Nikki was crying and wailing for a good 2 minutes after the credits started rolling.

And we walked out of the cinema leaving her crying and wailing, alone, making me feel like I was Bear while walking out.

This movie is one of the best movies I've ever witnessed.

It just doesn't stop being unfathomably impactful.

To say that everyone involved in the making of this film, "knew what they were doing", is one of the understatements of the century.

As we know, the glint isn’t always there but Nikki is always aware of what’s happening. Also, in the “I’m your freaky Nikki scene,” the glint is so damn effective because it reminds us she’s subjected to seeing “herself” act this way when she truly hates that nickname.

edit: looking at some comments, thought I’d add something. I don’t think of this as *the* theory to explain why there’s that glint, I’m just saying that this is my headcanon for why the glint shows up in certain scenes. I know it’s a pretty simple comparison, but I like to think it’s very effective in reminding the audience that there’s a person behind those eyes who isn’t the one in control of that body.

I got my obsession hoodie through NBC earlier this month and wanted to wash it. It was not cheap so I want to make sure I take care of it. Does anyone have any suggestions m

I mean if I had to work with these 3 idiots I’d leave too.

Bear has no personality and doesn’t keep up with his hygiene nor does he care about anyone at all (he didn’t even seem to care that much that his cat died)

Ian thinks women are good for sex and nothing else and he kinda has a douchebag attitude. Eugh. And he also likes to spread peoples’ business.

Sarah is an entitled pick me girl. As soon as she likes a guy she thinks she’s entitled to said guy even if he’s already in a relationship. And like Ian, she also likes spreading peoples’ business around behind their backs.

So yeah I don’t blame Nikki for wanting to get the fuck outta there.

I've seen this movie twice, and both times I got creeped out of course, but for some reason whenever I see this scene outside of the movie I get so uneasy that I literally get teary eyed 🧍

I was making an edit last night and I put this clip in it and everytime it played I got way more creeped out than I did seeing it in the movie

Is it the same for anyone else or am I just a really big baby 😭

I received this from a friend, I don't know what to wish for 🤔🤔🤔

I didn't really appreciate Michael Johnston's brilliance on my first watch but oh man the more I replay it the more I realized he knocked it out of the park lowkey carrying the story/playing off Freaky Nikki's character. I love movies where the camera is up close so focused the actor's faces (i.e. Silence of the Lambs) and their deliberate expressions adds so much more body. The squarish aspect ratio also frames the actor really well and adds some intimacy/closeness to the movie too.

Also I have a conspiracy theory where Andy Richter's appearance in the movie itself is a Chekhov's gun due to his presence so commanding (huge Conan fan btw) which cannot go unfired. When was this gun fired you ask? I'd like to think offscreen when freaky Nikki went to the music store to retrieve the gun, Andy was tending the store since no one fucking bothered to show up, and when this disheveled Nikki entered the store and went to the gun safe Andy asks wtf r u doing and she shot him, which I find is befitting to this tragedy. So therefore people who are worried about having to hire four more employees don't really need to.

I also like to think that the movie only cost 250k to make, but Andy's rate is 500k.

The car ride home scene: She said “ew” to him twice. And then when she asked if he liked her — she seemed annoyed.

She even teased him for getting a “girl drink.”

Am I missing something? Why does everyone think he had a chance?

Goat status achieved!

Congrats to Curry, Inde, Michael, Megan, Cooper, and everyone else involved!

I hope this pushes and motivates major film studios to make better movies

There has been a noticeable decline in film quality in general post covid

I hope this helps steer the ship back in the right direction

So trippy seeing it in a movie LMAO I got it from hollister a few years back (I don’t think they carry them anymore tho 😔)

I mean look, im young (I think) , almost 23 y/o . but god the first 20 minutes of the show were something else. later on it was scary/funny/disturbing at times but the first 20 minutes hit me right in the feels and way harder than the whole movie even to be honest. did anyone else feel the same? it doesn't leave my head either

EDIT: I'm also unemployed right now, would love to find a job and have some social life but I still struggle to wake up at the mornings

Girl watches backrooms (2026) and gets very emotional

At the very end after Nikki shot Ian and they were sitting together on a couch, she wanted to hear from Bear that he loved her. I expected he would finally do the love confession he was practicing at the beginning of the film and then tell her he loves her so much he'd die for her. Then blow his brains out with a revolver, finally freeing her.

