFO discarding metal objects that it's sucked up.

Defending the film against his questions, as jaymc does, saying he missed something, that I understand. Dismissing his questions out of hand, like he doesn't have a right to ask them, that I don't get at all.

"if i eat a balloon, will i explode?" is not a good faith examination of the film's internal logic

The excerpt (from Chaw’s review?) that jaymc shared feels like the Riddle of the Sphinx or something

(Or maybe I’m just tired.)

I guess he was trying for humour with the eat-a-balloon line, but, as I mentioned above, I also found that preposterous as a resolution--worse even that Joaquin Phoenix grabbing the baseball bat in Signs, which, like Chaw, I liked better than Nope.

ok how about: questioning a film's internal logic is one thing, but dwelling on it to such an extent that you start to misrepresent the film is another

a lot of plots i hold great esteem for have holes in them. finding one of these and exploiting them is not necessarily good criticism to me, and often ends up being a not seeing the forest for the trees kind of deal. (this type of criticism takes ruinous forms on both youtube (as cinemasins) and on the general internet (as "ilx film and tv threads".) i also don't think internally consistent logic is necessarily a hallmark of good storytelling. imagination and curiosity are, though

i've never been a big fan of kael tho, every time i read one of her collections i get distracted by the bad opinions. my problem as a reader

also obv the film in the analog camera would prob get mixed with blood and viscera in the flying stomach that is the creature but again if you're thinking this hard about it you've tricked yourself out of the experience

I don't think any of Peele's plots really survive logical scrutiny, but that's pretty normal for horror movies. The genre prioritizes sensation over sense, and I think Peele understands that well.

I think internal logic is much more important to some kinds of films than others. It doesn't bother me at all that there may have been no one in the room to hear Kane whisper "Rosebud." (Even though I think it's easy to explain how there probably was.) The Big Sleep famously gets away with a lot. And if I had found lots to love in this film, I'm sure I wouldn't care here. I didn't. He didn't either, and if all these questions were on his mind when he sat down to write his review, I think that's a good entry point. (As I say, I just basically tuned out at a certain point.)

Pretty sure I have no problem dismissing whatever I want on some guy's blog

Oh. He doesn't have enough stature or name recognition to ask these questions.

From Anthony Lane's review: "That is why [Peele] strives to connect the dots--bringing together the zones of his story with a bizarre sequence in which Jupe, hosting an outdoor event, promises a crowd of customers that the spaceship will swing by. But this is nonsense; hitherto, it wasn’t clear that he even knew about the alien presence."

While watching the movie, I was also a little confused by this. But on further reflection, it became obvious that Jupe had known about the UFO for a while -- this is why he kept buying horses from the Haywoods! Far from being "nonsense," I liked that it wasn't spelled out.

Is Kael an advocate for clean plotting? I'd say the opposite, or, rather, I don't remember her spending paragraphs dissecting plot points except for the occasional joke?

this is why he kept buying horses from the Haywoods! Far from being "nonsense," I liked that it wasn't spelled out.

Yeah, I noticed this too. He trusts the audience to understand it's in Jupe's huckster personality to figure out how to exploit the scenario.

(xpost) She wasn't fixated on it, I don't think, but I recall numerous examples of her pointing out things that didn't quite fit together logically. In her GFII review, I think she mentioned the reappearance of Willi Cicci, who had seemingly been killed off earlier.

And I'm sure she was more exacting when she didn't like a film, which is why Walter Chaw's questions don't strike me as anything unusual. He didn't like a lot of the film, he's explaining why, and these questions are front and center. Later on, he praises a few things he did like.

re: "but this is nonsense"; see, when critics do this they can inadvertently reveal how little they were paying attention... lol

yeah i thought it was a pretty clear cut thing - he feeds horses to the monster until the monster decides horses aren't enough. it's a parallel to the gordy story. in both cases, people hubristically think they can understand or tame an animal by ascribing human characteristics to it, without realizing that these animals operate only according to their basest desires.

also interesting that the thing that causes gordy to snap is the popping of a balloon.

xps to the anthony lane discussion

Seeing it a second time made the "what did Jupe know when?" questions much clearer. You actually hear the echos of him doing his Star Lasso routine way off in the distance just prior to OJ's first encounter with the alien. (This also explains why his children happened to have alien costumes on hand for the prank a couple of days later.)

For me, the biggest unanswered question from the first viewing was "What was the point of having O.J. construct a replica of the mirror ball thingy from the film set?"

What I is that it was actually just a very subtle bit of characterization, showing that O.J. is not fully invested in the alien plot yet; he'd rather figure out new training methods he can use with the horses to prevent another on-set embarrassment.

You actually hear the echos of him doing his Star Lasso routine way off in the distance just prior to OJ's first encounter with the alien.

Yeah, not to be all "I'm the guy who gets things!" but that was clear to me — you see the lights from the Haywood ranch and you can hear a loudspeaker, he even says, "...every Friday night for six months ..." or whatever. In the moment it's just weird and disorienting because you can't tell what it is, and then the alien comes and the scene moves on. But then when it later shows Jupe doing his bit, with the same dialogue, it's clear that the earlier one was basically a dress rehearsal. And yes, he's been feeding the Haywood horses to the beast, which is why earlier when OJ says something about wanting to buy them back, Jupe does this odd bit of hesitating.

Which is to say, definitely not everything is explained in the movie in a satisfactory way. But also, I think more is explained around the edges than is obvious on first viewing.

Actually that scene where OJ goes out chasing Ghost, sees the lights and hears the PA and then the alien attacks, is a good example of Peele's strategy of showing us things that disorient us and then letting them linger until he eventually circles back and fills in the picture. (The opening of the film with the chimp is Exhibit A.) He just doesn't do the extra bit that hackier genre films do where a character goes, "Oh, so when I saw X happen, what was actually happening was Y."

When I saw the pre-credit sequence, I thought, "OH, this must be the distributor's logo."

