It Follows

Telecaster58

That was the latest Screen Unseen offering. Odeon's record for these is quite good. Nightcrawler, Whiplash, Selma and now It Follows.
The latest was like a throwback to a John Carpenter film, right down to the soundtrack. Low budget but quite good at maintaining the tension throughout. Generally I don't bother with horror but this is well worth a look. Some genuinely really good thrills.

cloud493

I will see anything with Maika Monroe.

Vinculus

Telecaster58 wrote: »

The latest was like a throwback to a John Carpenter film, right down to the soundtrack.

That's all I need to know and I want to see it now!

Tipsy McSwagger

Mad to see this but it's only showing in Dublin cinemas, this is why i pirate movies.

cloud493

Man that sucks for you guys. Wonder why.

cloud493

Well it was very enjoyable indeed. Good performance from herself, liked the atmosphere, the music, lack of jump scares was good, very very good.

Ciaran_B

Best horror film I've seen in years. Glad I went in cold - didn't watch trailers or read reviews. Superb.

MrStuffins

Really loved this. Very understated, no needless jumpy scares for the sake of it. More horror movies like this please.

Retro Police

This was really excellent. Far superior to the Babadook imo. The setting and music made it. Glad to see it get a good critical reception.

cloud493

The more I think, the more I like it, specially since I hate horror movies, and I usually avoid jump scare ****e like the ****ing plague. Thoroughly excellent.

maximoose

Really enjoyed this. On paper the plot sounds almost like a daft teenage slasher film but not that kind of horror at all.

Really creepy atmosphere throughout, some really tense moments and the acting (while a little naff at times, particularly the start) was solid.

The music though made it for me! Quite unsettling at times. Just realised this morning why some of it sounded quite familiar, was the same guys who did the Fez soundtrack

Fysh

I loved this. A simple concept at the heart of it, made into something menacing and gripping through a strong cast, a good script, and some excellent cinematography and use of sound. To have this and the Babadook released within six months of one another is a real treat for anyone who likes their horror full of atmosphere, incipient dread and character examination.

In particular I'm delighted that the film didn't waste any time with

the stupid sexual politics that cling to slasher films and many other varieties of horror

. It's much stronger for it.

Bowlardo

The music was fabulous. Good idea. I liked the ending.
Some really well shot scenes and I like they were able to make the mundane spooky.

johnny_ultimate

Given the key roles both sexuality and adolescence have played throughout contemporary horror movie history, it's interesting to see them so consciously brought to the forefront like this. While I'm not entirely convinced the analogy is wholly satisfying towards film's end, Mitchell's decision to exaggerate the nervousness and giddy riskiness of young sex is a wise and imaginative one, intriguingly but not excessively probing the gender roles, gaze and generally erotic undertones of the genre. In terms of portraying teenagers, the film benefits from the same credible but dreamlike storytelling as The Myth of the American Sleepover: the interactions feel both genuine and abstract at the same time, which creates a pleasingly peculiar mood throughout. Aiding that odd vibe is a sense of dislocation - the film at times seems set in the near future, at others in the 70s, and during the cinema trip or anytime characters are watching TV some decade even earlier.

It Follows is, above all, a fantastically shot horror film. The widescreen frame is used with great skill. It requires a degree of active engagement from the audience, who are asked to constantly probe the background for the slow-moving menace (or anything that could potentially be that monster - something Mitchell plays with right up until the final shot). Long-takes and pans are both elegantly employed to create a very potent tension and unease - the prologue and the visit to the high school notably make inspired use out of space and time, playing with our knowledge of what is just outside the frame as well as what is currently in it. Shifts of perspective are also used sparingly to create a very dynamic sense during some of the scarier moments - switching between an invisible and visible follower works very well.

