What's this? A24 puts out a slow, unconventional horror movie for a wide theatrical release that average moviegoers verbally hate it once the credits roll? This is The VVitch all over again!
Yo I thought the same thing! Cause I went into both films worrying that they’d let me down, only to find that they’re both two of the best horror films I’ve seen in recent years. Its almost as if most moviegoers hate using their brains when watching movies >_>
See I REALLY enjoyed the Witch but not so much this, I was with it until the final sequence over the past like 20 minutes, there was a lot of contrived drama which i couldn't get on board with
Some people in my theater called this the worst movie they'd ever seen. I'm jealous, because clearly they've only watched stellar movies for their entire lives.
I did love the cinematography and the score but I felt like the trailer was sort of misleading. After the movie finished a woman in the row behind me said, "I knew we should have watched The Mummy instead." and I heard somebody else say, "that's it?"
omomon Where are all these people that complain about a movie after it's over in the theater? I always see comments of people saying "everyone booed after it was over" or something along those lines and I have NEVER once went to even terrible films and witnessed such things happening. I guess I'm just living in an area where everyone who goes to the movies is super easy to please? (Living in PA if anyone can vouch for this)
Josh Leitzel That's actually a good point. I live in PA too and I've never seen people visibly upset about a movie. The most audience interaction I see is cheering and laughing. For example in both Star Wars and GotG2, people in the audience laughed at funny stuff together and cheered when the Star Wars Episode 7 title appeared. I've never seen people boo or get mad while in the theatre.
My thinking was that “it” represents the family and/or the virus, since Will first appeared to the main family at night, and, eventually, so did the virus.
Imagine at the end of the movie it shows a zoomed in shot of the woods... And all you hear is... "There he is" Immediately followed by, "I love all kids" ;) Cool Cat
I say you go see it as soon as you can, I saw it today and I was not disappointed. It was actually better than I was expecting, it's wonderfully shot, the atmosphere is superb like YMS said, and the actors are great. I will warn you (spoiler-ish) the movie mostly sticks to following the point of view of two characters, Paul (Joel Edgerton) and Travis (Kelvin Harrison Jr.) and it creates some beautiful imagery. Highly recommend!
I'm not going to spoil it just in case but did this movie feel like more of a short film to anyone? Like the way ends and so on makes it feel like it didn't really have any themes or symbolism and was more just telling a small story? Like this probably doesn't feel like the right word but the movie, though enjoyable, felt pointless.
Marlon Davis Film and TV are visual mediums, when they make you read or listen to narration instead of showing us it sends a message that they don't wanna put in the effort. If you were to see a movie would you feel for a character that they tell you is honest or a character shown to be honest by doing something. The second one, because actions are more powerful than words or whatever that quote is.
if anyone doesn't know A24 is a relatively new studio that is producing some of the best films in recent history as well as the Witch and Greenroom and now this movie making them a great horror studio. they also produced moonlight, room, american honey, the lobster ex machina, swiss army man, and amy.
+simon amorim Slow, depressing, and emotionless characters don't always equal great movies. Honestly, I feel depressed watching even the trailers for their films.
UnbelievabIeMontages Having been to a Wheatly Q&A, he comes across as not pretentious at all. He seems to make movies purely out of fun rather than to explore psyche or humanity or what have you.
Interesting its probably just a stump or fallen tree. Although it would be interesting if they added things like this into the background to add to your sense of paranoia by seeing humanoid shaped things in the background that go unseen by the characters, real or not. Now there's a scene in the movie where the dog runs off into the woods and Travis hears something and the camera pans over to show where hes looking and I swear I saw something move behind a tree just for a second, could be another example. I think the director put these things in on purpose. Look how the camera follows the "person" on he stump in that car scene.
One of the things I thing illustrated how great of a filmmaker Trey, is how he made a house that was implied to be very big, seems so extremely claustrophobic. Will shows he's impressed with the house, yet as a viewer it feels like these people are cramped into something akin to a small cabin in the woods which really added to the atmosphere of the movie.
Subjectively yes. Objectively griffith cared for the band and thought highly of his army. he couldnt let his emotion show tho since he had to be the tough strong leader he needed to be to achieve his goal. he said multiple times that he will do anything to fullfill his dream. cant really say it wasnt expected or not justified what he did. SPOILER: .He got what he wanted and the people of windheim are at safe in falconia. so i guess it was worth it?
Oh man, average movie goers are absolutely shitting on this movie. The trailers were a bit too dishonest, but that doesn't subtract from the fact that this was a brilliantly constructed thriller.
The Mother Flickers This could very well have been a fantastic movie however it got my hopes so up for something else entirely that I simply cannot let the disappointment down.
The fact that Adam is so hard on movies and the fact that he reviews so few makes me really pay close attention when he says "this is a well done film".
He does say it. As for the film, I went in blind without knowing what it was about and I loved every moment of it. I think the title IT COMES AT NIGHT really refers to their fear and paranoia of the outside world is at its most intense after dark. But that's just my opinion. Great movie overall and it's one of my Top 3 favorite horror movies of the 2017 along with THE AUTOPSY OF JANE DOE and THE EYES OF MY MOTHER.
hey man keep making the awesome videos you are an awesome content creator you are really awesome dude stay positive and you are the man you are awesome
Every RUclips ad I get for a trailer for a film, I almost always skip it. I can't remember how long since I haven't skipped a trailer ad. I saw the first 10 seconds of the trailer for this film and I just couldn't skip it. I watched the entire thing and I was immensely fascinated. I'm so glad it was a good film in your opinion. I look forward to seeing this!
So the title, the trailers, and the entire marketing campaign set up something that never pays off. You can't entice people with something and then slowly pull the rug out from them over the course of two hours. Not since Kangaroo Jack has a movie's title, trailers, and marketing campaign pulled a bait-and-switch of this magnitude.
David Davidson every bit of marketing for kangaroo jack led you to believe the entire movie was about a talking kangaroo wearing a hoodie who only appeared once in some guy’s hallucination
Hoooolly shit - I am sick of this argument.... the thing that comes at night are the boy's nightmares. Also, I love the title because it puts you in a state of anticipation for something coming at night. But you slowly realize that it's the boys nightmares/sleep walking. It's an incredible title
You should watch "The Witch". It's a very slow paced tension building movie and I love it for this. Cinematography is stellar. I hate the "new" horror way which is "jumpscares=fear", so it's a movie that's my style. "It follows" was awesome in that sense too.
Don't know his specific thoughts on The Witch but he gave it a 7/10 on imdb, so he probably at least liked it. He also made a quickie for It Follows if you want to hear his thoughts on that.
I'm glad this review brought up the implied "monster" the film's marketing and title sadly made me expect. For me this movie was an interesting showcase on how an audience member's own expectations can completely ruin an otherwise very good movie for them. I admit to actually hoping there would be something that would come "at night" but I was let down and was left with a pretty lukewarm feeling overall. I know it's silly to judge a movie because it's not what I expected it to be, but I digress. That being said, plenty of people were more disappointed than I was. People left the theater during my show and I've heard some reports from others saying the exact same thing happened to them. And while a few people began talking near the end everybody else in the theater was at least respectfully bored. So while I can't disagree with the rating or anything YMS has said I have to SERIOUSLY urge the point he makes about going into the movie with clean expectations.
MarsShadow You're completely correct about the film misleading you. If you go to watch something and it's not what you wanted how are you going to enjoy it? And if a movie has to essentially lie to it's audience in order to work then it's already failed.
armageddonbound >what is reading comprehension I'm not complaining about mystery, in fact there was no mystery. The virus is the first thing established in the plot and is never built on. I'm talking about the advertising of the movie intentionally leading many people to believe the "unnatural threat creeping ever closer" (from Google's plot synopses) being the central focus of the movie. The disease in the movie is really just a plot device.
armageddonbound Expecting people to not have any assumptions about a movie going in is kind of stupid. Movie trailers exist so people can make assumptions that will bring interest or disinterest in a movie. I have a hard time dissociating myself from the expectations a trailer gives me even if the case is that the movie is best viewed without any expectations. I'd say the best suited for this film are those who didn't see any trailers.
I've seen this, it's the sort of movie I love, which leaves you sitting around for the rest of the day, thinking about the movie. But of course if you like copy-and-paste hollywood movies, you may find this annoying.
Here are my thoughts on what actually happened: We kept seeing the kid and his nightmares and how he was perceiving different worst case scenarios. Sometimes we see him leave and go outside in those dreams but what I am proposing is that he actually did go outside on those times. When he looked in horror at something out of frame that is the dog and he took it upon himself to drag it back home, thus getting himself infected in the process. He then touched the little boy and infected him, which explains why he was outside of the room because he took him out. Only he and the little boy could have actually opened the door and it makes more sense, along with causes more dread to think that it was the main character that did it because it then makes it all his fault as to why that family died. And in the end of the film he realizes that his own family is at risk because of him so he leaves into the night and we see his parents sit together quietly as we assume they lived the rest of their lives in depression. If you have different thoughts on what happened please share, I enjoy discussions about things like this. :)
I dont think he could have gone out and got the dog. His father mentions that he was the only one that has the keys and sometimes sarah, so how could have travis got them? Also when he woke up and found Andrew, and then went to the hall there was noise coming from the room, what could that have been if it was Travis that brought the dog back? Your theory is definitely interesting though
ryan b It isn't fully true that you cannot leave without the keys. They demonstrated early on that someone is fully capable of removing a board and breaking the door down, and it's the second door that needs the keys, not the red one. It also makes less sense for the kid to open the door and interact with the dog in my opinion. It was badly wounded, it wouldn't be able to break that board down and get inside on its own. There's a key moment where he in his dreams looks for his dog and stares at something in horror, I think that's him staring at his bleeding to death dog in which he decided to bring him back and put the blame on the little kid. The screenwriters in my opinion intentionally didn't show us this so we try to figure it out for ourselves. And when you see the final dream sequence at the end, for me at least, I came to the realization that the previous times he went outside at night actually happened. I see the movie for the most part being from his perspective. He is shown to be able to hear most of the conversations that take place in the attic and it isn't hard to think that he withholds information, which is one of the main reasons why we have so much stuff become heavily implied rather than concrete. He honestly see a lot of the events that happen to the point where he honestly could know everything the audience does for the most part. Also I realized something else about the title that might be me over-analyzing the film. The title, It comes at Night, refers to the nightmares he has but more importantly why he has them: it reflects his fears of everyone turning against him and hating him. One shows him yearning to be with his grandfather despite it no longer being possible, another shows him lusting for that woman, and one that I find crucial is a when the camera slowly approaches the door to me says he wants to go outside and look for people and coincidentally they came. Also you don't have to agree with any of this so don't feel like I am trying to persuade you. We find meaning in films without it being the initial intent so yeah.
