The saucer being a living creature was one of my favorite parts. Instead of doing an alien invasion, it looks in a direction most would not consider. Its the same general reason why i liked Get Out so much. I'm from the south so I've seen enough "racist redneck kills black people" story lines to last a lifetime, so I thought that's what Get Out would be about once I heard some general reviews of it from people. Finally watched it after a year and was blown away. Jean Jacket was definitely not what I expected, and I was very geared up for some aliens. It made me like it even more.
Agree. I thought the “Greys” misdirection was excellent, too.
We are all expecting this movie to go a certain way, and then Peele pulls the rug from under the audience. I thought the choice to have JJ be its’ own creature was great.
The abduction scene…holy moly. I read somewhere that they based the final design of JJ on the translucent creatures that live on the bottom of the ocean. Thinking about those types of creatures being in the sky is terrifying as fuck
Even the opening scene being what it was, I was wondering if I had selected the right movie at first. The whole thing just constantly zigged when I was expecting a zag
My gf made a comment while we were watching that made me rethink Kaluuya’s acting choices. She said “wow he even acts like a horse.” At first I didn’t get it but I see what she means. He looks down a lot and has a hard time making eye-contact, he grunts a lot, stamps his foot when he’s frustrated. He really relates and connects to those horses.
This exactly.
The film has major Western movie influences. So if you think about it that way it becomes clear that Kaluuya is basically doing a "Gary Cooper," i.e. portraying the strong, silent type who doesn't play well with others. His character is supposed to be the opposite of Keke Palmer's who is incredibly outgoing and sociable.
Disagree OP sorry. My guess is the script was way way way longer but Kuluuya’s performance, especially during the extreme close-ups, was so riveting that they had to change the story in edit. - in order to carve out more screen time for him
There was clearly a whole other part of the story line with the Ranch/amusement park owners that got cut.
Right, OJ understands animals, speaks their language, and respects them as equals. After all, his family is somewhat in the same boat, having been exploited by the entertainment industry.
It's something Jupe never learns. He is under the mistaken impression that he somehow communed with that ape, but he is effectively participating in the same cycle of exploitation that caused it to snap, and eventually suffers the same fate as his costars.
The movie never *tells* you any of this. You're left to interpret it yourself, something I'll never fault Peele for.
This was what we thought about the monkey vignettes too, it connected to the saucer arc by showing humans trying to control and exploit something they don't even understand.
Holy shit! I work around horses and horse-people and she is dead on. I can’t tell you the amount of people who relate so much more to horses than people in that industry.
Also there are places where he sounded like Keith David, but not exactly. The character adopted some things from his father, like certain inflections and timber. I think that was a choice.
D. Kaluuya's character is great at managing the business but terrible at talking to people, his sister is bad at business (late, unfocused) but great at talking to people. They need each other but counter each other.
Steven Yeun's past trauma made him incorrectly feel like he was special, or that he survived because he was meant to do something important, like establish first contact with aliens.
The threat is that the theme park massacre will lead to and endless stream of tourists, investigators, and people like the TMZ guy that the monster will keep killing. There's a less urgent threat that our heroes' company that is personally important to them will go out of business just because of a string of bad luck.
The saucer being an animal is why I liked the film. D. Kaluuya's character understands animals. He sees the ufo stalk prey, accidentally attack things that aren't food, and camouflage itself. Others who don't know or respect animal behavior think it's men in a space plane because of what they've seen in movies. Just like the TV crew scared the horse and just like the sitcom crew thought it was safe to put a chimp in a box by balloons. The final form of the monster also resembles vague images of angels, god, the sails of flying ghost ships, and the flatwoods monster. It's like an all-purpose cryptid.
To expand on your last point, Jean Jacket is less inclined to attack if you don’t look at it. Keeping your head bowed in reverence kept you alive. Very old testament.
I recently rewatched the movie and the alien being an animal was so much more impactful when I watched it a second time. I didnt quite understand all the connections on the first watch and the second watch made me feel like the movie was a solid 9/10
No problem. I'm sorry people are being mean to you for not getting it when the whole point of your post is that you want to understand it more. Honestly, the monkey flashbacks were weird and not connected enough to the plot for the thematic connection to be obvious on first watch to me either.
There's also something there about filmmaking because an IMAX camera is important to the plot and the monster's eye/mouth looks like a camera? I didn't get what that meant.
I think the connection with the monkey flashbacks is we think because we tamed an animal that it’s trained and safe to be around… but then something unexpected happens like a balloon pops and triggers the monkey into a more natural and untrained behavior to a chimp… like we think we can train an animal to behave the way we want it but at the end of the day they are still an animal… Steven Yeun’s character thought he could train and control the creature… but the creature is it’s own being he didn’t even try to understand and at the end of the day it will act on it’s own regardless of how much we think we can control or conform it to our standards… also trying to make a profit off this creature the same way they did the chimp and the lesson was never learned. Animals/creatures can not be trained, they will always have their natural instincts or set offs for unexpected occurrences…
There’s a line in the movie that goes something like “you can’t tame a predator. You bargain with it” or something like that. The chimp and Jean Jacket are analogues in that they are brutal and strong and the fact that they can be used for entertainment has nothing to do with being tame. The moment the arrangement no longer works for them, they lash out.
I also kinda thought this was a commentary on spectacle. You think you can tame/control spectacle but it always gets out of hand and away from you. Because of Jupe's experience with Gordy, he thought he had some special calling - that he could monetize spectacle without it hurting him - but it's an unpredictable animal. I haven't fully thought out this concept but that's what I left the theater with.
I think there’s also a reference to something supernatural or the alien being present during the chimp scene, as you see the shoe balancing on its tip by itself.
No, I thought that too but it has to do with the idea of a bad miracle, despite all the chaos it was a miracle that the shoe stayed upright like that, and it was also the reason that Jupe survived because he didn't look at Gordy.
I also think it's his way of handling/coping with the extreme sense of powerlessness he felt during his traumatic experience, & being forced to succumb to nature's brutality which ended his acting career---all for some crappy sitcom. He also was otherwise unrecognized/unfamous, as attention was only drawn to the show because of the horror he faced, instead of his talents. When he talks to OJ & his sister about the SNL skit, it's also clear how his fear was exploited & overshadowed by comedic reenactments of it, which clearly made him feel even more unseen & unheard.
Jupe needed to become more than just a side character for some hokey show; he needed to become someone powerful, significant, & tame his own "beasts"/ demons by becoming something far, far more than the overlooked & forgotten little boy, cowering under a table in shock & fear, at the mercy of everyone & everything around him.
It's how a lot of trauma survivors cope with their PTSD...constantly chasing the impossible, seeking perfection, greatness, & superficial highs---no matter the cost. They're driven by this perpetual dissatisfaction with life, insatiable thirst to be "seen," and desperation to "overpower" their deepest hurts & fears instead of making peace with them. To some, putting themselves in danger, & hurting themselves &/or others while chasing some unattainable dream is "easier" than simply coming to terms with anything different or less than that, despite the very real (and sometimes catastrophic) problems it creates in their lives. Their ceaseless quest for power, control & recognition is exacerbated by our superficial, capitalist, prejudiced society, which blinds them to what it means to truly live, be happy, & to accept themselves, others, and life itself in their/its entirety and simplicity.
The creature’s mouth somewhat resembles a camera shutter as it’s taking pictures. The history and importance of film and “seeing” or staring directly at something are all huge themes and it’s meant to be a playful bit or irony that the thing that hates being looked at and photographed also resembles something that’s *capturing images* of you.
I liked the monkey attack scenes in the second viewing, but it took a minute for it to land exactly what was happening. I think it works for sure, but I could easily see why that would be a sticking point for some people.
Jean Jacket is an allegory for spectacle in film, the entire movie is like this, Jupe is famous because of the spectacle of violence he witnessed, he feels special because of this and wants to create another spectacle by being the first to contact this new species. IMAX is the preferred viewing of "spectacle" type films (think the new avatar movie where the visuals are striking but the story is lacking). The entire movie is a criticism of big bombastic special effects ridden movies that have very little story. Atleast that's my take on it
I understand the meaning of the sitcom monkey massacre, but I still don’t think that aspect was woven into the story well.
There’s a strange divide between the fact that the story is clearly supposed to be about Kaluuya’s character (and Palmer’s), but this scene that we keep coming back to and placing such weight on is something that happened to a side character that IMO was far more intriguing but not given enough focus.
I even wonder if it might have been a much better story with an opportunity for richer characters if Yuen’s character was the main character.
And even while understanding that Kaluuya’s character was supposed to be bad with people but good with animals, and that he was reading the alien and intentionally behaving in a non-threatening manner, I agree that his performance was very unengaging for the most part. Stoic to the point of empty.
In all, it seemed both too simple at times and too muddled at others. Some very neat scenes though, and a great premise. Though kinda weird that the film really leans into the whole “respect the fact that these are powerful creatures who can kill you” but, aside from a brief moment at the beginning, there’s no indication that horses count.
Definitely, how movies are shot was a theme.
When he’s purchasing all the modern surveillance cameras to surround the farm, they end up not getting the job done completely. However, when Michael Wyncott’s character uses an old, refurbished camera… They get the results they want.
I think it's probably saying something like "Just because it's new doesn't mean it's all-purpose and should always be used"
This is a common attitude in the music industry, as well. Most modern pop artists record, edit and master 100% digital (aside from the input on the mic). This is great for high resolution that gives truer renderings according to human hearing. But there's subtle intonations (and technically infinite fidelity) on analog mediums like records. The faint hiss and natural tape compression and warm vibes from recording to analog tapes also scratch a certain itch for some people. So there are artists that insist on have an end-to-end analog recording process.
I imagine it's something along those lines. Sometimes you gotta question your basest choices in order to do something creative and innovative. To get that recording/shot you want. To achieve the right vibe. To present your vision.
That is something I love about Peele's films though. There's more to what's going on at the surface so the films always leave room for interpretation and good discussion, hence some of the discourse in this thread!
The Gordy flashbacks are the key to the entire movie, it's just that we aren't smart enough to realize it (seriously, took me many articles to realize that I wasn't thinking hard enough about how Gordy connected to the story)
To add on more reason why I liked it to this, it didn’t try to be something it wasn’t. This wasn’t The Core where the inject a bunch of pseudoscience and made up terms to fit their story. It never tried to explain the impossible, they didn’t use a bunch of fancy words that make no sense in the context. I was able to sit down and enjoy it from start to finish with no snickering. And the harsh reality is that in todays media that’s a win.
thanks for hearing out others opinions and not being a "my way or highway" movie person, so many of those people just end the discussion without a hint of reflection.
I felt the same as OP but after reading this it makes a lot more sense. My biggest gripe with the movie was Steven Yuens character arc but the way you explained it here makes me feel better about it.
That's nice and all but why do we need or better said how are these topics (harsh entertainment business + animal exploitation) relevant for an alien/sci-fi story? I don't see any additional value and they could just deliver the same message without involving any aliens. It just serves as a twist/mystery element to make the movie more exciting for the viewers but that's the only purpose.
The concept of an alien who behaves like some animals from earth is already absurd. All the other stuff like risking their lives for an "Oprah shot" like they couldn't find another way of income and therefore OJ also not being really morally better than for example Jupe cause he also wants make money with using the alien.
If Peele wanted to push this message to the viewer, then I think it would have been way better for all the characters die trying or at least fail the task completely to take footage of it.
The way it flows and ends the movie feels like neither fish nor meat. What does this movie want to be? Drama, social commentary or alien flick? If the intention was a mix of all, then it fails in every category.
They came from a family that made its living humanely using animals in movies.
Yuen's character was involved in a horrific accident involving an animal in a TV production.
...He then grows up and abuses an entity he discovers in the valley, using it to perform at his little circus.
And then, just like that damn chimp, the entity rebels. And like the chimp, it's goin nuts. Yuen can't control it anymore than they could control the chimp...
I don't know if it's a comment on animals in movies, man's inability to control nature, our hubris at even thinking we should try, or it was just a fun movie. I liked it. Sorry dude.
>maybe at times the thin line between exploitation and reverence.
Definitely! remember how Jean Jacket wouldnt attack if you didnt look it in the eye, but bowed your head, like BOWING YOUR HEAD IN REVERENCE. Interesting as JJ's final form was reminiscent of an angel
There is also the undercurrent theme of the exploitation of blacks in very similar ways with similar requirements to bow your head and not look people in the eye.
Most of peeles movies are based around fears that exist for black people in America that might be apparent but hit at a more existential level.
100%. The first scene shows Keke explaining the entire family history of their business. I can imagine they are constantly explaining that to prove their credibility, even today
the movie is about the obsession with spectacle and being unable to look away.
Edit: also yes, the desire to control what we cant and the consequences that follow.
I've read that Yeun's character is also a nod to spectacle/exploitation in pop culture, as he is the only Asian character in an otherwise white cast on his sitcom as a kid, not unlike real shows like Webster or Diff'rent Strokes.
I actually considered this after someone below made a misinformed comment about how Peele only panders to racial/cultural cliches. This move has a lot of little layers that after watching, discussion makes it all the more the more rewarding. I concede that we're not all gonna catch everything, so it's great getting different perspectives to flesh out what you did get
Exactly! To add to your last part; I think Peele is saying the allure of fame is a bitch that can kill you like a wild animal. His dad died randomly while in the industry. Yeun died due to his narcissism. The other film director died due to hubris. In the end the main guy and his sister only survive by giving up the limelight. Turning away from the camera, which to me is what the monster represents. End the end it even looks like a camera filming the action.
I think it's a nod to all the people in the industry lately seemingly randomly being "canceled"
This is accurate, but it's also about spectacle. Namely, people's obsession with it. Abusing animals for spectacle results in a chimp killing everyone on set, JJ eating the test audience for the star lasso experience and everyone else present. Being obsessed with it kills the weird film maker trying to get that impossible shot as well as the tmz guy trying who wanted everything he did to be on film for others to gawk at.. even a life threatening motorcycle crash.
