A Quiet Place (Emily Blunt and John Krasinski SciFi/Horror)

Fysh

As johnny-ultimate mentioned in his post, part of what was generally done well in this film is setting up circumstances where the repercussions are obvious to the audience and setting us wondering as to how that will turn out. There are a couple of silly moments

Blunt's character not checking what the sack is caught on, Kosinski's character not bothering to check the massive amount of water now flooding towards the basement, the daughter not trying to use her seemingly-weaponised hearing aid to stop her dad from being attacked or then suiciding himself to buy them time to escape

and some daft out-of-place jump scares, but if you let yourself go along with the movie the pace and tension-building are relentless. On top of which, there are some very nice moments which were happily bereft of exposition or OTT audience handholding, like

when Kosinski and the son find the old man whose wife has been killed, or when the lights get switched to red to indicate the level of danger

.

This was far better than the timed-with-a-stopwatch jumpscare every 8 minutes snoozefest I would expect from a Platinum Dunes production. If it doesn't work for you, fair enough (though honestly I've got no idea why you'd go tobthe cinema a second time to see a film you disliked first time around o_O).

Outlaw Pete

Greyfox wrote: »

.... the moment you hide in the spoiler is one that everyone would find very very difficult to stay quiet with and its followed by a moment almost impossible to stay quiet with.

I agree, I'm not suggesting otherwise.

Absolutely nothing wrong with the premise of the film whatsoever. It's the execution of it that I'm lamenting.

boylecm

Thought it was good but slightly sentimental

Outlaw Pete

Fysh wrote: »

I've got no idea why you'd go tobthe cinema a second time to see a film you disliked first time around o_O).

No idea? Really?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Seen it again as had to take someone to it........

Defunkd

I enjoyed it but didn't find it tense in the least bit. The person with me saw no trailer and had no idea what it was about and really liked it - which is unusual for her.
Good acting, i thought. Emily Blunt looks so much finer since "edge of tomorrow" and i was surprised with the space shuttle casualty.
Really liked the neil young music too.
My only real complaint is the ear-piercing musical stabs that came with the oď jump scare...going from silence to 11 on the volume wheel hurts.

Fysh

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No idea? Really?

The words are there, but they aren't telling me anything

It's rare for me to see a film at the cinema more than once in its initial release, inconceivable if I didn't love it first time around. Even if I were having to give someone a lift to and from the cinema so they could see it, I'd either go watch something else or just perch myself in a pub or coffeeshop with a book to wait for them.

Anyway. Sorry if my earlier post came across as a dig, I wasn't trying to have a go, just a bit perplexed.

gmisk

I saw this tonight and thought it was good, kept me pretty gripped, really good premise, well staged and acted, with some very decent scares. I think maybe let down a tad by a fairly predictable story, but overall enjoyed it.

Outlaw Pete

Fysh wrote: »

The words are there, but they aren't telling me anything

...just a bit perplexed.

You're perplexed by someone saying they had to take someone to the cinema?

Okay. Well, if you must know, I work in a residential care home and part of my job entails accompanying wheelchair users and guests with restricted mobility to the cinema, theatre, doctor appointments, shopping etc etc. Basically anywhere they want or need to go, I often gotta go with them. Even if it's to see a film I've already seen and which I didn't enjoy all that much.

facehugger99

Saw this last Thursday. I liked it. Tight and tense.

But it was just a schlocky monster movie done in an interesting way. The opening sequence was really brilliant and set the tone for the movie. It was only on the way home and chatting about it with the lads, that you realised it was full of plot holes.

miss_shadow

I felt quite let down by this film! there were no 'oooh yes now it makes sense moments' and no sign of intelligence there at all. no emotion in the movie so couldn't sympathise with any of it and was quite predictable!

sydthebeat

miss_shadow wrote: »

I felt quite let down by this film! there were no 'oooh yes now it makes sense moments' and no sign of intelligence there at all. no emotion in the movie so couldn't sympathise with any of it and was quite predictable!

:eek:

strange that it could be so polarising, a poster previous said they found it too sentimental.

