Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General' started by Workshed, Jan 9, 2017.
Yep got the DVD gonna watch it friday
I don't know. This one just doesn't appeal to me at all. Plus, I have the feeling that this is WAY overhyped. It just happened to hit a certain cultural nerve at the right time I think. What's the consensus guys? I might watch it on Netflix eventually.
The hype is justified, my friend. It's a really well made film. Very entertaining, you'll enjoy it I promise, especially with your low expectations. It's worth a purchase.
Alright, you convinced me. Lol.
I agree. The hype is real. Very well made film. I can't think of a single instance the plot could have been done better.
Great example of a done-in-one film, where the audience is treated to it all: setup, characters, reveal, and denouement. In the genre, even this is a rarity, but for it to be so competently put to screen is a bonus. The performances were ace (loved Rod, played by Lil Rey Howery), and what laughs there were never strayed into pop culture references or cheap gags. Instead, the laughs were all of the nervous kind, like, "What the hell is going on here?"
What I most appreciated is that while, yes, there is a Message to this film, the film can be viewed without said message battering the audience over the head. The viewer is free to look into the film and explore its message as deeply or as nonchalantly as the viewer wishes--or not at all. Get Out can also be viewed as a straight-ahead horror/thriller. It works on all these levels. Congratulations to Jordan Peele. Can't wait for what he produces next.
Amazed at the positive comments this is getting. I watched it with a friend and we both thought it was laughably bad. Was tempted to just turn it off but decided to keep watching for the unintentional "so bad it's good" laughs of which there were many.
Overall 4/10 , but as satire/comedy/laughable propaganda an 8/10.
Finally got around to watching this and I don't understand all the hype at all. It wasn't terrible or bad but I didn't think it was anything special. The main mystery to what is going on
is given away way too soon towards the start of the film. I certainly didn't care as much after knowing that. Sure there's another little twist to it at the end
the weird brain swapping
but it doesn't make much of a difference or impact as that side of things just feels irrelevant.
I did like the smart black friend that was pretty much on the money with what was going on. He was a good laugh and I would have liked to see more of his character. It was also nice to see other smart characters making smart decisions.
Apart from that though I found this pretty ordinary. I expected much much more after the hype that was following this. I also agree with others that mentioned this not being scary at all besides the dude running full force at the camera.
It's at 7.7 on IMDB, surely proof that a large part of a movie's budget is now allocated to buying fake internet reviews.
I went into this with only moderate expectations and even with that, I still felt it was a bit of a let down. Not a bad movie in my opinion, but I really didn't see any reason for all the hype it has received.
Same for me. Lately, reviewers seem to focus more on political correctness than actual film quality. I thought Get Out had some interesting but highly derivative ideas, and competent but uninspiring execution. Should it be one of the highest-rated horror films in recent memory? I certainly don't think so. Most professional reviewers now seem to bow to political pressure, so movies with PC messages get inordinately, and undeservedly, high reviews because reviewers are justifiably afraid of the backlash a negative review might invite.
Get Out bothered me because it would undoubtedly be reviled as horrifically racist if the black and white characters were reversed. I'm not a political person, so I find the politicization of the entertainment industry really irritating. It's not just this movie. I've yet to see Wonder Woman because most of the positive reviews devoted more attention to openly celebrating female empowerment than discussing the merits of the film itself. I'm not interested in whether or not it's socially progressive (in the eyes of some others). I just want to know whether or not a movie is GOOD.
It's getting harder and harder to trust the critics. If movies were judged on the merits of their messages, some of the greatest films ever would get skewered--and Patch Adams would be celebrated as a ground-breaking movie about what's wrong with the medical industry in the United States.
I just watched it and found it to be over hyped. I want to read the wiki and maybe write a small review. The movie was kind of spoiled for me as I heard some people comparing it to another recent sci-fi movie. So I kind of put together what was going on before even watching the movie. I just thought there would be more to it. After I watched the movie as I usually do I watched the trailer. And I was surprised to see the trailer essentially tell the whole story of the movie from beginning to end. It Follows deserves to make the money that Get Out made. But there was a lot more promotion and hype for Get Out. They made it seem like one of the best recent horror movies.
I kind of disagree. I mean how many BS by-the-numbers horror films do we need? Even It Follows had subtext (and one could construe it as political if one wanted to). I believe horror films can be transcendent when they tap into politics and gender, race, etc. whether it is the red scare inspired 50s (The Thing, Body Snatchers) the USSR/Aids influence on 80s with slashers and body horror, NOTLD inadvertently tackling race, Dawn tackling consumerism horror can be really compelling when it tries to be more, as I feel Get Out was.
Having said that I appreciate a mindless slasher or gore fest as much as the next guy. But horror should be allowed to go ALL the places it wants to go.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I don't object to political film-making. All filmmakers do indeed have the right to go wherever they want. The horror and sci-fi genres have always allowed for discussion of taboo topics that scared the big studios to death. That's obviously one of the most important reason for genre films to exist. They can address topics that are too divisive for the summer blockbusters.
My problem with Get Out is the outrageously universal critical praise it got despite the fact that it's highly derivative, predictable, and unremarkable in every way. Yet critics somehow rated it as one of the greatest horror movies ever. Do you really feel it's THAT good? Are critics reviewing the actual film, or kowtowing to those who would reflexively respond to negative reviews with accusations of racism? It bothers me that we live in a culture where critics are unable to express their true opinions without facing irresponsible accusations and knee-jerk firings and demotions in the name of "justice." Movies with PC messages, especially those involving race, are not objectively evaluated by industry critics. They're treated with kid gloves. A quick perusal of Get Out's aggregate review scores at rottemtomatoes or metacritic suggests that it's a genre-defining masterpiece. That's ludicrous. It's not remotely on par with a film like Night of the Living Dead (which makes similarly challenging observations about the same topic).
