Nope (dir. Jordan Peele)

xp No references to what triggered it, but if you listen during the montage of early morning farm shots where we are first introduced to Otis Sr. and O.J., there is a radio report about a missing group of hikers in Agua Dulce

Good catch! No wonder the creature was so hungry, it had set up territory in this totally unpopulated region.

A chat with the editor

https://gizmodo.com/jordan-peele-nope-editor-horror-gordys-home-shoe-alien-1849357760

Was just reading comments re: Alfred's review elsewhere, and I actually agree with one person that much of the movie *was* kind of boring (imo). But I kind of appreciated it, because I also agree with a comment that a lot of people *are* grasping at thematic/metaphoric straws to make sense of the movie but, as I opined, I think that's a success even in failure. It's *worth it* to grasp at straws in this movie's case, because it's so rich in straws and ambiguous in how they have been scattered and introduced.

In the case of purported boringness, to me it reflected the practical, almost matter of fact reaction Em and OJ (and in a sense Jupe) have to this absolutely insane discovery, even *after* the horror of it, er, raining blood. They don't run, they don't hide. I find that almost blase, certainly not particularly fearful reaction in line with certain straws I've seen grasped re: the aspects of the movie working as a metaphor for persecution, police brutality and its relationship with being caught on camera (which is of course one of the many loose themes of the film: making movies, being the star of a movie/TV show, being the subject of a news crew, being the target of a paparazzi, the constant hunt for filmed content, etc.). Some react to the creature as news. Some as tabloid bait. Some as something to hide from. Some as something to try and tame. But OJ and Em react to it almost with mundane recognition: yep, here's yet another horrible thing trying to oppress us, what else is new, we should probably catch this on camera to prove to the world that it exists.

I agree that Peele could have developed his themes more, or maybe more explicitly, but I'd prefer things remain underdeveloped/ambiguous than too on the nose/"do you see!?". Lots of good stuff in this rich Hollywood Reporter piece I just saw:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/nope-ending-explained-jordan-peele-1235185106/

(Unrelated quick nitpick: the coin that kills Otis Sr., was that refuse from the monster or is it meant to be ambiguous, too? Either way, a coin from the sky wouldn't fall fast enough to do that kind of damage, it would have to be fired like a bullet, but that's the kind of ambiguity that truly doesn't matter.)

What if Jupe's unwitting been... waiting for the other shoe to drop most of his life?

I wouldn't be shocked if there was a shot I missed of the shoe knocked over in Jupiter's Claim.

it is obviously refuse from the monster

and they do in fact hide out from the monster at angel's house after it rains blood and viscera all over the house. it's a whole sequence

Yes, Brad. But they go right back to the ranch.

I liked a lot of the smaller details too, like how in the trailer, it looks like Em is the one who's all enthusiastic about the horse trainer gig, and OJ seems so blase about it, when in the movie, it shows she's just a trained performer doing a memorized bit, to the point where she even left off a 'great' for 'great grandfather' because she memorized her dad's speech word for word without adjusting it. and OJ is the one who is overwhelmed by his father's legacy but wants to keep the business alive.

I've been whining for two years about the average movie time, but Nope is the first blockbuster that didn't get me to look at my watch once.

misrepresenting the events of this film to make a point about how they react to the monster "almost with mundane recognition" (not sure i agree with that from what's evident on the screen) is almost as bad as saying it's boring but in a good way (it's not boring)

they go back to the ranch for a whole host of reasons but the one that seemed to burn strongest through the dialogue was the sense of responsibility oj felt for the horses (and by proxy his dad) idk

there's almost certainly a "capturing police brutality on camera" reading that can be affixed on this film but not at the expense of what the characters are thinking and feeling in their own contexts

Yes, he says aloud he's thinking about the horses.

it's not boring

Boring/not boring would seem to be a wholly subjective response, not something you assert as fact. I can guarantee I was 100% bored the last half-hour. If it's any consolation, I was bored in the bad way.

clem we're aware that you disengaged from this film entirely as you were watching it, thanks

Hey, if you guys can hammer home what you think is great about the film, a dissenting voice isn't the end of the world.

the last half hour was great, shout out to all the inflatable arm-waving tube men

I did think of Nope yesterday as I passed an inflatable arm-waving tube man, and probably will continue to do so for some time, so that's something.

