TCTTS said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

It's not so much holding it to a certain kind of "horror" standard, and more that it's a rather derivative piece of work from the genre (vampires as a religion and vampires slowly infest small town) has already been done many times before (notably by a guy that Flanagan is a fanboy of so it's hard to miss).

So when you get past that, things fall on the characters and the acting. IMO the characters were all cookie-cutter cliche... Bev Keane might as well have been named Mrs. Carmody (The Mist) or Mrs. White (Carrie). Father Paul was a little deeper of a character, but it's still essentially Father Callahan (Salem's Lot and one of the Dark Tower books).

So you wind up with concepts that are derivative of one of Flanagan's favorite writers, and characters that are almost pulled directly from some of those writer's stories. I think that's where the blind spot exists in that much of it has been done before in the genre.

So it really comes down to execution. Is it well paced? Is it well acted? Pacing was solid up until the final few episodes IMO. It peaked when we saw the vampire in the religious garb in the church and went downhill from there. Acting all around was above average which is a feather in the cap of most of Flanagan's productions (even Oculus which isn't really that great a horror movie is well-acted throughout). Aside from my previously mentioned dislike of two of the female character's acting chops (and throw in the "turn back time" mother whose acting wasn't bad but makeup was brutal), I thought it was overall a well-acted flick. No characters ever really took me "out of the moment". Linklater was superb.

I like it, and I'll probably watch it again, but like the jabs I give you for The Witch ("scariest horror movie -you've- ever seen!"), I don't think it's really that transcendent a series. I'd put Haunting of Hill House above it 10 times outta 10.

---

I hear you, and get where you're coming from. I guess, from my perspective, I think it's fine - sometimes smart, even - to use those tropes or familiar character dynamics or whatever to explore new themes via a new story for a new audience. It's like a remix or somewhat akin to what something like Stranger Things does. I just found the themes Flanagan was grappling with to be so expertly/cleverly handled that it was worth the "retread," IMO.

As for The Witch, ha, I don't care what you guys say, the moment the goat spoke was one of the most hair-raising things I've ever experienced in a theater. Combined with all the gnarly visuals and the subject matter itself, that was absolutely "horror" to me, and indeed, still one of the best scary movies I've ever seen.

---

I wouldn't call the VVitch a traditional horror film but the last 15 minutes are seriously some of the most demented minutes of cinema I have watched. I felt like I was watching a true possession involving Satan

Right?!

Yeah, I'm sorry but tctts has never really seen a horror film/appreciates horror at all. He has no concept of what he's speaking and carryon speaking if need be but listeners be advised.

Tibbers said:

---

Yeah, I'm sorry but tctts has never really seen a horror film/appreciates horror at all. He has no concept of what he's speaking and carryon speaking if need be but listeners be advised.

---

I watch a lot of horror. A lot.

Those last 15 minutes of the VVitch have had a longer lasting impact than most films I will ever watch, and that may come from me being a religious individual. I can watch the Exorcist without blinking an eye but something about the end of that film deeply disturbed me.

Yea same. That goat. I'll never watch that movie again

First of all, I literally *just* said I'm not a huge horror fan, and people have been giving me sh*t about that for years, so it's not really news. That said, I *have* seen a decent bit of horror. I'm just not that into modern, slick, studio, James Wam-esque horror where the ghost/monster/killer is trying so desperately to scare people. I just find it cheesy, that's all.

I'm sure I'll get lectured yet again about what's horror and what's not, but these are the movies I consider in that broad, general, scary/creepy ballpark that I've liked/loved...

Alien
Aliens
The Blair Witch Project
The Exorcist
Fire in the Sky
Get Out
The Invisible Man
It
It Follows
Jaws
A Nightmare on Elm Street
The Others
Pan's Labyrinth
Paranormal Activity
The Predator
A Quiet Place Parts I & II
Ready Or Not
Scream
The Shining
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
The Witch

Some obvious entries, yes, but I'm not some horror virgin either.

That said, I do know a sh*t ton about theme, and how hard it is to weave into a compelling story, via compelling characters, and this series absolutely excels in that regard, like few movies/series I've seen lately.

Again, it's really weird how some of you are judging Midnight Mass *only* as a horror series, and judging me *only* as a non-horror fan.

So don't comment on it, yeah?

What is your deal?

I never said it was good horror, and didn't initially comment on the horror aspect at all.

