Jump to content

DeeCee

Hereditary (2018)

Grade it  

37 members have voted

  1. 1. Grade it



Recommended Posts



That tagline seems to have a lot more weight behind it after watching the movie. Being an A24 movie, I expected it to divert from an audience-friendly horror movie quite significantly, but I still couldn't prepare myself for what I was about to see. A lot of people are going to claim it's overhyped because it depends on what you find scary. If you think ghosts, demons and serial killers are scary, Hereditary will probably disappoint you. But if you are afraid of things like guilt, anxiety and trauma like me, Hereditary might just fuck you up in ways you're not expecting.

I had a very visceral reaction to what was happening on screen during most of the run time, especially when Peter was involved. Alex Wolff's performance is so good, I actually think I might need therapy from watching him. I don't want to go too much into hyperbole, but I will just say I had a very odd reaction to the movie during the third act where I was uncontrollably laughing and crying in hysterics because his performance was affecting me so much. It was kind of embarrassing, because I took a big group of people to see it and they were all asking if I was okay. The rest of the cast is great, especially Toni Collette who also delivers an Oscar worthy performance. If she doesn't get nominated there will be a lot of backlash against the Academy for ignoring this film because it's too dark/disturbing.

As for the ending, well, I personally liked it, but it's going to turn many people off. Some people will even say it rips off Rosemary's Baby and The Witch. I disagree. I think the more I dwell on the ending though, the more I love it. It has me questioning a lot of themes this movie was tackling and I'd like to see what other people thought of it. Fuck, I need to see this again right away. It definitely has 5 star potential for me, we'll see. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really enjoyed this one. Had me clenching my arm rest so tight in the final moments that I nearly got rigor mortis in my left hand as I got up to leave. 

 

Gotta admit I was somewhat annoyed at how clumsily the big reveal was... A little too quick with her mom's boxed items, the book, the photo album, everything. I mean, even in packing that those boxes, any remotely curious mind would sift through the contents of the book. How couldn't you? It's a minor fault though in a film that majorly succeeds in many ways. I just prefer when those type of details are reveals more cleverly.

 

Oh, yeah, Collette hovering and stabbing herself in the jugular repeated at a measured pace was fucking terrifying. Her nightmare within a nightmare riled me something fierce as well. But, man, Aster did something better than just about any other director. Hiding apparitions or actual persons in corners and ceilings. Fucking awesome the way blended so seamlessly without it feeling like a cheat.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Here's what's been stuck in my mind since watching this: once the full scope of the cult and its plan is revealed, are we to believe that they somehow played a role in Charlie's death, so that later Annie would attempt to communicate with the spirit world, which in turn would only further fuck things up? Or is it a tragedy that works on purely a thematic level - meaning, it underlines that it's the family's last chance to actually communicate and unite, but instead they fall into even greater mutual distrust and resentment, and perish as a result? The event itself is amazingly effective - the long close-up on Peter's face, where both you and him just sit there having gone through something this horrific and trying to process it, is perfect - but I'm unsure about how it fits into the overall story. 

 

This is the kinda thing I meant when I was talking about the movie not being very tightly structured in the main thread, and it's also reflected in what @JohnnyGossamer points out about the reveal and generally in the film piling hardcore family drama, spirits, and a cult that brings a king from Hell into this world on top of each other. The suggestions about what's going on are scattered through the movie from the beginning but for a while they don't fully register, i.e. when Annie comments about the unfamiliar faces at her mother's funeral that doesn't make me suspicious of anything by itself. The vandalized grave also feels like something that would have worked better visually than as something briefly heard about over the phone. It's supernatural horror hiding itself so cleverly under family drama that for a good while you don't even notice it at all.

 

The ending scene... I've tried but couldn't shake off the impression that it's kinda goofy, and I don't know whether intentionally or not. A big part of it, again, is Peter's close-up. Instead of taking in the arrival of a king of hell I'm just sitting there listening to old naked people chant and staring at a teenager with a broken nose who looks completely stoned. Plus, the scope of what's presumably to occur kinda diminishes the family's plight. Rosemary's Baby and The Witch made this exact ending work by making it about character: Rosemary at least spits in her husband's face and takes on her role as a mother, and Thomasin finds a new family after her previous one failed her. But here the ending is not about Peter - he's just the empty vessel for Paimon. The emotional, human-centered ending really comes much earlier, when Annie admits that she's at fault and tearfully pleads with her husband. Once he dies and she gets possessed, the drama just... ends. But the movie keeps going. 

