It Comes at Night (2017)

Looks awesome. These days, in Joel Edgerton I trust.

Added it to my watch for list. Hoping for magic/other dimension/thulu stuff.

Looks like a 100% solid maybe for me. Going to need some impressions first.

Sorta related I saw Hidden last year and it was pretty good. It's about a family living in a bomb shelter, shit's gone cray-cray, there's some twists and turns, etc. It's pretty good.


So until this comes out you can watch something maybe similar?

Just saw this in the theater. It was really, really good. The movie had my attention the entire time. 90ish minutes flew by.

If you go into this thinking it's a "defend the house from the zombies," movie you aren't going to like it.

This movie is like classical music. If you don't know what you're listening to, or what you are watching then you won't enjoy it. This movie will do better with an audience that is more well versed in cinematic themes/motifs than one that goes to the theater to watch robots punch each other.

There are some heavy themes in this film, and if you pick up on them it is a really enjoyable experience.

If you liked The VVitch you will like It Comes at Night.

You can spoiler it but I have to know if the dog is OK or not, because I am a pussy about like that 1 thing. Also, I need to see VVitch still.

Amzin

Sounds like my kind of story. I wonder if it is only on Saturday nights it comes.

Campbell1oo4 said:

This movie is like classical music. If you don't know what you're listening to, or what you are watching then you won't enjoy it. This movie will do better with an audience that is more well versed in cinematic themes/motifs than one that goes to the theater to watch robots punch each other.

Click to expand...

This reads like "Art school faggots will love this. People who actually enjoy watching movies will not."

I mean I could be wrong, but that is exactly how that is interpreted by non-art school kids.

Don't get me wrong, it might be a really enjoyable movie. But those are major warning signs to people who actually enjoy movies vs. those who see them as academic endeavors.

Rezz said:

This reads like "Art school faggots will love this. People who actually enjoy watching movies will not."

I mean I could be wrong, but that is exactly how that is interpreted by non-art school kids.

Click to expand...

Dunno, didn't go to art school.

I imagine they do enjoy movies though.

I mostly come at night, also.

Hey you may not have gone to art school, but that doesn't make the statement any less art-school faggy. It would be identical to my going "this culinary creation is amazing, if you have culinary training and understand the nuances of it. People who eat food may not like it, though."

Comes off super pretentious and more than a little douchey. Not your fault; you're just calling it how you see it. But man, comparing it to classical music and then saying that normal movie goers won't like it -because- they don't know the ins and outs of film making comes off as super douchey. It's like a built in "if you don't like this, then you don't understand film" faggot argument.

We only need Szila to weigh on and discuss the merits of Swiss Film Making vs. Kurosawa Era japanese film making trying to describe the movie in order to understand exactly who this was written/filmed for: People who don't enjoy movies.

Rezz said:

Comes off super pretentious and more than a little douchey. Not your fault; you're just calling it how you see it. But man, comparing it to classical music and then saying that normal movie goers won't like it -because- they don't know the ins and outs of film making comes off as super douchey. It's like a built in "if you don't like this, then you don't understand film" faggot argument.

Click to expand...

No other way to describe it. I figured I would save someone some time by telling them how it is.

Rezz said:

This reads like "Art school faggots will love this. People who actually enjoy watching movies will not."

I mean I could be wrong, but that is exactly how that is interpreted by non-art school kids.

Don't get me wrong, it might be a really enjoyable movie. But those are major warning signs to people who actually enjoy movies vs. those who see them as academic endeavors.

Click to expand...

I see why he phrased it that way, and its a pretty good description, if only because every trailer I have seen for this move is misleading as fuck. I hadn't seen any before I saw the movie and was better for it. The marketing of this movie leans heavily into monster territory. However, the movie is much like the Witch, where the primary source of "horror" is the tension and sense of unease the movie puts into you as you give yourself to the movie. The director goes so far as to change the aspect ratio of the movie throughout to make things seems disjointed or smaller than they are.

If you like seeing a movie as an academic endeavor, this is fantastic. But also if you want to see an Indie Horror movie that isn't so much "scary" as it is "tense, dreadful, foreboding, whatever word you want to use other than jump scares", it's a well shot, well acted story that doesnt over stay its welcome (the movie is only a little over 90 minutes)

Yeah, in retrospect I was ascribing a bit more douchiness than was intended to the critique, and I had a couple of rum and cokes in me at the time. If it's an accurate description, then hey, it's accurate.

It's just the type of phrasing that rustles my jimmies, very much akin to my referenced culinary snob commentary. Saying it's great but only people "in the know" will get its greatness is an immediate red flag, imo. It ascribes knowledge to everyone who likes it and ignorance to everyone who does not. Just a personal pet peeve from dealing with actual art school students and culinary asshats for the better part of 20 years. It comes off as incredibly pretentious, even if it is absolutely dead on. Which is probably why it sounds pretentious in this case. So yeah, itchy trigger finger on the rustling there.

My apologies for the mini-rant, Campbell~

Rezz no worries my man