I could see them showing that scene in broad daylight being a way of showing that you are never safe. Wherever you are, if you make a sound, you are dead......so a thriller, not a horror....
@@Nick_CF more like the people who had those are already dead and those still alive are jaded enough with their reality, that though devastated, it doesn't reach that level.
@ well yes you are correct but in Films we are literally watching snd not directly experiencing it, automatically giving distance to the situation showcased and security to us, the viewer, that we are save. This ultimately makes it more complex to trigger the right reactions in the audience
Sounds cool but in practice this isn't true. Your fear of the unkown is perhaps one of the strongest fears we can experience but fear of what is known to come can be torturously scary nonetheless. Fun fact: the fear of being tickled is actually a stronger sensation than actually being tickled. Without knowledge, I don't even think you'd be scared at at all.
@@DrMontgomeryMontgomery yes, I remember when my family would just put their hands near me and I would fall down laughing; our brains are fucking weird.
This movie provided me the best cinema experience I have ever had, the fact that an entire audience unanimously decided to not dare make a noise during the silence is why I respect this movie and it's concept so much Good film, 8/10
@@vyor8837 and then you should consider rewatching the movie, cuz what give you the idea that the monsters are afraid of loud noise? What they afraid was the loop noise created by the hearing aid catching the radio transmitter in the room in the last scene. Ever go to a karaoke and point the microphone toward the speaker and it makes a really high pitch sound? That’s what the aliens are afraid of.
The creepiest scenes of the movie were when the girl never knew the monster was there because she was deaf. That movie was masterful in building tension.
i remember that moment when the boy was killed my girlfriend started laughing hysterically. i think she might be a psychopathic killer
4 года назад
Perhaps she's the same as me, when my friends screamed, I just laughed, and one of them elbowed me for that. Been having like that whenever there's a scary scenes or jump scares in horror movies since high school. My brain's defense mechanism... I think?
I dunno, it's a common trope for the monsters to only be out at night, and for you to only be vulnerable in the dark. I think it's a scary thought that the monster can get you no matter how bright it is outside, no matter how safe you feel.
@@bladabladabloo yup. Daylight or not.. they can just cut to the clip when the boy got tackled from John's view. That would've been awesome. The thought of "What killed the kid?" will loomed.
Did you missed the part of the video where he showed articles claiming that the film was the scariest horror film and he said that he disagrees with them?
@@mathewclaveria7657 those are articles, we all know how "journalist" can be plus there is a difference between horror and thriller, I don't disagree with you I'm just adding information
Daniel Brás Yeah but the idea that a military that already owns shit tons of sonic weapons and armour piercing weapons loses to some fast listen-y bois is just not believable within the context of the world presented in the movie (our world)
@@josephrobinson6171 tbh I think it would be possible, you don't really know how many aliens there were in the invasion, and they didn't know the weakness of the alien, so they wouldn't know how to kill them in a easy way!
@@josephrobinson6171 They had no idea what their weakness was to begin with? It's not like the Military sees them land and goes "okay, time for our supersonic weapons". And they wouldn't be like "let's test our sonic weapons on these freaks", either. They tried the basic stuff first, and while they did, they were quickly eradicated, because the Monster were fast, agile and the slightest noise triggered them. So, imagine being that Monster and what an entire Army of people shooting at it would sound like. That's right : Like free manslaughter.
The one thing I will say in defense of that choice is by sticking with your "It Follows" analogy. The reason that "It Follows" falls apart during the beach scene is because when the monster finally catches up to the protagonist, we see that all it does is punch people and throw chairs. That is not scary.... however Here, in "Quiet Place," the danger that these creatures represents is unmistakably established early on. They don't punch or throw chairs. They don't do something like capture and take people back to some sort of hive or ship, where there would be the possibility of later rescue before that person is killed, or impregnated, or fed to the queen alien, or whatever. With these creatures, if you make noise then it is instant and certain death. While spoiling some of the fear of the unknown, this effectively raises the stakes and makes it clear that this isn't the typical horror movie villain that stalks his prey and only strikes from the shadows when a character is alone. Instead, these things just immediately and violently kill anyone who makes noise, day or night, adult or child, alone or in a group. Also, without pausing the film, the thing flies by so quickly that it didn't entirely spoil the monsters for me because I think that is different than when we get a good, in focus look at them later with their massive jaws and weird faces. Just my two cents anyways
Exactly, I’m real time it is just a flash in the screen you’re like what was that… plus most horror movies show the monster…it’s not seeing the monster as much as when will it appear what is the plan why is it doing this still all unknown
I thought it follows was creepy..when it showed the monster would fuck you to death, violently while looking like a zombie demon that took over a person..the girls leg broken on the beach and that boys mother violently attacking him and raping him so hard it tore his body apart The guy here forgets those scenes..it walks to you slowly and takes it time and will hit you but that is all leading up to the violent fucking...and To me, that was really scary. Lovecraftian monsters do not scare me that much..but if course being stabbed to death would be scary.
100% agree. Also that scene was LOUD (at least in cinema) further obscuring your sense of vision as to what exactly got him. Yes we technically saw it in its entirety. But from that point onward did we all really know precisely what it looks like? Aside from long arms and brownish color? Thinking about this i'd say it's a massive counter argument against this entire video. Having a creature fully shown but STILL not 100% knowing what it looks like, just because these things are that fast.
@meisterwu8922 yeah the whole video kinda implies that you can't do horror with animals. Sharks are really basic and everyone knows what they look like, is it impossible to make a scary shark movie?
I think the point of the entire film was not : fear the creatures in the shadows, but fear the noise you're making, fear your habits of loosing focus and making noise. If anything, the movie was closer to a post-apocalyptic world (kinda like it comes at night) than cloverfield.
I usually agree with your assessments, but on this one I think I will have to respectfully disagree with this particular movie. By showing the creature, in broad daylight no less, was 100% intentional and not a mistake by the director/creative team. Since you know from the start what it is and what it does, you won't be disappointed with the final reveal in the end AND you focus entirely on the family rather than always wanting that monster reveal payoff. Your brain gets used to how the monster looks, how it strikes and you also see how quickly it can act and how dangerous it is. So throughout the whole film the family gets to be the star as opposed to the tension/monster reveal getting to be the star. Also, I love your videos!! I've been catching up and you do a simply fantastic job of not just breaking them down and giving your opinion, but opening the door to conversation about multiple viewpoints and meanings within movies. Thank you for all your work and insights!
