# It Follows



## ridner (Mar 31, 2015)

Thinking about checking this one out. Anybody else?!


----------



## wankerness (Mar 31, 2015)

I saw it the other day. It is one of the best pure horror movies I've seen in a long time. The cinematography and score were like a brilliant homage to the original Halloween, I loved almost the entire thing. It's definitely doing very different things to that movie, the main concept has nothing in common, but it took some tricks from that movie (and the neighborhood looked very much like the one used for Haddonfield). The score was like John Carpenter on extreme steroids, it was one of the best horror soundtracks I've ever heard. It might have been one of the best soundtracks I've heard, period. It's moody, seething and playful in equal measure and when it gets pounding it is just as classic and terrifying as the original Halloween's stalking music.

I thought it was tense for almost the entire movie and made great use of that John Carpenter trick of having things loom out of the corner or out of focus in the background. It was pretty genuinely creepy and intense. It had a few jump scares but it was more the relentlessness of it made it so I was never able to relax, which definitely qualifies it as actually scary in my book. It was so pared down and good. I loved that there was just plain no explanation or backstory or even a hint at one. The last shot reminded me VERY much of Martha Marcy Mae Marlene, which had one of the best endings I can think of.

This was one of the best horror experiences I've had in the theater, and I'm really glad it went into wide release.

If you're a "horror fan" (aka love loud jump scares and gore) you might hate it. The rude, fat, nacho-eating chicks in the theater when I was there sure did.


----------



## ridner (Apr 1, 2015)

awesome. going to see it after work today


----------



## cavitation (Apr 7, 2015)

The wife and I watched it last weekend. The score/soundtrack were excellent and definitely kept the tension on high. It was indeed a love letter to Carpenter's Halloween. The one thing I didn't care for was the distant attitude of the actors. Seemed like everyone was on pills or something as there was a very distant vibe to the proceedings. That is really me just nitpicking. It was a good flick and I am interested in seeing what the director does next.

FWIW, this movie (and especially the sound design) reminded me of the movie The Guest. Very early 80's vibe and very effective in ramping up whatever was happening on screen.


----------



## wankerness (Apr 7, 2015)

I watched The Guest the other day because I wanted to see more from Maika Monroe (star of It Follows), it had a great opening where it feels like a crazy horror movie but the stuff with the army sorta makes it turn into a standard action/thriller for a while. She's good, though. It's definitely a solid action/thriller/suspense movie until the last 10 seconds (one of the stupidest endings ever).

The distant vibe of It Follows was a big part of why it worked for me, it matched the photography and music perfectly. It felt kind of like The Virgin Suicides (another movie about disaffected youths dying mysteriously in Detroit). It was very intentional, but I can understand if you disliked it.


----------



## cavitation (Apr 8, 2015)

wankerness said:


> I watched The Guest the other day because I wanted to see more from Maika Monroe (star of It Follows), it had a great opening where it feels like a crazy horror movie but the stuff with the army sorta makes it turn into a standard action/thriller for a while. She's good, though. It's definitely a solid action/thriller/suspense movie until the last 10 seconds (one of the stupidest endings ever).
> 
> The distant vibe of It Follows was a big part of why it worked for me, it matched the photography and music perfectly. It felt kind of like The Virgin Suicides (another movie about disaffected youths dying mysteriously in Detroit). It was very intentional, but I can understand if you disliked it.



I totally forgot that is where I recognized the actress from :facepalm


----------



## ridner (Apr 8, 2015)

I liked the vibe, cinematography and score more than the actual movie. It was nice to see a bunch of places I recognized in and around Detroit - I used to live there - that was actually the best part of the movie for me. Not terrible, but I expected more.


----------



## cavitation (Apr 8, 2015)

ridner said:


> I liked the vibe, cinematography and score more than the actual movie. It was nice to see a bunch of places I recognized in and around Detroit - I used to live there - that was actually the best part of the movie for me. Not terrible, but I expected more.



