The only things that seemed random are needed in the ending in the film. The only thing you have to accept is that there are people who would accept to die in order to film something impossible, but that is part of the message of the film.

@Emanuele676 said:

The only things that seemed random are needed in the ending in the film. The only thing you have to accept is that there are people who would accept to die in order to film something impossible, but that is part of the message of the film.

I get that's what they were going for with that character, by my man couldn't tether himself to the ground first? Also, he and the footage was going to be destroyed, no one was ever going to see it. They didn't even give him cancer or some terminal disease to make it a "going out on my own terms" kind of thing.

Just a little more thought put into this movie and it could have been great.

If you want the rational explanation, the alien does not digest the film, so they would have found it on the ground. But the simplest explanation is what they say in the film, he would have done anything to film the impossible.

Gotta agree with you on this one. The movie was a bit too long (yet some stuff seemed rushed) and too much random stuff happening. The premise was interesting but it ended up as a wasted opportunity. 5/10.

@Emanuele676 said:

If you want the rational explanation, the alien does not digest the film, so they would have found it on the ground.

I doubt it because the footage they had already show rolled down a hill and busted open, exposing the film and ruining it. If nickel that killed OJ's dad fell with enough force to pierce his eye and go several inches into his skull, as well as the key that stabbed the horse. That would take a LOT of force to do that. I do not see that camera surviving that without breaking open and exposing the film.

I agree that there are a lot of random stuff, but I disagree that it is a bad thing. The stream of consciousness from the director is weird and unconventional, and a lot of things are not clear. But I think it is a positive thing, it ads mystery and makes it more surreal, you perceive this movie on a bit different level than just rational and logical. Same way you can enjoy a David Lynch film without fully understanding what is going on.

There is a clear theme of the human vs animal, of a food chain, of a nature that rebels. Nature that humans think they tamed, but then suddenly something snaps and they fight back for control. There is a clear parallel between the killer monkey and the alien story, and the movie appears more complex than what is shown. It creates the feeling and the sense of something unnatural, something alien to our understanding of how the world is suppose to work, it makes us to look at the nature of things from a different perspective and re-evaluate it.

There is some obvious mockery of Hollywood, very suspenseful and creepy atmosphere and excellent cinematography. And I liked the alien design, for me it was very good, how it changes shape and turns to be a complex structure that is some sort of a hyperspace. It's an alien, it is suppose to be strange and beyond our perception. The movie has some small plot holes and some small decisions are a bit lazy, but overall I enjoyed it a lot.

@Emanuele676 said:

The only things that seemed random are needed in the ending in the film. The only thing you have to accept is that there are people who would accept to die in order to film something impossible, but that is part of the message of the film.

What about the chimp scene? As far as I can tell that had nothing to do with the main plot.

@movie_nazi said:

What about the chimp scene? As far as I can tell that had nothing to do with the main plot.

It does, it's just long winded and not well explained. Steven Yeun's character survived that chimp attack because he did not look it in the eyes (just like not looking the monster in the eyes will stop it from attacking you), but he thinks he had some kind of special connection with the chimp that stopped it from attacking him, which he also thinks he has with the monster, but he's wrong and that leads to his death.

The problem is we never see his character experiencing the monster attacks or see him trying to "tame" it by feeding it the horses up until that scene where he's sucked up and eaten so it's very confusing and appears not to make sense. It kind of does, it's just portrayed poorly.

@cswood said:

@movie_nazi said:

What about the chimp scene? As far as I can tell that had nothing to do with the main plot.

It does, it's just long winded and not well explained. Steven Yeun's character survived that chimp attack because he did not look it in the eyes (just like not looking the monster in the eyes will stop it from attacking you), but he thinks he had some kind of special connection with the chimp that stopped it from attacking him, which he also thinks he has with the monster, but he's wrong and that leads to his death.

The problem is we never see his character experiencing the monster attacks or see him trying to "tame" it by feeding it the horses up until that scene where he's sucked up and eaten so it's very confusing and appears not to make sense. It kind of does, it's just portrayed poorly.

Huh. I thought Glenn (sorry, The Walking Dead joke there) thought that the monster was a flying saucer. He seemed to present it as such in his little ring leader speech. His big surprise was that it was an animal looking to feed.

@cswood said:

@movie_nazi said:

What about the chimp scene? As far as I can tell that had nothing to do with the main plot.

It does, it's just long winded and not well explained. Steven Yeun's character survived that chimp attack because he did not look it in the eyes (just like not looking the monster in the eyes will stop it from attacking you), but he thinks he had some kind of special connection with the chimp that stopped it from attacking him, which he also thinks he has with the monster, but he's wrong and that leads to his death.

The problem is we never see his character experiencing the monster attacks or see him trying to "tame" it by feeding it the horses up until that scene where he's sucked up and eaten so it's very confusing and appears not to make sense. It kind of does, it's just portrayed poorly.

Actually you can see it in one scene, the main character is looking for the horse and sees the theme park lit up and Steven Yeun's character rehearsing the speech that we later hear. Maybe you don't remember it because you don't realize what he's doing until later.

But yes, of course, the chimpanzee scene is to make the point about why Steven Yeun wants to do what he later does in the film.

@cswood said:

@movie_nazi said:

What about the chimp scene? As far as I can tell that had nothing to do with the main plot.

It does, it's just long winded and not well explained. Steven Yeun's character survived that chimp attack because he did not look it in the eyes (just like not looking the monster in the eyes will stop it from attacking you), but he thinks he had some kind of special connection with the chimp that stopped it from attacking him, which he also thinks he has with the monster, but he's wrong and that leads to his death.

The problem is we never see his character experiencing the monster attacks or see him trying to "tame" it by feeding it the horses up until that scene where he's sucked up and eaten so it's very confusing and appears not to make sense. It kind of does, it's just portrayed poorly.

I don't think it is done poorly... I think Peele respected us as an audience and filmed this in a 1970's way, by assuming the audience is smart enough to connect the dots.. which you did.