Saw "Us"

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(04-01-2019, 06:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Good scary movie.

Not the greatest movie of all time like some people are hyping it to be, but it was a good solid scary movie.

I also thought "Get Out" was a good movie, but also over-hyped.

Jordan Peele is hot right now, and I like his stuff. I used to watch "Key and Peele" and liked that too. But I don't see him as the great genius that some are making him out to be.

Get Out is arguably the best thriller (its NOT a horror film) of the past 5 years and it is deliciously done; EVERY little thing, from dialogues, to settings, to colours, character motivations, etc., are all intertwined and all have something to do with something else; read into it on IMDB, TV Tropes, etc., where the film is truly broken down and deconstructed and you will find just absolutely stellar and brilliant writing from beginning to end.

Peele's films involve you digging in to get every little meaning and bit of symbolism, etc., to get the most out of his films (which I know, is not for over 50% of moviegoers nowadays).

(04-01-2019, 08:57 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Peele's metaphor, social commentary, and symbolism game is 10/10. The actual horror aspect is more like a 6/10. Like you put it, it shapes up to be a solid flick, if not amazing. I personally liked Get Out more than Us, although that might just be because I prefer the kind of horror of Get Out over Us. 


The thing I like most about his films is that they truly deserve a second and even third viewing. Both for things you missed and things that take on an entirely new meaning.

As much as we disagree on videogames, you put every word perfectly there lol.

Us is more of a horror film (even then, wouldn't TRULY call it a horror film, but it checks off the list a lot more than Get Out), which is why I don't like it as much as Get Out.

Also, IMO, not written as well (with a few inconsistencies, whereas Get Out had nary a flaw in it's writing).

(04-01-2019, 09:53 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: A Quiet Place was extraordinary IMO. It had the balance of good horror and good filmmaking. I highly suggest it.

Right-on again.

Didn't like the film at all, but a fantastic concept, executed splendidly.

(04-02-2019, 01:30 AM)Benton Wrote: To the OP: Plan on checking it out. I liked "Get Out" but I guessed 90% of the movie in the first half hour or so. The acting and pace was good enough to keep me interested, but it wasn't the "WTF!? just happened!?" I like out of a good horror movie.

Again though, it isn't a horror film; its a psychological film that falls squarely and perfectly, into the thriller/suspense genre.

Aside from Walter's running and the (non-developed) scare-chord of Georgina following Chris, when he goes out for a phag in the middle of the night, there isn't a single classic horror-element, contained in the film.

*maybe* the deer at the beginning.

(04-09-2019, 10:26 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: ***Spoilers ahead. Please don't continue reading if you haven't seen Us yet. It is so worth not having a single thing spoiled.***






I thought Us was a really good movie, if for no other reason than it made you question who was the bad guy by the end of it. Movies that take a straight forward concept and make it not as clear always get a gold star in my book.

Where it fell apart was the actual logic within the universe. Like...the clones seemed to be forced to do the exact same thing as those above them, except when they didn't. The young boy, for example, had to mimic his mirror perfectly (to the extent of just outright killing himself), but the clones of daughter and husband (and almost every other tethered we see in the movie) was not bound by the rule once they were on the surface. And what happens when someone moves to a new city? Does the clone somehow teleport to the tunnels under that new city? Or do they only mimic the gestures and emotions of the person rather than their literal movement? And, if Adelaide was the tethered at first, how did she break her tether to come up the escalator to meet Red in the first place? Why did living in the tunnels almost instantly turn Red into the tethered, despite being in control for the ~9 years prior to that?

To continue with the questions that this story created, who was feeding the rabbits? Were they just reproducing so fast that they didn't need actual food? Because I can't imagine the tethered were feeding them anything...And who was preparing the rabbits to be eaten in the similar fashion that the normal people were eating carnival food? If someone were in a car and got into a crash, how would the tethered recreate this act, since we saw with the people on the roller coaster that they are not actually experiencing the momentum of the ride, just simulating the vibrations of it.

I really liked the symbolism and message (it can be interpreted many different ways, but the basic message I received from the movie was the main thing separating poor/uneducated/violent people and normal people is opportunity. Adelaide was a tethered, but she still led an extremely fulfilling life simply by being given the chance and resources afforded to normal people), but you kind of had to suspend your disbelief on all of these questions to really appreciate the movie. The story could have been more logical and more tightly wound and still gotten that message across.

The bottom line is I loved the movie, but wished they had made more of an effort to ground it in the logic of the universe they created (expecting real world logic out of a fantasy horror is unrealistic, but expecting a fantasy horror to follow its own rules is not unrealistic, in my opinion).

The first bold, I feel gets explained with Jason; the tethered CAN mirror each other, when they focus their minds to do so (Jason was only ever able to, "control," Pluto, when he focused and tried to do it); thus, anything that requires a lot of work and focus, would cause the tethered to do the same (hence why Red mirrors Adelaide while dancing).

However! We only ever see them do these mundane tasks or whatever, as kids (or younger people); once they are older, it appears that they have a bit more free reign (though this can be expunged by the fair-goers when Adelaide and Red first head down in 1986, as they are perfectly mimicking their above counterparts.).

Also, once they get above, we only see Jason and Pluto mimicking each other, not anyone else (adding further credence to the "young," theory) and I think it is implied that once they are above, they no longer are, "tethered," and can freely act as they wish (scissors being super symbolism here as well, obviously; fully, "cutting," the tether, by killing their above counterparts with scissors).

Its a long and not super-strong theory, but it does hold water somewhat.

The second bold I think is even easier; "tethered," only refers to the fact that they are, "chained," to their above counterparts. Thus, by Red going into the funhouse, Adelaide mimicked her very move, until they met face to face.

Again, now being above ground, she can act as she wishes, choking out red and chaining her to the bed. Once she goes above and takes Red's place, the mimicry continues, but in reverse; how that switch is enabled, is a bit of a mystery, however it is consistent with being tethered to your counterpart.

The rest, I basically brought up with my wife as the film went on myself, the rabbits in particular (about who is feeding them).

I gave the film a 9/10 and will stand by that.

But Get Out is a 10/10