Jordan Peel is a very strange and interesting author. Shot with his debut “Get Out”, the man “snatched” the Oscar for best screenplay and pleased us all with a great black comedy about disadvantaged African Americans, in which “white” see only bio-material for donation. It then releases ‘We’, which for some reason I dropped in the middle while watching on the release. Next, he rolls out a great No, where he literally sentences humanity and metaphorically "urines" on the dominant view of Mother Earth. Although, I prefer the theme of the struggle between analogue and numbers, as well as an ironic look at modern blockbusters in cinema. But not the point. Now we're talking about the painting "We." I decided here, you see, to give him a second chance and, in order to see the end, I bought a BD. Here is my impression.
There is no trace of black comedy, but acute social and politics are in place. Let’s define right away: ‘Us’ is not just ‘We’ but also ‘United States’. Already at the stage of opening and credits, the right tone is set: cages with rabbits against the background of the red inscription “US” – it is worth waiting for it is clear what statement, the Duck and Trump’s reign at the time of the film’s release can say a lot. Yes, it's a typical Saw movie with all the meta-texts that roam from one movie to another all three times. If you’ve seen “Out” and “No,” you’ll know what to expect from “We.” Yes, there is no Daniel Kalui, but there is another black protagonist, or rather, a whole family of black protagonists.
I like what movies are about: capitalism, social stratification and injustice, where the top live and the bottom only imitate, the dualism and mirroriness of modern people, as well as the childhood traumas that affect adulthood. Peel masterfully writes the script: very rhythmic on events and fascinating on the plot. You always wonder what happens next. Suspence is where he should be. Irony is where you expect it.
Acting work is great, although I do not know anyone, but it does not prevent you from enjoying watching without being distracted by media faces. Operator work and installation - great. I like the way the movie looks: dark, oppressive, mesmerizing. Sound design and post-production are good, Dolby Atmos is on board as it should be.
“We” is a movie that will only be understood by Americans, because it is about the United States and for the United States. A political and social “message” and a spit in the face of white bourgeois who think they are better than others. It's an evil, scary and relevant movie, but not for us. For us, this is just a genre canvas, for them - jiza. If you evaluate, then the form and direction of the author, and they are good there. In the rest, especially in ideological content - alien, but readable. I got acquainted. Thank you.
7 out of 10
It's hard to find words. I never wanted to give the film such a low rating. I didn't understand everyone's excitement. In my opinion, this picture does not deserve the current rating. He only has it because of the hype around him.
The trailer is deceptive, it really gives hope for something worthwhile, but as a result, just watch it, in the film itself you will not see anything else.
Apparently, Peel after ' Get Out' decided to take a shot at something more, but was trapped in full.
This film is absolutely not scary, the plot is flat and illogical. The finale shocked me with its absurdity. And in general, the picture left behind a bunch of questions, a reasonable answer to none of which the viewer does not receive. Characters are cardboard, they do not want to empathize, besides, they behave unreasonable. There were several extremely stupid situations, from which there was a desire to force the hand to the forehead.
There are still some positives. First of all, I want to pay tribute to Lupita Nyong'o, her game is very worthy. But, again, behind the intriguing, at first glance, the character is nothing. Her story is very crumpled. Secondly, a great musical accompaniment. BUT! in my opinion, rock music breaks down attempts to create tension in the film. It all looks strange together, there is no big picture.
If you are a fan of horror movies, I advise you to bypass this side, it is not worth your attention.
Jordan Peele's certainly good. First get away, now this. It started out like a classic horror movie. Then it doesn't start quite canon and it's pretty creepy. Then it's like some kind of banter and farce that even the most respectable African-American family will kick the ass of any monster you want. Then again begins a terrible horror, but in a manner more characteristic of horror comedies. All these strange conversations from the category ' who killed more monsters' and that 'Mama there will cope' And then in the final it is science fiction, although insanely absurd and pure art horror with a rather deep philosophical background. The finale is really unexpected, strange and quite gloomy. In fact, if you look at it not so predictable. But you're so impressed with everything that you're just a little freaked out. So a very original movie, which can probably not be attributed to pure horror. It's certainly not Mom!, but certainly not a banal slasher. Too bad Elizabeth Moss wasn't enough. But Lupita Nyong'o was really impressed. Well, Oscar does. And the music in the movie is cool. Worth watching a movie.
I’m not a big fan of horror, but if you watch a movie of this genre, it’s definitely not this one. Despite my fearfulness, I laughed more, unfortunately, not out of jokes, but out of the absurdity of situations.
And it began so beautifully: the inflating atmosphere that gave me the anticipation of a good kinz, a great picture and good sound. But that was the end of it. . .
The film runs for two hours, half of which the main characters spend on the run from evil doppelgangers. Who are they? Where did they come from? What is their story and why do they need the death of the Adelaide family? All this we learn in the last 5-10 minutes, without receiving any satisfaction: after the film, there is an unpleasant feeling as if something was not told to you. This feeling is unpleasant, since it is not an open ending, but a raw finale.
In fact, it was very funny to watch how these clever, sharp, strong doppelgangers, killing secondary characters in a second, could not cope with the family of the main character: then there will fall, then here will take time, then what else? And it lasts an hour.
I can’t help but note the good idea – the plot is interesting, but could have been shown much better. The confrontation of people in the shadows and the main characters - why not?
In general, I would call this film an unpleasant candy in a very beautiful shiny wrapper, or a cake with nothing.
3 out of 10
Having received a gold statuette for his previous horror film, Peel realized that white people like it when black people are killed not only in real life, but also on the screen, and decided to shoot another creep with even more dead blacks.
And he almost succeeded, because he really caught up with the creeps, especially when completely repulsed doubles appeared. And the music in the film is scoring, the most terrifying and of course nightmare voice of the antipode of the main character adds fear. But closer to the middle, the dark horror turns into a bloody thrash in the spirit of Rob Zombie. Especially lovers of this will enjoy the final battle between two mothers. With a sense of humor, the authors are also fine. The joke about voice assistant Ophelia is simply amazing: "Ophelia, call the police." It's not funny just because it's taken out of context. If you see what is happening on the screen, you will appreciate it.