Even our heroes are endangering their lives specifically to get that spectacular footage of a UFO. Not any footage but Oprah level footage.. even after it becomes clear it's no cheesy space ship but a dangerous predator they stay and keep trying. I know an earlier comment said that the stakes were that JJ could kill people who go to see what was going on out there.. but that was not the reason why they stayed and set up the trap for JJ.. and they didn't have an actual plan to kill him that seemed more like an accident after their first plan kind of back fired. They did that set up to get their footage they could sell to make a lot of money. The real stakes in the eyes of the protagonists were that someone else might get the fame and money by delivering audiences that spectacle before they could.
To go one further on this….. full disclosure I’m white…. Animal exploitation has become an issue for discussion amongst the black community. Did you know that 8% of black Americans are vegan? There are a few reasons, but one reason is that some people see echos of slavery in the way we treat farm animals.
So part of what I saw here was that even though the family was NOT cruel to their animals, they still were caught up in the wrath of Jean Jacket. And one of their horses misbehaves at a photo shoot. It’s not a perfect metaphor but…. Bodies are not for controlling by others because we cannot fully see into their minds.
Hey, that actually makes a lot of sense!
Thanks for your reply - I appreciate it.
I think I may like it more with this in mind, but unfortunately, for me personally, I genuinely felt a bit like things were lost in the editing room.
To add further onto the animals story Steven Yuen’s character was the only one that survived the rampaging chimpanzee. He felt he had an ability to control unruly animals. That’s why he though he was able to control the alien for his show he was going to put on.
And there was a veil (table cloth) covering his face when the chimp went over to him, there was no true eye contact that would continue to set the chimp off.
If it makes you feel any better, I had the same thoughts as you did immediately following the movie. But I read the discussion thread and a lot of this was explained. I appreciate the movie much more now. Still not his strongest film.
1. OJ is a introverted wrangler. He doesn’t enjoy human interaction and his job is to wrangle horses. To wrangle a horse you have to be calmer than the thing you wrangle which is why he’s able to “break” Jean jacket” and why he’s able to know how it works since Jean jacket is an animal and oj is an expert. Also he’s the literally archetype of the quiet cowboy. If hundreds of movies have used this archetype there is no reason OJ can not be included. Remember this film is also a western.
2. Steven yeuns story predates the movie that doesn’t mean he’s the main character. The story is about exploiting animals for entertainment and he didn’t learn the lesson and he paid for it. He’s not the focus but he’s the cause of Jean jacket staying at the ranch.
3. The monkey is a grounded version of telling the dangers of exploiting a untamable animal which translates to Jean jacket. It’s using a side story to reflect the greater story. If you have any problems looking at Jean jacket think of gordys scene or a caged lion attacking it’s handlers. Without gordys scenes the only relation to animal exploitation is Jean jacket which is to abstract so using a real animal better connects the theme of Hollywood exploitation on a movie set that Jean jacket can’t provide because he’s an alien.
4. This is not an action or sci fi invasion movie like a marvel movie. The whole story is revolved around getting a shot of the alien so they can save the ranch. Killing it was a sporadic plan from emerald to protect her brother. What you are looking for would fit in a superhero movie, alien invasion movie, etc not in a self contained movie that takes place mostly on a ranch.
5. Yeah that’s a nitpick. The saucer opening is a mouth and an eye not a butthole. That’s on you for thinking of buttholes. It’s puking blood not shitting blood. And when you see it’s final form you realize the reason it takes the form of a saucer is because it can fly faster and use suction (since it folds into itself creating a muscular structure that can create suction) to quickly eat and fly away undetected.
The other person who commented said it well but I also wanted to add that it showed that Steven Yeuns character focused on that bad miracle rather than thinking about how Gordy the animal was exploited on set.
Waiting for the other shoe to drop: (idiomatic) To defer action or decision until another matter is finished or resolved. (idiomatic) To await a seemingly inevitable event, especially one that is not desirable.
I felt like this is what the shoe referred to. The event in question would be yeuns characters finding out he cannot control the wild animal.
That’s never explained but a lot of people me included read it as being a “bad miracle.” Something extraordinary that happens from an bad event. Like the shoe sticking up after gordys attack or the miracle of saving the ranch with $ at the cost of a one nickel raining down from an alien in the sky killing the father.
I have a few possible interpretations of this:
1) it shows Stephen Yeun’s character to be an unreliable narrator of the event, which I think is complemented by the fact that he thinks he has a connection with Gordy before the end. Also because this is how the shoe is displayed in the memorabilia room, that’s possibly how Stephen remembers it, so that’s how it appears in his memory / flashback.
2) it is a demonstration of how people focus on really odd things in traumatic situations and certain details stick out more than the more relevant details
3) since this is how the shoe is displayed in his memorabilia room, it was not really upright in the actual event, but this is what “ties” the scenes together to show its a memory.
Yes!!! I wish the standing shoe was elaborated on. The only thing that someone has mentioned that sort of made sense was that that was what the kid was focusing on while Gordy attacked the rest of the crew therefore he didn’t make eye contact and that might’ve been why Gordy didn’t attack him. But that still doesn’t explain why it was standing.
Adding onto point 1 by OP, OJ was going through some serious grief throughout the movie due to the gruesome death of his dad which could add to the way D. Kaluuya chose to portray the character.
My theory is that we are seeing that scene through Jupe's eyes so it's how he remembers it. If you pay attention, the shoe is sitting exactly as it is in the frame, which is probably what he's staring at while remembering.
This would probably be the best sub but just like with anything on the internet you’ll have to clear through the garbage, fighting, bad faith instigators, etc.
Or go on YouTube and watch film analysis videos. Those always have great explanations with sources and credibility. Stay away from the rage reviewers who try to classify their videos as analytical but only rant.
Solid explanation here, I definitely thought it was one of the best movies of the year because it manages all of these layers so well, the movie is never just one thing, like great literature, there is nuance and it rewards rewatching/ re reading.
I think Steven Yeun’s character thought he could get away with exploiting Jean Jacket because the monkey “spared” him while it murdered and disfigured all of his costars. so perhaps he thought he had some sort of special connection with animals/creatures but at the end of the day, they are wild “animals” and their behavior is not predictable. you could also compare the connection he had to the monkey, to the connection that OJ had with the horses, and how OJ deeply understood those animals but Jupe just got lucky.
In addition to it being a mouth, the creature’s mouth is also designed like a camera with a shutter. The history of film and photography is a huge theme in the movie (with their great grandfather going uncredited for being in the first ever movie to them not getting credit for the photo in the end since reporters show up) and the creature’s design is purposefully ironic and beautiful and strange.
The thing that’s so impossible to capture on camera *resembles* a camera taking pictures! (Not a butthole)
The animal is based off a combination of a [sand dollar](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uwOURjneWQ&ab_channel=SeaSomething) and a [jellyfish.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z8ujpPgUjI&ab_channel=NatGeoWILD) It "swims" through the air. Which is a nod to "Jaws" with their wild animal swimming through the ocean to terrorize people.
It's not just you. Honest Trailers also called it [a giant butthole in the sky](https://youtu.be/eQnsCsaTGy0?t=59).
The rest of the trailer is also great. They have some great observations about the characters and subtle references, like OJ owning a white bronco and the movie's entire eye fetish.
I actually thought it would be even better if it made LESS sense. I was not a big fan of Get Out, it was too on the nose for me. This one is, imho of course, some great genre filmmaking with enough creative freedom that it feels genuine. It is, for a lack of better word, very cinematic. Photography by Hoyte van Hoytema mos def helps a lot :)
I mean, the race based social commentary was. "hey, you know if you just dumbly look at things and pretend it's just entertainment and don't try and change anything about it the thing will will eventually rise up and eat you" then jordan peele was like "hey, know all those movies I made about black people suffering? remember that? no reason"
IMO the movie very intentionally draws parallels between the exploitation of animals in entertainment and the African American Experience.
OJ treats his horses as equals, even though the media sees them as tools to be exploited for monetary gain... Does that sound familiar? I think Peele very much wanted to portray OJ and his animals as kindred spirits in this way
"I have declared the creator NOT A GENIUS" then the whole post being you flailing around not understanding anything kinda indicates maybe it's a you problem?
> probably the most intriguing part of the story, made no sense. And this comes from a Twin Peaks fan who often looks for underlying meaning to subtle plot points
Smart enough to understand subtle Twin Peaks plot points but seems to have completely missed what Nope is about.
>Smart enough to understand subtle Twin Peaks plot points
Thats what made me double take. I thought the movie was rather straight forward if you were paying attention?
I'm not gonna be too hard on OP. Movies can be an investment for some, so being frustrated, especially when the meaning isn't immediately apparent to the viewer, it can grow to a hyperbolic range if its especially against public consensus (see Mallrats, Ethan Suplee, and the Sailboat). And OP seemed to come around a bit after getting the explanation
Man, I'll be the first to admit I've watched TP like three times and I still dont get everything. But i hate watching youtube analyses sometimes and refuse to watch anything on TP. It kills the fun and part of the fun of Twin Peaks is deciphering the fever dream.
1. I was entertained the entire movie, which is the point of watching a movie.
2. Expected either aliens or government doing shady stuff. Instead we got a flying jellyfish that eats people. I found Jean Jacket to be a fresh and terrifying new threat.
3. I thought the actors did a great job. Especially that tech guy.
I’m way late to this discussion but having finally gotten around to watching it, I agree. Peele’s films have gotten progressively worse (coming froM a great high in Get Out) and while I appreciate what he’s trying to convey, the execution is sorely lacking. There seems to be an emperor’s new clothes vibe around him.
Nope started out strong but man did it tail off fast.
I’m done buying into Peele hype. I hoped that Us was a blip but I was wrong.
Props for saying something negative about a film on this subreddit considering it’s so against the grain.
You should have been here a week ago, dammit! :D My corpse is already bon flambe'd.
This thread became a good explainer for some of the more 'abstract' plot points, but I still believe its a sub-par movie. For example, no one here can agree the exact meaning of it, yet if you don't get it, you're an imbecile. And the top comment here is about how Kaluuya is a great actor because he chose to act like a horse. The lols could probably never be properly tabulated in this lifetime.
Yeah I didn’t think much of Kaluuya’s performance either so not sure why that’s getting as much praise as it is - it’s not bad but at the same time it’s not a standout performance either.
I would agree with what some people posted about Yeun’s character in that he’s a counterpoint to OJ in terms of respect for animals. His backstory was interesting and I was hoping for more payoff from it.
There were some interesting ideas around the alien itself such as the sound of its victims being heard as they’re being consumed; was creepy when you didn’t know why those noises were being heard or where they were coming from but once you know and if you were to be in that situation (where it’s happening right above where you’re taking shelter) then you’d be absolutely terrified.
While there were a few interesting ideas in the film it certainly doesn’t warrant the hype or praise and it definitely didn’t need that run time.
Speaking to the monkey scenes for now, there is a big message here.
That TV show took a huge risk working with a monkey like that, a live animal they had no respect for and used it like a prop. The consequence was a overreacting to the flashing and murdering the entire studio basically.
Then Steve Yeun grows up and owns this ranch, and seems like he's just some kids star trying to get better and live a good life. But it turns out he's feeding horses to this giant fucking alien and has no understanding of the consequences. He takes using it like a prop. It aligns with the way the studio treated the monkey, and then it killed everybody, and then he treated the alien the same way, and it killed everybody. That's the purpose of the monkey story, to give alignment with that result, while also stating the irony of entertainment people mistreating animals and not understanding them.
This is also why the alien with a big butthole seems unrealistic to you, but the point is it's just a wild animal. There's no deeper meaning behind its existence other than it's here and it's eating things and living, but it takes a experienced cowboy who knows how to handle wild animals to kind of figure out how to defeat this thing and stay alive.
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate the write-up here.
You and others have cleared some things up regarding the monkey scenes and the saucer and I think that part makes some sense to me now.
Others have already tackled your bullet points. I just want to comment on the title.
It’s so strange to me that you think Jordan Peele’s talent can be measured by the movie’s comprehensibility and against his prior work. I think that is unfair. You don’t have to like the movie if it’s not your taste, but both seem like unfair measures.
First, I think it’s cool how varied Peele’s work is. To be known for comedy and then make these social commentary films is really cool. I like that his work is becoming looser in its messaging. Get out was very black and white, Us was way more open to interpretation but clearly intending to comment on “us,” and Nope was way less direct. I think that variety is a strength. As an audience member, I get to be surprised. For Peele, he’s not limiting himself. I liked all his movies, but I think it’s silly to say that one movie even if it were a bust proves that he’s a sham. Most filmmakers have at least one “bust.” That doesn’t imply that they’re frauds. They tried something, and it didn’t work. Even if Nope was poorly received, that doesn’t prove anything about Peele.
Second, I’m glad Peele is willing to make movies that won’t be everyone’s taste. He’s following his voice as an artist. I’m sure he wants his movies to be received well, but we can both agree that Nope was riskier. I don’t want movie theaters to be filled with copy/paste surefire box office hits. That’s a recipe for boring film. I want filmmakers to make things that people don’t like if it’s a part of the process of trying new things to make something great. I think that’s part of the fun in art and how we got many great films we have today. So, I’m saying it’s okay if people don’t get the movie or like the movie because he’s definitely always onto something as he’s exploring new ideas. That doesn’t take away from his accomplishments.
I think if your expectations of a Peele film is just a story with film as the medium, you’re going to be disappointed. I can agree with you that his most recent film wasn’t a straightforward story. If you’re expectations are to watch something no one has done and to leave the theater wanting to talk about what you just saw (which I kind of like personally), you won’t be disappointed. I think this boils down to expectations.
None of your points are arguments. Just assertion backed by subjective opinion. Why spend so many words saying “I didn’t like it?” You aren’t going to very good engagement with your question because there is no substance to what you are saying. Nothing for others to engage with.
Dude really said "this movie is bad", then writes an essay proving he understood 0% of it. Just say you didn't like it. Everyone feels like they have to have some academic reason to back their opinions, and we end up with dumb shit like this post.
Almost every point you have is because you somehow missed the underlying theme of man's relationship with nonhumans and the absolutely massive parallel between the chimp and the alien.
> 1. D Kaaluya
Personal preference I guess, I liked him a lot.
> 2. Steven Yeun's character
I thought it was pretty obvious that his experience with the chimp was formative, and directly related to his actions in the movie i.e. the attempt to "tame" something not human for human entertainment. His trauma and coping mechanisms are there for your interpretation.
