It Follows

[Tuesday]

As I said before the success of the film for me was so much about the atmosphere and tone that I am not too worried that things weren't explained enough or the action varied too much

Yep, it doesn't need to set out the rules. Although now I've thought about it, the image of the monster strolling along under water is quite lovely.

Spoiler alert

Most horror movies end up isolating its heroes/heroines, but her friends like "we gotta solve this mystery!" and are with her until the end, which is more like 80s movies like ET or whatever.

[close]

I loved that.

Spoiler alert

Teenage girls who don't hate each other! Fucking hell, it's like real life.

[close]

[brat-sampson]

Really enjoyed this, by which I mean I was pretty seriously freaked out for the best part of two hours. A very creepy idea, the music was almost unbearable (in the way it was meant to be) and the slow deliberate pace of the directing really helped.

The resolution of the final plan genuinely caught me off guard in a way I thought was pretty smart. My solutions would either be the constantly flying to/from Europe every 6 months or so or at the least carrying around a paintball gun whenever possible. Should make it easy to mark the thing and for the next few hours if anyone sees a pink splat wafting over the forecourt, it's time to switch gears.

[phantom_power]

I doubt that would work though as the creature shape-shifts. At the very least because we are not fully aware of the rules you could never be certain. I think one of the best aspects is the idea that if you pass it on and they get killed it comes back to you. You can never truly be free of it. I suppose sleeping with a prostitute is the best bet for getting the thing as far removed from you as possible.

At least that is what I told my arresting officer

[Head Gardener]

it's a great s/t album too - more info

[Puce Moment]

Is this available to view yet? The DVD is out at the end of the month and usually by now, you know...

[Beep Cleep Chimney]

Not that I've seen.  I keep checking to see if it's turned up, but it's just the soundtrack that's available at the moment.

I really want to see it , and was quite up for seeing it at the cinema, but my local picturehouse only seemed to show it at stupid times for about 3 days before it disappeared completely. 

[Noodle Lizard]

Ugh, it's Oculus all over again.  I did not fucking like this at all, and I really really wanted to.  The best thing I can say about it is that I liked the soundtrack, and even then I didn't think it was always utilised very tastefully.  I know I'm pretty hard on horror films in particular, but how can I not be when this is the best we get?

EDIT: Actually that's not entirely fair, the actors were also quite good with the material they were given and I did like that it didn't spend too much time dwelling on what It was or how it came to be like most horror films would have done.  But it's all for nothing if the end result is so underwhelming anyway.

[Junglist]

Is this available to view yet? The DVD is out at the end of the month and usually by now, you know...

Yes, yes it is.

[Junglist]

Ugh, it's Oculus all over again.  I did not fucking like this at all, and I really really wanted to.  The best thing I can say about it is that I liked the soundtrack, and even then I didn't think it was always utilised very tastefully.  I know I'm pretty hard on horror films in particular, but how can I not be when this is the best we get?

EDIT: Actually that's not entirely fair, the actors were also quite good with the material they were given and I did like that it didn't spend too much time dwelling on what It was or how it came to be like most horror films would have done.  But it's all for nothing if the end result is so underwhelming anyway.

Can I echo parts of this?

I'd give it a solid 6/10, but there's nothing new there. There's no dread or fear or sense of foreboding.

I mean:

Spoiler alert

It moves at a snail's pace. Nobody else can see it, bar the stupid stipulation (If you've passed it on, then you can't see it anymore. There, extra tension). It can shift identities, but nothing refreshing is done with it, just drive a few hundred miles, chill for a few days, rinse and repeat. You've got the stock teenage stereotypes (oohh geeky guy with a crush, brooding guy every teen girl fancies, dorky literature fan and hot blonde), the really quite ridiculous pool ending, the blatantly obvious jump scares. There were some solid scenes, particularly woman with blood trail, GIANT and a bittersweet ending, but it offers nothing new, or exciting, or original. Its basically Halloween with a thing that can change identities.

I felt no real empathy for the lead when she just passes it on to HAWT GUY who lol guess what dies. Then dickheads on the boat. Then BFF/Admirer cos eh fuck why not he said he'd protect me.

[close]

Its all round okay, but its a massive let down considering the insane hype. It feels like its riding a bloody nostalgia/homage hype-train rather than getting along those tracks due to originality. Soundwork is top notch though, even if it is 80's lite at times.

