My interpretations:

@Ellison Havelock said:

• I don't understand the story. Was Charlie's death an accident? If it was an accident, why was the cult banking on her, using her spirit, etc.? What if she hadn't died in the accident, then? Or if her death was on purpose, that's super weak, as the accident had too many variables involved, and there's no way it could be predicted. So, what's the deal?

It wasn't an accident. The film makes a point of showing the evil symbol on the telephone pole. I do agree that there were A LOT of variables that had to go into that outcome, but we're dealing with evil devil magic here so I'm willing to give the movie a little leeway on this one aspect.

• What did Charlie have to do with the summoning of Paimon, and the possessing of Peter's body at the end? Why did Joan refer to Peter by Charlie's name, and then tell him/her that he/she is Paimon? Who possessed Peter at the end, Charlie or Paimon?

The grandmother put the spirit of Paimon into Charlie when she was a baby. The movie hints that Charlie is Paimon at the funeral when the strange attendees are staring and smiling at Charlie, they know what she is, but Paimon has to be put into a male body for... reasons. When Charlie is killed, the cult (through Joan) trick Annie into conjuring Charlie's/Paimon's spirit out of her dead body, which the cult dug up and put in the attic. My guess is that only a family member can conjure the spirit (hence the title). Charlie is Paimon and was able to possess Peter's body when he killed himself.

• Why did Steve burn when the sketch book was thrown in the fire? The first time that Annie tried to burn it, it was going to take her with it. What changed? Why take Steve, instead of her the second time?

You got me there. I have assumptions but they're very speculative.

• When Joan told Paimon that she "corrected [his] first female body," who was she referencing? Annie? Ellen? Charlie?

Charlie. The grandma was not able to put Paimon in Peter when he was able so we are led to believe she puts him in Charlie with the intent of putting him in Peter later down the line.

The story left me groping for hints. There are a couple ways that movies can do that, and I feel like this did it the wrong way. I wasn't left thinking about the movie, the way I was after Usual Suspects, wherein the closing forces you to re-examine the whole movie. This story just sort of happens, then leaves you trying to figure it out, without enough clues to do so effectively.

I saw the movie Friday afternoon and I've been thinking about it all day and night. Don't get me wrong it's not air tight, but I think NOT explaining everything was the right choice. There are just enough hints and implications for me to piece together most of it, but if they had explained everything it would spoiled the ride.

This is one of the movies I've seen in recent years where I had absolutely no clue where they were going. I still have mixed feelings about those last 5 minutes or so but I am leaning towards like just for how gutsy it is.

Your answers make sense, and I appreciate the clarification.

Pop and I really enjoyed this one. We don't get out to the theatre much, as neither of us care for the recent stream of superhero, young-adult, high-flown CGI stuff. This was a really nice change of pace. We just today found out that we missed out on Annihilation, we'll have to catch it on stream.

SPOILERZONE:
That olde evil devil magic will get you every time. I think Charley was a Paimon suicide, an elaborate overly technical example of devil magic that puts this thing into godlike territory. I suppose it could have just gone out gasping on a nut allergy but maybe it figured somebody would just call 911 and stick it with an Epi-pen. So instead we line up with the telephone pole and have some convenient road kill set the car on the exact trajectory. Suuuuure sounds like supernatural math getting all that stuff lined up. Why the elaborate complications instead of just giving her a heart attack or something? This thing being so powerful and all?

Cus then you wouldn’t have some cool movie decapitation scene! Sometimes we overthink what the writer is doing, like simply making a movie interesting by doing stuff that makes the audience go WOOOOO!

In other ponderings...

Peter was already getting possessed by the time he got the car rolling again, and instead of calling the cops just went home and went to bed. Looked like he was getting all turmoiled with these new brainwaves mixing about in his head.

I think dad got lit up because he was getting all involved, talking about calling the police. This thing was avoiding outside interference ( the law for example) cus it didnt need them mucking up the PLAN.