I said I responded to its thematic approach, and gave examples as to why. That's it.

Then, per usual, I was lectured as to why it's not proper/good horror, something I never claimed to begin with or had any intent in discussing.

I swear, it's never pleasant dealing with horror fans on this board. There's this weird, gatekeeper mentality. I can say, "I liked [Movie/Series X], here's why" and if it's anywhere in the vicinity of "scary" people will inevitably jump down my throat as to why it's not "horror," why I'm a moron, or, just now, basically tell me I need to keep my mouth shut and not even talk about what I liked about it. Then, if it *is* board-approved horror, and I say, "Eh, wasn't a fan," those same people jump down my throat as to why I should like it, will tell me I just don't "get" horror, etc.

My like/dislike of things has nothing to do with whether it's "horror" or not. If I think it's good, I'm going to say so, and explain why. If I think it's bad, I'm going to say so, and explain why. I find some horror movies good. I find some horror movies bad. I don't excuse the storytelling/filmmaking just because its horror, nor do I warm to it for the same reason.

TCTTS said:

---

First of all, I literally *just* said I'm not a huge horror fan, and people have been giving me sh*t about that for years, so it's not really news. That said, I *have* seen a decent bit of horror. I'm just not that into modern, slick, studio, James Wam-esque horror where the ghost/monster/killer is trying so desperately to scare people. I just find it cheesy, that's all.

I'm sure I'll get lectured yet again about what's horror and what's not, but these are the movies I consider in that broad, general, scary/creepy ballpark that I've liked/loved...

Alien
Aliens
The Blair Witch Project
The Exorcist
Fire in the Sky
Get Out
The Invisible Man
It
It Follows
Jaws
A Nightmare on Elm Street
The Others
Pan's Labyrinth
Paranormal Activity
The Predator
A Quiet Place Parts I & II
Ready Or Not
Scream
The Shining
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
The Witch

Some obvious entries, yes, but I'm not some horror virgin either.

That said, I do know a sh*t ton about theme, and how hard it is to weave into a compelling story, via compelling characters, and this series absolutely excels in that regard, like few movies/series I've seen lately.

Again, it's really weird how some of you are judging Midnight Mass *only* as a horror series, and judging me *only* as a non-horror fan.

---

That's a damn good list in my book, and that is coming from a Wan fanboy

Quote:

---

Alien

---

Finally got to see this on the big screen in the past year for one of those fan favorites at AMC.

Before that, I'd never realized or thought about how much it followed classic horror/slasher movie elements. It definitely fits, and is a great rec when parents ask about horror movies to watch with kids in the middle-high school range.

*also appreciated the set designs and details so much more on a big screen.

Saxsoon said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

Yeah, I'm sorry but tctts has never really seen a horror film/appreciates horror at all. He has no concept of what he's speaking and carryon speaking if need be but listeners be advised.

---

I watch a lot of horror. A lot.

Those last 15 minutes of the VVitch have had a longer lasting impact than most films I will ever watch, and that may come from me being a religious individual. I can watch the Exorcist without blinking an eye but something about the end of that film deeply disturbed me.

---

As a horror fan, I found both The Witch and The Lighthouse to be completely overrated. Particularly with The Lighthouse, which felt to me like it was just weird for the sake of being weird.

And when asked in an interview to expand on what he wanted the ending to be, he literally just said he wanted it to be weird.

That dude is 0 for 2 in my book. A pretender. All style, no substance.

Give me Flanagan or Aster over him all day.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Saxsoon said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

Yeah, I'm sorry but tctts has never really seen a horror film/appreciates horror at all. He has no concept of what he's speaking and carryon speaking if need be but listeners be advised.

---

I watch a lot of horror. A lot.

Those last 15 minutes of the VVitch have had a longer lasting impact than most films I will ever watch, and that may come from me being a religious individual. I can watch the Exorcist without blinking an eye but something about the end of that film deeply disturbed me.

---

As a horror fan, I found both The Witch and The Lighthouse to be completely overrated. Particularly with The Lighthouse, which felt to me like it was just weird for the sake of being weird.

And when asked in an interview to expand on what he wanted the ending to be, he literally just said he wanted it to be weird.

That dude is 0 for 2 in my book. A pretender. All style, no substance.

Give me Flanagan or Aster over him all day.