I think they could have done a bit more with the environment. The suburb scenes were fine but once you got into the more blighted areas; it definitely gave off a very creepy vibe.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 12, 2015)

I just think the concept of a sexually transmitted demon (STD?) is rather hilarious on its own. I'll watch it if I get the chance though.


----------



## wankerness (Apr 12, 2015)

I would strongly advise against reading anything about the plot before seeing it. Not for plot spoilers, but because it will give a very wrong impression of what the movie's like. The concept sounds retarded if you try to describe it. It's completely effective in the movie cause the concept of the creature is so secondary to everything else.


----------



## wankerness (Jul 15, 2015)

This came out on video yesterday, anyone that has any interest in artier horror flicks needs to see it. It's very character-driven and the dialogue is very low-key so if you're mainly into stuff like Sinister or Hostel or TCM remakes or the Saw movies or whatever you'll probably just think it's boring, but it's really great. I watched it again last night and it all holds up and I'm even more impressed by the cinematography now that I had the chance to examine it without being terrified in the theater.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Jul 15, 2015)

Watched it via a streaming site awhile back. It was alright. Not really scary or terrfying in my opinion, but very eerie. It creeped me out having a person just walking towards you like that - always following and moving towards you.

My post from the "Movies You've Been Watching" thread:


Emperor Guillotine said:


> Just watched _It Follows_.
> 
> I guess all I can say is: "pass it on". (Use the cheesy little marketing slogan of the film. For those who've seen the film, you'll get it.)
> 
> ...


----------



## wankerness (Jul 15, 2015)

I don't really get the "not scary" dismissal in critiques of horror movies, unless it's one of those movies that has nothing going for it other than volume of jump scares (ex Sinister) or is purely a series of attempts to be disgusting (ex Serbian Film). Who finds ANY horror movie scary after the first time they watch it? I watch horror movies nonstop and you just get desensitized very early on. Dismissing anything because "it's not scary" is moronic, as scares have diminishing returns over time, no matter how crappy the movies you're watching are. Ex, if you watch something incredibly archetypal of current scare techniques (like the aforementioned Sinister) in which it's just a series of annoying jump scares that are hammered into the viewer through the technique of using a GIGANTIC soundtrack hit that's light-years louder relative to the rest of the movie than the likes of the old classics like Carrie or Halloween, you're going to find the old ones "not scary." 

Likewise, anything that was scary because of disgusting imagery or shocks is going to seem quaint given improvements in technology and decreases in censorship. The old classics weren't good just because they were scary, they were good because they held up on other levels. The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre rattled me when I saw it in high school and it hasn't since, but I have only grown to appreciate it more over the years. Similarly, The Exorcist just made me laugh when I was an idiot highschooler who approached every horror movie as if it was a challenge that I was trying to overcome by not being scared by it, and since I've grown to think it's probably top 10 horror movies of all time (and still 100% unscary in any way, since I have never had a shred of belief in demonic possession). 

The only horror movies I can think of that I have a strong opinion of because they scared me were the first theatrical version of Ju-On (saw it in a theater, was scared silly by the nonstop barrage of jump scares), The Descent (I got freaked out by the cave exploration the first time I saw it), Ring (I was stoned the first time I saw it so I almost had a panic attack at the famous climactic scene) and [REC] (first saw it on my computer during college while wearing headphones, but even in that venue I was legitimately scared to look at the screen through the finale!). None of them scared me on repeat viewings, but I still like them all quite a bit.

I think It Follows absolutely holds up since it's got such weird atmosphere and style. It takes place in some kind of ambiguous 70s/80s-looking world in terms of costume/art design, but with enough modern technology that it's obviously not intended as a period piece. Adults are almost non-existent in the world of the movie, with parents being almost complete non-entities on the level of the old Charlie Brown show, except when the creature takes on the form of the otherwise unglimpsed mother of one character, or the dead (?) father of others. And the central concept is this bizarre thing that's so ambiguous that it can evoke just about anything for different viewers. 