 

One final complaint: where Collette/Annie is all raw emotion, Gabriel Byrne is barely even a character. I get that he's supposed to be this reliable steady presence but on the whole he's really strangely unaffected by all the tragedy that occurs around him (I mean his daughter is killed and the next time we see him he just kinda sits there calmly reading a book or something) and doesn't really become an active player in the story until a couple of minutes before he dies. 

 

On the whole, though, it's still impressive. The emotional tension in the family makes the feeling of dread in the second half that much more intimate and intense, which is aided by excellent camerawork and use of darkness. (Though Aster is not above clichés: see how Peter doesn't turn on the light ONCE during his final walk through the house. I liked that Annie immediately did when she saw the apparition of her mother, and was disappointed when he didn't.) Charlie's cluck haunting Peter is genius, and an example of where the movie does make the story work as horror and character drama simultaneously. (I jumped every time.) Collette is very good, the others generally solid. The script could have given them more to chew on, but the pain of a hopelessly divided, fractured family unit comes through regardless. The score is effective. 

 

It's a solid movie. Not a new horror masterpiece or a personal favorite or something that fucked me up and got deep under my skin and is gonna keep me up nights. I look forward to watching it again. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

One final complaint: where Collette/Annie is all raw emotion, Gabriel Byrne is barely even a character.

Was not too bothered by it until the book burning scene were it became a bit too much of a contrast, almost in a not being in the same movies level, too not being contagiously affected by that level of urgency and panic. But once you realize he was being possessed, you wonder he was for how long. The mechanic of being possessed is unclear too me also. When Colette become the one possessed it seem like the rules all change up from the previous vehicle like Charlie and the husband, maybe the book was grounding him or he is gaining power as the ritual is going on.

 

18 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

Here's what's been stuck in my mind since watching this: once the full scope of the cult and its plan is revealed, are we to believe that they somehow played a role in Charlie's death,

I will certainly need a rewatch, but that seem like a stretch, that said head being cut off seam to be a central element to the cult. And they communicate with Charlie non long before the accident, the woman looking at her while she cut the bird head.

 

Isn't the body put in the attic after Charlie death ? When they comment on the smell for the first time, could be them jumping on the opportunity and taking credits for it ? That would be quite the struck of luck too but at the same time they cannot really plan that she will be at a party and send a cake with nuts.

 

There is so much in this and I am so bad at understanding movies, will not surprise me if I enjoy it more on rewatch.

Edited by Barnack
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



4 minutes ago, Barnack said:

But once you realize he was being possessed, you wonder he was for how long. The mechanic of being possessed is unclear too me also. When Colette become the one possessed it seem like the rules all change up from the previous vehicle like Charlie and the husband, maybe the book was grounding him or he is gaining power as the ritual is going on.

Was he being possessed? That never crossed my mind. I thought he was always himself, just an underwritten character. 

 

It's a tricky line, I'm generally very much in favor of not spoonfeeding the audience but there are works where questions are rewarding and open up interesting possibilities and those where they're frustrating and you suspect that the writer just threw too many ideas into the pot. This is a case of the latter for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

Was he being possessed? That never crossed my mind. I thought he was always himself, just an underwritten character. 

 

I was unsure (mostly because of how much the mechanic would have change if that was the case), but when the book burn why did that affect him and why Colette character became right away the one possessed after his death ? I could have  mis-seen or missremember but I thought the light got out of his body into Colette body.

 

They were probably more vehicule with a small influence than really possessed and fully controlled before the book got burnt I would imagine. Or there is a possibility that she actually burned him with thinner and the movie show her subjective point of view when she think magic is occuring.

 

13 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

suspect that the writer just threw too many ideas into the pot. This is a case of the latter for me. 

Specially for what you pointed out about Charlie death, not sure how well it pass scrutiny.

Edited by Barnack
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Hmm. I don't think the husband is possessed at any point ever. Caught fire as punishment for her burning the book or otherwise. I do very much believe the cult quasi planned for Charlie's death. She beckoned outside by her grandmother's spirit. That moment pushed her mom to want her to be around kids and pushes her on her brother. Eats the cake when she's likely not dumb enough to realize there were no nuts. And, you could make an argument the deer was placed there too. But, yeah, it a stretch but it works. If it didn't then, they would've set something else involving her death and traumatizing/weakening the will of Peter to make it easier to use his body as a vessel for the demon.

 

I do agree, Jake, about being more satisfied thematically with The Witch, Babadook, hell, even It Follows. But, I will say I prefer the delivery of the shock and scares here. Babadook gets hamstrung by some weird stock sound effects and some amateurish directing at times but that theme works for me better than all of this new wave stuff aside from maybe Raw. I really like that one too. Again, I think Aster delivers the goods in a huge way in regards to being unsettled. Far more impressive for me than anything in other movies new wave horror flicks. Just very, very unsettling.

