https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQXmlf3Sefg
unspecified 2016 release date from A24, also the official website is boss: http://thewitch-movie.com
reminder: Ghostboy loves this movie as much as all caps and Mad Max.
Hell yes. That's the place where cinema lives.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeGYt5gA.png&hash=a98535baf18303219bf30d8849f8f5b6cdb83a03)
Release date: February 26, 2016
why is this movie being celebrated? i'm not sure but i'm positive that's awesome.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUCxDAeF.jpg%3F1&hash=003bf79fac8618b6ba17ceb37eba547920006821)
Quote from: Just Withnail on August 27, 2015, 11:41:04 AM
Hell yes. That's the place where cinema lives.
Ugh. Not quite. I was thrilled by the trailer, but the film was a let-down. It starts off borrowing a whole bag of tricks from the TWBB playbook, but quickly goes off into own territory, but territory that didn't work for me. The dialogue is in an extremely stylized faux old New England vernacular, but I didn't think the actors pulled it off, which clouded a lot of the film for me, even the parts that were excellent otherwise.
SPOILERS
It does occasionally manage to build up dread, and the blocking, length and composition of scenes are usually really well done - especially a set-piece involving the middle brother being possessed - OR IS HE? I wish the film had taken a stance in the beginning, whether witches actually exist in the film's universe or not. I didn't get which reality we were supposed to be in, though that might be more my fault than the film's. The film has the disclaimer "A New England Fairy Tale" right under the title, but we're certainly not in a fairy tale, the film is too much rooted in naturalism.
The film might be set in a completely un-magical universe, since way the fairy tale elements are incorporated seem specifically designed to shed doubt on their reality, but are we then just watching the girl go crazy? If yes, see Der Nachtmahr instead.
The fairy tale elements could also be taken at face value, as real in this universe, as it really does invite you to think so at times, but far too rarely to really feel like a New England Fairy Tale. I wish it had gone all the way with those elements, that would actually steeped you the mentality of the time.
It seemed to both want to be a film about the steps that could plausibly lead to someone being accused of being a witch, seen from today's viewpoint, outside of the characters situations, in a naturalistic manner, in a non-magical universe where superstitious people project their fears onto the wrong things - which I think the film mostly pulled off very well - and at the same time be a film possibly semi-locked to the POV of this girl, who may or may not just be going crazy. OR IS SHE REALLY A WITCH? Which is a boring question to me.
It went in too many directions for me, not seeming to know quite what it was.
(edited for sentences that didn't make sense)
spoilers but not really
I dug it - there was that scene in the middle of the movie that was like a lynchpin scene - one that would've validated all the suspense before it and made you accept all the ridiculousness after and I thought the film did a stellar job. felt like the film was never a sixth sense thing where it wanted you to guess whether or not there was ghost/ magic in this world. the film just wanted to create a context in which witches are very scary. the film's ambition is actually quite straightforward - it just wants to scare you with witchy stuff, through the eyes of 17th century folks.
I don't think there's meant to be any ambiguity whatsoever about whether there's a witch, or whether witchcraft and/or magic exists in this world. It's established pretty literally in the first ten minutes that the witch is a witch, in the classical sense. That's what I love about it. It just gets that out in the open. There's ambiguity over who's actually been bewitched, I suppose, but not about the fact that bewitching is occurring.
It's been a while since I saw it now, so my memory is a bit hazy on specifics, but I remember feeling like the reality of the witch was very often linked to the pov of the girl, but I might be mistaken. You are both describing the film I wanted to see! I might just have been in a bad mood, which could certainly be assumed by the tone of my writing up there.
They break subjectivity very specifically (and very gruesomely) for an extended sequence within the first fifteen minutes, just to cast out any doubt that this might all be in the characters' heads.
Quote from: Ghostboy on February 16, 2016, 11:29:15 AM
They break subjectivity very specifically (and very gruesomely) for an extended sequence within the first fifteen minutes, just to cast out any doubt that this might all be in the characters' heads.
It's horrible to have forgotten so many details. I do remember that we see the witch explicitly very quickly, but help jog my memory, in which way do they break subjectivity?
SPOILERS
After the baby is stolen, and there's that subjective shot of Tomasin looking at the bushings moving in the woods, we then break from the family's perspective and cut to a shot of a witch scurrying through the woods, carrying the baby. She takes it back to a hovel. Then se see inside the house where she's naked and places the baby on a table and holds a knife up to it. Then we see her churning something in an old butter-churning thing - obviously the baby. Then she starts scooping out baby goo and slathering it all over her body. Then there's a shot of her greasing up her broomstick. And then, lastly, a shot of her rising up towards the full moon, presumably astride her broom.
Thanks! I remember that happened early, but didn't remember the details or whether there were any witnesses to it. I felt like the fact that Tomasin didn't actually see any trace of the witch carrying off the baby, in combination with us seeing the witch very explicitly immediately after, in a very phantasmagorical sequence that I felt stood quite a bit apart from the style of the film as a whole, made me think it could have been imagined. Granted, this is a convoluted way of making this the film I didn't want to see, while the more elegant explanation is the film I wanted and that you guys saw.
2046 screens opening weekend, both local arthouses and multiplexes.
opening weekend: they're not competitors they're friends, and The Witch opened at $8,685,270 while Ex Machina wide-opened at 1,255 with $5,349,500.
The Witch's opening has already grossed above all of A24's 2015 moves after Ex Machine (which made $25m), as in opening weekend The Witch made more theatrical money than the entire run of Amy, While We're Young, A Most Violent Year, The End of the Tour, and from 2014 it's already made more than Obvious Child, Under the Skin, Tusk, Locke, The Rover, and from 2013 Spring Breakers made $14mil, The Spectacular Now made $6.8, The Bling Ring made $5.8, and A24 isn't listed in 2012.
company wise, the horror genre came and did the thing it does where it rakes in money. helps the whole team. and David Lowery has been a superdelegate. A24 < Disney, as a company -- ok, the Pete's Dragon opening will at least triple The Witch, right? it'll at least open at $24mil, that's the laziest guess i can make. i don't know the precedent to a Pete's Dragon box office, this type of Disney reboot, and beginning to imagine things like this is next-level stuff from both the inside and outside. obvious bias for conversational fork, point is The Witch landed strong.
been looking forward to this since the early festival buzz and it over-delivered. the horror movie of my dreams. takes a big steamy shit all over it follows. fucking loved it, and my favorite horror movie since... cronenberg's the fly i guess? (chronologically speaking.) completely transportive and visceral. was delighted to find the movie to be a period family drama kissing cousin of polanski's repulsion. dreyer's fingerprints are all over this as well. terrified during its running time, elated afterwards to have experienced such pure cinema.
Yeah this was awesome, really well done. The final ten minutes are completely phantasmagoric and I didn't want it to end.
Quote from: petethe film's ambition is actually quite straightforward - it just wants to scare you with witchy stuff, through the eyes of 17th century folks.
That's what I thought I was watching, and I bought into it, but to be totally honest the language confused me a lot of the time and I wasn't even sure if I was missing anything -- if the movie had greater ambitions and I was just lost. Either way, I haven't seen a feature debut this assuredly directed in ages. And the cast is made up of such magnificent faces, even the bit parts in the beginning, that any missteps that could be attributed to the script (if it can even be said there are any?) pale in comparison to the the skill with which the rest was executed. I mean what an achievement...
This Anya Taylor-Joy girl is gonna be huge, right?
this review (http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/the-witch) has some incisive ideas about the film's subtext, and while i'm personally a little tired of the constant search for and citing of feminist angles as a badge of honor/seal of quality, it's pretty potent and earned in the film.
anya taylor-joy should supernova with success after this. the performances all across the board are tremendous, making eggers's accomplishments with this film that much more impressive. can't shake the film. officially obsessed.
on a separate note, just read that eggers is going to be doing a miniseries about rasputin. i have to think ralph ineson's at least on the shortlist for that... the likeness is pretty uncanny.
the last horror fantasy movie i saw with this tonal ambition was The Skin I Live In, which movie is basically unrelated to a conversation about The VVitch. i think the beginning is very, very at least subconsciously influenced by TWBB, i kept whispering The White Ribbon in my head, and this movie makes me want to mention movies. i think he fucking slamdunks. it's absurd, really, i mean, more than enterprise happened here. A24 as the Golden State Warriors, Robert Eggers is Stephen Curry. i think he nailed the dialect three-pointers. and the entire movie is worth the witch flying into the moon alone. the end of this movie might be worth ten other movies. it's the best witch movie ending since The Craft. and it took some "direction" to get everyone moving into this movie feeling as it did, Eggers did it, he wrote it, the whole team delivered, and it's by far the most serious and respectable horror fantasy movie i've seen in a fucking blue moon and a half, which is exactly when they tend to come. i forgot to mention some things. i remember something: you couldn't put it all on paper. this one's only for the screen, and it took all the gears grinding together to put it up there. and i keep wanting to say "represent."
Blu-ray (http://www.amazon.com/The-Witch-Blu-ray/dp/B01D2KEVZO?SubscriptionId=AKIAIY4YSQJMFDJATNBA&tag=bluray-011-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B01D2KEVZO&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER) on May 17
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhcU9DCj.jpg&hash=c69ce5495d912ac2d30ca965a8fe169235949f0e)
saw it again so maybe i wouldn't buy the blu-ray but that's not even going to work because the movie's so good seriously.
imdb's quote section for this movie sure could spice itself up. the opening scene is top shelf. about his conscience and being glad to leave. then there's like crystal cinema for the next fifteen minutes. pure and beautiful stuff. then there's a flawless conversation about only God deciding who's good and who's bad. then there's the kids skipping around singing about Black Phillip. Black Phillip, what a hoot. then some other things including that great onamonapia from the kid in that sequence when the other kid says she's a witch, but she's being sassy.
that's my example of how i enjoy remembering the movie and would watch it again again. because i like how it composes itself.
KIND OF SPOILERS
I am in awe of this movie. The acting of all the kids left me shaking my head and thinking "how? how did they do it?" The tension throughout, and the uneasiness which can only be achieved not by jump scares and shocking images, but by all the things unsaid which you can feel are looking at you from the screen: the sexual implications, the hypocrisy, the ambivalence inside the main character's spirit, which is never laid out fully but then EXPLODES by the end.
I dont think there is one bad shot or moment in the whole film, nothing gratituos. And once it's over it stops being a horror film and becomes a fascinating illustration of sexual awakening, liberation and acceptance. And it's so beautiful to look at and experience that you want to see it again and inmerse in it. It's that kind of film, where the colors and the sounds are so enjoyable, even if what's being shown is horrific, that you can see it again and bathe in it.
Quote from: Alexandro on April 19, 2016, 09:16:30 AM
And once it's over it stops being a horror film and becomes a fascinating illustration of sexual awakening, liberation and acceptance.
this quote is a keeper
I would actually compare The Witch to Under the Skin. This was mostly a misfire for me, and in almost exactly the same way. It has these very beautiful, transcendent, cinematic moments of supernatural horror... which fail to resonate into the rest of the movie. I found myself sort of patiently waiting for another one, watching this other story play out, attentively decoding their period syntax. The film tries to use the colonial realism to make those moments especially startling, but this method backfires. The otherworldly scenes feel all the more alien, dreamlike, and incongruous.
Which is to say, crucially, the atmosphere didn't work. Dread decidedly did not permeate my experience. This is no Antichrist. (Although boy does it want to be.)
I'm sure there are biases at play. I have trouble being scared by things I have 0% belief in, like demons or evil spirits. To the extent that I enjoy horror movies, I need something else. Blair Witch worked for me, and actually scared me (in the theater), because it was about being lost in the woods. When I saw the witch in this movie, it was more like, okay there's a magic thing. And it could basically do anything to any character, because no rules are being established.
I agree that the subtext is smart and worthwhile. But like Under the Skin, the film certainly spends a lot of its time on other things.
so, i'm building a sturdy track record in this regard: i support you not liking the movie jb. specifically, from the perspective of a movie being between the screen and the person. it's not about facts, it's not about meaning, it's not about imagination or reality, it's about the feeling the movie gives you. and frankly i've had and heard the feels at least enough to know that an inclusive, expansive movie conversation runs the normal human spectrum, across our condition, the beast of art our condition's nature, and i adore this from a multitudinous perspective. also both times i've seen The Witch i've dozed off toward the middle-end of the second act, and i fully support both Under the Skin and Antichrist in the same way, meaning i'm actually chill on both, but i have fond memories of them, and a future mystery of what feelings i have and allow the movies to access within me the next time i watch them.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on May 12, 2016, 12:17:56 AM
When I saw the witch in this movie, it was more like, okay there's a magic thing. And it could basically do anything to any character, because no rules are being established.
I enjoyed the movie quite a bit but this is one thing that worked against it. The mystery of what happens in the woods is scary enough and would've been enough to grab me without those scenes.