Yeah, I was uncertain whether it was part of the movie or not. Very unsettling effect.

I saw it on an actual horse ranch

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FYnBHZhVQAA7XYX?format=jpg&name=large

Every time the horses would be going wild in the movie, the IRL horses would start running around, it was crazy

I thought this was good even though I wasn't smart to understand everything that was going on (metaphor-wise). When we looked up what people are saying I kind of felt that, like "Us," there was just a bit *too much* going on (again, metaphor-wise; filmmaking, police brutality, etc.), and I'm not sure how well it all holds together. I'm also not sure it matters. In the end I liked this better than "Us," loved all the Spielberg references and loved the monster design as something so unfathomable.

I'm gonna say it

Nope > Us > Get Out

I mean the key to the monster design, metaphor-wise, is that its mouth is basically a camera shutter, right?

and/or a butthole

lol

That was in Venus on the Half Shell.

The monster is clearly a jellyfish butthole sand dollar.

Did you guys consider the monster might be us

Lol, that is actually one metaphor I didn't consider.

the monster’s face reminded me a lot of ”dog,” the robot from half life 2

In my view, the common aim of Peele’s films so far seems to be to [show hidden text].

lmao fuck

xpost hero

hahahahaha

god level bbcode

Aw

In relevant news I am sitting through previews in advance of my second viewing, very excited, decided I couldn’t wait

Great wisdom

I will say I'm very, very glad I missed pretty much all spoilers aside from the trailers themselves -- didn't know if that would be the case after having to wait a week but hey.

I had NO idea what this thing was about before yesterday's viewing.

my review? Yep

It wasn't explicitly shown, but I got the impression O.J. and Em's dad was equal parts showman and horse whisperer/trainer, and his kids ended up as one or the other.
I know I've seen the premise of children having to work together to become like the parent who's gone before, but no great comparisons are coming to mind.

As for the Gordy situation, definitely a case where a character's prior experience is shown to make it clear they learned nothing from it. O.J. has at least one line where he explicitly spells out it's not a ship but a beast, and you shouldn't look it in the eye but it can still be broken if you figure out the rules. The bit where he's recreated the globe mirror is just connective tissue for him to realize that.

I was paying pretty close attention to the audio cues, and the bit where O.K. is out after dark and Yeun's character is practicing some new show after dark has some audible phrases that don't directly reference the alien, but obviously allude to it. And the kids are wearing alien costumes! And O.J. clocks a child (albeit wearing a padded mask) in the head! lol.

The entire spelling out of a fictional SNL scene had a lot of layers, and I'm sure Peele heard all the stories. Like the SNL folklore that Kattan would boost appearances of a certain character he'd play when there'd be an attractive guest, so he could do his Mr. Peepers routine and hump them

Jupe saying that the sketch absolutely nailed it was both him downplaying it, and the script dunking on that recurring character imo

It’s stated repeatedly that Jupiter “didn’t learn” from the Gordy experience but I think he “learned” something very precise— that he is a special child star who a hostile entity would reward with an exploding fist bump rather than a face removal

Second viewing revealed that the Gordy -> Star Lasso sequence was the truly gripping heart of the movie

Also Peele is an (almost) perfect filmmaker with that (almost) being the caveat that he has a tendency to obscure his character expositions— almost as if he has spent so much time with the script and in the editing room that his own intimacy with the material and characters is assumed as shared by the audience. (Almost) in brackets because I consider this tendency to be more of an asset than a fault— repeated viewings of his movies are incredibly rewarding, once you’re on the same page as Peele it all is just a tour de force, and you can forgive not “getting it” the first time

Second viewing bravos go to Jupiter and Emerald’s simultaneous “where’d you get yours?” shouts (about the decoy), the incredible sound design— quiet horse and people screaming at all times that the entity is prowling, and the just-noticed “what’s a name for a bad miracle?” “Nope.” rejoinder.

I think this movie is making a point about the nature of panopticon-exploitation and there are meant to be clear parallels between Gordy/the horses and human groups— also that exploitative models reproduce themselves in more successful (mutually respectful) and less successful (everybody dies) forms

fgti otm. I always love reading your thoughts on films!

The movie felt like several weird dreams nested within one another and, yes, I need to see it a second time.

That's a good way to put it.

What I loved about this movie is that it, like "Us," is ripe for so much investigation and interpretation it's practically critic proof, because even if you think it misses the mark on something, you have to at least consider that *you* are missing the mark, and explore the movie even deeper. For example, right now I'm wondering, hmm, Jupe knew about it for a while, why was *his* reaction not to try to sell it (or a picture of it, or rights or something like that) for millions but to incorporate it into his little show in the middle of nowhere for a dozen people? I don't know. I was thinking maybe just ego, as a former child star who seems to be wanting for less than OJ and his sister? Or maybe more specifically, as a damaged former child star who has outwardly buried his trauma but perhaps has in a sense self-isolated, because he's clearly invented a world of comforting lies (like his affinity for the recreated SNL skit over the horrifying reality he witnessed) to help himself survive?

Or the origin of the creature itself (not that it matters), I was wondering if there were any clues given that I missed. Like, the monkey is triggered. The horse on the soundstage is triggered. Was there maybe a passing reference to something triggering the creature? I was wondering why a voracious food-vacuuming predator would set up territory in the middle of nowhere.

BTW, anyone else notice what a good job Kaluuya did approximating Keith David's voice?

he was hard to understand at times, not gonna lie

That's apparently just the way all movies are mixed now.

xp No references to what triggered it, but if you listen during the montage of early morning farm shots where we are first introduced to Otis Sr. and O.J., there is a radio report about a missing group of hikers in Agua Dulce

Good catch! No wonder the creature was so hungry, it had set up territory in this totally unpopulated region.

