natureslayer
natureslayer
natureslayer

The idea of eugenics and creating a master race was a US import. A movement to develop a “genetically superior” population started in the United States in the late 19th century, and really took root in California in the first three decades of the 20th century. The California eugenicists directly courted German

Well that turned out well didn’t it? Do you think that the Iranian revolution in 1979 would have still happened if not for the coup d’état in 1953? No wonder there’s so much hatred for the West in the Middle East.

You say that as if many of his ideas hadn’t been imported from the US in the first place.

Hitler should have been more patient. If he had just waited 70 years, he wouldn’t have had to invade.

1605 or so?

So one of the ways Roosevelt sold the war was by scaring the American public with the idea of NATZI MEXICANS swarming over the border? Has there EVER been a time that Americans haven’t been obsessed with their southern border? 

Just be glad the French never got their shit together, or you’d be living in a country governed by the ideas of Jerry Lewis!

So WW1 was on the up-and-up?

That’s twice the Brits douped the U.S. into engaging in conflict with another country. The other being convincing the U.S. that Iran would fall to communism had they not acted to overthrow their Prime Minister in ‘53.

See, I disagree entirely with the idea that the supernatural cuts out the nuance of the mental illness angle, human tragedy or emotional investment. The supernatural elements are just a metaphor for that. It’s literally the oldest tricks in the horror playbook, going back to foundational horror stories such as folk

This is a predictable response from RT users. They hated The Witch (57%), It Follows (65%), It Comes at Night (44%) and every other well-received, challenging arthouse horror film, too. They usually love simple genre flicks like The Conjuring (82% user score), which A24 does not deliver. Their films don’t cater to

You’re right - I was dreading that happening because it’s so heavily hinted that he’s going to lose his eyes.

tfw somebody who uses the phrase “self-indulgent creative onanism” calls a movie “too smart.”

“My only criticism is that the ending explains itself too much. Feels like studio intervention.”

I’m sorry you didn’t like it. I liked it a lot! Of course, I don’t really care all that much about horror movies, I just thought it was a very well made film.

Horror movies should teach us by now to never flip past page 5 of a child’s sketch book.

  • I, too, was expecting a slow burn, atmospheric allegorical indie film. This is definitely not that. This is like The Exorcist meets Audition with the relentless dread of We Need to Talk About Kevin and the batshit House of the Devil ending.

So a spoiler question: I’ve seen a bunch of people arguing that the ending of the movie establishes that Charlie was Paimon all along. I . . . didn’t get that sense at all? Certainly, the idea is that the cult had prepared her to serve as Paimon’s host all along, but to me it seems reductive to suggest that this

Hereditary wasn’t what I was expected. From all the SXSW talk and A24's other critical darlings, I expected a moody, psychological family drama that was all strong screen-cap worthy imagery and scenes set in mostly silence but with this audible hum in the background. A bit of “is it all in her head?” and a metaphor

Hereditary is not “scary.” It is horribly mis-advertised. The trailers make it seem like it is about the spirit of the dead grandma terrorizing people and it isn’t like that at all.