Hereditary - 2018 Horror Film

This doesn't surprise me at all. Saw this one with my gal and a couple friends and I absolutely loved it while my gal absolutely hated it and thought it was the worst horror film we've seen since It Follows. Our friends didn't like it either. Both are movies with fairly high critical acclaim but many audience goers seemed to really dislike. And both films ultimately had several people get up and walk out mid way through when we saw them. So now if I pick out a horror movie to watch there's likely to be a "will it suck as bad as Hereditary?" snickering comment to follow.

 

As with all horror (or thrillers) films, there are tropes that exist within the genre. The trope that here isn't that unusual and was established early on in films like "Rosemary's Baby". This film very much plays with those expectation to a degree. If you're not a fan of the genre, I can see how it would seem preposterous to you but, having said that, you just have to suspend your disbelief in genre films of this sort. That doesn't mean idiotic plot points but coincidence plays a role in these type of films to a larger degree than many others.

 

I enjoyed it a lot, but it was the execution of the ending which I found to be disappointing. The resolution itself was fine, but once

Spoiler: SPOILER

the spirit started floating into the treehouse

happened followed by all the exposition, I was a bit disappointed. But until then, there was plenty I enjoyed, a different take on Rosemary's Baby. And I did see it in a suburban crowd on a Tuesday night who was very respectful. One particular guy was genuinely scared, not hamming up a performance, and at one point he yelped when someone in the audience sneezed.


Despite the D+ cinemascore, it still made an estimated $7 mil this weekend. A 46% drop may be unheard of for a score that low.

And for those of you who haven't seen this, no talking, texting or clucking during the movie:
Don't Cluck PSA | Milly Shapiro (Charlie) from HEREDITARY

Mark

 

I could list out all the problems I had with this film, but it might use up all the forum bandwidth. Suffice to say, I wasn't a fan.

 

I could offer up a long list of what I felt were "idiotic plot points". As one reviewer pointed out, "Aren't there any cops in this town?" Didn't Grandma make her own final arrangements? You would sure think so, being the controlling woman she was. If so, why'd she choose what she chose? To draw massive (well, maybe not massive, since they don't seem to have media in this town either) unwanted attention? Why did the two experiences with trying to get rid of the drawing book have vastly different results (other than the genre rule that things must forever escalate)? Why didn't any other student notice a woman standing outside the schoolyard screaming her head off? Maybe the cops could have come to check it out … oh yeah, I forgot, no cops.

 

Last point first—

1) she wasn’t there. It was part of the curse. He kept checking around to see if others had seen her
2) There are often times things that can occur outside of a narrative that audiences assume happened or that the director wants you to assume. For example the calls to the husband while one could have could me from the funeral home, we,don’t know who was calling them for the others. Would it have been better to show the police? In a film already over 2hours, I suspect that if there was a scene like that, it was one of the first to good.
3) As far as final arrangements go, perhaps she thought that she would be saved but realized that her grand daughter was beyond being able to help her hence the change in plans.

Supernatural thrillers and horror movies often come across as fever dreams. They extend beyond the scope of reality. I’m not saying you are wrong for disliking the movie but movie, like literature, perform a lot of different functions. The difference is that because we see the reality of it, we assume that real world rules apply. There are often things that fall outside the narrative scope of a film that the director hope she the audience assumes is there as there is an implied reality that exists outside it. I will, once again, point to Hitchcock as an example— there are many absurd things that can occur in a Hitchcock film some more outlandish than others but it’s all about if you are captured by the experience (not the logic) of a film. As you pointed out, you generally don’t enjoy or watch these types of movies. Cool. Having said that, do we expect realism from a surreal painting? No. The best way to thing of these type of films are as that. Some directors do make passing reference to the point you mentioned about the police but unless there’s a compelling reason for showing that scene where we learned something new that enhances the story, that’s the first to go.

 

I saw it this past weekend and I didn't care for it at all. I thought it was massively slow and, dare I say, boring. By the time it got to the end and was begging for it to be over -- and I very much liked It Follows.

The funny thing is, I went back and watched the trailer for Hereditary after I saw the movie and it seemed exciting and scary -- I want to see the movie that's hyped in the trailer!

When word about the file first started to make its way out to the public, I was pumped to see it. Unfortunately, I was very disappointed and I'm not surprised that you had moviegoers that walked out of the film.

 

A couple days after "Hereditary" I saw "Tag". Two films one probably wouldn't think to compare but … both have an outlandish conceit at their core. As with "Hereditary", "Tag" was a movie I would likely have not paid to see. It was the magic of Movie Pass that brought me. "Tag" isn't "Citizen Kane", that's for sure, but one of the things I enjoyed about the film was that it had an internal logic. It was aware of how ludicrous its central idea was. So they had protocols, rules, timeouts, truces, pacts … those made sense … all helping to explain, in a fun way, how this strange game might actually exist in the real world. "Hereditary" just chose to ignore the real world, which barely exists (and often doesn't exist) outside of the handful of main characters. At one point, Mom tells Dad "I just KNOW" regarding a certain plot point, which is about as lazy as a storyteller can get. "I can't show the audience why she knows this, I can't even explain why she might know this, or why this is even so, so I'll have her 'just know".