A chat with the editor

https://gizmodo.com/jordan-peele-nope-editor-horror-gordys-home-shoe-alien-1849357760

Was just reading comments re: Alfred's review elsewhere, and I actually agree with one person that much of the movie *was* kind of boring (imo). But I kind of appreciated it, because I also agree with a comment that a lot of people *are* grasping at thematic/metaphoric straws to make sense of the movie but, as I opined, I think that's a success even in failure. It's *worth it* to grasp at straws in this movie's case, because it's so rich in straws and ambiguous in how they have been scattered and introduced.

In the case of purported boringness, to me it reflected the practical, almost matter of fact reaction Em and OJ (and in a sense Jupe) have to this absolutely insane discovery, even *after* the horror of it, er, raining blood. They don't run, they don't hide. I find that almost blase, certainly not particularly fearful reaction in line with certain straws I've seen grasped re: the aspects of the movie working as a metaphor for persecution, police brutality and its relationship with being caught on camera (which is of course one of the many loose themes of the film: making movies, being the star of a movie/TV show, being the subject of a news crew, being the target of a paparazzi, the constant hunt for filmed content, etc.). Some react to the creature as news. Some as tabloid bait. Some as something to hide from. Some as something to try and tame. But OJ and Em react to it almost with mundane recognition: yep, here's yet another horrible thing trying to oppress us, what else is new, we should probably catch this on camera to prove to the world that it exists.

I agree that Peele could have developed his themes more, or maybe more explicitly, but I'd prefer things remain underdeveloped/ambiguous than too on the nose/"do you see!?". Lots of good stuff in this rich Hollywood Reporter piece I just saw:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/nope-ending-explained-jordan-peele-1235185106/

(Unrelated quick nitpick: the coin that kills Otis Sr., was that refuse from the monster or is it meant to be ambiguous, too? Either way, a coin from the sky wouldn't fall fast enough to do that kind of damage, it would have to be fired like a bullet, but that's the kind of ambiguity that truly doesn't matter.)

What if Jupe's unwitting been... waiting for the other shoe to drop most of his life?

I wouldn't be shocked if there was a shot I missed of the shoe knocked over in Jupiter's Claim.

it is obviously refuse from the monster

and they do in fact hide out from the monster at angel's house after it rains blood and viscera all over the house. it's a whole sequence

Yes, Brad. But they go right back to the ranch.

I liked a lot of the smaller details too, like how in the trailer, it looks like Em is the one who's all enthusiastic about the horse trainer gig, and OJ seems so blase about it, when in the movie, it shows she's just a trained performer doing a memorized bit, to the point where she even left off a 'great' for 'great grandfather' because she memorized her dad's speech word for word without adjusting it. and OJ is the one who is overwhelmed by his father's legacy but wants to keep the business alive.

I've been whining for two years about the average movie time, but Nope is the first blockbuster that didn't get me to look at my watch once.

misrepresenting the events of this film to make a point about how they react to the monster "almost with mundane recognition" (not sure i agree with that from what's evident on the screen) is almost as bad as saying it's boring but in a good way (it's not boring)

they go back to the ranch for a whole host of reasons but the one that seemed to burn strongest through the dialogue was the sense of responsibility oj felt for the horses (and by proxy his dad) idk

there's almost certainly a "capturing police brutality on camera" reading that can be affixed on this film but not at the expense of what the characters are thinking and feeling in their own contexts

Yes, he says aloud he's thinking about the horses.

it's not boring

Boring/not boring would seem to be a wholly subjective response, not something you assert as fact. I can guarantee I was 100% bored the last half-hour. If it's any consolation, I was bored in the bad way.

clem we're aware that you disengaged from this film entirely as you were watching it, thanks

Hey, if you guys can hammer home what you think is great about the film, a dissenting voice isn't the end of the world.

the last half hour was great, shout out to all the inflatable arm-waving tube men

I did think of Nope yesterday as I passed an inflatable arm-waving tube man, and probably will continue to do so for some time, so that's something.

The fact that we’re going back and forth so much about this movie (from various angles) is a point in its favor, in my opinion.

Nothing sucks more than a media thread that drops dead a week or a few days after its release.

And I'll again say that, flawed though I thought they were, I was so impressed by many things about Peele's first two films that my disappointment in the third exists within that context. If the first two had made no impression on me, I doubt I'd be so adamant about the third. Ditto Phantom Thread, ditto The Wolf of Wall Street, ditto Everybody Wants Some!, ditto lots of films I recoiled from by people who've made films I love.

xposty Silly argument, I know he purportedly went back for the horses; perhaps felt particularly guilty for selling other horses to a guy feeding them to a sky monster. He's a horse guy, and owes them/his dad loyalty. At the same time, it's a territorial sky monster that sucks up people (and horses) and spits out their visceral remains. "Going back for the horses" to me *is* a strangely mundane, practical reaction to that, because he's got to know there's a very good chance both he *and* the horses will be chewed up and spit out. (Maybe, like the cinematographer, he wants that.) But I don't think it's misrepresenting the characters to call their response to a terrifying and *avoidable* monster mundane. I mean, Em and Angel don't go back for the horses, they go back to continue their mission to get it on film, when the most reasonable reaction to events would be to, um, *get out.* Heck, even OJ, sure, he goes back to feed the horses (or whatever), but what he conspicuously *doesn't* do is pack them up in a trailer and take them somewhere where they are less likely to be eaten.

This is actually one of my favorite oblique "Jaws" references. What's the reaction to a giant shark eating a kid? MORE people go in the water. Some to catch it, some to kill it, most with no idea how to do either, some slightly more competent than others, and so on. OJ def. has some stony unflappable Quint vibes to him, but for sure the cinematographer is Quint all the way.