There certainly is emotion in this movie, lots of it actually..... which draws emotion from its audience.

The sadness when millicents character sees her fathers workshop and how hard hes been been working on her hearing aids.
The old mans loss of his wife and subsequent suicide
The father giving up his life to buy his kids some more time
The frustration of the deaf girl of not being treated with the same responsibility as her younger brother
The loss of the toddler which under currents the whole movie.
The guilt of the mother, father and sister over his death.

Theboinkmaster

Absolutely stunning film, loved it.

Not really a horror or monster film but drama about family/love.

Easy Rod

Really enjoyed it, very entertaining.

Joel Edgerton deserves an Oscar for his portrayal of the daughter.

wakka12

Haha wow some resemblance!

El Duda

A Quiet Place - 8/10

Another 'monster with a catch' movie that follows in the footsteps of some classic monster movies, but brings its own high concept tropes to the table. In Tremors we had underground monsters that sensed your vibrations. In Predator we had a high tech Alien that could only see body heat. In Trollhunter we had trolls who could sniff out your religious beliefs. Here we have blind creatures who will strike you down if you make so much as a peep.

The films use of silence to ratchet up the tension is extremely effective. I was lucky enough to be in a cinema surrounded by like minded people who were all courteous enough to refrain from loud munching and talking. In fact, the restrained sounds of people carefully rustling through their food added to the atmosphere.

There is a lull in the first third and it takes a while to properly get the ball rolling, but once it starts the pacing picks up sufficiently. This is impressive stuff from John Krasinski who doesn't have much experience as a director. You would never guess that this is his first time making a horror film.

The films thrives as an exercise in creating suspense but it never really feels as scary as it should. I would've liked to have seen a bit less of the monsters. They are at their creepiest when you only catch glimpses of them lurking in the shadows of scuttling in the background. The close ups showed that the design was very similar to the Demogorgon from Stranger Things, which was one of the weaker aspects of the show.

As with most high concept pieces of sci-fi, this doesn't hold up to knit-picking and scrutiny, so its best to switch that part of the brain off and enjoy the ride. I was surprised to find that the film had genuine emotion thanks to a great performance from the young, deaf actress Millicent Simmonds. Her fractured bond with her Father provides some much needed heart to what could've been a very bleak story.


I have to say I am surprised at the amount of people who just didn't get anything out of this film. Shame.

Greyfox

El Duda wrote: »

the restrained sounds of people carefully rustling through their food added to the atmosphere.

+100 on this, it made for a rather unique experience

pixelburp

A masterclass of craftsmanship; unfussy, unpretentious yet a expertly balanced 90 minutes of escalating tension, told through pared back storytelling, literally harking back to the earliest days of cinema - combined with the most primordial of themes. No it wasn't revolutionary, but in many respects that was kinda the point here; the art of simple, visceral suspense conveyed to an ensnared audience being neither out of fashion, nor necessarily a lost art. The phrase "Hitchcock'esque" is way beyond merely being trite at this stage, but it's hard to dismiss the comparisons with the master of turning the screw.

Hell, in many respects it served as a demonstration of the infamous 'jump scare' done right - or at the very least executed appropriately. In a world of enforced silence, every terror was always going to be the sudden injection of noise, and John Krasinski pulled off the trick pretty effortlessly (bar one slightly unnecessary "red herring" moment). It and the recent IT remake would make for an interesting exercise of compare and contrast, the latter using jump scares like they were going out of fashion.

Technocentral

Going to see it this evening, hope gits aren't talking, crunching, mobile phoning throughout it.

artvanderlay

Didn't like it. Predictable, boring and very over-hyped. So many plot-holes, inconsistencies and people doing stupid things. Also I'm getting sick of movies that have that minimalist sub-Philip Glass-type soundtrack, all cello and repeated piano notes. I'd prefer no music at all than that weak sh*t!

