PLEASE

someone tell me how this was even a remotely good or mediocre movie. God what a boring fucking movie. SPOILERS there is nothing. There is no "it" comes at night. It was a boring last of us style movie that will be forgotten by next week. Please tell me theories or anything that will make me think my $8 was worth it.

Other urls found in this thread:

imgur.com/cOYYEfo
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Horror is so bad that anything good looks genius by comparison

You just didn't get it :^)

Imagine being this stupid

The "it" that comes at night was fear. That was the whole point of the film

You're not being objective.
You went into it thinking it was a horror film and came out disappointed because it wasn't.
It was extremely mismarketed to cash in on normie money.
However, it is a solid post-apocalyptic family drama.

I literally couldn't find anything horror about this. It was a suspenseful drama. People talking in a fucking house the entire movie and then ends with dumb people shooting each other.

> $8

Tfw $15 for me

Okay you seem smart.

What did the dog see?

Also who were those two guys that shot at main guys truck and then beard guy told him to wait before main guy killed him? Also why did beard guy lie about having a brother?

Do you really need everything laid out for you? Can you not think for yourself and come to your own conclusions?

Stick to capeshit

Do you not have the answers then?

Okay guess not, anyone else explain this shit movie?

>there is no 'it'
Oh, but there was.
>dog gets snatched up in the woods
>kid later draws what he saw, some hinderfolk/machine elf looking things
>other kid has a drawing in his parents' room, a plant spirit looking thing
>door opens and dog dragged in without anyone else knowing or doing anything

There aren't supposed to be concrete answers. It's a horror movie, and the unknown is a huge part in making horror effective. You don't know any of these answers because the characters don't either. That way, you can feel the same tension and dread they feel. And in the end, it was completely irrelevant what the dog was barking at.

>How old are you?
>...17
>...
Wow this film sure got uncomfortable fast.

#dreams

>However, it is a solid post-apocalyptic family drama.

I'd honestly say it doesn't really succeed there. Really let down by the movie but I did enjoy the tracking shot following the truck as they drove on the road and a lot of the lighting work that they did.

Ive never even heard of this
is it a horror or a drama??

"psychological thriller"

I missed like the first 15 - 30 minutes, but from what I can gather:
>Family is living in country
>Virus breaks out in cities
>People start dying off
>Family barricade themselves in the house (though honestly it looks more like some sort of apartment complex)

The door is fucking unexplainable tho.
And the majority of the story is up to interpretatoon anyways, let me dream.
There was for sure a virus tho, not sure why people say there wasn't one.

Good movie, shit ending. Could have stood to be a bit longer and have more stuff happen. There were things hinting at something actually being around the house like said but if you want to argue that it was subtle, it was way too subtle to the point where it felt just like an extra thing that didn't add anything to the movie. And besides killing the dog it didn't do anything unless the movie was hinting at it being the cause of the illness.

On the ending though I think I missed some stuff but even with the stuff I've read so far it wouldn't have made the ending that much better.

The movie establishes the narrower aspect ratio as either dreams or I've read some people saying it represents the illness in some way. The last like 15 minutes is in the narrower aspect ratio and I initially thought that it wasn't real because of this but if it represents the illness then it would mean that everyone is infected and there were apparently signs of the illness on the parents that I didn't catch. Even with that stuff though the ending was way too sudden, and this is one of the only times I've ever thought that.

It wasn't that bad, the resolution was just not satisfying. It ended and was just like "What did we learn here?"

Well, that the average person is absolutely terrible at proper quarintine.
Also don't let your fee-fees get in the way of logic when you're trying to survive during Armageddon.