I get some want to geek out at hey this is kinda like those films I liked when I was younger let me be young again please, but it feels more and more like the majority of horror is tired, rehashed dribble. If you're a kind who watches the odd horror, lap this up, it'll be great, but as a pretty big fan of the genre, give us something refreshing. Angst is still one of the freshest horrors of all time, no jump scares, no padding, just hardcore fucking dread.

Malacreanza may change that, we'll see. Arthouse tag is putting me off.

And I was the one who started the Oculus hype train guys, sorry.

[Noodle Lizard]

I agree with everything you say, both about this movie and the state of modern horror in general, but I find this hard to reconcile with the fact that you were the one who literally forced me to watch Oculus.  It's the movie taste equivalent of wholeheartedly agreeing with Hitler's interior design preferences, if only it weren't for all that dodgy Jew stuff.

[Small Man Big Horse]

Its all round okay, but its a massive let down considering the insane hype. It feels like its riding a bloody nostalgia/homage hype-train rather than getting along those tracks due to originality. Soundwork is top notch though, even if it is 80's lite at times.

That's how I felt too. I enjoyed it to a certain extent, thought it was okay but nothing special, but the hype has me absolutely lost, and I can't understand why so many critics are calling it incredibly original and "a gamechanger" when conceptually it's basically the Ring but with vaginas and penises instead of a video.

[phantom_power]

Perhaps it helped that I went into it not knowing anything about the film. I didn't even know what film I was watching until the title appeared.  I did find it refreshing and different bit more due to the style and atmosphere than the plot

[zomgmouse]

I saw this yesterday; it was quite good. I didn't overly love it but I did like it. An interesting sense of group dynamics and the concept of the "it" was cool in itself.

Spoiler alert

The pre-ending with the blood in the pool was odd cause does that mean it's dead or what? I did enjoy the throwing of the implements. Bullets don't travel like that in water

[close]

, though.

Overall a lot in it to enjoy but I felt like it could have been a bit more personal.

[SteveDave]

Spoiler alert

The pre-ending with the blood in the pool was odd cause does that mean it's dead or what? I did enjoy the throwing of the implements. Bullets don't travel like that in water

[close]

, though.

I'd have to see it again but when

Spoiler alert

blondie & her saviour are walking down the street right before the end isn't there someone (who wasn't previously there) following them?

[close]

[zomgmouse]

I'd have to see it again but when

Spoiler alert

blondie & her saviour are walking down the street right before the end isn't there someone (who wasn't previously there) following them?

[close]

Yes there is. That's why I asked -

Spoiler alert

is it dead? The blood makes it seem like it's been deaded. But then if so would that not undercut the spookiness of the person following them? And if it's not, what's with all the blood?

[close]

[Pit-Pat]

My feeling was that

Spoiler alert

it wasn't necessarily the monster following them, but that they would never feel safe again and that they'd always be looking over their shoulders.

[close]

[zomgmouse]

My feeling was that

Spoiler alert

it wasn't necessarily the monster following them, but that they would never feel safe again and that they'd always be looking over their shoulders.

[close]

I suppose that could work. That's an interesting way to go about it but

Spoiler alert

I'm not sure if fully killing it off is the best move. Maybe? Maybe.

Also it was interesting that there was no news media in the film. Like even with something as public as the swimming pool fiasco you'd expect there to be some kind of coverage. I suppose that goes with the general absence of the adults in the film.

[close]

[phantom_power]

My feeling was that

Spoiler alert

it wasn't necessarily the monster following them, but that they would never feel safe again and that they'd always be looking over their shoulders.

[close]

Yes, very much this.

Spoiler alert

The whole nature of the curse coming back to you if the people ahead of the chain die means you could be fine for years while it works its way up and down the line but then one day it comes back to you. Or it could be dead. You would never truly know which

[close]

[Ant Farm Keyboard]

The whole system of rules is a rather transparent metaphor about sexuality and teenagers.

Spoiler alert

The ending is about the girl dating a boy who wants to be with her, as he's in love with her, as opposed to boys who just wanted to have sex with her (either to get rid of the curse or their virginity, or just because they want to have empty sex). The first real boyfriend, the boy next door, went home, and got killed by "it", who took the appearance of his own mother.
The girl ends up dating the boy after they defeat "it", who in its final appearance looks like her absent father.
So, there's a possibility "it" isn't really dead. My take on the ending is that they're together, facing a whole life ahead of them, and this frightening perspective is actually the new "it".