That said, the film also stumbles a bit during those same setpieces - the climax at the pool and the beachside escape both suffer from genre excess and awkward execution in a film where a more economic approach packs more of a punch, especially when special effects come into the mix. And while some of Disasterpiece's compositions are quite striking, I feel those faux-retro soundtracks have sprung up in a few soundtracks too many over the last few years, dulling their impact in the process.

A few minor concerns in a film that is otherwise a very striking effort at shaking the genre up. While the film don't always depart from the norms - does every horror film of this ilk require a lengthy investigation into the curse's origin? - vivid and stylish direction ensures It Follows has a voice of its own despite the formula. And boy there's definitely still something innately creepy about a monster that just walks slowly, but with such ****ing determination.

Ciaran_B

I watched ..American Sleepover last night and I didn’t really like it but it was interesting to see the similarities between it and It Follows. The same weird, timelessness where kids talk in a modern style and listen to contemporary rock and rap music but no-one has a mobile phone. The same complete lack of adults.

Fysh

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

A few minor concerns in a film that is otherwise a very striking effort at shaking the genre up. While the film don't always depart from the norms - does every horror film of this ilk require a lengthy investigation into the curse's origin? - vivid and stylish direction ensures It Follows has a voice of its own despite the formula. And boy there's definitely still something innately creepy about a monster that just walks slowly, but with such ****ing determination.

To give the film its due, the nature of the curse is such that it would take a remarkably brainless individual to not at least try and find out about it. I quite liked the way that particular plot strand was played out -

after the work in finding Hugh, it turns out finding the next person in the chain will be impossible, and that's the end of that - then we get a good laugh to clear the air and close off the scene/plot strand nicely

.

maximoose

The girl at the start of the film that winds up dead on the shore, was that Hugh/Jeffs gf that we saw in the photo of him in high school?

I think "it" took her form at one stage as well. I liked the various different forms that it took and how they weren't over explained, like when Hugh had her tied to the chair to show her the monster was real - I'm pretty sure it was in the form of his mother who we don't see until later on in the film. And how the man at the pool was shown to be her dad by just a quick shot of an old family picture.

The

tall, gangly dude

got quite a scream in the showing I was at :pac:

delbertgrady

The biggest jump in the whole film at the screening I saw was probably the scene where

Jay is in the bathroom in her underwear, examining herself, and the ball hits the window

. Half the cinema took off, and then all laughed about it. It was very funny. Also, as mentioned already,

when the tall guy appears from the darkness

- that got a huge reaction too.

Ciaran_B

delbertgrady wrote: »

The biggest jump in the whole film at the screening I saw was probably the scene where

Jay is in the bathroom in her underwear, examining herself, and the ball hits the window

. Half the cinema took off, and then all laughed about it. It was very funny. Also, as mentioned already,

when the tall guy appears from the darkness

- that got a huge reaction too.

During your second spoiler the projection failed at the screening I was at. I think people were unsure whether it was part of the film or a problem in the projection booth! Eventually they restarted the film and we watched that bit a second time. Quality scares.

Greenmachine

I really liked the concept, aside from the lack of explanation, of a deeper understanding of how to pass it along. Some beautifully taken shots, music added to the eeriness of it all, however I did think it was a little over used. The first have of the film might have only been 5 minutes long without, the extended wide pan shots.
As others have mentioned, it is not jump out of your seat scary, it carry a lingering sense of menace. I did find it tame in comparison with other horror film, and would consider it more of a thriller than a horror. While there was nudity it was overtly sexual for the most part. I do think it is better than the average horror out there, but would not hold it up to the same standard as something like John Carpenters "The Fog", although some similar techniques.

ancapailldorcha

I loved this. I'm a tad annoyed my housemate talked me out of seeing the Babadook when I had the chance as that seems to have been quite good as well. I'd have liked to have known a bit more about it but the "less is more" approach to exposition worked extremely well here.

charlie_says

Saw this today. Thought it was excellent.

Johhny's mini review is spot on. Can't really add more to that, but to reinforce what others said the soundtrack was bloody brilliant, the best I've heard since Under the Skin.