It definitely was intentional to give focus to the family, yes. But it also definitely made the movie less scary. So he's not wrong. So depends on what you want from your movie
When you make a video entirely for money: giving your shit opinions that you are aware of. 10 min video for 7 seconds clip with clearly no idea what you're talking about
I agree with you, Victor Chang, but what I don't agree with you is near the end of the movie. The father kills himself for no reason whatsoever. The mother becomes a mighty Mary Sue at the end of the movie. The two children are very stupid most of the time. They ruin so much of this movie outright through their stupidity. This is the unfortunate price of involving children in a horror movie. Children are either POSes who deserve to be torn apart the in-movie monster(s) or act so stupid up to much of the time whereas they seriously detract from the plot, and/or tension of the scene(s) they're involved in. It's also immensely terrible that this movie was based on what I've been told many times on an excellent sci-fi book. The studio executives butchered the author's book enough so they could steal everything from the author with impunity. Typical Hollywood BS right there. If this movie had stuck to it's source material this movie would of been effin' fantastic. Otherwise this was a movie with tremendous potential that got The Last Jedi treatment.
Victor Chang idk to me edge on the seat tension /is/ what i qualify as terifyingly scary. Jump scares and gore and obvious visible monstrosities arent scary. Just annoying, gross and often boring
In your whole video you talk about "fear of the unknown" and i agree that it makes for a way scarier movie but by showing us the monster from the very beginning it indicates that the point of the movie aren't the monsters and how scary they look but instead about the family, how they have adjusted their lives to survive and most importantly the love that the father shows towards his children especially at the end where he saves them... Anyways those are my thoughts
Totally agree. This isn't a jump scare horror movie where they hide the monster so the people can get jump scared by leaves hitting the ground for 90 minutes. Its about the family and the monsters are there so that there can be conflict and tension
@@Feksen1 never said there weren't jumpscares, I just said it wasnt a movie that was only scary because of the jump scares (the movie It is a good example of just jumpscares)
A Quiet Place isn't treating its monsters like lurking supernatural creatures like many horror films do. It's treating them as an environmental hazard. As a well-known part of the scifi landscape that has to be dealt with on a day to day basis. It has more in common with a zombie apocalypse movie than any of the creature-features you mentioned. It's not cast-against-monster, it's cast-against-world. The entire world has changed. For this reason, it's important to fully see the creatures, to understand the math of their reality. The mystery isn't the creature. That's besides the point.
Can't agree. Zombies are scary because there's too many of them, so you have to show how many there are, but a monster like this that can overpower by itself a large group of people doesn't need to be shown. That's why Alien is horror while Aliens is action. They could have made this scene show how scary the monsters are because they're everywhere without showing them and with barely any changes: Since they're on a bridge, the monster could have attacked from below without being seen instead of just running around like any wild beast.
I see what you're saying, but consider that this scene doesn't happen in isolation. There are too many of the creatures, that's why the ending is so terrifying (if you get into the minds of the characters): even though they can take down one creature with modern technology, the oncoming throngs are almost certainly going to annihilate them, despite the fact of a final 'badass pose' before the cut to black.
This scene doesn't show how many there are either, you can understand that they're all over the world because of context, also you can show how many there are without showing them. Again, with having one right below the bridge (and maybe adding some not so far noises from other monsters nearby) you're telling the audience they're everywhere. They don't need to rush where you are, they're already there.
"They don't need to rush where you are, they're already there." I like that. Though if they were indeed everywhere, as in crouching in every corner, this would be a very short movie! But as you say, yeah, contextual clues are very much relied upon. My main point stands, though, that it is not, in this case, criminal to show off the beast early. Hitting the point hard that they're an ever-present threat, that's more important than the exact shape of the thing. (Especially since they are engineered to be at least partially realistic predators and not supernatural apparitions)
@@zer0sum642 bro, i completely understand if you dont want to talk about it, but can you please elaborate on that? I've heard several people say that they have an old woman that comes and sits on their chest. thankfully i do not experience sleep paralysis, so could you please explain what the sensation is like? again i completely understand if you dont want to, im just curious lol
@@agavesauce idk if mine was an old woman, but a woman with curly hair in my doorway for sure. I couldn't move for like half an hour then finally could go back to sleep. Only occured me in my parents house and only like 3 times. You are half asleep and your body already made the hormones that restrict you from moving while dreaming and you dream too (these are the demons) but you are aware. Its just a bad experience nothing more
@@jarlbalgruufthegreater1758 so after you were able to go back to sleep with ease? like the woman went away and you weren't scared or were you definitely scared but just too tired to care?
John Krasanski did it purpose. He wanted the audience to concentrate on the family not on the threat. People's minds wouldnt be with the family during the following scenes. They would be guessing what the monster is and what it looks like. This movie is more a psychological horror movie. It's about what people would do for they're family and children. The only fear the audience is suposed to share with the family on Screen is the fear to lose on of them. This Story could work in many different stories But John used this already existing Story to write a Script about a movie in which a family is trying to stay alive and each member has it's own demons and fears he/she has to overcome.
Exactly it was plot development to add the strain to the relationship between Father and the daughter who doesn't think she will ever be forgiven for giving him the toy, as LOVED the latter scene where he signs " love you always " or similar just before his own sacrifice 🤗
If it was supposed to focus more on the family rather than the monster, it would've been a character study with horror elements rather than a horror film that tries to make you feel for it's characters (i.e.: what most films should strive for, not just horror films).
I’m a mom. The absolute terror of losing my child this way is enough to make this a compelling scene for me. I was focused on the family and their struggle more than anything. Being a parent can make you realize your absolute worst fear is something happening to your kids
That shotgun pump was a sound of hope, before the shotgun was a last resort that had to be loaded under a blanket. Now they have the advantage and can save themselves and possibly their neighbors as well.
I’m not saying he doesn’t know what he’s talking about but the movie wasn’t meant to be solely about the monsters but was more about the love of the family and the scene where Boe dies and the later scenes of the entire family grieving was meant to show how much they loved him tying into the theme familial love. Still I respect his opinions anyways
I don’t really think that was the point of the video here. He didn’t say it was meant to be a horror movie, but rather was only saying why it *wasn’t* an effective one, in response to those who were saying that it was a horror movie. He was just addressing the monsters in regards to them as elements for the purpose of horror, and dismissed them as not being effective in their purpose as a source of horror. Please, I do not wish to be rude whatsoever, but I think you may have just missed the point. But I, personally, found the movie to be but an ordeal. I just couldn’t bring myself to care about the characters at all... :/
None of which he even remotely criticized. Have you watched the video at all? He outright states the movie is good, but he only explained why this movie is a thriller and calling it a horror movie is plain wrong. That's all that is to it. When someone tells you that Lord of the Rings is a Sci-Fi movie, do you think saying "Actually it's a fantasy movie" means they think the movie is bad?