My daughter observed that after months of normal horse-sized meals, the monster gorged on a few dozen people so it barfed up blood and not just undigestible metal because it overate. Not just Jean Jacket but also Monsieur Creosote.

blood barf part was amazing.

not to mention the shot of the people post-being sucked up

where did the creature's waste go?

the other bit that made it puke organic matter this time was the ribbon on the fake horse decoy getting stuck in its craw

yes, this is how they learn that certain types of non-organic matter agitate the creature, and that it is also drawn to flag banner thingys, and use that knowledge in the future

(Unrelated quick nitpick: the coin that kills Otis Sr., was that refuse from the monster or is it meant to be ambiguous, too? Either way, a coin from the sky wouldn't fall fast enough to do that kind of damage, it would have to be fired like a bullet, but that's the kind of ambiguity that truly doesn't matter.)

A point so ambiguous that Peele deliberately had OJ say that the "falling from a plane" explanation didn't work for him, even before OJ had any other reason to be suspicious, and took multiple opportunities to show that the creature ejects non-organic matter after normal digesting, including deliberately paying off the initial coin and key drop with closeups of other coin/key type things being fired so hard that they embedded into wood, not just soft tissue.

At the same time, it's a territorial sky monster that sucks up people (and horses) and spits out their visceral remains.

It has never spat out visceral remains before. He now has a data point that shows how badly its feeding cycle was disrupted on this one occasion, which he attempts to use against it.

Also, iirc there have been occasional, rare IRL examples of an animal caretaker acting to protect their animals from predators.

Hey, it's sic!

OK one thing that threw me (and it is prolly because I spaced out for a minute during this part) is that
--the monster likes the rainbow flags
--the monster got sick from eating the rainbow flags
--OJ says something like "I bet he won't be eating that for a while" iirc
--then he draws out the monster using ... rainbow flags?

Didn't they just set it up that they agree the monster would NOT want flags anymore?

I thought it was just the realization that it gave the monster indigestion, not that it had necessarily learned not to eat it. I imagine when you're a giant vacuum monster you end up eating a lot of stuff you wouldn't choose to eat.

The monster very obviously recoils in fear/disgust when O.J. deploys his colorful flag & drag chute apparatus.

^ That's exactly where I spaced out... For some reason I thought monsty was chasing the flags

monster is going for perceived eye contact
the giant inflatable cowboy has the flags attached, but it also has huge, unblinking eyes and is just a huge target that, it turns out, is not edible

false flags

Monster never liked flags. Monster liked horses, monster ate a fake horse, monster gets sick, flags were attached to the horse, monster now hates flags and may be skeptical about horses also

Of all the things I enjoyed about this movie, one thing I appreciated most, which other directors and studios will hopefully embrace:

THE TRAILER DIDN'T GIVE THE GAME AWAY!

I knew this was the west, cowboys, horses, maybe some aliens or some shit. But that’s it. It was so wonderful to be made curious but just not know the story in advance. More of that, Hollywood!

Yeah, my big beef with Get Out was that it basically told the whole movie in the trailer, and the Alamo played the trailer so much

I took it that the flapping of the flags drew critter’s attention, but only enough to then make perceived eye contact to have a chomp. But they might have been mainly for the audience’s visual tracking benefit, in which case “false flags” otm

(Almost certain that the indigestion was from eating a full-sized fiberglass horsey, not from having its throat tickled by flags)

THE TRAILER DIDN'T GIVE THE GAME AWAY!

Honestly kinda amazing. But the movie played it smartly too -- you get the 'flying saucer' fairly early on and if you'd seen the trailer you knew about it and could go 'oh okay.' Until...

Saw this at a matinee yesterday, loved it, been thinking about it ever since. I loved the design of the creature, reinventing the classic "flying saucer" into something much more uncanny. Excellent performances, incredible building of tension/dread. I haven't felt such tension watching a movie in ages.

Quibbles: I thought they could've done more with Steven Yeun's character, the psychology of that guy is clearly so fucked up, but that might have distracted from the focus on OJ and Emerald, so I get why they didn't. As much as I enjoyed Michael Wincott's presence, (and that VOICE), his character kinda felt like deadweight. It might have been better to take another page from Jaws and really narrow the focus to the core trio.

He reminded me of Breaking Bad's Jonathan Banks.

Agreed that Michael Wincott was non-essential personnel, but having his gravel voice and Eastwood grimace in the trailer got me like 30% more hyped about the movie than I already was.

*long silence*

“It’s a pur-ple peo-ple eater …”

Hahah I'd almost forgotten that moment.

I remember thinking “is this really happening right now”

That part was so good

i loved wincott in this, didn't feel extraneous to me at all

Saw it again today, was even better the second time. Still don't think there's a particularly good reason given for them going back to the ranch with the cinematographer beyond getting the picture/movie* - Angel justifies it by suggesting maybe they will save lives/the planet in addition to getting rich and famous - but doesn't matter. There are lots of little details I missed the first time around, too, that were more evident the second time (like the way OJ often communicates with people like they're horses, with clicks or specific hand motions, or, heck, that Jupe has a rhinestone UFO embroidered into his Nudie Suit). Still not sure what to make of the cinematographer's role, exactly, except I think it's implied he's dying, and if he's going to go, he wants to go getting the proverbial impossible shot, to capture what no one else could capture (because it means death).

*It's almost a flip of the original Eddie Murphy "get out" routine. In fact, the first time I saw the movie the lady behind me even said "it's like 'The Amityville Horror' ... " when they showed the house dripping blood.

I just wanted to point out that Em stole a fake horse to lure the creature out so they could take a picture of it without sacrificing a horse; I’m not sure that was explicitly said on the thread and flopson seemed confused why she did it.

This was great. Also I am never going outside again.

Oh also, I think this was said already but maybe not explicitly: the alien started avoiding both horses and after it ate the fake one, so the actual plot hole is the idea that it would chase after OJ on the back of a horse.

This didn’t bother me but it’s the bit where the movie’s internal logic didn’t mesh; everything else did if you were engaged with what the movie was doing.

OJ put two giant eyes on the back of his hood, so I figured that's what the monster was fixating on.