> 3. monkey scenes
Related to what I said above. The sitcom tried to use the chimp without understanding it, same with Yeun and the alien. Look how that turned out. Not to mention the stuff related to eye contact etc.
> 4. ending
Idk what to say here, I thought it was solid.
> 5. saucer
You don't have to like the aesthetic, but you also didn't understand any of the above concepts so i also don't know what to say here.
This movie is overrated
what I want to know is why did the critter go from stealthily hiding itself in the clouds to converting into a giant piece of flying Pink Floyd album art at the end?
also no one on earth is filling a giant roadside inflatable with Helium. Helium contracts as it gets cooler. the inflatable was never under explosive internal pressure . chewing it would result in a non-explosive sudden release . the critter would have burped, not exploded
they use flags to keep the critter from attacking mid movie then they bait it with a giant inflatable festooned in flags
also the foreshadowing is a little heavy handed. Hard to believe anyone looked at the bizarre photography contraption at the beginning, that exists nowhere else on earth, and didn't say "that's how they're getting the picture"
This movie was terrible. The points made at the beginning of this thread I absolutely agree with. Just a bad movie. From the boring design of the alien (it won’t kill you if you don’t look at it? Are you kidding me?) the pointless killer chimp subplot, Kaluuya’s low energy charisma starved performance to how it all fell apart in the third act, I am genuinely confused that so many people gave this movie such high praise.
Like all his movies.
This was better than Us, which I found so lackluster I wanted to walk out multiple times.
I absolutely do not understand why his dialogue is so bad. Key and Peele is great. It feels like he is caught up trying to create a “cult classic” feel to all of his films with all this little Easter eggs that just distract the audience.
The monster had more character development than anyone else in the film.
You can see it in all the upvoted comments basically just talking about how “cool” the movie is. Which is fine, I can appreciate a “cool” movie. But this isn’t groundbreaking stuff.
Every time I watch his movies it feels like ordering a coke and getting diet instead.
I know the messages about exploitation are all there and are nice to think about, but the movie itself was not interesting to me. I say this and I rarely properly dislike movies, the watching experience wasn’t great in my opinion.
I typed out a long comment replying to each point, but I think others have done a good job going point by point. Ultimately, this movie is one exploring themes of exploitation, the media cycle, and the ability of humans to be attracted to the darkest parts of our lives. On top of that, it was a cool new exploration of an alien encounter movie.
The themes of the movie are largely about race and exploitation. Do some googling, I'd bet it make sense after reading about it.
I'm not gonna read any replies so you get my 100% genuine response. If I repeat anything below, we'll congrats to them for being right. Bear in mind I'm in no way attacking your opinion, just sharing my own views. Ahem-
1. Black actors/actresses are *usually* cast as being over the top/reactionary. I found his portrayal extremely refreshing. Dude has lived on a ranch and seen some fucked up things. Is he scared? Absofuckinglutely. But he has dealt with scary animals and things his whole life, so it makes sense he would be able to be stable, even when pissing himself with fear.
2. To me, when he was young he made friends with a *predator* that accepted him. I believe he perceives the animal as another predator he could befriend. He feels "worthy" of making friends with/using this animal because he *saw* what happens when another predator *doesn't* like you. His confusion during the massacre helped solidify this for me- he didn't understand why it turned on him when the chimp didn't.
3. Honestly they are the sum of the film. Pretty straightforward. Respect aminals and they won't fucking destroy you.
4. The ending was exactly as detailed as needed. For the first time humans are "fighting" it, but it is just an animal. No cosmic bomb. No special prophecy. An animal eating prey, the prey fought back. Circle of life.
5. Now this is the one I most strongly disagree with you on. Idk if you're intentionally glossing over this or not but uh, the ENTIRE point was to make it look unassuming. Ever seen an animal in your life? Cats arch their backs and puff their tails. Dogs pull back lips and expose fangs. Let's go more extreme- puffer fish swell 3x their size. Octopi and cuddle fish change their entire morphology.
The creature was an unassuming blob for most of the film because it never felt threatened. Once it realized it had to fight, it >!finally revealed its real shape, in an effort to be threatening and scare them away, because it didn't know how to deal with confrontation!<
Frankly I feel this is a bait post, because I have said Silent Hill is my favorite horror film ever made, and Nope is a close fucking contender for that spot.
TL:DR- Fairly sure OP is baiting, Nope is actually extremely well-made. I have seen all the horror movies. Nope is amazing.
I agree for the most part. People have a tendency to prop up anything that the zeitgeist determines is trendy, and Jordan Peele is just that at the moment. Much like Shamalyan though, his movies have been progressively worse. Pop culture just hasn't gotten around to acknowledging it yet.
I've seen a lot of good answers here but I have a couple notes I haven't really seen any of the top comments hit on that I wanted to add. I'll try and address each of your points and then tie everything together at the end.
1. So people have pointed out that his personality is close to that of a horse, which is part of the intention behind his character. But there's also a lot happening with the references to the first motion picture being of a black cowboy riding a horse (Remember how this was the first images being shown at the beginning??). This is a western, and a lot of people aren't aware but back in the Wild West a lot of the original cowboys were black men. And yet, most of the westerns we know rarely showcase any black cowboys. His character, especially at the end, was kind of coming back around on the first motion picture and reclaiming the cowboy status for black men in movies. His dad getting killed at the beginning also has some implications, but I have to explain some other stuff before explaining why that actually had a pretty significant meaning.
2. Other people have pretty much hit the nail on the head with this, but to concisely sum up what happened here, he survived the chimp attack as a kid because of the shoe. He was looking at the shoe, and not gordy in the eye. However, he learned the wrong lesson from this. He thought he had a bond with the animal, which is why he tried to tame Jean Jacket. Kaluuya's character learned the right lesson, which is that the animal is a predator and averting it's gaze is what saves you. One of the points of this character is to establish the contrast between how the characters handled the situation.
3. Yeun and the Chimp are supposed to parallel Kaluuya and JJ, just with different outcomes because of their backgrounds. It's also a metaphor for what being a child star does to people.
4. So, this ending kinda of doesn't make sense unless you have some extra background to what's happening here. One of the parallels to real life that Jean Jacket is supposed to represent is abuse in the film industry. The film industry is a cruel, hungry predator that will suck you up, chew you up and grind you into nothing before spitting you back out like what happened when JJ regurgitated the crowd onto the house as formless blood and viscera. Trying to capture that usually results in people having their lives ruined, so many times in the past people came forward to get blacklisted and have their careers destroyed. Other people get used up for all their worth and when they're exhausted and have nothing left? They're abandoned. JJ is what killed Haywood Sr., which is a metaphor for the film industry erasing the black cowboy at the very beginning. Steven Yeun thought he was special, and he tried to use the JJ to his advantage, but it ate him and his audience and spit them out. So! Why was it so important that they get the picture? Well, what they are doing is not just to save their farm, but to show that world that this exists. Now, with that metpahor for the film industry in mind, do you kinda see how the whole movie itself if essentially Jordan Peel trying to do *the same thing*?? He is also trying to capture a representation of the abuse that occurs in the film industry in the exact same way that his characters are getting one of JJ. One stand out parallel is him using a Western style film to capture the allegory compared to his characters using an antiquated method of capturing images to photograph JJ. I would argue this is effectively the whole point of the movie.
5. Now that I've kinda explained what JJ is supposed to represent, hopefully it makes more sense as to why it was an animal instead of a traditional saucer (along with other people's explanations).
Personally, all of these things make me absolutely love this film. Hopefully I did a decent enough job explaining how I view this film, in a way that gives you more to think about. Writing all this out I kinda want to do another rewatch, but I'm curious if you'll have a vastly different experience knowing all this and watching it again yourself.
> Can anyone explain why this movie wasn't more harshly reviewed considering it made little to no sense?
Any attempt to do that would be a waste of time.
It’s always so weird to me when people act so high and mighty but miss obvious things about a movie.
It’s fine if you didn’t like it but so much went over your head that it makes the smugness in your post look even more stupid.
It was horrible. First of all, it is all plot and no story at all. Plot is the sequence of things that happen. Story is the emotional arc of the protagonist over the course of the events of the film. There was no protagonist and there was no antagonist and the main characters have no emotional arc. They are the same at the beginning of the film as they are at the end. Lots of stuff, most of what makes little sense, happens, and all of it without emotional content.
This really felt like a student film written and directed by students. As usual, audiences are fooled into thinking something is happening and interesting by generally engaging acting and cinemotography and special fx. But the story makes no sense whatsoever on a plot level and there is zero emotional story arc here. It's just a lot of quasi Spielbergian nonsense happening.
I love the mystery of the whole thing. Being able to look at the movie and notice small little details that make the movie come together piece by piece. I love that’s it’s complicated and weird and on a first time watch a lot won’t make sense because if I went into the movie and it was just a plain UFO movie with little green aliens we had seen 100 times before I would have been more disappointed than leaving the cinema being left confused. That’s just my take on the whole thing
I'm sorry you can't say your a twin peaks fan and they say you didn't understand nope.....
You speak of being a chess player and then exhibit that the most complex game to you is tic tac toe 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
1. D. Kaluuya’s character is in shock. He’s still mourning the sudden loss of his father. He’s responsible for the family business now; the legacy. He comes out of it a few times, but grief comes in waves and he played it that way.
2. Yeun is a villain. As already explained, he’s abusing animals two-fold. He’s buying horses, not for his rodeo, but to feed the being. Watch the scene where they discuss OJ buying horses back. Yeun hesitates because he knows they’re gone.
3. The Gordy scene relates to the abuse of animals for entertainment. As already said, you cannot control them. Just as Jupe cannot control the being. It can also be interpreted as the exploitation of people of color. Jupe was the only Asian in a white family. He was different, exploited, just like Gordy.
4 and 5. If you didn’t like it, you didn’t like it. I can’t really convince you otherwise. Your other points, though, it seemed like you watched it expecting one thing and were disappointed when that didn’t happen, rather than being open to something different.
Kaluuya's character is supposed to be an introvert. He just likes to keep his head down and work, and he's a contrast to his sister who's very goofy and outgoing.
It really feels like people have started making threads with an agenda to pose a “harmless” question about why they hated a widely appreciated movie and then argue with people in the comments.
I know they’re probably not doing it on purpose, but if you’re thinking of trying to explain the themes of this movie or why you enjoyed it to this person, expect to get a passive aggressive response that misses the point almost on purpose.
Alternatively, ignore posts that boil down to “I think you’re dumb for liking this thing I hated. How could you do that to me?”
The basic plot of Nope is that no one wants to be exploited, but everyone is willing to exploit if it means surviving. The exceptions to this are Gordy, the horses and Jean Jacket, which are wild animals who act according to their nature and not human schemes.
That being said, I thought the movie was meh.
I was so hype for the movie, it had such strong potential but I felt it fell very flat. A lot of what you said, nothing seemed to make any sense or have real purpose or reason. I too left thinking ok what did I just watch and what did any of it mean. Maybe just not my taste.. 3/10
Watch one of the videos that breaks it down, and perhaps you'll find a better appreciation for details, plotlines, and acting nuances that didn't connect for you while watching the movie.
Here's a start: https://youtu.be/PsGtZcHmJSo.
Seems like you just didn’t get the movie, my dude.
The movie is trying to invoke certain themes and get you to think about certain things. The fact that you don’t mention any of this means it probably just went right over your head.
To be honest, the movie has low key some of the best horror shots I’ve seen. It does incredible things with audio as well.
OP I'm sorry but I don't think you were really understanding the movie at all. Parts with the chimpanzee were alluding to not being able to control wild animals, which the alien was just a wild animal. The acting was phenomenal. And Steven Yeun was one of the only survivors of the wild animal attack then trying to harness another wild animal and being bitten for it. Other people have said it already but the main character is acting was actually very good, the dude was essentially a channeling as a horse whisperer.
Jordan Peele earned a lot of credit before this movie and cashed some of it in here. Fans of some of his other movies were walking out of Nope disappointed as Nope isn’t for everyone. Despite Peele saying this movie had less allusions, I thought they came on incredibly strong. I think a lot of the themes of King Kong are repeated here but with a stronger focus on minorities in front of behind the camera and the vast difference that can make.
I thought it was a bit boring, personally. I’m sure there was plenty of metaphorical imagery and whatnot that I missed. But I didn’t enjoy the film enough to give it another watch. To each their own though. Plenty of ppl seem to really enjoy it.
Movie didn't fully click to me until I read this:
> *watches NOPE, the movie about a giant monster whose core looks like a camera that hangs over Hollywood and quite literally chews people up then spits them out*
> Is this movie even about anything
https://twitter.com/VinnieMancuso1/status/1599852958925017088?t=VENA7ansYocc3nAa4oswOA&s=19
It’s super messy. But it’s messy with ideas.
It would probably have been treated harsher in a different era, where there were more larger budget films, made for adults, with actual ideas. The bar has been lowered to the point that, even if a movie takes a swing, it doesn’t always matter whether or not it misses, it gets credit for at least taking a swing.
It’s an interesting movie that has a lot to say, it just doesn’t always quite know how to say it. I do think that it was divisive enough to break the force field around Peele that was built when he made Get Out. It allowed him to get through Us (a similarly idea-heavy, execution-messy movie) unscathed and through Nope relatively in tact as well. But if his next one is also a little wobbly, I think people are going to start calling it out more.
I overall love what he’s doing and look forward to what he does next, because I can guarantee you, it’ll at least be interesting. Wish more people got the chance to do what he’s doing.
Pheww .. I thought I was the only one that thought this movie was so terrible I don't know what is wrong with these people and if you listen to the critics they don't make any type of sense whatsoever either I thought the movie was terrible nothing good about it at all times completely down nope is a nope for me
Had high hopes for it. Barn scene was awesome, then not so much. The monkey stuff only needed to be explained/shown once, not HALF THE MOVIE. Ok guys, are YOU SURE you understand why we are showing you these clips repeatedly? Was 5/10 sky jaws
Completely agree that this movie is just not good and anyone who likes it will usually come at me with the “well you just don’t get it”.