---

Aster is a beast. He can make 10 ****ty films and still i won't judge him poorly for Hereditary

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Saxsoon said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

Yeah, I'm sorry but tctts has never really seen a horror film/appreciates horror at all. He has no concept of what he's speaking and carryon speaking if need be but listeners be advised.

---

I watch a lot of horror. A lot.

Those last 15 minutes of the VVitch have had a longer lasting impact than most films I will ever watch, and that may come from me being a religious individual. I can watch the Exorcist without blinking an eye but something about the end of that film deeply disturbed me.

---

As a horror fan, I found both The Witch and The Lighthouse to be completely overrated. Particularly with The Lighthouse, which felt to me like it was just weird for the sake of being weird.

And when asked in an interview to expand on what he wanted the ending to be, he literally just said he wanted it to be weird.

That dude is 0 for 2 in my book. A pretender. All style, no substance.

Give me Flanagan or Aster over him all day.

---

The Witch and The Lighthouse ultimately just become odd period pieces with some really great/unnerving scenes but as a whole aren't great IMO.

I enjoy watching The Lighthouse simply due to the acting and the style it was filmed in. But I can't say it's a good movie anymore than I can pick some random anime that is enjoyable to watch and say it's good.

The Witch bored the ever living crap out of me, but I will agree with others that the final 10 minutes with the goat were very well done.

Saxsoon said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Saxsoon said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

Yeah, I'm sorry but tctts has never really seen a horror film/appreciates horror at all. He has no concept of what he's speaking and carryon speaking if need be but listeners be advised.

---

I watch a lot of horror. A lot.

Those last 15 minutes of the VVitch have had a longer lasting impact than most films I will ever watch, and that may come from me being a religious individual. I can watch the Exorcist without blinking an eye but something about the end of that film deeply disturbed me.

---

As a horror fan, I found both The Witch and The Lighthouse to be completely overrated. Particularly with The Lighthouse, which felt to me like it was just weird for the sake of being weird.

And when asked in an interview to expand on what he wanted the ending to be, he literally just said he wanted it to be weird.

That dude is 0 for 2 in my book. A pretender. All style, no substance.

Give me Flanagan or Aster over him all day.

---

Aster is a beast. He can make 10 ****ty films and still i won't judge him poorly for Hereditary

---

Hereditary one of the few horror movies in the last 20 years that makes my "all-time" list. Cabin in the Woods would probably be the other.

Eh, I think you're taking a couple of trolls too seriously. As they say, "When in Nilbog..."

OH YOU DON'T GET THE REFERENCE? OF COURSE YOU DON'T.

Totally forgot about Cabin in the Woods. Would definitely add that to the lists as well. Loved that movie.

Really liked hereditary, but my personal favorite horror movie of the last decade was The Babadook.

Hereditary, Sinister, Doctor Sleep, Ready or Not, and It Follows are probably my favorites of the past decade or so.

Not counting Halloween since it's a sequel.

I'm also a fan of the V/H/S series, so I'm excited that the same guys who did those and Ready or Not are doing Scream 5.

Speaking of, trailer is supposed to drop here pretty soon.

Horror has had a good decade

Man, I understand people have different tastes but I don't understand the reaction in this thread at all. Granted I only made it through 4.5 episodes before I couldn't take it anymore (and the last 1.5 only because of positivity here) but that was some of the worst TV I have watched in the last decade.

To me, nothing in it was either original or clever. The best I can say is the actors did a decent job. The suspense was all through ridiculous tricks as opposed to intelligent storytelling, the twists were expected and boring, the characters were lazy strawman stereotypes. Nothing entertaining, nothing thought provoking, nothing worthwhile. All that said the multiple 3-5 minute elementary soliloquies tried to be passed off as insightful are what finally got me to turn it off. Just all around bad in my opinion but to each their own.

I feel ya. It wasn't as good as hill house for sure.

Saxsoon said:

---

I am on the fifth episode, I really enjoy it but it really bothers me that the priest still believes that he is working with an angel, especially when he can no longer step into the light. And when he is drinking blood

Also the show is going for the lowest of low hanging fruit when it comes to religion and "fanaticism" with that woman.

---

My theory: It seems to me that there is no vampire lore in the universe where this is set, similar to there being no zombie lore in the Walking Dead. The word "vampire" is never uttered in the series, and someone surely would have if they had any concept of vampires.