I kept wondering if said eyes were...always there? Like is that some sort of protective thing movie workers have on hoodies to like signal others in case of night shoots or whatever, which made me wonder if he forgot they were on there? Or did I miss a scene where he attached them?

Jeans Guy 2022

It has been a long time since I’ve been haunted by a movie like this

It lingers.

finally got around to this yesterday and loved. i'm kinda shocked at how simple it seemed to be, considering all the talk i've heard about it being hits confusion puzzle box? i went in expecting to be v confused but in the end i feel like everything fit together pretty neatly by the end. maybe if i'd seen it at home i would have missed more due to small screen + distractions, seeing it in the cinema i was pretty rapt the entire time soaking up all the details. i thought Us was a disaster so this was a nice surprise.

*"being this confusing puzzle box", jfc phone

Michael Wincott was playing the role Lance Henrikson would have played 20+ years ago, wasn’t he

I rewatched King Kong last week. Obvious of most obvious low-hanging fruit: Remember how Kong freaked out when the press photographers started photographing him with flash-powder cameras?

Yeah I thought this was his most straightforward movie to date

the coin that kills Otis Sr., was that refuse from the monster or is it meant to be ambiguous, too? Either way, a coin from the sky wouldn't fall fast enough to do that kind of damage, it would have to be fired like a bullet, but that's the kind of ambiguity that truly doesn't matter.

― Vance Vance Devolution (sic), Thursday, August 4, 2022 3:41 PM (two weeks ago) bookmarkflaglink

I do remember noticing the Jefferson side of the nickel--whatever anyone here thinks of Thomas Jefferson he's a seriously problematic figures in some parts these days.

It’s pretty obvious (to me anyway) that the creature is forcefully ejecting non-digestible material, so any escape velocity issues are not on the table

I’ve never seen Jaws but this felt very similar in spirit to what I know about that story

See "Jaws"!!!!!!!!!!!

xp I believe it’s meant to be from the monster—IIRC, earlier in the scene there is a news snippet on the radio that a group of hikers in the area have gone missing, i.e., eaten.

that quote was from Josh, for anyone not keeping a spreadsheet

Dan come to Seattle in two weeks and see the imaxified Jaws with me

xps Yeah the King Kong parallel is so obvious that I completely missed it until my second watch of Nope. It's definitely a watershed moment for any history of cinema and "spectacle": where once we had Frankenstein's monster, misunderstood and vilified due to its lack of publicity, henceforth we will have celebrity monsters driven over the edge by intrusive media attention.

You know what "Jaws"-adjacent movie I kept thinking of both times I saw this? "Lake Placid."

this fuckin ruled

Yep thought so too. Simple concept but so cleverly written. And shot beautifully. Probably as good as Get Out, maybe better

This is on Prime Early Access, if you wanna have friends over and kick in.

$20

I just rewatched Grizzly Man last night and it made me think of this movie.

this fuckin ruled

― Tracer Hand, Sunday, August 28, 2022 4:08 PM (four days ago) bookmarkflaglink

i should probably check out his other movies huh

I watched it again the other day specifically to make sure I caught it one more time on a good big screen while I had the chance. Really is fantastic.

i’m surprised nobody’s mentioned herzog in this thread? or tarantino? the former for the themes, the latter for peele’s deep affection for certain types of movies and retelling them in a way that reconfigures their iconic moments in a way that includes people you don’t normally see there. that said he’s doing his own thing - i don’t want to sound reductive - but those two antecedents really jumped out at me. antlers horst even felt deliberately herzogian with his obsessive/meditative steenbeck activity, scrubbing back and forth over scenes of natural violence

Well, Tipsy mentioned Grizzly Man a couple of days ago ...

ahh!!

one thing that kinda confused me: keke palmer finally gets her oprah shot at the well, but she seems to forget about it, the plate just lying there in the collection tray as the police arrive?

I mean, she is (understandably) more excited to see her brother isn’t dead plus it’s just a cool shot

yeah that’s true. we don’t see what she’s looking at at first.

really want to see this again. i don’t usually feel that way about movies!

apparently Antlers is inspired by Peele's own DP? But I definitely agree with the shades of Herzog.

Imagine how cool it would have been if we didn’t get a good look at the ...thing the whole time UNTIL we saw the Oprah shot slide into the tray?

Saw this last week and bloody loved it. Instinctively, probably my favourite of the three so far? I definitely thought of Herzog - thematically sure, but the Wincott character definitely had a reek of Herzog. And I could totally hear the Herzog voice narrating the weird animal snuff movies Wincott was watching in his lair.

The thing that's stayed with me more than anything is the Gordy stuff. It almost feels like a separate film. The violence is so shocking, so brutal as to be off-stage (literally obscene).

Something gnaws at me in Peele's representation of the family. It's always broken or dysfunctional, but there's an uncanny element to it. This is obvious with the family in Get Out, but the sitcom family are necessarily one step removed from this and the violence feels almost retributive, or a punishment for something - beyond the obvious 'meddling with nature' narrative - and different from the violence meted out by the creature. I need to think it through.

It was supposed to be a sitcom from 1998 but felt more like 1988

Yeah, definitely. _Small Wonder_ vibes.

haha yes!

Omg Vicki

Ned, you nailed it. I couldn’t quite define what I was reminded of.

It seems unlikely that a show like that was exist in ‘98 but even in the last 1990s there was still a fair about of network dreck - it’s just that the dreck was more short-lived by that point.

WOULD exist

one thing that kinda confused me: keke palmer finally gets her oprah shot at the well, but she seems to forget about it, the plate just lying there in the collection tray as the police arrive?

― Tracer Hand, Friday, September 2, 2022 12:39 PM (two days ago)

I mean, she is (understandably) more excited to see her brother isn’t dead plus it’s just a cool shot

― castanuts (DJP), Friday, September 2, 2022 12:51 PM (two days ago)

yeah that’s true. we don’t see what she’s looking at at first.