So Peel once again turned out not to understand that the queen gave birth to the night of the wrong son, or daughter. It seems that he himself can not decide what exactly he wants to shoot, horror, thriller or comedy. Or is he trying to create a new genre? The ending is grim, but quite expected and a little ridiculous. As one of the characters said, it looks like some crazy performance. The explanation at the end of the film explains almost nothing, but rather confuses and leaves more questions than answers. But the most important question that haunts me, where did they get so many scissors?
By the way, what scares "Us" is "Us"? Our distributors, and with them all our film critics, who did not notice this, have become dull again? "Us" "We," whatever, they thought, as I translated it, so it will be, let go. I have my own version of the correct translation of the title of this film. When this totally crazy lady in red with a creepy voice is asked who you are, she says, we are Americans. Maybe Us is U.S. in the U.S. sense. Just Peel, out of habit, trolls America.
An ordinary American family. Rest. They come out of nowhere doppelgangers who want to mow them all one by one.
I always feel sorry for such a movie: an absolutely beautiful idea is killed by a bad performance. With all the undoubted advantages of the film - a deep idea on the verge of romanticism and philosophy, a very plausible social background - not the best form of their expression was chosen. Watch ' We' frankly boring: it is quite difficult to sympathize with at least one of the sides of the confrontation, and the author's film, which does not imply enjoying action, the film does not reach the same notorious performance.
Why could this be a horror? Because both camera work, and the practical absence of acting, and the chosen form of narrative suggest a correspondence to the genre. The family of the main characters does not cause any affection, interest, or pity, but you do not expect this: the film at first resembles a typical ' slasher' - a movie where the characters are mowed one by one and you do not even have time to get attached to them. This is made worse by the fact that slasher turns out to be without suspense: there is no special pressure on the atmosphere from which goosebumps should run down the back. Just in the 20th minute doubles appear, and you think with horror that it seems that the next hour or forty heroes will dullly run away from them. But it is not a horror.
Okay, what is that then? And this movie is social horror. That is, the nightmare our society is going into. And this idea is carried out by those same doubles. Only their images are the case when you can not see the forest behind the trees. The mass of subtle details, from which the figures of the doubles are formed, do not give a complete picture. You don't hate them, you don't fear them, you don't understand them. In the end, of course, they will explain who they are. And on this explanation I want to say ' from this place in more detail '. But from here are the titles.
Explaining who these doppelgangers are gives this powerful social message, making ' We' a warning picture. A warning of the rebellion of those who have always been in the shadows - of how terrible it would be if things continued like this. Do we remember what the whole world was discussing here recently in the context of America? Such a hit-prediction is, of course, fantastic. No sarcasm. The other thing, of course, is that you watch almost the entire movie with a different logical explanation in your head.
And of course, it is completely unclear what side the biblical flirtations turned out to be in this orgy of leftism. The biblical theme is not disclosed, and the film is easier to interpret from the standpoint of Marxism-Leninism than from the religious.
If the director, like doppelgangers, himself took scissors (by the way, where do these children have so many dungeon scissors?) and cut the script into pieces, and then put everything back together in convincing proportions, the film would noticeably win. And so the viewer can not imbue the end of the film with either a genuine idea or sympathy for one side. And it turns out that for two hours you watch some dull dudes fight the same dull doubles.
Remember the reception in action films, when at the end of the film, it seems that the already shot, stabbed, drowned antagonist grabs the protagonist’s bed and all for the second round in the shortened version? Well, there's a whole movie about it.
While continuing to dig the archives after the quarantine, I came across the movie "We" or, in a more correct translation, "Us." The film is not for everyone and not everyone will understand it. Let’s talk about Jordan Peel’s movie “We.”
I will evaluate this film work by such criteria as the plot, acting, soundtrack, as well as the atmosphere.
Plot: We are told about the Wilson family, who come to a country house for a summer vacation. Suddenly, they have evil doppelgangers trying to kill them. That's how survival begins. I want to emphasize at the beginning that the plot is very difficult to perceive, which causes you such mixed feelings as disgust, surprise and shock in both a bad and a good way. The plot reveals the problem of black people being oppressed and tells us that many of them are still afraid, but in a difficult situation they can do more good than white people, because they are more adapted to life because of the constant life in fear, and they also have a slave inside them who can break out and turn everything upside down. Yes, the storyline of this film still touches on the current acute problem that still worries the world society. But that’s not the main point of the film, as the story goes deeper than just racial discrimination. This story explains to us that each of us has a double inside, but our double can be much more powerful than the one who imagines the owner of this body in white light. In some people, the double is on the contrary on the outside, and its faded display is on the inside. Therefore, the storyline “We” calls us to action, since life in the current society is far from good and we need to improve the situation so that everyone lives equally well. Honestly, the semantic load is just mad. The storyline makes the viewer really think. And the detective genre here is not for nothing, because a person watching this movie should conduct an investigation, since the answer is given at the end, but how the viewer will perceive it already depends on the viewer himself and on how closely the viewer followed the development of the storyline. The ending of the film is unusual, it is a very unusual ending that not everyone will understand. But this does not deny the fact that there are some gaps in the plot, logical errors, since not everything is explained, some points the director omits, but this is not very striking. In total, this criterion is made simply at an incredible level, since the semantic load is very large, and it will not work out to relax for sure.