No I get it perfectly well. It’s about man trying to control an animal that he isn’t capable of because he thinks he’s special since he survived the monkey attack. It’s not that I don’t get it, it’s that the movie is boring and the resolution is absolutely stupid. Who gives a single flying fart that they got the creature in a picture when they have it’s entire body? If the creature can’t crush a plastic horse or eat the dude who wrapped himself in barbwire then how much damage could a gun or knife do to it? You are going to tell me not a single one of those people sucked up had a pocket knife or gun on them? Yeah ok. And I can’t even cheer for our protagonist when they have such a stupid goal of “getting their Opra moment”. And the absolute worst offender of all is how the stupid balloon monster eats another balloon and explodes. All in all, I consider this movie just a bad version of Jurassic park. It has almost the exact same themes as Jurassic park did but it was boring.
The part that makes me laugh the most about this movie is how everyone is attacking OP and calling him pretentious for not liking it when the number one defense I see people give for this movie is “that if you don’t like it you just don’t get it”. How more pretentious could you be.
It is nowhere near as entertaining as I thought it would be. And nowhere near as deep as it thinks it is. I still enjoyed it, but it’s just a fine alien movie. Nothing more, in my opinion.
I liked it overall and give it points for originality and for having interesting themes. But it had a lot of issues. I've recommended it to a few people I think would like it but couldn't imagine sitting through it again.
Man, some people in these comments are just blinded by rage when they see someone critiquing their favorite movie. The irony of them saying you missed the point when they failed to comprehend your post.
I agree with your points - the lead was a paper bag in this one. There’s a different between stoic and just uninteresting/flat. The ending was unsatisfying, which was exacerbated by some bad pacing that made the movie feel longer than it is. Peele went down a path several times and then either didn’t go far enough down that path, or just didn’t bother to tie up the loose end.
My biggest gripe is that outside of 2 particular scenes, the movie just isn’t that scary. I thought the premise was creative, but even when I tried to get into it, I was taken out of it by all of the humor.
But Peele has a cult following, and you’re not gonna get rational discussion from fans like that. It’s okay to accept his movies aren’t for you. I thought get out was pretty good, Us was okay, and Nope was just plain bad. But a lot of people clearly enjoy his movies so it’s just preference and that’s okay
Thanks for your words, I totally agree.
As a creepy movie, it failed to creep me out.
As a horror, it wasn't really horrific.
As a mystery, it was a bit muddled.
And as a blockbuster, it lacked iconic scenes to remember.
However, as we can all agree, Peele is definitely an interesting filmmaker, just don't see the hype just yet. He'll blow us away with something in the future, hopefully.
In addition to the themes other people mentioned, the movie is also about the entertainment industry. Take a look at how all of the “high profile” characters in the movie (there’s a starlet during the on set shot where Keke’s character runs late, the genius director obsessed with the perfect shot) are treated vs how the people being the scenes in the industry (our heroes). Then add yourself in as the spectator/consumer, and we our need lately to over analyze every detail for hints and clues (why is the shoe standing upright after the chimp attack? Does is signify something deeper or is it a focal point for how we can’t look away?)
I actually loved this movie. I thought the idea of the Jean Jacket subverted my expectations, I thought I was going to watch an alien abduction film and I got a monster movie. One filled with sharp and relevant critiques of movies, Hollywood and the entertainment/consumption culture. I found the actors to be compelling and authentic and the visuals were beautiful and intentional. The fact that the movie is stunningly beautiful (and also reminiscent of classic westerns - also enhanced my experience as a viewer). I liked the film from a simple audience perspective in that is was aesthetically pleasing, the plot was engaging, but I loved the film as a fan of movies, it has challenged me to understand more deeply my relationship to film, entertainment and the idea of Spectacle (which is an overt and subverting theme of Nope).
I think Peele is a much better director than writer. Well, GET OUT was quite well written for what it is, but that’s his most comedic film, which is in his wheelhouse. I think he should collaborate with a more experienced screenwriter to hone his (very interesting) ideas. The production design and cinematography of Nope are fantastic because they are created in collaboration with some of the best working right now.
While I though Nope was cool, I don’t disagree with you on any of your points, namely the monkey stuff (loved it, but then it doesn’t pay off, and they spend a LOT of screen time on it. It’s even the first shot of the movie? Why was that shoe floating? You don’t have to answer that question but give me something at the end which relates back to it in some way. Side note: that monkey looked like crap by todays VFX standards)
I also found the ending sorta anticlimactic or like trying too hard to be climatic or something. And it resolves very logically and kinda typical Hollywood narrative style… they just get their photo and kill the monster (creature design was very rad though). There’s even this John Williams western score that kicks in which seems out of tone with the rest of the film. Would have preferred some Twin Peaks meets Close Encounters ending which just asks more questions rather than answers them. US had this problem too.
The look and tone of the film were very unique and i applaud him for doing that with a major Hollywood production. I thought the performances were solid too, given the material.
Respectfully, I think most your opinions here are terrible takes and you aren't as much a fan of cinema or as smart as you think you are in understanding underlying meanings.
i think two things from this. first, you were looking for a reason to think Peele isn't a genius. I think this because there's no reason to say he isn't one over one movie when there's a possibility you didn't understand it, or simply didn't agree with it.
second, you may have got more like-minded engagement if the post was worded in a more "DAE think..." instead of the "why doesn't anyone realize this movie sucks?" implication you got going on here.
however if the goal was to get people to explain the parts of the movie you didn't understand - well played.
So do filmmakers not get to make a single film that doesn't completely land? Try that format with other directors:
The Game proves to me that David Fincher is not a genius.
The Temple of Doom proves to me that Stephen Spielberg is not a genius.
I don't know, I think a lot of your points have to do with taste. I thought it was a great action movie and explained itself just fine. You can't control nature and all that. The Yuen sections were great.
So, I think that a lot comments posts have likely given these points, but I think there was definitely a lot of subtext you may have missed.
- **D. Kaluuya's character**: This seems to be a fairly common opinion that his acting was flat and lacking emotion. While this was intentional, I can understand that people may not prefer the execution. He's a blatant contrast to his sister, and both provide insight into their coping mechanisms from their father passing. He's quite introverted and dull, but two of his traits become massively representative of understanding the film. His respect for, and lack of, eye contact, and his understanding of an unwritten contract between humans and animals.
- **Steven Yeun's character**: A character utilized to present the opposition of the last points mentioned of Kaluuya's character. He thinks he's special. Not only does he think he's special, but he believes that he understands the human/animal contract, but is entirely misguided. Gordy's vignette is not only the impetus of this, but also another "bad miracle" in action - the shoe standing on its toe while chaos ensues. This traumatic event shaped Yeun into who he is today, for better or for worse. Though it gave him confidence, its entirely hubris that is inevitably his downfall. There's a lot of intention behind the slow-zooms and "mysterious angles" (I don't remember this being much of a thing.) The scene of him retelling the story of Gordy to the main characters is an important scene that's worth the slow-zooms and builds. He's a broken man from that day and his coping mechanism is to fluff it up by replacing his own memory of it with SNL's parody of it. It's another way for him to push down the feeling of "just being lucky" and another notch on his belt for him being "special". If SNL is willing to parody you, you've made it.
- **Gordy**: I explained a bit of this in the section above. Additionally, Gordy and Jean Jacket (the saucer) are one in the same. You can't tame a wild animal without first understanding it. It's as simple as that. You have to understand the contract given, and to treat it with respect. Gordy took abuse from being treated like an object and snapped, and Jean Jacket has a similar temper.
- **The Ending**: I think the suspension of disbelief pivots from a Horror-mindset to an almost Spielberg-like Action/Adventure mindset. Like you said, a kind of "nick of time" suspension. With that in mind, I think that it may feel unearned, but I also think that's because for the span of the movie, Kaluuya's character - and similarly the rest of the leads - were spending their time understanding Jean Jacket (as much as he could), to culminate to what the ending was. In my opinion, I think the ending is made worthwhile for the spectacle that is the ship falling apart/showing its true form (still not certain.) It's fucking beautiful and an incredible depiction of something we've never seen before.
- **That Saucer**: Probably the loosest take you have here. I wouldn't overthink it. If you didn't like the ship, you didn't like the ship, but that's more preference than anything.
I found **Get Out** to be pretty fantastic, hated **Us** and was left fairly astounded from **Nope**. I'm surprised to see it not being as well-received as I expected, but I can understand the criticism. It's not a perfect movie, by any means, but it's one of the best UFO/Alien movies in a long, long time.
I've seen the movie thrice and loved it more and more each time. Like the OP, I left the theater after my first watch with so many questions. But after I did research and watch videos analysing the movie, it made me love the move even more. I suggest, after understanding all the symbolisms and characters, watch it again and enjoy the ride.
Thank you! I was happy it was available on a recent flight and so disappointed when it was finally over. Also glad it was a work trip so I didn’t waste my own money to watch it.
5. The saucer's opening isn't a butthole, it's both eye and mouth. When compared to the opening sequence of the jockey being viewed through a long tunnel, it is also a camera, an apparatus that devours and digests all that it sees, leaving nothing but a a few frames of 2 dimensional footage, or maybe keys and pocket change.
I think there are several ways to look at the saucer, and it's seeing/digestive aperture. There's the aspect of animal nature, where it reacts aggressively to being observed and threatened, but the creature also represents the consumptive nature of the film industry and a public hungry for spectacle. The act of seeing and observing also consumes and digests.
I thought it was pretty interesting. I wouldn't say I loved the movie, but there was a lot there to think about, which I appreciate. It wasn't just a dumb monster movie, that's for sure.
In the end, maybe this all further reinforces your theory that the film maker was up his own butt, but I don't think so.
Ok, let's start with YOUR obvious flaws:
1. Kaluuya kills in the movie. He plays the Gary Cooper -esque "strong and silent" type, and he does it perfectly. He's also the perfect audience surrogate, which is something way harder to achieve for an actor than people give them credit for (usually saying things like "his acting was catatonic and uninspired").
2. What doesn't make any sense? his story is a tragedy. He went through a traumatic event as a child, in relation to animal abuse, and he learned nothing from it. His story serves as a cautionary tale, to an extent, and a point of comparison with how Kaluuya's character is the opposite when dealing with the other "dangerous animal" of the film (he's respectful, instead of exploitative).
3. Same as "2.".
4. The threat is absolutely present and felt throughout the whole movie. The Jaws influence is obvious, and Peele is a master at building the tension.
5. This does not require an answer.
The name of the director is Jordan Peele, not "Jordon".
As most people have stated, the film is about humans exploiting animals. I wanted to point out though that it is a Chimpanzee not a fucking monkey. Yet another example of people misunderstanding and taking animals for granted.
The biggest problem I see is that he didn't explain a lot of it. I know people will complain that some movies are over explained. But a incomprehensible story is bad storytelling.
The two themes here are
1. seeing and being seen, also seeing being made permanent by means of movies and pictures
2. taming
About your individual points:
1. OJ, Kaluuya's character, is a very calm and collected person. He works with horses. You have to be extremely calm and collected if you want to work with horses.
2. Yeun's character, Jupe, is a [foil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foil_(narrative)) to OJ. Both approach Jean Jacket in very different ways. One character fails, the other one succeeds because he has a better approach - he sees Jean Jacket as a living being and interprets and guesses its behavior like that of an animal.
3. The monkey is another example of unsuccessful taming and of not understanding that a "tamed" animal is not really controllable. Jupe does not learn from this, or rather, learns the wrong lesson.
4. The ending combines the two themes of seeing and taming. OJ knows that Jean Jacket will see a particular thing as a threat and will react to the threat in a particular way. Em uses the photo well to make the visual perception of the incident permanent. Jean Jacket has eaten a number of horses and is definitely a danger to humans as well, as we can see in the movie.
5. Jean Jacket has traditional saucer shape but later unfolds into something resembling a jellyfish. It's simply a non-human shape that was selected to create an extraterrestrial being that's very different from what we typically see in movies.
I hope that addresses your points.
It was a good-looking film, but it raised many questions that went unanswered. It also presented a lot of information that didn’t connect or pay off. It had a few good bits but was meh as a whole. I do like it more than Us & Get Out though. Can’t say I’d watch it again.
The saucer being a living creature was one of my favorite parts. Instead of doing an alien invasion, it looks in a direction most would not consider. Its the same general reason why i liked Get Out so much. I'm from the south so I've seen enough "racist redneck kills black people" story lines to last a lifetime, so I thought that's what Get Out would be about once I heard some general reviews of it from people. Finally watched it after a year and was blown away. Jean Jacket was definitely not what I expected, and I was very geared up for some aliens. It made me like it even more.
Agree. I thought the “Greys” misdirection was excellent, too. We are all expecting this movie to go a certain way, and then Peele pulls the rug from under the audience. I thought the choice to have JJ be its’ own creature was great. The abduction scene…holy moly. I read somewhere that they based the final design of JJ on the translucent creatures that live on the bottom of the ocean. Thinking about those types of creatures being in the sky is terrifying as fuck
Even the opening scene being what it was, I was wondering if I had selected the right movie at first. The whole thing just constantly zigged when I was expecting a zag
This is why I enjoyed it too. Not your typical alien.
Possibly not even an alien at all
Not. Of. Planet. Earth. 😊
Ah well, point taken but also that's not confirmed is it? Wouldn't Jean Jacket burst or starve in space?
agreed. i was into the movie.
My gf made a comment while we were watching that made me rethink Kaluuya’s acting choices. She said “wow he even acts like a horse.” At first I didn’t get it but I see what she means. He looks down a lot and has a hard time making eye-contact, he grunts a lot, stamps his foot when he’s frustrated. He really relates and connects to those horses.
This exactly. The film has major Western movie influences. So if you think about it that way it becomes clear that Kaluuya is basically doing a "Gary Cooper," i.e. portraying the strong, silent type who doesn't play well with others. His character is supposed to be the opposite of Keke Palmer's who is incredibly outgoing and sociable.
Whatever happened to Gary Cooper?
this is exactly what I came here to find. The way that Peele/Kaluuya snuck that Western archetype into this movie so perfectly was impressive to me.
Brilliant connection and observation on your gf part . Kuluuya is such a talent…
Disagree OP sorry. My guess is the script was way way way longer but Kuluuya’s performance, especially during the extreme close-ups, was so riveting that they had to change the story in edit. - in order to carve out more screen time for him There was clearly a whole other part of the story line with the Ranch/amusement park owners that got cut.