― Tracer Hand, Friday, September 2, 2022 12:55 PM (two days ago)

Hah Tracer I had the same reaction to Em in that final sequence -- "You worked so hard to get the shot, don't let the news crews snake it from you now!!"

I've already talked upthread about how much I loved the last image of O.J., but seeing it for a second time really made me appreciate the setup. You can tell by the expression on Em's face (as well as by her sudden disinterest in the photo printer) that she's witnessing something powerful. The camera stays with her reaction for an extraordinarily long time before cutting away, to the point where I started wondering if we would ever see what she was reacting to, or if the movie would end without showing us.

Thought this was pretty great - loved all the references but the thing itself isn’t derivative despite that. I will be thinking about it a while. I haven’t read previous comments so may be repeating others upthread.

The musical cues are (unsurprisingly for Peele) really superb.

And I wear my sunglasses at night
So I can, so I can
See the light that's right before my eyes

I really like seeing Steven Yeun in anything and he was used perfectly here. The snl monologue is such a great little moment for the character, both in this monologue and also during the Star Lasso Experience he alludes to the truth, in one case unknowingly.

I don’t really understand people’s confusion about the Gordy subplot. The key to the film is all in that - the exploitation of animals without regard to their comfort which obviously leads to tragedy when dealing with something that’s wild, the different lessons people take from freak occurrences, monetising tragedy…all stuff that’s important for the whole film. I thought it was interesting that Jupe references the sitcom dad’s outfit in his Star Lasso jacket with the white flowers and Mary Jo was brought there again - reminded by her presence of how there was a man who escaped the Hiroshima bombing to return to his hometown of Nagasaki the next day. The detail about her wheelchair on the roof was so awful.

The siblings are really something. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Keke Palmer’s acting before. The costume choices for them added so much to it - I think people must have pointed out that The Jesus Lizard shirt but I appreciated their separate colour motifs in the end sequence too. I really liked OJ for just being a quiet horse guy who cares deeply about his animals - I knew he wouldn’t abandon them - and I thought a really key bit of detail is how well Lucky is trained. Lucky reacts to the mirrorball negatively, but that’s an animal’s instinct that you can’t really train out of them, however Lucky didn’t kick the trailer out when left there overnight and carried OJ through hell without spooking or throwing him off in a panic. The Haywood Hollywood Horses deliver!

Emerald is clearly written to be annoying little sister but I liked her she’s also no fool and has plenty of guts and willingness to push through. Also her line about her therapist was extremely funny. The part where she gets the speech wrong (“great”) cos she’d memorised from her dad was such a nice little detail.

The scene with the film crew is a foreshadowing of the Star Lasso Experience (and Gordy’s Home, too) where there is no attempt made to work with the different rules of engagement and an outright contempt for the advice given.

When they are in Jupe’s office, it was a nice bit of redirecting when OJ is asking to buy the horses back and Jupe is only too pleased to pick up Emerald’s line of inquiry instead. A little bit of plot that niggled at me was, you don’t see any of the horses or around at Jupiter’s Claim for obvious reasons but this shouldn’t make sense to OJ - he has sold ten horses, didn’t he wonder why they wanted more? It didn’t seem like a terribly big place, didn’t he notice that there weren’t any horses around?

I (now) know Jean Jacket’s final form was meant to be a reference to biblical angels, but I thought of the Logoi in Sunless Skies (presumably pulling from the same biblical reference) which are also fucking terrifying.

But I really need to watch it again as I’m sure I’ve missed lots.

Oh yeah

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5ddd42ea1502d35d92be5345/1578053082572-4EK4CP1FBBB9QS6A293A/image-asset.jpeg

The siblings’ determination to document this thing is a fairly blunt reference to their ancestor’s depiction on film riding the horse - despite the fact being recorded, it remains unknown, and for them to be believed they need proof.

Still one of my top three of the year. Only one I've seen more than once in the theater too.

One of my regrets this year is that I didn’t see this in a theater for a second time.

Yeah I wished I’d caught this in the cinema, the sound is such a big part of this

Watched this a month or so ago and really enjoyed it. Not as much as Get Out or Us (what's with the Us hate here???), but I think that's mostly because I like horror stories way more than I like westerny alien stories. Apologies for not being that deep about it.

Absolutely loved the way it threw us straight into the Gordy's House narrative at the beginning before moving to the present-day, both a concrete way of introducing thematic motifs and adding surreality to create a disorienting experience. I was surprised to read upthread that there were criticisms of Daniel Kaluuya's performance - while I don't specifically know any 'horse guys' I do know 'understands animals but doesn't understand people' guys, and I thought it was pretty spot on, especially with the added weights of grief and responsibility.

I agree with you, I found a lot to enjoy in Us.

Re Gordy scenes: they were the most horrific in the film for me. I watched the main scene again after I finished the film and you can hear Gordy panting and sounding agitated as the family deliver their lines. Also the sitcom mother’s actress is wearing a necklace that looks like bared teeth, which probably doesn’t go great with a chimp.

Us is great

The Gordy cold open was particularly effective in the cinema

The first thing my bf said when the opening Gordy scene came up was "its Travis!"

Im certain the nod to Travis the chimp wasnt an accident - more so when they briefly showed the horror of Mary Jo's injuries when her veil lifted- her mouth/lips were missing, which is what Travis did to his victim. And that woman also used to wear a veil over a hat to hide her disfigurement.

(B did a podcast episode about Travis so it made sense he'd immediately see that)

Watched this last night, thought it was fantastic, clever and gripping. I wanted to watch with the subs on because I figured there'd be background sound/speech we'd miss otherwise but I was voted down and I WAS RIGHT (re him seeing Jupe's practice - I had no idea what that was til reading this thread).

It was a nice change to have a menacing alien movie where they showed the alien instead of being coy about it a la Predator/Cloverfield.

lol wtf

Somehow I totally missed this video of Jordan Peele pretending to be impressed by a terrible metaverse recreation of Nope. pic.twitter.com/JiL4RLaZW6

— Zack Zwiezen's Skeleton 💀 (@ZwiezenZ) October 17, 2022

I hope they paid him in more than stupid VR goggles.

