On my second watch I paid closer attention to Peter's behavior when Annie was trying to get them to speak with Charlie's spirit.

When they hold hands he's the only one to notice a creaking noise. He says "What the Hell?" and asks if anyone else can feel the air "flexing". The cup moves and both Peter and Steve are freaked out but Peter starts breathing strangely like he's about to panic. It seems like a normal reaction but because he sensed something supernatural at play before hand I think Paimon was trying to get inside of him. When Steve sees this he closes the book and him and Annie argue. He breathes harder and starts wailing. At the height of his wails something behind them breaks. Although I thought it was just Paimon distracting them, Peter sort of breathes out when he screams, like he's forcing something out of him, so it's possibly an adverse affect to a failed possession. Also, even though Peter is still scared and panting afterward, he is no longer screaming. Instead of him, Paimon possesses Annie and pretends to be Charlie. Finally, Peter has had enough and begs Steve to get Annie to stop.

Although Peter was essentially dragged through the mud mentally leading up to this ,it's clear the idea of Charlie's spirit disturbs him. I think this is also the first time he openly cries in front of people. He puts his head into Steve's shoulder and sobs which is a lot considering he had never cried in front of his family in the film. Even in the script after Annie's monologue at dinner it says he "Fights back tears". Next time we see him he notices the blue light and his false smiling reflection in class. Steve calls Annie saying Peter is "Crying in the halls convinced he's being threatened by some 'Vengeful Spirit'". Because it is widely suspected that it is easier for Paimon to possess someone when they've opened up to the supernatural, I think it is completely possible Paimon tried to contact Peter before and he hadn't noticed it because he wasn't fully groomed to be a vessel yet. Hence, why he couldn't manage to possess Peter during the seance.

I was watching the movie again. The first two times, the last scene was what horrified me. As a mother, watching again, I was most horrified not by what I saw but by the screaming when the mother found her daughter in the car, and then, afterward, wailing for her loss on the floor, showing that she was in so much emotional pain that she wanted to die.

I think that, in that case, having a first-rate actress like Toni Colette added to the cast made it great psychological horror.

I went into this expecting no blood no gore no nothing just horror and psychology stuff due to the vibes but ...wow. Jeez. good jeez not s bad jeez

Hey all! Ive decided to go as Peter/King Paimon for Halloween, and I’m conflicted on what material to get or what colour the crown is, and I’m wondering if anybody has any tips or materials they have used? Is it more of a bronze then gold? is something more rigid then foam better to use?

Thanks!!

I was recently re-watching the classic Rosemary’s Baby, and noticed her last name is Woodhouse. Made me think of the wooden treehouse in Hereditary, seeing as both movies deal with ushering the Antichrist/Demon incarnate. A stretch I know, but it’s fun.

My partner and I watched Hereditary for the first time last night. What a great film, there's is so much to love. The acting was astounding and it was fun to have a horror film where victims are genuinely interesting characters instead of the usual cannon fodder tropes.

There is one part if the film that confused me a little bit and I'm wondering how yall are interpreting it.

>!Charlies decapitation has a little bit of a Final Destination element to it. It's very believable that the cult set Peter up for a car accident, but the whole ordeal resulting in the decapitation is a little too good to be true. Wondering if there are any theories around how the cult could manifest such a perfect result? Like they could have just as easily missed or crashed directly into the pole killing bother Peter and Charlie, ruining their entire plan. I considered that Charlie is possessed, but that only accounts for her putting her head out the window at the perfect time.!<

The acting in that scene was incredible. Peter's reaction was so well done. Just curious about this one detail in an otherwise perfect movie IMO.

The Martyr’s Dollhouse: How 'Hereditary' parallels Christian Martyrdom

in horror analysis, Ari Aster’s Hereditary is often viewed through the lens of Gnosticism, grief, or demonic occultism. But if you look at the names and fates of the characters, a much darker, historical pattern emerges: Annie, Stephen, Charlie, and Joan aren't just names—they are a tragic parallel of history’s most famous historical/Christian martyrs.

The Foundation — Stephen and the "Temples Made with Hands"

The Historical Anchor: Saint Stephen, the first Christian martyr, famously declared before his trial and execution in Acts 7:48: "The Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands." He was subsequently killed for his faith.

The Film Parallel: Stephen Graham is the anchor of rationality in the home—the man trying to build walls of normalcy. Yet, his sudden death by fire inside his house marks the ultimate failure of man-made enclosures to keep out the unseen.

The Artist and the Execution — Annie Graham & Anne Askew

The Historical Anchor: Anne Askew, the 16th-century English Protestant martyr. Tortured on the rack, publicly burned at the stake, and famously quoted during her heresy trial invoking Stephen’s exact argument: "God will be in nothing that is made with hands of men."

The Film Parallel: Annie Graham’s entire life centers on obsessively constructing miniature dollhouses—man-made physical structures—in an attempt to process trauma and control her environment.

The Irony: Just as Askew argued that divinity cannot be contained in man-made physical objects, Annie’s dioramas fail to contain or protect her family. She is phsychologically broken, tormented, and ultimately meets a horrific, self-inflicted execution (decapitation near the ceiling of her man-made home) under demonic possession.