Anyone upset about the ending is an absolute fucking moron that has no sense of actual horror. They're just pissed they didn't get some gay monster reveal, or twist, or 'splosions. I know this board is full of plebs but these people are truly fucking moronic.

anyone know where I can find it?

im thinking it was going/trying to be a ""film"" so what we see is basically only used to convey further whatever message it wanted to make.

from my understanding im guessing it was something about becoming a man/adulthood??
these are something that stuck out to me in the movie that might help findout wtf its about
>only men die the whole time including the dog, the white mom only died bc of her refusal to accept the son was ill
>the whole movie seems to rely on the son and his relationship with his father
even the bandits that shot at them in the truck scene were seemingly father and son
>also large focus on the sons dreams and his desire "were da white womanz at" bc he was alone with his parents
was the whole movie maybe about becoming a man and not to lust/be lonely/jealous? which those type of feelings come at night to young and old men, and the little boy dies too bc his parents were young and just fucking(not married) and fooling around all the time?

this so much, the mom let her husband ger pistol punhced like 6 times before she did anything

>horror
There's that word again. The ending isn't bad because there wasn't a twist. The ending was bad because it felt like it ended in the middle of the movie and there wasn't really any reason that I could see to have that happen.

Also you're saying people are pissed that they didn't get monsters or whatever but this is another movie that has a bait and switch trailer. If you're just going to have a straight post apocalyptic survival movie don't make a trailer and name your movie implying that that's what your movie is about. People would be less angry if you didn't basically trick them into seeing something they wouldn't have otherwise.

some people wouldn't recognize good kino if it bit them, im okay with this particular bait and switch

The best assessments I've seen about it so far have been this:

It's not a horror, it's an arthouse psychological thriller (see ).

It comes across as vague for the sake of being vague, which is why even people who usually like subtle horror movies are underwhelmed by it. It's been done before, so the movie doesn't bring anything new to the table.

It also focuses on fear/paranoia and how people behave under these stresses, which is also nothing new.

And yes, the marketing was very misleading (). I do like going into movies blind, so really I just saw the poster and said "yep, I want to see that."

The worst part is the people trashing on others for wanting a shitty, shallow horror movie. I think the most reasonable criticism of the film is from people who didn't want a shitty, shallow horror movie but wanted something new and interesting from A24. The Witch was a unique and intense horror flick, but I've seen a lot of people who loved the Witch who were let down by ICAN.

It's just generic "meme artsy horror movie" #4
>The Babadook
>It Follows
>The VVitch
>It Comes at Night
Yawn. Come we please get another, campy Friday the 13th please? Jason is uber comfy horror Kino.

Your local cinema, my friend.

Babadook was actually pretty disturbing, to me at least. And I was interested the entire way through and the ending wasn't offensively premature.

The Witch was a good movie the entire way through and had a satisfying ending.

Haven't watched It Follows.

It Comes At Night is a good movie for what it is. What it isn't is a horror movie though, or at least the kind it advertised itself as. And the ending is extremely unsatisfying, and this is coming from someone that generally can accept why movies that are accused of doing this do it, but this movie didn't really have any excuse for it other than unsatisfying endings being "kino".

>ended in the middle
No it didn't. How dumb are you? You have zero sense of what makes a horror movie good.

Agree 100%.

It Follows was just okay btw. Spooky theater experience but I can't believe it's aged well.

Horror movies aren't good because they have unsatisfying endings. And I'm saying the middle but I don't mean the movie should be 3 hours long. What I mean is that it feels like there could be stuff that was filmed after what we got and the director cut to the credits prematurely. What other good horror movies can you think of that end in a similar way? Off the top of my head the only one I can think of is the Blair Witch Project, which everyone when I saw it in theatres also felt like a premature ending, though it does make sense and there's a reason for it. There's no reason here. It's a cop out.

>midway through movie start to hear lots of shifting around and exaggerated sighing
>fervent whispered complaints the whole time
>"what a dumb bitch"-tier commentary
>"STANLEY" when the dog fucks off
>someone's desperate cry of attention to get laughs from everyone at end of movie: "LOL WHAT COMES AT NIGHT THOUGH?"
I wish I wasn't poor so I could just watch movies of any quality, shit or not, in peace.

I felt traumatised by this movie. As I walked out of the theater I think I looked like I had shell shock

When I saw it the audio was way too quiet. You could barely make out what they were saying in the beginning with the gas masks on. Someone got them to turn it up a bit, which made it better but it still could have been louder.

