It Follows (David Robert Mitchell)

[Spun Lepton]

It Follows

Director: David Robert Mitchell

[max314]

I've heard great things about this movie.

Looking forward to it.

[Pop Trash]

This is really the only new movie I care about right now.

[Stay Puft]

I liked this one.

It doesn't do as much with the concept as I would have hoped, but it works well enough for the first half, and the final shot is a perfect punctuation mark. The concept is laughable and dopey on paper (I tried to describe the film to my roommate, and he couldn't stop laughing) but as a cinematic/visual idea it proves devilishly clever. I don't want to say too much, so as not to give away the game. But, yeah: there are a couple moments here that freaked me the fuck out and made me jump in my seat. The overall atmosphere is tense and fascinating, as a simple cut to a master shot can keep you on your toes, even though nothing is happening. I've never been a big horror fan but this one worked for me.

Also, the soundtrack is by the same guy who did the music for Fez. It's cool.

[number8]

It doesn't do as much with the concept as I would have hoped

Yeah, I'm very conflicted with this because I really appreciate the craft that went into it, but I was taken aback that they played the film completely straight. Given the premise, it seemed obvious to use it to play around with the slasher genre's tradition of sex-shaming teenagers, but it actually just doubled down on that instead of subverting it. I'm not saying that's a fault, exactly, since there's nothing wrong with just committing fully to the genre, I was just disappointed because the film seemed like it was self-aware, but just didn't dare to deviate from it.

Another thing that I thought was rather amusing is the knowledge that this is written and directed by a man, because the concept is one of those horror premises that's meant to tap into primal fears and be more effective after the movie rather than during by making something innocuous seem like it could be potentially fatal (like Doctor Who's suggestion that not every shadow is made up of invisible piranhas, but any shadow could be), but this movie's version of that is trying scare you into thinking that anyone walking slowly in the distance behind you could be stalking/following you... which is a possibility that I'm pretty sure already crossing most women's minds on a daily basis.

I dunno, it's highly entertaining, but it does come across sometimes like Under the Skin for dummies.

[Dukefrukem]

So this is now coming to VOD any date. Sweet.

[Pop Trash]

So this is now coming to VOD any date. Sweet.

I read they are pushing the VOD date back because they are doing a wide-ish theatrical release this weekend. It made $$$ last weekend apparently.

[Henry Gale]

I read they are pushing the VOD date back because they are doing a wide-ish theatrical release this weekend. It made $$$ last weekend apparently.

At first the VOD cancellation bummed me out but apparently they really are going for it and aiming for 1,000-ish theatres so I can't complain about knowing it'll be easy to seek out that way. But for VOD horror rollouts, I did watch The Babadook in the dark, home alone, at high volume and it was pretty much perfect that way. No audience take potentially me out of it or feel more comfortable with.

Very much looking forward to it, especially having dodged learning anything about it aside from Maika Monroe starring. The last time I went into a movie knowing so little with her starring, it worked out pretty excellently. (*Dan Stevens thumbs-up gif*)

[Pop Trash]

Caught it this afternoon. It's definitely legit. Like most contemporary horror movies, it echoes back to the 70s-80s golden age of horror with lots of nods to Carpenter (it feels like the hyper paranoia of The Thing plopped down in the magic hour coziness of the small town in Halloween) and maybe a few nods here and there to Kubrick and Lynch. More recently, it reminded me of Ti West and Sean Durkin's films. The film is fuckin' beautiful and is almost Altman-like with the constant wandering zooms and pans.

The one nitpicky thing is the explanation of the basic premise. Slant and others have brought up dubious sexual politics, but for me, I simply wish it was more ambiguous so the 'It' in the title could work as a metaphor for other things beyond sex and its risk factors. There's some interesting Romero-style class and race conscious stuff that goes on in the film that is left a little unexplored and, again, could work metaphorically into the story if the screenplay wasn't so hellbent on solely making the 'It' following them about one thing. That said, it is just a nitpick, and never sinks the film's beautiful direction and cinematography, unnerving score, or the terrific performance by lead actress Maika Monroe.

[Ezee E]

Maika Monroe is like a cross between Chloe Sevigny and Amanda Seyfried.

Word of mouth is a great thing. As mentioned above, the premise is pretty ridiculous to hear. David Robert Mitchell executes it to being a highly involving horror movie in which you're always looking over the entire screen for the potential of "it" to reveal itself. Some have criticized it for lack of sexual politics, but there's already plenty of analyzation about it out there. I think it does just enough without trying to make it a focal point. That's much preferred to me anyway.

The movie does depend on the high volume of its music for a large amount of its scares, which is minimally annoying. It does avoid most "jump scare" moments and outside of a man standing on the roof at the end of its second act, there's really nothing laughable. Mitchell does make its tense moments immediately white-knuckle level tense, and continues to keep it that way for the length of the movie. All without unnecessary gore, which was the 2000's answer to horror. Have things changed again?

[Ivan Drago]

I felt like the movie could've done more with its concept, and there was a lot more downtime between scares than there should've been. And although comparing it to The Cabin in the Woods is a bit of a stretch, it's still a very fresh and original idea that played a lot with my expectations, covered themes of sexual exploration and discovery, and the score and Maika Monroe were great. Definitely worth seeing.

[number8]

Is it a stretch?