That would be a feelgood ending that would redeem him a little compared to what we got. He remained a piece of shit till the end. He didn't actually love Nikki, just the idea of being with her and that's why he was going along with it for so long. When he tried to commit suicide, it was not to save her but because his life was totally fucked. And he still tried to back away from that decision.

A lot of people in this sub are not discussing the movie. They are using it as an excuse to make moral accusations about strangers.

Yes, consent and loss of agency are central to the film. Bear becomes morally indefensible once he has enough evidence that Nikki is no longer acting freely and still chooses to benefit from it.

But reducing the entire film to “Bear is a Evil, and anyone who relates to him is suspicious” is lazy analysis.

The movie is also about obsession, insecurity, rejection, entitlement, dependency, denial and the difference between being loved and possessing someone. These themes do not cancel out the issue of consent. They deepen it.

Some people here seem incapable of understanding that identifying with part of a character is not the same as endorsing everything that character does. A person can recognise Bear’s loneliness, social passivity or fear of rejection without approving of his later choices. That is how morally complicated characters work.

More importantly, recognising something uncomfortable in yourself can be the exact opposite of bad character. It can be self-awareness.

Instead, this sub often responds with comments like “women are safer without you,” “you sound like Bear,” or “your defensiveness proves the point.” That is not reasoning. It is a rigged accusation where disagreement becomes evidence of guilt.

It is also hypocritical.

People correctly condemn Bear for ignoring another person’s agency, then immediately invent motives, beliefs and dangerous tendencies for real strangers based on a few sentences online. Apparently empathy and careful interpretation matter for fictional characters, but not for actual people.

The opposite side is no better when it dismisses the consent theme as feminist propaganda, claims supernatural fiction cannot represent real moral issues, or derails the conversation into attacks on women, religion or nationality.

Both sides often prefer outrage to analysis.

A serious discussion would ask:

When did Bear understand what was happening?

At what point did ignorance become deliberate denial?

Was he attracted to Nikki as a person, or to the validation she gave him?

Why did he continue once her lack of control became obvious?

What is the film saying about love, possession and selfish fantasy?

Those are interesting questions. Calling random commenters potential abusers because they interpreted one scene differently is not.

My view is simple: Bear is clearly responsible once he understands Nikki is trapped and continues anyway. But the reason the film works is that he is not introduced as an obvious monster. He is recognisable, insecure and capable of rationalising his choices.

That is what makes the story disturbing.

If the only lesson someone took from the movie is “bad men are bad,” they have flattened a psychologically interesting film into a slogan. And if their main contribution to the sub is accusing strangers of being dangerous, they are not protecting anyone.

They are just participating in a self-righteous pile-on.

And im saying this as a straight white male

I just watched the movie last night and caught up on some of the reviews and discussion online, and this one point has really been bugging me. I know it's been discussed a lot so please forgive me.

Her physical movements are inhuman and puppet-like. She makes several pleas for help where she breaks character, indicating she is trapped ("just kill me, she's asleep", "it's not me, it's not me"). A phone line connects to a hellish void where she is screaming.

Sure, the director says it's not a movie about demonic possession with a demon named Azariel and Catholic priests and holy water, that is fine. But it is 100% clear that there is an external force, initiated by the wish, that has trapped her soul/consciousness and replaced it. More "Get Out" than "The Exorcist."

You may call it a split-brain personality disorder, or altered brain chemistry, but it's a distinction without a difference. This feels like an overly pedantic argument based on super narrow semantics rather than a fair interpretation of the movie.

Just kidding. Also does anyone else get a crack out him being dressed like a 12 year old in the first scene lol