Actors in this film deserve special praise. Each of them played two roles of himself, that is, they gave not 100%, but 200%. Especially tried Lupita Nyong'o, who played the role of Adelaide Wilson and Red. Her voice playing and getting into the role is just incredible. Lupita Nyong'o is a really high-level actress. Separate praise deserves Shahadi Wright Joseph, who played the role of Zora Wilson and Ambre. At this age, to play two such different roles, it is really commendable, the girl has a great future if she does not turn where it is not necessary. The same praise deserves Ivan Alex, who played the role of Jason Wilson and Pluto. I can say the same thing about this boy, he is very good, everything depends on him. I don’t see any reason to single out other actors, everyone played several roles, and everyone showed themselves in this role perfectly. Each image was revealed, the characters were clearly personalities, real characters, not just mercenaries. But I have a complaint here. The second self, or the doppelganger of each, is a very interesting topic, but it would be better if the doppelgangers showed the real inner essence of the person they are a doppelganger, and there was a very strange feeling that reminded you that you are watching a horror movie first, and not a detective or psychological thriller without elements of horror. Overall, this criterion was also made at a good level. The actors were great.
Soundtrack: The musical accompaniment “We” is a separate theme. The music here, as a separate and very important mechanism, which played the role of pressure, caused suspense and showed you that this is not just a horror or just a psychological thriller, but first of all “We” is a psychological thriller with elements of horror. Track "Pas De Deux" - Michael Abels is just something. It felt like my brain was a piano and the movie was pressing the keys inside it. It was also diluted with such legendary hits as "I Got 5 On It" by Luniz and others like it. In total, the musical accompaniment was given special attention. This is very commendable, as music and sounds are very important for horror.
Atmosphere: The atmosphere is simply incredible. This plot, music, dark tones and red on their background. Plus, all this is mixed with such cold tones, pale yellow and white. This puts you very much in the atmosphere, and you can’t get out of there until the end of the movie because you feel the influence of the thriller, namely the phenomenon of suspense, which keeps you in suspense all the time until the credits begin. Also on top is a detective who makes you think, skip every frame and scene of the film through yourself and make some conclusions or analogies. In total, the atmosphere of “We” is really worthy of the horror genre, since it is made at the highest level, which is very important for horror.
So, the psychological thriller with the elements of horror “We” I really liked. I didn’t expect that from this movie. I am a big fan of the horror genre and just used to looking for the essence and the message in horror doesn’t make sense, since this genre is about another. But I was shocked that “We” put such a deep meaning, the message that the movie is not perceived as a typical horror film, but is something more, in which several genres are mixed and they all complement each other. I recommend watching this film, but only for those who know how to think and love to engage in this activity, since “We”, I repeat, this is not a typical horror film, but for the most part a real detective, where the investigation is not in the film, but in your head. If you are looking just for the thrill of the evening, then safely pass by, this movie is not for you. I hope my review was helpful. I'm surprised!
I will not praise 'We' and bombard the film with rave compliments. Yes, this is a very good picture with an original idea and a good execution, but I did not see anything genius here personally.
The main plot has already been shown in the trailers, so I do not see any reason to hide it in the review - a happy family of four members, mom, dad, daughter and son, in one not very pleasant evening encounters four strangers in red jumpsuits. Strangers are very aggressive, but the worst thing is that they are literally copies of their victims. This is where the main action begins.
Call ' We' horrors don't turn the language. Yes, it sometimes escalates the atmosphere well, sometimes makes you feel uncomfortable, but still the main part of the timing is just an interesting and unusual story. That doesn’t make the movie bad, of course, just don’t expect a horror tape.
Very interesting idea ' Twins' in the film. Some aspects of existence 'copies' after viewing cause questions, although the tape and gives some answers in the course of the narrative. But, in my opinion, this is not a minus, just ' We' one of those pictures, which is more interesting the less explanation it provides to the viewer.
It is impossible not to mention the deep (not so) message of the film about the division of society into, relatively speaking, rich and poor. Those who live all their lives under the sun and have access to all the benefits, and those who have never seen the sun from their slums and survive by eating slops. In fact, it is worth giving credit to the fact that transferring this idea through the prism of a horror film is a very good idea, and the creators coped with the task perfectly.
All in all, 'We' as I said, a film worth watching. It is interesting, original, and even prepares a very powerful twist at the end, which personally allowed me to throw the tape an additional point. We can say, ' We' catches its unusualness and thanks to it stands out against the background of many modern film products. One thing is for sure - the film remains in the memory, and this alone says that the time spent watching was not wasted.
This is the second film directed by Jordan Peel and it’s amazing how much I liked his first project 'Get Out' so much I didn’t like the second 'We' Throughout the film, I sat and waited until it was so interesting that I couldn’t take my eyes off, but nothing like that happened. The whole film is one complete nonsense, the idea is delusional, the performance is even worse. I don't even want to tell you that. From the creators of ' Get Out' I expected quite different. Yes, the style between the two films is preserved, the director’s handwriting is visible, this is a plus for him, but the plot is a complete disaster. I cannot even explain why this happened, but judging by the reviews, assessments and reviews, my subjective opinion is not shared by many. I just didn’t get this movie.
I still do not like such moments, for example, when the enemies of the main characters for some reason hesitate to kill, stumble, fall, miss, etc., and if it comes to secondary heroes, the same enemies kill them in seconds, it was very striking too.
It was difficult for a young actor who played the son of the family, it is clear that there is no experience, the director asks him to show fear, and he just unnaturally gazes at his eyes, but I hope he will learn to criticize the ungrateful business of child actors. There are no claims to Lupita Nyongo, she plays at the usual high level, her personal fans can be satisfied and even delighted.
And yes, the ending is extremely unexpected and shocking, and explains some points, but in general, the film does not save. And I'm a fan of shocking endings in the style of films ' The Key to All Doors', 'Mgla' and the like, but in this case for those 10 seconds of revelation I spent more than 100 minutes of delusional footage. And this is not good, in those cases it was very interesting to observe the plot, the process, how everything came to this or that denouement. It wasn’t interesting at all.
Knowing who the director was, he expected much more from the film, but in the end, he was disappointed. Just the feeling that I wasted my time, I rarely write negative reviews, but then I wanted to speak out.
Jordan Peele, inspired by the success of the film Away, released his second film two years later. And again received very high marks from critics, but with the audience's assessments, everything did not turn out so well.
And the secret is that Peele apparently decided that he was a great master, capable of creating a film-metaphor, in which, in addition to the story that is on the surface, there is also a layer consisting of references, hidden thoughts and, of course, where without it, criticism of American society.