The thing that really bothered me about the scene is how dumb the kid was. He was young, so I accept that he didn't fully understand the situation, but think how much stronger and more realistic the scene would be if: The kid turns the toy on. He doesn't expect the loud sound. He flinches, drops it at his feet. The audience hears it clatter as the family turns around. The kid looks up at his Dad, frightened. His father's expression and him running back terrify the kid. He's frozen in place (or maybe takes a couple of steps back, but still remains near the toy.) It cuts between the father and the terrified boy as the sound of the boy's panicked breathing grows louder and louder until it's the main thing we hear. The boy mouth 'Dad!' The monster slams into him (but cut so we don't get to see more than a slight blur/slashing limb. Cuts back to father.
Terminal Nostalgia Yeah, I thought it was so awkward the way they made that. A solution like this would have improved the story a lot in my opinion. That scene kind of left a bad taste in my mouth right from the get go.
Jinkstack S I think it's probably because realistic reactions make or break a scene in a horror movie and having the kid completely ignore the expressions and reactions of his family (that would still have been at least in his peripheral vision while playing with the toy) just didn't make any sense. You can convince small children that fantasy things, both wonderful and terrible, exist, so with all the proof about the monster, the child had every reason to understand sound=big scary monster that will eat you.
I agree, making the character so emotionless and not understanding the consequence of it's actions made the moment weaker to me. As young as he is he should had understood the implication.
Also its set up in the first few minutes of the movie that the kid doesn't really understand whats going on, its beyond apparent the kid just doesn't get the gravity of situation they are in, so I cant understand why the parents WOULD STOP WATCHING HIM. He clearly doesn't know the danger of making noise so why the hell wouldn't the parents keep him in line of site at all times such as walking in front of the mom so she can keep an eye him, they are the worst parents ever! and this is an issue in the movie as a whole, every character just makes astonishingly bad decision's seemingly just so that they can be in danger so the movie has conflict and progression.
@@Rysuko1 You sound stupid. He's a kid. If kids were able to understand the implications like adults they wouldn't need parents to take care of them. They'd be living on their own at 5 years. Were you allowed to stay outside by yourself after midnight when you were five? Were you allowed to cook when you were five? Were you allowed to choose to drink or smoke when you were five? There's a reason why kids live with their parents until they get into their teens: THEY'RE STILL LEARNING TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THEIR ACTIONS. Smh
I don't see this as a horror movie at all, completely agree with you on that. This is definitely more a of a thriller. We don't walk away thinking that this is a possibility. We don't go to bed at night wondering if we might wake up to alien creatures trying to kill us in our beds. Also, I'm glad you mentioned "It Follows" because as soon as you said the "fear of the unknown" because the creature itself is perfect for a horror movie. Unseen by anyone outside of the victim and we never figure out exactly what it is, with no motivation.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Did you ever see Lights Out? It certainly wasn't the greatest horror film, but I did find myself worrying that the monster would appear in the corner of my room when I turned the lights off.
I actually think Lights Out deserves a lot of props in that the characters were actually intelligent and made decent decisions, unlike a lot of horror movies. It may not have been the scariest or best written horror movie out there, but not once did I find myself saying "that character died because they did something really stupid and they deserve it."
what"s interesting about "it follows", as well as "blink", the famous doctor who episode, is that it relies on cinematic language for it's core concept. Namely, the background of the frame, in the case of it follows. Whenever you have some perspective, you are looking for "it" to enter the frame, usually by moving slowly from the back. The movie makes you worry about long static shots, the same way Blink makes you afraid of cuts and reaction shots. It's a way to design horror uniquely suited to the moving image by using cinematic language not only as a way of presenting the horror, but as a way of being part of the horror.
Bobby Ellis I didn’t like It Follows at all, it was never scary at any point, it was an interesting concept but it just didn’t work as a horror film much, that was more of a thriller. With A Quiet Place, I was tense throughout the film and definitely one of the best horror films in recent times.
I haven’t seen the film, but seeing the monster doesn’t remove All the unknowns. Most of the film is fear of what will happen, if they’ll be caught, right?
I mean they should’ve used if not fear of the unknown, the fear of what the monsters can do. The “exposition” white board was great foreshadowing but if we got more showcases or stories about what actually happens when you get caught other than just a really loud WHOOOSHHH. It’d also be a better or scarier movie
Do you know what monster behind the door means? Stephen King does this often, he builds up and up and up and when it's finally revealed either its great but mostly the build-up makes the ending generic. Too much build up can backfire...especially when the monster is one-dimentional.
Hriday Mehta yup, the best parts in his books are where the protagonist is kinda figuring out what the threat is. best example of this is probably Salem’s Lot, where Ben is always doubting Matt by thinking he’s paranoid or senile, yet trying to believe him until he sees a vampire himself
I only read one of his books (IT) and I find its ending to be really satisfying. I have Misery on my bookshelf just waiting to be read. I'll see if that's great as well. On another note, I liked the Netflix adaptation of Gerald's Game but I heard quite a lot of negative reviews of both the film and the book.
King's main strength is that he keeps the big baddie hidden from everyone for most of the story. His main weakness is that he keeps it hidden from himself as well, and that shows. When he finally gets to writing about the big baddie, he just throws whatever comes to mind at the time. So never ever read a King novel thinking you'll get a great payoff. The satisfying part of a King novel is never the payoff. It's the characters and the buildup and everyone's reactions, both during the buildup and right after the payoff. The payoff itself is just there to facilitate the story, drive it forward. Thinking back, I can't even remember what the Tommyknockers were, or what actually made the Buick drive itself or what made the Mangler evil. But I remember what the characters did, how they reacted and how it felt reading about them during dark and stormy nights. And THAT is what fear of the unknown is about. THAT is what the monster behind the door means. THAT is how you do a mystery box (yes, we have to throw in a jab at Steven Moffat while we're at it, thinking he invented the trope :P ).
Love your channel. But Tremors was a good example of the effectiveness of revealing your monster in broad daylight. I'm tired of movies that are too dark to see anything and they use cheap camera tricks to obscure everything. Knowing what the enemy can do is far more interesting to me. Thriller and Horror is hard to tell apart sometimes.