[close]

[Artemis]

That's a brilliant interpretation. One of those explanations that's better than what the film-makers had in mind.

I very much doubt any of that even crossed their minds.

[Noodle Lizard]

That's what I took away from the film more than anything; the filmmaker sort of threw some stuff out there which he was certain could have some metaphorical relevance, but sort of hedged his bets on which one would make the most sense.  His comments in interviews (i.e. "yeah, could be about sex an' that, could also be about like where the parents at anyway?") appear to reflect this.

[Ant Farm Keyboard]

Well, it still works better than deliberately making a horror film that's a transparent metaphor about something. Horror is still usually a pulpy genre, and should be treated as such. If people wanted a treaty on something, they'd read an academic essay on the subject, and it's also important to leave room for interpretation to the audience, to allow them to invest their own feelings and memories on some material.

It could be said that Gremlins is about having children (cute little things until they break rules and become plain monsters), the 30s gangster films a metaphor for salvage capitalism that resulted in Black Thursday, most of film noir about the trauma left by WW2, Dark Water about guilt for losing a child, The Haunting about a woman who can't decide whether she's straight or a lesbian, Alien about male rape, etc. But it should also honor the pulpy conventions of the genre rather than being a pompous, pointless exercise in style (case in mind: Cogan — Killing Them Softly being about the 2008 financial collapse and people talking about other people they met once and the days that used to be, except for the heist scene, which was definitely the highlight of the film).

Even Stanley Kubrick didn't know until late in editing why he wanted to make The Shining. In some drafts, Danny was the main character of the film, he didn't know what the ending would be (his collaborator even suggested to kill the kid at some point, which actually horrified Kubrick), he shot a few scenes about the dark history of the hotel that he discarded, and the European cut ultimately removes twenty minutes of footage about Danny and the mother. Then, he realized the obvious, that it was about writer's block and obsessive behavior, with the gateway being Jack Torrance's dry alcoholism. After spending three years on the project.

So, I'm not bothered if the director can't clearly describe himself what his movie is ultimately about. Few people sit at their desk to start to write a story "about" something.

[Noodle Lizard]

That's not really the point I was making.  Not only do I not mind a film not having a clear message or even purpose other than to entertain, I actually prefer that in many ways.  What I don't like is someone making a film where they know they've hinted at enough stuff to make people assume there's some kind of deeper meaning to it all without really offering anything solid to support any such interpretations because they don't appear to have the strength of their convictions.  That strikes me as quite a lazy approach, very commonly found in student films when they've watched a bit of David Lynch or Jodorowsky or something and think that just throwing a lot of symbolism and other such "things what could probably mean something" at the screen is tantamount to the thought that actually goes into making Lynch/Jodorowsky type films.

It Follows isn't trying to be surrealist or anything, but it does feel like you're constantly being smacked over the head with metaphors and such, even though by the end of it you realise the filmmaker doesn't seem to have anything concrete in mind.  As you said, you can interpret anything any which way you want, but it doesn't necessarily make the film itself good if you're the one having to tell the filmmaker what he meant by it.  Some people came up with some very nice theories about Prometheus, but the film itself is a rudderless fucking mess.  If you want your film to be perceived as having a message of some kind, it's probably a good idea to know what that message actually is rather than just throwing out a tonne of contradicting metaphors and seeing what sticks.  Gremlins, for instance, doesn't feel like it's trying to tell you anything or make a wider comment on having children or what-have-you, those interpretations are a luxury and are not essential to enjoying or understanding the film.  For my money, Gremlins is a far superior film without having to rely on the promise of some deeper meaning, it works on its own.

I've never bought the adage that the best films involve the audience doing all of the work, because that's simply not true, and Kubrick's films are prime examples of the opposite[nb]you have your Room 237 fanatics, but the majority took The Shining for what it's supposed to be about: writer's block, isolation, cabin fever etc., which may or may not have been helped by the fact that the book is also about those things, albeit executed completely differently[/nb].  With the best films, no matter how ambiguous or downright odd, the filmmaker tends to have a very good idea of what it's all about (if anything).

I'm not very good at articulating instinctive impressions I get, but does that make more sense?  I'm also not saying that I know for certain the filmmaker didn't know full well what he was trying to say, it just comes off that way to me.