Coletrain Hetrick Coletrain Hetrick Coletrain Hetrick Coletrain Hetrick I think once the movie is fully out and more accessible we'll have more answers in theory's. Right now we're just going off of what we remember from seeing it in the theatre (at least I am). I theory I read was that Andrew did actually open the door and touched the dog or something like that and that's how he got sick and then gave it to Travis. However that doesn't explain how the dog was able to get in. Originally I believed it was very obvious to tell when he was dreaming as the scene would fade to black and the following scene would be his dream. However in the last dream, it begins the same way as all the others but isn't in fact a dream, it's reality. Finally regarding the title. I think the movie does a fantastic job of making the viewer feel like they're truly in it. We only know the information that the characters say, and it's up to us to decide for ourselves if we believe them. With a lot of movies the viewer is almost god like in the sense that they are aware of everything happening and knowing all sides of the story. We aren't presented with that in this movie. We're just as in the dark about the virus as the characters are and for all we know they could believe it comes in the night and the movie is named so to maintain that sense of total immersion. If they don't know we don't know. Another thought I had is maybe they do know for a fact something happens at night. The way I viewed this movie is we were just viewing a portion of their life. Why would they explain to one another what comes at night if they already all know. They could have discovered his before the opening scene when we joined in on their life. The director did a excellent job of making this not feel like a movie and nothing was done for our convince. So maybe something does in fact come in the night and it was just not discussed in the span of time we were viewing this family
Thanks you YMS, thanks so much for actually appreciating this movie and what is was going for. I watched a few other reviews since I saw the film last night, and honestly I was surprised at how many critics on youtube didn't like the film or just didnt overall get the themes and meaning of the story. I for one felt this movie was extremely well paced, great use of lighting, music and a well constructed story with a strong tone. I haven't watched a "horror" thriller this disturbing since "Under The Skin" (strongly recommend) and I also haven't seen a film so great at representing paranoia in fucking years. I'm really excited for what this Director will do next.
I had too many questions. Please answer if you can. *spoilers* 1.) Who opened the door?! Was it the little kid and if so, what was the purpose for the owner having a key to the door I don't get it. 2.) Where did that guy get that extra gun towards the end? 3.) How did the boy get sick? They mentioned that signs can show up in only one day.. how long did the family stay over the owners house and all of a sudden boom he is sick? Was it because he fell asleep in grandpas room and it was contaminated? When they asked "does he sleep walk" the way he asked seemed to imply that it was a symptom of being sick... or maybe that's just me. And if he did open the red door, how if he is so short and he didnt have the key?? 4.) did travis hallucinate because of the trauma from seeing his grandpa get infected and burning him? 5.) What the hell happened to the dog? what did he see in the woods? He was bloody, do the infected people become monsters? They like took a chunk out of the dog... they said the dog is sick so was it a cover up so travis wont get near or does it pass onto animal?
lin1992 My interpretation is that Travis was already sick. The nightmares are a symptom of his infection. The little boy started to have nightmares, that's why he ended up in grandpas room. The little boy was infected due to exposure from Travis. (The scene of them two coloring together)
1) The most likely answer, is Travis opens the door. I'd argue a *lot* of the "visions" aren't visions. We saw that it was possible to enter the locked room from outside without a key (first character intersection was breaking into the house), and the red door doesn't require a key at all, so Travis likely was leaving his room and those "visions" (dreams, whatever) were reality, and he drug the dog back inside. 2) We know Will isn't trusting of Paul (he kills people in cold blood), and we also see that he lies to Paul (either a half-lie or a full-lie) when Paul questions Will about his brother, despite the fact that he says he's an only child, and he passes this off as a "brother-in-law" that was practically like a brother to him. Given the current very chaotic state of the cities, I doubt Will would trust Paul enough to not hide a gun somewhere either right from the start, or once he suspects that his son (or Travis) might be infected. 3) We really don't know the illness works, and this all depends on your interpretation of the events in the film. Best guess, is that Travis is already infected and passes it on to Andrew (the kid). Travis was having visions, memory loss, and was paranoid throughout the entire film which slowly built to the climax. 4) I'd say these weren't all hallucinations. The ones with the black liquid were obviously hallucinations, but the "visions" in which he's outside are reality. He left the house, and cannot distinguish between dreams and reality because he's already infected from sharing a living space with his grandfather. 5) The dog was infected already from sleeping on the grandfather's bed both before, during the infection, and after he died (the dumbest thing the family did despite all their precautions was to not burn his bed, sheets, clothes, etc.). The dog was hallucinating things in the woods and chased them. His injuries are either from another animal, or falling while chasing a hallucination. So, grandpa was infected, which spread to the dog and Travis (sleep walking and insomnia, hallucinations, loss of time, unable to distinguish between waking and sleeping realities, paranoia, etc.), which spread to Andrew and eventually to the adults and causes everybody to die. Thanks grandpa. Really appreciate that.
@@longliverocknroll5that still doesn’t make sense because the family regularly interacts with Travis and the dog via touch. Like the rules for the illness don’t make sense. It would be one thing if Travis got sick from living with his grandfather, but if that’s the case, why is everyone not sick given they all had unprotected contact with both him and the dog. This movie had way too many questions that could be answered through audience interpretation without giving any indications as to why that interpretation came about.
@@longliverocknroll5 so is replying to call that action stupid. Truth be told, I didn’t even realize the comment was that old. I just saw the movie today and had a lot of thoughts about it.
My girlfriend and I watched this movie together and when the movie was over we just walked out of the theater just...disturbed and stunned. Great movie
it was a bit slow at times but to me it's in the same vein as "The Witch". both movies didn't rely heavily on jump scares and most of the fear comes from the tension that it builds, the atmosphere, and the music. the acting as you said was superb and the fact that it leaves much up to your imagination is nice that they just don't come out and say "hey this guy died!" there is next to no exposition
"The trailers got me in the theater, but instead of THIS kind of amazing movie I got THAT kind of amazing movie". Who cares? You just saw an awesome movie, why would you be angry?
You pretty much echoed how I feel about this one, I gave it a 7.5/10. As a lover of horror I was pleasantly surprised by how minimalist it was. The fear was subtle, it didn't crutch on jump scares, and it didn't pointlessly infodump. Definitely one of the best recent horror films I've seen in quite a while.
Exactly the fear itself of dread and paranoia of it slowly built over time. Anxiety and doubt of someone being sick the fear got to them at that night and consumed them. Enabling good people to do evil, wicked things. There's no monster at night they themselves have become the monsters because of the darkness 'the plague, the night, fear itself'. I like to think that at the end although it was implied that "spoilers" the parents are at the early stages of the plague, however I like to think that they weren't infected. With the fear/paranoia of the plague, the murder of the young family and the death of their son. That sense of fear has consumed them entirely they've given in their humanity to it. If they were to see other people again a family with children approaching their home they wouldn't hesitate and would kill them. They're gone and have become monsters all because it came from the night. Also I thought the music used in this film was very good and fitting for the slow build up of dread and the anticipation of fear.
I'm sure this is great and I'll end up watching it but.....can I just have a fucking scary ass monster movie? Can something actually come out at night and make me projectile poop all over the screen? You only gotta show it like 2-3 times, and you can half show it if you want to keep the mystery up, but give me a fucking nightmarish monstrosity to haunt my dreams, for the love of Nyarlathotep. I'm sick of humanity being the true monster all along, I already know that. Give me a writhing, shambling spider of teethy dicks or something, come on! I know they make monster movies still, but can someone with this clear level of cinematography and directing skill try their hand at it? Please?
I think the movie title, and Adam actually mentioned this in his review, is a reference to theme of paranoia and fear. The suspenseful moments, the nightmare sequences, and the whole "don't go out at night" just makes it clear that the movie's focus was that the mind plays tricks on people. It comes at night, but exactly is "it"? Sometimes, we'll see things that aren't there. Sometimes, we'll "dream" things that end up real. Add the whole fear factor and you have someone whose paranoid and afraid of everything. While the movie will have viewers asking more questions than give answers, It takes a level of mental capacity to appreciate and understand what this film is trying to portray.
Also, how did the door get opened to let the dog back in. Joel Edgertons character said he had the only key. How did the little kid open the door? I am fine with most of it being left ambiguous. I dont need to know the details or the backstory on the virus. I dont need to kno if the kid was actually sick at the end, but i think they were a bit too vague on some things.
Dylan MacKinnon it’s possible Travis sleep walks. That night the door was opened Travis “dreamt” he went out into the woods. He found Stanley’s body and dragged the body home
Teddo Garza Seems like the disease causes insomnia. Travis has trouble sleeping ever since Grandpa was infected and died. Travis was most likely a slow-burning infected, and he passed it on to everybody. We see signs of insomnia in other characters (like Kim). Dylan MacKinnon If you think the film through, there's not many questions that are unanswerable. The evidence is all there for you to see, you just need the pieces. The biggest hint would be: are the "dreams" really "dreams", or a symptom of infection. Plenty of diseases cause insomnia, memory loss, paranoia, etc..
I am so glad you put the red words for spoiler talk. I was minimized and not paying attention and came back to a screen of spoilers, so I knew to skip.
(Spoilers) My interpretation: Travis starts to feel distance from his family after he is forced to watch his grandfather die. With the new family arriving, he begins to see them as the ideal family, or at least, better than his own. His dreams indicate not only his sexual attraction to Kim but his initial fear of sharing the same fate as his grandfather. However, by the end of the film, after his family has killed the other out of inconclusive suspicions he wishes he was sick too. He tries to vomit blood at the end because he wants to be sick. His mom tells him the same words as she did the grandfather in the beginning because he doesn't want to live anymore. Just because all the answers aren't given doesn't mean it's bad. Ambiguity in this film is used to highlight it's purpose. I loved it!
Zeke Aleman it fades to black right before the scene when he is visibly sick. It had been established throughout the movie before this scene that it fades to black before every dream scene, so he could very well be dreaming that he is sick again.
I'm really excited for this one. I was sort of getting a less stylistic (not in a bad way) "It Follows" vibe from the trailer in its bleakness. Can't wait to check it out
beautifully shot movie, well acted, but...those are the only things going for it. I didnt expect a traditional horror movie, I apprciate movies that are more for the atmosphere of dread rather than straight scares, and I don't mind not being spoofed answers. but this movie was incredibly disappointing. it felt pointless and whole unengaging; the movie only felt like it had potential but never delivered on anything, from characters to story to any emotions beyond boredom. throughout the whole movie I just felt like I was observing something rather than be engaged in a story. I felt just the same going out of the movie theater as I did going in the movie theater.
Wait this is totally how I felt! I went back to this quickie to see if I could discern some sort of point or meaning from this film, but I’m really left with nothing. I love how little it tells us, and I love almost everything about this film (except for Will’s performance), but at the end of the film, it felt like nothing happened or was accomplished. I guess that might be the point of the movie and I’m just so used to there being a resolution to films, but I totally get where you’re coming from.
Saw this movie last night and honestly the whole time this movie had my butt clenched it's an amazing movie, from the cinematography to the story telling this film was beautiful. And a lot of people in my theater was annoyed about the movies ending but I think the ending is done perfectly. It doesn't need anything else. It leaves you in the same empty and hopeless place that the mother and father are in. Well done by the director and writers.