 

The ending is a bit silly but, you know, movies that center on a cult are generally silly in the end. Hard to hide a bunch of weirdo bowing down and chanting something. Either gonna buy in or you're not. Polanski's ending to Rosemary is silly too but he kills it though. Just perfection with avoiding showing the child, the motley crew of worshipers from all over the globe. Folks snapping pictures, all smiles. It's wonderful ending. Rosemary ranging from abject horror to accepting her role as mother and proudly so. It's her kid. She's gonna raise it. Damned or not. I'd say it's just about perfect. 

 

There's a heartbreak to Rosemary when Chuck Grodin doesn't help her. It's just devastating. With Hereditary, they're so doomed from the start as if the theme above character and all else is the latent insanity of DID, schizophrenia, dementia and all other terrifying and debilitating mental illness that can and will absorb and destroy you. You're only option is to allow it consume you and accept it.

 

Other themes are given a little light but it seems that's the one that matters most. It's her mom's movie really assuming she started all of this madness cursed/killed her husband, son, daughter and grandchildren. Assuming as in their great grandmother wasn't also in the cult. That's why I wished there was more of her - and I don't mean physically - in the movie. More hints and cues. As is, her moments felt like visual info dumps. Didn't feel as earned as I'd prefer. 

 

I'll say again though, this movie really did terrify me. Those last 30 minutes or so just knocked me the fuck out on a visceral level. But, yeah, as of now, thinking on it doesn't yield much satisfaction. Doesn't enrich it like my other very favorites of this sort. But, on it's face and on the somewhat shallow level that in functions, it's pretty damn good for me. Almost great even. Aster really paints some unsettling, compelling frames here. I love that about it.

 

PS - I do agree that the best horror gives some levity to make the shocks all the more harrowing. Hell, Exorcist has all kinds of colorful, very raw human characters before it gets ugly beyond recognition. Rosemary borders on a pitch black comedy. They're both better for it too.

 

Edited by JohnnyGossamer
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 hour ago, Jake Gittes said:

I keep forgetting about that light. Whenever it appeared I mostly just thought it was a cheesy visual effect. 

I actually liked just about every trick and technique used in this movie to jolt or bring attention to the supernatural. But, that one did kind of standout a less necessary than the rest.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I actually view the story from a kind of metaphorical point of view. I can't really get behind the idea that Charlie's death was planned because it's so random. I see it as an accident that Annie blames herself for, but, in fear of comparing herself to her terrible mother, she blames Peter to rid herself of the guilt. The scares in the second act seem to be revolved around Annie and Peter's relationship and the trauma of Peter's experience. Once the seance happens, they might have let in a real demon and anything goes from that point. I think the demon played with Annie and Peter's mind and taunted them with the idea that their family is cursed and doomed to hell, which explains the cult being tied to the grandmother. When Peter jumps out the window he might of died and the demon was dragging his soul to hell, which was the treehouse in the film. The demon then assures Peter's eternal guilt by using him as the final host and having people crown him as the eighth king of hell. Hail Paimon! 

Of course there are flaws with that theory, like where do all the cult people come from if Annie was unaware of who they were at the funeral? Why does the demon need a male host and not Peter specifically? I need to watch it again. 

Edited by Fanboy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Well this was...a movie. And a good one too, but I can't say it fully lived up to the hype for me. Some elements stretch credibility (why does Charlie seem to never carry her epi-pen?) or are solved too conveniently (like @JohnnyGossamer said). But there's no doubt this is an effective and well-made movie that marks an interesting first feature from Ari Aster (who proves to be able to wring a remarkable amount of suspense from atmosphere without even resorting to more conventional methods like jump scares), even though it works much better as the domestic indie drama that makes up the first half than the supernatural flick that takes over the second, and the ending came across as more silly than scary to me. Best thing about is definitely Toni Collette though, who is given a great showcase here to remind us why she's one of our most underrated actresses. Almost as impressive is Alex Wolff, who is able to convey so much with zero dialogue. It's kind of frustrating in a way because I think the ingredients were here for a great movie instead of the merely good one found here. But I'd definitely recommend and will certainly be thinking about it for a while. B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The script needed work. This is one of those movies that would have actually benefited from studio notes, from streamlining and making sure everything tracks and all the supernatural elements that go ape-shit in the last 30 minutes are actually properly set-up in the first 90. 

 

Great performance by Toni Collette, great aesthetics, an effectively dark and brooding atmosphere, and some strong (if poorly executed) ideas, but none of it comes together in a satisfying way.