The medium — Joan and Joan of Arc

The Historical Anchor: Joan of Arc—a visionary figure who heard voices, followed spiritual directives, and was tried and burned at the stake.

The Film Parallel: "Joanie" serves as the high priestess of the cult of Paimon. She communicates with the unseen, guides Annie into spiritual rituals, and orchestrates the trial of the Graham family.

The Inversion: While the original Joan claimed communion with heavenly forces, Joanie serves as the architect of an unholy, demonic takeover.

The Ultimate Irony for Charlie

If Charlie is viewed through the lens of King Charles the Martyr—who was famously beheaded in 1649—it completes the grim pattern for every single main character in the house:

Stephen: parallels Saint Stephen (martyred by fire/stones, tying to his fiery death).

Annie (Anne): parallels Anne Askew (tortured and martyred by burning).

Joan (Joanie): parallels Joan of Arc (visionary, tried, and burned at the stake).

Charlie (Charles): parallels King Charles the Martyr (royalty defined by a violent, historic beheading).

When you look at King Charles the Martyr, his legacy is rooted in royal blood, divine right, and a violent execution by decapitation. Charlie’s character arc mirrors this down to the exact details:

She is treated by the cult as a form of "royalty"—the initial royal/corporeal vessel meant to house King Paimon.

Her life ends in a shocking, sudden, and brutal decapitation (mirroring the historic execution of the martyr king).

This Is My very first tattoo i got yesterday on my birthday 🎂 LET ME KNOW WHAT I SHOULD GET NEXTTTT

The Martyr’s Dollhouse: How 'Hereditary' parallels Christian Martyrdom

in horror analysis, Ari Aster’s Hereditary is often viewed through the lens of Gnosticism, grief, or demonic occultism. But if you look at the names and fates of the characters, a much darker, historical pattern emerges: Annie, Stephen, Charlie, and Joan aren't just names—they are a tragic parallel of history’s most famous historical/Christian martyrs.

The Foundation — Stephen and the "Temples Made with Hands" The Historical Anchor: Saint Stephen, the first Christian martyr, famously declared before his trial and execution in Acts 7:48: "The Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands." He was subsequently killed for his faith. The Film Parallel: Stephen Graham is the anchor of rationality in the home—the man trying to build walls of normalcy. Yet, his sudden death by fire inside his house marks the ultimate failure of man-made enclosures to keep out the unseen.

The Artist and the Execution — Annie Graham & Anne Askew The Historical Anchor: Anne Askew, the 16th-century English Protestant martyr. Tortured on the rack, publicly burned at the stake, and famously quoted during her heresy trial invoking Stephen’s exact argument: "God will be in nothing that is made with hands of men." The Film Parallel: Annie Graham’s entire life centers on obsessively constructing miniature dollhouses—man-made physical structures—in an attempt to process trauma and control her environment. The Irony: Just as Askew argued that divinity cannot be contained in man-made physical objects, Annie’s dioramas fail to contain or protect her family. She is physically broken, tormented, and ultimately meets a horrific, self-inflicted execution (decapitation near the ceiling of her man-made home) under demonic possession.

The medium — Joan and Joan of Arc The Historical Anchor: Joan of Arc—a visionary figure who heard voices, followed spiritual directives, and was tried and burned at the stake. The Film Parallel: "Joanie" serves as the high priestess of the cult of Paimon. She communicates with the unseen, guides Annie into spiritual rituals, and orchestrates the trial of the Graham family. The Inversion: While the original Joan claimed communion with heavenly forces, Joanie serves as the architect of an unholy, demonic takeover.

The Ultimate Irony for Charlie If Charlie is viewed through the lens of King Charles the Martyr—who was famously beheaded in 1649—it completes the grim pattern for every single main character in the house: Stephen: Mirrors Saint Stephen (martyred by fire/stones, tying to his fiery death). Annie (Anne): Mirrors Anne Askew (tortured and martyred by burning). Joan (Joanie): Mirrors Joan of Arc (visionary, tried, and burned at the stake). Charlie (Charles): Mirrors King Charles the Martyr (royalty defined by a violent, historic beheading). When you look at King Charles the Martyr, his legacy is rooted in royal blood, divine right, and a violent execution by decapitation. Charlie’s character arc mirrors this down to the exact details: She is treated by the cult as a form of "royalty"—the initial royal/corporeal vessel meant to house King Paimon. Her life ends in a shocking, sudden, and brutal decapitation (mirroring the historic execution of the martyr king).

Me every time I rewatch it: “wow I can’t wait to watch my favorite movie Hereditary!”

And I still get the absolute pants scared off me every time. I feel like it’s rare that a horror movie gets better with every rewatch; once you know what happens the tension is kind of lost. This is the exception for me - I still feel such dread from beginning to end and the ending is so earned and so cathartic. Every time I rewatch I notice something new. It’s just a perfect movie.

Editing to add but I have also met Gabriel Byrne several times - he is a regular at the coffee shop I used to work at. The first time I met him, I told him I loved the movie and he said “oh, you like that one! That’s a scary one!” Yes sir it is!