Top notch horror. It itself is bloody terrifying, Sexually Transmitted Apparition. STA.

The Strawman Argument

I really liked the Myth of the American Sleepover, it's been a while since I've seen it but the whole thing felt like a more realistic update to a Dazed and Confused, and the whole thing was way more gorgeous looking than anyone would have any right to expect from such a film that sounded like it was coming straight from the mumblecore movement. Can remember feeling genuinely a little bit jealous that I could so easily imagine tons of people with wholly unspectacular adolescences relating to it's nostalgic overtones with startling accuracy. Anyways, skip on two years and I'm like "whatever happened that guy?" so I google and see he's making a horror movie, I don't hate all horror but I was pretty disappointed to hear he was doing one that sounded so typical of the genre.

Skip on another few months, I've forgotten the premise and all but good reviews make me give it a shot and it turns out I'm an idiot, this film was great! Indulged in tons of typical horror movie stuff and was all the better for it, felt like there was endless teasing of scenarios it could transition into (

One the pops into my mind right now that seemed less blatant, to the point that this could totally be just the area it was shot and all, but having yer one twice in the middle of a corn field seemed like it was either about to lead to her being followed through there blind there and then or that they'd wind up back there later for some reason

).
I'm gonna list out bits I didn't like because I pretty much liked (or at least accepted) everything else:

The one time the follower was a woman who was urinating as she walked forward didn't really work, just felt like too much going on
The effects in the swimming pool didn't either, I also wasn't super keen on how they seemed pretty sure that'd work (although I felt like you were supposed to feel like it wouldn't)

Christ, I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things there, it's not perfect, like. Regardless, I liked it a lot.

Sobko

Cannot believe I missed this. Did it get a general release? Cannot recall seeing it advertised at our local.

cloud493

It got a somewhat limited release.

Sobko

I guess I'll have to wait for the Blu Ray.

MakeEmLaugh

Am I the only person who was slightly underwhelmed by this film? Throughout, I felt I would enjoy reading an essay on the its subtexts more than I would watching the film itself.

Many are claiming It Follows is an allegory about STDs – though it is my understanding the director denies this. There are also the obvious allusions to rape (namely the 'chloroform rag over the mouth' moment) and promiscuity.

While I appreciated the many references to other horror films – John Carpenter's Halloween (the autumnal, suburban setting, with strange figures stalking our heroine outside her school), The Shining (surreal imagery of corpses standing upright and walking toward the camera) and A Nightmare on Elm Street (teens devise way of dealing with threat without help of adults) – it just felt like an amalgam of tropes, which brought little new to the genre. In that way, it reminded me of another Maika Monroe film that I didn't like as much as other people did – The Guest.

Why people like The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw are giving it “5 Stars” and proclaiming it an “instant classic” is beyond me.

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't bad. It was just solidly average.

Fysh

In the film's defence, its direction and use of sound & visuals is far above the bar for horror films, especially teen slasher films. It also managed a much more refreshing and realistic version of teenagers and their interactions than is the norm.

I think trying to view it as just a series of references pulled together into a story misses what makes the film work.

gazzer

Watched it last night. It was alright but I think I was expecting something brilliant based on all of the positive reviews I read. The music was great and it was well shot but I really felt it was all a bit style over substance. It was ok but nothing great imo

TwoShedsJackson

I liked this a lot, but as a fan of Carpenter's stuff from the 70s and 80s this is right up my alley, clearly has been an influence on the director too. Yes it basically is style over substance, it's likely to appeal more to people who grew up when that style of film was very common, but I personally think it's great someone's taking a different tack in the horror genre.

Yes there are a couple of mis-steps here and there, particularly the

pointless pool trap scene near the end

but all in all, this does a lot with a little.

s8n

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Am I the only person who was slightly underwhelmed by this film? Throughout, I felt I would enjoy reading an essay on the its subtexts more than I would watching the film itself.