A totally ‘F’d’ up ,movie! Lots of gory imagery, interesting concept, lots of influences from all over the places, Epic music track at the end!

By the way Ellison, Annihilation was a decent ride as well. Did you see MOTHER??? Very Cool.

@Theynine said:

By the way Ellison, Annihilation was a decent ride as well. Did you see MOTHER??? Very Cool.

I haven't, but thank you for the recommendation. I may check that out out.

i haven't watched annihilation yet, but mother is excellent.

@cswood said:

My interpretations:

@Ellison Havelock said:

• I don't understand the story. Was Charlie's death an accident? If it was an accident, why was the cult banking on her, using her spirit, etc.? What if she hadn't died in the accident, then? Or if her death was on purpose, that's super weak, as the accident had too many variables involved, and there's no way it could be predicted. So, what's the deal?

It wasn't an accident. The film makes a point of showing the evil symbol on the telephone pole. I do agree that there were A LOT of variables that had to go into that outcome, but we're dealing with evil devil magic here so I'm willing to give the movie a little leeway on this one aspect.

• What did Charlie have to do with the summoning of Paimon, and the possessing of Peter's body at the end? Why did Joan refer to Peter by Charlie's name, and then tell him/her that he/she is Paimon? Who possessed Peter at the end, Charlie or Paimon?

The grandmother put the spirit of Paimon into Charlie when she was a baby. The movie hints that Charlie is Paimon at the funeral when the strange attendees are staring and smiling at Charlie, they know what she is, but Paimon has to be put into a male body for... reasons. When Charlie is killed, the cult (through Joan) trick Annie into conjuring Charlie's/Paimon's spirit out of her dead body, which the cult dug up and put in the attic. My guess is that only a family member can conjure the spirit (hence the title). Charlie is Paimon and was able to possess Peter's body when he killed himself.

• Why did Steve burn when the sketch book was thrown in the fire? The first time that Annie tried to burn it, it was going to take her with it. What changed? Why take Steve, instead of her the second time?

You got me there. I have assumptions but they're very speculative.

• When Joan told Paimon that she "corrected [his] first female body," who was she referencing? Annie? Ellen? Charlie?

Charlie. The grandma was not able to put Paimon in Peter when he was able so we are led to believe she puts him in Charlie with the intent of putting him in Peter later down the line.

The story left me groping for hints. There are a couple ways that movies can do that, and I feel like this did it the wrong way. I wasn't left thinking about the movie, the way I was after Usual Suspects, wherein the closing forces you to re-examine the whole movie. This story just sort of happens, then leaves you trying to figure it out, without enough clues to do so effectively.

I saw the movie Friday afternoon and I've been thinking about it all day and night. Don't get me wrong it's not air tight, but I think NOT explaining everything was the right choice. There are just enough hints and implications for me to piece together most of it, but if they had explained everything it would spoiled the ride.

This is one of the movies I've seen in recent years where I had absolutely no clue where they were going. I still have mixed feelings about those last 5 minutes or so but I am leaning towards like just for how gutsy it is.

i liked your answers very much and they make sense to me, but i wonder if the "first female body" was ellen and not charlie? i think charlie may be the second female body - or maybe just a tool - to die and destabilize the family and peter in particular. it was ellen's body that had been dug up and put upstairs, and she seemed to be quite revered, based on that bridal clothing she was wearing, plus there was the reference to DID, which would fit, if she was in fact possessed.

i have said in another post that this film is overrated imo, but i do like the foreshadowing and the hints that annie has been under supernatural influence throughout. gabriel byrne was underused though. i thought i he was going to be part of the cult, like in rosemary's baby.

@MrsBuckyBarnes said:

gabriel byrne was underused though. i thought i he was going to be part of the cult, like in rosemary's baby.

You're right, he wasn't really in this much. In fact, his character was probably my only issue in an otherwise great film. It was such a horror cliche that the husband doesn't believe the wife. Even during the séance he still didn't believe. I understand he's meant to be the voice of realism in this, but he was just so dismissive that it got really frustrating at times.