This was very satisfying despite my frustration about how Kermode seems to miss one of the overwhelming themes of the movie: REPRESSION. The major disfunction of all the characters how they repress their feelings, history, etc: Annie sees the mat and she should understand what it means but she chooses not to, Annie opens her mother’s boxes then chooses to quickly close them and not confront what’s inside (had she done that there might have been a less tragic ending), her son literally drives home after his accident and lays in bed rather than tell his parents, the father just seems to bury his grief and pain inside himself and can’t even bring himself to admit his concern about his wife’s well-being in an email to a colleague. There are loads of other examples.
Yes indeed, even though it may sort of back up his theory of massive exposition - the beginning where the son is zoning out looking at the girl in front, the teacher is talking about a Greek myth (tragedy) they're studying and how the fault of the protagonist was arrogance, that he ignored all the 'literal' signs that 'literally' tell him what's happening. It's pretty much all about them refusing to see what's obvious.
In reference to the doormat. Early on, when the son is in class zoning out and staring at the girl in front, the class is having a discussion about the Greek tragedy they had been reading. I can't remember the exact quote but it was something like this: 'What was the protagonists main flaw?' 'Arrogance. 'Why?' 'Because he literally refuses to see all the signs that are literally telling him what's happening'. While I don't agree quite that the doormat is a 'joke' - it is trying to be incredibly obvious, almost groanworthy as an audience member, because the theme is families NOT WANTING to see what is obvious.
Mark seems to have exaggerated the level of exposition in his own mind because of how much it annoyed him. I do agree though that the doormat/photo album/voiceover stuff is definitely the film's weakness, possibly the product of first time filmmaker being scared of misunderstood, but I do not think it cancels out any of the great stuff in this film. I think a lot of critics of Hereditary will come around to it in time, because its unique qualities far outshine its glaring flaws.
Important to note that Hereditary had multiple endings shot and shown to test audiences, including one that was the same as the final without the voiceover. Evidently they went with the version that explains things because they worried general audiences wouldn't get it.
@@BigBoss7777777 Me too, though my opinions of the movie had waned in the last half hour. That kind of voiceover exposition seemed patronising by the end.
The shot of the headless corpse levitating up into the treehouse is perhaps the most weirdly surreal and hypnotic sequence I've seen in a movie for years.
Colette floating/swimming/spider crawling out of the bedroom about five minutes before that got me, and said levitation into the treehouse. Kermode makes a big deal about the mat, a few minutes later there's a seance happening. Great movie.
I agree, an amazing scene. Just before that when Colette's character hovers in the attic, stabbing herself repeatedly in the neck is some pretty disturbing imagery too
Couldn’t finish the VVitch upon first viewing, but I’ll give it another shot. Hereditary is one of my favourite movies of all time. Definitely top 10 or 20
I don’t see how that’s proof of anything to be honest. I’ll spend a long time arguing with my friends about how terrible a movie is, that doesn’t mean it’s good. And Hereditary didn’t work very much for me and the ending made me laugh out loud at how silly it was. I do not understand the hype.
This was fantastic. I find myself agreeing more with Robbie, but I can certainly understand some of Mark’s complaints with the mechanics of the plot. The film’s strongest bit is undoubtedly the beheading and the immediate aftermath, and it never quite manages to recapture that same power. Still, it stuck with me for days.
The greatest supernatural horror leaves the possibility of a totally natural explanation to the happenings. The two greatest horror films of all time- The Exorcist and The Shining, can both be explained by mental illness and nothing more. No ghosts are needed. No demon necessary. And yet both terrify. Hereditary lost me when a human burst into flames. Completely destroyed my suspension of disbelief and left me with nothing left to guess at, nothing left to doubt. That moment told me: "You are watching a horror movie". It wasn't real anymore.
Man, imagine if we got one of these when Alien Covenant came out last year: Collin loved it while Kermode put it on his worst of list. That would have been amazing to watch.
More of these please, please, please. I think Robbie Collin is a brilliant film critic because, even if I don't agree with him about a film, he ALWAYS makes me think about it in new and challenging ways.
I couldn't agree more with Kermode about the arrival of the Ann Dowd character, im like I can see where this is going because from then on I pretty much mapped out the rest of the film, though I was excited to see how the story met its tragic/bittersweet end. The ending of the film to me felt like the end of Ben Wheatleys Kill List only with less exposition.
It's weird though, because I've only just started getting in to horror, and I'd literally never seen her (Ann Dowd) in a move before, so I was actually completely taken in by her kind motherly act.
Finally caught up with Hereditary this evening, so after watching it, came straight here to see this battle of my two favourite film critics. Funnily enough I agree and disagree with the pair of them about certain matters. 1. I didn't find it scary at all Robbie, like Mark I've been watching horror films for over four decades now, and while I did appreciate many creepy moments, and the sister decapitation scene, it re-trod many elements seen before. 2. Having said that, because it did reference many of my favourite films from yesteryear, I did enjoy Hereditary a huge amount, I spent most of the film with a huge smile on my face, as it ticked off moments from previous classics, and unlike Mark I didn't mind the clunky signposting along the way, or the finale. 3. Mark clearly has a bee in his bonnet about anything that dare mention The Exorcist in the same breath, so I think he went in watching it with that chip firmly on his shoulder. However he is right, there's nothing here that resembles The Exorcist, The Shining or Psycho, so it was really dumb to stick those on the publicity. 4. I shall gladly re-watch Hereditary again in the near future, please please please, can we have more Kermode v Collins debates - love you guys!
'Get out' also has that moment where everything is spoonfed to us, very few movies don't do this. Its 'the exorcist' thing that put his nose out of joint before even seeing it.
Kyle McLachlan I totally agree I get it the director is probably told by some suit that they need to explain to a mainstream audience, I felt same as mark that it would have worked for me without 'here's a book, explaining everything' but I understood why it was their. Like you said 'the witch' was a better movie for not going down that route.
I just saw Hereditary two days ago and I see both sides of this argument. Mark is correct there is an overabundance of exposition. Certainly, after the car scene I was not really surprised by much - and I rather think I should have been. Still a solid film but not top tier from my perspective.
I think that the main problem in the case of the films tonal inconsistency, is that at the start I was really enjoying this unique look at mental health, and how the genetic handing down of schizophrenia can be horrific to experience, and it was good, but by bringing in these supernatural elements, although it fits within the plot and themes explored, the reveal that what the characters are experiencing is something supernatural, at least to me felt like an undercut to the impact of the mental health aspect, and took away from the very real horror in the film that was the schizophrenia, I’ve seen enough demons guys
Completely agreed. The movie ended up treating its lore as more important the characters, and it got lost in weeds of supernatural mumbo-jumbo. The moment it lost me for good was the seance scene - that was when I realized that haunted house gimmickry was taking the place of the psychological horror that it had started out with.