I don't want filmmakers to be hampered in any way, shape, or form. I just want critics to receive the same freedom of expression--regardless of their political leanings.
^ Do you honestly believe that's what happened though, just because the consensus doesn't align with your personal experience of the movie? Maybe the critics just saw something in it you didn't? It happens. Critical reviews aside, Get Out also has fairly high audience scores. Those ratings are faceless, and nobody has to wear a rating for the sake of being PC, as you're implying.
I don't think The Exorcist is as great as everyone says it is. I'm also not totally enamored with Carpenter's The Thing, which many consider to be his best film. Are they wrong?
I'm going to steal this example from Adam Green, as it's one he frequently uses on his podcast, but here goes: try to think of a universally beloved film. One that you've never heard anyone say they don't like. The example Green always uses is Raiders Of The Lost Ark, but I'll go with the #1 rated movie on IMDB: The Shawshank Redemption. Now click on the rating (in this case, 9.3/10). You should see a chart, breaking down the ratings of the movie. You'll also see that 30,959 people rated the movie a 1, the lowest rating you can give a movie on IMDB. Meaning they found absolutely ZERO redeeming values about the movie whatsoever. Not a single thing they liked about it. Look up your favorite movie and try it. Point being: maybe you're just that guy here?
Look, I'm not trying to change your mind or start an argument with you. You didn't like the movie, which is fine. I've been in the same boat plenty of times. It keeps the forums interesting. The issue is you're basically saying that nobody actually liked it; they just lied and said they did because they were worried about being considered racist? That's ridiculous. Nobody misled you, the movie just isn't for you.
Can't we all just be excited how well movies like It, Get Out, Happy Death Day, etc are doing at the box office? 2017 has been a big year for the genre, and Get Out and The Shape Of Water are even being discussed as genuine Oscar contenders, which is kind of a big deal. I think Warner is even pushing an Oscar campaign for It.
Not only that, but we should be excited about how diverse the genre offerings have been this year in comparison to the past few. We've had slashers, ghosts, evil dolls, psychological horror, sharks, creature features, aliens, torture porn, nostalgia trips, horror comedy, sequels, Stephen King adaptations, Christmas horror, found-footage, zombies / viral, teen horror, TV horror, you name it. There's something for everyone, so if Get Out isn't your thing there's still plenty to choose from. It's a good time to be a horror fan.
As for putting Get Out on the same platform as Night Of The Living Dead, it's pretty hard to compare the power of a film less than a year old to one that's approaching fifty years and still going strong. Time will tell.
I do feel fairly confident in predicting that Get Out (and It Follows, just for the sake of another example) is a genre movie that will have a shelf life.
I will say this. By no means do I see a single contribution to the horror genre, successful or not, as a justification for comedy genre Jordan Peele to step into Rod Serling's shoes for yet another Twilight Zone reboot.
Not as eyebrow raising a choice as Forest Whitaker, but it is clear latest hotness drove the decision.
Not that I have any faith that a third retread is going to be more than another name recognition cash-in pale imitation, regardless of who helms it. But Peele as a choice does not bode well, even if he at least has some of the appropriate social message chops.
I actually agree with most of what you're saying. No movie is for everyone. Horror movies are particularly divisive, and many critics give low reviews to virtually ALL of them. That's why it's so bizarre to see ANY horror movie get a 99% fresh rating at rottentomatoes. But, in this case, it's more than bizarre. It's suspicious. This is a genre picture with a politically divisive message, yet it received nearly unanimously positive reviews. I'm not sure you're taking into account how rarely that happens. Do you realize that less than 100 films IN THE HISTORY OF CINEMA have achieved a score that high? By my count the number is 44, now including Get Out. See below:
I'm not suggesting that all of these critics disliked the movie. I'm pointing out the extreme unlikelihood of all of them responding favorably to it. Do you honestly believe Get Out ranks among the top 44 movies of all-time? Or anywhere near that ballpark? If not, you might stop to consider the external factors involved. We're not talking about Get Out receiving generally favorable reviews. Based on the review, we're talking about whether or not it deserves to be considered among THE GREATEST FILMS OF ALL-TIME--not just the GREATEST HORROR FILMS OF ALL-TIME.
Forgive me for finding that more than slightly ridiculous--and for thinking that runaway political correctness might be part of the equation.
The aggregate scoring algorithms for RottenTomatoes and Metacritic leave a lot to be desired. I wouldn't use them when debating "greatest films of all time."
RottenTomatoes is essentially based on a pass/fail system and doesn't take into account how much or how little critics liked particular films. Crowd-pleasers will generally get more favorable scores, while more challenging films will tend to get lesser scores. If 100 / 100 critics rate a film as 3 stars on a 4 star system, which is basically a mild positive, that film gets 100%. On the other hand, if 95 /100 critics rate a film 4 stars while the remaining 5 critics give it 2 stars dislike it that film gets a 95%. If Film A greater than Film B just because it got more unanimous praise, even if the overall praise is generally weaker than Film B?
Metacritic takes individual critics scoring systems and shoves them into a conversion scale for their scoring system, without accounting for how the critics, themselves, would apply their scores to such a system. I'm particularly alarmed by the way they apply letter grades. If I were to use a 100 point scale, then letter grades would convert based on a standard academic grading system (90-100 = A, 80 - 89 = B, 70 - 79 = C, 60 - 69 = D and 59 or less = F). Metacritic's system doesn't work that way.
Interesting review of this film by a black film critic. He's known for going against the grain and boy does he. And he's correct imo.