The film tells the story of a family that came on vacation in a summer house. And the first twenty minutes seemed very depressing to some people, but I’m not one of those people, because I was quite pleased to watch this family, because the director was able to do that very magic of cinema, when you believe in your characters, which was very helpful for the film throughout the timeline.
But the story began much earlier, in 1986. A little girl Adelaide, after watching a commercial for HandsAccrossAmerica and Michael Jackson's Thriller, went for a walk with her parents in an amusement park. Already in the first scenes, the director left us references to real events, to real people, prescribed and showed a cause-and-effect relationship ' viewing the clip-> Obtaining a T-shirt with the image of Michael Jackson' well, where in a highly artistic work without reference to the Bible?
Almost immediately after the arrival of the family began to occur strange coincidences, very frightening the main character Adelaide. They cannot frighten the viewer, but they create a certain intrigue. And then there is a very cool scene of the first meeting of the family with their doppelgangers. And she is cool because the behavior of the father seems first justified, and secondly extremely lively and amusing.
When the family comes to their country house, the director begins to create an atmosphere of anticipation of something terrible. Here are the strange coincidences that Adelaide sees, combined with her paranoia. And, of course, repeating the reference to the Bible, only now in even more frightening circumstances, to perfect this image. Turn off the lights in the house without warning. But first, how can one do without it, a reference to the Bible again, so that everyone will understand that this is a reference and look on the Internet, what is hidden behind this Jeremiah 11:11. Across America, the director waited half an hour to add context to the first scene.
Doppelgangers are extremely interesting opponents. First, their appearance, which, despite the general minimalism, is perfectly imprinted in memory. These red suits, leather glove and large scissors after the release of the film gained their well-deserved popularity. Also entertaining is the grotesque facial expressions of these creatures, which on the one hand frightens with its unnaturalness, but at the same time amuses for the same reason. Further in the plot, not that many events occur, but they maintain the proper level of interest in what is happening. Many scenes were shot just wonderfully, especially the scene of the final battle, in many respects because of the music for which movies you can put a confident 10, because the music in the film We are what no questions. So to the actors no complaints, although they overplayed, but it entertained and looked organic. The plot leaves questions, of course, because the rules of interaction between originals and copies are unclear. It is not clear how these copies appeared, how they lived. And if the director didn’t try to explain what was happening, it would be much better.
Since the appearance of doppelgangers, in the film called shadows (in the original bound), the director for some time whipped up the atmosphere of horror, what happened written in the Bible, well, you remember the reference to the Bible, right? Forget it, she did, and then we've got metaphors. A metaphor for the division of society into higher and lower, but in fact into lower and lower. You will be told the unique idea that the government wants to control people by making them dolls. Of course, the director will show us a revolution that if you ignore those at the bottom, one day they will rise up. Or maybe they won't rise up without the help of a high-class man. Maybe rabbits mean something. Or scissors? Does the song "Fuck the Police" have a secret meaning? And that sort of thing goes through my head after watching. The film has an insane number of references, metaphors, some scenes with deep symbolism. But unlike David Lynch, whose films are open to interpretation, but in which you can find some, if not always true, explanation, which no scene in the film does not contradict. Yes, Lynch, in the same 2019, the Lighthouse came out, also stuffed with references, only to more distant times, in which I was able to explain each scene to myself from two views, to put together a clear puzzle. We can't do that, because for any interpretation, there's a scene that will break it. I wish Jordan Peele hadn't tried to explain the origin of the shadows.
What was that? The discovery of a new genre? The rebirth of the already tarnished and lost horror glasses? And most importantly, for what? What did the director want to tell you, what message did he carry, but he never conveyed to the viewer, spilling this sea of incoherent, deliberate and redundant components that interrupt each other? Of which, despite their excessiveness, one cannot draw even a hint of continuation: We-2, We-3, We are against Him.
Of course, if the goal was only to scare the viewer, then everyone, I think, will find in him his hidden fears and personal skeletons in the closet. Here these skeletons are collected with interest, for all tastes and styles. My skeleton, because of which I was afraid after watching to go to the toilet before going to bed: the crazy silent and unnatural smile of a girl (probably because of the overstretched pigtails) with the same crazy sparkling look. As if descended from children's horror stories, told after the retirement in the pioneer camp: "In a dark and dark room..."
Yes, in terms of suspense, the film is quite justified. Although closer to the middle, when all further moves began to yawn, with such zeal the tension created the day before instantly dissolved and gave way to the bored “facepalm”.
If we consider the film exclusively within the stated genre, it has a number of undeniable style markers. It's a sea of references! This is not even a film, but an anthology of stamps and worn-out moves collected over a hundred years of cinema in general, and horror in particular, in one film digest. Like a quiz, where you need to guess from which famous horror film is taken the next fragment.
Here you and the huge, like a fake bloody scissors, and leather baseball glove, and crazy eyes, crazy smile, infernal womb voice, red robe of a suicide bomber, mask, which must surely hide a disfigured face, and empty cages with runaway white rabbits, and a frightening children's song-counter.
Yes, at least the same games of catching up with the victim and the killer... And, of course, the apotheosis of this Peel kunstkamera is an indispensable key point, without which no self-respecting exploit film has ever done: when the fragile main character leaves a safe place and climbs into the heaviness of her own complexes and fears, towards a bloody ending.
Too many, too many, too many, too many references for one movie. As if the director was afraid that the audience would not understand what they were dealing with and in what vein the author wanted to speak. He has too much “shining”, “elm streets”, “saw”, “12 monkeys”, Schwartz “shadow”, Jacksonian thrillers, “Edward the Scissor” and “evil dead” with “exorcists”.
There was a feeling that at some point the director himself became entangled in this exorbitant pile of self-important artifacts that lost meaning, being taken out of the original context. There are too many inconsistencies and logical failures in the plot, almost more than the quotes used. There are so many inconsistencies in the film that you can list endlessly.