Many are claiming It Follows is an allegory about STDs – though it is my understanding the director denies this. There are also the obvious allusions to rape (namely the 'chloroform rag over the mouth' moment) and promiscuity.

While I appreciated the many references to other horror films – John Carpenter's Halloween (the autumnal, suburban setting, with strange figures stalking our heroine outside her school), The Shining (surreal imagery of corpses standing upright and walking toward the camera) and A Nightmare on Elm Street (teens devise way of dealing with threat without help of adults) – it just felt like an amalgam of tropes, which brought little new to the genre. In that way, it reminded me of another Maika Monroe film that I didn't like as much as other people did – The Guest.

Why people like The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw are giving it “5 Stars” and proclaiming it an “instant classic” is beyond me.

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't bad. It was just solidly average.

Couldnt agree more. Disappointed me in the same way "the guest" did last year.

Case of style over substance and final third was all a bit silly.

Decuc500

I can't agree with it being style over substance. I thought the film worked on a number of levels. There was more to appreciate than just the scares. A horror film with style and substance.

willmunny1990

Not a bad film by any means but I can't understand the rave reviews its getting, unsettling and suspenseful at times largely due to a sublime score but it fell short of any real scares for me, the only genuine fright I got was

the ball hitting the window

Better than the average horror flick they normally throw out but not deserving of the ridiculously high reviews its getting imo.

Basq

Probably preferred the soundtrack to the actual movie to be honest..

.. but it was different - I'll give it that.

PressRun

I thought it was pretty good. Solid acting, especially from the lead actress. I liked how understated it was, especially since horror can sometimes feel a bit saturated in cheap scares and excessive gore. This felt refreshing. I went into it with very high expectations since everyone I spoke to was raving about it, so I did feel a little bit underwhelmed, but I think that was more to do with everything I'd heard before I watched it than anything to do with the film exactly. I enjoyed it while it was on, but I'm not sure I'd rush back to watch it again.

Tony EH

Saw this on the weekend and thought it was excellent.

As a horror fan since I was a child it's easy to see that the director has also grown up on the same diet that I have and it was quite refreshing to see his refusal to completely conform to the usual tropes of the genre as designed mainly by slasher films, such as "final girl" and all that tripe.

There's also an, almost, surreal, dreamy, atmosphere throughout the whole film that's unnerving. There's an empty, joylessness, to the teens lives. Whether that's there by intent or accident, I can't tell. But their existence is not one I envy or shared.

The lack of cheap jumps is welcome, as has been already mentioned and it helps the film over all, as does the grim views of Detroit. A city that's looks like death is slowly catching up with it, as much as it is with the main protagonist.

As for what the film is "about", the allusion to STD is obvious from the "pass it on" motif, but I came away from the film thinking it was a simple pondering on death, which eventually catches us all.

There aren't too many horror films that have been produced in the last 20 years that I would recommend, but 'It Follows' is certainly one of them.

jpm4

Late to the party on this.....enjoyable enough despite being a bit underwhelming. The music and camera work were indeed the highlights.

Was reminded a lot of 2 films:

Ringu - a curse where you can only save yourself from death by passing it onto someone else.

Terminator 2 - An unstoppable, often unhurried force that can assume any human shape it wants, and it's purpose is only to kill one particular human.

Mizu_Ger

Watched last night and thought it was very good for reasons that other have mentioned already (particularly the cinematography).