 

C

Edited by La Binoche
Link to comment
Share on other sites





This film is definitely not for everyone but when it delivers, it is quite an unsettling experience. Ari Aster really knows how to make you uncomfortable and play with the dark. So many shots just linger....and if you catch that something's there (someone compared it to just waking up - and I'd agree)...yeah it gets in your head man. You might be looking in the shadows on your way home. Beware though, it is a slow burner and does drag a bit in the middle, so if you are going into this film expecting a traditional jump scare fest, this is not it (although there is one that is very effective due to how brilliantly the creepy atmosphere is set up).

Hard to really grade it because I think it's something that will improve on multiple viewings and theater experiences are going to differ. Right now - B+/A- (feels like this generations Blair Witch Project)

Link to comment
Share on other sites





This movie was a mess.Yes, Toni Collette gives a great performance, or maybe I should say great performances as she's acting in a few different types of movies here.

 

Part of the time, the movie feels like it is going to be a gorefest with the severed bird head followed by the severed human head. Then it seems like it is going to be a mental illness type of horror film given the creepy dioramas, Collette's breakdown after her daughter's death and her speech about her family's mental illnesses at the grief therapy meeting. Then it turns into some supernatural film during the final third before transforming into a religious cult horror film at the end. These uncertainties and their weak, inexplicable transitions along with long stretches of nothing happening in the film make Hereditary a bore and a chore to sit through. 

 

Yes, Collette is very good in her role. She is easily the best thing about the film. The script which seems to change on the fly keeps her on her toes and she does her best to make things entertaining. even though the film, as a whole, is not. Byrne is wasted in his role and I'm not sure what Wolf was doing the entire time, especially during several of his scenes at school, although that might be the fault of the writing or directing.

 

Apart from Collette and the cinematography, which was quite solid for a horror film, I just didn't like the film much. It's messy and not a fun or intriguing film to watch.

 

5/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites



26 minutes ago, LonePirate said:

This movie was a mess.Yes, Toni Collette gives a great performance, or maybe I should say great performances as she's acting in a few different types of movies here.

 

Part of the time, the movie feels like it is going to be a gorefest with the severed bird head followed by the severed human head. Then it seems like it is going to be a mental illness type of horror film given the creepy dioramas, Collette's breakdown after her daughter's death and her speech about her family's mental illnesses at the grief therapy meeting. Then it turns into some supernatural film during the final third before transforming into a religious cult horror film at the end.

But the mental illness is tied in with the supernatural, Collette talks about how her brother accused their mother of trying to "put people inside him", we later realize that he was actually right and she was trying to use him as a vessel for Paimon. It just doesn't feel like something is off right away, which, yes, I had an issue with that but the horror is still present in that part even if you only realize it retroactively.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



This is a question for all of you who loved it. Did I miss something or did nobody have a problem with the death of Peter sister? I mean the guy is driving a car his sister sticks her head out the window per head get removed from her body and then he casually goes home and leaves the head of his sister in his driveway so that his mom can discoved the next day? And nobody finds this odd or curious? Nobody said s*** to Peter about this. They just go to the funeral and then the first time anything is ever said is at the dinner table when she explodes. That had to be one of the laziest parts of the movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



6 minutes ago, baumer said:

This is a question for all of you who loved it. Did I miss something or did nobody have a problem with the death of Peter sister? I mean the guy is driving a car his sister sticks her head out the window per head get removed from her body and then he casually goes home and leaves the head of his sister in his driveway so that his mom can discoved the next day? And nobody finds this odd or curious? Nobody said s*** to Peter about this. They just go to the funeral and then the first time anything is ever said is at the dinner table when she explodes. That had to be one of the laziest parts of the movie.

What was there to say? She stuck her head out. He was speeding - for a good reason - and had to swerve to the side. It was a horrific accident. 

 

And he doesn't "casually" go home, the whole emotional point of the scene is that he's too devastated and terrified to deal with the situation like an adult - to even look at the body, or call the police to the site or whatever - and he shifts the burden of actually discovering the body onto his mother. He does not have it in him to own up to what happened, which is what she calls him out on ("Nobody admits anything they've done!"), while she resents both him and herself for making Charlie go to the party in the first place. I also thought it was pretty clear, from the extremely cautious way he first addresses her at dinner, that that was the first time he attempted to talk to her about this at all. Given their previous mutual history - that she didn't want to have him, that she almost torched him and herself in her sleep - it's easy to infer that, post-accident, the resentment must have been so strong that they wouldn't have been on speaking terms at all. As far as this part goes, the movie gives you everything you need to work with. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.