For example, why couldn't rabbits get out of their cages if no one was watching them? And how did they do that later? And how did one rabbit escape and another, more intelligent, fail? Who and why was this rabbit cloning experiment created? Who fed and maintained them? And for what? And why did you abandon this project? How do you tell one Dolly sheep from another? And was the original the last clone? And how can soulless replicas, like zombies repeating the actions of their originals, live without control, if they are not able to ensure their independent existence? What's this about rabbits? And why all this odious entourage with scissors, red robes and pulled braids, if at the end we have an infantile flash mob of brainless madmen “Let’s hold hands, friends”, standing side by side, like singles on the dial of an electronic watch?
Or, behind this huge pile of randomly incoherent details, Jordan Peele tried to hide something deeper? After all, in addition to the immediate genre attributes, he stuffed the film with multiple allusions to other works of art, logically designed to refer us to more serious, deeper questions. All the same Looking Glasses, endless reflections and self-copies, the same burrow of the White Rabbit, behind which a crowd of mad hatters is waiting, the same twin girls of Kubrick (they are also Trulyal-Tralal), the same man-apple Magritte, reflecting his back ... Even the Bible director managed to somehow weave blood-red threads!
All this shouts to us that the author wanted to reveal much deeper socio-political (social stratification and official falsehood of politicians), racial problems (all the main characters are black, around which this mad storm in a glass unfolds), philosophical and ethical problems (who you are, do you have a soul, who controls you), and even with mystical overtones (clone people, mechanistic soulless golems living among “us”).
But even if we consider the film as a kind of abstract philosophical parable, in order to get rid of numerous inconsistencies and detachment from reality, this still will not succeed, since the same philosophical (social, ethical, ethnic, mystical) subtext is not found in it, being crumpled and dumped without any logic into a dark closet, from where the strange skeletons of Jordan Peel stick out.
Baddy Riggo, 26.02.2020
Movie ' We' - the case when the trailer is fascinating, and you expect something enchanting from the film, but in the end you get nothing, if not complete disappointment. First of all, there's no idea. The same director made the film 'Get Out' which had an interesting idea. And although slavery was abolished many years ago, discrimination, including social, as well as violence against the will of a person and forcing him to do what he does not want, still exist in the modern world, and therefore in ' Out' it was entertaining to observe the interpretation of the director of these problems of society. ' We' are pure sura and nothing more, and in some moments the most elementary logic is absent. There are our doppelgangers on earth who hate us and want to kill us for some reason, and that’s where the plot ends.
They will tell us where they came from, but that will do us nothing. Perhaps 20-30 years ago, such a story would have gone as something unusual (bloody killers are not maniacs or zombies, but human doubles - wow), but the modern viewer is more sophisticated and look at the meaningless urine is no longer interesting. And you know, maybe I would even give this film a neutral rating and put in the category of horror films that you can watch & #39; under beer & #39; (not all bad, filmed decently and quite lookable), if not for another circumstance.
Elizabeth Moss is our favorite maid from The Handmaid's Tale 39. Here she got the role of a stupid blonde. A woman who for four seasons bravely fights against the totalitarian system, does not play, but lives, saves children with whole planes, causes such emotional empathy with micro-movements of the facial muscles that you want to cry and scream - just a stupid blonde, expendable material in a horror film. I understand that Elizabeth Moss accepted the role herself, but I cannot forgive the director. Therefore, only ...
Yes, the film is original. If you are told to define the genre of this work, you will be confused. Even at the end of the viewing, you do not have a definite opinion, and in the process, the opinion about the belonging of the film to any of the genres will change as the mood of the lady during the "Red Days" '.
This is neither horror nor thriller nor psychological drama. This is a film in itself, without any reference to everything familiar.
So, we decided on the pluses. Originality and unusualness, definitely a plus. You should also praise the music and camera work, these things in the picture at a height.
But if we touch on the minuses, then, as in my opinion, the work does not correctly maintain the general tone of what is happening. The movie starts at #39; serious' and tries to keep that pace throughout most of the film. And on the screen, at this time, there is ' incomprehensible nonsense' which, without a bit of irony, I think, is problematic to perceive. But the authors do not think to make a bias in ' frivolity' (as did for example in the film ' Welcome to zombieland') and bend their line to the end.
There's also a twist at the end, but I don't think it's a big deal. In my opinion, if we changed the ending to the psychological disorders and the illusion of everything that is happening, the film could be made much stronger. But the authors chose a different path.
The assessment is logical and logical - the film at once, in a couple of days you will forget that you watched this movie.
6 out of 10
The plot suspiciously copies the fairy tale of Hans Christian Anderson 'Shadow'. To look frankly, it was boring, it is impossible to feel the emotional connection with the characters, suspense turned out to be a quality from the 80s. But because of the hidden theme, I am ready to evaluate the film rather positively.
As my gut tells me, the general theme of the film is commercial prisons in the United States. Considering that around the financing of such institutions revolves a lot of money (according to the formula: the more prisoners, the more state support). I saw a show where even a schoolgirl was put in prison for 2 months for skipping school. The United States as a perfect young state was constructed from the very beginning by devout fanatics according to the canons of the Bible with an excessive emphasis on the subject of the Great Judgment, so that the judiciary, with all its excesses, dominates everything in this empire - even over common sense. So it turns out that people in prison robes, leaving the dungeons already look at society without much humanism.
In general, it does not matter where creatures come from or why – the main thing is that creatures can and do come (if you do not start from social problems).
Closed hands, implying the unity of Americans - perhaps just a twisted bloody farce. A person who received a sentence in prison in the United States is already listed as someone second-rate (! credit history is the most important in the lives of Americans! 0_0... credit history, Carl!) - so such actions, flash mobs about unity - it's just a show of bored people and the media community.
Expected a banal, stereotypical one-on-one horror, because, well, Kamon, the trailer is quite clear that nothing before 1000500 times not seen, new and original in ' We' will not. I have only two criteria for such films: pleasant visuals and tolerable acting. But now, after a tedious, constantly interrupted, viewing, I can say for sure that even once I would not watch it, know in advance what kind of a burden it is!