And I had someone sitting a few rows behind me that would be like breathing heavily anytime the dream sequences happened. Like they were going to have a panic attack. They were also talking kind of loudly at points.

almost all of the people in my theater started laughing when the credits rolled, but at least they were quiet throughout the actual movie.

can somebody attack me please

>Go to see the Mummy
>Group of black girls come in and sit down
>They spend the whole movie talking and laughing

This movies ending is absolute pleb filter

If you didnt like this movie, you dont know SHIT about kinó

>make 2 hour movie
>cut out last 20 minutes and have the movie end there
KINO

jesus christ

except it isn't

according to interviews with the director, the movie is about his shitty dad getting cancer and dying so there you go, you're right.

doesn't save the movie from being a snorefest
just because your movie has a subtle message it doesn't automatically make it a good movie

hey well cool beans then.

I liked it better than The Witch and It Follows, but as far as the director goes I thought Krisha was way more effective and entertaining overall.

The resolution is everyone dies not due to viruses or monsters, but because of themselves. The end.

I was thinking about who opened the door a bunch, and I think I came up with a solid answer. There were two doors between the inside of the house and the forest, and Stanley was inside of the first one. Stanley is a dog and can't open doors (especially not when dead), so someone must have either a. seen Stanely's dead body outside and brought him inside or b. Seen/heard Stanley outside (Paul did say Stanley "knew the woods" so he could have come back, even if injured), killed him, and put him inside of the first door. I think Paul either saw Stanley through a window or heard him barking or something, went outside, and decided that the risk of him being "sick" was too high, and decided to kill him. He was probably emotional about this and left the inner door open by accident after bringing Stanley inside the outer door, or possibly wanted someone to find it so they could bury and burn his body. Or he left it closed and Andrew opened it later. There's a decent amount of evidence that Paul would be willing to kill Stanley since he said to Travis "I'm not going to lose you over your grandfather's dog" after Travis went running after Stanley into the woods. Also, this would explain why Paul didn't want to let Paul see Stanley's body despite letting Stanley be there while Paul kills, buries, and burns Stanley's grandfather. Basically, my "timeline" of the door events would be this:
1. Stanley finds his way back to the house, and is maybe injured.
2. Paul hears Stanley barking, goes outside and either decides that the risk of Stanley being infected is too high to let him live or sees that Stanley is heavily injured and decides to put him out of his misery.
3. Paul brings Stanley inside the outer door and kills him
4. Paul either leaves the inner door open by accident because of how distraught he is or leaves it open so that someone will find the body and help him bury and burn it. OR he closes the door and Andrew later opens it.
Cont. in next reply

5. Paul goes back to sleep, but Andrew hears the commotion.
6. Andrew opens the inner door if it isn't already open, sees the dog, gets terrified, and runs to the grandfather's room where he goes to sleep and has nightmares.
7. The situation is so terrifying that it, when coupled with Andrew's nightmares, makes it difficult for Andrew to distinguish nightmare from reality (he's like 4), which would explain why he "couldn't remember" what happened.
8. Travis finds Andrew, who is now maybe sick from being in contact with Stanley and carries him back to his room (which would explain how Travis got sick later in the movie)
9. Travis sees the open door and wakes everyone up.

It comes at night had great acting, great camerawork, great shots, artsy shit, and a solid soundtrack. It has a shit story, but it hit all the other technical benchmarks and "enjoyment" is a social construct anyway so fuck it.

The issue with all of this is that you're assuming the director even had a reason for these things to happen. I don't think there's an answer. I think he just did it.

Vague for vague's sake.

this is probably the right answer. these movies usually don't try to actually be deep, they just try to appear deep.

THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THE WOODS

Me and my friend distinctly remember, just before Paul and Will get attacked by the two bandits that we both saw something in the woods sitting down

Yeah it's possible that it's meant to be vague/unexplainable, but I still think that this is a good explanation, and it is further supported by the fact that Paul was the only one who had a key to the doors, and that the outer door wasn't busted which it would have been if someone (maybe a monster) broke in and left the dog there. I will definitely admit that Paul's motives for leaving Stanley inside the door are pretty sketchy, and it would probably have made more sense for him to just kill it and bury it outside. The only real things that I can think of are that either he didn't want his son to find the body and thus he needed a second person to help bury it, or that he wanted to give his son closure on Stanley without taking responsibility for it.

This?
imgur.com/cOYYEfo

Yeah, it was a pretty obvious silhouette. Side-view while they were driving.

I thought I saw something when they drove past too but then it was never addressed.

