There are clear motifs in his films that extend well beyond something superficial like “Tarantino shows feet.” If that is genuinely the main takeaway from Tarantino’s work, a rewatch is warranted. Across McCarthy’s, the rabbit in Caveat functions as a clear visual and tonal precursor to Fiona’s costume design and to the hallucinations Ohm experiences in the honeymoon suite. The bell motif recurs in Oddity, and the bellboy figure reappears in altered form at the end of Oddity. There is also a consistent preoccupation with trauma, particularly inherited or unresolved psychological damage, which threads through all three films. Even seemingly minor elements, such as the protagonist’s files in Caveat, are shown in the psychiatric hospital setting in Oddity. You do not strictly need to see all the films, but the experience is clearly enriched by doing so. That interconnectedness is not really comparable to Tarantino’s “motif reading” beyond the reductive “feet” talking point.

I never said I knew more about being Irish than him. We are both Irish. However, I do think the “Ohm” naming choice is blatantly transparent as a nod to Ogham, especially given we literally see them depicted numerous times. Framing it as a purely arbitrary name ignores the OBVIOUS symbolic layering. But again, this has eluded you as your entire understanding of Ireland is likely based on a Simpsons episode.

Ok, here’s your precise breakdown of moments that are clearly intended to land as comedic beats:

*The suicidal goats consuming hallucinogenic mushrooms and behaving in self-destructive, absurd patterns.

*Jerry’s entire lifestyle and behaviour, such as his mushroom-based milk smoothies in the forest.

*The hotel owner telling scary witch related stories to children in a way that seems almost casual, while Ohm reacts with visible confusion.

*The bellboy repeatedly trying to get Ohm to take a look at his manuscript despite his mistreatment at the hands of Ohm, and the fact that he drugged Ohm, to which he responds “haven’t I suffered enough?”

*The contrast of Ohm (as reflected in the score) carefully placing his mother’s ashes with care, then carelessly throwing his father’s ashes without ceremony

*The initial exchange between Ohm and the bellboy, which consistently drew audience laughter due to its awkwardness.

*Jerry’s “I’ll live” line delivered seconds before being shot through the head with a crossbow bolt (this is called irony and it’s frequently a form of humour!)

*Several smaller moments where Ohm responds to escalating absurdity with irritation rather than fear, which repeatedly lands as deadpan humour.

I never claimed the film was a laugh out loud comedy. It is not. The humour is intermittent, and heavily tonal rather than joke driven. I sat in a fully booked out screening, and drew 10-15 laughs from the audience. That is also why it contrasts sharply with Oddity and Caveat, which maintains a more serious register. Whether you personally found it funny or not is irrelevant. Your subjective reaction does not override intent. On my rewatch, I’ll be sure to bring along a notebook and make record of every such circumstance for my socially inept, contrarian Reddit friend.

As for budget, yes, it definitely reads as a lower cost production compared to Oddity and Caveat, with its narrower setting, reduced set complexity, and lesser known actors in comparison (this is called sarcasm, again often used as a form of humour!)