Two (two, Karl!!) hours, most of which you yawn, do not redeem what is happening now - for the plot line all this time is smooth, as when you stop your heart on a cardiogram - then finally live to the spectacular, accompanied by a very good soundtrack, scene of a fight-dance with its evil double, nodding with a grin, watching the final storyline with your ears, and enjoying the long-awaited credits. Why, one asks, such a deliberately template, not pretending to any VAU-effects, history was stretched on such hell timekeeping? After all, if you cut out 30-35 minutes from there, nothing will change, and the film will only win, because it will become more dynamic and of the serious disadvantages it will have only one - the disclosure of intrigue with killer clones (hell, well, real thrash, even taking into account all my discounts to this film ... it would be better if the same mysticism was stuck there, honestly, everything would not be so ridiculous and miserable).
The good news: I really liked Lupita Nyong’o and the girl who played her daughter, especially in the guise of their evil alter egos – they were really cryptic. Actresses turned into 5+. Bravo! Elisabeth Moss loves it after The Handmaid's Tale 39. It's the cherry on the cake in any project she's involved in. She's ready to watch anything. But, unfortunately, in ' We' it was logically small.
In general, when your expectations for the film are already at the level of 0, and then you are disappointed, then the impression, no matter how twisted, goes into the negative. .
After watching ' Get Out' I was under a good impression and decided I would definitely watch 'We'.
At some points at the beginning of the film, the shooting even resembled the Tarantine style, and I sat in anticipation with my mouth open.
The first third of the film is really frightening to goosebumps: the manner of shooting, and what is happening, and the play of actors, and the musical range ... In a word, five plus.
In the second third begins ridiculous – in my opinion – action with the fight against villains. Ridiculous - because what is happening on the screen seems surreal: villains with scissors (!) cut (!!) cities (!!!) .
The last third of the film is more like a French thriller: somewhere on the verge of madness and reality - rabbits, dungeons, another ridiculous struggle and an even stranger, however, quite expected finale.
To be honest, there are more questions than answers, there are also a lot of blunders. However, the actors’ play, the audio sequence and the shooting itself are really made of quality, interesting, new and unexpected. In my opinion, the film does not reach 7, but it is possible to play 6.5, and fans of strange thrillers will definitely like it and for the sake of cultural interest it is definitely worth watching.
This review should be read after watching the film.
In my opinion, the idea of the film is brilliant. The film is full of symbols, the meaning of which will be understood by those who can read them. I see it this way: Twins are the personification of the human subconscious, in which, as we see, there is a lot of negativity that seeks to destroy all the good that is in man. The film shows how the main character in the house “know yourself” meets with her “negative”, which changes places with her. Note that the true Adelaide, "coming out" has the ability to speak and is more humane than other doubles.
The dungeon where the twins live is the subconscious of humanity that it creates itself.
The use of prophecies in the film (Isaiah 11:11) unwittingly obliges us to look for the meaning of the film in a biblical context. The very reference can be interpreted as: “the evil that befell the unrepentant.”
The wall of doubles at the end of the film symbolizes the triumph of the dark side of humanity (and the expected end of the world). I don’t think there is a convincing ending to the film. There is a sense of understatement.
It seems that Jordan Peel smoked too much & #39; weed & #39; while writing the script (and there is a song about weed in the film, at the end of the review), I have no other explanation why the script turned out so messy, stupid and not meaningful. After all, ' Out' it turned out great, which showed us - the author is quite talented. ' Get Out' perfectly combined polygenre, used genre clichés well and even ridiculed them. It is completely unclear where 20,000,000 dollars were spent, which is 4 times more than the budget ' Away' (apparently for advertising).
The film for me was frankly boring, excruciating and this is why: it is too slow and without dynamics, very template and predictable, the timing is too big for such a poor script, God forbid, the short film would have turned out better, the dialogue is very weak and then create an atmosphere, then completely destroy it.
In the script itself, there are a lot of problems, and the biggest problem is the very idea of the film, the main idea and statement of the author simply did not work. Instead of a distinct social statement (which was in 'Out'), we have some strange tasteless set, well, doubles, well shadows and what?!
No, of course it is clear that it is all so ' beautiful' metaphor, slaves, disadvantaged, outsiders, social inequality, but God, how it is all poorly served, you can express it much more beautifully. The theme of doubles is made weakly, absurdly explained and untenable. If you remove all this social nonsense from the script and make the film more dynamic, it would be much better.
Jordan Peel is like a messiah, took a cross for all the blacks, look, now I will tell you how bad we are all under the smart sauce, and as a result, the banal ketchup, how would he not become a hostage of his zeal. This time, the multi-genre didn’t go well.
As a result, the film is rather cowardly and template vinaigrette for the masses, a pleasant appetite!
The only great thing about this film is the acting game Lupita Nyong'o and the track from LUNIZ - I GOT 5 ON IT.
A film with an unusual and meaningless idea, realized as a classic horror film. In a sense, this is a new vision of zombie movies.
The film is feminist, like many recent American films. The man in the family plays the role of a clown. A woman does everything. She drives a car, she solves problems. A man is a stupid male, a producer. He can do nothing but fertilize the female. He doesn't decide. It is not clear why this is done.
The film is predictable in terms of focus, development and climax, but at certain points surprises, given the certain novelty of the idea. As soon as the viewer absorbs a new idea, the film stands on the usual genre rails.
The film's surreal ending was delighted. Operating work, sound and acting are very good. Some scenarios and decisions related to the implementation of the idea raise questions. Did the film impress? Partly. Is it worth the time spent? I'm not sure.
The finale is beautiful and reveals many plot and game moves in the film, but still leaves questions.
7 out of 10
In the last film D. Peel probably the most tense scene was the auction scene for the body of the main character, which he, the hero, of course, did not suspect.
Also, we do not suspect most of what the director wanted to tell us with all this scattering of allusions, which are so densely scattered in the film that one of the options for the finale probably could be the heroine’s exit from a drug trance.
