Skip to content

“A Quiet Place” sucked!!

April 10, 2018

Warning: Spoilers. Lots of ’em.

Saw the film just a few hours ago. Made a mistake believing the immense hype and rave reviews. Also, I wanted to see the movie because I’m a huge fan of “The Office (US)”- I therefore like John Krasinski. He was great playing the character Jim.

I quite like Emily Blunt as well, having seen her in some films which I’ve really enjoyed, or at least appreciated, such as “Edge of Tomorrow,” “Girl on the Train,” “Sunshine Cleaners,” …

Krasinski and Blunt (good name for a law firm or a private detective agency) are married. I just read this a few months ago, and was shocked. How did Average Joe Krasinski land a British babe, Blunt?

Emily must have really enjoyed the slow but romantic Jim and Pam story arc from “The Office.”

Ok then..  here are some elements of the film that I liked least:

No explanation of what the monsters are or why they are on earth or how they got here. There is a sound bite in the trailer, “massive invasion, total devastation,” but I don’t remember that being in the film! I was really paying attention, but I didn’t hear it. Did I miss it, or was it not in the movie? I don’t think it was.

The monsters look a bit too much like the critters from seasons 1 & 2 of “Stranger Things,” a rather good horror show on Netflix.

It is said that the monsters are blind (or this was written down on a piece of paper that was visible in a scene). It is not mentioned that they have echo-location. – you know, like dolphins, or Daredevil.

Just because they hear well enough to track a person does not mean they have echo-location.

Are we to assume the monsters have this power? I guess so, since, if they don’t, even though they have really good hearing, the monsters would be crashing into things all the time, running off cliffs, drowning themselves and so forth, and would soon be extinct.

The movie is surprisingly short. Considering how dumb and almost a complete waste the film turned out to be, it being brief would be a mercy, except..

The ending is really really bad. It appears that something awesome is finally going to happen – a final and dramatic showdown – which would have been satisfying even if the mother and daughter died, having gone out in a blaze of glory as they took out the last of monsters, and saved humanity. But no, the mom cocks her shotgun, the daughter is ready to use the home P.A. system to blast a frequency of sound that the monsters hate.. and the credits roll.

I was utterly shocked. Just because an ending is a surprise doesn’t mean it is a good surprise.

The concept of “A Quiet Place” was interesting. This film had a lot of potential to be great, or at least worth watching.  I hate when films with good concepts turn out bad.

Was this movie a total loss?

No. The acting was solid – even the child actors did a better than adequate job.  The cinematography was also well done.

But this movie could have been so much more.. so much better.

Want to see monsters going after people? Skip “A Quiet Place,” and instead watch “Cabin in the Woods,” almost any zombie movie or show ever made (my personal favorite is “Shaun of the Dead”) pretty much any of the Jurassic Park films (especially the first one), “Predator” and “Predator II” (which was a surprisingly good sequel), the first two of the “Alien” films, especially the second one, called “Aliens” (one of the best action films ever made), or both seasons of “Stranger Things.”

Even the cult classic, “Tremors,” with the huge underground worms, was better than “A Quiet Place.”

Good thing I went on cheap day, and also had a free ticket.  Only spent $5.50 on tickets for two people.

Alright then.. you’ve been warned.

“A Quiet Place” sucked!!

25 Comments leave one →
  1. May 6, 2018 6:52 AM

    I just saw this movie and it was terrible. They intentionally avoided giving any backstory because there really is no plausible way that situation could have occurred. Those creatures were far from being able to take over the planet, seeing how they could neither see nor smell, and even their huge eardrums couldn’t pick up humans’ heartbeats. So dumb. Thankfully I saw it while in Bulgaria and only paid 5$ for the ticket!

    • Tom Meninga permalink*
      May 6, 2018 6:03 PM

      I think a lot of people are feeling our pain. This is one of my most popular blog posts.

    • NoNameHereOnPurpose permalink
      June 14, 2018 8:43 AM

      You want to see a show with a backstory , watch a series , don’t go criticizing movies because its not a movie. They have good hearing and fast speed what more do you want , if they could see and smell and hear the heartbeat of humans , Earth would be dead in a blink of an eye. And you thought this movie didn’t worth $5 , try making your version of this movie , as if anyone would pay a penny to watch that.

      • Tom Meninga permalink*
        June 14, 2018 12:00 PM

        A backstory does not have to take a long time. You don’t need a TV series. Let us consider the backstory of Tony Stark, at the beginning of the first “Iron Man.”