Even on second watch, a couple scenes in the movie legitimately did give me the "hair-raising" feel of seeing something that's actively upsetting vs just a jump scare, particularly the early scene in the kitchen and a couple of the other sudden appearances of the creature where it has the heroine backed into a room, which is VERY rare for someone as desensitized as me (I watch several horror movies a week on average ), but they weren't why I responded so strongly to the movie.


----------



## Steinmetzify (Jul 16, 2015)

I watched this just a few minutes ago. This thing really wigged me out. Nothing horror related has grabbed me like this since The Strangers. 

The weirdness of it wigged me, the decade ambiguity really disoriented me and the sheer inexorable-ness of this thing JUST NOT STOPPING EVER really got to me. Haven't enjoyed a horror film like that in a long time. I thought it was fresh and dug it a lot. 

Cracked me up that I came here to post this and the OP was you, Rob. &#128514;&#128514;&#128514;&#128514;

Was gonna tell you about it in the morning. Should have figured you'd already seen it.


----------



## coffeeflush (Jul 16, 2015)

I saw the movie, 
I enjoyed it. 
I would definatelty recommend others to check it out


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Jul 16, 2015)

wankerness said:


> The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre rattled me when I saw it in high school and it hasn't since, but I have only grown to appreciate it more over the years. Similarly, The Exorcist just made me laugh when I was an idiot highschooler who approached every horror movie as if it was a challenge that I was trying to overcome by not being scared by it, and since I've grown to think it's probably top 10 horror movies of all time (and still 100% unscary in any way, since I have never had a shred of belief in demonic possession).



Haha, two of my favorite movies since high school. The original TCM is definitely a TOP top favorite.



wankerness said:


> The only horror movies I can think of that I have a strong opinion of because they scared me were the first theatrical version of Ju-On (saw it in a theater, was scared silly by the nonstop barrage of jump scares),


I watched _The Grudge_ for the first time recently. That actually freaked me out. Definitely need to see the original Japanese version.



wankerness said:


> The Descent (I got freaked out by the cave exploration the first time I saw it),


Ditto. Really freaked me out.



wankerness said:


> Ring (I was stoned the first time I saw it so I almost had a panic attack at the famous climactic scene)


Watched this about two years ago. I still need to watch the original Japanese version.



wankerness said:


> and [REC] (first saw it on my computer during college while wearing headphones, but even in that venue I was legitimately scared to look at the screen through the finale!).


Been meaning to watch this since it's one of the best "zombie" flicks on all these online lists apparently. (Even though it's not really about "zombies".)



wankerness said:


> Even on second watch, a couple scenes in the movie legitimately did give me the "hair-raising" feel of seeing something that's actively upsetting vs just a jump scare, particularly the early scene in the kitchen and a couple of the other sudden appearances of the creature where it has the heroine backed into a room, which is VERY rare for someone as desensitized as me (I watch several horror movies a week on average ), but they weren't why I responded so strongly to the movie.


I get what you're saying, wankerness. And I completely agree with you. This is a great modern horror flick because it still accomplishes its mission and provides that eerie "hair-raising" feel at times. I wasn't passively dismissing the flick at all. It's just that it didn't particularly get to me as much as some other examples of horror movies have done in the past.

I really dug the sort of 70s-80s vibe that the film had going on. Reminds me of the old, original horror movies from that time where the carefree kid(s) was/were hunted down by some killer, malevolent force, brush with death, etc.


----------



## wankerness (Jul 16, 2015)

Ju-On has gone through several remakes and reconfigurations of the same material. The same director made two TV movies, then re-made the first TV movie as "Ju-On: The Grudge" for theatrical release, then re-made it AGAIN for the US version (simply titled "The Grudge"). I think the Japanese theatrical version is the strongest, but it was also what I saw first and since all three contain many of the same scares, I think whatever you see first might be your favorite. The American version is really pretty good, I like that they kept it set in Japan and I like the additional alienation feeling that comes from having it around Americans stuck in a foreign country. It also reinstates one of the big scares from the TV movie which wasn't in the Japanese theatrical one (that hideous scene with the jaw). I'd say it's still worth seeing the Japanese theatrical one if you've seen the American one, but it might feel like a retread to you.