I will list only those allusions that I saw and noticed myself. The first events of the film took place in 1986, then the action moved to 2019, I understand. That is, 33 years have passed since the first meeting of the doubles.
Michael Jackson and the people crawling out of the ground in his clip “Thriller” is a double of this film. And a T-shirt that says "Thriller" kind of hints. The boy playing with fire on the ground was not burned, and the one who copied it underground was burned. But in the end, this one wears a mask.
The action “Let’s Hold Hands” had some Masonic meaning, and perhaps the Americans also created doppelgangers of Russians.
The rest of the techniques are banal, these numbers 11-11, symbolizing change is just a maveton. And why did they not understand such a denouement like you? But this will clearly affect the box office for the better.
Humor in the movie is something I don’t understand. Stupid Negro humor, coexisting with a slasher, as in "Out", then with a dystopia, as here. Jordan Peel is not Tarantino. He has social utterances, and the humour goes past the cash register. I don’t see anything funny about these films, just plugging holes in an already boring narrative.
According to the inconsistencies of the plot, this is just an author’s film, where all permissible flaws should be justified by the director’s plan. And this, by the way, is a typical second film of budding talent. "Get Out" in the sense of directing was a very mediocre film, and the effects of hypnosis are just terribly visualized. Here, in visual terms, there is not much to watch except the chase. Zombie apocalypse in a new way. The main thing is that again there is suspense, pumping up the atmosphere. At the end of the film, the child looks at the main character as if he understood everything. This is probably the most powerful scene in the film.
The author “invented a new genre” – an African-American horror film. That's it, let him work on it. Then there will be a black thriller about a maniac with black jokes. And of course we are waiting for the film, where the whole action in the end will be the ravings of the inflamed brain of the typical black American.
P.S. A week after viewing the thought that the author wanted to convey dissipates. And a month later, all of a sudden, you clearly understand whether we are not these zombies, and whether we live below, and, in fact, it does not matter what scientists created the underground inhabitants who should join hands, and who and why created our world?
Jordan Peele showed his 'Get Out' that horror movies can be thought of, with social overtones and no flashy screeners. It can be frightened and just ominous atmosphere. And the truth is, people were surprised that they saw not a stupid horror movie for the first time in their lives and in 2017 & #39; Get Out & #39; became one of the most appreciated films. He didn’t come to me at all and I didn’t understand the excitement around me. When the hype around a bit of verse - Peel introduces a new creation called 'We'. The difference between the films is barely noticeable and if you watch them in a row, it seems like you have watched the same movie.
' We' - the spectacle is very dull and drawn out. The first 20 minutes of the film are intriguing, after which everything slides into a sluggish narrative of a raw script. What catches the eye the most is the number of plot holes and inconsistencies that even a child will notice. It’s really hard to get caught up in the atmosphere of a movie when you notice that every 10 minutes something doesn’t match what you’ve been saying before. All the magic and integrity of the painting is lost. And the final twist simply completely breaks the entire storyline into small pieces that do not add up to one puzzle. Was it unexpected? Yeah. Only here logically completely destroyed what the picture was built on all two hours. Why was he needed then? Just to surprise you? You can surprise in different ways and in this case it is a surprise 'facepalm'.
In addition to blatant nonsense in working on the integrity of the script, it is difficult to see the meaning in this work. After the success 'Away' Peel apparently understood what exactly went to the viewer: subtext. Trying to do something like this, but with more effect, made no sense. The motivation of the characters is so unclear that it has to be explained in words! Seriously, there's a scene in the movie where the heroine sits down and starts explaining why she does that. If you have to explain your own joke, it's bad. Same with the script. If you have to explain the motivation of the characters, then it is sucked out of the finger. At the same time, even with explanations, it is difficult to understand, because the words differ from what happens on the screen.
It is difficult to determine the genre of this film: it is hardly horror, not a drama at all, not a drop of a detective, but a good comedy. Of all genres, the comedy part turned out to be the best. A couple of jokes can be laughed at. The first part of the film can probably be called a thriller, because there really is tension. Nothing more.
' We' in an attempt to beat the success ' Away' jumped over his head, fell and hit. The social subtext - only in words, the screeners - no, the plot - all in sags, so huge that the whole film is puzzled, and not for a fool you are held by the creators of the film. All maps are revealed almost immediately and further leave a hint that ' look to the end, in the end everything will not be so ' And that's not how it turns out. Everything turns out to be silly, meaningless and leaves behind a feeling of wanting to get this movie out of your head.
Jordan Peel is a curious character. His recent "Get Out" (at home "Get Out") is not to say that he made a furor, but left his obvious trace. The film was praised, sometimes scolded, not everyone understood, many laughed, but most importantly - they talked about it. As a result, the satirical horror even entered the Oscar race and even received a statuette for best script. Peel declared himself. And it was a bid for success.
Two years later, Jordan’s next picture creates a much more noisy informational drive around him, because “Get Out” has already prepared a convincing springboard for the universal hype. "We" ("Us" in the original, which is much more ambiguous, but come on) comes out of the shadow of his older brother to the public and turns out ... exactly what was expected of him.
To the great regret of any at least sophisticated viewer, “We” with its main plot twist is not able to surprise as much as it could “Away”. Look, the plot of the film is extremely simple: the family came to relax in a country house, but at night a group of people visit them, which looks one-on-one, like our heroes. Now, run out of your head all the possible explanations for this phenomenon and I assure you that one of the first assumptions will be true. The final twist, to which at the time to substitute the well-known clipping from Robo Chicken about Shyamalan (this is the turn) seems too obvious and undisguised.
However, “Get Out” was loved not for unexpected turns and not for unpredictable intrigue. “Out” was a non-trivial statement on a painful topic for the United States with intersperses of good black humor and a surprisingly strange, grotesque and comfortable atmosphere. Watching the movie made the audience feel strange. And for that, too, I loved the painting. “We’ve unfortunately lost this novelty effect, so it doesn’t seem so innovative anymore.” But for the same reason, this tape is easier to start analyzing immediately. And at this point, "We" begins to reward the attentive viewer. All mathematically hung guns fire in time, all actions receive a logical development, and through the prism of blood and sweat begins to see another not devoid of space for interpretation, Peale’s statement about the old problems of American society.