The fact that we’re going back and forth so much about this movie (from various angles) is a point in its favor, in my opinion.

Nothing sucks more than a media thread that drops dead a week or a few days after its release.

And I'll again say that, flawed though I thought they were, I was so impressed by many things about Peele's first two films that my disappointment in the third exists within that context. If the first two had made no impression on me, I doubt I'd be so adamant about the third. Ditto Phantom Thread, ditto The Wolf of Wall Street, ditto Everybody Wants Some!, ditto lots of films I recoiled from by people who've made films I love.

xposty Silly argument, I know he purportedly went back for the horses; perhaps felt particularly guilty for selling other horses to a guy feeding them to a sky monster. He's a horse guy, and owes them/his dad loyalty. At the same time, it's a territorial sky monster that sucks up people (and horses) and spits out their visceral remains. "Going back for the horses" to me *is* a strangely mundane, practical reaction to that, because he's got to know there's a very good chance both he *and* the horses will be chewed up and spit out. (Maybe, like the cinematographer, he wants that.) But I don't think it's misrepresenting the characters to call their response to a terrifying and *avoidable* monster mundane. I mean, Em and Angel don't go back for the horses, they go back to continue their mission to get it on film, when the most reasonable reaction to events would be to, um, *get out.* Heck, even OJ, sure, he goes back to feed the horses (or whatever), but what he conspicuously *doesn't* do is pack them up in a trailer and take them somewhere where they are less likely to be eaten.

This is actually one of my favorite oblique "Jaws" references. What's the reaction to a giant shark eating a kid? MORE people go in the water. Some to catch it, some to kill it, most with no idea how to do either, some slightly more competent than others, and so on. OJ def. has some stony unflappable Quint vibes to him, but for sure the cinematographer is Quint all the way.

My daughter observed that after months of normal horse-sized meals, the monster gorged on a few dozen people so it barfed up blood and not just undigestible metal because it overate. Not just Jean Jacket but also Monsieur Creosote.

blood barf part was amazing.

not to mention the shot of the people post-being sucked up

where did the creature's waste go?

the other bit that made it puke organic matter this time was the ribbon on the fake horse decoy getting stuck in its craw

yes, this is how they learn that certain types of non-organic matter agitate the creature, and that it is also drawn to flag banner thingys, and use that knowledge in the future

(Unrelated quick nitpick: the coin that kills Otis Sr., was that refuse from the monster or is it meant to be ambiguous, too? Either way, a coin from the sky wouldn't fall fast enough to do that kind of damage, it would have to be fired like a bullet, but that's the kind of ambiguity that truly doesn't matter.)

A point so ambiguous that Peele deliberately had OJ say that the "falling from a plane" explanation didn't work for him, even before OJ had any other reason to be suspicious, and took multiple opportunities to show that the creature ejects non-organic matter after normal digesting, including deliberately paying off the initial coin and key drop with closeups of other coin/key type things being fired so hard that they embedded into wood, not just soft tissue.

At the same time, it's a territorial sky monster that sucks up people (and horses) and spits out their visceral remains.

It has never spat out visceral remains before. He now has a data point that shows how badly its feeding cycle was disrupted on this one occasion, which he attempts to use against it.

Also, iirc there have been occasional, rare IRL examples of an animal caretaker acting to protect their animals from predators.

Hey, it's sic!

OK one thing that threw me (and it is prolly because I spaced out for a minute during this part) is that
--the monster likes the rainbow flags
--the monster got sick from eating the rainbow flags
--OJ says something like "I bet he won't be eating that for a while" iirc
--then he draws out the monster using ... rainbow flags?

