(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCrQLUVT.jpg&hash=4845e9cbcc9c0149adc9f153a2111b74ed57bbbf)
For nineteen-year-old Jay, Autumn should be about school, boys and week-ends out at the lake. But after a seemingly innocent sexual encounter, she finds herself plagued by strange visions and the inescapable sense that someone, something, is following her. Faced with this burden, Jay and her friends must find a way to escape the horrors that seem to be only a few steps behind.Written and Directed by David Robert Mitchell
Release Date - March 13, 2015
I'm so excited about this movie. Horror with a great central metaphor is my favorite thing in the world.
This was bad.
God damn it.
Counterpoint: This was really good.
I still haven't gotten the opportunity to watch it, but from everything I've been hearing, Wilder's take is an extreme outlier. My hopes are buoyed.
The premise is intriguing, it's well-shot, and the score would be great as a standalone, but the movie plays into a trend, or what I wish could call a trend, that I'm seeing with disturbing frequency - movies settling for the general "vibe" of whatever genre they're going for, essentially riding on style over substance, but in a different way than one might attribute to a director like Guy Ritchie. You see it in indie dramas, with filmmakers taking an overly serious tone even if the scenes they're shooting don't warrant it, or posturing with techniques taken from Austrian directors used to empty effect that give the impression more is going on than there really is if only given a surface reading. It's an effort to give the impression that a film is striking a well-explored vein by merely offering up the image or echo of past films that succeeded, but the underlying content that made those earlier films work isn't there. It's tone first, story after, which I can deal with sometimes, but even the sincerity of tone here felt weak. The throwbacks they cherrypicked didn't work in collusion, other than to remind you that those old movies It Follows sourced from were great.
Here's a quote from an LA times article from 2012:
Quote[Millennials] don't seem to think of movies as art the way so many boomers did. They think of them as fashion, and like fashion, movies have to be new and cool to warrant attention. Living in a world of the here-and-now, obsessed with whatever is current, kids seem no more interested in seeing their parents' movies than they are in wearing their parents' clothes. Indeed, novelty may be the new narcissism. It obliterates the past in the fascination with the present.
This statement might be referring to fixation on the now, but there's another way movies are becoming "fashion" as of late, in that many inspire a glance but fall apart upon deeper inspection, or are literally built to be ambience, viewed with one eye half paying attention while the the other takes breaks every few minutes to look at a phone. These kinds of movies are serving as background wallpaper, giving the appearance of horror without actual horror, the appearance of drama without dramatic situations, a thriller without the thrills, etc.
It Follows tries using a lot of 1980s horror homages, and is production designed in such a way that if it weren't for the presence of some modern technology you might think it was trying to take place in the 1980s, but for arbitrary effect. "It just looks cool and we liked those old movies so we'll do it." It's like a motion picture tumblr.
This probably comes off as an over-intellectualization but I didn't go into the movie thinking this way. The truth is just that I was devastatingly bored, bored as nails after the half hour mark. It Follows is 100 minutes but felt twice that long. The script is terrible. Only after I'd totally disengaged did these thoughts start to wander. Why isn't this scary? Why aren't I having fun? Why the fuck do I want to go to sleep right now?
Quote from: Tictacbk on March 14, 2015, 12:27:51 PM
Counterpoint: This was really good.
Seconded. Keep those expectations Earth-bound, it's low-key but very effective. On first view I'd prob put it up with "Kill List" and "The Loved Ones" as one of my favorite, original horror films of the past few years. Curious how it holds on repeat viewings.
Wilder, you are right on - what a poorly-crafted bore fest. It's a damn shame, the premise had such promise. Seriously befuddled by all the praise... I guess horror has found its Garden State.
it's form over content, and it's got that thing i bet pissed off wilder too, pissed me off, where it goes into the territory of "is there going to be content, seems like there's about to be content" but then there isn't content, i mean it's a horror movie so the story is part of the form, and for me the form was as impressive as buzzard, which didn't impress me, but it's all personal taste really i mean come on
verifiable via my afi fest post
http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=12744.msg337078#msg337078
i think, for example, the conjuring had better form. for example. and i think the conjuring's content was questionable. to frame this. the garden state comparison strikes me as humorous, good to see you, person vaguely named for astrology or something i gotta google that
Isn't just about every horror movie form over content? That's the best thing about horror movies... they make you think something's going to happen and then build on that dread. Most of the time it doesn't matter if it happens or not, all that matters is you're on the edge of your seat. In my theater, that seemed to be the case for every person there, for all 100 minutes of the movie. It was sustained tension, and it was great. Not to mention it was shot/designed well, the score was amazing, and Maika Monroe did a good job. There's a few missteps here and there, but overall it was super fun.