Personally I liked the tonal shift as it had a clearly defined shift that should act as the exposition in its own right. Agree in retrospect that the voice-over/door mat/photo album stuff was a bit too much of a blunt tool. On tonal shifts Asters new film Midommar jumps around in tone every 10 minutes which I found strange and a bit hard to stick with.
so am I the only one who gets the OBVIOUS allegory? I mean did you miss the entire opening and closing shots of the movie and the whole dollhouse thing? Its clearly a POV of someone having a psychotic episode. Which when you are btw demons are as real as the air you breathe.
I'm totally with Mark on this one. I was completely gripped by the first half but from the first seance onwards, it was a downward spiral. I probably would say it's not a bad film, but it was SO good to start which made the second half so much more of a disappointment. I had no lingering feeling of discomfort or dread by the end. I'm glad they made the comparison to Kill List because in my mind, that film delivered what this one didn't. At the end of Kill List I was left thinking 'WTF did I just watch?'. It gave me a reason to keep thinking about it and left me with a lasting discomfort for several days. Audiences are not idiots. We knew what was happening and leaving it unexplained leaves an element of mystery for us to think about. Was it supernatural or was it psychological? Sadly, I don't need to think about it because the film answered all my questions with clunky exposition.
Thank you for both perspectives. I took quite a bit away from both opinions.I absolutely loved the film, have seen it twice, and fully intend to go back yet again . Both sides will be in the back of my mind during my third viewing. I’m so glad you did this, Mr. Kermode, I was so befuddled by your original review, and didn’t understand what exactly bothered you about this film, except the stupid comparison critics made with the Exorcist, which ticked me off as well. Again, thank you. I do look forward to your reviews.
i think mark is stood to close to the picture and scrutinizing how it was made rather than standing back and absorbing how it all looks as a picture. more of these debates please. love it.
I agree with Robbie that the film works massively better if you accept that parts of it are meant to be funny nudge-nudge "hey remember this horror trope??" moments rather than just flat exposition, as Mark takes them to be. When I saw it with a relatively small audience at the cinema, most people were laughing out loud through much of the second half. And that doesn't mean it wasn't scary, rather it means as well as being scary it was also outrageous in how far it leaned into its tropes by the end. And I think that's deliberate. But at the same time, I do agree with Mark that the first act of the film promises something better than it ultimately delivers.
I have never commented on this channel, but had to say I really enjoyed this swapping of perspectives, even tho' I fall heavily on one side more than the other, and I won't say which ;-) More of this in the future please for those divisive films.
Hey, this is very good, it's great to hear two highly knowledgeable film 'pundits' slot it out. I haven't seen the film 'yet' , and I'm old enough not to mind spoilers in any horror films. I'm not expecting a new Exorcist, things like that only happen once, they catch a zeitgeist perfectly, a zeitgeist that won't come up again. REALLY looking forward to this now. (Tomorrow)
This was a great idea, more debates please! I am more with Mark on this one, I really didn't think the doormat was supposed to be played for a laugh. I didn't laugh I just rolled my eyes thinking it showed its cards too soon.
I love Mark, but he doesn't seem to realise that a critic calling the film 'The new Exorcist' is not a fault of the film, but of the critic; I think he's got a real rod up his back due to the Exorcist comparisons and it predetermined him to not fairly judge Hereditary. You could argue that the marketing made a mistake in brandishing the Exorcist quotes on the poster, but again, that is not a fault of the film. He's also massively over-critical with the doormat conceit, which is literally just Anne going 'Oh, my Mother used to make doormats like that', and not a 45 minute diatribe on the formation of housing decoration that he makes it out to be. Fwiw, I thought Hereditary was the best horror film I've seen since The Shining, it created a properly tense atmosphere whilst conjuring up some legitmately unsettling and unforgettable imagery, whereas the VVitch is some what overrated, it's quite creepy in certain places, but it's too slow and perhaps, dare I say it, dull, to be in any way horrifying.
Jordan Dennison I haven't seen the exorcist and saw/heard nothing about the film apart from a small radio Ad prior to watching it as I went to watch it with a friend who really wanted to go and see it. All of us came out underwhelmed. I agree with Kermode on most of his points and I had no preconceived ideas.
I love this film, and I adore the original Wicker Man (1973). That film has a similar sudden and devastating ending, which is just crushing. The film actually works much better when compared to the Wicker Man (1973) - the horrific “truth” of a community that you thought you understood but is actually the opposite - and you don’t realize it in time.
I think Kermode's issues with this is just he's so enamoured by the films Hereditary is inspired by that he's failing to see what Hereditary is doing to take it beyond those things
Going with Colin here btw. I adore Mark but I think his horror expertise (and the Exorcist comparison) precluded him from watching with fresh eyes and getting swept away in a visceral way.
Completely agree with Mark, and I don't think those moments like the doormat were at all intended to be winking jokes to the audience. And that closing monologue was indeed awful.
I agree with both of them! It’s no the witch, but it’s still effective for all the reasons Robbie states, and yet has all the short comings Kermode bought up
I don’t get how people think the witch is creepier than Hereditary, not even close in my opinion. I liked the witch but I was no where near as creeped out.
One of the people I saw Hereditary with didn't see the film as you (or anyone else) describes it. He sees the role of the son and not Toni Collette's character as the main protagonist and he is suffering from schizophrenia (the lights, divorce from reality,, delusions of grandeur) and the scenes without him focussing on Toni are paranoid manifestations that he is imagining about her. I'm not sure it 100% stands up to scrutiny - it's not a film on my "must watch again list" so I probably will never find out - but what I enjoyed about the experience was everyone on the way home seemed to have watched a different film, but that collectively we agreed it was more interesting than it was good.
This is such a great discussion. I’m a relative newcomer to modern horror, but I like Hereditary more and more as I think about it. The main character sawing her body off was amazing. I think people are upset that the movie ended up being something completely different than what it appeared to be. You need to see it more than once to see the horror plot points that occur early in the film. It is the story of The Evil Dead retold in a unique new way.