I really enjoyed this movie, but the marketing was awful. It was marketed to be more of a monster movie, but there's no monster whatsoever. There's nothing attacking this family as it was marketed to be like, it's more about what human piece and what people will do to protect the ones they love. Plus, to top it all off, apparently the director chose the name for the movie "because it sounded cool".
Am I the only one who gets mildly pissed off whenever a movie just makes you feel like utter shit without really offering any sort of lesson or moral or real observation or anything? That's what this movie felt like for me. I have no idea what the hell I was supposed to get out it. The accompanying music was good, I guess. The cinematography too. But what's the point of going through the experience of watching this movie if the only net result is that you're mildly depressed for the next few hours, and you forget it the next day?
That's the thing though. Movies are entertainment, not learning materials. Sure, you can use them to teach a lesson, or bring discussion to some kind of topic, but I think it's pretty dangerous all round to be expecting a message from them. Sometimes people just want to tell a story and get you invested in it and not have to preach a worldview to the masses.
Well, what people take out of a movie is personal and subjective. I enjoyed the tension and mystery, trying to figure out myself what was going on as the movie unfolded. I enjoyed watching characters who were well developed that I cared about and the tension that accompanied that. The movie kept me interested and thinking about it long after I watched it, so your net result isn't what a lot of other people got out of it.
I liked this movie a lot. I think the problem was that some people thought it was kind of a zombie movie, which is like saying that the VVitch is a witch horror film. Its more of a post apocalyptic drama.
seriously, this movie was well shot, it had great characters and interactions, and the ending was powerful. even my brother who is fully dedicated to mindless gore and action films agreed that it was realistic and engaging. I don't understand people who didn't like it. i thought it was genuinely powerful
**SPOILERS** Okay so I clearly didn't get what everyone else got out of this movie. Going in to see it I was expecting to see The Mummy and it wasn't until the title that I realized I wasn't there to watch a fun bad movie and instead a serious drama. There are a number of killers for me throughout the film but I'll just touch on the few that make it impossible for me to agree with your 8/10 rating. Most of my gripes with this movie actually come down to the horror elements and the poor implementation (in my opinion). Seeing characters act somewhat irrationally wouldn't be too unexpected especially in the case of the teenage boy, however I find it nearly unbelievable that after believing the grandfather's funeral pyre to be what attracted Will(?) to the house they would not only believe him when he said he thought the house was unoccupied AND THEN to burn the dog rather than just carting it as far away as possible leaving yet another bellowing inferno to attract the denizens of the area who, from the shootout on the road, we know to be very dangerous. Things like the teenager chasing after the dog, which was barking at and then chased after nothing as far as we know, are entirely believable but the father overlooking something that could very easily have gotten them all killed? Being shown time and time again to be anally cautious means he shouldn't have overlooked something so painfully obvious. Then the question of how the dog got all the way back to the house in its whimpering immobile state is another issue entirely. The reason I relate these back to the horror elements of the film is because I think that it could have been a perfectly good apocalypse film without having to rely on these major plot conveniences and screw ups and I think horror movie logic played a large role in forcing these decisions. Burning the dog didn't end up coming back to bite them but its amazing to me that it was something that was considered at all knowing how obvious it makes your existence and the clear need to stay hidden. The dream sequences of the teenager were also just not scary or intimidating and with the exception of the jump scare (I am in no way advocating for jump scares) I found myself chuckling whenever someone would dribble chocolate syrup from their mouth in one of the all too slow and uneventful dream sequences. The long drawn out nature of these parts of the film was seemingly to build tension and as you mentioned to increase the feeling of paranoia, however some of them went on entirely too long and left me bored in my seat waiting to see the next scene. Will's testimony also begs so many questions. Why would he refer to his step-brother as his brother when under pressure but not realize where the conversation was going when the father asked him about him being an only child? Rather than realize the gravity of the situation Will waits until the father explicitly asks him about mentioning that he stayed with his brother to clear up this miscommunication and for a father who has a wife and child on the line it is hard to believe that he would misstep so gravely. That being said Will is shown to be a more playful and far less serious character than the father so it is not outside the realm of possibility that he just didn't realize the danger he was in, but I would think that someone with so much at stake-- and who later realized the danger he was in when the father came knocking at his door-- would have been able to forsee that line of questioning and defuse the tension rather than being an idiot and making the father paranoid. As someone who went into the film expecting to see a bad movie with a bit of cringe comedy thrown in, I was not as disappointed as I wish I had been. Though the apocalyptic feeling of this film was in my opinion exquisite and absolutely nailed, the horror elements' failed implementation detract so much from the movie that it left me feeling that the horror half the movie was a snore fest and broke up the real drama and tension as a commercial break on a television drama. I can't understand why critics adore this movie so much and seeing its scores on imdb and rotten tomatoes as I walked out of the theater made me think that people gave this movie's good parts way too much credit while ignoring all of the serious downfalls. Thoughts?
Just saw it. Perhaps the most tense and haunting film to be released this year, and likely a future horror classic. It's only when I started thinking that the entire movie is an exercise in putting the audience through as much tension and paranoia as the characters that this film really started to open up in my mind. Even now as I type this it's getting better and better in my head.
This probably doesn't mean anything, but I really liked that you pointed out why people like me were watching the spoilery bit (why I watched the video) and you answered my question without me having to ask lol.
In the day? Are you asking why he posts later at night? The movie came out today, so I imagine he saw it earlier in the day (when the theater was less crowded) and then had to have at least a basic scrip mock up and then record and edit the video.
I also feel like this was one of the most tense movies I've watched in a long time. I really enjoyed how vague the title and, to some extent, the movie's universe was.
While being only three years older than Travis certainly helped me identify with him, the deal was truly sealed by just how incredibly well this movie established its characters. It felt like I was taken out of my theater seat and placed in Travis's body, seeing what he saw, feeling what he felt, and thinking what he thought. I identified with him and felt what he felt to such an immeasurable degree that when he died, it felt like a huge part of me died with him. The final shot of this movie is so powerful and so heartwrenching that it makes Travis's death feel so much worse. In fact, when the movie was over, I walked out of the theater, got in my car, and cried like I'd just watched my dearest friend die.
Maximillian McCormick Yeah but if I were them I would probably have a hard time enjoying a movie that seemed like it would be something else entirely. Even if it were amazing.
I Just have a few questions (spoilers): - How did the grandfather get infected? - Who were the 2 men that attacked Will and Joel Edgerton? - What were Travis' dreams all about? - What was the point of the scene where Will contradicts himself by saying that he was an only child after already saying that he had a brother who died? - If Will did have a brother or brother-in-law, how did he die? It couldn't have been from the infection because then Will and his family would have also been infected as they did not have the proper equipment (masks, gloves) to prevent the infection from spreading. - What was the dog barking at? - What attacked the dog? - How did the dog get back to the house and inside? - Why was there a loud crash right before Travis noticed that the red door was open? Was it the dog? If so how? - Who opened the door? It couldn't have been the kid. - Why was the kid sleeping on the floor in the grandfather's room? - Why did the family want to leave? They said it was because they were infected but none of them had any sores or were bleeding. Also Joel Edgerton would have gotten infected from touching Will without a mask or gloves on but he didn't. - If it wasn't the child that infected Travis, how did he get infected? - Why didn't they want them to leave? - And what I'm most curious about: What the fuck comes at night?
I thought the movie was atrocious. The director basically told you exactly what was about to happen 10 minute before via Travis's dreams throughout the movie. Why would they introduce so many things and hint that they'll be explained or expanded upon later and then do absolutely nothing with them (the men in the woods, the supposed love interest, the sickness)? The movie left TOO much out and it totally ruined the experience. The whole theatre expected something more than the "twist" at the end and was bitter when they left. I will say that it was really tense at some parts of the movie, but those okay parts don't make up for the lackluster experience overall. I don't particularly enjoy jump scare movies and this was definitely not that with it's like 3 scares the whole movie. The original Alien did a MUCH better job with it's suspense and fear factor. I was expecting some sort of monster or zombie attack or SOMETHING, ANYTHING to be the source of the tension besides a stupid "sickness"
You’re judging it as a monster-scary movie and I can’t really complain. The trailers/title make it seem like that. But if you look at it as more of a thriller I’d say it’s a lot more satisfying.
Men in the woods = scavengers in the moods that prey on travelers to survive. (Not knowing who they are plays on the tension between Paul and Will) Supposed love interest = Travis lusting after Will’s wife. Travis is a teenage boy with urges to be with a girl. In the long term, this could cause a problem in the post-apocalyptic society they’ve created. Sickness = Narrative driving force. Do you honestly need this to be explained? Just pretend that they invented it in a lab testing on monkeys, or some other science bullshit.
I feel like I saw a different movie than you. This movie has no plot. It introduces things that go nowhere. The script of this movie is 3 sentences long. Some people want to come in the house with the other people. The people want to leave the house. And then what happens at the end. That's it. All that stuff about the sickness and the red door and blah blah, none of it matters or amounts to anything or is explained. When this movie ended, the people in the theater were very upset. They were laughing and shouting at the screen. It was very Blair Witch Project-esque. In fact, the Family Guy description of Blair Witch Project describes this movie perfectly, with one word change. "They're in the woods. Nothing's happening. Nothing's happening. Something about a (sickness). Nothing's happening. It's over. A lot of people in the audience look pissed." This felt more like an episode of Walking Dead than a movie. One of the episodes in the middle of the season, where there are no zombies and it's all filler material about tension and stressed relationships. This was like the movie Hidden if no military had shown up at their door. I have many questions and I'll try to keep them spoiler free: Why did they hint at a love interest between Travis and the wife, then never do anything with it? Why did the dog stop barking immediately? What the hell happened to the dog? From what they showed, it wasn't the "sickness." Who opened the door? The kid couldn't have done it because like they said, he was too short. What's with Travis's PTSD and not sleeping and attic snooping? What were we supposed to gather from Travis's dream of some vague thing happening with the snarling dog. We don't know what because we just get a closeup of Travis's scared face. What the F was with that ending? They could've flashed credits after the Travis scene. That two seconds of kitchen table was unnecessary. Who were those two guys in the woods and why did they do what they did? If he thought they were sick, why didn't he let them leave? They wouldn't have lasted long enough to run out of supplies and come back. Was that really the only option? You're telling me he couldn't have blindfolded them and driven them somewhere in his truck where they wouldn't have known how to get back?
I also usually like leaving it to the imagination. Too many horror movies insist on forcing in a stupid ending or showing the creature in full CGI. It's always better in my head (like the movie Mama... why'd they have to show the stupid mama?). But for god's sake, give me something. I've got so little to go on, I could just as easily assume that aliens had taken over the world and infected humans with some space virus, or that this is merely some cabin during a modern day outbreak of the bubonic plague. Take 10 Cloverfield Lane. Perfect example of ruining a great movie with a forced terrible ending, just to tie it in to Cloverfield. But even without that last horrible 10 minutes, 10 Cloverfield Lane was what It Comes at Night wanted to be. The being trapped inside with people you're not sure about. The suspicion. The overreactions. The trying to decide if it's better to take your chances outside with the disease. The ultimate display of cabin fever. It Comes at Night did everything worse than similar movies before it.