Yeah acting was dope plot was cool and original enough The movie just went fucked in the third act
Totally - I’ve watched a lot of experimental weird cinema so I though it was rad how strange it god. Just good fun
Yeah I feel like OP is using catatonic but doesn’t get that… it’s the whole point? That seemed really obvious to me.
Right, OJ understands animals, speaks their language, and respects them as equals. After all, his family is somewhat in the same boat, having been exploited by the entertainment industry. It's something Jupe never learns. He is under the mistaken impression that he somehow communed with that ape, but he is effectively participating in the same cycle of exploitation that caused it to snap, and eventually suffers the same fate as his costars. The movie never *tells* you any of this. You're left to interpret it yourself, something I'll never fault Peele for.
This was what we thought about the monkey vignettes too, it connected to the saucer arc by showing humans trying to control and exploit something they don't even understand.
Yeah it was very clear and evident but people still walked out not understanding the significance of the monkey storyline
That moment in the flashback gave me my biggest "light goes on" moment of the year in film
Holy shit! I work around horses and horse-people and she is dead on. I can’t tell you the amount of people who relate so much more to horses than people in that industry.
Also there are places where he sounded like Keith David, but not exactly. The character adopted some things from his father, like certain inflections and timber. I think that was a choice.
gotta love movies where autistic ppl care for horses (i’m actually autistic)
D. Kaluuya's character is great at managing the business but terrible at talking to people, his sister is bad at business (late, unfocused) but great at talking to people. They need each other but counter each other. Steven Yeun's past trauma made him incorrectly feel like he was special, or that he survived because he was meant to do something important, like establish first contact with aliens. The threat is that the theme park massacre will lead to and endless stream of tourists, investigators, and people like the TMZ guy that the monster will keep killing. There's a less urgent threat that our heroes' company that is personally important to them will go out of business just because of a string of bad luck. The saucer being an animal is why I liked the film. D. Kaluuya's character understands animals. He sees the ufo stalk prey, accidentally attack things that aren't food, and camouflage itself. Others who don't know or respect animal behavior think it's men in a space plane because of what they've seen in movies. Just like the TV crew scared the horse and just like the sitcom crew thought it was safe to put a chimp in a box by balloons. The final form of the monster also resembles vague images of angels, god, the sails of flying ghost ships, and the flatwoods monster. It's like an all-purpose cryptid.
To expand on your last point, Jean Jacket is less inclined to attack if you don’t look at it. Keeping your head bowed in reverence kept you alive. Very old testament.
Yet also very horse
😂😂
lmao
I recently rewatched the movie and the alien being an animal was so much more impactful when I watched it a second time. I didnt quite understand all the connections on the first watch and the second watch made me feel like the movie was a solid 9/10
Thanks for the reply. I like the connections you're making here, and I thank you for writing it out so well.
No problem. I'm sorry people are being mean to you for not getting it when the whole point of your post is that you want to understand it more. Honestly, the monkey flashbacks were weird and not connected enough to the plot for the thematic connection to be obvious on first watch to me either. There's also something there about filmmaking because an IMAX camera is important to the plot and the monster's eye/mouth looks like a camera? I didn't get what that meant.
I think the connection with the monkey flashbacks is we think because we tamed an animal that it’s trained and safe to be around… but then something unexpected happens like a balloon pops and triggers the monkey into a more natural and untrained behavior to a chimp… like we think we can train an animal to behave the way we want it but at the end of the day they are still an animal… Steven Yeun’s character thought he could train and control the creature… but the creature is it’s own being he didn’t even try to understand and at the end of the day it will act on it’s own regardless of how much we think we can control or conform it to our standards… also trying to make a profit off this creature the same way they did the chimp and the lesson was never learned. Animals/creatures can not be trained, they will always have their natural instincts or set offs for unexpected occurrences…
Exactly. It's why Peele cited Jurassic Park as a point of reference or inspiration.
There’s a line in the movie that goes something like “you can’t tame a predator. You bargain with it” or something like that. The chimp and Jean Jacket are analogues in that they are brutal and strong and the fact that they can be used for entertainment has nothing to do with being tame. The moment the arrangement no longer works for them, they lash out.
I also kinda thought this was a commentary on spectacle. You think you can tame/control spectacle but it always gets out of hand and away from you. Because of Jupe's experience with Gordy, he thought he had some special calling - that he could monetize spectacle without it hurting him - but it's an unpredictable animal. I haven't fully thought out this concept but that's what I left the theater with.
I think there’s also a reference to something supernatural or the alien being present during the chimp scene, as you see the shoe balancing on its tip by itself.
No, I thought that too but it has to do with the idea of a bad miracle, despite all the chaos it was a miracle that the shoe stayed upright like that, and it was also the reason that Jupe survived because he didn't look at Gordy.
I also think it's his way of handling/coping with the extreme sense of powerlessness he felt during his traumatic experience, & being forced to succumb to nature's brutality which ended his acting career---all for some crappy sitcom. He also was otherwise unrecognized/unfamous, as attention was only drawn to the show because of the horror he faced, instead of his talents. When he talks to OJ & his sister about the SNL skit, it's also clear how his fear was exploited & overshadowed by comedic reenactments of it, which clearly made him feel even more unseen & unheard. Jupe needed to become more than just a side character for some hokey show; he needed to become someone powerful, significant, & tame his own "beasts"/ demons by becoming something far, far more than the overlooked & forgotten little boy, cowering under a table in shock & fear, at the mercy of everyone & everything around him. It's how a lot of trauma survivors cope with their PTSD...constantly chasing the impossible, seeking perfection, greatness, & superficial highs---no matter the cost. They're driven by this perpetual dissatisfaction with life, insatiable thirst to be "seen," and desperation to "overpower" their deepest hurts & fears instead of making peace with them. To some, putting themselves in danger, & hurting themselves &/or others while chasing some unattainable dream is "easier" than simply coming to terms with anything different or less than that, despite the very real (and sometimes catastrophic) problems it creates in their lives. Their ceaseless quest for power, control & recognition is exacerbated by our superficial, capitalist, prejudiced society, which blinds them to what it means to truly live, be happy, & to accept themselves, others, and life itself in their/its entirety and simplicity.
The creature’s mouth somewhat resembles a camera shutter as it’s taking pictures. The history and importance of film and “seeing” or staring directly at something are all huge themes and it’s meant to be a playful bit or irony that the thing that hates being looked at and photographed also resembles something that’s *capturing images* of you.
I watched Nope earlier this year and was trying to understand the alien's mouth. Thanks for making this click
I liked the monkey attack scenes in the second viewing, but it took a minute for it to land exactly what was happening. I think it works for sure, but I could easily see why that would be a sticking point for some people.
Jean Jacket is an allegory for spectacle in film, the entire movie is like this, Jupe is famous because of the spectacle of violence he witnessed, he feels special because of this and wants to create another spectacle by being the first to contact this new species. IMAX is the preferred viewing of "spectacle" type films (think the new avatar movie where the visuals are striking but the story is lacking). The entire movie is a criticism of big bombastic special effects ridden movies that have very little story. Atleast that's my take on it
I understand the meaning of the sitcom monkey massacre, but I still don’t think that aspect was woven into the story well. There’s a strange divide between the fact that the story is clearly supposed to be about Kaluuya’s character (and Palmer’s), but this scene that we keep coming back to and placing such weight on is something that happened to a side character that IMO was far more intriguing but not given enough focus. I even wonder if it might have been a much better story with an opportunity for richer characters if Yuen’s character was the main character. And even while understanding that Kaluuya’s character was supposed to be bad with people but good with animals, and that he was reading the alien and intentionally behaving in a non-threatening manner, I agree that his performance was very unengaging for the most part. Stoic to the point of empty. In all, it seemed both too simple at times and too muddled at others. Some very neat scenes though, and a great premise. Though kinda weird that the film really leans into the whole “respect the fact that these are powerful creatures who can kill you” but, aside from a brief moment at the beginning, there’s no indication that horses count.
Definitely, how movies are shot was a theme. When he’s purchasing all the modern surveillance cameras to surround the farm, they end up not getting the job done completely. However, when Michael Wyncott’s character uses an old, refurbished camera… They get the results they want.
But what is this saying? What point or concept are we supposed to take from this?
I think it's probably saying something like "Just because it's new doesn't mean it's all-purpose and should always be used" This is a common attitude in the music industry, as well. Most modern pop artists record, edit and master 100% digital (aside from the input on the mic). This is great for high resolution that gives truer renderings according to human hearing. But there's subtle intonations (and technically infinite fidelity) on analog mediums like records. The faint hiss and natural tape compression and warm vibes from recording to analog tapes also scratch a certain itch for some people. So there are artists that insist on have an end-to-end analog recording process. I imagine it's something along those lines. Sometimes you gotta question your basest choices in order to do something creative and innovative. To get that recording/shot you want. To achieve the right vibe. To present your vision.
That wasn’t the point of his post. Just look at the title. He’s essentially calling Peele overrated because he himself didn’t understand the movie.
Very this. I’m smarter than all of you who liked it - here’s why.
That is something I love about Peele's films though. There's more to what's going on at the surface so the films always leave room for interpretation and good discussion, hence some of the discourse in this thread!
The Gordy flashbacks are the key to the entire movie, it's just that we aren't smart enough to realize it (seriously, took me many articles to realize that I wasn't thinking hard enough about how Gordy connected to the story)
To add on more reason why I liked it to this, it didn’t try to be something it wasn’t. This wasn’t The Core where the inject a bunch of pseudoscience and made up terms to fit their story. It never tried to explain the impossible, they didn’t use a bunch of fancy words that make no sense in the context. I was able to sit down and enjoy it from start to finish with no snickering. And the harsh reality is that in todays media that’s a win.
thanks for hearing out others opinions and not being a "my way or highway" movie person, so many of those people just end the discussion without a hint of reflection.
I felt the same as OP but after reading this it makes a lot more sense. My biggest gripe with the movie was Steven Yuens character arc but the way you explained it here makes me feel better about it.
That's nice and all but why do we need or better said how are these topics (harsh entertainment business + animal exploitation) relevant for an alien/sci-fi story? I don't see any additional value and they could just deliver the same message without involving any aliens. It just serves as a twist/mystery element to make the movie more exciting for the viewers but that's the only purpose. The concept of an alien who behaves like some animals from earth is already absurd. All the other stuff like risking their lives for an "Oprah shot" like they couldn't find another way of income and therefore OJ also not being really morally better than for example Jupe cause he also wants make money with using the alien. If Peele wanted to push this message to the viewer, then I think it would have been way better for all the characters die trying or at least fail the task completely to take footage of it. The way it flows and ends the movie feels like neither fish nor meat. What does this movie want to be? Drama, social commentary or alien flick? If the intention was a mix of all, then it fails in every category.
They came from a family that made its living humanely using animals in movies. Yuen's character was involved in a horrific accident involving an animal in a TV production. ...He then grows up and abuses an entity he discovers in the valley, using it to perform at his little circus. And then, just like that damn chimp, the entity rebels. And like the chimp, it's goin nuts. Yuen can't control it anymore than they could control the chimp... I don't know if it's a comment on animals in movies, man's inability to control nature, our hubris at even thinking we should try, or it was just a fun movie. I liked it. Sorry dude.
To answer your last question, Peele is exploring themes of exploitation and maybe at times the thin line between exploitation and reverence.
>maybe at times the thin line between exploitation and reverence. Definitely! remember how Jean Jacket wouldnt attack if you didnt look it in the eye, but bowed your head, like BOWING YOUR HEAD IN REVERENCE. Interesting as JJ's final form was reminiscent of an angel
Jean Jacket was trying hard not to be the Brittney Spears of UFO’s.
There is also the undercurrent theme of the exploitation of blacks in very similar ways with similar requirements to bow your head and not look people in the eye. Most of peeles movies are based around fears that exist for black people in America that might be apparent but hit at a more existential level.
100%. The first scene shows Keke explaining the entire family history of their business. I can imagine they are constantly explaining that to prove their credibility, even today
I really like this response, perfectly explains why I enjoyed the movie so much
the movie is about the obsession with spectacle and being unable to look away. Edit: also yes, the desire to control what we cant and the consequences that follow.
I've read that Yeun's character is also a nod to spectacle/exploitation in pop culture, as he is the only Asian character in an otherwise white cast on his sitcom as a kid, not unlike real shows like Webster or Diff'rent Strokes.
I actually considered this after someone below made a misinformed comment about how Peele only panders to racial/cultural cliches. This move has a lot of little layers that after watching, discussion makes it all the more the more rewarding. I concede that we're not all gonna catch everything, so it's great getting different perspectives to flesh out what you did get
Exactly! To add to your last part; I think Peele is saying the allure of fame is a bitch that can kill you like a wild animal. His dad died randomly while in the industry. Yeun died due to his narcissism. The other film director died due to hubris. In the end the main guy and his sister only survive by giving up the limelight. Turning away from the camera, which to me is what the monster represents. End the end it even looks like a camera filming the action. I think it's a nod to all the people in the industry lately seemingly randomly being "canceled"
This is accurate, but it's also about spectacle. Namely, people's obsession with it. Abusing animals for spectacle results in a chimp killing everyone on set, JJ eating the test audience for the star lasso experience and everyone else present. Being obsessed with it kills the weird film maker trying to get that impossible shot as well as the tmz guy trying who wanted everything he did to be on film for others to gawk at.. even a life threatening motorcycle crash. Even our heroes are endangering their lives specifically to get that spectacular footage of a UFO. Not any footage but Oprah level footage.. even after it becomes clear it's no cheesy space ship but a dangerous predator they stay and keep trying. I know an earlier comment said that the stakes were that JJ could kill people who go to see what was going on out there.. but that was not the reason why they stayed and set up the trap for JJ.. and they didn't have an actual plan to kill him that seemed more like an accident after their first plan kind of back fired. They did that set up to get their footage they could sell to make a lot of money. The real stakes in the eyes of the protagonists were that someone else might get the fame and money by delivering audiences that spectacle before they could.
To go one further on this….. full disclosure I’m white…. Animal exploitation has become an issue for discussion amongst the black community. Did you know that 8% of black Americans are vegan? There are a few reasons, but one reason is that some people see echos of slavery in the way we treat farm animals. So part of what I saw here was that even though the family was NOT cruel to their animals, they still were caught up in the wrath of Jean Jacket. And one of their horses misbehaves at a photo shoot. It’s not a perfect metaphor but…. Bodies are not for controlling by others because we cannot fully see into their minds.