That would've been the message if the little boy hadn't been infected. Everything the main parents did was logical and necessary. It would've been more tragic and interesting if Travis didn't get the infection, his nightmares just made him paranoid and he got the family killed for nothing.

Travis was such a terrible character.

Yes!!! exactly that

i saw the same thing and its just a dead try guys

tree*

I guess it could be a tree

That was the best part of the movie, apart from the fact that he didn't have a round already loaded. Made me wish the rest of it was an action thriller, not this artsy dream-within-a-dream melodrama.

more like It Bores At Night amirite

this
The ambiguity in the film is done on purpose to make the whole experience seem more realistic and like you were there, you really only know exactly what our protagonists know, there's no dramatic irony in it whatsoever, so it makes you really feel there and makes it more suspenseful and eerie at times. Obviously though lots of people weren't satisfied with this and didn't like it because of this and that there's so many shallow people with the cognitive power of a spoon that can't figure out the story and it's symbolism (ex: "it" is the fear/paranoia and the feelings you get at night like the other user said)

the word you're looking for is 'immersive', not 'realistic'

maybe it's just because I don't see a ton of movies, but I really loved it. It kept me on the edge of my seat the entire time and had an ending that wasn't really "satisfying" but I thought made sense. I think it would have been a lot worse if they did some deus ex machina "cure" asspull, or an ending that was too happy for the rest of the movie. The characters were in a supremely shitty situation, and I thought the ending having most characters dying but leaving Paul and his wife to deal with their decisions to trust no one. I don't know whether or not they got "sick," but I suspect at least the wife did because she hugged and kissed Travis after his contact with Andrew.

They are both infected

I kind of assumed their sullen, reserved reactions at the end kind of implied that they were infected and were just waiting out their final days.

that last shot was shadowy but to me it looked like they both had lesions on their arms and faces

Yeah makes sense

Paul should've offed them all and then himself, Mist-style

It would have been more interesting if the dad got sick and Travis was forced into the position of having to face the real world.

This movie is the best in theaters pleb filter in a looong time.

The biggest issue with your theory is the part where Paul brings in the dog just to kill him. Wasn't the dog still weeping when they found it? Like it was cut open or whatever but wasn't it still kind of alive? Also, why would Paul just plant him in that room, he's not some kind of sick twisted fuck, he knew how much Travis cared about Stanley, I seriously doubt this theory just because of that part.

Could you have worst taste? Good fuck. It was a perfect, realistic ending.

Well sure, but also realistic in the sense that if you were actually there, you would know just as much as them in that situation.

Ending is perfect, get a brain. A film can be less than two hours.

Pleb. Fucking idiotic pleb. It's like the entire film went right over your head. Jesus.

...

How bout this: It doesn't fucking matter who then door opened. There a million logical ways it could have happened. Hell up spic

These theories are laughable. This board is fucked

I agree

You guys seriously didn't see the monster when the black kid chases the dog into the woods? Me and my buddy laughed because of the shit CGI. The were hanging off the tree near the very top of the screen, almost getting cut off.

That's definitely not in the movie

If that movie gave you shell shock, your constitution is shit.

Surf Sup Forums. After the first coma and panic attack you'll actually grow a spine.

Nice trying to get me to see the movie again. It won't work.

We were probably seeing something that wasn't there probably

kek le ebin bait

The monster was them all along :-)

>Going back to the cinema this monday
>Can't decide between rewatching The Mummy or It Came In the Night
On one hand, the Mummy has a qt villain. On the other, this film is kino.
Fuck,

Mummy would be garbage too but at least entertaining garbage

Shit was absolutely trash

Look I won't blame the normies for getting fooled by the marketing

but if you consider yourself interested in movies enough to browse Sup Forums and you couldn't tell what this movie was going to be from the A24 logo, or the viral marketing, or the cast, you're fuckin retarded and will lose far more than $11 in your lifetime

>A film can be less than two hours
It can, if paced properly and the story fits in that time span. The way it ended felt like there was more after it and the director just decided to cut there rather than keep the rest of the footage.

>You just didn't get it, man. The shitty ending is symbolic of our place in the universe and the meaning of life.

>t. the horse that needs to be beaten to understand

>t. Trey Edward Shults