Form and content arguments aside, it wasn't well crafted. The plot is an inorganic and arbitrary series of references, and the characters did not behave believably or logically, even by horror movie standards. This undermines the effectiveness of any movie, in any genre, regardless of how stylish the surface may be. Retro atmosphere and a cool soundtrack should not absolve a poorly crafted movie. Ok climbing down off my soap box now.
yeah but you called it a soap box yourself, you seem open and conversational, so really i think you passed the intro portion of having friendships on the internet, and because we never all like the same movie anyway, eventually you might find yourself sharing an opinion with someone who did like this movie, and you know life and all that and i think it's worth it and omfg ok the movie talk
pvr is toasting the movie for being kinda shit, and i agree about why, wilder called it kinda shit, and i agree about why, i called it kinda shit, and that's the stuff that happens when you make a movie, i don't agree with anyone and i think it's always good to see a movie
Quote from: piscesvirgorising on March 15, 2015, 01:49:46 PM
Form and content arguments aside, it wasn't well crafted.
In what way? I don't make movies but I watch a lot of them and this looked & felt pretty good to me.
Quote from: piscesvirgorising on March 15, 2015, 01:49:46 PMThe plot is an inorganic and arbitrary series of references,
I have definitely seen this trend in recent years but it doesn't always ruin the films for me. "Hobo With A Shotgun" was terrible but "The Guest" was pretty great and they're both equally as indebted to their references. I really didn't feel that way with "It Follows" though. Sure you can pick up on some strands here and there ("Invasion of the Body Snatchers," "The Thing," "Night of the Living Dead," every 70s/80s slasher film where the teens die after having sex) but the film never seemed to stop and wink to say "get it?" Two things a horror film needs to do to really standout for me are: have an original scary idea and achieve a mood of suspense and dread. This checked both boxes for me.
Quote from: piscesvirgorising on March 15, 2015, 01:49:46 PM
and the characters did not behave believably or logically, even by horror movie standards.
This never stood out to me either. Examples?
Hey modage. I agree, being referential can be good fun - I loved the Guest and (another example) House of the Devil... the crucial distinction for me is this: does the story hold up without the references? There were many moments in It Follows where I felt the filmmaker's desire to make a reference steered the story in illogical and arbitrary directions. For example, the Cat People-quoting swimming pool set piece... forgive me if I missed something, but what the hell was supposed to be the plan exactly, and why were they shooting a gun at the "Follower" when they already knew from a previous scene it didn't kill it/them??
As for the characters: in addition to such illogical behavior, they all shared the same nonchalant, inscrutable attitude toward this terrifying situation, and were otherwise indistinguishable by anything but wardrobe. One character, for instance, is a girl who wears funky glasses and reads Dostoyevsky at us from a "shell" phone... But take away those quirky props, and I could not tell you one thing about her. What are her actual character traits? How is she different from the others? Who knows.
I could go on (and on), but honestly I love movies and moaning about one that so many people clearly enjoy... Well, I'm starting to feel like a major grump. I've enjoyed the xixax for years and hope to keep future posts more positive. Thanks for the follow up q's, glad to be here!
Quote from: piscesvirgorising on March 16, 2015, 04:03:40 PM
the crucial distinction for me is this: does the story hold up without the references?
Yes.
Quote from: piscesvirgorising on March 16, 2015, 04:03:40 PMThere were many moments in It Follows where I felt the filmmaker's desire to make a reference steered the story in illogical and arbitrary directions. For example, the Cat People-quoting swimming pool set piece... forgive me if I missed something, but what the hell was supposed to be the plan exactly, and why were they shooting a gun at the "Follower" when they already knew from a previous scene it didn't kill it/them??
I've seen "Cat People" but this went right over my head, I was thinking of the pool-set finale of "Let The Right One In" but you could also go to "The Faculty" for a school pool set-finale so I think these references may be a little bit in the eye of the beholder and highly doubt even if they were looking to nod to that film they would steer the entire finale of their film in that direction just to shoehorn in an 80 year old film reference. As far as their plan, yeah they hoped to get it in the water so they could electrocute it. That's why they had all the shit outside of the water. They didn't count on the thing picking up the shit and throwing it in there first as they hadn't seen anything so far to indicate it would start to use tools or props, had they?
Quote from: piscesvirgorising on March 16, 2015, 04:03:40 PMAs for the characters: in addition to such illogical behavior, they all shared the same nonchalant, inscrutable attitude toward this terrifying situation, and were otherwise indistinguishable by anything but wardrobe. One character, for instance, is a girl who wears funky glasses and reads Dostoyevsky at us from a "shell" phone... But take away those quirky props, and I could not tell you one thing about her. What are her actual character traits? How is she different from the others? Who knows.
I think they all seemed pretty freaked out about the situation, didn't they? I thought all their behavior seemed to fit within the context of this dreamy & stylized world. Nothing seemed out of character. And yeah, I mean I felt that Maika Monroe's character was the most fleshed out and the rest of them use a certain shorthand but all their interactions together as kids seemed authentic and true to their ages and the world of the film. I'm not sure the other characters in "Halloween" besides Laurie were the most fleshed out either but that doesn't really hurt the film for me.
Cat People reference was apparent to me, and confirmed explicitly by the director in this interview (see around 3 minute mark) - http://youtu.be/XyuFeNiBk_M
I don't know why they thought electrocuting a ghost that was impervious to bullets would work... Where that idea came from? The thing could break windows and doors, why could it not throw things?