Looking at some of the audience reviews on RottenTomatoes, this movie only gets 5 star ratings and 1 star ratings. There is no in between. This is going to be like one of those movies like Suicide Squad, where half the country swears it's the best thing in the world and the other half thinks everyone involved should be deported. (I hated Suicide Squad. Jered Leto had no idea how to play the Joker.) My favorite critic, from the Las Vegas Review, says "Throughout its brief 97-minute run time, It Comes at Night seems to be building to something that simply isn't there. If movies were still shown on film, you'd swear the final reel was missing." That's how I felt. I was in no hurry to leave. Hell, I hadn't even finished all my popcorn when the credits started rolling. Where was the rest of the movie? How about I just pay the theater 11 bucks, get in my car, and go home? It leaves it totally up to my imagination that way. The movie I just played out in my head was amazing! Great, great film! There will be no agreement in these forums. I look forward to the wars that erupt as the week progresses.
"quite a lot left to interpretation"... no, the entire movie it's left up to interpretation. This is exactly why I don't like it. Absolutely none of the question presented are answered at all throughout the entire film. If you think about it every time a question is presented they just simply present another question to distract you from the last one. When the credits roll asset the end and the entire audience says "what" collectively then you've done something incredibly wrong from a story perspective. In fact think about this for a second; why is the title it comes at night? I know full well why it is, but i challenge anyone to try and explain
Travis' hallucinations, nightmares, and general feeling of dread all came at night. So did the dog that was so dearly loved and pretty much led to the death of 4 people needlessly. Boom, spoon-fed you just now. Still hungry?
Holy fuck, really? lol I honestly have no fucking clue how somebody could say this film having unanswered questions is a bad thing. If your *entire* audience doesn't *want* to be asking questions, *then* you're doing something wrong. If you watch a film about paranoia and fear and you *don't* ask questions walking out, then it's a shitty film. The *whole* point about paranoia is that it's *not supposed to be answered* as that quite literally defeats the whole fucking purpose of this film. The characters *even fucking say as much in the film* stating that they are *afraid* of letting characters leave because they're *afraid* of not knowing what will happen if they do. They are *afraid* of letting infected people leave without knowing what will become of them and we're the infected people will go when they get desperate. They are *afraid* of the unknown shadows in the dark which could be hiding other *desperate* humans, infected or otherwise. If you can't come up with a theory of what the title of this film refers too, then you need to stop watching horror movies outside of torture porn.
longliverocknroll5 Oh for fuck's sake man. I'm all for more cerebral horror flicks and movies that don't hand-hold and explain every minute detail, but there are certain things brought up that almost demand explanation. How the fuck does the dying dog even get in the house near the end, when nothing is expanded on you're sort of left feeling ripped off.
I think I liked it so much because my friend just told me about the movie an hour before we went. Not knowing anything about the movie or director is the best way to see this movie in my opinion.
Dozed off TWICE during this movie. It Comes at Night was really boring for me and I know the dishonesty of the trailer and the title didn't bother you as much Adam but I was pissed. I was honestly expecting a monster or some shit terrorizing Joel's family with the added tension of the stranger family maybe lying to Joel Edgerton but instead I got a mediocre movie with a plot I'd seen before a billion times. 6/10
UnbelievabIeMontages I actually uttered "What the fuck is he talking about?" out loud after I read your comment. While his first film featured his family, the thematic elements were completely different in both films. So, nah, not an originality problem as far as that goes. Secondly, a great deal of his originality derives from the craft in his filmmaking, which is how he managed to make a 30 thousand dollar film shot in his mom's house feel so experiential and evoke a specific energy. Thirdly... he should keep all that in his head? Yeah, I rarely witness someone being so wrong. Most great art comes from personal demons, whether grand or small. But the thing is...all of that is in the residue of the film...it's not even at the forefront, so I'm not sure why you would even bring that up in the way you did. Finally...he didn't market it as a horror film. A24 did. So you can't say he was misleading people.
The thing is, there is nothing intriguing or interesting/different about his personal problems compared to other 7 billion people on this planet. He is an empty dust filled with mundanities like everyone else. So what he didn't get along with his father and his father died from cancer? How many times have you heard from other people that they dealt with that problem? You don't see them go and complain it in an entire film because that's really a waste of money and it doesn't contribute anything to society. Films should either be entertaining or help solve first world and third world problems.
Andrei Tarkovsky was a different human being than everyone else. He actually knew the nature of true art and how to display it in just several images, which this director cannot do or ever replicate his work. Alejandro Inarritu tried to do so in The Revenant and he just came off as a mainstream caricature version of Tarkovsky's work.
UnbelievabIeMontages Guess you've never heard of "the personal, the more universal" which is really what films are about. You like films that serve as distractions, which is fine, but films at their highest forms are machines for empathy. Execution plays a big part in whether something is interesting as well. Also, he's burying these issues in the sand of the film which is why you're reaching so hard, man. Nothing in the film is explicitly stating it's about his father dying from cancer. It's all in the middle of the emotion displayed. You likely wouldn't have known if you didn't listen to some interview by him. And the reason why not everyone, including you, makes a film about their problems is because not everyone develops the craft to do so or can explore an idea in a way that creates an experience. Again, I honestly think even you have no idea what you're talking about and you just want to give a counter opinion for the sake of it.
Evolution in human beings of this generation have changed. Everything that has been done universally is no longer needed. What people universally want now is more of the same, but done better each time or something new and original they have never seen before that is extraordinarily better in every way. There's still a lot of things human beings haven't discovered about themselves yet or the reason that they behave such way, but how will we know if we get the same crap such as It Comes at Night? "I am afraid of my nightmares and personal demons, afraid that things will escalate to a schizophrenic manner." We've seen that before in thousands of films, this one is no different and didn't explore anything new. How about a story about the ice man of how he was able to adapt to such weather that most human beings couldn't? Actually see from his perspective of what makes his mind and body adapt to such pressure and if it can break the cycle of our limited forms? Something that perceives to the human mind of the impossibility as possible? Tarkovsky's art is all about personal expression that is universal and helps people understand why they feel, why they breathe, and why they emote, but his films are four - six decades old. We are in 2017 now, film should put its focus on evolving society.
I went and saw this after only seeing your review. I hadn't seen any trailer and I'm pretty glad. Honestly, I'm not sure how I would have advertised this movie.
What's this? A24 puts out a slow, unconventional horror movie for a wide theatrical release that average moviegoers verbally hate it once the credits roll? This is The VVitch all over again!
RkivUnderground I've been playing with the idea of seeing The Witch. Recommend?
sweetcinnamonpnchkin Sure. The Witch is an interesting film and I would recommend it based on that. And you gotta love Black Philip.
Yo I thought the same thing! Cause I went into both films worrying that they’d let me down, only to find that they’re both two of the best horror films I’ve seen in recent years. Its almost as if most moviegoers hate using their brains when watching movies >_>
People don’t like it because of the false advertising
See I REALLY enjoyed the Witch but not so much this, I was with it until the final sequence over the past like 20 minutes, there was a lot of contrived drama which i couldn't get on board with
Some people in my theater called this the worst movie they'd ever seen. I'm jealous, because clearly they've only watched stellar movies for their entire lives.
they are actually giant film snobs and exclusively watch The Seventh Seal on repeat.
Strange mercy is a really good album :)
I'm guessing these people were expecting to see the next Paranormal Activity.
I know; fucking love that profile pic, TJ!
Aww crap, the people in idiocracy has escaped into the real world.
I did love the cinematography and the score but I felt like the trailer was sort of misleading. After the movie finished a woman in the row behind me said, "I knew we should have watched The Mummy instead." and I heard somebody else say, "that's it?"
Now I'm glad that my friend and I were the only ones in the theater when I saw it.
Nobody should ever have to think they should have watched the Mummy instead.
If that lady went to see the Mummy she would have said, "I knew we should have watched It Comes at Night instead" 10 minutes in. THAT MOVIE IS PAINFUL
omomon Where are all these people that complain about a movie after it's over in the theater? I always see comments of people saying "everyone booed after it was over" or something along those lines and I have NEVER once went to even terrible films and witnessed such things happening. I guess I'm just living in an area where everyone who goes to the movies is super easy to please? (Living in PA if anyone can vouch for this)
Josh Leitzel That's actually a good point. I live in PA too and I've never seen people visibly upset about a movie. The most audience interaction I see is cheering and laughing. For example in both Star Wars and GotG2, people in the audience laughed at funny stuff together and cheered when the Star Wars Episode 7 title appeared. I've never seen people boo or get mad while in the theatre.
"It" is open to interpretations, but I feel that "it" is fear. Fear comes at night
IT could also be Travis's dreams.
My thinking was that “it” represents the family and/or the virus, since Will first appeared to the main family at night, and, eventually, so did the virus.
I interpreted it as fate
definitely furries
I’m a literalist. It’s a dog.
*reads movie title*
me too
Imagine at the end of the movie it shows a zoomed in shot of the woods...
And all you hear is...
"There he is"
Immediately followed by, "I love all kids" ;)
Cool Cat
*sees an ad for this movie* "I hope Adam makes a quickie for It Comes at Night, it looks good" *immedietly gets notification for this vid*
True story.
If I ever find out you're fucking LYING to us, I will beat the shit out of you.
absolutely
Sal Ami PISS ON YOUR GRAVE, NIGGA BEHAVE
Then you realize how false the trailer was.
Im glad you liked it. I look forward to seeing it myself. I like when movies show and don't tell.
I say you go see it as soon as you can, I saw it today and I was not disappointed. It was actually better than I was expecting, it's wonderfully shot, the atmosphere is superb like YMS said, and the actors are great. I will warn you (spoiler-ish) the movie mostly sticks to following the point of view of two characters, Paul (Joel Edgerton) and Travis (Kelvin Harrison Jr.) and it creates some beautiful imagery. Highly recommend!
I will definitely get to the movies to see it ASAP. Last time a movie like this was suggested I waited and not getting spoiled was a pain.
It really doesn't show too much either haha
I'm not going to spoil it just in case but did this movie feel like more of a short film to anyone? Like the way ends and so on makes it feel like it didn't really have any themes or symbolism and was more just telling a small story? Like this probably doesn't feel like the right word but the movie, though enjoyable, felt pointless.
Marlon Davis
Film and TV are visual mediums, when they make you read or listen to narration instead of showing us it sends a message that they don't wanna put in the effort. If you were to see a movie would you feel for a character that they tell you is honest or a character shown to be honest by doing something. The second one, because actions are more powerful than words or whatever that quote is.
It Comes At Night
"We don't go out at night."
They go out at night. A lot.
A24 is honestly saving cinema and the horror genre.
if anyone doesn't know A24 is a relatively new studio that is producing some of the best films in recent history as well as the Witch and Greenroom and now this movie making them a great horror studio.
they also produced moonlight, room, american honey, the lobster ex machina, swiss army man, and amy.
