Jordan Peele, meet M. Night Shyamalan.
The “Sixth Sense” director was once a Hollywood celebrity before his films turned into torture “gotcha” exercises. Shyamalan has never been like that, creatively speaking, even as he occasionally teases a comeback to make up 2016’s “Split.”
Can we expect a similar arc with Peele after his third film, “No?”
Even the best directors have regrets on their résumés – Steven Spielberg’s “1941” might be the best example. It’s so bad that Peele staged his UFO thriller that made even his greatest fans stop.
Oscar winner Daniel Kaluuya plays OJ Haywood, the son of a Hollywood-approved horse farmer. His horse (Keith David, in a micro cameo requiring more screen time) has provided horses for various film and television projects over the years. Now, the son is trying to follow his lead, aided by his stubborn sister, Jill (Keke Palmer, in a revolutionary performance).
A curious cloud collection above their farm interrupts that quest.
There is something special in the sky, and it forces the Haywoods to consider its connection to both a family tragedy and their immediate existence.
That’s all the audience needs to know when watching “No” beyond the obvious. It’s a UFO horror movie, full stop. Peele has proven her horror instincts come first with “Get Out” and “Us,” so the move into the sci-fi genre feels like a last resort, shrewd talent.
Something quite large was lost during the shift.
RELATED: Jordan Peele’s left-leaning ‘We’ earns constant chills
Let’s start with the Haywoods. Kaluuya won an Oscar for his work in “Judas and the Black Messiah” and his intensity is a welcome asset to any film. Or should we say “most” movies?
He was a jerk here, wandering around his farm and barely connecting with his sister Jill, who overestimated as if to make up for her brother’s attraction void. .
Of course, you’re trying for their survival, but hardly by genre standards.
The story itself provides a slow recording pattern without the details that keep us engaged. The father-son move alluded to in the prologue never blossomed, nor did much of the dramatic tension attached to their equine business.
Snore.
The most intriguing part of “Nope” has little to do with the actual story. We see, through flashbacks, how a cute animal went wild and destroyed the set of a ’90s TV show. It’s a terrifying sequence that shows Peele at his best instincts. And you can remove every second of it from the movie and that won’t change.
“Nope” didn’t make the “Worst Movie of the Year” list until season three. The characters’ motives proved elusive, as did any real sense of danger. The finale drags on, and on, and the rewards are well animated and crazy.
Just make this movie stop. Please.
The supporting characters provide some respite, but even that they are poorly integrated into the film. Veteran actor Michael Wincott suggests a subplot that’s worth our consideration, but his character’s choices make no sense when it matters most.
RELATED: ‘Antebellumm’ Delivers Lectures, Not Thrills
Peele helped pave the way for a new wave of socially conscious and evenly progressive horror. Directors have previously used the genre to send both chills and a message. Think George A. Romero’s “Night of the Dead,” the sensational 1968 work that explores race relationships in a way no other film can.
“Getting rid of” the burning white liberal complex, among other contemporary issues. “We” offers a more complex message about culture, class, and social mobility.
Both films fail to deliver its message. Peele preserves the story cleverly and frightens the mind. That’s something other artists don’t usually do and why each new Peele movie feels like an event.
“No,” for better and for worse, carries little deeper meaning than a cold note. Peele may not be the auteur we imagine.
Hit or miss: “Nope” is one of the worst movies of the year. It’s a sign that Jordan Peele’s narrative instincts are betraying him…and us.