I've been going to the movies near on 50 years and have literally never walked out of a film. The last 15-20 minutes of "Hereditary" almost broke my streak.

 

I wouldn’t disagree that the film is flawed and there certainly were elements that were dumb but, having said that, even films that are considered classics have lapses of logic that are fairly substantial. Horror films and certain types of thrillers are more fever dream than logical and follow that. The internal logic of the film, aside from the “just know” line which IS lazy storytelling because, while we the audience know something weird is going on, the character she was talking to did not and just thought she was loony (which was part of the reason that she did just that—she supposed to be portrayed as loony to her husband) but most characters would try and explain what they think is goi g on to convince the other characters. No, if she were a psychic researcher and her family knew these things, that’s another story. The film has a lot in common with “Rosemary’s Baby”. I can excuse its flaws to look at the broader picture (so to speak)and it DID have its own internal logic (well sort of)but we as audience members either had to buy into that or not. No one behind the core family and key characters are shown interacting on this whole issue which leads the audience to the conclusion u til the last third that maybe she’s truly crazy. I think what irritated most folks at theend was the shift from what the story aappeared to be about vs. what it truly was about but there were some hints early on that this wasn’t your typical wack a mole game.

I can see your point of view but I can also see the critical consensus—the film takes many risks (and yep, there is some sloppy storytelling which could have easily been fixed with a single line of dialog like her husband asking “how did it go with the police” or “the police contacted me today” but this was also a very seccretive family and the lack of sharing plays to that element—not to excuse it). I think that sometimes film directors and producers get so wrapped up in the story they are telling that they miss the fact that there will be gaps where the audience sense of disbelief can either become stranded or lost.

Nevertheless, I respect what you’re saying about the film but look at it from a very different perspective. I had, for example, my reservations about “American Horror Story”and the use of Bowie songs and sequences better designed for a musical thrown in but, as someone pointed out to me, it was the fevered dream element co jog into play and playing with th conventions and expectations of the tropes of the genre. I think much of the same was true here. I dint think I’ve ever walked out of a movie but the only one I came damn close to in recent memory was “Mother”.

 

I think that the trailer was misleading—once expectations are set up based on a trailer, if the film is t quite the same, it makes audiences mad, disappointed. “Mother” was much the same way. After seeing the trailers for films today, I always disregard what I see because it’s about selling g the film and a great trailer will do that, create mystery and discussion about a film. A poor one will oversell one element and acts more as a con. The difference is a satisfied customer.

 

The ending was indeed poorly handled and seemed like it came from an entirely different director. It was clumsy with way too much exposition that we should have found out throughout the film and by other means. A twist to an ending can only work effectively if you’ve earned the good will of the audience. “The Sixth Sense” did that for example whereas “Thr Happening” did not.

 

I think you raise plenty of good points. I had similar objections to "A Quiet Place", which is another film that one is much more likely to enjoy if one is "caught up" in the film.

Since you mentioned "Mother" - FilmStruck had a small feature on Darren Aronofsky and 3 of his films. I had seen "Requiem for a Dream" which I thought was terrific except for the last 5-10 minutes, but I had never seen his feature debut, "Pi", which for a first film is awesome, IMO (and obviously something the makers of "Mr. Robot" watched a whole bunch of times). His third feature, "The Fountain", was, for me, a rare mix of being boring and incoherent. I had already seen "The Wrestler" and "Black Swan", both of which I liked (I wasn't aware of the director when I saw them). So now I'm inclined to see "Mother".

 

Saw it last night. Loved it.

 

Well, I saw it @ the cinema the other day and it scared me. It's debut film apparently, and so seems to try a bit too hard sometimes, IMO, but it's worth seeing.

 

Thought this movie would be a bigger hit around these parts. It definitely is one of those films that sticks with you after the fact.

 

Yes, it does. I liked it, but it didn't bowl me over as much as my two favorite recent horror movies - It Follows and The Witch. I think I first saw It Follows as a rental, but watched it three times that day before I took it back. And when I saw The Witch in the theater, I went back the very next day to see it again. Don't think I've ever done that with a movie in the theater before. Hereditary did some things very well, and I'd give it a solid 7.5/10, but it just didn't fascinate me the way the other two I mentioned did.

 

I was a little underwhelmed by It Follows (enormous hype) on my first viewing but grew to love it.

I saw The Witch 3x in the theater. I have never done that before.

I'm starting to think I'd like to see Hereditary again. (I went solo the first time. I might be able to drag my wife.)