As for Father Paul, remember that he began his journey as an elderly man with dementia, so it's possible that his mind wasn't fully clear, until he was shot in the head and his brain had to heal. After that, he seemed to figure it out.

PearlJammin said:

---

Not worth the binge. There was some good acting here and there but we eventually had to fast forward through the endless monologues multiple times. Conversations would go on and on and on that had no impact on the storyline.

And what ever happened to the "angel", and how did the "angel" come about? Just lazy writing.

---

Yeah this was what disappointed me. What was the vampire thing, where did it come from, did it truly "randomly" appear in a sand storm outside Jerusalem?

And so if the shows taking the atheist perspective - what is the rational explanation for something like that vampire? Was that why they were doing studies on the blood, to try to convince us there's a rational explanation for a blood sucking vampire living outside Jerusalem in a cave?

Also, how the hell did the priest actually LOGISTICALLY travel halfway around the world with this vampire and nobody noticed / there were no incidents with the vampire attacking someone?

So many questions left there.

Agreed, it would have made more sense if the vampire was somewhere close on the mainland. Maybe the old man just thought he was in Jerusalem on a pilgrimage and really he was just lost and wandering around the mainland? Who knows but yeah it makes no sense that the vampire who had lived in that cave for lord only knows would just be like "I'm traveling with you back to a tiny island halfway across the world so you can potentially have one more shot with that lady friend of yours." The more I think about the show, the less it makes sense. I did kind of like the characters however and the fella playing the preacher did an incredible job. Also, Riley's mom was hot.

I think the lack of explanation regarding the vampire was fine, and probably would have made it worse trying to explain. The biggest issue with this show is the monologues, by far. Flanagan needs a better editor and a co-writer that can wrangle him in, because it has become clear that his biggest weakness is becoming too self indulgent in his writing. The monologues ruined the pace of the show, were all written in the same voice rather than being tailor-made for the character, all went several minutes too long, did nothing to advance the plot or to reveal important truths regarding characters or the story, were written in a way that no one on earth would talk except a writer, were frequently cringeworthy, and there was just WAY too many of them. The final one was so laughable and out of character for Seigel's character to suddenly give an atheist's perspective on death that I just had to turn it off.

The problem with this show is that "it insists upon itself".

Psycho
Whatever Happened To Baby Jane
Rosemary's Baby
Devils Advicate

Should all be on your list

BenFiasco14 said:

---

PearlJammin said:

---

Not worth the binge. There was some good acting here and there but we eventually had to fast forward through the endless monologues multiple times. Conversations would go on and on and on that had no impact on the storyline.

And what ever happened to the "angel", and how did the "angel" come about? Just lazy writing.

---

Yeah this was what disappointed me. What was the vampire thing, where did it come from, did it truly "randomly" appear in a sand storm outside Jerusalem?

And so if the shows taking the atheist perspective - what is the rational explanation for something like that vampire? Was that why they were doing studies on the blood, to try to convince us there's a rational explanation for a blood sucking vampire living outside Jerusalem in a cave?

Also, how the hell did the priest actually LOGISTICALLY travel halfway around the world with this vampire and nobody noticed / there were no incidents with the vampire attacking someone?

So many questions left there.

---

I'm not going to try and talk anyone out of their gut-reaction to the show, or tell you that what you wanted from the show was "wrong." You wanted what you wanted from it, it wasn't for everyone, and I totally get that.

For what's worth, though, this was a theme-driven show. In which everything from plot to character was meant to service the theme above all. Often to its brilliance (in my opinion), but sometimes to its detriment as well (the endless monologues, which I agree were way too much). The plot/background logistics, insomuch as you're asking for (which, again, is your prerogative), didn't concern Flanagan, to the point where the unanswered questions were left unanswered by design.

For instance, it doesn't matter where the vampire came from before the show, and it doesn't matter where he went at the end of the show. Because in this particular theme-driven narrative, the vampire represents evil. And in this specific instance, evil in the form of fanaticism. According to Flanagan...

Quote:

---

We're not saying the angel died. Our hope really there was just to say that Leeza's concentration in her blood had begun to tip back, that she was going to be OK. We didn't want to confirm about the angel, in that way that you can never kill fanaticism. It'll always kind of come back.

---

In other words, evil/fanaticism has always been, and always will be. It doesn't matter where it comes from, and it's never going away. It's simply *there* and our only job is not to succumb to it. So he purposely didn't answer those particular questions, in the same way we can't answer them re: evil in real life, outside of the show.