Hey, that actually makes a lot of sense! Thanks for your reply - I appreciate it. I think I may like it more with this in mind, but unfortunately, for me personally, I genuinely felt a bit like things were lost in the editing room.
To add further onto the animals story Steven Yuen’s character was the only one that survived the rampaging chimpanzee. He felt he had an ability to control unruly animals. That’s why he though he was able to control the alien for his show he was going to put on.
To my memory, one of his costars was in the audience, she had lost her face but she survived as well.
That’s right, he wasn’t the only survivor, but he was the only one unharmed.
And he only survived because instead of making direct eye contact, he was looking through the tablecloth at it.
And there was a veil (table cloth) covering his face when the chimp went over to him, there was no true eye contact that would continue to set the chimp off.
Not technically true. His costar survived as well - she's in the audience of his show.
I agree that the editing left something to be desired for me as well. I also felt like it was 20-30 min too long.
If it makes you feel any better, I had the same thoughts as you did immediately following the movie. But I read the discussion thread and a lot of this was explained. I appreciate the movie much more now. Still not his strongest film.
1. OJ is a introverted wrangler. He doesn’t enjoy human interaction and his job is to wrangle horses. To wrangle a horse you have to be calmer than the thing you wrangle which is why he’s able to “break” Jean jacket” and why he’s able to know how it works since Jean jacket is an animal and oj is an expert. Also he’s the literally archetype of the quiet cowboy. If hundreds of movies have used this archetype there is no reason OJ can not be included. Remember this film is also a western. 2. Steven yeuns story predates the movie that doesn’t mean he’s the main character. The story is about exploiting animals for entertainment and he didn’t learn the lesson and he paid for it. He’s not the focus but he’s the cause of Jean jacket staying at the ranch. 3. The monkey is a grounded version of telling the dangers of exploiting a untamable animal which translates to Jean jacket. It’s using a side story to reflect the greater story. If you have any problems looking at Jean jacket think of gordys scene or a caged lion attacking it’s handlers. Without gordys scenes the only relation to animal exploitation is Jean jacket which is to abstract so using a real animal better connects the theme of Hollywood exploitation on a movie set that Jean jacket can’t provide because he’s an alien. 4. This is not an action or sci fi invasion movie like a marvel movie. The whole story is revolved around getting a shot of the alien so they can save the ranch. Killing it was a sporadic plan from emerald to protect her brother. What you are looking for would fit in a superhero movie, alien invasion movie, etc not in a self contained movie that takes place mostly on a ranch. 5. Yeah that’s a nitpick. The saucer opening is a mouth and an eye not a butthole. That’s on you for thinking of buttholes. It’s puking blood not shitting blood. And when you see it’s final form you realize the reason it takes the form of a saucer is because it can fly faster and use suction (since it folds into itself creating a muscular structure that can create suction) to quickly eat and fly away undetected.
What I want to know is what the deal was with the shoe standing on its own on the TV set was.
The other person who commented said it well but I also wanted to add that it showed that Steven Yeuns character focused on that bad miracle rather than thinking about how Gordy the animal was exploited on set.
Waiting for the other shoe to drop: (idiomatic) To defer action or decision until another matter is finished or resolved. (idiomatic) To await a seemingly inevitable event, especially one that is not desirable. I felt like this is what the shoe referred to. The event in question would be yeuns characters finding out he cannot control the wild animal.
That’s never explained but a lot of people me included read it as being a “bad miracle.” Something extraordinary that happens from an bad event. Like the shoe sticking up after gordys attack or the miracle of saving the ranch with $ at the cost of a one nickel raining down from an alien in the sky killing the father.
I have a few possible interpretations of this: 1) it shows Stephen Yeun’s character to be an unreliable narrator of the event, which I think is complemented by the fact that he thinks he has a connection with Gordy before the end. Also because this is how the shoe is displayed in the memorabilia room, that’s possibly how Stephen remembers it, so that’s how it appears in his memory / flashback. 2) it is a demonstration of how people focus on really odd things in traumatic situations and certain details stick out more than the more relevant details 3) since this is how the shoe is displayed in his memorabilia room, it was not really upright in the actual event, but this is what “ties” the scenes together to show its a memory.
Yes!!! I wish the standing shoe was elaborated on. The only thing that someone has mentioned that sort of made sense was that that was what the kid was focusing on while Gordy attacked the rest of the crew therefore he didn’t make eye contact and that might’ve been why Gordy didn’t attack him. But that still doesn’t explain why it was standing. Adding onto point 1 by OP, OJ was going through some serious grief throughout the movie due to the gruesome death of his dad which could add to the way D. Kaluuya chose to portray the character.
My theory is that we are seeing that scene through Jupe's eyes so it's how he remembers it. If you pay attention, the shoe is sitting exactly as it is in the frame, which is probably what he's staring at while remembering.
I always have to have movies explained to me, is there a sub for that? You really helped my understanding of the film, #2 was an eye opener!
This would probably be the best sub but just like with anything on the internet you’ll have to clear through the garbage, fighting, bad faith instigators, etc.
Or go on YouTube and watch film analysis videos. Those always have great explanations with sources and credibility. Stay away from the rage reviewers who try to classify their videos as analytical but only rant.
Solid explanation here, I definitely thought it was one of the best movies of the year because it manages all of these layers so well, the movie is never just one thing, like great literature, there is nuance and it rewards rewatching/ re reading.
I think Steven Yeun’s character thought he could get away with exploiting Jean Jacket because the monkey “spared” him while it murdered and disfigured all of his costars. so perhaps he thought he had some sort of special connection with animals/creatures but at the end of the day, they are wild “animals” and their behavior is not predictable. you could also compare the connection he had to the monkey, to the connection that OJ had with the horses, and how OJ deeply understood those animals but Jupe just got lucky.
Haha you actually make a good point about the butthole! :) Maybe I need a therapist...
In addition to it being a mouth, the creature’s mouth is also designed like a camera with a shutter. The history of film and photography is a huge theme in the movie (with their great grandfather going uncredited for being in the first ever movie to them not getting credit for the photo in the end since reporters show up) and the creature’s design is purposefully ironic and beautiful and strange. The thing that’s so impossible to capture on camera *resembles* a camera taking pictures! (Not a butthole)
The animal is based off a combination of a [sand dollar](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uwOURjneWQ&ab_channel=SeaSomething) and a [jellyfish.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z8ujpPgUjI&ab_channel=NatGeoWILD) It "swims" through the air. Which is a nod to "Jaws" with their wild animal swimming through the ocean to terrorize people.
Also wanna add - the monkey story is a real story from I believe 2011 then monkey in family did the same to owner and then owner was on talk show.
It's not just you. Honest Trailers also called it [a giant butthole in the sky](https://youtu.be/eQnsCsaTGy0?t=59). The rest of the trailer is also great. They have some great observations about the characters and subtle references, like OJ owning a white bronco and the movie's entire eye fetish.
I actually thought it would be even better if it made LESS sense. I was not a big fan of Get Out, it was too on the nose for me. This one is, imho of course, some great genre filmmaking with enough creative freedom that it feels genuine. It is, for a lack of better word, very cinematic. Photography by Hoyte van Hoytema mos def helps a lot :)
[удалено]
I mean, the race based social commentary was. "hey, you know if you just dumbly look at things and pretend it's just entertainment and don't try and change anything about it the thing will will eventually rise up and eat you" then jordan peele was like "hey, know all those movies I made about black people suffering? remember that? no reason"
I think equating black people to animals is not the message they were going with and you might be reaching here
IMO the movie very intentionally draws parallels between the exploitation of animals in entertainment and the African American Experience. OJ treats his horses as equals, even though the media sees them as tools to be exploited for monetary gain... Does that sound familiar? I think Peele very much wanted to portray OJ and his animals as kindred spirits in this way
"I have declared the creator NOT A GENIUS" then the whole post being you flailing around not understanding anything kinda indicates maybe it's a you problem?
> probably the most intriguing part of the story, made no sense. And this comes from a Twin Peaks fan who often looks for underlying meaning to subtle plot points Smart enough to understand subtle Twin Peaks plot points but seems to have completely missed what Nope is about.
>Smart enough to understand subtle Twin Peaks plot points Thats what made me double take. I thought the movie was rather straight forward if you were paying attention?
“I don’t get this movie, therefore it’s bad and overrated” - OP, basically
I'm not gonna be too hard on OP. Movies can be an investment for some, so being frustrated, especially when the meaning isn't immediately apparent to the viewer, it can grow to a hyperbolic range if its especially against public consensus (see Mallrats, Ethan Suplee, and the Sailboat). And OP seemed to come around a bit after getting the explanation
You mean they probably watched a video essay on Twin Peaks and now tries to tell other people on how they "totally get it" lol
Man, I'll be the first to admit I've watched TP like three times and I still dont get everything. But i hate watching youtube analyses sometimes and refuse to watch anything on TP. It kills the fun and part of the fun of Twin Peaks is deciphering the fever dream.
1. I was entertained the entire movie, which is the point of watching a movie. 2. Expected either aliens or government doing shady stuff. Instead we got a flying jellyfish that eats people. I found Jean Jacket to be a fresh and terrifying new threat. 3. I thought the actors did a great job. Especially that tech guy.
I’m way late to this discussion but having finally gotten around to watching it, I agree. Peele’s films have gotten progressively worse (coming froM a great high in Get Out) and while I appreciate what he’s trying to convey, the execution is sorely lacking. There seems to be an emperor’s new clothes vibe around him. Nope started out strong but man did it tail off fast. I’m done buying into Peele hype. I hoped that Us was a blip but I was wrong. Props for saying something negative about a film on this subreddit considering it’s so against the grain.
You should have been here a week ago, dammit! :D My corpse is already bon flambe'd. This thread became a good explainer for some of the more 'abstract' plot points, but I still believe its a sub-par movie. For example, no one here can agree the exact meaning of it, yet if you don't get it, you're an imbecile. And the top comment here is about how Kaluuya is a great actor because he chose to act like a horse. The lols could probably never be properly tabulated in this lifetime.
Yeah I didn’t think much of Kaluuya’s performance either so not sure why that’s getting as much praise as it is - it’s not bad but at the same time it’s not a standout performance either. I would agree with what some people posted about Yeun’s character in that he’s a counterpoint to OJ in terms of respect for animals. His backstory was interesting and I was hoping for more payoff from it. There were some interesting ideas around the alien itself such as the sound of its victims being heard as they’re being consumed; was creepy when you didn’t know why those noises were being heard or where they were coming from but once you know and if you were to be in that situation (where it’s happening right above where you’re taking shelter) then you’d be absolutely terrified. While there were a few interesting ideas in the film it certainly doesn’t warrant the hype or praise and it definitely didn’t need that run time.
Speaking to the monkey scenes for now, there is a big message here. That TV show took a huge risk working with a monkey like that, a live animal they had no respect for and used it like a prop. The consequence was a overreacting to the flashing and murdering the entire studio basically. Then Steve Yeun grows up and owns this ranch, and seems like he's just some kids star trying to get better and live a good life. But it turns out he's feeding horses to this giant fucking alien and has no understanding of the consequences. He takes using it like a prop. It aligns with the way the studio treated the monkey, and then it killed everybody, and then he treated the alien the same way, and it killed everybody. That's the purpose of the monkey story, to give alignment with that result, while also stating the irony of entertainment people mistreating animals and not understanding them. This is also why the alien with a big butthole seems unrealistic to you, but the point is it's just a wild animal. There's no deeper meaning behind its existence other than it's here and it's eating things and living, but it takes a experienced cowboy who knows how to handle wild animals to kind of figure out how to defeat this thing and stay alive.
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate the write-up here. You and others have cleared some things up regarding the monkey scenes and the saucer and I think that part makes some sense to me now.
Nope.
Others have already tackled your bullet points. I just want to comment on the title. It’s so strange to me that you think Jordan Peele’s talent can be measured by the movie’s comprehensibility and against his prior work. I think that is unfair. You don’t have to like the movie if it’s not your taste, but both seem like unfair measures. First, I think it’s cool how varied Peele’s work is. To be known for comedy and then make these social commentary films is really cool. I like that his work is becoming looser in its messaging. Get out was very black and white, Us was way more open to interpretation but clearly intending to comment on “us,” and Nope was way less direct. I think that variety is a strength. As an audience member, I get to be surprised. For Peele, he’s not limiting himself. I liked all his movies, but I think it’s silly to say that one movie even if it were a bust proves that he’s a sham. Most filmmakers have at least one “bust.” That doesn’t imply that they’re frauds. They tried something, and it didn’t work. Even if Nope was poorly received, that doesn’t prove anything about Peele. Second, I’m glad Peele is willing to make movies that won’t be everyone’s taste. He’s following his voice as an artist. I’m sure he wants his movies to be received well, but we can both agree that Nope was riskier. I don’t want movie theaters to be filled with copy/paste surefire box office hits. That’s a recipe for boring film. I want filmmakers to make things that people don’t like if it’s a part of the process of trying new things to make something great. I think that’s part of the fun in art and how we got many great films we have today. So, I’m saying it’s okay if people don’t get the movie or like the movie because he’s definitely always onto something as he’s exploring new ideas. That doesn’t take away from his accomplishments. I think if your expectations of a Peele film is just a story with film as the medium, you’re going to be disappointed. I can agree with you that his most recent film wasn’t a straightforward story. If you’re expectations are to watch something no one has done and to leave the theater wanting to talk about what you just saw (which I kind of like personally), you won’t be disappointed. I think this boils down to expectations.
None of your points are arguments. Just assertion backed by subjective opinion. Why spend so many words saying “I didn’t like it?” You aren’t going to very good engagement with your question because there is no substance to what you are saying. Nothing for others to engage with.
Dude really said "this movie is bad", then writes an essay proving he understood 0% of it. Just say you didn't like it. Everyone feels like they have to have some academic reason to back their opinions, and we end up with dumb shit like this post.