Bluesloth “The Thing” is actually a pretty interesting example. It shows it’s monster right at the end of the first act, then preserves that sense of “fear of the unknown” in a different way. Instead of playing on that fear by hiding what the monster looks like, it does so by hiding WHO the monster looks like. Who’s been infected? Who’s human? Who’s five seconds away from mutating into an alien beast that’ll eat you alive? Who can you trust? The film forgoes uncertainty of what the creature is, in favor of good ol’ paranoia. Alien does something similar; shows the monster at the end of act 1 with the chestburster scene & then leaves you anxious about WHERE the monster is - it could be right above the characters and they’d have almost no idea because it’s hiding out in the ventilation system.
The reason they showed it at the beginning is because they wanted to establish 1. They are not to kill kids/characters off. And 2. The monsters aren’t the main focus, it’s about a family that has to navigate through having the monsters in their lives but the monsters aren’t the main focus it’s the family. Also the whole build up thing is a bit overused and isn’t always a satisfying reveal.
@@omegastar19 yes it is because You are not thinking about what the monster is. You are thinking how that family tries to survive such a powerfull monster
If you NEED to show the monster/villain to draw focus on your protagonist/family, you need to learn how to story tell. There are plenty of horror films that put the focus on their characters/family sans revealing the monster/villain too soon or too much. It CAN be done! It's basically the equivalent of cringy dialogue between characters to establish they're actually family/related--e.g. "I am your brother/sister" or something to this effect. We have to be TOLD characters are related rather than be SHOWN. In this case, the family could've been shown walking, their faces full of woe, maybe one of the parents is holding tightly against their chest an item belonging to the dead boy, covered in blood, and every now and then, somebody looks back over their shoulder, we see the boy's body. Basically, body language!
eli3silver which is good as that was the point, focus on the tension and keep you on the edge constantly, knowing what can happen but unsure when it will occur
I don't get why everyone's saying "I wish they didn't show the monster" and "if they never showed the monster the movie would be so much better", as if the shot was long enough for you to even process the shape of the thing at all on a first viewing. For me at least, it was too quick for me to know what the monster looked like, therefore it's not a problem.
You may not get a fully detailed view but on my first view I saw the shape of the body, the way it moved, the way it attacked, the general color, size, and sound. which takes a good chunk of the unknown about it away.
I agree, scary isn't the right term. On a slightly related note, being that this is a thriller I had my butt cheeks clenched so hard had I put a lump of coal up there id have the objectively best diamond in the world right now....
@@thatsnotgonewellatall5517 That's a good question. Why do we cry or feel emotions of sadness when developed characters in stories die? Why do we feel so relieved when the main character survives when we think they won't be able to? We know these characters and stories are fake, but then why can they cause similar emotional reactions to real life events anyway? Someone should research it.
@@basiljohn3953 I've thought about it and I think I know why. To your subconscious in film and book is the same as reality. It can differentiate between the two, I think this for two reasons. One the power of dreams,we know they ain't real yet they can induce so much emotional turmoil. Secondly also connects to that and it's the grip the human imagination has. It overrides the logic centre of our brain during entertainment and dreams. This can even extend to day dreams. This is why less imagininitive people aren't as effected atleast from my experience. Real life things actually affects me less than things I know aren't real.
@@thatsnotgonewellatall5517 well said i agreee especially the last few lines i think that's why some people don't enjoy these movies as much especially the last few lines, people who are imaginative have a higher level of immersion yeah yeah that's ball i can say right now yeah yeah Sorry if you cant understood what I'm saying im drunk out off my mind's
Masks are horrifying. If you google "victorian halloween costumes" you can see children with the scariest (and cheapest) masks ever. Thank God is not like that anymore.
"It lifts up your hair and it *punches.* " Plot Twist: The entity in It Follows is an enemy Stand. Edit: The JoJo levels in the comments are over 9000 and still rising, please send help guys
I’ve to disagree to you guys on this, the monster isnt required to be always hidden in order to be scary, it’s how you build up the interaction between it and its victim. The only thing you have to do is put yourself in the victim’s shoes, to feel their emotion, their bond to each other then the fear to loose their love one to that freak from outa space, feel the hopeless thought that flash through their mind when their children was taken away from them and (at that point in the movie) they can’t do anything about it. I’m not so good at express my thought, but that’s pretty much how I think.
There is a difference, but A Quiet Place is horror. It was marketed at that, it's what the creators intended, and it's the biggest source of themes. You may think it fake to be scary but that doesn't mean it isn't horror
@@notahotshot No they didn't. It is a horror film, was made to be that, succeeded at that, and was accepted at that. It is certainly not a psychological thriller at all. Psychological implies mental illness, delusion, or some other way of warping the mind, hence the name. A Quiet Place is a monster horror film that uses suspense to attempt scares.
@@gagecole4913 first, no it is a thriller it does not matter what they meant because if that were true i could draw a bannana say i meant to make it an apple and it's now an apple, second, psychological does not necessary mean mental illness.
Yeah i think Filmento got the wrong idea about the beginning of the movie and despite what he says about the fear of the unknow being true, i think A quiet place in order to work u needed to know what was happening, otherwise the movie wouldve been just bad. If he were talking about the NUN i would tottaly agree, but this being about a QUiet Place i think he didnt got the essence of the movie at all.
My problem was with how powerful the creatures were, and how they could hear basically anything, I didn't believe that the family didn't just get murdered when it heard them breathing a few feet away from the kid it just killed. You just have to forget their abilities to make it work.
yeah that kind of bugged me throughout the movie. they can hear certain things but not others even if they are at the same decibel level? it is inconsistent and just seems to be made to suit what the plot needs at any moment
I don't know, I think the scene is scary too. It shows how fast and deadly the threat is. One noise and its all over. You can't outrun it, definitely can't fight back (that thing is the size of a van- good luck avoiding its reach too with those long ass arms). Really it's hopeless. What can you do other than try to avoid it? Kinda makes the danger feel hopeless and insurmountable. That's scary in its own way.
Exactly. Felt the same way with the scene of the screaming dude. Was left petrified because I knew the ramifications. They were screwed. Or at least should’ve been. But I felt like they were going to get eviscerated. I thought they had zero chance (apart from being a film and usually the good guy wins, etc). Despite knowing what the alien looked like, it didn’t change the fact I was terrified for them. Same with the bathtub scene. I thought. If the alien actually got to her, and it was shown on screen, I would’ve screamed in terror. But they didn’t. They built up the tension. Although it ended “calmly”, it still terrified me for the time she wasn’t ok. Tension and knowing you’ve basically got no chance but to hide and/or basically pray nothing happens. Hope that nothing happens
I get you point but I disagree. I think like the video says that without showing the alien that scene would work better. It will show how fast and deadly the alien is. Is like the first kill in Jaws. But sure the film still works perfect.