While I haven't seen the latter, from what has been described of the ceiling hugger scene I would have to disagree with Mark to double down on his own point. Robbie says that the audience was anxious because whether the kid sees her there or not it was going to be bad news and claimed that this was an element that was not present in the 1973 film and Mark agreed with him! In fact, after the first hour of "The Exorcist" Friedkin turned his viewers into helpless, masochistic ragdolls. Wheter it was by means of a slow tracking shot or a mad dash up the stairs... that bedroom door was a terror we never wanted breached and the horror we had all lined up to see. At the age of 13 I had read the book shortly before the movie came out and at 13, I had to see how they were going to pull it off. The most outstanding split was in the depiction of the possession itself. In the book she was described as gaunt and wasting but the movie presented a pustulent gob of seething, powerful hatred. I read many reviews for the 8 months it took the film to gain a wide release and one stood out. In it the critic made a very astute observation (paraphrasing here) In the end what the parents in the audience were reacting to was a story of how the innocent child they have created and raised will eventually reach puberty and become rebellious, distant and unrecognizable. They know that when they finally connect again it will never be what they recall. From the screen writer's perspective this theme was summed up with one line, "I'm telling you that that Thing up there is not my daughter!" One woman in the screening I attended realized that she hzd reached her limit and spoke not only for the plight of parents but for everyone in the audience who were feeling they had bitten off more than theh could chew and gave the film one moment of comedic relief in gasping, "Oh, Lord... Wake me when it's over!"
This reminds me of student arguments, when someone talks about something ridiculous in a script, and then the person on the other side of the table goes, “Ah, but surely THAT’S THE POINT.”
I'm inclined to agree with Kermode, and it kinda sums up how I feel about Hereditary. I really want to love both of Aster's movies - he's clearly talented and cinematically literate - but something about them just leaves me feeling... well, cold. I'll always watch his upcoming films, however.
oh there absolutely was a sociopolitical angle to it. that the entire reason for your existence from the moment of your birth is to feed a god of greed, seems a little on the nose to me even.
The doormat is actually in keeping with what you see of the cult, which is basically like a circle of middle-aged suburban friends who get together and chop it up about their grand kids and the good ol' days. If you were to look at the collection of photographs that Annie finds, if it weren't for the creepy factor of Joan being in them when she intentionally omitted the fact that she knew Ellen, then it would just appear to be more or less what I described previously. The cult isn't about being dark and grimy and evil for the sake of being dark and grimy and evil, it's about obtaining knowledge and wealth and power but through means that one would, if psychologically normal, consider to be dark and grimy and evil.
She explained what was happening to Paimon who just met his followers, is in a new body and is probably getting his bearings.Did he expect the followers to not talk to him after spending so much time and effort? He seems to be watching the movie with the thought that every character knows what's going on....
I think Robbie makes a good point considering Midsommar and the fact that Ari Aster is interested in comedy - he has stated he wants to give a full on comedy film a shot - which to me suggests he was indeed right about certain cliches like the doormat and such to be subtle in jokes with audience members paying attention.The whole film has black comedy littered about it (the transition of Toni Collette weeping from her bed to the funeral, the seemingly endless therapy scene where she goes on and on about her tragedies), and much more so in Midsommar. It's not direct comedy but its the kind that puts faith in the audience. While i agree the exposition and the cliched aspects can be annoying, its supposed to be this way, the film is meant to be a homage to films like Rosemary's Baby and cult films, as is Midsommar. While some stuff arent for the taste of Mark and others I think everyone has to appreciate and respect the immense talent and skill Ari demonstrated in his first feature film and the degree to which he completely succeeded in his aims. Cant wait for his third film. Although saying this, i still think Robert Eggers (The VVitch and The Lighthouse) is looking even more promising as a horror director, and funnily enough The Lighthouse also has lots of black comedy too.
I didn't 'get' the doormat as soon as I saw it, but it functions more as a clue for Annie than for the viewers I think. Also the ending exposition is Joan explaining it to Charlie/Paimon who is clearly confused. I understand his point it just really worked for me. The soft spoken words to Charlie/Paimon/Peter followed by the loud 'Hail Paimon! '
I find it baffling that no one brought up the fact that the film aligns the audience with Ann Dowd’s character. It plays on the audience’s genre literacy and, in the process, labels the viewers themselves as in the same box as the antagonists. It then accentuates the fatalistic philosophy of the film by making the Graham family even more helpless in the grand scheme of things, taking on a sort of metatextual quality to the storytelling. And yes, the film really is funny at points. The comedic deflation of the seance scenes are hilarious, and that scene-specific structure finds itself in the form of the nutty ending that tops of the entire endeavor in a similar fashion.
Rosemary's Baby and Hereditary made no sense at one level - I never understood why old people in particular would actively want to worship Satan. As a natural atheist I was similarly confused that Christians trying to convert me would manage to hit a nerve by frightening me with hell. I agree with Mark's criticisms that this film is kind of crap in a lot of ways, but at least this film showed me what hell means for me personally - the terror of physical decay, the envy of the older generation for the youth - they don't worship Satan by choice, their own decay and death dooms them to membership of this club. Being John Malkovich touches on this notion too, but without invoking hell.
I'll be honest, when you break the debate down all it really comes to is this: Mark: "The exposition prevented me from appreciating it" Robbie: "I didn't have a problem with it" This debate is interesting to listen to but it feels a bit shallow.
I don't think it was great, don't think it was terrible. Some great scenes, nice framing and music. Some good performances. But weak and muddled story.
I remember Kermode being a passionate fan of Anvil. The most contrived documentary I've ever seen. Mark seemed to be unaware that every rock band had seen Spinal Tap by the 1990s.
This was really good. Funny thing is, I liked it the first time i saw saw it, and I was more on Mark's side, thinking the ending was ridiculous, by over-explaining everything. I saw it a second time, and really appreciated the ending much more for some reason.
While I agree with Mark about the final monologue, I think they're both wrong about the scene with Joan. There wasn't meant to be a mystery of whether Joan was involved with anything. The mystery was meant to be whether Joan was a real person or just inside Annie's head. At this point in the film, it's still not clear which is the truth. The doormat actually lends credibility to Joan just being a product of Annie's madness. That's why they made sure for us to know that her husband had never heard of Joan.
This is a great example of Mark’s brilliance as a critic. Aster is really good as a director, much weaker as a writer. His next movie Midsommar was another creepy cultist movie, but the concept was about a crummy relationship instead of family trauma. It also relies on the horror trope of “bad stuff keeps sign posting itself, the characters dont catch on until its too late” but was handled worse in Midsummer. I suppose the reasoning in this film is because they’re a family who’s poor with communication and in Midsommar it’s a young couple who are.
How? Literally Mark blow Robie's arguments out of the water, showing how childish Hereditary may be, but don't misunderstand me, I love that film, but Mark is right this time.