[Morris Schæffer]

All of today I've been wondering what our new banner was from, 2 hours ago I found out. Pretty much love the movie. It's at its worst whenever Hugh is explaining what needs to be done to survive although "worst" is a relative term here.

[Henry Gale]

Nice. The expansion allowed this to crack the Top 5 at this weekend's box office. Only $4 million, but still. Profile is a helluva thing for longevity. (Both for the movie and those involved.)

Hoping to see it tomorrow. I still know nothing about it. (Other than having seen the original still with Monroe in the chair, one with a house, our banner, and the poster.)

[dreamdead]

Really love that it retains Mitchell's style from The Myth of the American Sleepover and simply transplants the structure of the unstoppable horror onto the impressionistic shots. At times the film angles for a more operatic approach than is necessary--the double close-up with Paul's hands is a bit too much--and there remain instances where characters just act strangely.

Hugh tells Jay how to avoid the creature, so the very idea of going into the white shack's enclosed spaces on the beach just seemed ludicrous until Mitchell belatedly revealed that there was another exit. And at several different moments Jay doesn't position herself in proximity to multiple entryways (namely, on the beach chair). Why didn't the sister try to throw the blanket over the creature earlier in the game, why wasn't that detail understood earlier? But some of those idiocies are simply part of the genre. I liked how she bought herself extra time by getting ready to approach the boat with the college men, and how Mitchell cut at that point so that there wouldn't be a scene of Monroe looking despondent at that point.

Where the film intrigues me is in the suggestion that it's the parent consuming the child sexually, and how that level of violation is all the more horrible. And in suggesting Paul's intelligence in heading for the prostitute even as we suspect that he's too much a fool for love to actually follow through with it, so that the closing image remains impactful. And while I don't know if Monroe actually has a fleshed-out character (see Mitchell's impressionism), the amount of intimacy that she's asked to experience directly makes her empathetic. And the soundtrack remains delightful.

Very good--one that I don't think would drop much, if any, on a rewatch--though I agree with 8 that Under the Skin is essentially the more interesting inverse of this one.

[Spinal]

After watching this I was tempting to choose somebody in the theater and slowly follow them out to the parking lot.

I think I liked it less than most of you. It was engaging enough and I appreciated the way new information was unveiled visually. However, I was not satisfied with the ending. I don't think it really resolves anything.

The film is such a mixtape of other iconic horror movies (Halloween, Night of the Living Dead, The Ring, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Grudge, Let the Right One In). However, it mostly reminded me of that Youtube video where the guy gets slowly beaten to death by the guy carrying the spoon.

[Pop Trash]

Where the film intrigues me is in the suggestion that it's the parent consuming the child sexually, and how that level of violation is all the more horrible.

That is pretty weird. I didn't even think about that. Some Freudian baggage to unpack right there.

[number8]

From a horror perspective, one thing I wish the film tried to do was never show "it." I don't know if it could really be sustained for the whole movie, but I thought it was at its scariest in the opening scene in the suburban driveway and beach, the date at the movie theater, and when she's alone in the playground.

I love when they're at the diner, the camera zooms just behind Monroe and then racks focus to the pedestrians outside, and the shot never pays off with anything. I find those nice little paranoid touches really effective.

[Spinal]

Question ...

[

Show Spoiler

In the pool scene, they ask what 'It' looks like and she says she doesn't want to tell them. Was there a reason for this? I didn't recognize the male figure that appeared later throwing the items into the pool.

]

[Morris Schæffer]

Question ...

[

Show Spoiler

In the pool scene, they ask what 'It' looks like and she says she doesn't want to tell them. Was there a reason for this? I didn't recognize the male figure that appeared later throwing the items into the pool.

]

[

Show Spoiler

i thought i saw that guy in a photograph. One of the kids dad?

]

[number8]

[

Show Spoiler

It's her dad.

]

[Spinal]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Thanks!

[ciaoelor]

From a horror perspective, one thing I wish the film tried to do was never show "it." I don't know if it could really be sustained for the whole movie, but I thought it was at its scariest in the opening scene in the suburban driveway and beach, the date at the movie theater, and when she's alone in the playground.

The fact that some of the apparitions appear as relatives or neighbors of Maika Monroe's character didn't really pay off for me because there's never an attempt to fool her character. "It" has no personality, nor an ability to speak that would allow it to trick her or anyone else. So it's really unnecessary that It has the ability to shape shift.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, if it remained invisible in the pool, that would've been great. Initially, that was the freakiest part of the whole movie because I wasn't sure what "it" was doing when everyone was panicking.

[Wryan]

Liked this a lot. The moment when she is on the beach staring at the boat with dudes on it...does she go thru with it? Does she condemn one or more people to give herself a buffer? Doesn't reveal it either way, but I think it hints that she does. Quite a harsh and dramatic moment left hanging a bit by the slight nebulousness (similar to the prostitute, tho I think that worked better). The scene in the kitchen with the broken window made me feel like running out of the goddamn theater. Slow motion!? How dare you. She needs to run away! We need to run away! Brilliant employ of an often overblown cinematic technique. Otherwise, sure is a lot of stupid behavior in this movie. But whatever. This was good fun.

And that score! It's one of the best uses of music I've heard in quite a while--discordant and nerve-twisting.