It would be better if we didn't see it . We would still understand and see how fast and dangerous they are , but without seeing the monster you would have your imagination going crazy trying to imagine how it looks . Once you see the monster ,your experience is 50% worse.
Well the only thing that ruined the movie was the last scene where a simple gun can kill the monsters.... I mean don't tell me the military got destroyed... Just imagine those really scary spec ops teams with their super hightech weapons and vehicles.
Nerulon Skyven it has armor, if it gets exposed to high frequency sounds will expose weak spots to shoot at. The military didn’t know that its weakness is high frequency sounds so the military was defeated
@@nerulon089 That's what I thought. They know the creatures have supposedly amazing hearing but don't think to try bombarding them with different frequencies? Also, what's the deal with the creatures? Do they just have super good hearing? If that' s the case, how do they manoeuvre so fast around non-moving objects? Looks more like echo-location, but if that's the case they don't need you to be making noise to know you're there.
I get his point, but the fear of the unknown is more related to a specific kind of horror, lovecraftian horror, or cosmic horror. Not seeing the creature here works as it’s established the monster does not have a specific form or shape, it’s all up to interpretation. If the monster is scary, and you can see it all the way through, the movie looses the element of surprise since the very beginning, but can still make up for a scary movie if the monster shows something that will maintain the audience in terror. The *It* movie understands this as the clown changes shape according the the kids fear, but still fails to scare as he doesnt bring much else to the table. My point is, when writing a monster, you have to give him sufficient characteristics and aspects that will maintain the audience thrilled, maybe add something new once in a while. The first Alien movie is a good exemple of this. You can see the monster pretty early on, but the acid blood, the double mouth, it’s ability to survive everything is what keeps the tension going. The moment you think you know about the monster, the movie throws something new to destabilize the audience
I get the "audience discovering the monster as the characters are" aspect. It's just that can be very messy in writing if not taken in moderation. You still have to set ground rules for the visible monster. It's still physical so of course there will automatically be limitations vs cosmic horror where the limitations are almost non-existent or if there is, it isn't within reach of humans. If we followed your logic, it would ruin the fear/thriller aspect of the story, because at that point just adding whatever to the monster to be more scary, just ruins the realism that horror movies based themselves on
@@DashawnLoves i understand adding stuff for the sake of adding it is pretty pointless. When writting cosmic horror, your monster has near unlimited power and is practically unstoppable. That is why it is important to state what your monster *represents* before stating what it looks like. That way, the audience has a reason to keep watching the movie. Otherwise, if the treat is unimaginably enormous, people will loose interest pretty fast. I totally agree with you, you gotta put some limit to your monster. Again, in the *It 2* movie, Pennywise is considered to be this unbeatable entity, but then it was mentioned it could be defeated and had been defeated before. By setting limits to your creature, you make it more "realisitic", but by setting limits and new abilities, you get something unexpected without being too overboard. In the end, the nerd club defeated Pennywise, but at a high cost, the life of their homie. (I dont particularly like the *It* movies but i thought it was a good example)
Both "It: Chapter 1" and "A Quiet Place" sort of set up their monsters the same way. We see them in the first scene murdering a child just cause. A lot of horror movies suffer from the trope of kids being kind of invulnerable (or they're dead before the movie starts), so killing off a kid right away lets the audience know that the monster will kill anyone as soon as the moment presents itself.
I know the mystery is usually horrifying. BUT honestly me knowing that there’s unstoppable creatures chasing me and knowing what they do and what they look like DOESNT MAKE THE THOUGHT OF GETTING TORN APART ANY LESS SCARY
He addresses this point as well in the video. You don't need to see the child literally be torn apart in order to know the monster can rip people apart. Without that one second of a jumping monster, the scene would still serve it's purpose: the child is stupid, the parents are stupid for leaving their child so far behind with a toy that makes noise, and there is something horrific in the trees that responds to sound. It's just his opinion, and I share it. I've seen countless horror movies and it are usually the ones in which you don't or barely see the actual threat (until the end) that stick with me the longest. I liked this movie as well, but I didn't think the monster looked anything scary at all.
It's scary because you don't exactly want to die, as mentioned quite a bit in this comment section it's a basic survival trait. You are still scared of the unknown. If you knew exactly what comes after death if anything and what it feels like to be torn apart and how long it takes for you to pass out and die. It wouldn't be scary. The fear of unknown is EXACTLY the *THOUGHT* of getting ripped apart. It's the WHAT IF. As I said, if you had this magical knowledge about everything, every little detail about what was to happen and there's no changing it, you wouldn't really be scared. You cannot be unafraid of the unknown, there's always something you do not know or are uncertain about. It's how we are.
Especially with the screaming dude. I was panicking so hard because they were in real danger, and hard no way of fighting back. As scary as the unknown is, knowing you can’t fight back is scarier. Once they got a solution at the end, it was scary because they were still working it out and still could’ve died. If they were to make a sequel, which would be cool, it could be a horror. It’d be like a zombie survival film. The aliens are just a plot device at that point, and you have to find new ways of making things interesting (finding other people, finding out how to win the long game, raising a baby in the apocalypse, etc). But in this singular film, everything imo is perfect
i think you've completely missed the point of the film. the horror comes from the fact that at any given moment, even though you can't see or hear it and even though it might not be near by, all it takes the slightest noise and you know the alien will be right next to you within seconds. the opening scene showcases his perfectly. the child's toy is making a loud noise and right away the mother covers her mouth and begins weeping, because she _knows_ exactly what's about to happen. also horror ≠ terror. what you describe in this video is terror. horror: seeing a bunch of rotting corpses (especially of people you know) milling about listlessly. terror: hearing the moaning and groaning of the aforementioned corpses without knowing where the noises are coming from.