I'm with Mark on this one. Enjoyed the first hour of the film, the tone was tense and pitch black and that's what makes it work. In fact I found the tension between the family created the best moments. Leaning into the whole demonic angle lost me to the point where I found Toni Colette running up the walls hilarious. On the other hand, I thought that Ready or Not pulled off what I think Hereditary was trying to do perfectly. But it worked because it was a horror-comedy and the ridiculousness of the curse was set up beforehand.
Totally with Mark on this. So utterly engaged in the first two thirds of Hereditary then it totally lost me with the silliness. Such a shame. Oh well, I'll just go and watch the Babadook again!
THERE IS A SOCIAL ALLEGORY! It’s about how parents sacrifice their children for wealth! It’s DIRECTLY related to the 2008 crash (ie bailout banks crashed by mortgages to keep housing prices high, locking in incumbent wealth by sacrificing the future of youth). The grandmother’s posthumous note to the mother refers to rewards being worth the sacrifice. Paiman, Moloch, it’s an obvious metaphor, implied even in the demonology itself! I DO agree with all of Kermode’s criticisms, although I enjoyed the film anyway. The way I see it the entire dollhouse element that Kermode was so fascinated with should have been exorcised (heh heh) from the script because it was actually an unnecessary red herring. I actually thought the movie would be focused on a kind of voodoo (ie manipulation of reality though a simulacrum), but actually that entire element was not needed. In fact it’s a plot hole (how does the mother know certain things that she foreshadows in her sculptures?! Like the headless son she apparently sculpted, her character shouldn’t know that!). The movie still works without ANY of the paranormal elements imo.
Loved this - agree with Robbie more than Mark but just enjoyed seeing two passionate film fans having the kind of post-screening debates we all have. More of these please!
I feel I was fortunate to have seen Hereditary without having any idea what it was about (and Hereditary was the scariest film i'd seen since the exorcist, loved it). As a massive Exorcist fan, if I'd gone in with "the new exorcist" in the back of my head, it absolutely would've dampened the experience for me. I think Collin might've argued in the wrong direction trying to justify the ending, because it appears to be well documented that that angle was somewhat tacked on (not so much in an Exorcist 3 ending tack on) and Ari originally was just writing a family drama. At the end of the day I'm just glad Hereditary exists in a world where Exorcist: Believer (unfortunately) does.
Very interesting debate! I thought Hereditary was a brilliant movie. The great acting was what sunk me deep into the story and it's horrors. Certainly not this generation's The Exorcist, but I was deeply disturbed, nonetheless. I can't get the horrifying image of Toni Collette slicing Her Own Head Of With A Piano Wire out of my mind. I wasn't sure what she was doing at first with her hands moving back a forth...then, a couple seconds later, the realization... This is a classic example of a movie that became even more disturbing later on at home as the "unspeakables" kept creeping into my subconscious. ☮❣
There were some genuinely creepy and odd feelings pulled from me while watching this one. I'll need to watch it again for just all the foreshadowing nods alone. That part in a movie where you know plot has changed and your original idea is wrong and its going in another direction wasn't instantaneous and i think i rarely experience that, it held me there a good while too and i was genuinely left floating. I was trying to think what other film did that to me and neon demon sprang to mind, another odd and creepy movie.
I'd got a feeling that Mark's criticism would be dissed because he's been prejudged to be biased due to the E word being evoked. I had similar experience to Mark's: finding the beginning leading up to that point enchanting then the tension of the flow was broken... I was less bothered though and found those comic moments a welcome relief just as Robbie put it. But yeah, there is a shift that makes or breaks it for some.
I think the supernatural aspect of the film can be seen as silly and not terrifying if your consciousness is firmly locked in a scientific materialistic worldview. For me the true horror in the film comes precisely from the reveal that you cant explain this with science. That labeling certain phenomena psychological doesnt necessarily mean we understand whats going on. Great video!
OH Please please please make this a regular feature - Kermode V Collins. Two great articulate insightful cinephiles going toe to toe is just amazing.
indeed
I'd love to hear them debate Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, only because I enjoyed it more than Mark but not as much as Robbie.
Agree
I'd love be in the room with them. They're both great critics.
Amen to that ol chap!
This was very satisfying despite my frustration about how Kermode seems to miss one of the overwhelming themes of the movie: REPRESSION. The major disfunction of all the characters how they repress their feelings, history, etc: Annie sees the mat and she should understand what it means but she chooses not to, Annie opens her mother’s boxes then chooses to quickly close them and not confront what’s inside (had she done that there might have been a less tragic ending), her son literally drives home after his accident and lays in bed rather than tell his parents, the father just seems to bury his grief and pain inside himself and can’t even bring himself to admit his concern about his wife’s well-being in an email to a colleague. There are loads of other examples.
excellent comment
Yes indeed, even though it may sort of back up his theory of massive exposition - the beginning where the son is zoning out looking at the girl in front, the teacher is talking about a Greek myth (tragedy) they're studying and how the fault of the protagonist was arrogance, that he ignored all the 'literal' signs that 'literally' tell him what's happening.
It's pretty much all about them refusing to see what's obvious.
"No, lets have an argument about The Exorcist!" is me at every drunken barbecue.
It's also Mark every other video
Never change.
There is no argument. It is overblown rubbish which for some reason is worshipped by the industry.
I have never felt compelled to add comments here but this is great. More please.
In reference to the doormat.
Early on, when the son is in class zoning out and staring at the girl in front, the class is having a discussion about the Greek tragedy they had been reading.
I can't remember the exact quote but it was something like this:
'What was the protagonists main flaw?'
'Arrogance.
'Why?'
'Because he literally refuses to see all the signs that are literally telling him what's happening'.
While I don't agree quite that the doormat is a 'joke' - it is trying to be incredibly obvious, almost groanworthy as an audience member, because the theme is families NOT WANTING to see what is obvious.
Mark seems to have exaggerated the level of exposition in his own mind because of how much it annoyed him. I do agree though that the doormat/photo album/voiceover stuff is definitely the film's weakness, possibly the product of first time filmmaker being scared of misunderstood, but I do not think it cancels out any of the great stuff in this film. I think a lot of critics of Hereditary will come around to it in time, because its unique qualities far outshine its glaring flaws.
I agree. Mark is 100% right (in fact I might critique even harsher) but it didn’t ultimately ruin the film for me.
Important to note that Hereditary had multiple endings shot and shown to test audiences, including one that was the same as the final without the voiceover. Evidently they went with the version that explains things because they worried general audiences wouldn't get it.