+simon amorim Slow, depressing, and emotionless characters don't always equal great movies. Honestly, I feel depressed watching even the trailers for their films.
NAH, WE GOT PRETENTIOUS MOVIES FROM BEN WHEATLEY.
Swamprat42 they produced free fire too. Not only depressing movies.
UnbelievabIeMontages Having been to a Wheatly Q&A, he comes across as not pretentious at all. He seems to make movies purely out of fun rather than to explore psyche or humanity or what have you.
"Synecdoche New York Part 5 should be out next week" ITS BEEN 2 YEARS ADAM
oof, a little longer than that.
anyone else seen't that dude just chilling on the stump in the background during the car scene
Jared Kunish fuck I thought I saw something!
Jared Kunish I saw that too! I didn't know if it was just me though.
Jared Kunish Yeah, but none of my friends caught it, so I thought it was probably nothing.
Saw it in the theater and i thought I was going insane lol
Interesting its probably just a stump or fallen tree. Although it would be interesting if they added things like this into the background to add to your sense of paranoia by seeing humanoid shaped things in the background that go unseen by the characters, real or not. Now there's a scene in the movie where the dog runs off into the woods and Travis hears something and the camera pans over to show where hes looking and I swear I saw something move behind a tree just for a second, could be another example. I think the director put these things in on purpose. Look how the camera follows the "person" on he stump in that car scene.
One of the things I thing illustrated how great of a filmmaker Trey, is how he made a house that was implied to be very big, seems so extremely claustrophobic. Will shows he's impressed with the house, yet as a viewer it feels like these people are cramped into something akin to a small cabin in the woods which really added to the atmosphere of the movie.
And I'm laughing immediately
Very true
griffith did nothing wrong
Ew get that shit outta here
+Deus Vult Machina GRIFFIIIIIIITH
Subjectively yes. Objectively griffith cared for the band and thought highly of his army. he couldnt let his emotion show tho since he had to be the tough strong leader he needed to be to achieve his goal. he said multiple times that he will do anything to fullfill his dream. cant really say it wasnt expected or not justified what he did. SPOILER: .He got what he wanted and the people of windheim are at safe in falconia. so i guess it was worth it?
Oh man, average movie goers are absolutely shitting on this movie. The trailers were a bit too dishonest, but that doesn't subtract from the fact that this was a brilliantly constructed thriller.
The Mother Flickers no it isn't
Some Guy That's, just like your opinion man.
The Mother Flickers understandable have a nice day but the trailers and the marketing were extremely misleading
The Mother Flickers
This could very well have been a fantastic movie however it got my hopes so up for something else entirely that I simply cannot let the disappointment down.
What did you think it was going to be and what did it turn out to be?
The fact that Adam is so hard on movies and the fact that he reviews so few makes me really pay close attention when he says "this is a well done film".
He does say it. As for the film, I went in blind without knowing what it was about and I loved every moment of it. I think the title IT COMES AT NIGHT really refers to their fear and paranoia of the outside world is at its most intense after dark. But that's just my opinion. Great movie overall and it's one of my Top 3 favorite horror movies of the 2017 along with THE AUTOPSY OF JANE DOE and THE EYES OF MY MOTHER.
The Eyes of My Mother is hauntingly good!
hey man keep making the awesome videos you are an awesome content creator you are really awesome dude stay positive and you are the man you are awesome
is he awesome?
Lemon Nonce no, he is awesome
Aww isn’t puppy love so cute?
Marry him why don't cha? 🤣 Or is that too "awesome"
Every RUclips ad I get for a trailer for a film, I almost always skip it. I can't remember how long since I haven't skipped a trailer ad. I saw the first 10 seconds of the trailer for this film and I just couldn't skip it. I watched the entire thing and I was immensely fascinated. I'm so glad it was a good film in your opinion. I look forward to seeing this!
So the title, the trailers, and the entire marketing campaign set up something that never pays off. You can't entice people with something and then slowly pull the rug out from them over the course of two hours.
Not since Kangaroo Jack has a movie's title, trailers, and marketing campaign pulled a bait-and-switch of this magnitude.
Swamprat42 I know right
the filmmakers almost never are the ones who make the trailers
What was the bait and switch was used for Kangaroo Jack? Or am I just looking too deep into this joke.
David Davidson every bit of marketing for kangaroo jack led you to believe the entire movie was about a talking kangaroo wearing a hoodie who only appeared once in some guy’s hallucination
Hoooolly shit - I am sick of this argument.... the thing that comes at night are the boy's nightmares. Also, I love the title because it puts you in a state of anticipation for something coming at night. But you slowly realize that it's the boys nightmares/sleep walking. It's an incredible title
You should watch "The Witch". It's a very slow paced tension building movie and I love it for this. Cinematography is stellar. I hate the "new" horror way which is "jumpscares=fear", so it's a movie that's my style. "It follows" was awesome in that sense too.
Don't know his specific thoughts on The Witch but he gave it a 7/10 on imdb, so he probably at least liked it.
He also made a quickie for It Follows if you want to hear his thoughts on that.
I'm glad this review brought up the implied "monster" the film's marketing and title sadly made me expect. For me this movie was an interesting showcase on how an audience member's own expectations can completely ruin an otherwise very good movie for them. I admit to actually hoping there would be something that would come "at night" but I was let down and was left with a pretty lukewarm feeling overall. I know it's silly to judge a movie because it's not what I expected it to be, but I digress.
That being said, plenty of people were more disappointed than I was. People left the theater during my show and I've heard some reports from others saying the exact same thing happened to them. And while a few people began talking near the end everybody else in the theater was at least respectfully bored.
So while I can't disagree with the rating or anything YMS has said I have to SERIOUSLY urge the point he makes about going into the movie with clean expectations.
MarsShadow
You're completely correct about the film misleading you. If you go to watch something and it's not what you wanted how are you going to enjoy it?
And if a movie has to essentially lie to it's audience in order to work then it's already failed.
MarsShadow This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. If you don't like mystery just read the plot summary of every movie before you go and see it.
armageddonbound >what is reading comprehension
I'm not complaining about mystery, in fact there was no mystery. The virus is the first thing established in the plot and is never built on. I'm talking about the advertising of the movie intentionally leading many people to believe the "unnatural threat creeping ever closer" (from Google's plot synopses) being the central focus of the movie. The disease in the movie is really just a plot device.
armageddonbound Expecting people to not have any assumptions about a movie going in is kind of stupid. Movie trailers exist so people can make assumptions that will bring interest or disinterest in a movie. I have a hard time dissociating myself from the expectations a trailer gives me even if the case is that the movie is best viewed without any expectations. I'd say the best suited for this film are those who didn't see any trailers.
I've seen this, it's the sort of movie I love, which leaves you sitting around for the rest of the day, thinking about the movie.
But of course if you like copy-and-paste hollywood movies, you may find this annoying.
I just saw the film this evening. And not 10 minutes after getting home Adam uploads this. Niiiiiice.
Here are my thoughts on what actually happened:
We kept seeing the kid and his nightmares and how he was perceiving different worst case scenarios. Sometimes we see him leave and go outside in those dreams but what I am proposing is that he actually did go outside on those times. When he looked in horror at something out of frame that is the dog and he took it upon himself to drag it back home, thus getting himself infected in the process. He then touched the little boy and infected him, which explains why he was outside of the room because he took him out. Only he and the little boy could have actually opened the door and it makes more sense, along with causes more dread to think that it was the main character that did it because it then makes it all his fault as to why that family died. And in the end of the film he realizes that his own family is at risk because of him so he leaves into the night and we see his parents sit together quietly as we assume they lived the rest of their lives in depression.
If you have different thoughts on what happened please share, I enjoy discussions about things like this. :)
Coletrain Hetrick Perfect analysis! And it makes so much sense when you put it like that.
Well thank you :)
I dont think he could have gone out and got the dog. His father mentions that he was the only one that has the keys and sometimes sarah, so how could have travis got them? Also when he woke up and found Andrew, and then went to the hall there was noise coming from the room, what could that have been if it was Travis that brought the dog back? Your theory is definitely interesting though
ryan b It isn't fully true that you cannot leave without the keys. They demonstrated early on that someone is fully capable of removing a board and breaking the door down, and it's the second door that needs the keys, not the red one. It also makes less sense for the kid to open the door and interact with the dog in my opinion. It was badly wounded, it wouldn't be able to break that board down and get inside on its own. There's a key moment where he in his dreams looks for his dog and stares at something in horror, I think that's him staring at his bleeding to death dog in which he decided to bring him back and put the blame on the little kid. The screenwriters in my opinion intentionally didn't show us this so we try to figure it out for ourselves. And when you see the final dream sequence at the end, for me at least, I came to the realization that the previous times he went outside at night actually happened.
I see the movie for the most part being from his perspective. He is shown to be able to hear most of the conversations that take place in the attic and it isn't hard to think that he withholds information, which is one of the main reasons why we have so much stuff become heavily implied rather than concrete. He honestly see a lot of the events that happen to the point where he honestly could know everything the audience does for the most part.
Also I realized something else about the title that might be me over-analyzing the film. The title, It comes at Night, refers to the nightmares he has but more importantly why he has them: it reflects his fears of everyone turning against him and hating him. One shows him yearning to be with his grandfather despite it no longer being possible, another shows him lusting for that woman, and one that I find crucial is a when the camera slowly approaches the door to me says he wants to go outside and look for people and coincidentally they came.
Also you don't have to agree with any of this so don't feel like I am trying to persuade you. We find meaning in films without it being the initial intent so yeah.
Coletrain Hetrick Coletrain Hetrick Coletrain Hetrick Coletrain Hetrick I think once the movie is fully out and more accessible we'll have more answers in theory's. Right now we're just going off of what we remember from seeing it in the theatre (at least I am).
I theory I read was that Andrew did actually open the door and touched the dog or something like that and that's how he got sick and then gave it to Travis. However that doesn't explain how the dog was able to get in.
Originally I believed it was very obvious to tell when he was dreaming as the scene would fade to black and the following scene would be his dream. However in the last dream, it begins the same way as all the others but isn't in fact a dream, it's reality.
Finally regarding the title. I think the movie does a fantastic job of making the viewer feel like they're truly in it. We only know the information that the characters say, and it's up to us to decide for ourselves if we believe them. With a lot of movies the viewer is almost god like in the sense that they are aware of everything happening and knowing all sides of the story. We aren't presented with that in this movie. We're just as in the dark about the virus as the characters are and for all we know they could believe it comes in the night and the movie is named so to maintain that sense of total immersion. If they don't know we don't know. Another thought I had is maybe they do know for a fact something happens at night. The way I viewed this movie is we were just viewing a portion of their life. Why would they explain to one another what comes at night if they already all know. They could have discovered his before the opening scene when we joined in on their life. The director did a excellent job of making this not feel like a movie and nothing was done for our convince. So maybe something does in fact come in the night and it was just not discussed in the span of time we were viewing this family
Thanks you YMS, thanks so much for actually appreciating this movie and what is was going for. I watched a few other reviews since I saw the film last night, and honestly I was surprised at how many critics on youtube didn't like the film or just didnt overall get the themes and meaning of the story. I for one felt this movie was extremely well paced, great use of lighting, music and a well constructed story with a strong tone. I haven't watched a "horror" thriller this disturbing since "Under The Skin" (strongly recommend) and I also haven't seen a film so great at representing paranoia in fucking years. I'm really excited for what this Director will do next.