I didn't think it was as revolutionary as some have said because it borrows so much from other films: Halloween, Ringu, Nightmare on Elm Street etc. I found myself picking out these pointers all through the film. It reminded me of "Oblivion" in that sense.

yerwanthere123

Saw It Follows a month ago and had to watch it again last night, excellent horror movie. It's perhaps one of the best horror movies I've seen since The Descent back in 2005. I love horror movies that favour consistent creepiness and threat rather than the cheap jump scares, and It Follows certainly ticks these boxes. It also helps that the cast are likeable too. So delighted to see it's got such positive feedback. Great film.

candy-gal1

Yeah I saw it in the cinema when it was out, it was good and creepy I cant deny it that, but still wouldnt hold up for me as a great horror imho!
Came across as more of a teen type drama with a few scares/conspiracy stuff etc thrown in, it definitly wasnt bad and maybe I should see it again, it just didnt scare me like I thought it would
Oh and on the whole STD thing in it, I thought of that when I saw the trailer I think, with the whole pass it on thing - thats when I thought there has to be something different to it and scary, but there wasnt really!

Much better than The Babadook though , which I found pointless and a tad funny inparts tbh, so thats good!

Tony EH

I wanted the Babbadook to rip the face off of that kid.

candy-gal1

Tony EH wrote: »

I wanted the Babbadook to rip the face off of that kid.

Lol my sentiments exactly there, went with my mate to see it and we both turned to each other during it a few times and said
"kid would you ever shut the hell up and fcuk out of the story!"

:rolleyes:

The other bad part of that movie was everytime something scary etc was about to happen or you thought so anyway, it didnt! right up to the end twas just like FFS!!

Thats just me though, I hate OTT gore in horrors aka Saw etc as tis not scary just stupid, but I do like my horrors to be on the spooky side, scary in a way that it might stay in your head a bit after watching and a good story!

Insideous scared the hell out of me, Woman In Black made me scream in the cinema which I never do at horrors and my faves are probably the Halloweens and Nightmare On Elm Streets, maybe I just need a 2nd viewing of It Follows possably!

Tony EH

'The Babadook' is ok. It's a decent enough film, but not the revelation in horror that some were making it out to be. I suppose the child is meant to be grating and part of the mother's breakdown, but christ, he tested my patience something wild.

I haven't seen 'The Woman in Black', so I might give that a spin, but I simply cannot remember a single thing about 'insidious' at all. Which is not a good sign.

The last horror films that were in any way memorable for me were 'It Follows' and 'You're Next'. Even the remake of 'Evil Dead' had a lot to offer. But in general, the genre has been, generally, poorly served in recent years despite the glut of content out there.

yerwanthere123

As critically acclaimed as It Follows has been, it seems to have divided a lot of horror fans. Go on the Facebook page for the movie and pretty much every post is inundated with negative comments about how terrible the movie is. Any thoughts as to why? Perhaps because it doesn't conform to a lot of people's expectations as to what a horror usually should be? I'm surprised it seems to be so divisive, I thought it was so well done.

TwoShedsJackson

I think it's just the sort of film that you will either really like or really dislike, wouldn't be easy to be middle of the road on it. Add in the 'it's an argument on the internet so I must go over the top' factor and that probably explains most of it.

Tony EH

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

...Add in the 'it's an argument on the internet so I must go over the top' factor and that probably explains most of it.

That's it to me.

There's an echelon of "kewl" people that will go against the grain, because they believe there's an element of kudos attached to such a position.

Don't get me wrong, there will inevitably be people who will dislike any picture for various valid reasons. But, increasingly, the "it's crap" cognoscenti seem to be gaining volume about rather good films that strike a chord with people, while genuinely terrible films get no mention at all.

I think, by and large, genre fans liked 'It Follows', while acknowledging its shortcomings and the occasional horror film goer was left wondering what all the fuss was about.

Fysh

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

As critically acclaimed as It Follows has been, it seems to have divided a lot of horror fans. Go on the Facebook page for the movie and pretty much every post is inundated with negative comments about how terrible the movie is. Any thoughts as to why? Perhaps because it doesn't conform to a lot of people's expectations as to what a horror usually should be? I'm surprised it seems to be so divisive, I thought it was so well done.

I find a great deal of horror to be like that tbh. Horror in particular as a genre has a bunch of sub-genres which can be quite at odds with one another and there seems to be no love lost between fans of different factions.