@@phantom2450 the voiceover killed the ending for me
@@BigBoss7777777 Me too, though my opinions of the movie had waned in the last half hour. That kind of voiceover exposition seemed patronising by the end.
The shot of the headless corpse levitating up into the treehouse is perhaps the most weirdly surreal and hypnotic sequence I've seen in a movie for years.
Yup, great.
Colette floating/swimming/spider crawling out of the bedroom about five minutes before that got me, and said levitation into the treehouse.
Kermode makes a big deal about the mat, a few minutes later there's a seance happening. Great movie.
It was almost beautiful as well.
I agree, an amazing scene. Just before that when Colette's character hovers in the attic, stabbing herself repeatedly in the neck is some pretty disturbing imagery too
Totally agree it was amazing.. I do wish the movie end right there because they did too much exposition in the next 2 minutes
Even the fact that they got a 25 minute debate about the film and its mechanics and themes shows Hereditary is a cut above most recent horror films.
The Witch was better
@@cantbanme8971 I wouldnt go that far. It's good. But I would choose Hereditary over the Witch
@@StandupRoss I'd choose The Witch. But I like both.
Couldn’t finish the VVitch upon first viewing, but I’ll give it another shot. Hereditary is one of my favourite movies of all time. Definitely top 10 or 20
I don’t see how that’s proof of anything to be honest. I’ll spend a long time arguing with my friends about how terrible a movie is, that doesn’t mean it’s good. And Hereditary didn’t work very much for me and the ending made me laugh out loud at how silly it was. I do not understand the hype.
This was fantastic! Do *MORE* like this.
This was fantastic. I find myself agreeing more with Robbie, but I can certainly understand some of Mark’s complaints with the mechanics of the plot. The film’s strongest bit is undoubtedly the beheading and the immediate aftermath, and it never quite manages to recapture that same power.
Still, it stuck with me for days.
Swap Mark and Robbie in this comment and it is my response to the video (and film)
The greatest supernatural horror leaves the possibility of a totally natural explanation to the happenings. The two greatest horror films of all time- The Exorcist and The Shining, can both be explained by mental illness and nothing more. No ghosts are needed. No demon necessary. And yet both terrify. Hereditary lost me when a human burst into flames. Completely destroyed my suspension of disbelief and left me with nothing left to guess at, nothing left to doubt. That moment told me: "You are watching a horror movie". It wasn't real anymore.
Man, imagine if we got one of these when Alien Covenant came out last year: Collin loved it while Kermode put it on his worst of list. That would have been amazing to watch.
Mark's possessed. He's speaking in tongues. He's scaring me.
Far too short, they just got warmed up! Mayo's dry humour was like a little door mat shaped valve releasing the tension, good stuff.
More of these please, please, please. I think Robbie Collin is a brilliant film critic because, even if I don't agree with him about a film, he ALWAYS makes me think about it in new and challenging ways.
I couldn't agree more with Kermode about the arrival of the Ann Dowd character, im like I can see where this is going because from then on I pretty much mapped out the rest of the film, though I was excited to see how the story met its tragic/bittersweet end.
The ending of the film to me felt like the end of Ben Wheatleys Kill List only with less exposition.
It's weird though, because I've only just started getting in to horror, and I'd literally never seen her (Ann Dowd) in a move before, so I was actually completely taken in by her kind motherly act.
I highly recommended Nyx Fears' analysis of this film. Her interpretation is one of the most unique I've seen of a film in quite some time.
It’s about the 2008 crash. Paiman = Moloch, that is to say the film is REALLY about the sacrifice of children for wealth.
finally someone giving nyx some love, shes the only one who i feel understands the film and thats probaly due to her personal experince
Finally caught up with Hereditary this evening, so after watching it, came straight here to see this battle of my two favourite film critics.
Funnily enough I agree and disagree with the pair of them about certain matters.
1. I didn't find it scary at all Robbie, like Mark I've been watching horror films for over four decades now, and while I did appreciate many creepy moments, and the sister decapitation scene, it re-trod many elements seen before.
2. Having said that, because it did reference many of my favourite films from yesteryear, I did enjoy Hereditary a huge amount, I spent most of the film with a huge smile on my face, as it ticked off moments from previous classics, and unlike Mark I didn't mind the clunky signposting along the way, or the finale.
3. Mark clearly has a bee in his bonnet about anything that dare mention The Exorcist in the same breath, so I think he went in watching it with that chip firmly on his shoulder. However he is right, there's nothing here that resembles The Exorcist, The Shining or Psycho, so it was really dumb to stick those on the publicity.
4. I shall gladly re-watch Hereditary again in the near future, please please please, can we have more Kermode v Collins debates - love you guys!
'Get out' also has that moment where everything is spoonfed to us, very few movies don't do this. Its 'the exorcist' thing that put his nose out of joint before even seeing it.
Kyle McLachlan I totally agree I get it the director is probably told by some suit that they need to explain to a mainstream audience, I felt same as mark that it would have worked for me without 'here's a book, explaining everything' but I understood why it was their. Like you said 'the witch' was a better movie for not going down that route.
I hate disagreeing with Mark Keermode,he's my brother from another mother, I love Hereditary!
I just adore this conversation! This should be a regular feature.
PLEASE continue doing this!!!!
I just saw Hereditary two days ago and I see both sides of this argument.
Mark is correct there is an overabundance of exposition. Certainly, after the car scene I was not really surprised by much - and I rather think I should have been.
Still a solid film but not top tier from my perspective.
I think that the main problem in the case of the films tonal inconsistency, is that at the start I was really enjoying this unique look at mental health, and how the genetic handing down of schizophrenia can be horrific to experience, and it was good, but by bringing in these supernatural elements, although it fits within the plot and themes explored, the reveal that what the characters are experiencing is something supernatural, at least to me felt like an undercut to the impact of the mental health aspect, and took away from the very real horror in the film that was the schizophrenia, I’ve seen enough demons guys
Completely agreed. The movie ended up treating its lore as more important the characters, and it got lost in weeds of supernatural mumbo-jumbo. The moment it lost me for good was the seance scene - that was when I realized that haunted house gimmickry was taking the place of the psychological horror that it had started out with.
Personally I liked the tonal shift as it had a clearly defined shift that should act as the exposition in its own right. Agree in retrospect that the voice-over/door mat/photo album stuff was a bit too much of a blunt tool. On tonal shifts Asters new film Midommar jumps around in tone every 10 minutes which I found strange and a bit hard to stick with.