You highlight the "big flaw" of showing the monster in bright day at the beggining of the movie, but in this film i don't see as a problem because the atmosphere is enough to keep you in the edge of your seat. Like in Alien, you have a situation almost impossible to scape as even the monster is shown to you early in the movie the fact that you are traped build the tension and the fear, same with A Quiet Place
Fear of the unknown isn’t the only kind of fear…if someone holds a gun to your head you’re going to be afraid…seeing the monster doesn’t eliminate fear when the monster and what it can do to your family is genuinely terrifying…
Fear of the unknown is just one type of many fears, I don't think every movie needs it. I don't think every movie can scare everyone, frankly, and that should be fine, but fear of the unknown isn't needed and expecting every movie to rely on the human imagination feels cheap to me. Darkness, masks, all that are so typical as to not entirely be scary to me all the time. Anyways there are specific things you can show to cause revulsion and fear. For example in It Follows one of its best forms is of that tall man that enters behind her friend with the fucked up face. You can see it quickly, the shot lingers even, but it's no less scary for it and the movie would be worse if it cut away because there's certain imagery we are repulsed by. Texas chainsaw massacre (the original, naturally) also is an excellent horror movie that uses daylight to be effectively scary, and in Hereditary one of its most effective scenes is a daylight shot. I feel this insistence on using fear of darkness and mystery is too formulaic, and you overestimate it's ability to scare everyone.
yeah, the fear of the unknown is usually the forte of cosmic horror, but it isn't bound to cosmic horror, cosmic horror just did it first and usually does it the best
Tyler Durden this is the reason why i dont find horror films as scary nowadays. Oooh this is scary because it focuses on the fear of the unknown and blah blah blah artsy forced ideas = scary. That fear of the unknown darkness ambiguity sometimes work but now that it is being forced as the only way you should make horror films is making the concept pretty corny. XD
@@Spazzsticks yeah, exactly. By this logic IT isn't scary, because Pennywise shows himself in the very beginning. In both movies, the monsters are shown brutally killing children, and that's what makes it scary. Fear of the unknown and hiding the monster are just lazy storytelling.
Honestly i would be more afraid of making a loud noise than never having seen one of those creatures. So that would be fear of loud sounds, and the thing that makes you fearful of the noise, is the creature. Because it can hear from very far away.
Yeah, I remember playing Alien: Isolation. I knew exactly what the drooling vents meant. I knew exactly what would happen when I pass under them. Didn't make it any less scary.
I don't agree at all. The 'never reveal the monster trope' has become trite and expected. Some of the best monsters are revealed and the fear comes from their unstoppableness or that they can strike at any time. Jaws being a good example of the effectiveness of revealing your monster.
All i'm gonna say to people who agree with this video and disagree with this is to watch CinemaWins video on this and rejudge it with two perspectives. CinemaWins' Video : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6qvAAxeevbo.html Edit: Link doesn't take you to the middle of the video.
Jaws is about a normal creature that exist in our world. What makes things scary is your own fear building it up. I've always wanted a horror movie that ends with the monster not being defeated. The Jeepers Creepers movie was good when the two sibling are being stalked the whole movie and in the end one of them is still taken. The creeper is not stopped and it is more unnerving knowing that thing is still out there lurking vs protag kills it
But also pulling something like this off (jaws didn't btw) is a lot harder than never revealing what the creature/thing is or can do. A better example of revealing the monster is the Halloween series with Michael Myers.
I disagree. The we barely see a glimpse of the monster at in that first scene and it sets up an important factor. Sight doesn't mean much. It is the noise. A gun is no less scary even if you can see it on screen and neither is a shark. The movie's greatest strength and something that sets it apart from others is that it quickly lays the majority of its cards on the table. The fact that you can see the gun, the shark, the monster, but can do nothing about it once it strikes, is the scary part. The movie creates the deepest fear without using the usual tactics like hiding the monsters appearance or facts about them. Instead it gives the characters and us a huge amount of information with which we can try to think of how to survive. Its the prime example of show not tell and that it's strength in horror. You see a blind girl and you instantly see hundreds of ways that puts her in danger, makes her dangerous and the strengths it provides. I got more fear seeing the womans pregnant belly for the first time than I did in any jump scare of another movie. The movie's fear isnt drawn from the monster itself but rather everyday things. It takes things that we take for granted and puts them in a situation where they are deadly. I feel that the fear it creates is more intimate than any horror film ive seen and the way the characters are often within feet or inches of the monsters only adds to that. It wouldn't be the same if they suppressed the monsters appearance and they simply dont need to. There are so many delicate peices being balanced to make this movie feel so intimately scary and I feel like hiding the monster would feel cheap in it's context and take the focus away from the sound which is the centerpiece of the whole experience to add some cheap tension of "how does it look like tho?"
Exactly, that scene was one of the best of the movie, you wouldn’t expect the youngest kid to die like this… it’s very powerful, and we barely get to see the monster, we get a glimpse of it and that’s it, which is much better than covering it with rocks or a tree in front of the camera…
The reason why I think "The Thing" from 1982 is the perfect horror movie is because of exactly what you said. You never know who "The Thing" is until it presents itself at the perfect moment of tension. Being in a confined unescapable space with something that will strike at any moment and not knowing who you can and cannot trust is a nightmare.
Difference between HORROR or THRILLER. Just his opinion. I agree on the grounds that if the Monster had acted the same way at the begining of the invasion, the army or someone would have figured out how the Monsters worked. Just my opinion.
That was the scariest scene in the whole film though. I was concerned for the mom when she was alone in the house but not nearly as much as when I didn't know what was coming out of the forest. The more I saw the monster the less scary it became, and the less I identified with the family the movie was trying to focus on.
Yeah you know that scene in aliens when Dallas gets taken out while in the air ducts and the Alien is shown in full view, the movie was all down hill from there, FUCK ALIENS and their lack of horror cuz they showed the damn monster.
@@SoullessAIMusic Dude, I don't think its a good idea to reveal to the internet that you fuck aliens and abstract thoughts. I mean I get that you're mad, but fucking abstract concepts are usually on the weird side.
I think the fear they tried to put into the viewer's mind was the fear of survival rather than the fear of the supernatural. The fear of survival deals more with the physique of a person where the person tries to prevent any harm/illness to occur to them or their families and promote their well-being. Both forms of fears are almost identical however the difference in fear of the supernatural mainly affects the psychology of humans. We as people tend to neglect the existence of such possibilities all our lives but when presented with theories or tales of such fiction, it tends to cause confusion and doubt which in turn brings forth fear. Hence I believe that this movie is mainly dealing with the fear of survival similar to how TV Shows and Movies deal with Zombie-based fiction.
You've just described what a thriller movie is. That's the main difference. Horror can be broken down into two schools. Terror, which is actually having a terror for what the creature is and what the creature does. Then there is Thriller when you care about the people and their survivor but aren't afraid of the creature. I feel this is the main difference between a thriller and a true horror movie.
The reason the monster is so scary is *because* it's shown at the beginning in my opinion. The fact that that monster was able to get from a place presumably so far away from the main characters to Beau before Lee sprinted a few hundred meters at a pretty fast pace is what makes the monster so lethal and as a result, creates fear for the family of making any kind of unnatural noise, and by extent the audience feels that fear and tension, when for example, the mother (I forgot her name) steps on a nail, or when she's giving birth to her new child.