I had too many questions. Please answer if you can.
*spoilers*
1.) Who opened the door?! Was it the little kid and if so, what was the purpose for the owner having a key to the door I don't get it.
2.) Where did that guy get that extra gun towards the end?
3.) How did the boy get sick? They mentioned that signs can show up in only one day.. how long did the family stay over the owners house and all of a sudden boom he is sick? Was it because he fell asleep in grandpas room and it was contaminated? When they asked "does he sleep walk" the way he asked seemed to imply that it was a symptom of being sick... or maybe that's just me. And if he did open the red door, how if he is so short and he didnt have the key??
4.) did travis hallucinate because of the trauma from seeing his grandpa get infected and burning him?
5.) What the hell happened to the dog? what did he see in the woods? He was bloody, do the infected people become monsters? They like took a chunk out of the dog... they said the dog is sick so was it a cover up so travis wont get near or does it pass onto animal?
lin1992 My interpretation is that Travis was already sick. The nightmares are a symptom of his infection. The little boy started to have nightmares, that's why he ended up in grandpas room. The little boy was infected due to exposure from Travis. (The scene of them two coloring together)
1) The most likely answer, is Travis opens the door. I'd argue a *lot* of the "visions" aren't visions. We saw that it was possible to enter the locked room from outside without a key (first character intersection was breaking into the house), and the red door doesn't require a key at all, so Travis likely was leaving his room and those "visions" (dreams, whatever) were reality, and he drug the dog back inside.
2) We know Will isn't trusting of Paul (he kills people in cold blood), and we also see that he lies to Paul (either a half-lie or a full-lie) when Paul questions Will about his brother, despite the fact that he says he's an only child, and he passes this off as a "brother-in-law" that was practically like a brother to him. Given the current very chaotic state of the cities, I doubt Will would trust Paul enough to not hide a gun somewhere either right from the start, or once he suspects that his son (or Travis) might be infected.
3) We really don't know the illness works, and this all depends on your interpretation of the events in the film. Best guess, is that Travis is already infected and passes it on to Andrew (the kid). Travis was having visions, memory loss, and was paranoid throughout the entire film which slowly built to the climax.
4) I'd say these weren't all hallucinations. The ones with the black liquid were obviously hallucinations, but the "visions" in which he's outside are reality. He left the house, and cannot distinguish between dreams and reality because he's already infected from sharing a living space with his grandfather.
5) The dog was infected already from sleeping on the grandfather's bed both before, during the infection, and after he died (the dumbest thing the family did despite all their precautions was to not burn his bed, sheets, clothes, etc.). The dog was hallucinating things in the woods and chased them. His injuries are either from another animal, or falling while chasing a hallucination.
So, grandpa was infected, which spread to the dog and Travis (sleep walking and insomnia, hallucinations, loss of time, unable to distinguish between waking and sleeping realities, paranoia, etc.), which spread to Andrew and eventually to the adults and causes everybody to die. Thanks grandpa. Really appreciate that.
@@longliverocknroll5that still doesn’t make sense because the family regularly interacts with Travis and the dog via touch. Like the rules for the illness don’t make sense. It would be one thing if Travis got sick from living with his grandfather, but if that’s the case, why is everyone not sick given they all had unprotected contact with both him and the dog.
This movie had way too many questions that could be answered through audience interpretation without giving any indications as to why that interpretation came about.
@@sadboijokes saying “that still doesn’t make sense” to a 6 year old comment that has FIVE points is stupid buddy lmao
@@longliverocknroll5 so is replying to call that action stupid. Truth be told, I didn’t even realize the comment was that old. I just saw the movie today and had a lot of thoughts about it.
This is one of my favorite movies that I've seen this year so far.
My girlfriend and I watched this movie together and when the movie was over we just walked out of the theater just...disturbed and stunned. Great movie
0:55 - 1:55 You literally described why I believe that "Signs" is a great movie.
Never have I ever tapped on a video so quickly
You have a very specific taste in films, but I love your videos. Professionally done and great analysis. Really enjoy this channel!
I love this movie! It is a great horror film because of the masterful acting and directing in particular.
it was a bit slow at times but to me it's in the same vein as "The Witch". both movies didn't rely heavily on jump scares and most of the fear comes from the tension that it builds, the atmosphere, and the music. the acting as you said was superb and the fact that it leaves much up to your imagination is nice that they just don't come out and say "hey this guy died!" there is next to no exposition
LET ME OUT OF HERE
I just saw this last night and was hoping you reviewed it now here I am so yay.
"The trailers got me in the theater, but instead of THIS kind of amazing movie I got THAT kind of amazing movie". Who cares? You just saw an awesome movie, why would you be angry?
My only complaint was the jump scares and when the kid took off after the dog. I loved it though.
You pretty much echoed how I feel about this one, I gave it a 7.5/10. As a lover of horror I was pleasantly surprised by how minimalist it was. The fear was subtle, it didn't crutch on jump scares, and it didn't pointlessly infodump. Definitely one of the best recent horror films I've seen in quite a while.
Exactly the fear itself of dread and paranoia of it slowly built over time. Anxiety and doubt of someone being sick the fear got to them at that night and consumed them. Enabling good people to do evil, wicked things. There's no monster at night they themselves have become the monsters because of the darkness 'the plague, the night, fear itself'.
I like to think that at the end although it was implied that "spoilers" the parents are at the early stages of the plague, however I like to think that they weren't infected. With the fear/paranoia of the plague, the murder of the young family and the death of their son. That sense of fear has consumed them entirely they've given in their humanity to it. If they were to see other people again a family with children approaching their home they wouldn't hesitate and would kill them. They're gone and have become monsters all because it came from the night.
Also I thought the music used in this film was very good and fitting for the slow build up of dread and the anticipation of fear.
I'm so happy you enjoyed this. I was looking forward to it but now that it has your approval I'm reeeaaally looking forward to it
Glad to see one of the youtube critics loved this movie as much as I did
So much relief that this is getting good reception. I can't wait to see this!
synecdoche part five hyyyyype
Thought I was the only one
The trailer and the music was perfect, can't wait.
I'm sure this is great and I'll end up watching it but.....can I just have a fucking scary ass monster movie?
Can something actually come out at night and make me projectile poop all over the screen? You only gotta show it like 2-3 times, and you can half show it if you want to keep the mystery up, but give me a fucking nightmarish monstrosity to haunt my dreams, for the love of Nyarlathotep. I'm sick of humanity being the true monster all along, I already know that. Give me a writhing, shambling spider of teethy dicks or something, come on!
I know they make monster movies still, but can someone with this clear level of cinematography and directing skill try their hand at it? Please?
Fien there is no monster
The monster was your inner fear and demons all along.
Fien
Exactly.
@Your friendly neighbourhood Nazi dat would make the director gay like adum
Fien yo that reminded me how we could of had a "at the Mountains of madness" film and now I'm depressed
i'm glad you haven't forgotten to finish your synecdoche, new york series. we've been waiting.
Only one large Youtbe guy has reviewed this so far, and it turns out to be the one whose opinion I respect the most. Fuck yea
I think the movie title, and Adam actually mentioned this in his review, is a reference to theme of paranoia and fear. The suspenseful moments, the nightmare sequences, and the whole "don't go out at night" just makes it clear that the movie's focus was that the mind plays tricks on people. It comes at night, but exactly is "it"? Sometimes, we'll see things that aren't there. Sometimes, we'll "dream" things that end up real. Add the whole fear factor and you have someone whose paranoid and afraid of everything. While the movie will have viewers asking more questions than give answers, It takes a level of mental capacity to appreciate and understand what this film is trying to portray.
Also, how did the door get opened to let the dog back in. Joel Edgertons character said he had the only key. How did the little kid open the door? I am fine with most of it being left ambiguous. I dont need to know the details or the backstory on the virus. I dont need to kno if the kid was actually sick at the end, but i think they were a bit too vague on some things.
Dylan MacKinnon it’s possible Travis sleep walks. That night the door was opened Travis “dreamt” he went out into the woods. He found Stanley’s body and dragged the body home
Teddo Garza Seems like the disease causes insomnia. Travis has trouble sleeping ever since Grandpa was infected and died. Travis was most likely a slow-burning infected, and he passed it on to everybody. We see signs of insomnia in other characters (like Kim).
Dylan MacKinnon If you think the film through, there's not many questions that are unanswerable. The evidence is all there for you to see, you just need the pieces. The biggest hint would be: are the "dreams" really "dreams", or a symptom of infection. Plenty of diseases cause insomnia, memory loss, paranoia, etc..
I am so glad you put the red words for spoiler talk. I was minimized and not paying attention and came back to a screen of spoilers, so I knew to skip.
I feel like the title was meant to refer to Travis' dreams in the film.
That closing shot was worth the whole movie for me, personally
(Spoilers)
My interpretation: Travis starts to feel distance from his family after he is forced to watch his grandfather die. With the new family arriving, he begins to see them as the ideal family, or at least, better than his own. His dreams indicate not only his sexual attraction to Kim but his initial fear of sharing the same fate as his grandfather. However, by the end of the film, after his family has killed the other out of inconclusive suspicions he wishes he was sick too. He tries to vomit blood at the end because he wants to be sick. His mom tells him the same words as she did the grandfather in the beginning because he doesn't want to live anymore. Just because all the answers aren't given doesn't mean it's bad. Ambiguity in this film is used to highlight it's purpose. I loved it!
Ben Harris you can see he's sick...
Zeke Aleman it fades to black right before the scene when he is visibly sick. It had been established throughout the movie before this scene that it fades to black before every dream scene, so he could very well be dreaming that he is sick again.
I'm really excited for this one. I was sort of getting a less stylistic (not in a bad way) "It Follows" vibe from the trailer in its bleakness. Can't wait to check it out
beautifully shot movie, well acted, but...those are the only things going for it. I didnt expect a traditional horror movie, I apprciate movies that are more for the atmosphere of dread rather than straight scares, and I don't mind not being spoofed answers. but this movie was incredibly disappointing. it felt pointless and whole unengaging; the movie only felt like it had potential but never delivered on anything, from characters to story to any emotions beyond boredom. throughout the whole movie I just felt like I was observing something rather than be engaged in a story. I felt just the same going out of the movie theater as I did going in the movie theater.
Your feels really don't matter, dude
Finally somebody gets it. So much going for this movie and in the end it delivered with nothing
TheSweetestCurse Thank you, you put my thoughts into words.