        There is a dinner held in Stark’s honor, and a visual presentation projected on a screen behind the stage. There we see Stark’s backstory in less than 5 minutes.

        Some films take 30 seconds to 2 minutes for backstory, and use a few paragraphs against a black background. This works well also.

        Another technique that takes just a few minutes is a voiceover. “The Royal Tenenbaums,” directed by Wes Anderson, begins with a backstory voiceover by Alec Baldwin.

        Yet another technique is dialog – in “Lost In Translation,” we learn about the two main characters as they talk to each other.

        A few words scrolling across the screen at the beginning of “A Quiet Place” would have been helpful. Or, a brief conversation in sign language and subtitles – as the family sits around the dinner table – that could have worked as well. These two techniques would have taken very little time.


        I don’t think good hearing and fast speed are useful enough. As I already mentioned in the post. I will address this further when I reply to your other comment.

        I’m not a filmmaker. This is a silly argument. “Hey, you don’t like the film, book, song, etc., why don’t you go and write one? If you can’t make a better one, then you should not criticize.”

        No argument at all, really.

        I pay money for something, I expect, or at least hope to get my money’s worth. People who are professionals – who get paid to do what they do – should be able to deliver something worthwhile. This is often not the case, but it is what I hope for.

        When I pay to see a film, or buy a book, for example, and it turns out to be quite bad, I certainly have a right to criticize. Actually, I don’t even have to pay for something to have a right to criticize it, or anything else for that matter.

        I can be a critic without being a professional filmmaker, author, musician, etc. Even the most highly paid critics, such as those who write for Rolling Stone magazine or the New York Times are not professional filmmakers, novelists, etc.

      • azureventis permalink
        July 11, 2018 9:03 PM

        @NoNameHereOnPurpose, what so you’re saying movies aren’t long enough to accommodate a backstory? Only a series can? Wow.

        And I’m always humored when someone makes infantile comments like, “you didn’t like it? Try making *your* version of this movie!” Uh, no. I paid money to see the film, I’ll review it in whatever manner I damn well please–and if I hate a film, I’m sure going to express *why* it was an awful movie. This particular movie wasn’t even worth the time to open the Netflix envelope.

    • Tom Meninga permalink*
      July 12, 2018 1:19 PM

      Good point about the backstory.. I hadn’t come up with a theory as to why they didn’t create one.

  2. Mark permalink
    May 6, 2018 5:41 PM

    This movie does suck why couldn’t they just use sound to distract them, why didn’t they fix the nail after the second time stepping on it ,why would the kid have a loud toy in a quiet place, if all it takes is a shotgun to kill them why didn’t anyone just shoot them to begin with too many holes in this story

    • Tom Meninga permalink*
      May 6, 2018 6:06 PM

      The nail !! That’s the part I forgot to mention! So incredibly careful to paint the stairway with footprints, but they missed the nail?!!!

      Yes, I agree with you on your other points as well.

  3. Demunn permalink
    May 6, 2018 9:29 PM

    This was as bad as Signs where the space traveling alien can’t figure out how to open up a pantry door. 95% on Rotten Tomatoes…yeah right.

    • Tom Meninga permalink*
      May 7, 2018 12:40 PM

      Yes! I was thinking of “Signs” when I was watching “A Quiet Place!” “Signs” is also one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. I sat through that movie at a drive-in outdoor theater. I did not have a great woman in the car with me, oh no. It was my brother’s kids, in the vehicle next to me, who were very young at the time, and who were constantly making noise. I don’t know why my brother took them, nor why he didn’t take them home sooner. Gosh, what a miserable night that was!

  4. Priscilla permalink
    May 8, 2018 5:12 PM

    Just came back from watching this. You got the nail right on the head. I sucked, luckily I had a free movie credit so I wasn’t out money wise. I did see see the trailer for Hereditary which looked interesting.

    • Tom Meninga permalink*
      May 10, 2018 1:21 PM

      I don’t understand why this movie keeps making money and why the critics love it.

      I haven’t heard of “Hereditary.” I’ll check that out.

      Thanks for your comment.

  5. NoNameHereOnPurpose permalink
    June 14, 2018 8:37 AM

    I thought it was good. Your points are not justified. One of your points is that they did not mention they have echo location and you answered it yourself , if it didn’t have it it would be banging into the walls which isn’t even a point so why put it there. The movie is as long as it is yet you want a final scene where the daughter and the mother go full badass mode? Then how would it end smartass. That would have been a worst , the cliff hanger is to let you imagine how cool they would have handled the situation , you do realize they had to be shot in a specific area quite many times and they are very fast and do you know how much shotgun ammo can be placed in a shotgun , not enough to defeat a horde much less save the world. Its people like you who think they are good critics and decided to become a director only to realize how shitty their idea of a movie is.