Also, Flanagan wasn't "taking the atheist perspective." It's clear that he's almost assuredly atheist, yes. But "atheism" wasn't his message, nor did the show definitively take place in a universe without God. As I said earlier...

Quote:

---

Riley's parents, along with a few other church/townsfolk, still manage to hold true to their faith in the end, despite the literal hell they go through. Their final act is singing a hymn in the face of certain death, an act that literally requires them to "see the light." They start out as naive believers, but end as believers who have been truly tested. Their triumph is that nothing - not even the devil himself (or demon or vampire or whatever you want to call it) - can shake their faith. Like their son, they never fell to temptation. (Conversely, it's Beverly Keane who tries to hide from the light, literally attempting to bury her head in the sand.)

---

Quote:

---

Yes, I think it's obvious Flanagan ultimately comes at this story through the eyes of an atheist. That said, I didn't find Midnight Mass to be anti religion or anti Christian at all. Rather, it's anti using religion to justify selfishness and atrocities. It's anti badfaith. It's an allegory about the horrible things people do in the name of religion, and how anyone can find just about any Bible verse (or excerpt from the Quran) to justify basically anything. Throughout the series, Bev, along with Father Paul, bend over backwards and use all kinds of pretzel logic to commit all kinds of atrocities. Yet, Sheriff Hasan, whose religion arguably *does* allow for and perhaps even encourages atrocities in the name of God (at least as translated by certain extremists, or according to certain Christians) DOESN'T use religion to commit atrocities. In that sense, this is a show about how religion is used. Not about whether it's good or bad on its face, or which religion is "right." It's only concerned with the right way to practice whatever it is you believe; that the world of God - whichever God you believe in - should be about love, grace, community, recovery, and redemption, even in the face of our worst sins (and an "evil" that will never cease, as personified by the vampire managing to fly away in the end/live another day, if only barely). And I thought this show was utterly brilliant in its exploration of those themes.

---

... all of which can basically be summed up as "fanaticism sucks." Quite literally, in the case of this show. The point is, whether God or the devil or vampires or whatever else exists, all Flanagan is saying is, don't get caught up in the cult-like the fanaticism of it all. Things like how the priest traveled halfway around the world, back to the island, with the vampire, are irrelevant, beecause it's all meant to be purely symbolic. Sure, in an ideal world, theme-driven narratives should be able to make their points AND make complete sense in terms of the plot logistics. But sometimes it helps when they don't, especially when their themes dabble in the unknowable. And in this case, the unrelenting unknowable is the point. It's what we do in the face of it that matters.

Good post. Don't get me wrong, I LOVED this show - more than a lot of people on this thread it seems like. I was just being nit picky for the sake of being nit picky - it's a discussion thread after all.

I thought the show was pretty dang scary. It seems a lot in this thread already came to the early conclusion "okay, this vampire thing is evil and not an angel" but I will say me as a viewer wasnt so certain to begin with. Obviously it FEELS wrong and the "angel" looks creepy and scary as hell but as the show points out, scripture talks about how angels terrify humans …. It was all believable to me to an extent.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, who's to say that WASNT an angel (at least from the characters early perspective) and it's methods - while brutal and evil to our sensibilities - what if they were actually RIGHT? Obviously that isn't true - but if the Bible is to be taken literally - a lot of "unbelievable" stuff is supposed to happen before our eyes.

To me, this was the scariest part of the show because, at least for me, I bought into the idea that this MIGHT be an angel or, if not an angel, a demon who deceived people to think he was.

Kind of rambling there, but I enjoyed the show immensely and much more than Bly Manor. Agree Hill House is a tier above but this was a great show too

One of my favorite scenes was when Riley allowed himself to burned by the sun. The filming was perfect. The pause and just showing him sitting there at first TOTALLY made me think for a few seconds, "wait, what the heck? Was this all fake and in their heads?"

Then it flips back to Sarah and she does an amazing job with her wails witnessing what's happening before her eyes. I think her reaction was the closest thing we could see to how anyone would react to witnessing something like that. That scene gave me goosebumps because at that moment you realized there's no longer any doubt.

Anyway - good discussion here. May give this a rewatch at some point. Hill House was awesome for rewatching with all the little nods, Easter eggs, and all the ghosts hiding in plain sight.