Technocentral

Extremely enjoyable, nail biting tension, and crowd were quiet in cinema. 4/5

PhiloCypher

The difference of opinion on this film is both baffling and hilarious. People seem to either love it or hate it. That some find no redeeming qualities tho, is something I find suspect and hard to believe. People find redeeming qualities in the Star Wars prequels for God's sake.

pixelburp

I suspect it's suffering from the inevitability of hype; it's a good film - in fact I'd go so far as to suggest it's almost an objectively good film, worthy of future dissection how to do visual storytelling right - but depending on what or where you read you'd swear it's an instantly iconic, peerless horror classic. It's not.

What it is - to me - is a perfect palette cleanser: that amid the avalanche of Blumhouse's teen-oriented garbage, or mainstream jump-scare 'park ride' style horror movies, there are still moviemakers who know how to make a solid, engaging, crowdpleasing horror-thriller. It reminds me a lot of 10 Cloverfield Lane in fact (bar the final act of that film) for the same reasons; that the classic way of putting people on the edge of their seat hasn't gone out of style.

wakka12

Even as someone who enjoyed this film Id agree its overhyped. I wouldnt have thought it was anything groundbreaking just an enjoyable tense horror movie with some refreshing themes thrown in
Maybe how poor quality the average horror movie is helped to boost its hype

Slydice

Topped rampage this weekend bringing in $22 million
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4391&p=.htm

Made $200m before Avengers Infinity Wars, Deadpool and Solo: A Star Wars Story arrived:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=aquietplace.htm

Also with it surrounded by Rampage, Ready Player One and Pacific Rim Uprising when it came out...

That is not a bad debut for Director John Krasinski and on a $17m budget. Not bad at all.

pixelburp

Hugely successful, and probably means a sequel will be railroaded as fast as the studio can manage. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to each person, but hard to see how they could repeat the same trick twice without diminishing returns kicking in. Particularly if they get some hack to direct it...

homerun_homer

Slydice wrote: »

That is not bad debut for second time Director John Krasinski and on a $17m budget. Not bad at all.

FYP

Slydice

homerun_homer wrote: »

Slydice wrote: »

That is not bad debut for second third time Director John Krasinski and on a $17m budget. Not bad at all.

FYP

FYP FMP
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1024677/#director

Budgets:
1. $27,935 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brief_Interviews_with_Hideous_Men_(film)
2. $3.8 million - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hollars
3. $17-21 million - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Quiet_Place_(film)

Bacchus

Bacchus wrote: »

Looks good and tense. I've a feeling there is going to be some convenient happy resolution pulled out of the bag though as there is no way they could survive a labour (nevermind a crying baby) in that world. So, they either end on a bleak note or this random family manages to find a way to defeat the aliens.

Saw it tonight. Excellent, tense movie. Never truely scary but so so tense. Once it gets going it never let's up.

One negative against it was, as I suspected, the handling of the birth. It was done to great effect up to a point and then it was literally

ok I had the baby, no probs. Though I liked how they had a plan to deal with the crying, and as a parent that really tore me up

. Referring back to another point in that quoted post,

they managed to both end on a bleak note AND find a way to defeat the monsters

!

TerrorFirmer

Saw this last week and was very impressed. On paper it's not anything that hasn't been done before but the execution is just beautiful....astoundingly simple but brutally effective.

There were scenes where the silence, as the saying goes, was deafening and I found myself unable to even chew on a single kernel of popcorn for entire extended periods. The tension was off the charts.

Great turns from the cast too, considering how heavily the film leans on pure expression to convey emotion. The power and manipulation of sound, as well as its absence, is just immense.

Definitely one of the best creature features of the past two decades. I really hope if a sequel is to follow, it's handled respectfully and not some hatchet "double the budget and ramp up the action" job that completely misses the point/squanders the spirit of the first film.

El Duda

Sequel confirmed

gmisk

El Duda wrote: »

Sequel confirmed

Sequel titles
I am going for
A quieter place
or
A noisier place

I they they should leave it well alone, not every film needs a sequel or to start a blooming franchise!

CatFromHue

another quiet place :pac:

Outlaw Pete

A Quiet Place II: The Search For Batteries.