As a result, the fresh film of the Oscar-winning director copes with the fact that he still stands apart from other representatives of the genre, being still more intelligent cinema, and in order to remain a competent horror that can frighten a couple of times and regularly keeps in a tense tone. Besides, "We" is an insanely beautiful movie. Often you want to put it on pause and cut frames on wallpaper.
Should we watch "Us"? If you’ve got the eccentricity of “Get Out,” yes. Was Peel able to repeat his success a second time? No, I didn't, and I couldn't do it again. The beauty of Get Out was that this movie was amazing. You can't be surprised by the same thing twice. But the new picture does not hit the dirt face in comparison with its predecessor.
8/10 and a cautious recommendation. The film is specific.
Peele shoots not just horror films, he is intellectually trying to instill social undertones in his directorial works. If in the film “Get Out” everything was very clear, this is the case when the semantic evidence only emphasized the director’s talent, then in “We” everything turned out differently. A huge number of allegories, hints, metaphors, again a racial theme - and all this against the background of the scale of the whole country, which undoubtedly took away a lot of creative forces that were not enough for genre implementation. Behind all this semantic cumbersomeness, the plot thread was lost, from which the picture turns into a set of “pitfalls”, one of which will definitely appeal to the viewer, the good choice is rich, but the horror as such has sunk into oblivion, even despite the excellent ending.
The film begins with a reference, which sends a start on one of the genre-beaten paths - the States are simply teeming with unexplored tunnels, which, as usual, must be densely populated with all evil spirits. Next, local television shows a charity event in which a bunch of people join hands, stand in a chain, they are struggling with dysfunction. A kind of meaninglessness, which gives off frank, now fashionable hypocrisy. Then a girl in an amusement park meets her absolute replica. My head is already porridge, which by the end of the film will only change the taste values. It will not be any less, do not even hope.
Scare the viewer will be the makings of a slasher and psychological tricks from Haneke's Funny Games. Everything would be fine, but the jokes and total luck of the main characters spoil the overall atmosphere. It is difficult to tune in to a serious way, you also do not want to be horrified, it remains only to witness the director's crooks, which give their deliberate frank display.
One question raised many questions: Who is the aggressor? The obviousness of the answer raises those doubts. States build their policies, both foreign and domestic, by seeking an enemy. They are doing a lot to make it appear immediately. And they solve the problem dramatically. The ending gives food for thought - just scissors, as a sign of boiling despair. And a meaningless chain as a result of this struggle against a rotten but still omnipotent system.
The film can be recommended for viewing, but special praises to sing does not make sense. When style is put above genre, when all this is presented under an intellectual sauce, you can only enjoy the talent of the director. Not many will succeed, but someone will undoubtedly get their high.
I wish many people a pleasant viewing!!
The time has come when cinema gradually turns into a set of cliches. You can juggle them as you like, but it still turns out boring and pop. Fearing to stay on the outskirts of fashion, directors are taken to flirt with author’s lotions. Then they begin to actively speculate on sick questions, then they stuff films with endless allusions, then they pull everything that shines from the paintings of eminent masters. And where some have the talent not to turn their work into a collection of quotes, others come out incomprehensible throwing from one good idea to another.
Pursuit of a white rabbit (or a golden blob?)
Trying to construct an arthouse horror attraction from a genre merry-go-round, Jordan Peele picked up a little from popular culture and started a conversation on acutely social topics in his ironic-comic manner. He immediately shoots at the audience with an exciting start, in which, however, without psychic abilities, the main twist is guessed. And then, for some reason, decides to revive the already cheerful concept with techniques with the smell of mothballs, bringing on the stage sullen clichés to hand with inappropriate and vulgar jokes.
Having made not the most graceful curtsey in front of Michael Haneke, the director tried to create the same icy atmosphere of despair. And he did it. The picture is permeated with chilling anxiety with a slight touch of madness reflected in the eyes of Lupita Nyong'o. Who masterfully coped with the task, adding a drop of aristocratic grace to the tape. The oppressive environment is framed by an unpleasant, clanging sound, in the best traditions of Hitchcock. But aching discomfort is the only feeling that occurs during viewing.
Apparently amazed by his genius and inspired by past success, Peel decided this time to give a damn about the characters and motivation. We only know about the heroes that they, following the example of their “colleagues”, are not averse to show cruelty. And why and why the evil children of the dungeon decided to deal with their earthly copies, as much has to feverishly think up, trying not to get lost among the abundance of author's thoughts. Scenario pits fall asleep on the go with the help of resourceful camera work and numerous trails that kill both the genre and a good idea.
This is a mystery.
It is a pity, but all the uniqueness of the film remained buried under a pile of bland metaphors and references, devaluing the overall talented embodiment. From "US" it turned out beautiful in shape, too multi-valued and not fully thought out tape. Where a frantic desire to talk about everything resulted in a conversation about nothing.
Jordan Peele is great. Remembering his show with Keegan Michael-Kee, I always find myself thinking that this is not just a funny show, but a kind of witty attitude.
In his debut, “Get Out,” Peele balances between humor and horror, in “We,” this duality is even more skillful.
Peel has an encyclopedic knowledge of cinema (especially classic horror films), so he can and wants to surprise the viewer.
Rhymes, binary, metaphors are intertwined with a national problem, nostalgia for the past, racial misunderstanding, and, if you will, sensitivity.
Peele explores the soul, the subconscious (remember the underground tunnels), makes you pay attention to the confrontation with visible reality (religion, race, prosperity).
Constant cultural triggers, be it a monkey mask or a T-shirt with Michael Jackson, or even social advertising.
But for all its humor or some positive outcome, this picture is a reflection of our pessimistic reality, in which we used to think that the grass was greener and our doctrine of humanism is only a mask of an invader.
8 out of 10