I prefer the remake of The Ring to the Japanese one, but they're both worth watching. The American one has a few more jump scares (ex, the horse and the dead body in the closet), but I think it's better paced and that the higher production values made a few of the scenes more effective than they were in the original version. The Japanese one's videotape is definitely creepier though. Naomi Watts is another point in its favor, since she was one of my favorite actresses of the 2000s, though the original actress was good as well. Then again, it might be like Ju-On where I just prefer the remake cause I saw it first!


----------



## Rev2010 (Jul 16, 2015)

The wife and I saw it. We just thought it was "Meh...". It was entertaining but not really very frightening or scary. I honestly think they could've done so much more with it. Best scene I liked was when it came up behind her and her hair lifted up into the air and the struggle ensued. Aside from that it was pretty much all just running away and the one dude that gets killed. 

It's worth a watch but I don't think it holds up to repeated views personally. I definitely don't think it's the horror movie of the decade or anything as awesome and "classic" as some of the reviews are painting it.


Rev.


----------



## Triple7 (Jul 17, 2015)

The wife an I saw it in the theater while it was still a limited release. We absolutely loved it. We purchased the soundtrack as soon as it came out, and even pre-ordered he dvd. We watched it again once it arrived, still awesome as hell.

As previously stated, it's just a great horror flick. Pays a lot of homage to the classics, and yet still stands on its own.


----------



## asher (Jul 17, 2015)

So I haven't seen it, but I'm actually kinda curious to..

But I mostly dropped in to say that the soundtrack is done by the same guy who did the music for the game FEZ.

Yes, that wonderful joyous pixel indie game 

He's utterly brilliant and is a Berklee grad, and on his own time pretty much writes chiptune BTBAM. Disasterpeace


----------



## Steinmetzify (Jul 18, 2015)

Give it a shot Ash...was a lot of fun and weirdness. I was pretty tense through the whole thing. Enjoyed greatly.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 1, 2015)

That was a great movie. It had my heart pounding the entire time and the monster is such an amazing concept for horror as well. Still not a fan of the STD (sexually transmitted demon) as I still find it kind of silly, but it did make the movie a bit more interesting. It sadly still fell to the usual horror tropes though where secondary characters don't get the same treatment as the main actors, which kind of destroys any continuity. As soon as she passed it on the first encounter the monster killed the person yet in her case it did more to psychologically torture her than it seemed to do with anyone else, like when it was standing on the roof as an example. Creepy as .... for sure, but didn't quite fit the premise IMO. Definitely an 8/10.

Loved the pacing, use of music and cinematography. A big part of what kept me on the edge of my seat was the execution. They did a fantastic job. I had genuine chills several times throughout the film.


----------



## Steinmetzify (Aug 1, 2015)

Nice man. I get what you're saying about developing secondary characters; I just don't think there was enough time...it might have been three hours long. 

I thought it was original enough, really liked it in this day of 'lets remake everything horror ever, because 20 yr olds haven't seen it yet'...


----------



## flint757 (Aug 1, 2015)

I think my favorite part of the movie is that the background info was never fleshed out, the movie ended without the event concluding and the monster is still alive. I love movies that leave you questioning why and leave you completely hanging at the end. In my opinion a movie where the good guys win usually doesn't make for good horror.

Also, I don't necessarily mean fleshing out their story arcs. The idea though is it never stops walking. As far as transportation it's completely grounded in this concept and its only goal is to reach the individual to kill them. For most of the movie this worked out exactly like that. There was no logical reason for it to be on the roof though, especially since it didn't attack.

I think the reveal that only the victims can see it with the kitchen scene was top notch as well. They played out the reveals really well all throughout.


----------



## Steinmetzify (Aug 1, 2015)

Supposed to be working on a sequel where either that girl or someone else traces it back to where it started. Not high hopes as it might take something away from it, but I'd be interested to see what dude comes up with as far as a storyline for it.

And yeah, that kitchen scene was pretty chilling.