It was a nice change to have a menacing alien movie where they showed the alien instead of being coy about it a la Predator/Cloverfield.

The smart move was just going for it in the last trailer and making everyone think "Oh, alien spacecraft" instead of what we got.

gyac otm. i really enjoyed this. and it was beautiful.

saw this finally, and was mercifully spoiler free going in

goddamn what a trip. scary & fascinating & disorienting & unsettling & funny & suspenseful

my favorite subgenre is movies -about- LA and/or moviemaking, and this is my new favorite just for sheer number of layers; horse ranch & animal trainers; child actors & animals performing for tv; mom & pop theme parks; theme park stunt shows; cameras & photography; down to the cinematographer has to go up the hill for the better shot in the good light at the expense of his safety, after already getting the shot

so much to chew on and think about but also so much that made me laugh

[tmz guy flips off his bike]
“no way he survived that”
[distant agonized scream]

also genuinely scary!

oh yeah and all the westerns iconography was faaaaantastic

also the thing that i can’t stop thinking about with the Gordy scene is the way the studio audience are all still dimly outlined in the background while the whole attack is taking place

i think that’s the subtle element that truly fucks Jupe up bc it blurs the line of performance where nothing is off the table, he has no boundary

I actually thought they were all dead! Like the chimp had killed everyone? But he hadnt I assume?

No, you can see audience members hiding behind seats.

Damn…I never caught that!

Yeah, the first time I saw it I couldn't figure out why the studio was empty. Then the second time I caught that people are there and cowering.

Good discussion on the latest ep of the Still Processing podcast: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/01/podcasts/still-processing-jordan-peele-nope.html

Thanks for sharing that - they hit a lot of angles that I hadn’t even considered about this film, and now I wanna see it again even more:

i need to listen to that! thx jaymc

Now on Peacock and there's an hour-long making of as well, which I will get around to soon.

it’s being shown on 70mm in London soon

https://www.picturehouses.com/movie-details/000/HO00011874/nope

Said making-of was a good watch. Also, Indiewire has the script up:

https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/NOPE_Script_FINAL_2022.11.29.pdf

one thing that kinda confused me: keke palmer finally gets her oprah shot at the well, but she seems to forget about it, the plate just lying there in the collection tray as the police arrive?

the impression I got was that the news guys out of shot were talking about the footage they got of the thing exploding, rendering her photo worthless?

I enjoyed this a lot - probably more the first half which took on the character of kaluuya's laconic, aimless, mysterious, half checked-out performance - and y'know these nitpicks don't really bother me but the "don't look at it or you will spook it" thing works if the animal is otherwise content to leave you alone. if it's trying to eat you it's not such a good strategy.

i know awards are arbitrary & whatever but it’s depressing & frustrating that this didn’t get a ~single~ oscar nomination

like, not even cinematography? screenplay? editing for chrissakes!? fucking NADA?

Sound design alone should have gotten a nod. It was the only movie I saw twice in the theater last year and the second time was because I absolutely wanted to immerse myself in that more thoroughly.

Lots of horror got overlooked this year. "Nope," "Pearl," could even imagine someone throwing "Barbarian" a bone. I mean, this is a world where "Top Gun" and "Avatar" are awards players, so anything goes.

xxp Yeah, it's like what they say when you're hiking in bear country. If you encounter an angry brown bear or grizzly, you can try playing dead; it might get bored and wander off, and if you fight back the bear will likely respond with even more aggression. But if it's an angry black bear, *do not* play dead, because the bear will just kill you. And so says the national park service: "If any bear attacks you in your tent, or stalks you and then attacks, do NOT play dead - fight back! This kind of attack is very rare, but can be serious because it often means the bear is looking for food and sees you as prey."

these nitpicks don't really bother me but the "don't look at it or you will spook it" thing works if the animal is otherwise content to leave you alone. if it's trying to eat you it's not such a good strategy.

As far as Oscars go, Nope would seem to have been a strong contender given that it was both a critical and popular hit, not to mention the precedent of Get Out earning several Oscar noms including best pic and best director. I wasn’t surprised that Us didn't land with the Oscars since that had more straight-up horror elements and also had a more divisive reception. But Nope is *less* of a horror movie than either Us or Get Out, *and* it's about the movie industry!

exactly

yes but it’s about how the movie industry exploits crew members and commodifies trauma. the academy only likes it when hollywood is portrayed as an unequivocal good

ding ding ding ding

and how it’s racist

I don’t think the Academy likes it when you point out how they’re racist

(sorry, couldn’t resist)

loll

On a related note, MOMI has a really well-curated series of movies that got zero Oscar nominations despite being viable, in the mix, and certainly should've been up on merit:

https://movingimage.us/series/snubbed/

I stayed spoiler-free all this time... I'm in the midst of a run through recent big movies and Nope is so clearly ahead of most of what I've seen. No need to explain or dig any further, just a fucking, fun movie.

That's actually the second best thing about Nope, the best is that Agua Dulce, for once, gets to star as itself. Decades of filling in for some other places - or in the case of Vasquez Rocks, other planets as well.

the mirrorball is just a standard tool used by VFX studios - so when OJ has one he probably just copped it from antlers or w/e

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCfHQL4kLnw

https://beforesandafters.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/hdri.jpg

playing in 70mm in new york right now. our screening yesterday was weird because the first reel wasn't delivered in time so the first 40 minutes were DCP and the rest was 70mm. pretty cool to do the A/B.

What were the differences?

the 70mm print had more dynamic range and was more contrasty than the DCP - so much so that it almost seemed 'washed out' for the first few min after the switch was made. but after you adjusted to it, it was great

Finally saw it. Pretty good.
I missed what caused flying saucer to become giant blooming iris/Lily diaphanous thing.