Subtle supernatural elements worked fine up until the last part of the movie when it started to unravel for me.
the movies not about mental health its about a mother refusing to accept her transgender child
so am I the only one who gets the OBVIOUS allegory? I mean did you miss the entire opening and closing shots of the movie and the whole dollhouse thing? Its clearly a POV of someone having a psychotic episode. Which when you are btw demons are as real as the air you breathe.
Can we do more of these please? Two top critics discussing from different ends of the argument. Really interesting listening.
They should have a tv show
I'm totally with Mark on this one. I was completely gripped by the first half but from the first seance onwards, it was a downward spiral.
I probably would say it's not a bad film, but it was SO good to start which made the second half so much more of a disappointment. I had no lingering feeling of discomfort or dread by the end.
I'm glad they made the comparison to Kill List because in my mind, that film delivered what this one didn't.
At the end of Kill List I was left thinking 'WTF did I just watch?'. It gave me a reason to keep thinking about it and left me with a lasting discomfort for several days.
Audiences are not idiots. We knew what was happening and leaving it unexplained leaves an element of mystery for us to think about. Was it supernatural or was it psychological? Sadly, I don't need to think about it because the film answered all my questions with clunky exposition.
Thank you for both perspectives. I took quite a bit away from both opinions.I absolutely loved the film, have seen it twice, and fully intend to go back yet again . Both sides will be in the back of my mind during my third viewing. I’m so glad you did this, Mr. Kermode, I was so befuddled by your original review, and didn’t understand what exactly bothered you about this film, except the stupid comparison critics made with the Exorcist, which ticked me off as well.
Again, thank you. I do look forward to your reviews.
i think mark is stood to close to the picture and scrutinizing how it was made rather than standing back and absorbing how it all looks as a picture. more of these debates please. love it.
I agree with Robbie that the film works massively better if you accept that parts of it are meant to be funny nudge-nudge "hey remember this horror trope??" moments rather than just flat exposition, as Mark takes them to be. When I saw it with a relatively small audience at the cinema, most people were laughing out loud through much of the second half. And that doesn't mean it wasn't scary, rather it means as well as being scary it was also outrageous in how far it leaned into its tropes by the end. And I think that's deliberate.
But at the same time, I do agree with Mark that the first act of the film promises something better than it ultimately delivers.
I have never commented on this channel, but had to say I really enjoyed this swapping of perspectives, even tho' I fall heavily on one side more than the other, and I won't say which ;-) More of this in the future please for those divisive films.
Hey, this is very good, it's great to hear two highly knowledgeable film 'pundits' slot it out. I haven't seen the film 'yet' , and I'm old enough not to mind spoilers in any horror films. I'm not expecting a new Exorcist, things like that only happen once, they catch a zeitgeist perfectly, a zeitgeist that won't come up again.
REALLY looking forward to this now. (Tomorrow)
It's just any horror genre has the same cliche thrills and spills which at a certain age you've seen them all.
This was a great idea, more debates please!
I am more with Mark on this one, I really didn't think the doormat was supposed to be played for a laugh. I didn't laugh I just rolled my eyes thinking it showed its cards too soon.
I love Mark, but he doesn't seem to realise that a critic calling the film 'The new Exorcist' is not a fault of the film, but of the critic; I think he's got a real rod up his back due to the Exorcist comparisons and it predetermined him to not fairly judge Hereditary. You could argue that the marketing made a mistake in brandishing the Exorcist quotes on the poster, but again, that is not a fault of the film. He's also massively over-critical with the doormat conceit, which is literally just Anne going 'Oh, my Mother used to make doormats like that', and not a 45 minute diatribe on the formation of housing decoration that he makes it out to be.
Fwiw, I thought Hereditary was the best horror film I've seen since The Shining, it created a properly tense atmosphere whilst conjuring up some legitmately unsettling and unforgettable imagery, whereas the VVitch is some what overrated, it's quite creepy in certain places, but it's too slow and perhaps, dare I say it, dull, to be in any way horrifying.
Jordan Dennison I haven't seen the exorcist and saw/heard nothing about the film apart from a small radio Ad prior to watching it as I went to watch it with a friend who really wanted to go and see it. All of us came out underwhelmed. I agree with Kermode on most of his points and I had no preconceived ideas.
I love this film, and I adore the original Wicker Man (1973). That film has a similar sudden and devastating ending, which is just crushing. The film actually works much better when compared to the Wicker Man (1973) - the horrific “truth” of a community that you thought you understood but is actually the opposite - and you don’t realize it in time.
I think Kermode's issues with this is just he's so enamoured by the films Hereditary is inspired by that he's failing to see what Hereditary is doing to take it beyond those things
There should be more of these debates ... Both good points
yes yes yes i just watched hereditary for the second time and this is exactly what i needed thank you!!!
Going with Colin here btw. I adore Mark but I think his horror expertise (and the Exorcist comparison) precluded him from watching with fresh eyes and getting swept away in a visceral way.
This was fantastic. Would love to see more debates like this uploaded in future.
Completely agree with Mark, and I don't think those moments like the doormat were at all intended to be winking jokes to the audience. And that closing monologue was indeed awful.
I just saw the closing monologue as part of the ritual - diabolically similar to a New Testament in a Catholic mass. They are always very simplistic.
I don’t know how true it is, but heard that the “explanation” at the end was mandated by the studio.
@@hanshotfirst1138 I'll need a source on that.
I agree with both of them! It’s no the witch, but it’s still effective for all the reasons Robbie states, and yet has all the short comings Kermode bought up
I don’t get how people think the witch is creepier than Hereditary, not even close in my opinion. I liked the witch but I was no where near as creeped out.
“Stop banging your microphone!”
the exorcist is unintentionally funny
One of the people I saw Hereditary with didn't see the film as you (or anyone else) describes it. He sees the role of the son and not Toni Collette's character as the main protagonist and he is suffering from schizophrenia (the lights, divorce from reality,, delusions of grandeur) and the scenes without him focussing on Toni are paranoid manifestations that he is imagining about her. I'm not sure it 100% stands up to scrutiny - it's not a film on my "must watch again list" so I probably will never find out - but what I enjoyed about the experience was everyone on the way home seemed to have watched a different film, but that collectively we agreed it was more interesting than it was good.
This is such a great discussion. I’m a relative newcomer to modern horror, but I like Hereditary more and more as I think about it. The main character sawing her body off was amazing. I think people are upset that the movie ended up being something completely different than what it appeared to be. You need to see it more than once to see the horror plot points that occur early in the film. It is the story of The Evil Dead retold in a unique new way.
interesting comparison
While I haven't seen the latter, from what has been described of the ceiling hugger scene I would have to disagree with Mark to double down on his own point. Robbie says that the audience was anxious because whether the kid sees her there or not it was going to be bad news and claimed that this was an element that was not present in the 1973 film and Mark agreed with him!