----------



## wankerness (Aug 1, 2015)

steinmetzify said:


> Supposed to be working on a sequel where either that girl or someone else traces it back to where it started. Not high hopes as it might take something away from it, but I'd be interested to see what dude comes up with as far as a storyline for it.
> 
> And yeah, that kitchen scene was pretty chilling.



Seriously? Sounds terrible. I'll see what happens, but those kinds of "sequels" that just attempt to explain the original usually end in disaster, or boredom and pointlessness at best. Exorcist The Beginning, Ring 0, Rec 2, etc. I can't think of a sequel that explained a first, mysterious movie that wasn't a big letdown. 2010 is about the only one that isn't outright bad, but I can't think of anyone who thinks it's necessary or that it improves 2001.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Aug 2, 2015)

asher said:


> So I haven't seen it, but I'm actually kinda curious to..
> 
> But I mostly dropped in to say that the soundtrack is done by the same guy who did the music for the game FEZ.


I ran into one of my buddies at the local used CD/DVD/game shop the other day and he told me that he saw _It Follows_. First thing out of his mouth about the film was how great the soundtrack was. And I agreed with him. Disasterpeace did a great job on the soundtrack because it really is what adds to the atmosphere of the overall film.



flint757 said:


> the movie ended without the event concluding and the monster is still alive. I love movies that leave you questioning why and leave you completely hanging at the end. In my opinion a movie where the good guys win usually doesn't make for good horror.


Yes. Agreed. When you see it walking behind them in the very last scene before the credits, you just are left not knowing...



steinmetzify said:


> Supposed to be working on a sequel where either that girl or someone else traces it back to where it started. Not high hopes as it might take something away from it, but I'd be interested to see what dude comes up with as far as a storyline for it.


Yeah, read about that when I first saw the film. I guess Hollywood has to cash in on everything in any way they can nowadays. Everything has a sequel. Everything with more than one sequel becomes a massive franchise that eventually tanks. Ugh...especially with anything pertaining to the horror genre. Seems like it's just a genre comprised of sequels. (I mean, come on, does nothing scare us any more? Surely there are other topics that horror movies could be made about besides sequel upon sequel of monsters, vampires, werewolves, demons, possessions, zombies, serial killers, etc.?)


----------



## lelandbowman3 (Nov 4, 2015)

It was too "artsy" for a horror movie, at least for me. The quality of production was awesome, but the story just kinda fell flat for me. I'm not trying to "dismiss" it, but it just wasn't scary because there wasn't really a sense of urgency. I mean, the shape-shifting creature trying to get to the characters was unnerving at some points, but for the most part, it didn't show what would happen if they got to them. The only concept of death was the beginning, where, for me, it looked like the girl ran herself over with a car..? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but it felt this was just like a more cinnematic "13 ghosts" where they weren't bound to a house.
It's very clear that it was trying to revamp "slasher" movies with an undefined ghost instead of a hacking, slashing maniac in that the main focus was the dangers of underage sex. And again, there wasn't a sense of urgency more than a ghostly game of tag.

But that's me. Everyone has their own definition of what's scary. This just wasn't my cup of tea.


----------



## Duosphere (Nov 4, 2015)

lelandbowman3 said:


> It was too "artsy" for a horror movie, at least for me. The quality of production was awesome, but the story just kinda fell flat for me. I'm not trying to "dismiss" it, but it just wasn't scary because there wasn't really a sense of urgency. I mean, the shape-shifting creature trying to get to the characters was unnerving at some points, but for the most part, it didn't show what would happen if they got to them. The only concept of death was the beginning, where, for me, it looked like the girl ran herself over with a car..? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but it felt this was just like a more cinnematic "13 ghosts" where they weren't bound to a house.
> It's very clear that it was trying to revamp "slasher" movies with an undefined ghost instead of a hacking, slashing maniac in that the main focus was the dangers of underage sex. And again, there wasn't a sense of urgency more than a ghostly game of tag.
> 
> But that's me. Everyone has their own definition of what's scary. This just wasn't my cup of tea.



