Nope (dir. Jordan Peele)

hahahahaha

god level bbcode

Aw

In relevant news I am sitting through previews in advance of my second viewing, very excited, decided I couldn’t wait

Great wisdom

I will say I'm very, very glad I missed pretty much all spoilers aside from the trailers themselves -- didn't know if that would be the case after having to wait a week but hey.

I had NO idea what this thing was about before yesterday's viewing.

my review? Yep

It wasn't explicitly shown, but I got the impression O.J. and Em's dad was equal parts showman and horse whisperer/trainer, and his kids ended up as one or the other.
I know I've seen the premise of children having to work together to become like the parent who's gone before, but no great comparisons are coming to mind.

As for the Gordy situation, definitely a case where a character's prior experience is shown to make it clear they learned nothing from it. O.J. has at least one line where he explicitly spells out it's not a ship but a beast, and you shouldn't look it in the eye but it can still be broken if you figure out the rules. The bit where he's recreated the globe mirror is just connective tissue for him to realize that.

I was paying pretty close attention to the audio cues, and the bit where O.K. is out after dark and Yeun's character is practicing some new show after dark has some audible phrases that don't directly reference the alien, but obviously allude to it. And the kids are wearing alien costumes! And O.J. clocks a child (albeit wearing a padded mask) in the head! lol.

The entire spelling out of a fictional SNL scene had a lot of layers, and I'm sure Peele heard all the stories. Like the SNL folklore that Kattan would boost appearances of a certain character he'd play when there'd be an attractive guest, so he could do his Mr. Peepers routine and hump them

Jupe saying that the sketch absolutely nailed it was both him downplaying it, and the script dunking on that recurring character imo

It’s stated repeatedly that Jupiter “didn’t learn” from the Gordy experience but I think he “learned” something very precise— that he is a special child star who a hostile entity would reward with an exploding fist bump rather than a face removal

Second viewing revealed that the Gordy -> Star Lasso sequence was the truly gripping heart of the movie

Also Peele is an (almost) perfect filmmaker with that (almost) being the caveat that he has a tendency to obscure his character expositions— almost as if he has spent so much time with the script and in the editing room that his own intimacy with the material and characters is assumed as shared by the audience. (Almost) in brackets because I consider this tendency to be more of an asset than a fault— repeated viewings of his movies are incredibly rewarding, once you’re on the same page as Peele it all is just a tour de force, and you can forgive not “getting it” the first time

Second viewing bravos go to Jupiter and Emerald’s simultaneous “where’d you get yours?” shouts (about the decoy), the incredible sound design— quiet horse and people screaming at all times that the entity is prowling, and the just-noticed “what’s a name for a bad miracle?” “Nope.” rejoinder.

I think this movie is making a point about the nature of panopticon-exploitation and there are meant to be clear parallels between Gordy/the horses and human groups— also that exploitative models reproduce themselves in more successful (mutually respectful) and less successful (everybody dies) forms

fgti otm. I always love reading your thoughts on films!

The movie felt like several weird dreams nested within one another and, yes, I need to see it a second time.

That's a good way to put it.

What I loved about this movie is that it, like "Us," is ripe for so much investigation and interpretation it's practically critic proof, because even if you think it misses the mark on something, you have to at least consider that *you* are missing the mark, and explore the movie even deeper. For example, right now I'm wondering, hmm, Jupe knew about it for a while, why was *his* reaction not to try to sell it (or a picture of it, or rights or something like that) for millions but to incorporate it into his little show in the middle of nowhere for a dozen people? I don't know. I was thinking maybe just ego, as a former child star who seems to be wanting for less than OJ and his sister? Or maybe more specifically, as a damaged former child star who has outwardly buried his trauma but perhaps has in a sense self-isolated, because he's clearly invented a world of comforting lies (like his affinity for the recreated SNL skit over the horrifying reality he witnessed) to help himself survive?

Or the origin of the creature itself (not that it matters), I was wondering if there were any clues given that I missed. Like, the monkey is triggered. The horse on the soundstage is triggered. Was there maybe a passing reference to something triggering the creature? I was wondering why a voracious food-vacuuming predator would set up territory in the middle of nowhere.

BTW, anyone else notice what a good job Kaluuya did approximating Keith David's voice?

he was hard to understand at times, not gonna lie

That's apparently just the way all movies are mixed now.

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