Nope (dir. Jordan Peele)

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.

Oh also, I think this was said already but maybe not explicitly: the alien started avoiding both horses and after it ate the fake one, so the actual plot hole is the idea that it would chase after OJ on the back of a horse.

This didn’t bother me but it’s the bit where the movie’s internal logic didn’t mesh; everything else did if you were engaged with what the movie was doing.

OJ put two giant eyes on the back of his hood, so I figured that's what the monster was fixating on.

I kept wondering if said eyes were...always there? Like is that some sort of protective thing movie workers have on hoodies to like signal others in case of night shoots or whatever, which made me wonder if he forgot they were on there? Or did I miss a scene where he attached them?

Jeans Guy 2022

It has been a long time since I’ve been haunted by a movie like this

It lingers.

finally got around to this yesterday and loved. i'm kinda shocked at how simple it seemed to be, considering all the talk i've heard about it being hits confusion puzzle box? i went in expecting to be v confused but in the end i feel like everything fit together pretty neatly by the end. maybe if i'd seen it at home i would have missed more due to small screen + distractions, seeing it in the cinema i was pretty rapt the entire time soaking up all the details. i thought Us was a disaster so this was a nice surprise.

*"being this confusing puzzle box", jfc phone

Michael Wincott was playing the role Lance Henrikson would have played 20+ years ago, wasn’t he

I rewatched King Kong last week. Obvious of most obvious low-hanging fruit: Remember how Kong freaked out when the press photographers started photographing him with flash-powder cameras?

Yeah I thought this was his most straightforward movie to date

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.

― Vance Vance Devolution (sic), Thursday, August 4, 2022 3:41 PM (two weeks ago) bookmarkflaglink

I do remember noticing the Jefferson side of the nickel--whatever anyone here thinks of Thomas Jefferson he's a seriously problematic figures in some parts these days.

It’s pretty obvious (to me anyway) that the creature is forcefully ejecting non-digestible material, so any escape velocity issues are not on the table

I’ve never seen Jaws but this felt very similar in spirit to what I know about that story

See "Jaws"!!!!!!!!!!!

xp I believe it’s meant to be from the monster—IIRC, earlier in the scene there is a news snippet on the radio that a group of hikers in the area have gone missing, i.e., eaten.

that quote was from Josh, for anyone not keeping a spreadsheet

Dan come to Seattle in two weeks and see the imaxified Jaws with me

xps Yeah the King Kong parallel is so obvious that I completely missed it until my second watch of Nope. It's definitely a watershed moment for any history of cinema and "spectacle": where once we had Frankenstein's monster, misunderstood and vilified due to its lack of publicity, henceforth we will have celebrity monsters driven over the edge by intrusive media attention.

You know what "Jaws"-adjacent movie I kept thinking of both times I saw this? "Lake Placid."

this fuckin ruled

Yep thought so too. Simple concept but so cleverly written. And shot beautifully. Probably as good as Get Out, maybe better