All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
So some shadowy cult want to move Pieman from one host to another, and this convoluted, overblown, nonsense is how they do it???
What's wrong with the traditional way, altar, sacrificial goat etc.
There are just so many plot developments that make no sense whatsoever, and I had such high hopes -(
I more or less agree with this. This movie had a lot of things going for it. However, it tried to pack in too many scares and scary sequences. If they played it more like a drama, the reveal would mean so much more. But that's not marketable enough.
So some shadowy cult want to move Pieman from one host to another, and this convoluted, overblown, nonsense is how they do it???
What's wrong with the traditional way, altar, sacrificial goat etc.
Wasn't that exactly what they did, just in a less cheesy way?
We see the remains of an animal sacrifice on an altar in the witch's apartment, which she used to curse Peter, which in turn allowed King Paimon to possess him.
The only thing I'm wondering about is whether Charlie had to die to complete the ritual (i.e. if the brother hadn't accidentally killed her beforehand, would the cult have done it themselves?)
I echo what others have said above and the general consensus in that there is obvious filmmaking craft here, its genuinely scary in parts, has great performances but loses it in the final 20 minutes by over explaining everything. It just felt drawn out and not scary. Rosemary's Baby it ain't.
The only thing I'm wondering about is whether Charlie had to die to complete the ritual (i.e. if the brother hadn't accidentally killed her beforehand, would the cult have done it themselves?)
- There is a brief shot, when Peter and Charlie are driving to the party, of the post that decapitates Charlie later on and it has the cult's symbol on it. To me, that suggests the cult's involvement through supernatural intervention...and the strategic placing of a dog .
- There is a brief shot, when Peter and Charlie are driving to the party, of the post that decapitates Charlie later on and it has the cult's symbol on it. To me, that suggests the cult's involvement through supernatural intervention...and the strategic placing of a dog .
Hey, good catch. That would put a nice subtle touch to the power/influence of the cult. I'll have to find some time to rewatch that scene.
I started watching it a couple weeks ago, and literally fell asleep, it was so dull and plodding.
Feeling a little under the weather today, so decided to give it my full attention. Although I started feeling like I was going to fall asleep again, I made it through the entire movie.
Not really sure why so many are praising this so highly. It's very slow, very dull and actually quite hard to follow and understand...and when the actual plot/story is revealed, I really couldn't care less.
A couple serious complaints that surely didn't help how I felt about this.
1) So completely obvious that this was filmed on a set, and not a real house. Every INT scene looked so fake, it took me out of the film completely.
2) When Charlie is decapitated, it's so obvious that it couldn't have gone down like that, as her head was barely outside the window, yet only her head is hit by the pole, and not the side mirror or any of the side of the car.
3) The end - WTF? Really? Although I "had a clue what this all meant", I had to check out IMDB to be sure, and that's never a good thing.
Not for me at all. I see no replay value here whatsoever and this one will be quickly forgotten.
How you feel about this movie is exactly the way I felt about It Comes at Night, only I actually liked Hereditary and didn't like It Comes at Night. It does seem to be a current trend to make new horror films deliberately slow-paced and a bit vague in story. I think that's why Get Out felt like a breath of fresh air to a lot of people, even though it was a fairly "typical" horror movie and probably would've been considered cheesy and dumb had it come out 10 years ago.
Many people really hate it, but in the end I think the slow-burn mentality simply sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. But that does seem to be "the fad" nowadays. What usually results is a massive discrepancy between critic and audience consensus, which is bizarre to me... I mean, we're talking about horror films.
1) I didn't notice that at all, will definitely have to look out for it next time. Although it makes sense that this would be so in a way, since the whole movie opens with a trick shot of the house's miniature model. I guess they wanted to have a real 1-to-1 correlation between the miniature and the "real" house, so they went the safer route with sets. 2) GAH! That's totally true. Damn you for making me notice lol. They even make a point to show the car afterwards and there's barely a scratch on it. Although Charlie wasn't barely outside the window the way I remember it. Her hands were on the door with her whole upper body out the window. But yes, that car totally would've suffered some sort of damage.
I'm not sure if it will be forgotten quickly yet or not. If nothing else Toni Collette's been getting a lot of attention over it. Also, it was done by a first-time feature director, which I think is mighty impressive all things considered.