In fact, after the first hour of "The Exorcist" Friedkin turned his viewers into helpless, masochistic ragdolls.
Wheter it was by means of a slow tracking shot or a mad dash up the stairs... that bedroom door
was a terror we never wanted breached and the horror we had all lined up to see.
At the age of 13 I had read the book shortly before the movie came out and at 13, I had to see how they were going to pull it off. The most outstanding split was in the depiction of the possession itself. In the book she was described as gaunt and wasting but the movie presented a pustulent gob of seething, powerful hatred.
I read many reviews for the 8 months it took the film to gain a wide release and one stood out. In it the critic made a very astute observation
(paraphrasing here)
In the end what the parents in the audience were reacting to was a story of how the innocent child they have created and raised will eventually reach puberty and become
rebellious, distant and unrecognizable. They know that when they finally connect again it will never be what they recall. From the screen writer's perspective this theme was summed up with one line, "I'm telling you that that Thing up there is not my daughter!"
One woman in the screening I attended realized that she hzd reached her limit and spoke not only for the plight of parents but for everyone in the audience who were feeling they had bitten off more than theh could chew and gave the film one moment of comedic relief in gasping, "Oh, Lord... Wake me when it's over!"
This reminds me of student arguments, when someone talks about something ridiculous in a script, and then the person on the other side of the table goes, “Ah, but surely THAT’S THE POINT.”
Some people needed that explanation at the end. It also underlined what happened the same way rosemarys baby restarted the plot
Give us more spoiler debates! Loved this!
More of these please!
*The Strange Thing About The Johnsons. It's on youtube.
I'm inclined to agree with Kermode, and it kinda sums up how I feel about Hereditary. I really want to love both of Aster's movies - he's clearly talented and cinematically literate - but something about them just leaves me feeling... well, cold.
I'll always watch his upcoming films, however.
oh there absolutely was a sociopolitical angle to it. that the entire reason for your existence from the moment of your birth is to feed a god of greed, seems a little on the nose to me even.
The doormat is actually in keeping with what you see of the cult, which is basically like a circle of middle-aged suburban friends who get together and chop it up about their grand kids and the good ol' days. If you were to look at the collection of photographs that Annie finds, if it weren't for the creepy factor of Joan being in them when she intentionally omitted the fact that she knew Ellen, then it would just appear to be more or less what I described previously.
The cult isn't about being dark and grimy and evil for the sake of being dark and grimy and evil, it's about obtaining knowledge and wealth and power but through means that one would, if psychologically normal, consider to be dark and grimy and evil.
Really great point
I am a big fan of Mark, but in this case I have to agree with Robbie, although I do take on board Mark's comments about the Doormat.
This is fantastic! Why hasn't this been done before? Please, please, please do something like this again!
She explained what was happening to Paimon who just met his followers, is in a new body and is probably getting his bearings.Did he expect the followers to not talk to him after spending so much time and effort? He seems to be watching the movie with the thought that every character knows what's going on....
The Exorcist is pretty funny to be fair.
This was so engrossing to watch. Have a lot of respect for both cinephiles 😍 more please xxx
I think Robbie makes a good point considering Midsommar and the fact that Ari Aster is interested in comedy - he has stated he wants to give a full on comedy film a shot - which to me suggests he was indeed right about certain cliches like the doormat and such to be subtle in jokes with audience members paying attention.The whole film has black comedy littered about it (the transition of Toni Collette weeping from her bed to the funeral, the seemingly endless therapy scene where she goes on and on about her tragedies), and much more so in Midsommar. It's not direct comedy but its the kind that puts faith in the audience. While i agree the exposition and the cliched aspects can be annoying, its supposed to be this way, the film is meant to be a homage to films like Rosemary's Baby and cult films, as is Midsommar. While some stuff arent for the taste of Mark and others I think everyone has to appreciate and respect the immense talent and skill Ari demonstrated in his first feature film and the degree to which he completely succeeded in his aims. Cant wait for his third film. Although saying this, i still think Robert Eggers (The VVitch and The Lighthouse) is looking even more promising as a horror director, and funnily enough The Lighthouse also has lots of black comedy too.
I didn't 'get' the doormat as soon as I saw it, but it functions more as a clue for Annie than for the viewers I think. Also the ending exposition is Joan explaining it to Charlie/Paimon who is clearly confused. I understand his point it just really worked for me. The soft spoken words to Charlie/Paimon/Peter followed by the loud 'Hail Paimon! '
MORE OF THIS!!!
I find it baffling that no one brought up the fact that the film aligns the audience with Ann Dowd’s character. It plays on the audience’s genre literacy and, in the process, labels the viewers themselves as in the same box as the antagonists. It then accentuates the fatalistic philosophy of the film by making the Graham family even more helpless in the grand scheme of things, taking on a sort of metatextual quality to the storytelling.
And yes, the film really is funny at points. The comedic deflation of the seance scenes are hilarious, and that scene-specific structure finds itself in the form of the nutty ending that tops of the entire endeavor in a similar fashion.
Rosemary's Baby and Hereditary made no sense at one level - I never understood why old people in particular would actively want to worship Satan. As a natural atheist I was similarly confused that Christians trying to convert me would manage to hit a nerve by frightening me with hell. I agree with Mark's criticisms that this film is kind of crap in a lot of ways, but at least this film showed me what hell means for me personally - the terror of physical decay, the envy of the older generation for the youth - they don't worship Satan by choice, their own decay and death dooms them to membership of this club. Being John Malkovich touches on this notion too, but without invoking hell.
I'll be honest, when you break the debate down all it really comes to is this:
Mark: "The exposition prevented me from appreciating it"
Robbie: "I didn't have a problem with it"
This debate is interesting to listen to but it feels a bit shallow.
I don't think it was great, don't think it was terrible. Some great scenes, nice framing and music. Some good performances. But weak and muddled story.
Fair and well said.
Kermode is way too caught up on the exorcist comparison which isn't even the movies fault for christ sake... blame the critics..
Loved Hereditary. Loved this debate!
I remember Kermode being a passionate fan of Anvil. The most contrived documentary I've ever seen. Mark seemed to be unaware that every rock band had seen Spinal Tap by the 1990s.
I really liked hereditary, but the babadook is in a league of its own, its in my top 5 films ever and it was the first film ever to make me cry.