What did you think of It Comes at Night? I rewatched that this week. So bleak though...

 

Same here. I need to re-watch it, as its been awhile. Very bleak. It had good atmosphere, but going by what I recall, I liked it, though I didn't think it was as well done as Hereditary. I wasn't thinking about It Comes At Night long after it was done.

 

Maybe the greatest horror movie since The Exorcist. The images will stay with you for a long, long time. And the acting, across the board, was phenomenal. It’s bleak man. Seriously bleak but so, so good.

 

Just saw this last night. I was aware that it was highly acclaimed by critics, but was not aware of the low ratings given by audiences that was reported later. I have to admit I spent most of the movie thinking, "why did people say this was so good?"

No offense to those of you who liked it. I can appreciate that it was well done and I am guessing people with more knowledge of the film-making process and/or the genre will get things out of this move that were lost on me.

 

It's on Prime. I'd rank the three: 1. The Witch 2. Hereditary with It Comes at Night a (pretty distant) third. Still worth seeing though.

 

I really enjoyed this movie. I started a thread about it at another website, but no one over there seemed to care or maybe they didn't watch it. Wrong forum, I guess. Toni Collette was utterly amazing. She should get another Oscar nomination.

 

I finally got around to seeing this (the last day it was showing at my local theater) and I loved it. It was easily one of the creepiest and most visceral horror movies I've ever seen. It's also a total success in terms of quality filmmaking in every way. I'm normally not that into horror, but all the hype and the intriguing trailer got me to see it and I'm so glad I did. I'm regretting missing A Quiet Place now, because I'm just starting to get onto the A24 horror train, and my experience with Hereditary makes me wish I'd seen more of them in the theater.

 

Whilst I enjoyed it the whole thing was so derivative it soon became clear what was going on, although the reveal was a slight surprise, nothing scared me and I can be easily scared.

It's a good film and it didn't drag for me but given the hype it was a big let down, my daughter really enjoyed it, she hasn't seen the films it harvests.

Toni Collette was fantastic but Gabriel Byrne didn't do it for me, perhaps because I wanted to take a hammer to his character.

I've given a reserved recommendations to my friends.

 

Byrne played the hardest character in the film in some respects--he played the role that had to be "grounded" in reality and his playing of the role was someone who suppressed a lot of rage under the surface at his wife, her issues and the impact it had on the family as a whole. He tried to come across as emotionally neutral and playing peacemaker in a volatile family with an emotionally damaged woman. It's hard to play a role like that and there were subtle shades that he brought to it but, yeah, since we see the film primarily from Collette's perspective and we aren't sure if she is a reliable character, it was frustrating because he also compartmentalized information for her such as what happened to the grave. It was an unconventional way to portray his character which came across as very passive compared to the volatile nature of Collette's character. I found myself frustrated with his character as well thinking that he should have exploded earlier or, at the very least, expressed his frustration but I think the way the character was portrayed was also designed to drive us more in Collette's character's corner. It also made her character seem even more unreliable to me. It's a difficult role to play something like that and garner audience sympathy. I could relate however as I had a dad who would sometimes do that type of stuff to just keep the peace in the family.

I really disliked "It Comes at Night" primarily because, while there was an ominous sense of foreboding and the "It" was really about the doubts that raged within the characters about the others (and also, of course, about the dreams that the main character has that makes him a worse risk than anyone else in or outside the family), it never exactly delivered on the element that was promised. It's a good film where I felt that the last third was a bit miscalculated. You can't promise something to the audience and not deliver and it's tricky with a horror film that is very much a tone poem. When it ended I couldn't help but think "that's it?" At least with "The Witch", "A Quiet Place" and "Hereditary" that was some sort of pay off. I think that a lot of folks dislike "Hereditary" is because 1) it isn't a "real world" horror film (i.e., where the characters do something that WE would expect in the real world if faced with a supernatural or deadly situation) 2) the twist caught a lot of folks off guard as the film comes across as one type of film and then shifts gears just a little bit into something very different.

"Hereditary" reminded of a risk that Hitchcock took with "Stage Fright". Audiences really disliked the film at the time because Hitchcock did something subtle using a shifting narrative perspective and unreliable narrator suggesting in the contradiction between the visual and audio narrative that things were not as they seemed. Audiences just wanted to be entertained and not have to pick up on that to enjoy the film. It's a trifle of a film to be sure but it has a brilliant sequence at the beginning that the entire film hinges on and it subverts his "wrong man" styled narratives. Some audience members didn't like that and they didn't like being played with whereas some really enjoy it. It creates a polarizing film and critics, well, a lot of them enjoy that type of stuff because they get subjected to brain dead and formula movies all the time. I think that also suggests the disconnect between Rotten Tomatoes for the critics vs. the audience members and people who complain are more likely to express their opinions than those who are happy.​