Didn't they just set it up that they agree the monster would NOT want flags anymore?

I thought it was just the realization that it gave the monster indigestion, not that it had necessarily learned not to eat it. I imagine when you're a giant vacuum monster you end up eating a lot of stuff you wouldn't choose to eat.

The monster very obviously recoils in fear/disgust when O.J. deploys his colorful flag & drag chute apparatus.

^ That's exactly where I spaced out... For some reason I thought monsty was chasing the flags

monster is going for perceived eye contact
the giant inflatable cowboy has the flags attached, but it also has huge, unblinking eyes and is just a huge target that, it turns out, is not edible

false flags

Monster never liked flags. Monster liked horses, monster ate a fake horse, monster gets sick, flags were attached to the horse, monster now hates flags and may be skeptical about horses also

Of all the things I enjoyed about this movie, one thing I appreciated most, which other directors and studios will hopefully embrace:

THE TRAILER DIDN'T GIVE THE GAME AWAY!

I knew this was the west, cowboys, horses, maybe some aliens or some shit. But that’s it. It was so wonderful to be made curious but just not know the story in advance. More of that, Hollywood!

Yeah, my big beef with Get Out was that it basically told the whole movie in the trailer, and the Alamo played the trailer so much

I took it that the flapping of the flags drew critter’s attention, but only enough to then make perceived eye contact to have a chomp. But they might have been mainly for the audience’s visual tracking benefit, in which case “false flags” otm

(Almost certain that the indigestion was from eating a full-sized fiberglass horsey, not from having its throat tickled by flags)

THE TRAILER DIDN'T GIVE THE GAME AWAY!

Honestly kinda amazing. But the movie played it smartly too -- you get the 'flying saucer' fairly early on and if you'd seen the trailer you knew about it and could go 'oh okay.' Until...

Saw this at a matinee yesterday, loved it, been thinking about it ever since. I loved the design of the creature, reinventing the classic "flying saucer" into something much more uncanny. Excellent performances, incredible building of tension/dread. I haven't felt such tension watching a movie in ages.

Quibbles: I thought they could've done more with Steven Yeun's character, the psychology of that guy is clearly so fucked up, but that might have distracted from the focus on OJ and Emerald, so I get why they didn't. As much as I enjoyed Michael Wincott's presence, (and that VOICE), his character kinda felt like deadweight. It might have been better to take another page from Jaws and really narrow the focus to the core trio.

He reminded me of Breaking Bad's Jonathan Banks.

Agreed that Michael Wincott was non-essential personnel, but having his gravel voice and Eastwood grimace in the trailer got me like 30% more hyped about the movie than I already was.

*long silence*

“It’s a pur-ple peo-ple eater …”

Hahah I'd almost forgotten that moment.

I remember thinking “is this really happening right now”

That part was so good

i loved wincott in this, didn't feel extraneous to me at all

Saw it again today, was even better the second time. Still don't think there's a particularly good reason given for them going back to the ranch with the cinematographer beyond getting the picture/movie* - Angel justifies it by suggesting maybe they will save lives/the planet in addition to getting rich and famous - but doesn't matter. There are lots of little details I missed the first time around, too, that were more evident the second time (like the way OJ often communicates with people like they're horses, with clicks or specific hand motions, or, heck, that Jupe has a rhinestone UFO embroidered into his Nudie Suit). Still not sure what to make of the cinematographer's role, exactly, except I think it's implied he's dying, and if he's going to go, he wants to go getting the proverbial impossible shot, to capture what no one else could capture (because it means death).

*It's almost a flip of the original Eddie Murphy "get out" routine. In fact, the first time I saw the movie the lady behind me even said "it's like 'The Amityville Horror' ... " when they showed the house dripping blood.

I just wanted to point out that Em stole a fake horse to lure the creature out so they could take a picture of it without sacrificing a horse; I’m not sure that was explicitly said on the thread and flopson seemed confused why she did it.

This was great. Also I am never going outside again.