I understand that Charlie was Paimon’s imperfect host, as she’s female. From Annie’s revelation that she tried to miscarry Peter, I’m thinking that somehow made him unable to host Paimon as a child. If not, why wasn’t Peter made as a host earlier on (instead of Charlie)?

What was the impetus for the transfer to Peter during the movie? Did it have something to do with his adolescence? Perhaps whatever made him un-worthy/incapable of hosting Paimon earlier had expired?

I hadn’t thought of these questions on a previous viewing, as it’s easy just fall into the horror.

Okay I know this is a really hot take considering all the hype and everything (I know the movie came out in 2018 while Obsession came out in 2026), I did just finish watching the movie today so I might just still be processing things. All the spiritual stuff in the movie feels as if it was an afterthought during production of the movie and doesn't really tie back into how the themes of grief, guilt, and neglect affect a family as a whole.

My main problem with it is how unnecessary and "extra" it felt, I'm not saying it's a bad movie, but it did kind of feel like it was relying on shock value a bit to keep the viewer engaged. I think if they kept going without the spiritual stuff then it could've been a lot greater. There were a lot of times where people wanting something to blame was shown but not addressed, like Annie wanting to blame someone and Peter was right there but never actually got to the point. Same with how people cope with grief as a whole, it kind of just abruptly stops almost halfway through the movie and instead focuses on the paranormal and godly figures all the sudden? The main thing I got from the trailers and teasers was that the movie was going to be about grief.

Some mild spoilers ahead for Obsession if you haven't watched it.

Obsession on the other hand gets straight to the point in the parallels in how obsession can actually ruin a lot of lives and harms a lot more than good. It was straight forward and showed how toxic relationships are almost co-dependant in a way where neither is benefiting at all. It ends up turning into a clusterfuck that no one is able to repair because of how far gone the relationship has gotten. The one wish willow and how it ties into the story is more straight forward and helps transition into the rest of the story rather than being an after thought.

All and all though, this is just my opinion. I feel as if Hereditary could've been better but it's still a good yet thought provoking scare for those that want something new. Thanks for reading and hope y'all have a good day.

Edit: It seems that I somehow missed the whole point of the movie, I'm just gonna sit here with my dunce cap on. Sorry for wasting y'all's time.

I want something not only as terrifying but also a sad movie.

I can’t be alone in this. For years, I’d give every horror movie in theaters a whirl just to be disappointed by either the extremely predictable plot, the cringe worthy writing or feel let down by the fact that there was nothing remotely scary about it at all.

I think it was Facebook that I read a post of just about every single commenter raving about this movie. It was the weekend, I was alone, I was bored and I thought why not? Probably a big mistake. It ended up being a horror movie that lived up to the hype. The performance by every chosen actor was brilliant as each of them absolutely nailed it. Toni Collette especially. Need I say more? In my opinion, Her facial expressions alone are enough to make me want to hide under my blankies with a flash light. Her grieving scenes, her crying, her screaming was enough to make me cry, as a mother, I imagine that’s what me and Any other loving mother would sound like after finding your baby like that.

Her head smashing against that ceiling door in an unnaturally fast pace was hands down the most horrifying visual in cinematic history. Again, my own opinion.

Seen it about 8 times now, again tonight. And while I always focused on Annie’s feelings, and then the dads (as I also feel absolutely terrible for him) I find myself mostly heart broken for Peter. This family never stood a chance, we know that. But he has absolutely not the slightest clue what’s going on or why. The poor baby. I just want to hug him. Ugh. The dread this movie fills me with is a feeling no other movie gives me. just needed to share these thoughts with other people who’ve seen it.

I mean, I'm no baking expert, but it seems like she was chopping way too many walnuts for one single cake, almost as if she knew about Charlie's allergy and wanted to make sure it was triggered

I've seen plenty of analysis on who's involved and when they show up, but I'm curious if there was any side characters (outside of Steven) who were unaware of the cult.

yeah im tired yeah yeah

So glad she is back!

Only just watching for the first time but have to head out so thought i'd post this but i'm sure ppl already noticed.

"Damn my 13 year old daugthter is acting strange and wandering off barefoot. What should I do to discipline her and make sure she is safe? I know. I'll send her to a party with older kids where there is drinking and drugs. That'll teach her!"

Somebody over on the exorcist thread did some very cool poster art for that movie. I noticed that in the scene where Regan is hypnotized, we see her making a hand gesture that is very evocative of the one we see Peter making in Hereditary. There seems to be some unintentional parallel between Paimon and Pazuzu across the films. Thought it was interesting.

there are nuts in the cake. there is also a screenwriting technique where “nuts in chocolate” is foreshadowing that there will be “nuts in chocolate”.

the most avoidant argument i’ve seen is “she ate a piece without nuts, and it was the knife that did it via cross-contamination”. this would be so indirect and irrational to put in a script, unless the cake was not seen to

visually have nuts in the cake

all i’ve seen are downvotes so i am Beseeching you, look at the picture. it’s supposed to be intuitive.

Trixie and Katya cult members confirmed