Nope (Jordan Peele)

Decuc500

Liked it a lot. Peele's films always stand out for me and Nope is so much better than bland summer blockbuster fare. I wasn't expecting a Tarantino vibe but it's there in the unhurried pace, weird subplots and use of title cards throughout. It's also a film about film making in a way and set on the periphery of Hollywood.

It was nice to experience this without knowing anything about the plot. There's a surprising mix of genres and good sense of fun throughout, but there's also some downright disturbing imagery.

It's a 'Yep' from me.

santana75

I just dont think I'm getting the Jordan Peele thing at all. I thought Get out was poor and massively overrated, ditto for US and this movie is even worse than those two combined. Its boring, bizarre at times and I honestly cant recall a more annoying Character and performance this side of Jar Jar Binks than Keke Plamer's "Em". I just wanted her to shut up. Daniel Kaluuya by contrast is excellent and says very little.

speedboatchase

A Yep from me but not quite a Yope (the highest honour). There's a 40 mins or so extended sequence in the middle that is incredibly tense and showed Peele at his absolute best. We're talking Jurassic Park, Jaws levels of tension and spectacle. And yet... the third act didn't really work for me. It showed a bit too much and didn't build on the threat that had been established. Felt a bit inert.

Still a great watch, but maybe my least favourite of Peele's three movies so far. 7.5/10 for me.

growleaves

Enjoyed this a lot. Really fun and I liked the three main characters. Best horse movie since Coen Brothers' True Grit.

I haven't seen any other Peele movies yet. I've seen Kay & Peele sketches on Youtube, very funny.

RocketRaccoon

Can someone spoiler tag the ending explanation for me? Watched it yesterday and thought it was absolutely awful, not even close to Get Out or Us.

Fysh

Saw this yesterday and liked it a lot, particularly the way it brought its different strands together at the end. Kaluuya and Yeun's performances were great, and the cinematography really helped to sell the idea.

As johnny-ultimate mentions above, it's not a comedic film but that did give several moments more impact as momentary comedic relief of tension. The ones he mentioned in spoilers are standouts but at my screening there was a similar effect when

the creature's electromagnetic disruption field reaches the motorcyclist as it travels at full speed (the bike seizes up and violently ejects its rider); a few seconds later, someone says "well, ok, nobody could have survived that so there's no point in trying to rescue them" (or words to that effect) only for the injured rider to immediately scream very loudly

Spoiler Warning

I think the only slight misstep in the entire film is when

Spoiler Warning

Angel notices the un-moving cloud - rather than either showing us Angel watching the footage and finding this, or showing us Em or OJ do the same when Angel comes to see them, we see a very short snippet of the footage and then get told what it shows.

I'm glad I saw this in the cinema - the visuals, particularly the wider landscape shots, deserve a big screen and the sound needs as good a sound system as you can get. Certainly my tv and home speakers can't compete when it comes to the bass at various points in the film.

ancapailldorcha

I must've seen a different film. It started off quite well but it got quite tedious at the end. I fell asleep in the last ten minutes or so.

brianregan09

I kind of agree with some of the other posters in that 2/3s of the film were fantastic , it went off a cliff near the end though , there's a particular gruesome scene in the middle of the movie at , we should have got more of that rather than the end bits which were a bit bizarre imo

ThePott

I quite enjoyed this, more than most seemingly after not really loving Us.

Best description I've heard of this is; "Jaws upside-down"

johnny_ultimate

I adored how weird and bizarre it got in the end.

Spoiler Warning

It's so exciting to see a Hollywood film directly riffing on some of the more abstract alien & creature designs from animation. Going in I did not expect the finale to be the equivalent of an Evangelion Angel attack, but lo and behold Peele himself has directly referenced Eva as a major influence on the film. The strange, transforming and sorta squishy craft design - with a crystalline centre - is straight out of anime. And he also throws in the Akira bike pose to further underline the anime influence. And compare the UFO here to the craft design in the clip below...

https://youtu.be/s3OZt45NbA8

Spoiler Warning

I think the comparisons run deeper than just visual homages - big, bold, shoot-for-the-stars spectacle filmmaking that mixes all sorts of ideas and themes in with its sci-fi flights of fancy is pure Eva.

Stuff like Pacific Rim thinks it's enough to have giant robots fighting each other and call it a day, but it's great to see a filmmaker embrace and riff on the crazier side of anime on a canvas as big as Peele is working with here.

Full_Circle_81

I'm definitely not aboard the Peele train with this one. Once the reveal came about, it just felt too silly and all the characters motivations were so irrational. Some parts were indeed unnerving, but the third act deflated so much of the creepiness with overexposure. Ironically, I think this would have functioned much better as an hour long Twilight Zone episode. But this movie felt *endless*, I kept thinking it was almost over, but it just kept on going. And what a waste of the amazing Keith David!

Fred Astaire

Just because you can figure out the message of the director, or understand some of his themes, doesn't mean that the movie itself is any good.

When you give the message priority over the story, it often leads to a bit of a mess - which is exactly what this ended up being.

The characters are underdeveloped, and whatever threadbare contrast Peele is trying to display between Yeun and Kaluuya's characters doesn't really land because ultimately - both are looking to exploit it. Does it really matter if one is looking to do so more than the other? Or that one is better at dealing with it than the other? Does it matter if one is should have learned from previous experience to be less exploitative? A load of irrelevant fluff. Both Yeun & Gordie's interaction and Kaluuya and Jean's interaction ends the exact same way.

The third act in particular is absolutely god-awful.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119527929#Comment_119527929

For "The Twilight Zone" it's a case of "been there done that" for the director.

That has already been successfully and brutally butchered.

https://headstuff.org/entertainment/film/the-twilight-zone-2019-review-reboot-jordan-peele/

gmisk

Massively enjoyed that.

Bar Keke Palmer...f#ck me...what a horrendously annoying character. Grated every single time she was on screen.

I haven't see her in anything before....I am not sure if she was the issue or the character.

Kaluuya and Yeun both top notch. I enjoyed the twists and turns and madness really.

Fysh

Genuinely a bit surprised that it was the third act that has frustrated so many, more in that I'm not sure what changed at that point. Still, if you didn't like it, you didn't like it.

Would be interested to read more detail on what didn't work for you in the third act, if anyone feels like elaborating.

pixelburp

God Jordan Peele is the most frustrating, but also kind of the most fascinating, top tier director. I'd be lying if I said I didn't find a tincture of hype within his reception thus far - but then equally, the man clearly has Imagination and interesting ideas; and I can't in good conscience moan about the dreary gruel Netflix churns out, then crib about a mainstream director operating with Blank Cheque status to riff on whatever genre he thinks of next. Guy's living the dream.

But all that said, and as the credits rolled on this, at first blush I couldn't decide if this was actually any good or not. There were constituent parts that really worked: not least all the haunting cinematography; or that visceral, creeping sense of genuine unease and dread within the first couple of acts; while the gimmick of the antagonist was straight out of the best Doctor Who concepts; and Daniel Kaluuya was magnetic, holding the film together as a talent who can convey so much without speaking - a rare talent. The guy can brood.

But the film was a bit of a hot mess: the plot ambled to the point of being unfocused, distracted; the rest of the cast barely qualified as functional characters - in two specific cases bordering on irritating; while Steven Yeun's backstory and flashbacks were a narrative cul-de-sac that left me confused. Addled enough to make me wonder if I missed some important detail; some nuance of theme too lofty for this knuckle dragger? It was said this was Peele's least sub-textual film so far - but if that's true, it made the film even flimsier. At least subtext allows the viewer's own imagination do some wandering.

But point a camera at the vistas of the American landscape, add some tangible sense of existential dread and I'll always pay attention.

buried

Total $hite, but after his last effort, it wasn't surprising. In the age of streaming productions, Jordan Peele is in the realm of 'top of the class' but that isn't saying a hell of a lot. Made for streaming productions is where he belongs. In 60 years time nobody is going to bother their ar$e watching this.

With a budget of $68 million the 2.5x Revenue to Budget Breakeven rule (not a few argue that the "rule" should actually be 3x) gives a breakeven of $170 million (or $198 Mn on 3x)-

With the movie pretty much done now at the box office the global revenue sits at $149 million.

And that was with one of the kindest possible release slots of the year.

Don't see this being a significant revenue generator out of the cinema either.

I don't even know if I can summon up the will to watch this - "Us" was a desperately turgid hot pile by the end I thought and this sounds worse by a margin.

"The next Hitchcock", "The next Spielberg" mi posterior.

cdgalwegian

On the strength of Get Out - which is, though, over-hyped- and some good reviews, went to see in this in the cinema as the first film post initial lockdown for me, with sci-fi being a genre I love. What a disappointment. Though I had expected a slow build-up, it turned out to be as painfully slow a build-up as in Get Out, though with the latter I was glad in the end not to have turned it off.