Wait this is totally how I felt! I went back to this quickie to see if I could discern some sort of point or meaning from this film, but I’m really left with nothing. I love how little it tells us, and I love almost everything about this film (except for Will’s performance), but at the end of the film, it felt like nothing happened or was accomplished. I guess that might be the point of the movie and I’m just so used to there being a resolution to films, but I totally get where you’re coming from.
Saw this movie last night and honestly the whole time this movie had my butt clenched it's an amazing movie, from the cinematography to the story telling this film was beautiful. And a lot of people in my theater was annoyed about the movies ending but I think the ending is done perfectly. It doesn't need anything else. It leaves you in the same empty and hopeless place that the mother and father are in. Well done by the director and writers.
I really enjoyed this movie, but the marketing was awful. It was marketed to be more of a monster movie, but there's no monster whatsoever. There's nothing attacking this family as it was marketed to be like, it's more about what human piece and what people will do to protect the ones they love. Plus, to top it all off, apparently the director chose the name for the movie "because it sounded cool".
Now I'm even more excited for this
Am I the only one who gets mildly pissed off whenever a movie just makes you feel like utter shit without really offering any sort of lesson or moral or real observation or anything? That's what this movie felt like for me. I have no idea what the hell I was supposed to get out it.
The accompanying music was good, I guess. The cinematography too. But what's the point of going through the experience of watching this movie if the only net result is that you're mildly depressed for the next few hours, and you forget it the next day?
That's the thing though. Movies are entertainment, not learning materials. Sure, you can use them to teach a lesson, or bring discussion to some kind of topic, but I think it's pretty dangerous all round to be expecting a message from them. Sometimes people just want to tell a story and get you invested in it and not have to preach a worldview to the masses.
Well, what people take out of a movie is personal and subjective. I enjoyed the tension and mystery, trying to figure out myself what was going on as the movie unfolded. I enjoyed watching characters who were well developed that I cared about and the tension that accompanied that. The movie kept me interested and thinking about it long after I watched it, so your net result isn't what a lot of other people got out of it.
There's actually a lot to take out of this film if you care to look for it. Depends entirely on your interpretation of what actually happened though.
The ending of this movie devastated me, I felt so fucking depressed, it was amazing.
Almost all negative reviews of this movie is an 1/10 which clearly shows how much these people just wanna hate because they didn't understand it.
I liked this movie a lot. I think the problem was that some people thought it was kind of a zombie movie, which is like saying that the VVitch is a witch horror film. Its more of a post apocalyptic drama.
IM HERE AND I LOVE YOU
If that is you in your profile pic you can call me any minute for Windows support.
Thanks Adam! I'll check it out. You should stop by Funhaus again, you're always amazing in what you do. Love the content!
An angry gamer with 3m subs suggested the mummy over this one :p
seriously, this movie was well shot, it had great characters and interactions, and the ending was powerful. even my brother who is fully dedicated to mindless gore and action films agreed that it was realistic and engaging. I don't understand people who didn't like it. i thought it was genuinely powerful
I didn’t like it. Story felt unfinished to me.
Honestly one of the best horror movies I've seen in theaters recently
**SPOILERS**
Okay so I clearly didn't get what everyone else got out of this movie. Going in to see it I was expecting to see The Mummy and it wasn't until the title that I realized I wasn't there to watch a fun bad movie and instead a serious drama. There are a number of killers for me throughout the film but I'll just touch on the few that make it impossible for me to agree with your 8/10 rating. Most of my gripes with this movie actually come down to the horror elements and the poor implementation (in my opinion). Seeing characters act somewhat irrationally wouldn't be too unexpected especially in the case of the teenage boy, however I find it nearly unbelievable that after believing the grandfather's funeral pyre to be what attracted Will(?) to the house they would not only believe him when he said he thought the house was unoccupied AND THEN to burn the dog rather than just carting it as far away as possible leaving yet another bellowing inferno to attract the denizens of the area who, from the shootout on the road, we know to be very dangerous. Things like the teenager chasing after the dog, which was barking at and then chased after nothing as far as we know, are entirely believable but the father overlooking something that could very easily have gotten them all killed? Being shown time and time again to be anally cautious means he shouldn't have overlooked something so painfully obvious. Then the question of how the dog got all the way back to the house in its whimpering immobile state is another issue entirely. The reason I relate these back to the horror elements of the film is because I think that it could have been a perfectly good apocalypse film without having to rely on these major plot conveniences and screw ups and I think horror movie logic played a large role in forcing these decisions. Burning the dog didn't end up coming back to bite them but its amazing to me that it was something that was considered at all knowing how obvious it makes your existence and the clear need to stay hidden. The dream sequences of the teenager were also just not scary or intimidating and with the exception of the jump scare (I am in no way advocating for jump scares) I found myself chuckling whenever someone would dribble chocolate syrup from their mouth in one of the all too slow and uneventful dream sequences. The long drawn out nature of these parts of the film was seemingly to build tension and as you mentioned to increase the feeling of paranoia, however some of them went on entirely too long and left me bored in my seat waiting to see the next scene. Will's testimony also begs so many questions. Why would he refer to his step-brother as his brother when under pressure but not realize where the conversation was going when the father asked him about him being an only child? Rather than realize the gravity of the situation Will waits until the father explicitly asks him about mentioning that he stayed with his brother to clear up this miscommunication and for a father who has a wife and child on the line it is hard to believe that he would misstep so gravely. That being said Will is shown to be a more playful and far less serious character than the father so it is not outside the realm of possibility that he just didn't realize the danger he was in, but I would think that someone with so much at stake-- and who later realized the danger he was in when the father came knocking at his door-- would have been able to forsee that line of questioning and defuse the tension rather than being an idiot and making the father paranoid. As someone who went into the film expecting to see a bad movie with a bit of cringe comedy thrown in, I was not as disappointed as I wish I had been. Though the apocalyptic feeling of this film was in my opinion exquisite and absolutely nailed, the horror elements' failed implementation detract so much from the movie that it left me feeling that the horror half the movie was a snore fest and broke up the real drama and tension as a commercial break on a television drama. I can't understand why critics adore this movie so much and seeing its scores on imdb and rotten tomatoes as I walked out of the theater made me think that people gave this movie's good parts way too much credit while ignoring all of the serious downfalls. Thoughts?
First off, none of the dreams were dreams. Now, rewatch the film assuming every dream is either actually happening, or a hallucination.
Just saw it. Perhaps the most tense and haunting film to be released this year, and likely a future horror classic. It's only when I started thinking that the entire movie is an exercise in putting the audience through as much tension and paranoia as the characters that this film really started to open up in my mind. Even now as I type this it's getting better and better in my head.
4:20 video legnth!!!1111 am i funny yet?
No.
xd
that was a very funny and relatable comment that I'll give a 9/11! get it? like the terrorist attack!
hah. allah who ack bar.
darude sandstorm xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!@11!!1
Oh look! An arrow! Aren't these game designers wonderful? 4:21 cock
This probably doesn't mean anything, but I really liked that you pointed out why people like me were watching the spoilery bit (why I watched the video) and you answered my question without me having to ask lol.
If Adam says watch it, I watch it.
Carson Debert What did you think?
That feeling of finally being able a full quickie after seeing the movie because you didn't want spoilers for it.
Why do you come so late??
In the day? Are you asking why he posts later at night?
The movie came out today, so I imagine he saw it earlier in the day (when the theater was less crowded) and then had to have at least a basic scrip mock up and then record and edit the video.
green tunic of destiny hes talking about the dick joke at the start
BleachLover 666
Yeah... It didn't click until after I posted the comment. Can't you tell I'm so smart. *facepalm*
green tunic of destiny lmao we all have those moments
I also feel like this was one of the most tense movies I've watched in a long time. I really enjoyed how vague the title and, to some extent, the movie's universe was.
I have to rewatch this again. The audience in the theatre was so fucking rude. It was just like the experience I had with the witch
That movie was terrible too.
Only a few seconds in and I have to pause it because I'm laughing so hard!
Audience score is a lot lower than rotten tomatoes critic score. Probably how you know it's actually good.
Only XX has subverted this out of things I've seen, otherwise I'd agree
No, that's how you know the critics are pretentious.
Sometimes that's true too.
Troodon People *really* need to stop using the word "pretentious" when it doesn't apply appropriately.
Yes, but critics also vote for bad movies with female leads because if they don't they're called sexist.
While being only three years older than Travis certainly helped me identify with him, the deal was truly sealed by just how incredibly well this movie established its characters. It felt like I was taken out of my theater seat and placed in Travis's body, seeing what he saw, feeling what he felt, and thinking what he thought. I identified with him and felt what he felt to such an immeasurable degree that when he died, it felt like a huge part of me died with him. The final shot of this movie is so powerful and so heartwrenching that it makes Travis's death feel so much worse. In fact, when the movie was over, I walked out of the theater, got in my car, and cried like I'd just watched my dearest friend die.
This is the best movie 2017 has had to offer so far. I loved it, 9/10.
+Alex A. (DX '99) there were only 4 people in my theater and half of them didn't like the movie because it wasn't "scary enough"
Maximillian McCormick
To be fair to them the marketing was misleading.
+Haley F true, but it was still a high quality film.
Maximillian McCormick Yeah but if I were them I would probably have a hard time enjoying a movie that seemed like it would be something else entirely. Even if it were amazing.
Crappy year for movies then.
I Just have a few questions (spoilers):
- How did the grandfather get infected?
- Who were the 2 men that attacked Will and Joel Edgerton?
- What were Travis' dreams all about?
- What was the point of the scene where Will contradicts himself by saying that he was an only child after already saying that he had a brother who died?
- If Will did have a brother or brother-in-law, how did he die? It couldn't have been from the infection because then Will and his family would have also been infected as they did not have the proper equipment (masks, gloves) to prevent the infection from spreading.
- What was the dog barking at?
- What attacked the dog?
- How did the dog get back to the house and inside?
- Why was there a loud crash right before Travis noticed that the red door was open? Was it the dog? If so how?
- Who opened the door? It couldn't have been the kid.
- Why was the kid sleeping on the floor in the grandfather's room?
- Why did the family want to leave? They said it was because they were infected but none of them had any sores or were bleeding. Also Joel Edgerton would have gotten infected from touching Will without a mask or gloves on but he didn't.
- If it wasn't the child that infected Travis, how did he get infected?
- Why didn't they want them to leave?
- And what I'm most curious about: What the fuck comes at night?
I thought the movie was atrocious. The director basically told you exactly what was about to happen 10 minute before via Travis's dreams throughout the movie. Why would they introduce so many things and hint that they'll be explained or expanded upon later and then do absolutely nothing with them (the men in the woods, the supposed love interest, the sickness)? The movie left TOO much out and it totally ruined the experience. The whole theatre expected something more than the "twist" at the end and was bitter when they left. I will say that it was really tense at some parts of the movie, but those okay parts don't make up for the lackluster experience overall. I don't particularly enjoy jump scare movies and this was definitely not that with it's like 3 scares the whole movie. The original Alien did a MUCH better job with it's suspense and fear factor. I was expecting some sort of monster or zombie attack or SOMETHING, ANYTHING to be the source of the tension besides a stupid "sickness"
imagine judging a film based upon what you wanted out of it. "i wanted more robots with laser tiddys, so The Godfather gets a 2/10.-IGN"
You’re judging it as a monster-scary movie and I can’t really complain. The trailers/title make it seem like that. But if you look at it as more of a thriller I’d say it’s a lot more satisfying.