[Noodle Lizard]

And just to add, if most of the theories about It Follows were to be true to the filmmaker's intention, they're hardly original for the genre anyway.  Most horror/slasher films of the 70s and 80s can and frequently are interpreted as being a social commentary on sexuality and all that comes along with it, though oddly even the most blatant examples of this trend don't feel as heavy-handed with the metaphors as It Follows does.  See also all the horror films in the 2000s which Duke DeMondo, probably quite correctly, points out have a lot to do with post-9/11 American guilt.  These reflections on society are things which tend to come quite naturally and in symbiosis, rather than It Follows which seems to shout "LOOK AT ME" whilst not bothering to actually have a point.  It's not subtle at all, and I think if you're going to go that way you really should consider having something solid to back it up rather than just saying "here's a bunch of things it could be about, you deal with it".

Of course, that's just me, your mileage may vary etc. and I accept that some people just like it for what it is.  I didn't, sadly.

[iamcoop]

I need to watch this again I think, but my brief thoughts are that it was an enjoyable enough romp with a few nice flourishes and twists to keep it a little more interesting than other mainstream horror films around. Although it's certainly not as good as a lot of reviews have given it. Which in itself is a pretty damning example of just how in dire straights the genre is at the moment. I pretty much echo a lot of what's been said about the plot/monster holes but I liked the soundtrack and unnerving atmosphere, at times. Although I think the

Spoiler alert

car park/wheelchair

[close]

sequence didn't really fit tonally, and seemed to conflict with the understated feel it seemed to want to employ.

In all, a generous 6/10 from me which is a pretty good score for me personally in horror these days.

[checkoutgirl]

This is an scary film. What the fuck was that big tall Lurch looking thing at the 40 minute mark? Fuck me!!

[checkoutgirl]

The main element I admired about this thriller, was for once, all the protagonists were likeable. I've watched so many horror films recently, where I couldn't give a toss if anyone gets chopped up.

Bit of a thunderbump here but I've just watched it so fuck it. At the start of the film I was thinking I couldn't wait for everyone to be chopped up but as the film progressed I found myself getting drawn into the ever present, constant threat in the peripheral. If the director did nothing else, I think he did that well. Any time she was sat down I'd be screaming in my head "Look behind you, just quickly check behind you!!" It was a bit like pantomime in that regard.

Also the wanting everyone to be chopped up bit was probably my own problem. I do tend to think that about most people most of the time, fictional or real.

[Eis Nein]

Appending the word 'through' to this title makes it suitable for a biopic of your mum.

[Mister Six]

Surprised by how well received this was, because aside from the very lovely cinematography and a couple of decent sequences (the wheelchair bit, the moment the car swerves into the field of corn and the glimpse of Lurch through the boatshed window) I thought this was total shit.

The characters are zero-dimensional, the camerawork (particularly at the start) is wonky, the music is atrocious (surprised it came from a recognisable name because it sounded like some no-budget Bontempi bullshit), the pacing is fucked and there's zero tension. The protagonist should be a fucking wreck by the end of it, constantly on edge and looking over her shoulder. Instead, she's off lounging on a chair by the beach when it starts playing with her hair (?) long enough for her to effect an escape.

It doesn't help that the limits and abilities of the monster are totally vague. Why is it strong enough to toss people about but can't kick in a bedroom door? Why did it stand on the protagonist's roof instead of breaking in like the two times before? Why does shooting it in the head once just tip it into the pool but doing so again kills it? Is it scared of water? Could she just fly to Europe to escape it? Why does it take a day or so to make it from her school to her home, but only another day to get to the beach?

My missus is usually shit-scared by any spooky films but she wasn't even slightly moved by this.

It did make me appreciate the recent Twin Peaks even more though - it seemed to be trying to create a similar dreamlike atmosphere through static camerawork and treacle-slow pacing but somehow it didn't work this time. I wish I knew more about directing and editing so I could dissect Lynch and see how he does it.

[Bence Fekete]

I flicked this on recently and can happily pile in on the meh.  As has been said, quasi-realism and like most 'intelligent' horror it definitely works 10x better in the cinema with next to no knowledge of the gimmick prior, and if you take either of those elements away you end up with a slow cartoon that has one, initially quite impressive trick making less and less sense as your curiosity gravitates towards zero degrees. 

Thought it was reasonable at the time. Rewatch lasted ~20 mins.