New horror movie "It Follows"

i thought she had sex with all of them so that it would buy her some time. As it stalked each one of them, it would buy her a bit of time.

That was my take on it as well. They worked within the "logic" of the movie so-to-speak.

 

I watched "We Are Still Here" tonight. Much scarier than this one.

 

I also feel the movie is a metaphor, but not about death, but about the responsibilities of adulthood vs the innocence of childhood. Almost every gratuitous conversation in the movie is about the innocence of early youth. What "follows" sex and growing up? Marriage, children, and duty. It always follows you and you can't escape. Once you have a child, it's always with you, you're never free again.

 

Thanks a lot. That's depressing.

 

The Babadook gets great reviews so I watched the trailer. I think the difference between The Babadook and It Follows, is that The Babadook looks like a horror film: people levitating, burning books, things popping out of the shadow at night. I found It Follows effective because it felt different. The "monster" was ordinary people walking down the street in broad daylight. The point being: you're never sure who the monster is or if it even is a monster. That gave me the creeps for a couple days when ever I saw someone "suspicious" walking toward me. I still think "Let the Right One In' was my favorite horror film in many years. Again, like It Follows, I liked the downplayed "horror" elements of creaking doors, pounding on windows, endlessly screaming women.

This was highly refreshing. The cliche in most modern horror films is to have the characters to spend the entire movie in a panicked frenzy, debating about 'What the #$%! are these creatures!" and "How can we defeat them?!" I liked them sitting around on the beach, half bored, reading much better than bouncing off walls and jabbering away full tilt about how "We're all going to die!"

 

Watched it yesterday. There were quite a few people in the theater laughing throughout the film.
I enjoyed parts of it, but the ending was really disappointing. I could hear everyone around me saying "WTF?" at the same time.

 

What did you find disappointing about the ending? Do you mean just the final scene, or the way the two leads attempted to put distance between themselves and "it"?

 

They attempted to put distance between themselves and "it?"

 

Sure. I don't mean physical distance, I mean distance as in the number of people. Maybe I should say buffer rather than distance. Paul took it from Jay, and then went and passed it on to a "working girl" who would presumably pass it on herself very quick and then who knows from there. If they're lucky, they could put several people between "it" and him and depending on their activities, could possibly stave off death for some time.

 

It felt like the ending of the Sopranos.

 

It's been a long time now since I saw this. But I thought he never passed it on to any "working girls." I seem to recall it was just the friends passing it amongst each other as a thinly disguised excuse to bang the Jay. It made me think of Three Stooges tossing a lit bomb back and forth between them.

 

Well, that's what he did. After he's with Jay, they show him driving over to a skeezy part of town and pulling up next to a few ladies. Then the final shot is Jay and Paul walking down the sidewalk hand in hand smiling, and just before the screen fades out, you get a glimpe of a figure far behind them on the sidewalk that may or may not be "it" following them.

Yeah, I get that. I liked that ending too, though I understand many don't like it being vague.

 

as much as I hate this movie I would hate it even more if we are to believe he followed through with passing it to hookers. Is this actually just a movie about idiotic sociopaths?

 

No, that's not what its about. There's plenty of explanation/theorizing in this thread if you care to read it, but as you hate the movie, I don't suppose you care.

 

Some films are great at leaving viewers in doubt about what happended after the ending. The best one for me is "Inception". Brilliant final shot.

 

If the two lead characters actually went through with it and had sex with strangers to create "separation" between themselves and "it" then they most certainly are moronic sociopaths. Why would you assume I have not read the "explanation/theorizing" in this thread?

It's really quite simple. Giving some stranger a death sentence to create "separation" is purely sociopathic behavior.
To do so without offering up the requisite explanation to the person they have just afflicted with a death sentence is moronic. It creates about a half hour of so called separation.

Yeah, I think the movie is pretty stupid as it is. But I would like to think that those scenes of them contemplating passing "it" on to total strangers represented their desperation. I'd like to think that in both cases they did not do it. It is not explicitly determined by the content of the movie. But if it was the intent of the film makers to imply that they went through with it then the characters are sociopaths and morons. The movie is even worse than I had originally thought.

 

You didn't even glean what happened on a surface level, so why talk themes and symbolism? I'm not sure why you keep returning to a thread on a movie you hated so much. I don't have any interest in arguing about it with you when it seems your only purpose is to try and prove the movie is as shallow as your comprehension of it.

 

I bet the irony of your post is completely lost on you.

 

No, as you imply the movie is clearly about slut-shaming.

 

Obviously I am very late to the party, but I just watched this film on Netflix.

Anyway I assume the young lady in the beginning is the person who gave "it" to the charming kidnappy boyfriend of Jay. (he mentions a one night stand). She dies, so "it" reverts back to Charming Kidnappy Boyfriend, who has to give "it" to Jay. Charming.

Or not. It doesn't really matter.

Overall I liked this film, it's more creepy than scary, reminded me mostly of "The Ring" with a "now that you know all about sex, don't do it!" message.

--Geoff

 

Glad you liked it. I had to think for a moment to remember why I asked that question, but now I remember. The mise en scène (can I use that phrase without sounding like a snob?) definitely messes with time. The bulk of the film looks as if it's set in the late 70's or early 80's; certainly the kids' TV which they watch one night is that old; and the lighting seems constantly to suggest it's set in some photographic past. But there are also jarring elements, like the little handheld video game one of the characters plays at one moment (sorry, can't remember this any better than that). Anyhow the opening looks much more contemporary -- IIRC there is a very modern car in that scene. My sense is that the opening sequence is happening now, as it were; the rest of it, before.

 

This reads like an ad promoting the Childfree lifestyle.

Childfree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia »

 

I think the anachronisms are purposeful. Mixing up the timeframes just adds to the surrealistic qualities of the entire film, it's a disorienting tactic.

 

That was my impression about the anachronisms regarding technology. I don't think there's any "this bit happens in the future, this bit happens in the past" stuff going on.

--Geoff

 

How overblown the reviews are for this film! As if there was never a shift to modern horror ushered in by Romero, Cronenberg, Friedkin, Polanski, etc. Best to get reacquainted with horror films from the period when music rocked: late 60s-197os.