This was really good. Funny thing is, I liked it the first time i saw saw it, and I was more on Mark's side, thinking the ending was ridiculous, by over-explaining everything. I saw it a second time, and really appreciated the ending much more for some reason.
While I agree with Mark about the final monologue, I think they're both wrong about the scene with Joan. There wasn't meant to be a mystery of whether Joan was involved with anything. The mystery was meant to be whether Joan was a real person or just inside Annie's head. At this point in the film, it's still not clear which is the truth. The doormat actually lends credibility to Joan just being a product of Annie's madness. That's why they made sure for us to know that her husband had never heard of Joan.
This is a great example of Mark’s brilliance as a critic. Aster is really good as a director, much weaker as a writer. His next movie Midsommar was another creepy cultist movie, but the concept was about a crummy relationship instead of family trauma. It also relies on the horror trope of “bad stuff keeps sign posting itself, the characters dont catch on until its too late” but was handled worse in Midsummer. I suppose the reasoning in this film is because they’re a family who’s poor with communication and in Midsommar it’s a young couple who are.
More like this would be worth my license fee alone. More please
Robbie is completely correct on this one.
How? Literally Mark blow Robie's arguments out of the water, showing how childish Hereditary may be, but don't misunderstand me, I love that film, but Mark is right this time.
@@davidvillamonte2007 Nah
@@Paulinhox88 yup.
I agree with the bearded guy
I absolutely adore Hereditary, but I still kind of agree with Mark on the exposition bit. It could have been subtler and probably been better for it.
I'm with Mark on this one. Enjoyed the first hour of the film, the tone was tense and pitch black and that's what makes it work. In fact I found the tension between the family created the best moments. Leaning into the whole demonic angle lost me to the point where I found Toni Colette running up the walls hilarious. On the other hand, I thought that Ready or Not pulled off what I think Hereditary was trying to do perfectly. But it worked because it was a horror-comedy and the ridiculousness of the curse was set up beforehand.
Totally with Mark on this. So utterly engaged in the first two thirds of Hereditary then it totally lost me with the silliness. Such a shame. Oh well, I'll just go and watch the Babadook again!
The purpose of good art could be said to create discourse, Hereditary certainly has done that.
This was great. Can we have such podcastery verbal sparring every week? What a delight!
For those who haven't seen it, I highly recommend Nyx Fear's video on Hereditary. They bring up some incredibly interesting points
Now, this is how you debate movies! Bravo, sirs!
The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Going to award this to Robbie, simply because, unlike Mark, he managed to articulate his point without his voice getting all squeaky.
THERE IS A SOCIAL ALLEGORY! It’s about how parents sacrifice their children for wealth! It’s DIRECTLY related to the 2008 crash (ie bailout banks crashed by mortgages to keep housing prices high, locking in incumbent wealth by sacrificing the future of youth). The grandmother’s posthumous note to the mother refers to rewards being worth the sacrifice. Paiman, Moloch, it’s an obvious metaphor, implied even in the demonology itself!
I DO agree with all of Kermode’s criticisms, although I enjoyed the film anyway. The way I see it the entire dollhouse element that Kermode was so fascinated with should have been exorcised (heh heh) from the script because it was actually an unnecessary red herring. I actually thought the movie would be focused on a kind of voodoo (ie manipulation of reality though a simulacrum), but actually that entire element was not needed. In fact it’s a plot hole (how does the mother know certain things that she foreshadows in her sculptures?! Like the headless son she apparently sculpted, her character shouldn’t know that!). The movie still works without ANY of the paranormal elements imo.
Loved this, thanks guys!
Truly the best discussion on the movie to date! Thank you!
😘
more of these please! love the extended convo
Loved this - agree with Robbie more than Mark but just enjoyed seeing two passionate film fans having the kind of post-screening debates we all have. More of these please!
More of these please! Also The Exorcist is hilarious.
I feel I was fortunate to have seen Hereditary without having any idea what it was about (and Hereditary was the scariest film i'd seen since the exorcist, loved it). As a massive Exorcist fan, if I'd gone in with "the new exorcist" in the back of my head, it absolutely would've dampened the experience for me. I think Collin might've argued in the wrong direction trying to justify the ending, because it appears to be well documented that that angle was somewhat tacked on (not so much in an Exorcist 3 ending tack on) and Ari originally was just writing a family drama.
At the end of the day I'm just glad Hereditary exists in a world where Exorcist: Believer (unfortunately) does.
Nice discussion. I agree with Colin more, the exposition / reveal was chilling and I enjoyed it!
Very interesting debate!
I thought Hereditary was a brilliant movie. The great acting was what sunk me deep into the story and it's horrors. Certainly not this generation's The Exorcist, but I was deeply disturbed, nonetheless. I can't get the horrifying image of Toni Collette slicing Her Own Head Of With A Piano Wire out of my mind. I wasn't sure what she was doing at first with her hands moving back a forth...then, a couple seconds later, the realization...
This is a classic example of a movie that became even more disturbing later on at home as the "unspeakables" kept creeping into my subconscious.
☮❣
Too set piece for me.
There were some genuinely creepy and odd feelings pulled from me while watching this one. I'll need to watch it again for just all the foreshadowing nods alone. That part in a movie where you know plot has changed and your original idea is wrong and its going in another direction wasn't instantaneous and i think i rarely experience that, it held me there a good while too and i was genuinely left floating. I was trying to think what other film did that to me and neon demon sprang to mind, another odd and creepy movie.
Only film I have ever walked out of.
Because you were so scared?
@@jpaxonreyes Kind of, I just found the whole thing uncomfortable and when the girl got decapitated I was just done.
I'd got a feeling that Mark's criticism would be dissed because he's been prejudged to be biased due to the E word being evoked.
I had similar experience to Mark's: finding the beginning leading up to that point enchanting then the tension of the flow was broken... I was less bothered though and found those comic moments a welcome relief just as Robbie put it. But yeah, there is a shift that makes or breaks it for some.
I think the supernatural aspect of the film can be seen as silly and not terrifying if your consciousness is firmly locked in a scientific materialistic worldview. For me the true horror in the film comes precisely from the reveal that you cant explain this with science. That labeling certain phenomena psychological doesnt necessarily mean we understand whats going on. Great video!
Good point re psychological maybe still not meaning we don’t know what is going
there is some humor in the exorcist, with kinderman.
I'd love to see more conversations like this, but with added Steven Benedict. "Who?” you might ask. Look him up!
That's a weird camera angle on Mayo. Makes him look like he's 90 years old...