What really sticks out for me in this is what Pixelburp refers to as a "narrative dead-end". What it shows is that Peele's flourishes are really that of flattering to deceive - style without substance. The other thing that stuck in my craw was the antagonist's modus operandus, and the way the 'art of concealment' just went completely out the window in the end, simply as the means to give it an exciting end (as well as having other inconsistent details). The narrative dead-end came off as a probable flourish of misdirection; it's not big, and its not clever. A disappointing dud from an over-hyped director.

Butson

Went to see this last night.

Skinwalker Ranch vibes (real place in Utah with very weird goings on) but Jesus it was slow.

Lovely shots of the American expanse and some really cool CGI of the UAP, but apart from that it was desperate. As somebody else said, how annoying was Keke Palmer / her character.

Awful crap. I'll never get that time back again.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119546354#Comment_119546354

I think he's a director who may ultimately benefit from a good editor or collaborator; someone who'll pull him aside and say, Jordan, you gotta tighten this up. Misdirection only works if there's a smart pay-off: The Prestige is, IMO, one of the better recent examples of the misdirection carried off with aplomb (to the extent the script literally told you the misdirect was a misdirect)

Three films in and it's plainly obvious the man has both a healthy imagination for interesting concepts - and the clout to lens in with a degree of stylishness. While the hype might be excessive - so are those weirdly eager to sledge him into the ground.

But no doubt, for me, his scripts are just a dog's dinner every time; crying out for a steady hand to whip them into shape. Wouldn't be the first director whose writing benefitted from outside influence. But I'd prefer spectacular failures to mediocre non-entitles every time; there's just more to talk about, more to dissect and discuss.

Fysh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119545795#Comment_119545795

Given the degree to which you seem to enjoy moaning about Peele (to the extent of still blaming Peele for what you see as the flaws of a film directed and co-written by Nia Dacosta, on the basis that Peele was also a co-writer) I'm not sure why you'd even say you're thinking about watching this. Why not swap the hate-watching for something you think you might like?

StringerBell

Really liked the first 2/3rds of the movie just felt it went on a bit too long at the end maybe, no issue with the insanity of it just became a little bit tedious and was happy when it was over.

Didn't hate the female character as seems to be a common complaint.

Probably a 7/10 for me overall as I felt it was a bit meandering in parts but also had some wonderful moments.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119546983#Comment_119546983

That film that you speak of "Candyman" was very much his project in terms of acquiring it, "re-booting" it, absolutely setting its course and tone and it would be facile to suggest otherwise and the actual issue with that was the absolute clumsiness of the writing which he was directly involved in - in terms of "subtext" (as if lol) that was total Brick-to-the-face and which left the very much afterthought (to the "subtext") and comically under-developed characters as hollow and as memorable as a dried-out husk and a ruined IP (not for the first time) in its wake.

I've every right to comment on the "Peele issue" - that's a tired old line about go watch sometime you like.

I consider Peele to be over-inflated, over-rated and the completely dumb director comparisons (and more) thrown out there by not a few portions of the media pathetically rabid to appear "on-the-pulse" are more than faintly ridiculous.

His "rise" if you want to call that is more a result of the "culture wars" than actual merit, especially considering anything after "Get Out" (which I've said several times was decent, but nevertheless not much more than a "Stepford Wives" rehash) and that's something worth commenting on imo

Any film can have a "nice idea" or a "nice shot" here and there but equally most people judge a film on the overall impression and if something comes across as having significant flaws then most judge that not to be a good film.

johnny_ultimate

Went to see this again over the weekend and liked it even more second time around.

A lot of the pleasure is just the craft of the thing. The way the film visually explores several of its key motifs (looking, perspective, cameras) is fascinating: it opens with a POV shot (of an image both traumatic and inexplicable) and concludes with an extended set-piece that is built entirely around the characters' gazes being weaponised - both to their advantage and disadvantage. It's a spectacular finale full of imaginative staging and SFX, but I do appreciate how it's built upon the thematic and aesthetic sensibilities established previously.

The soundtrack also stood out a lot this time - the way it grows to incorporate more traditional western soundtrack tropes until it goes all in at the very end. Particularly love 'The Run' track, which plays alongside a wonderfully strange chase sequence.

https://youtu.be/Ilp7qHb9U-A

What's interesting to me about the characterisation is that while most of the characters are in their way chasing fame or glory, the film isn't really judging them in the way we might expect from films of this type. Yeun's character is the best example of that...