For example, I'm not a big fan of horror films that do loud-noise jump scares. I know there are plenty of folks who enjoy them, but they don't do it for me. Similarly, horror films that have lots of gore and/or really inventive effects but really bad acting or scripts tend not to work for me.

I tend to prefer psychological horror, often but not always character-based films, because that's what works for me. I'm not averse to gore in the slightest, but I much prefer it to be used effectively - think Martyrs instead of the Saw sequels, for example. As it happens I also quite like 80s synth music. So for me, It Follows was great - because it combined a bunch of things that appealed to me and, to my mind at least, did so with aplomb and flair. But I can see how people with different tastes might find it frustrating or plodding or even just silly.

Unfortunately, as with all fandoms, there are some horror fans who will watch a film and like it (or not like it) for whatever reason, and then decide that anyone else who had a different reaction is wrong, somehow. And spend interminable hours arguing about it online. About the best thing you can do is try and spot those arguments early on and bail as soon as you see them brewing.

LuckyLloyd

It's a general issue with all forms of pop culture - music / tv / films / books. Some people feel compelled to push their opinion onto others. They aren't simply content to say 'I liked / disliked X or Y and / or felt the film was aiming to achieve points A / B / C'; converse amicably about same; and leave it there if people have counter views. The need to 'win'.

I have to confess that I was somewhat like that when I was younger, particularly in University. I think many people grow out of it to a certain extent.

Wasn't as taken by this as most others were, visually it's one of the most vivid and vibrant shot horrors to come along in years, the use of the camera as a character is wonderfully implemented and coupled with the superb score by Disasterpeace marks It Follows as one of the more interesting genre films around.

The setup is simple, like all great horrors it feels like something ripped from a nightmare and has a underlying sense of dread that is palpable. The film is at it's best when slowly building tension and the repeated wide shots of the characters alone are well handled though there is a sense that the film is over directed. Repeated pans feel a little bland and unnecessary, especially when they come across as being there simply for the sake of showing off.

It Follows is one of those films which suffers due to unfair expectations it simply can't meet. It's a film that's all about atmosphere and does so very well but it's not quite the game changer many claim. The ending in particular feels like a missed opportunity with the entire swimming pool scene feeling as if it's been lifted from a very different film. The beach scenes suffer from a similar issue and feel at odds with the subtle nature of the rest of the film.

yerwanthere123

Deleted User wrote: »

Wasn't as taken by this as most others were, visually it's one of the most vivid and vibrant shot horrors to come along in years, the use of the camera as a character is wonderfully implemented and coupled with the superb score by Disasterpeace marks It Follows as one of the more interesting genre films around.

The setup is simple, like all great horrors it feels like something ripped from a nightmare and has a underlying sense of dread that is palpable. The film is at it's best when slowly building tension and the repeated wide shots of the characters alone are well handled though there is a sense that the film is over directed. Repeated pans feel a little bland and unnecessary, especially when they come across as being there simply for the sake of showing off.

It Follows is one of those films which suffers due to unfair expectations it simply can't meet. It's a film that's all about atmosphere and does so very well but it's not quite the game changer many claim. The ending in particular feels like a missed opportunity with the entire swimming pool scene feeling as if it's been lifted from a very different film. The beach scenes suffer from a similar issue and feel at odds with the subtle nature of the rest of the film.

Agree with this. I thought it was a little silly when 'It' took the form of the little boy and screamed at Jay. Part of what had made 'It' so scary was how it slowly and silently approaches you, so this bit was obviously at odds with that.

Fysh

I do agree that the pool scene's tone seemed not to fit well with the rest of the film, but I quite liked the beach scene overall - particularly the bit where It is walking over to Jay and because nobody's looking in that direction you're not sure whether you're seeing a person or It, until it starts playing with Jay's hair, I thought that was really nicely done.