  6. Tom Meninga permalink*
    June 14, 2018 12:15 PM

    The movie didn’t explain that the creatures had echo-location. I came up with that idea as a theory, and made a valid point. We don’t know if the monsters had echo-location. This was not mentioned in the film.

    I already explained in the post how I thought the movie could end. I thought the mother and daughter going out in a blaze of glory would be more fun. But I don’t know. Not having seen this being played out in the film, I’ll never know.

    I simply sat through a film I thought was bad, as I was watching it, and then experienced an ending I didn’t like.

    The cliffhanger ending is creative, and unusual, but I found it to be unsatisfying. You like it? Great. I didn’t. Difference of opinion. As I wrote in the post, there are many things to find fault with besides the ending.

    I think this was a bad movie. There are tons of bad movies being made and shown in theaters every year. Yes, there are people who, in public or in private, criticize movies, who then later become filmmakers and end up making bad movies.

    Even if people have good ideas, they can make bad movies. Such people as John Krasinski and Emily Blunt, who made “A Quiet Place.” Their initial idea was not bad, it was just not well-plotted. That’s what made me so mad. A potentially good idea, but a really bad film.

  7. azureventis permalink
    July 11, 2018 8:57 PM

    Wow, this movie was an atrocity. I just watched it tonight and couldn’t believe how downright juvenile and pedestrian the whole film turned out to be. The creatures looked awful (like something out of Cloverfield or Stranger Things), the characters were flat, and the story was nonsensical. The complete lack of backstory really hurt the story too. The only positive is that the film ends at a short 83 minutes (without credits)…so at least the filmmakers spared me by making this mess short.

    • Tom Meninga permalink*
      July 12, 2018 1:17 PM

      Yeah.. even the monsters in Stranger Things were better than in this film. Yes.. you are right. Only positive thing is the film was short. Thanks for your comment.

  8. John permalink
    July 17, 2018 11:54 PM

    I thought the creatures reminded me of the Shriekers from Tremors 2 with the giant flap they used to locate people.

    Horrible movie.

    • Tom Meninga permalink*
      July 20, 2018 11:11 PM

      I haven’t seen Tremors 2, just the first one, which was intentionally funny and kinda stupid.

      But “A Quiet Place” was accidentally stupid.

      And it got an astonishing amount of praise from the critics! Made a bunch of money too, especially since the filmmakers seem to have spent almost nothing on the film.

      I don’t understand.

      This post has been one of my most popular since I wrote it. Apparently, a lot of people hate this movie.

      • John permalink
        July 20, 2018 11:18 PM

        You should watch Tremors 2 it’s funny like the first one but the creature design was better then the first one. A Quiet Place was good but not great.

        Actually in a dark room with just headphones on somehow this movie was better then the first time I saw it. I never saw it in a cinema.

  9. Tom Meninga permalink*
    July 31, 2018 12:23 PM

    Thanks, I’m glad Tremors 2 was good. I can’t agree with you on “A Quiet Place,” except that you are probably right about it being better viewing it in a dark room with headphones.

    • John permalink
      July 31, 2018 9:27 PM

      Oh that is OK thank you for the reply.

      I can’t understand either why this film is so popular

  10. August 3, 2018 5:01 PM

    I have to agree. I believed all the hype and am SO ANGRY AND DISAPPOINTED! It was just not scary and not a good movie in terms of it was meant to be the scariest thing ever. No. Just no!

    • John permalink
      August 3, 2018 10:17 PM

      Well you know a movie might be bad when they over do the advertising and hype it to obscene levels to suck you in. Sure the concept was good but it wasn’t in my opinion executed well and the movie was disappointing.

      • Tom Meninga permalink*
        August 10, 2018 11:59 PM

        About all the hype.. good point. Also, sometimes professional critics are not to be believed.

  11. Freddyisright permalink
    October 22, 2021 7:02 PM

    Oh how much I agree, M Night sucks a lot is the worst and the media hype is always pandering pile of pig shit!! The fawning masses are nauseating examples of spineless sycophants who follow the latest fad cause they have no life and can’t stand to feel left out of anything!! I can smell the stench of a sucks a lot film a mile away; when I start watching and see the pathetic attempts at suspense with child like intellect I immediately know it’s the no talent ass clown!! 🤡

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: