I enjoyed it quite a lot, having avoided it for months - horror really isn't my thing. I thought it was sharp, tense and genuinely chilling (not funny at all, though - satire doesn't necessarily qualify something as a comedy, whatever some seem to think).

Unfortunately it lost me, a little, in the final act with certain late in the game revelations. But I had a good time watching it, and particularly enjoyed Daniel Kayuuya's charismatic central performance.

@rudely_murray said:

and particularly enjoyed Daniel Kayuuya's charismatic central performance.

Yes, him and a lot of the acting was pretty good. I wanted to like it, but I just couldn't accept the concept.

@JustinJackFlash said:

After all the critical acclaim I was really looking forward to this. But it was woefully predictable and it's conceit was completely ridiculous. And then on the one hand the acting was quite grounded while the brain transplant people overacted in such an over the top, cartoony fashion, their actions making absolutely no sense no matter who was in charge of their faculties.

I enjoyed it but did not think other than the grade A acting anything was that special. The racist\slavery obvious overtones are probably got the Academies attention as this is perfect to make up for the OscarsSo White horsecrap from whenever ago (last time? Time before?). Almost too perfect as in concocted in a collusion between the academy and Universal\Blumhouse to make a movie that could be nominated for Best Picture that featured a black actor and a story with racial statements! Or am I imagining too much??

Best actor? Sure. Best picture? No.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@rudely_murray said:

and particularly enjoyed Daniel Kayuuya's charismatic central performance.

Yes, him and a lot of the acting was pretty good. I wanted to like it, but I just couldn't accept the concept.

The 'concept' or rather the extended metaphor, is about how white middle class liberals co opt 'blackness' for their own selfish reasons, and that their racism is just a little more subtle. Kudos for giving this a comedic edge. It would be painful and patronising without it.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

The 'concept' or rather the extended metaphor, is about how white middle class liberals co opt 'blackness' for their own selfish reasons, and that their racism is just a little more subtle. Kudos for giving this a comedic edge. It would be painful and patronising without it.

That's the metaphor and the satirical message. Not the concept. I like the film's satirical message. The concept is that they are taking out people's brains and replacing them with someone else's yet the original person's consciousness is still there. That's the part I do have the problem with.

And it was blatantly obvious right from the start that there was some sort of body-snatching going on. It was clear as day that his girlfriend was in on it. There was nothing in the film that wasn't telegraphed an hour in advance.

@Oldnewbie said:

Almost too perfect as in concocted in a collusion between the academy and Universal\Blumhouse to make a movie that could be nominated for Best Picture that featured a black actor and a story with racial statements! Or am I imagining too much??

Interesting idea but I think if something like this was happening they would arrange to make a film that is more academy friendly like 12 Years a Slave or Fences. Get Out is a horror film. A genre that the academy is very averse to nominating. I do appreciate that the academy nominated it because it shows they are starting to branch out. Even if I don't actually like the film itself.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

The 'concept' or rather the extended metaphor, is about how white middle class liberals co opt 'blackness' for their own selfish reasons, and that their racism is just a little more subtle. Kudos for giving this a comedic edge. It would be painful and patronising without it.

That's the metaphor and the satirical message. Not the concept. I like the film's satirical message. The concept is that they are taking out people's brains and replacing them with someone else's yet the original person's consciousness is still there. That's the part I do have the problem with.

And it was blatantly obvious right from the start that there was some sort of body-snatching going on. It was clear as day that his girlfriend was in on it. There was nothing in the film that wasn't telegraphed an hour in advance.

Ok, I think you mean the premise of the movie. If you accept that it is a black comedy (unfortunate, unavoidable pun) then it goes with the territory that there will be some outrageous notions that you will have to suspend disbelief for. Most people are generous with regard to comedy; it would be peculiar to object to Big for example because you had problems with the idea of body swapping.

I'm not trying to suggest such a process is plausible but they are not swapping out entire brains, presumably just the frontal lobe, often thought to be the seat of consciousness. The idea that a 'ghost' would be retained is not novel.

Colour me stupid, but I didn't pick that the GF was in on the deal. Not that I think that detail matters much beyond adding tension towards the movie's climax. Of course the whole scenario is obvious from the minute we meet 'the help' and they are obviously not black people. This is a classic ironic device. We the audience know that this dude is in a bad place, and not just because he is a black guy meeting the white parents. This gives rise to 'in' humour at the expense of the main character. You know what is happening because you are supposed to know. It's not a mistake.

There are other aspects to this movie that there is some risk in discussing. The idea that there is more to being black than skin colour. The idea that black domestic servants are somehow 'white on the inside'. Uncle Toms. That black people have a range of epithets ranging from High Yellow thru to Coconut and Bounty Bar and beyond to describe people who are not 'truly' black is relevant here, as is the recognition that Obama, who gets a few mentions in this movie, existed outside of the African American experience, and so despite his actual skin colour was perceived as acceptable to white voters.

There is a LOT going on here and to miss it because you have trouble with the idea of brain transplants in a comedy seems to me a great pity.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@Oldnewbie said:

Almost too perfect as in concocted in a collusion between the academy and Universal\Blumhouse to make a movie that could be nominated for Best Picture that featured a black actor and a story with racial statements! Or am I imagining too much??

Interesting idea but I think if something like this was happening they would arrange to make a film that is more academy friendly like 12 Years a Slave or Fences. Get Out is a horror film. A genre that the academy is very averse to nominating. I do appreciate that the academy nominated it because it shows they are starting to branch out. Even if I don't actually like the film itself.

Get out was nominated for the Golden Globes as a comedy. If the movie wasn't such a monster smash I would say they marketed it to the public wrongly by calling it a Horror Comedy. But nearly 300 million in box office shows how much I know. I think what it really says is how far apart critics, and that includes the Academy, and the public are today.

You are right that historically the Academy doesn't favour horror movies. But GO is pushing it uphill because it satirizes and challenges the very liberal elites who hand out baubles. They will prefer movies that pander to their prejudices and are unchallenging. Dross like Three Billboards.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

Ok, I think you mean the premise of the movie.

Well, we can split heirs about the secific meanings but I don't think its's that important. I see premise and concept as meaning much the same thing.

If you accept that it is a black comedy (unfortunate, unavoidable pun) then it goes with the territory that there will be some outrageous notions that you will have to suspend disbelief for. Most people are generous with regard to comedy; it would be peculiar to object to Big for example because you had problems with the idea of body swapping.

I think that depends on the type of comedy. Big is a magical comedy akin to Frank Capra. It's concept/premise is laid out fairly close to the start so we know the type of film we're watching. Get Out is more of a straight comedy. Things are played pretty straight right from the get go. We're required to feel fear, tension and unease. For me the tone of the film was completely wrong for the events that unfolded.

I'm not trying to suggest such a process is plausible but they are not swapping out entire brains, presumably just the frontal lobe, often thought to be the seat of consciousness. The idea that a 'ghost' would be retained is not novel.

Ok, it's been a while since I watched it now but I'm pretty sure it was the entire brain. Wasn't there a bit where you saw them lying on the operating table with the entire brains clearly missing? Someone will have to clarify for me.

We the audience know that this dude is in a bad place, and not just because he is a black guy meeting the white parents. This gives rise to 'in' humour at the expense of the main character. You know what is happening because you are supposed to know. It's not a mistake.

Yeah, I get that. I agree we should know that something very bizarre is going on. But I don't think we should know so specifically. Other than the brain transplant I knew pretty much exactly what was going on. I knew their faculties were being controlled by the dead relatives.

There are other aspects to this movie that there is some risk in discussing. The idea that there is more to being black than skin colour. The idea that black domestic servants are somehow 'white on the inside'. Uncle Toms. That black people have a range of epithets ranging from High Yellow thru to Coconut and Bounty Bar and beyond to describe people who are not 'truly' black is relevant here, as is the recognition that Obama, who gets a few mentions in this movie, existed outside of the African American experience, and so despite his actual skin colour was perceived as acceptable to white voters.

All interesting discussions and I really wanted to like the film because of the issues it raises. But the surface narrative has still got to hold up in my opinion.

There is a LOT going on here and to miss it because you have trouble with the idea of brain transplants in a comedy seems to me a great pity.

In many cases I do suspend disbelief but here I just felt there was too much suspension required considering the film's tone. But a lot of people love the film and I'm clearly in the minority. So it's just my subjective opinion.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

@Oldnewbie said:

Almost too perfect as in concocted in a collusion between the academy and Universal\Blumhouse to make a movie that could be nominated for Best Picture that featured a black actor and a story with racial statements! Or am I imagining too much??

Interesting idea but I think if something like this was happening they would arrange to make a film that is more academy friendly like 12 Years a Slave or Fences. Get Out is a horror film. A genre that the academy is very averse to nominating. I do appreciate that the academy nominated it because it shows they are starting to branch out. Even if I don't actually like the film itself.

Get out was nominated for the Golden Globes as a comedy. If the movie wasn't such a monster smash I would say they marketed it to the public wrongly by calling it a Horror Comedy. But nearly 300 million in box office shows how much I know. I think what it really says is how far apart critics, and that includes the Academy, and the public are today.

You are right that historically the Academy doesn't favour horror movies. But GO is pushing it uphill because it satirizes and challenges the very liberal elites who hand out baubles. They will prefer movies that pander to their prejudices and are unchallenging. Dross like Three Billboards.

The last actor to win best actor for a horror film was Fredric March in 1932's "Dr. Jekyll and Dr. Hyde"! After that, a seeming shut out. Karloff easily could have been nominated for played twins in "The Black Room" or the body provider to medical men in "The Body Snatcher" Both stellar Oscar worthy performances. But no.

As for the conspiracy collusion of mine? "12 Years" and "Fences" type films had already been done and maybe done to death. So coming at the academy through a window instead of the door may have been part of the plan! lol

@Oldnewbie said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

@Oldnewbie said:

Almost too perfect as in concocted in a collusion between the academy and Universal\Blumhouse to make a movie that could be nominated for Best Picture that featured a black actor and a story with racial statements! Or am I imagining too much??

Interesting idea but I think if something like this was happening they would arrange to make a film that is more academy friendly like 12 Years a Slave or Fences. Get Out is a horror film. A genre that the academy is very averse to nominating. I do appreciate that the academy nominated it because it shows they are starting to branch out. Even if I don't actually like the film itself.

Get out was nominated for the Golden Globes as a comedy. If the movie wasn't such a monster smash I would say they marketed it to the public wrongly by calling it a Horror Comedy. But nearly 300 million in box office shows how much I know. I think what it really says is how far apart critics, and that includes the Academy, and the public are today.

You are right that historically the Academy doesn't favour horror movies. But GO is pushing it uphill because it satirizes and challenges the very liberal elites who hand out baubles. They will prefer movies that pander to their prejudices and are unchallenging. Dross like Three Billboards.

The last actor to win best actor for a horror film was Fredric March in 1932's "Dr. Jekyll and Dr. Hyde"! After that, a seeming shut out. Karloff easily could have been nominated for played twins in "The Black Room" or the body provider to medical men in "The Body Snatcher" Both stellar Oscar worthy performances. But no.

As for the conspiracy collusion of mine? "12 Years" and "Fences" type films had already been done and maybe done to death. So coming at the academy through a window instead of the door may have been part of the plan! lol

Do you think there are more disadvantages or advantages to being black today?

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@Oldnewbie said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

@Oldnewbie said:

Almost too perfect as in concocted in a collusion between the academy and Universal\Blumhouse to make a movie that could be nominated for Best Picture that featured a black actor and a story with racial statements! Or am I imagining too much??