Men in the woods = scavengers in the moods that prey on travelers to survive. (Not knowing who they are plays on the tension between Paul and Will)
Supposed love interest = Travis lusting after Will’s wife. Travis is a teenage boy with urges to be with a girl. In the long term, this could cause a problem in the post-apocalyptic society they’ve created.
Sickness = Narrative driving force. Do you honestly need this to be explained? Just pretend that they invented it in a lab testing on monkeys, or some other science bullshit.
With Warrior, The Gift, and now this, hopefully people will get why I wanted Edgerton for Batman! He's such an underrated talent.
furfeg
same
dam furfeg retards takin our jobes
same
Thank you for all you do Adam. Your a pretty cool dude.
I feel like I saw a different movie than you. This movie has no plot. It introduces things that go nowhere. The script of this movie is 3 sentences long. Some people want to come in the house with the other people. The people want to leave the house. And then what happens at the end. That's it. All that stuff about the sickness and the red door and blah blah, none of it matters or amounts to anything or is explained. When this movie ended, the people in the theater were very upset. They were laughing and shouting at the screen. It was very Blair Witch Project-esque. In fact, the Family Guy description of Blair Witch Project describes this movie perfectly, with one word change. "They're in the woods. Nothing's happening. Nothing's happening. Something about a (sickness). Nothing's happening. It's over. A lot of people in the audience look pissed."
This felt more like an episode of Walking Dead than a movie. One of the episodes in the middle of the season, where there are no zombies and it's all filler material about tension and stressed relationships. This was like the movie Hidden if no military had shown up at their door. I have many questions and I'll try to keep them spoiler free:
Why did they hint at a love interest between Travis and the wife, then never do anything with it?
Why did the dog stop barking immediately?
What the hell happened to the dog? From what they showed, it wasn't the "sickness."
Who opened the door? The kid couldn't have done it because like they said, he was too short.
What's with Travis's PTSD and not sleeping and attic snooping?
What were we supposed to gather from Travis's dream of some vague thing happening with the snarling dog. We don't know what because we just get a closeup of Travis's scared face.
What the F was with that ending? They could've flashed credits after the Travis scene. That two seconds of kitchen table was unnecessary.
Who were those two guys in the woods and why did they do what they did?
If he thought they were sick, why didn't he let them leave? They wouldn't have lasted long enough to run out of supplies and come back.
Was that really the only option? You're telling me he couldn't have blindfolded them and driven them somewhere in his truck where they wouldn't have known how to get back?
Thank you. Thank you for not acting like because a movie is pretentious that it is all of a sudden some masterpiece.
TenTonNuke I agree
I also usually like leaving it to the imagination. Too many horror movies insist on forcing in a stupid ending or showing the creature in full CGI. It's always better in my head (like the movie Mama... why'd they have to show the stupid mama?). But for god's sake, give me something. I've got so little to go on, I could just as easily assume that aliens had taken over the world and infected humans with some space virus, or that this is merely some cabin during a modern day outbreak of the bubonic plague. Take 10 Cloverfield Lane. Perfect example of ruining a great movie with a forced terrible ending, just to tie it in to Cloverfield. But even without that last horrible 10 minutes, 10 Cloverfield Lane was what It Comes at Night wanted to be. The being trapped inside with people you're not sure about. The suspicion. The overreactions. The trying to decide if it's better to take your chances outside with the disease. The ultimate display of cabin fever. It Comes at Night did everything worse than similar movies before it.
Looking at some of the audience reviews on RottenTomatoes, this movie only gets 5 star ratings and 1 star ratings. There is no in between. This is going to be like one of those movies like Suicide Squad, where half the country swears it's the best thing in the world and the other half thinks everyone involved should be deported. (I hated Suicide Squad. Jered Leto had no idea how to play the Joker.) My favorite critic, from the Las Vegas Review, says "Throughout its brief 97-minute run time, It Comes at Night seems to be building to something that simply isn't there. If movies were still shown on film, you'd swear the final reel was missing." That's how I felt. I was in no hurry to leave. Hell, I hadn't even finished all my popcorn when the credits started rolling. Where was the rest of the movie? How about I just pay the theater 11 bucks, get in my car, and go home? It leaves it totally up to my imagination that way. The movie I just played out in my head was amazing! Great, great film! There will be no agreement in these forums. I look forward to the wars that erupt as the week progresses.
TenTonNuke
Oh Gods I hated Hidden, that twist ending makes the whole movie upsurd and unwatchable.
You gonna do one on the mummy too papa? Haven't seen either so I'm genuinely curious about what you (and others) think
"quite a lot left to interpretation"... no, the entire movie it's left up to interpretation. This is exactly why I don't like it. Absolutely none of the question presented are answered at all throughout the entire film. If you think about it every time a question is presented they just simply present another question to distract you from the last one. When the credits roll asset the end and the entire audience says "what" collectively then you've done something incredibly wrong from a story perspective. In fact think about this for a second; why is the title it comes at night? I know full well why it is, but i challenge anyone to try and explain
Travis' hallucinations, nightmares, and general feeling of dread all came at night. So did the dog that was so dearly loved and pretty much led to the death of 4 people needlessly. Boom, spoon-fed you just now. Still hungry?
Using the audience as a non ironic argument. What a genius lol
Holy fuck, really? lol
I honestly have no fucking clue how somebody could say this film having unanswered questions is a bad thing.
If your *entire* audience doesn't *want* to be asking questions, *then* you're doing something wrong. If you watch a film about paranoia and fear and you *don't* ask questions walking out, then it's a shitty film. The *whole* point about paranoia is that it's *not supposed to be answered* as that quite literally defeats the whole fucking purpose of this film.
The characters *even fucking say as much in the film* stating that they are *afraid* of letting characters leave because they're *afraid* of not knowing what will happen if they do. They are *afraid* of letting infected people leave without knowing what will become of them and we're the infected people will go when they get desperate. They are *afraid* of the unknown shadows in the dark which could be hiding other *desperate* humans, infected or otherwise.
If you can't come up with a theory of what the title of this film refers too, then you need to stop watching horror movies outside of torture porn.
longliverocknroll5 Oh for fuck's sake man. I'm all for more cerebral horror flicks and movies that don't hand-hold and explain every minute detail, but there are certain things brought up that almost demand explanation. How the fuck does the dying dog even get in the house near the end, when nothing is expanded on you're sort of left feeling ripped off.
I was going to skip this one, but you've convinced me to give it a shot.
I really want adam to yiff with me.
Yell & sniff?
ayyy are you a gtliver???
Bella E
From time to time.
qyza may I ask you something bro lol
I think I liked it so much because my friend just told me about the movie an hour before we went. Not knowing anything about the movie or director is the best way to see this movie in my opinion.
Dozed off TWICE during this movie.
It Comes at Night was really boring for me and I know the dishonesty of the trailer and the title didn't bother you as much Adam but I was pissed. I was honestly expecting a monster or some shit terrorizing Joel's family with the added tension of the stranger family maybe lying to Joel Edgerton but instead I got a mediocre movie with a plot I'd seen before a billion times.
6/10
UnbelievabIeMontages I actually uttered "What the fuck is he talking about?" out loud after I read your comment. While his first film featured his family, the thematic elements were completely different in both films. So, nah, not an originality problem as far as that goes. Secondly, a great deal of his originality derives from the craft in his filmmaking, which is how he managed to make a 30 thousand dollar film shot in his mom's house feel so experiential and evoke a specific energy. Thirdly... he should keep all that in his head? Yeah, I rarely witness someone being so wrong. Most great art comes from personal demons, whether grand or small. But the thing is...all of that is in the residue of the film...it's not even at the forefront, so I'm not sure why you would even bring that up in the way you did. Finally...he didn't market it as a horror film. A24 did. So you can't say he was misleading people.
The thing is, there is nothing intriguing or interesting/different about his personal problems compared to other 7 billion people on this planet. He is an empty dust filled with mundanities like everyone else. So what he didn't get along with his father and his father died from cancer? How many times have you heard from other people that they dealt with that problem? You don't see them go and complain it in an entire film because that's really a waste of money and it doesn't contribute anything to society. Films should either be entertaining or help solve first world and third world problems.
Andrei Tarkovsky was a different human being than everyone else. He actually knew the nature of true art and how to display it in just several images, which this director cannot do or ever replicate his work. Alejandro Inarritu tried to do so in The Revenant and he just came off as a mainstream caricature version of Tarkovsky's work.
UnbelievabIeMontages Guess you've never heard of "the personal, the more universal" which is really what films are about. You like films that serve as distractions, which is fine, but films at their highest forms are machines for empathy. Execution plays a big part in whether something is interesting as well. Also, he's burying these issues in the sand of the film which is why you're reaching so hard, man. Nothing in the film is explicitly stating it's about his father dying from cancer. It's all in the middle of the emotion displayed. You likely wouldn't have known if you didn't listen to some interview by him. And the reason why not everyone, including you, makes a film about their problems is because not everyone develops the craft to do so or can explore an idea in a way that creates an experience. Again, I honestly think even you have no idea what you're talking about and you just want to give a counter opinion for the sake of it.
Evolution in human beings of this generation have changed. Everything that has been done universally is no longer needed. What people universally want now is more of the same, but done better each time or something new and original they have never seen before that is extraordinarily better in every way. There's still a lot of things human beings haven't discovered about themselves yet or the reason that they behave such way, but how will we know if we get the same crap such as It Comes at Night? "I am afraid of my nightmares and personal demons, afraid that things will escalate to a schizophrenic manner." We've seen that before in thousands of films, this one is no different and didn't explore anything new. How about a story about the ice man of how he was able to adapt to such weather that most human beings couldn't? Actually see from his perspective of what makes his mind and body adapt to such pressure and if it can break the cycle of our limited forms? Something that perceives to the human mind of the impossibility as possible? Tarkovsky's art is all about personal expression that is universal and helps people understand why they feel, why they breathe, and why they emote, but his films are four - six decades old. We are in 2017 now, film should put its focus on evolving society.
AMAZING MOVIE, I feel 2017 will prove to be the best year for movies in recent history
Seeing this in a few days, I'm glad you saw it! A24 is on a fucking WINNING streak like none other right now.
"It was an art" 8/10
Perfect movie to rewatch during the corona outbreak : D
3:33
In the theater I thought that shape on the log was a person sitting there
I went and saw this after only seeing your review. I hadn't seen any trailer and I'm pretty glad. Honestly, I'm not sure how I would have advertised this movie.
Thanks to this I want to see the movie even more now