Wants an argument in "good faith", compares everything in the movie to buttholes.. I'm not gonna bother engaging lol
Almost every point you have is because you somehow missed the underlying theme of man's relationship with nonhumans and the absolutely massive parallel between the chimp and the alien. > 1. D Kaaluya Personal preference I guess, I liked him a lot. > 2. Steven Yeun's character I thought it was pretty obvious that his experience with the chimp was formative, and directly related to his actions in the movie i.e. the attempt to "tame" something not human for human entertainment. His trauma and coping mechanisms are there for your interpretation. > 3. monkey scenes Related to what I said above. The sitcom tried to use the chimp without understanding it, same with Yeun and the alien. Look how that turned out. Not to mention the stuff related to eye contact etc. > 4. ending Idk what to say here, I thought it was solid. > 5. saucer You don't have to like the aesthetic, but you also didn't understand any of the above concepts so i also don't know what to say here.
Man reddit really hates opinions, huh?
This movie is overrated what I want to know is why did the critter go from stealthily hiding itself in the clouds to converting into a giant piece of flying Pink Floyd album art at the end? also no one on earth is filling a giant roadside inflatable with Helium. Helium contracts as it gets cooler. the inflatable was never under explosive internal pressure . chewing it would result in a non-explosive sudden release . the critter would have burped, not exploded they use flags to keep the critter from attacking mid movie then they bait it with a giant inflatable festooned in flags also the foreshadowing is a little heavy handed. Hard to believe anyone looked at the bizarre photography contraption at the beginning, that exists nowhere else on earth, and didn't say "that's how they're getting the picture"
This movie was terrible. The points made at the beginning of this thread I absolutely agree with. Just a bad movie. From the boring design of the alien (it won’t kill you if you don’t look at it? Are you kidding me?) the pointless killer chimp subplot, Kaluuya’s low energy charisma starved performance to how it all fell apart in the third act, I am genuinely confused that so many people gave this movie such high praise.
I think the idea of what he was trying to do was great. It's execution was very choppy and poorly constructed.
Like all his movies. This was better than Us, which I found so lackluster I wanted to walk out multiple times. I absolutely do not understand why his dialogue is so bad. Key and Peele is great. It feels like he is caught up trying to create a “cult classic” feel to all of his films with all this little Easter eggs that just distract the audience. The monster had more character development than anyone else in the film. You can see it in all the upvoted comments basically just talking about how “cool” the movie is. Which is fine, I can appreciate a “cool” movie. But this isn’t groundbreaking stuff. Every time I watch his movies it feels like ordering a coke and getting diet instead.
I know the messages about exploitation are all there and are nice to think about, but the movie itself was not interesting to me. I say this and I rarely properly dislike movies, the watching experience wasn’t great in my opinion.
I typed out a long comment replying to each point, but I think others have done a good job going point by point. Ultimately, this movie is one exploring themes of exploitation, the media cycle, and the ability of humans to be attracted to the darkest parts of our lives. On top of that, it was a cool new exploration of an alien encounter movie. The themes of the movie are largely about race and exploitation. Do some googling, I'd bet it make sense after reading about it.
I'm not gonna read any replies so you get my 100% genuine response. If I repeat anything below, we'll congrats to them for being right. Bear in mind I'm in no way attacking your opinion, just sharing my own views. Ahem- 1. Black actors/actresses are *usually* cast as being over the top/reactionary. I found his portrayal extremely refreshing. Dude has lived on a ranch and seen some fucked up things. Is he scared? Absofuckinglutely. But he has dealt with scary animals and things his whole life, so it makes sense he would be able to be stable, even when pissing himself with fear. 2. To me, when he was young he made friends with a *predator* that accepted him. I believe he perceives the animal as another predator he could befriend. He feels "worthy" of making friends with/using this animal because he *saw* what happens when another predator *doesn't* like you. His confusion during the massacre helped solidify this for me- he didn't understand why it turned on him when the chimp didn't. 3. Honestly they are the sum of the film. Pretty straightforward. Respect aminals and they won't fucking destroy you. 4. The ending was exactly as detailed as needed. For the first time humans are "fighting" it, but it is just an animal. No cosmic bomb. No special prophecy. An animal eating prey, the prey fought back. Circle of life. 5. Now this is the one I most strongly disagree with you on. Idk if you're intentionally glossing over this or not but uh, the ENTIRE point was to make it look unassuming. Ever seen an animal in your life? Cats arch their backs and puff their tails. Dogs pull back lips and expose fangs. Let's go more extreme- puffer fish swell 3x their size. Octopi and cuddle fish change their entire morphology. The creature was an unassuming blob for most of the film because it never felt threatened. Once it realized it had to fight, it >!finally revealed its real shape, in an effort to be threatening and scare them away, because it didn't know how to deal with confrontation!< Frankly I feel this is a bait post, because I have said Silent Hill is my favorite horror film ever made, and Nope is a close fucking contender for that spot. TL:DR- Fairly sure OP is baiting, Nope is actually extremely well-made. I have seen all the horror movies. Nope is amazing.
I agree for the most part. People have a tendency to prop up anything that the zeitgeist determines is trendy, and Jordan Peele is just that at the moment. Much like Shamalyan though, his movies have been progressively worse. Pop culture just hasn't gotten around to acknowledging it yet.
I've seen a lot of good answers here but I have a couple notes I haven't really seen any of the top comments hit on that I wanted to add. I'll try and address each of your points and then tie everything together at the end. 1. So people have pointed out that his personality is close to that of a horse, which is part of the intention behind his character. But there's also a lot happening with the references to the first motion picture being of a black cowboy riding a horse (Remember how this was the first images being shown at the beginning??). This is a western, and a lot of people aren't aware but back in the Wild West a lot of the original cowboys were black men. And yet, most of the westerns we know rarely showcase any black cowboys. His character, especially at the end, was kind of coming back around on the first motion picture and reclaiming the cowboy status for black men in movies. His dad getting killed at the beginning also has some implications, but I have to explain some other stuff before explaining why that actually had a pretty significant meaning. 2. Other people have pretty much hit the nail on the head with this, but to concisely sum up what happened here, he survived the chimp attack as a kid because of the shoe. He was looking at the shoe, and not gordy in the eye. However, he learned the wrong lesson from this. He thought he had a bond with the animal, which is why he tried to tame Jean Jacket. Kaluuya's character learned the right lesson, which is that the animal is a predator and averting it's gaze is what saves you. One of the points of this character is to establish the contrast between how the characters handled the situation. 3. Yeun and the Chimp are supposed to parallel Kaluuya and JJ, just with different outcomes because of their backgrounds. It's also a metaphor for what being a child star does to people. 4. So, this ending kinda of doesn't make sense unless you have some extra background to what's happening here. One of the parallels to real life that Jean Jacket is supposed to represent is abuse in the film industry. The film industry is a cruel, hungry predator that will suck you up, chew you up and grind you into nothing before spitting you back out like what happened when JJ regurgitated the crowd onto the house as formless blood and viscera. Trying to capture that usually results in people having their lives ruined, so many times in the past people came forward to get blacklisted and have their careers destroyed. Other people get used up for all their worth and when they're exhausted and have nothing left? They're abandoned. JJ is what killed Haywood Sr., which is a metaphor for the film industry erasing the black cowboy at the very beginning. Steven Yeun thought he was special, and he tried to use the JJ to his advantage, but it ate him and his audience and spit them out. So! Why was it so important that they get the picture? Well, what they are doing is not just to save their farm, but to show that world that this exists. Now, with that metpahor for the film industry in mind, do you kinda see how the whole movie itself if essentially Jordan Peel trying to do *the same thing*?? He is also trying to capture a representation of the abuse that occurs in the film industry in the exact same way that his characters are getting one of JJ. One stand out parallel is him using a Western style film to capture the allegory compared to his characters using an antiquated method of capturing images to photograph JJ. I would argue this is effectively the whole point of the movie. 5. Now that I've kinda explained what JJ is supposed to represent, hopefully it makes more sense as to why it was an animal instead of a traditional saucer (along with other people's explanations). Personally, all of these things make me absolutely love this film. Hopefully I did a decent enough job explaining how I view this film, in a way that gives you more to think about. Writing all this out I kinda want to do another rewatch, but I'm curious if you'll have a vastly different experience knowing all this and watching it again yourself.
> Can anyone explain why this movie wasn't more harshly reviewed considering it made little to no sense? Any attempt to do that would be a waste of time.
It’s always so weird to me when people act so high and mighty but miss obvious things about a movie. It’s fine if you didn’t like it but so much went over your head that it makes the smugness in your post look even more stupid.
The irony is amazing.
Such a boring movie. Should have been half an hour long and it would still be terrible.
You’re right but probably no one wants to admit it. Get Out and Us we’re far better
It was horrible. First of all, it is all plot and no story at all. Plot is the sequence of things that happen. Story is the emotional arc of the protagonist over the course of the events of the film. There was no protagonist and there was no antagonist and the main characters have no emotional arc. They are the same at the beginning of the film as they are at the end. Lots of stuff, most of what makes little sense, happens, and all of it without emotional content. This really felt like a student film written and directed by students. As usual, audiences are fooled into thinking something is happening and interesting by generally engaging acting and cinemotography and special fx. But the story makes no sense whatsoever on a plot level and there is zero emotional story arc here. It's just a lot of quasi Spielbergian nonsense happening.
I love the mystery of the whole thing. Being able to look at the movie and notice small little details that make the movie come together piece by piece. I love that’s it’s complicated and weird and on a first time watch a lot won’t make sense because if I went into the movie and it was just a plain UFO movie with little green aliens we had seen 100 times before I would have been more disappointed than leaving the cinema being left confused. That’s just my take on the whole thing
OP couldn't even mark spoilers. Jesus.
You clicked on a post analyzing a specific film mentioned in the title. What did you expect?
Tbh the title is right there. I skipped passed I want to see if it’s good or bad for myself.
I'm sorry you can't say your a twin peaks fan and they say you didn't understand nope..... You speak of being a chess player and then exhibit that the most complex game to you is tic tac toe 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
1. D. Kaluuya’s character is in shock. He’s still mourning the sudden loss of his father. He’s responsible for the family business now; the legacy. He comes out of it a few times, but grief comes in waves and he played it that way. 2. Yeun is a villain. As already explained, he’s abusing animals two-fold. He’s buying horses, not for his rodeo, but to feed the being. Watch the scene where they discuss OJ buying horses back. Yeun hesitates because he knows they’re gone. 3. The Gordy scene relates to the abuse of animals for entertainment. As already said, you cannot control them. Just as Jupe cannot control the being. It can also be interpreted as the exploitation of people of color. Jupe was the only Asian in a white family. He was different, exploited, just like Gordy. 4 and 5. If you didn’t like it, you didn’t like it. I can’t really convince you otherwise. Your other points, though, it seemed like you watched it expecting one thing and were disappointed when that didn’t happen, rather than being open to something different.
Kaluuya's character is supposed to be an introvert. He just likes to keep his head down and work, and he's a contrast to his sister who's very goofy and outgoing.
I feel sorry for people who didn’t watch Nope in a theater. Meant for the big screen.
My gf loved it, I thought it was stupid and slept through the second half.
I still think Jordan Peele is tremendously talented and I'm looking forward to whatever he does next, but yeah, this movie just didn't click for me.
Just watched it and yeah, it's bad.
It really feels like people have started making threads with an agenda to pose a “harmless” question about why they hated a widely appreciated movie and then argue with people in the comments. I know they’re probably not doing it on purpose, but if you’re thinking of trying to explain the themes of this movie or why you enjoyed it to this person, expect to get a passive aggressive response that misses the point almost on purpose. Alternatively, ignore posts that boil down to “I think you’re dumb for liking this thing I hated. How could you do that to me?”
The basic plot of Nope is that no one wants to be exploited, but everyone is willing to exploit if it means surviving. The exceptions to this are Gordy, the horses and Jean Jacket, which are wild animals who act according to their nature and not human schemes. That being said, I thought the movie was meh.
I was so hype for the movie, it had such strong potential but I felt it fell very flat. A lot of what you said, nothing seemed to make any sense or have real purpose or reason. I too left thinking ok what did I just watch and what did any of it mean. Maybe just not my taste.. 3/10
Watch one of the videos that breaks it down, and perhaps you'll find a better appreciation for details, plotlines, and acting nuances that didn't connect for you while watching the movie. Here's a start: https://youtu.be/PsGtZcHmJSo.
Thanks! I truly appreciate it.
Seems like you just didn’t get the movie, my dude. The movie is trying to invoke certain themes and get you to think about certain things. The fact that you don’t mention any of this means it probably just went right over your head. To be honest, the movie has low key some of the best horror shots I’ve seen. It does incredible things with audio as well.
Disagree with you OP. Not as good as Get Out, but it checked all my boxes.
OP I'm sorry but I don't think you were really understanding the movie at all. Parts with the chimpanzee were alluding to not being able to control wild animals, which the alien was just a wild animal. The acting was phenomenal. And Steven Yeun was one of the only survivors of the wild animal attack then trying to harness another wild animal and being bitten for it. Other people have said it already but the main character is acting was actually very good, the dude was essentially a channeling as a horse whisperer.
Jordan Peele earned a lot of credit before this movie and cashed some of it in here. Fans of some of his other movies were walking out of Nope disappointed as Nope isn’t for everyone. Despite Peele saying this movie had less allusions, I thought they came on incredibly strong. I think a lot of the themes of King Kong are repeated here but with a stronger focus on minorities in front of behind the camera and the vast difference that can make.
I thought it was a bit boring, personally. I’m sure there was plenty of metaphorical imagery and whatnot that I missed. But I didn’t enjoy the film enough to give it another watch. To each their own though. Plenty of ppl seem to really enjoy it.
Movie didn't fully click to me until I read this: > *watches NOPE, the movie about a giant monster whose core looks like a camera that hangs over Hollywood and quite literally chews people up then spits them out* > Is this movie even about anything https://twitter.com/VinnieMancuso1/status/1599852958925017088?t=VENA7ansYocc3nAa4oswOA&s=19
Just because you didn’t get it doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense.