Interesting idea but I think if something like this was happening they would arrange to make a film that is more academy friendly like 12 Years a Slave or Fences. Get Out is a horror film. A genre that the academy is very averse to nominating. I do appreciate that the academy nominated it because it shows they are starting to branch out. Even if I don't actually like the film itself.

Get out was nominated for the Golden Globes as a comedy. If the movie wasn't such a monster smash I would say they marketed it to the public wrongly by calling it a Horror Comedy. But nearly 300 million in box office shows how much I know. I think what it really says is how far apart critics, and that includes the Academy, and the public are today.

You are right that historically the Academy doesn't favour horror movies. But GO is pushing it uphill because it satirizes and challenges the very liberal elites who hand out baubles. They will prefer movies that pander to their prejudices and are unchallenging. Dross like Three Billboards.

The last actor to win best actor for a horror film was Fredric March in 1932's "Dr. Jekyll and Dr. Hyde"! After that, a seeming shut out. Karloff easily could have been nominated for played twins in "The Black Room" or the body provider to medical men in "The Body Snatcher" Both stellar Oscar worthy performances. But no.

As for the conspiracy collusion of mine? "12 Years" and "Fences" type films had already been done and maybe done to death. So coming at the academy through a window instead of the door may have been part of the plan! lol

Do you think there are more disadvantages or advantages to being black today?

Clever using a line from the film! Seriously? I would not know being white. But looking at everything from the end of the Civil War to present, it seems things for all marginalized groups (black, women, Asian, middle eastern) ebb and flow in America. During one period there are "breakthroughs" in acceptance and relations among all people and then before you know it the old doors get shut and the old ceilings are back in place.

Example: When Hattie McDaniel won best supporting actress for "Gone With the Wind" that was supposed to herald in a new era and, well, it didn't. When Jackie Robinson broke the race barrier in Major League baseball that was supposed to herald in new era and it also didn't. Barack Obama being PRESIDENT was supposed to... but no. And that today we are even discussing this as a current reality shows the abject failure of the entire 50's-60's civil rights movement to change hearts and minds. Legislation? Sure. People? No.

There are no "more disadvantages or advantages to being black today" as while our cities are integrated and our schools are integrated our hearts are not integrated.

Interesting that the character who says that line in the movie is East Asian, I assume Japanese. It is a mark of how well weighted this movie is that the person asking the question sits in the middle, as it were, colour wise and acceptance wise. I am reminded of a probably apocryphal story of a Japanese visitor to the Old South pre civil rights era. Confronted with segregated toilets he was unsure whether to use the ones marked 'Black' or 'White'. He approached a police officer who, after some hesitation, told him he could use the 'White' toilet on account of him being a guest 'n all.

The scene also adds the further conundrum that we are ALL unhappy in our own skin (the implication is that the Asian guy can't decide on a black or white replacement body, but has no interest in an Asian one) and suspect that the the 'other' has it easier. It is a variation on the 'grass is always greener' idea.

Ftr, I think the idea that being black in contemporary America would prove an advantage in life is so absurd that it is part of the core comedic premise of the movie.

It's a thumbs up for me and another justification for never watching mainstream films when there is hype around them. Leave it a couple of years when it has faded into the mists of time and you have no idea what the story might hold and no preconceptions, and you get to see the best of what a film has to offer.

I am only loosely aware of Peele, but knew he did comedy and approached the film as such. I liked the 'meet the in-laws' theme and thought it deftly handled humorous and unsettling twists on the horror genre. It all kept me off balance a bit about what direction the film would choose to take (answer, definitely on the light hearted side). It was that pleasant way of being just predictable enough to make you join the dots at the right moments, but it wouldn't claim to be a brain taxing conspiracy drama.

Large proportions of the films were utterly absurd, but knowingly so in my opinion. Not what I'd call oscar nominee worthy, but then I dont consider most oscar nominated films to be oscar nominee worthy. A very solid and worthwhile

7/10