What?!
Herpes From Hell wasn't scary?
I hear you brother


----------



## MFB (Nov 4, 2015)

> It didn't show what would happen if they got to them



Yeah it did. When it gets Greg, or whatever his name was, by imitating his mother; 'it' has sex with him and he dies as a result of it. Same for the girl in the beginning of the film, she ran from it, eventually gave up and we see her disfigured on a beach.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 5, 2015)

I liked it and then watched it with my bud and he had a similar opinion about it. Wasn't his thing. I must admit it isn't a movie I'd want to watch multiple times, aside from maybe seeing some of the visuals, which were pretty great.

I don't usually judge scary movies based on how scary they are as I've yet to see a scary movie that was really terrifying. When you're not superstitious it removes a lot of the 'this could happen' vibes some people get when watching scary movies.


----------



## Duosphere (Nov 5, 2015)

flint757 said:


> I don't usually judge scary movies based on how scary they are as I've yet to see a scary movie that was really terrifying. When you're not superstitious it removes a lot of the 'this could happen' vibes some people get when watching scary movies.



I'm not superstitious and I have no beliefs.
When I watch a movie, I put myself in it like if it was happening to me so a lot of horror movies felt scary to me even though I have no beliefs.
In all movies about demons I see them as monsters so I put religion out of it, this way I can put myself in it.
A good story with good acting and good direction can be scary even if the plot is against whatever you believe or not.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 5, 2015)

Yeah, but I just don't believe demons and whatnot could exist even without the religious connotation. Same applies for zombies, werewolves, vampires, Freddy's, Michael Myers, etc. Stories about real people tend to freak me out a bit more, like the movie Strangers, but even then I'm aware how rare/unlikely such a thing is and it just doesn't scare me anymore. What I mean by scary as well is that lingering since of fear and doom from seeing a horror movie. Like watching Halloween back in the 70's at the theater and then walking home constantly looking over your shoulder. By not superstitious I mean I don't believe in anything supernatural at all.


----------



## Duosphere (Nov 5, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Yeah, but I just don't believe demons and whatnot could exist even without the religious connotation. Same applies for zombies, werewolves, vampires, Freddy's, Michael Myers, etc. Stories about real people tend to freak me out a bit more, like the movie Strangers, but even then I'm aware how rare/unlikely such a thing is and it just doesn't scare me anymore. What I mean by scary as well is that lingering since of fear and doom from seeing a horror movie. Like watching Halloween back in the 70's at the theater and then walking home constantly looking over your shoulder. By not superstitious I mean I don't believe in anything supernatural at all.



Yep I agree, reality is far more scary, humans are capable of things even Satan would run away!
About supernatural........remember our bodies have more bacteria than body cells, we can't see them but they are there for sure.So think about supernatural as things our eyes can't see, the same way some animals can hear frequencies we can't etc, our senses have limits so MAYBE there are stuff we can't see/hear, this way supernatural becomes more acceptable, what people call ghosts(dead people), I call creatures from a spectrum which only some of us can see but for sure they're not dead people with too much free time


----------



## MetalGuitarArmoury (Nov 21, 2015)

Yeah, I have to say, I sort of hope that they don't get the sequel together. It was a good movie, but it seems like it will lose something if whatever it is gets explained. Somehow it's more frightening not knowing anything at all about it.


----------



## MFB (Nov 21, 2015)

The only way I feel an origin for this sort of thing works is if it's the 'urban legend given power by belief from others' method. Kind of like how Freddy only has power if people believe in him and fear him; this could be the same deal. Some kid started a rumor about it, more and more people spread it giving it actual credit and fear, and it was born from that.

Anything else seems like it wouldn't work


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 21, 2015)

MetalGuitarArmoury said:


> Yeah, I have to say, I sort of hope that they don't get the sequel together. It was a good movie, but it seems like it will lose something if whatever it is gets explained. Somehow it's more frightening not knowing anything at all about it.


Man's greatest fear is the unknown: that which he does not understand.


----------