Good to finally see it. Good film.

Brandon Perea is my new crush.

― Malevolent Arugula (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, August 1, 202

I was otm

and this movie rules the second time

Really wanna rewatch on a really good screen/soundsystem. Loved it, and my only complaint was with the muddy presentation at our neighborhood bar-theater.

I wear my sunglasses at night so I can waaaaaaaaaaatch yooooou weeeeeave

I think about this movie an awful lot.

OK, I saw this again last night, I think for the third time, and it was even richer than I remembered it. Just an utterly original take on some familiar stuff, with metaphors bouncing all over the place, and the monkey scene and digestion scene were never more terrifying.

I’m sure I said it upthread but I still count myself lucky to have seen it twice during the theatrical run just so I could pay more attention to the excellence of the sound design at scale, on top of its general greatness.

I saw it twice in theater as well, ironically at home is the first time I've ever seen it with the aspect ratio changing to reflect the 70mm IMAX scenes

I realise I'm in the minority here because so many people roundly love this film. Maybe it's to do with not being from or living in the US, and an ignorance of the subtleties of the themes in this film. But I just found it completely mid. The throughline, if there was one, was lost on me for a start. Characters often did things that defied any sense or logic, and I found the denouement really frustrating because of that.
And, sorry, but it failed on the basis of being a horror or a monster movie because frankly a big parachute-sized plastic shopping bag just isn't scary to me.
More "meh" than "nope" - the performances were decent, and there were some rad needle drops throughout. It just didn't move me. Perhaps a repeat viewing might reveal more

But I just found it completely mid.

Welp. *hurls dl into the sky, where he is eaten by an alien*

Different strokes I guess. Worse ways to go than being devoured by a big white marshmallow

Did you miss the screaming and the blood spray?

this one's an all-timer for me

I did not think any of the themes in this movie were particularly subtle. In fact, as I posted thread, I think it’s Peele’s most straightforward film and is much scarier as a result.

I loved this movie and need to rewatch soon.

Different strokes I guess. Worse ways to go than being devoured by a big white marshmallow

What exactly did you think all those people were screaming in agony for? They were being slowly dissolved by digestive fluids!

there are worse ways to go than being digested?

Digestion scene was horrifying in the most memorable way

Digestion scene was horrifying in the most memorable way

My memory of the digestion scene is that it was oddly non-gory.. like, there was blood but the insides of the creature were smooth and almost "clean" - I was expecting some serious gristle but that's not what it was

there are worse ways to go than being digested?

Digested alive and conscious with your family around you.

At least the Sarlacc burped in Jedi

there are worse ways to go than being digested?

Trump monologuing at you for 15 minutes

I'm with Tracer. My memory of this film is that if there was any horror or gore, it was largely campy, slapstick and fairly mild.
I'm not trying to be tough here, I just struggle to think of this film as being any more scary than, say, Tremors. Or at least the Tremors monsters are scary in that they don't look like a cluster of pearlised balloons three days after a wedding reception, sorry

i like "nope" a lot, it's probably a B+ movie for me, but i prefer peele's two other movies to it. "get out" is the cleanest in terms of what's going on and what it means, but is "us" is my favorite.

wow I mean Tremors is a wonderful movie, but my experience of it is really night and day with how I remember Nope --- knowing silliness vs. profound dread, small-town worm monster romp vs. unsettling essay on America, the West, animal exploitation, Hollywood exploitation, etc. ymmv of course!

if there was any horror or gore, it was largely campy, slapstick and fairly mild.

Well, there is that prolonged scene of them frozen in fear in the house while the creatures more or less barfs/shits blood and viscera all over. And the entire monkey sequence is pretty vicious, albeit off screen.

I’m of the opinion that a movie doesn’t need to be Terrifier-level gore to be scary

I've never seen those movies, but as I understand it, they're *all* gore, no scares. "Nope" has this air of real dread that most horror movies lack, tempered by some humor and adventure (a la "Jaws") but also enhanced by such a novel impossible to comprehend creature design (that also happens to reflect a single-lens reflex camera shutter).

I should give it another go. Maybe i was expecting a different type of film or something.
No, gore isn't intrinsically scary, and a film doesn't need gore to be scary.
But I saw it with a friend who otherwise wouldn't ever dream of coming to see a horror with me and she left just as unswayed.
As a sci-fi comedy drama, I don't think scary was what it was going for was it? so I'm surprised people were calling it genuinely scary upthread. i got no sense of dread or fear from this film... unless people are scared of toilet paper?

I think it's more a fear of the genuine unknown, but there's also the degree of desperation (a different kind of fear) that convinces both camps to take their risks for personal gain (albeit in different ways). Anyway, you don't even see the monster in its full flourish until the end, so if you don't find anything unsettling before that, sure, the final reveal probably won't move the needle at all.

idk there is a lot of dread in the buildup??? like the scene when the teens are fucking with them is terrifying, to me, someone who is not scared of horror movies

and then the monster when revealed turns out to be a biblically-accurate angel. i kind of don't understand finding that cool

It honestly was my second favorite film of that year, flat out. The only thing better I saw was Everything Everywhere All At Once.

wait what? biblically accurate angel? Not much of a biblical scholar, but I don't recall angels being some form of ravenous cloud monster with an insatiable appetite. Am I missing a reference or something?

I don't remember that bit either

https://nofilmschool.com/inspiration-nope-alien-design

i was being silly

xpost I know next to nothing about anime, but that was interesting. I haven't seen Akira in ages, but that video about the homages to the Akira motorcycle slide is up there with videos compiling the Wilhelm scream!

One thing I love about horror is it's so personal and subjective. You either feel it or you don't. Arguing about whether a movie is scary or not is like arguing if something is funny, or somebody is sexy. If you don't; you don't. No need to keep going on and on about it.

Huh

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/jordan-peele-new-movie-removed-2026-release-date-1236505383/

And so we wait.