The thing i hated most is that in a situation like this no parent or family member would leave one of their youngest unattended and left behind like that.. I mean wtf your supposed to stay quiet as possible and the only ones to make the mistake is one of your youngest ones..
Yeah, it's pretty stupid. Anyone in that situation would make damn sure that kid doesn't have something to make noise with. Especially with how long the way home is, and we're supposed to believe that a family that survived this long wouldn't even LOOK at their own child even just once when leaving the looted store, all the way to home? The kid was openly carrying that thing.
This is pretty subjective honestly. -For one, it's *assuming* the person watching has a fear of the unknown to begin with. Some people simply don't have that fear. I do, I have a major fear of the dark. -Secondly, it's assuming the person watching isn't afraid of the monster. Whether it looks or acts scary. Personally, I didn't find _The Ring_ scary. The monster just didn't bother me, but the clown from _IT_ was horrifying. -Next, it assumes people aren't afraid by or lose their nerve due to the atmosphere of a movie. For example, _Hereditary_ has no monster for basically all but the final 10 minutes (If you even call it a monster). It doesn't have a single jump scare either. It's all in the atmosphere work, and it's probably the most *brilliant* and *nerve racking* movie I've ever seen. -Finally, it's assuming the movie isn't more focused on gore or death, and people may find that more nerve racking or terrifying. Movies like _Event Horizon_ fit this example perfectly. For example, _IT_ (not to be confused with _It Follows)_ shows you the monster *and* what it can do at the start of the movie. Both _IT_ and _A Quiet Place_ show the monster at the start, _and_ show at least one attribute the monster has. By your logic, _IT_ shouldn't be a scary movie because of one of the first scenes. Yet it's absolutely terrifying to me and many, *many* others. Also by the same logic, _Alien_ shouldn't be all that scary either. You get to see the Xenomorph near the start of the movie as well as it killing 2 people. I think this is simply a case of you not finding the movie scary. Which is fine, not all scary movies are targeting the same audience. For instance, I had no fear of _It Follows_ throughout the entire movie. It was stupid in my opinion. I also didn't have a fear of _A Quiet Place, Event Horizon,_ or _The Ring._ I was however horrified with _Hereditary_ and _IT._ It's simply a case of you not finding this particular movie and setting frightening. It's definitely not a case of this being a *sure-fire* way to ruin a scary movie. Tell me what you think :) and thanks for reading.
@@brunomonteiro3646 Yes, you're not wrong. It is a basic human trait. Much like a fear of the dark. Most people however grow out of this fear as they get older. Not all do, but most. My points still stand though. Many people, myself included, aren't afraid of the unknown. And people like me are bored of horror movies that use the fear of the unknown as the main fear device.
@@tyray3p That's why fear of the unknown shoudn't be the only fear you have in your movie. IT shows you the monster and at least one of his traits. But that monster is smart and can do a lot of things you don't expect and/or don't know about yet. While monsters from A Quite Place more like a force of nature. You make noice, they slash you. If creature from IT had used just one type of attack after just one trigger - it wouldn't be scary at all. Fear of the unknow is not only about seeing a monster. It's also about knowing WHAT and WHEN that monster can do. Alien attacks when it sees fit. "It" attacks when it founds a good moment. Hell, even Jaws attack at some random point. "A Quite Place monster" has a trigger.
@@tyray3p TLDR at the end. You never "grow out of that fear" you simply adapt to your surroundings. Take any human out of their comfortable surroundings and their instincts will start kicking in. You know the familiar forrest you walk home at night is not scary because you've done it a million times nothing is in it, nothing will happen. But what is that unfamiliar town you woke up in after getting super smashed with your buddies? Where are you? What was that noise in that alley? Do you go through that alley? What was that rusteling? etc... Same with if there was suddenly a string of unexplained kidnappings in said forrest with gruesome mangled bodies showing up days later. Suddenly if you walk through the forrest you are automatically more alert, because there is now a unknown threat. Just because you might be "scared of the dark" as a kid but then aren't as an adult does not mean you don't have fear of the unknown anymore...the dark has just become a known to you so it's not scary anymore. It's a simple human survival trait that subconciously works all the time. You can't "switch it off" and while people might be "brave", bravery is not the absence of fear. It's acting in spite of it. If humans ever "grew out" of the fear of the unknown simply because 9 times out of 10 the rusteling in the bushes was nothing, then we'd probably died out a long time ago simply because the tenth time it was some predator animal getting ready to attack unsuspecting prey. (TLDR: You never lose your fear of the unknown, you just turn unknown things into known things over time with experience, and if you are ever confronted with something unknown and out of your control, you will react to it.)
Honestly, I think the biggest problem with A Quiet Place (beyond ruining the Fear of the Unknown) is how hyped up the monsters are as being basically absolutely invincible, only to be as easy to dispatch as any other living breathing creature when their armour is out of the way. Despite the fact that they apparently don't eat, can easily survive virtually any environment, including space, and weren't even bothered by re-entry on a meteor on top of the actual impact with Earth. I would have personally preferred and adored the ending where we see the mother kill one of the monsters, if only it just kind've... got back up. Missing a head or not, probably healing as it went; if it doesn't need food, energy, air, so on and so forth, then realistically speaking, if it's already such an impossible being, why not just make them actually impossible? Immortal, and undying? Sure, no room for a sequel, but it would've also in that one moment explained through showing, not telling, how these things honestly wiped out the entire world, given how loud warfare would be and how much that SHOULD have interfered with them and forced their armour open, like the hearing aid blast at the end. But yeah, you're perfectly correct; A Quiet Place straight up isn't a horror movie, it's a tense monster thriller. I don't see any other way of looking at it.
Although I think Things unknown in movies are the most frightening, I have seen countless horror movies where the Creature/Person is still very scary even when they're shown.
True, but I think its also important HOW we see the monster if we get to see it. Like in this scene, the monster is shown in broad daylight, we see nearly all of it, and that it seems to be some kind of an alien. But if we only see figures and shadows of it lurking in the dark, its way more effective, because we can not be sure if its really there, or from what corner it will attack. Example, and *Spoiler Warning* for "The Nun". We know what the "Monster" is, an evil beeing disguised as a nun. So far so good. The movie setting, the costumes, the shots, the light, the soundtrack (sweet jesus especially the soundtrack), were so damn good, and all set for a very creepy movie, where I expected to see the nun´s shadows and ashgrey face lurking in the dark. But here comes the thing... at the first possible moment the movie dickslaps the audience with the most revealing CGI-Effects right in the face, including the Nun, roaring at the protagonist like a Jurrassic-Park T-Rex. From that point I almost grinned every time CGI Hands were grabbing the Protagonists from nowhere (wich was countless times during the movie), and overly loud CGI Effects were used for predictable cheesy jumpscares. So yeah I think to see the monster can work, if the movie is not too revealing with how it manifests to the viewer. Especially not until the very ending. I think "Mama" does a quite good job for the beginning and the middle part.
blackhagalaz After reading this I agree with you Kind of. I think there's another factor aside visibility and that is how you present the monsters/persons, I believe fully visible monsters/persons can be scary if they're done correctly(Although still less scary), Such as the scene in Halloween where Laurie sees Micheal (In Broad Daylight) in the distance standing aside a hedge before disappearing behind it, Laurie then looks behind the bush to see nothing. definitely Less scary then a tall shadowy figure in the corner of your bedroom, but still scary.