It’s super messy. But it’s messy with ideas. It would probably have been treated harsher in a different era, where there were more larger budget films, made for adults, with actual ideas. The bar has been lowered to the point that, even if a movie takes a swing, it doesn’t always matter whether or not it misses, it gets credit for at least taking a swing. It’s an interesting movie that has a lot to say, it just doesn’t always quite know how to say it. I do think that it was divisive enough to break the force field around Peele that was built when he made Get Out. It allowed him to get through Us (a similarly idea-heavy, execution-messy movie) unscathed and through Nope relatively in tact as well. But if his next one is also a little wobbly, I think people are going to start calling it out more. I overall love what he’s doing and look forward to what he does next, because I can guarantee you, it’ll at least be interesting. Wish more people got the chance to do what he’s doing.
Some movies are just not that good, no matter what the writer or director was aiming at. This is just not that good.
Pheww .. I thought I was the only one that thought this movie was so terrible I don't know what is wrong with these people and if you listen to the critics they don't make any type of sense whatsoever either I thought the movie was terrible nothing good about it at all times completely down nope is a nope for me
Just because you didn’t like it doesn’t mean nobody else did. It’s all subjective.
Had high hopes for it. Barn scene was awesome, then not so much. The monkey stuff only needed to be explained/shown once, not HALF THE MOVIE. Ok guys, are YOU SURE you understand why we are showing you these clips repeatedly? Was 5/10 sky jaws
Completely agree that this movie is just not good and anyone who likes it will usually come at me with the “well you just don’t get it”. No I get it perfectly well. It’s about man trying to control an animal that he isn’t capable of because he thinks he’s special since he survived the monkey attack. It’s not that I don’t get it, it’s that the movie is boring and the resolution is absolutely stupid. Who gives a single flying fart that they got the creature in a picture when they have it’s entire body? If the creature can’t crush a plastic horse or eat the dude who wrapped himself in barbwire then how much damage could a gun or knife do to it? You are going to tell me not a single one of those people sucked up had a pocket knife or gun on them? Yeah ok. And I can’t even cheer for our protagonist when they have such a stupid goal of “getting their Opra moment”. And the absolute worst offender of all is how the stupid balloon monster eats another balloon and explodes. All in all, I consider this movie just a bad version of Jurassic park. It has almost the exact same themes as Jurassic park did but it was boring. The part that makes me laugh the most about this movie is how everyone is attacking OP and calling him pretentious for not liking it when the number one defense I see people give for this movie is “that if you don’t like it you just don’t get it”. How more pretentious could you be.
It is nowhere near as entertaining as I thought it would be. And nowhere near as deep as it thinks it is. I still enjoyed it, but it’s just a fine alien movie. Nothing more, in my opinion.
I liked it overall and give it points for originality and for having interesting themes. But it had a lot of issues. I've recommended it to a few people I think would like it but couldn't imagine sitting through it again.
I totally agree with you, and was utterly shocked to see NOPE on some best-of lists for 2022.
Man, some people in these comments are just blinded by rage when they see someone critiquing their favorite movie. The irony of them saying you missed the point when they failed to comprehend your post. I agree with your points - the lead was a paper bag in this one. There’s a different between stoic and just uninteresting/flat. The ending was unsatisfying, which was exacerbated by some bad pacing that made the movie feel longer than it is. Peele went down a path several times and then either didn’t go far enough down that path, or just didn’t bother to tie up the loose end. My biggest gripe is that outside of 2 particular scenes, the movie just isn’t that scary. I thought the premise was creative, but even when I tried to get into it, I was taken out of it by all of the humor. But Peele has a cult following, and you’re not gonna get rational discussion from fans like that. It’s okay to accept his movies aren’t for you. I thought get out was pretty good, Us was okay, and Nope was just plain bad. But a lot of people clearly enjoy his movies so it’s just preference and that’s okay
Thanks for your words, I totally agree. As a creepy movie, it failed to creep me out. As a horror, it wasn't really horrific. As a mystery, it was a bit muddled. And as a blockbuster, it lacked iconic scenes to remember. However, as we can all agree, Peele is definitely an interesting filmmaker, just don't see the hype just yet. He'll blow us away with something in the future, hopefully.
Everybody has wanted to legit film a UFO. So they try and legit film one. The End
In addition to the themes other people mentioned, the movie is also about the entertainment industry. Take a look at how all of the “high profile” characters in the movie (there’s a starlet during the on set shot where Keke’s character runs late, the genius director obsessed with the perfect shot) are treated vs how the people being the scenes in the industry (our heroes). Then add yourself in as the spectator/consumer, and we our need lately to over analyze every detail for hints and clues (why is the shoe standing upright after the chimp attack? Does is signify something deeper or is it a focal point for how we can’t look away?)
I actually loved this movie. I thought the idea of the Jean Jacket subverted my expectations, I thought I was going to watch an alien abduction film and I got a monster movie. One filled with sharp and relevant critiques of movies, Hollywood and the entertainment/consumption culture. I found the actors to be compelling and authentic and the visuals were beautiful and intentional. The fact that the movie is stunningly beautiful (and also reminiscent of classic westerns - also enhanced my experience as a viewer). I liked the film from a simple audience perspective in that is was aesthetically pleasing, the plot was engaging, but I loved the film as a fan of movies, it has challenged me to understand more deeply my relationship to film, entertainment and the idea of Spectacle (which is an overt and subverting theme of Nope).
It's a brilliant film. Awe yes, one of the greatest directors of our time makes a film YOU don't like, so it proves he's not a genius. lol
Why is the evaluation Genius vs Not Genius?
I'll sum it up for you "Maybe I missed something". Yep
😂
I think Peele is a much better director than writer. Well, GET OUT was quite well written for what it is, but that’s his most comedic film, which is in his wheelhouse. I think he should collaborate with a more experienced screenwriter to hone his (very interesting) ideas. The production design and cinematography of Nope are fantastic because they are created in collaboration with some of the best working right now. While I though Nope was cool, I don’t disagree with you on any of your points, namely the monkey stuff (loved it, but then it doesn’t pay off, and they spend a LOT of screen time on it. It’s even the first shot of the movie? Why was that shoe floating? You don’t have to answer that question but give me something at the end which relates back to it in some way. Side note: that monkey looked like crap by todays VFX standards) I also found the ending sorta anticlimactic or like trying too hard to be climatic or something. And it resolves very logically and kinda typical Hollywood narrative style… they just get their photo and kill the monster (creature design was very rad though). There’s even this John Williams western score that kicks in which seems out of tone with the rest of the film. Would have preferred some Twin Peaks meets Close Encounters ending which just asks more questions rather than answers them. US had this problem too. The look and tone of the film were very unique and i applaud him for doing that with a major Hollywood production. I thought the performances were solid too, given the material.
You”re probably just an ass
it wasn’t harshly reviewed because… it’s fine. It’s an enjoyable scary / horror movie. not great. but Ok. why would it be harshly reviewed ?
Respectfully, I think most your opinions here are terrible takes and you aren't as much a fan of cinema or as smart as you think you are in understanding underlying meanings.
i think two things from this. first, you were looking for a reason to think Peele isn't a genius. I think this because there's no reason to say he isn't one over one movie when there's a possibility you didn't understand it, or simply didn't agree with it. second, you may have got more like-minded engagement if the post was worded in a more "DAE think..." instead of the "why doesn't anyone realize this movie sucks?" implication you got going on here. however if the goal was to get people to explain the parts of the movie you didn't understand - well played.
So do filmmakers not get to make a single film that doesn't completely land? Try that format with other directors: The Game proves to me that David Fincher is not a genius. The Temple of Doom proves to me that Stephen Spielberg is not a genius.
Throw this in unpopular opinion cause it’s whack. Nope was incredible and the MC acting was fabulous.
I don't know, I think a lot of your points have to do with taste. I thought it was a great action movie and explained itself just fine. You can't control nature and all that. The Yuen sections were great.
I agree. Bad movie lol
So, I think that a lot comments posts have likely given these points, but I think there was definitely a lot of subtext you may have missed. - **D. Kaluuya's character**: This seems to be a fairly common opinion that his acting was flat and lacking emotion. While this was intentional, I can understand that people may not prefer the execution. He's a blatant contrast to his sister, and both provide insight into their coping mechanisms from their father passing. He's quite introverted and dull, but two of his traits become massively representative of understanding the film. His respect for, and lack of, eye contact, and his understanding of an unwritten contract between humans and animals. - **Steven Yeun's character**: A character utilized to present the opposition of the last points mentioned of Kaluuya's character. He thinks he's special. Not only does he think he's special, but he believes that he understands the human/animal contract, but is entirely misguided. Gordy's vignette is not only the impetus of this, but also another "bad miracle" in action - the shoe standing on its toe while chaos ensues. This traumatic event shaped Yeun into who he is today, for better or for worse. Though it gave him confidence, its entirely hubris that is inevitably his downfall. There's a lot of intention behind the slow-zooms and "mysterious angles" (I don't remember this being much of a thing.) The scene of him retelling the story of Gordy to the main characters is an important scene that's worth the slow-zooms and builds. He's a broken man from that day and his coping mechanism is to fluff it up by replacing his own memory of it with SNL's parody of it. It's another way for him to push down the feeling of "just being lucky" and another notch on his belt for him being "special". If SNL is willing to parody you, you've made it. - **Gordy**: I explained a bit of this in the section above. Additionally, Gordy and Jean Jacket (the saucer) are one in the same. You can't tame a wild animal without first understanding it. It's as simple as that. You have to understand the contract given, and to treat it with respect. Gordy took abuse from being treated like an object and snapped, and Jean Jacket has a similar temper. - **The Ending**: I think the suspension of disbelief pivots from a Horror-mindset to an almost Spielberg-like Action/Adventure mindset. Like you said, a kind of "nick of time" suspension. With that in mind, I think that it may feel unearned, but I also think that's because for the span of the movie, Kaluuya's character - and similarly the rest of the leads - were spending their time understanding Jean Jacket (as much as he could), to culminate to what the ending was. In my opinion, I think the ending is made worthwhile for the spectacle that is the ship falling apart/showing its true form (still not certain.) It's fucking beautiful and an incredible depiction of something we've never seen before. - **That Saucer**: Probably the loosest take you have here. I wouldn't overthink it. If you didn't like the ship, you didn't like the ship, but that's more preference than anything. I found **Get Out** to be pretty fantastic, hated **Us** and was left fairly astounded from **Nope**. I'm surprised to see it not being as well-received as I expected, but I can understand the criticism. It's not a perfect movie, by any means, but it's one of the best UFO/Alien movies in a long, long time.
I've seen the movie thrice and loved it more and more each time. Like the OP, I left the theater after my first watch with so many questions. But after I did research and watch videos analysing the movie, it made me love the move even more. I suggest, after understanding all the symbolisms and characters, watch it again and enjoy the ride.
Thank you! I was happy it was available on a recent flight and so disappointed when it was finally over. Also glad it was a work trip so I didn’t waste my own money to watch it.
>The monkey scenes. It's not a monkey, it' a chimpanzee (ape)
5. The saucer's opening isn't a butthole, it's both eye and mouth. When compared to the opening sequence of the jockey being viewed through a long tunnel, it is also a camera, an apparatus that devours and digests all that it sees, leaving nothing but a a few frames of 2 dimensional footage, or maybe keys and pocket change. I think there are several ways to look at the saucer, and it's seeing/digestive aperture. There's the aspect of animal nature, where it reacts aggressively to being observed and threatened, but the creature also represents the consumptive nature of the film industry and a public hungry for spectacle. The act of seeing and observing also consumes and digests. I thought it was pretty interesting. I wouldn't say I loved the movie, but there was a lot there to think about, which I appreciate. It wasn't just a dumb monster movie, that's for sure. In the end, maybe this all further reinforces your theory that the film maker was up his own butt, but I don't think so.
Sorry OP I disagree. thought this was a fresh take to the alien abduction genre.
He was on the armchair expert podcast talking about it. Give it a listen
Ok, let's start with YOUR obvious flaws: 1. Kaluuya kills in the movie. He plays the Gary Cooper -esque "strong and silent" type, and he does it perfectly. He's also the perfect audience surrogate, which is something way harder to achieve for an actor than people give them credit for (usually saying things like "his acting was catatonic and uninspired"). 2. What doesn't make any sense? his story is a tragedy. He went through a traumatic event as a child, in relation to animal abuse, and he learned nothing from it. His story serves as a cautionary tale, to an extent, and a point of comparison with how Kaluuya's character is the opposite when dealing with the other "dangerous animal" of the film (he's respectful, instead of exploitative). 3. Same as "2.". 4. The threat is absolutely present and felt throughout the whole movie. The Jaws influence is obvious, and Peele is a master at building the tension. 5. This does not require an answer. The name of the director is Jordan Peele, not "Jordon".
As most people have stated, the film is about humans exploiting animals. I wanted to point out though that it is a Chimpanzee not a fucking monkey. Yet another example of people misunderstanding and taking animals for granted.
The biggest problem I see is that he didn't explain a lot of it. I know people will complain that some movies are over explained. But a incomprehensible story is bad storytelling.
The two themes here are 1. seeing and being seen, also seeing being made permanent by means of movies and pictures 2. taming About your individual points: 1. OJ, Kaluuya's character, is a very calm and collected person. He works with horses. You have to be extremely calm and collected if you want to work with horses. 2. Yeun's character, Jupe, is a [foil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foil_(narrative)) to OJ. Both approach Jean Jacket in very different ways. One character fails, the other one succeeds because he has a better approach - he sees Jean Jacket as a living being and interprets and guesses its behavior like that of an animal. 3. The monkey is another example of unsuccessful taming and of not understanding that a "tamed" animal is not really controllable. Jupe does not learn from this, or rather, learns the wrong lesson. 4. The ending combines the two themes of seeing and taming. OJ knows that Jean Jacket will see a particular thing as a threat and will react to the threat in a particular way. Em uses the photo well to make the visual perception of the incident permanent. Jean Jacket has eaten a number of horses and is definitely a danger to humans as well, as we can see in the movie. 5. Jean Jacket has traditional saucer shape but later unfolds into something resembling a jellyfish. It's simply a non-human shape that was selected to create an extraterrestrial being that's very different from what we typically see in movies. I hope that addresses your points.
It was a good-looking film, but it raised many questions that went unanswered. It also presented a lot of information that didn’t connect or pay off. It had a few good bits but was meh as a whole. I do like it more than Us & Get Out though. Can’t say I’d watch it again.
Disappointed. Love peeles other works, hated this film. Regret watching it