Spoiler Warning

Here's someone who has seen the effects of exploitation first hand, and been witness to a traumatic spectacle. He has gone on to exploit that trauma himself, through his memorabilia room (which he 'usually charges a fee' to access) and of course the big Star Lasso Experience. But I think Peele treats him sympathetically, and that close-up shot as he realises **** has gone terribly wrong comes across as a sad, genuine tragedy rather than just deserts.

Lots of good writing on the film knocking around from a whole bunch of perspectives and interpretations, but really think this NYT review nails a lot of what I liked about it:

“Nope” addresses such matters in a mood that feels more ruminant than argumentative. The main target of its critique is also the principal object of its affection.

Anyway, appreciate a lot of people didn't or won't like the film for very valid reasons - I personally agree the pacing is fairly messy - but I gotta say it's maybe the first Peele film to really stick with me. I liked those first two films, but this one has just lingered with me in a really satisfying way. One of my favourite films of the year so far.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119547924#Comment_119547924

Re. Yuen's character, honestly I think that's just bad writing that none of that ever really came across in my viewing. Like in some films where the response is, "oh well, you need to have read the novelisation / comic for that to make sense"; no, you really shouldn't have to. It should be right there, threaded like cloth.

I'd never advocate hitting the audience over the head with a hammer, but there's a balance as well; in my previous post arguing for a voice over his shoulder, Peele needed to revise how the film gave that information across - and how it tied into the main plot. What you say makes a lot of narrative sense - but having literally seen the movie 2 days ago, its memory still fresh, none of that came across in what I saw. Logistically, it was a mess, and when the shoe dropped, closing that subplot's door it left me deeply unsatisfied. Still does, knowing how it was meant to come together; cos I didn't see it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119547743#Comment_119547743

I've every right to comment on the "Peele issue" - that's a tired old line about go watch sometime you like.

"the Peele issue"? Dude. You have every right. It's just at this stage, ach. Like. We get it. You really really really don't like Jordan Peele; think between this and the Candyman thread it's got to a stage where it's like ... maybe it's worth just putting him in a box, shrugging one's shoulders and going c'est la vie? Especially if you're not even going to watch his films out of a sense of cinematic curiosity?

Wouldn't mind but as "culture wars" is obviously something that sticks in your craw, and ignoring the suggestion his fame is only due to social pressure: this is his least "about another thing" movie. And as I said myself already: I do think Peele is overrated, so I'm no fan - but I don't get the determined sledging either.

I'm still not ruling out the fact Peele took your lunch out of the office fridge one day - and you won't let that bástard's win for that 😂

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119548261#Comment_119548261

a bit of a facetious and projecting tone there to be honest

I simply abhor the unmerited polishing of turds as it is as repugnant as the image of same.

It's a valid dynamic to discuss

We can't say who else might or might not get be losing out on opportunities due to this sort of "phenomenon" but it's safe to say that there is a ripple effect just as there is on a larger scale with the MCU DCEU toilet clog that has altered the cinema landscape

I've seen all the "works" excepting this one which I haven't - I will probably do so at some point.

The revenue numbers say that I'm not the only one.

Fysh

Sure, but perhaps it could be a dedicated thread (maybe even one where you also talk about other directors where the same effect applies?) rather than just you wading into every thread about productions that Peele is anywhere near to Tireless Rebutter your way through the conversation like a snowplow.

I'm genuinely interested in what people didn't like about this film, because it makes for interesting conversation. (And I equally get that, if you really disliked a film, you probably also don't want to spend more time dwelling on it, which is fair enough).

But...You haven't seen it. So you can't really comment on that, and instead you're wanging on about other stuff (box office, someone else's review - as long as it's negative, whatever) to give you excuse to play the Emperor In The Nip card, or whatever du jour equivalent you want. It's just boring. It's not a new conversation, it's just you being The Pub Bore about your favourite subject. Again.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119535634#Comment_119535634

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119548674#Comment_119548674

nobody is stopping you and nobody did stop you when you asked your question about the "third act"

nobody so far has bothered to answer.

so that is (so far) your answer.

I don't think that my few comments have stopped people seeing the question.

film performance and the nature of ratings, critic response is a common if not ubiquitous topic for any any box office film discussed on boards.

there is an undeniable further element connected to Peele as alluded to which is also going to come up.