@@Solar_Sounds Right this also works good. But this is maybe limited to humanoid "monsters" only because otherwise the situation would feel to unnatural and make the view of the monster humerous . Like with Michael, he is a man in a costume around Halloween time, so Noone is suspicious of is appearance except the main character who knows something is wrong about him. But if an alien was standing there, staring at the protagonist in broad daylight, this scene would feel unnatural, or comedic.
i feel like the actual point of the showing of the monster was to establish that its something they have to live with constantly and having an unnecessary feeling of it being 'unknown' is downright silly when the characters constantly live and build their lives around something they themselves already know. This review just seems like complaining that 'seeing the monster' makes for bad horror/thriller when the whole point of it was to establish a feeling of shaky familiarity that this monster will always be there.
Or they could have go to a military camp and be protected by them, she killed the monster with loud noises and a shotgun... what a fking weak monster lmao. When i saw the monster in the beginning it was clear that you dont need to run from them, just kill them, and that was exactly how the movie ended. That killed the whole "horror/thriller" for me.
@@SebasRyz it wasn't a loud noise it was a extremely high frequency of sound that messed up their hearing and their nervous system that's why on the ending of the movie when the sound stopped the monster's armor skin weren't closing
Eduardo Victor Still, nothing that isn’t magical or something like that can not withstand a tank. It can’t have that strong of armor and still be able to move.
@Middle Earth DEA you do know that is not the sound that is loud it's the frequency the sound is a extremely specific frequency that mess up their brains
Fear of the unknown is something that is rarely taken advantage of in horror movies. Don't Look Now and The Haunting are good examples of films that feed on your imagination and illicit a sense of dread.
I’m not easily scared, but this movie had me literally shaking in the cinema. The way the sound was designed and the movie made me care about the family was amazing
If you feel anything during a horror movie (besides being startled by a cheap jumpscare to simulate fear due to the lack of it) then you are easily scared.
Years later I still maintain that if the scene where their youngest son died was shot purely looking at John Krasinski’s face, it would’ve been about 65.3% stronger in terms of horror and emotion.
I honestly think the quiet place was scary the whole way through. Showing the disgusting and creepy monsters early on was a good choice. Plus, the idea of sound being their enemy was perfect, because its hard not to make sound ever. Make a sound, you're dead. The tension that added to the film made it super scary, especially after what you've seen it do to Beau after he made a sound. A quiet place is an amazing horror movie and its always scary.
A commenter said tension = thriller. So its a thriller, not horror. Personally, I'm big coward. If I can watch a movie without my eyes closed or rewatched it.. its not at all horror or at least not as horrifying as it should be. Its scary but it's a thriller.
7:04 it’s supposed to be blurry so you aren’t able to see what the monster looks like but when you pause the video, you have all the time you need to see what it looks like
Kerchow Wow human eyes are incredibly perceptive, especially to (perceived) threats. It was enough time to see the whole monster. For me at least. Plus, regardless, you can see what its arm is doing. You know what it does. It stabs you. No ambiguity.
If they had the monster in a shadow throughout the whole movie, it would of been terrifying. Just seeings it's silhouette. You'll know it has unnatural long arms, but that's it. Like imagine that scene where it goes under the water. Make the corner it was in 10x darker, and omg. I even said this to my gf after we went to see the movie, but she disagreed. Glad someone finally gets it! :D
I agree, but instead of this adding to the "fear" element, it adds to the "problem solving" element. The characters have seen the extent of the monster's threat, so the movie becomes a pragmatic problem about how to survive the monster, instead of having no clue how to survive a monster they've never even seen. Kinda the same way a big math exam is less scary when you're actually writing it, not wondering how hard it will be.
The thing in “It Follows” is invisible so it makes sense not to see it in action or what it does in any scenes A quiet place however is more based on sound and being quiet or using it to their advantage. The monster at the beginning was moving quick so I’m surprised if anyone was able to make out the creature from that scene. The movie has a reason why it was called the scariest of the year and told to have great writing
Yeah, I was really surprised they showed the monster so early in the film the first time I saw it. In the trailers they did such a good job of hiding it, I thought for sure they wouldn't reveal what it looked like until WAY later.
How much sound would you need to make it incapacitated. If you fuck it up then all you've done is attracted a bunch of them. Not everyone has huge speakers and static to fuck up their sense of hearing.
Loved this video. We've been so starved for good horror movies that when we got A Quiet Place, we were parched and so we lapped it up like a stray kitty lapping up meth milk.
The horror in The Quiet Place is not meant to come from the monster, but the situation the family find themselves in: raising two kids and delivering a third in a world where u can't make a sound otherwise you're dead.
Landofsquiggles thriller, genius. its the scenario from being top predators on the planet to cowering, desperate and fearful prey who would change their entire lives just to continue living (not making the faintest sound) cause they know theres nothing they can do but hide, the character's fear is primal. thats really what the director wanted to demonstrate.
most of the intended audience of A Quiet Place are going to be living in an industrial society. My personal anxieties are things like work, or bills, or pets, or relationships and politics. I've never had to worry about things like 'i need X more calories worth of energy or I will freeze to death tonight.' Even then, the survival instinct of 'i must work tirelessly or die' is still there in your brain. AQP takes those primal 'society has collapsed and you must provide for yourself' fears and adds the fun 'also you have to be silent' twist. Horror as a genre is about as vague as 'video game' is as an entertainment medium. Dawn of the Dead's horror is very different from Night of the Living Dead's horror, even though they're both zombie films made by the same director (and some of the same crew) as part of the same franchise.
I believe you can break rules in movies as long as it works and that you’ve fully mastered the rule itself. I think in this case it’s warranted to do so.
I personally don’t agree with the ‘fear of the unknown’ being needed in a horror film, as it diminishes the horror in future viewings of the movie, because you know what is coming. This is just my opinion, though.