El Duda

Its the start of the STFCU

gmisk

El Duda wrote: »

Its the start of the STFCU

Surely that should be AQPCU
or
STFUCU

wakka12

El Duda wrote: »

Sequel confirmed

Ugh. it was clearly a standalone movie. The premise is interesting but for a one time event and isnt strong enough to carry a franchise/trilogy or whatever, the sequel will be poor quality and generic Id say without any of the features that made this one good

Whatsisname

I'd assume it will be a prequel as wasn't one of the first scenes "day 47" or so.

Outlaw Pete

A prequel would be much more interesting alright.

TerrorFirmer

I think as a franchise it could be decent if done right and with good respect to what made the original great.

Perfect example of a similar premise going disastrously wrong with a bigger budget sequel - Monsters.

See also - Cloverfield (though those 'sequels' were never made as sequels and had the Cloverfield name bolted on last minute).

gmisk

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I think as a franchise it could be decent if done right and with good respect to what made the original great.

Perfect example of a similar premise going disastrously wrong with a bigger budget sequel - Monsters.

See also - Cloverfield (though those 'sequels' were never made as sequels and had the Cloverfield name bolted on last minute).

I thought 10 cloverfield Lane was excellent... Actually a lot better than cloverfield

Sabre0001

Saw this last night and thought it was excellent! So tense throughout (

that flipping nail!)

Cast was excellent and it did manage to surprise.

While the trailers showed the scene with the boy and the rocket, there's a part of you that thinks, "it's Hollywood, they're not going to off him". And then the father gets got too!

Unsure about how a sequel will work; maybe a prequel as some have said - how these creatures came to be and the initial feeble attempts at taking them down. As it was, I thought the film could have done without the shotgun cock at the end. But it did make me feel less weighed down, I suppose!

In a way, it's great to see it in a cinema (that unnerving silence and shared tension/anticipation), but other people are also the worst thing to happen to it - people coming in late, anyone on a phone (hello to the man who needed to take a Snapchat of the screen at the start because he had to show people he was living!), and rustling (people were less restrained at my screening, it seems).

Walter Bishop

Usually this sort of thing is right up my alley and I did enjoy it but some of the plot discrepancies were a little blatant. That said the acting was all round excellent, so perhaps it was just a little over-praised but certainly paled compared to the like of It Follows, for me.

verycool

Well, that was a decent film adaptation of The Last Of Us. :pac:

Lost all sympathy for them when

they decided to have another child. With knowing how the "creatures" work, who willingly puts their family in peril like that? Because "plot" I suppose.

Completely agree that it was hyped, but I think it's a decent 6/10.

sydthebeat

verycool wrote: »

Well, that was a decent film adaptation of The Last Of Us. :pac:

Lost all sympathy for them when

they decided to have another child. With knowing how the "creatures" work, who willingly puts their family in peril like that? Because "plot" I suppose.

Completely agree that it was hyped, but I think it's a decent 6/10.

Or maybe something like continuation of the species?

Sabre0001

They were pretty well prepared for the arrival (with the safe room) though you wonder why they don't all just live in padded houses all the time so they can play board games like normal people

El Duda

verycool wrote: »

Well, that was a decent film adaptation of The Last Of Us. :pac:

Lost all sympathy for them when

they decided to have another child. With knowing how the "creatures" work, who willingly puts their family in peril like that? Because "plot" I suppose.

Completely agree that it was hyped, but I think it's a decent 6/10.

If humans don't at least try and procreate, whats the point of surviving at all?

homerun_homer

El Duda wrote: »

If humans don't at least try and procreate, whats the point of surviving at all?

Would ya bother risking it though? They already had the two kids so they had heirs to the horrible world they were left in.

facehugger99

homerun_homer wrote: »

Would ya bother risking it though? They already had the two kids so they had heirs to the horrible world they were left in.

Pregnancy could have been unplanned.

nix

facehugger99 wrote: »

Pregnancy could have been unplanned.

Thats what i just assumed and not like they can just get an abortion :rolleyes:

wakka12

sydthebeat wrote: »

Or maybe something like continuation of the species?

Whats even the point of continuing the species if quality of life is that low with no improvement for the foreseeable future