The kids seemed inconsistently freaked out... Like sometimes they were, sometimes they weren't really... At one point Maika runs away from the house and goes straight for the spooky playground swing set, where she seems to instantly forget her worries... Later she falls asleep alone on top of the hood of a car parked in the middle of a road in the woods (??) ... Yes, all of this is consistent within a dreamy, stylized world, but not in the real world or even a non stylized movie world... I think that's my qualm in a nutshell. I don't ask that all characters be fleshed out, I just expect them to each bring something unique and essential to the story... Otherwise, why are they there?
Quote from: piscesvirgorising on March 16, 2015, 05:03:33 PM
I don't know why they thought electrocuting a ghost that was impervious to bullets would work... Where that idea came from? The thing could break windows and doors, why could it not throw things?
The idea came from Paul. He assumed there had to be a way to hurt it because he was able to hit it with a chair. You're not wrong, it's not a great idea, and that's why it blew up in their faces. What'd you expect from a bunch of kids fighting some supernatural being they know nothing about?
Good recall - thx tictacbk
excellent film.
With any luck I'll be seeing this tomorrow, and then I can finally put this debate to rest once and for all.
Okay, I went in expecting great things, and it exceeded all those expectations. The film is rich, deep, impeccably-crafted, and extraordinarily effective. Normally, when I read someone's negative reaction to a film, I can see their points, understand where they're coming from even if I don't agree with them, but in the case of It Follows, I read a negative review and all I can think is, "What the hell are you talking about?"
The film is a masterpiece of tone, to start. The languid rhythms of the editing, the long deep-focus shots of slowly approaching horror. Jump scares don't scare me, gore and violence don't shock me, but I respond to dread. It hangs thick over this entire movie like a wool blanket smothering you. Dread is the currency of this film, and it spends freely.
I'm also baffled by comments about the characters behaving unrealistically, or illogically. This is the rare horror film that allows neither the characters nor the audience any special insight into the nature of the threat, beyond what they piece together through their own experience. So yeah, they try things that seem like bad ideas in hindsight, but that's because they, much like us if this were happening in real life, are making this shit up as they go along. They carry out their bad ideas because the alternative is to give up, to sit down and wait it out. And if we learn anything from the opening sequence of the film, that's a much worse idea than anything these characters come up with themselves.
Speaking of the characters themselves, sure, there's not a ton of development to them, besides Jay and to some degree Paul, but so what? Those characters are not the focus of the film; they matter in relation to the protagonist, not in and of themselves. And the social dynamics of that group of characters is so perfectly, relatably drawn. There's never an instant of the "why would these characters be friends with each other?" feeling you get in almost any film featuring a group of friends. These people have complex patterns of relationship and history that can be inferred with the barest minimum of exposition. To me, there were no false notes here.
Then we get to the meat of any good film: theme and metaphor. Upon coming up with the central concept of the film, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for David Robert Mitchell to plaster simplistic moralizing over it. Slasher films have been doing it for decades: you fuck, you die. Thank god he's not that lazy, and has deeper sensibilities than that. Because the themes he finds in the premise are infinitely more compelling. The primary one being: sex complicates relationships.
At its basest level, It Follows is the story of a girl who was unable to escape her home town after high school, and finds her sexual prospects limited by that circumstance. And within those limited prospects, each relationship has a different potential to backfire. There's the guy who's not from her hometown, who represents the exciting world outside her limited perspective, but who turns out, after she's had sex with him, to not be the person she thought he was. There's the guy she had fun with back in high school, who represents the stuck-in-the-small-town loser she herself is afraid of becoming. The stakes seem low enough, because there's no real connection, no deeper emotional commitment, and for a few days, it seems like everything worked out fine. But ultimately, his own cavalier attitude, which made him seem like the safe option in the first place, leads to hurt.
And then, of course, there's Paul. Poor naive Paul. The ultimate case of unbalanced affection. Jay likes the guy. She cares about him. But she doesn't like him and care about him the way that he does her, and this makes choosing him as a sexual option positively toxic. His destruction is inevitable. But Jay reaches the point where she is beaten down too far, and his persistence is too psychologically reassuring, and she fucking does it anyway. The movie mercifully ends before we have to witness the aftermath of this decision, but it's also merciless enough to make it crystal clear that the aftermath is going to happen, likely sooner than later. This is not a rose-colored lens, "Love Conquers All" movie ending. This is real goddamn life and people get hurt when you make poor emotional decisions.
This is such a good movie. This is everything that I look to get out of cinema. It kills me to see people not like it.
such a lovely review hinged on a sturdy perspective. me, i'm bad with people being used as symbols, the process reminds me of the writer but not the character. also, movies about needing to walk away from a person are tricky to me, including mommy. i don't admire the perspective of "you should obviously have given up on this person a long time ago." though, happy to hear your reaction indeed, since you ended a review of it follows with "This is real goddamn life" and that's adorable, and that's how i love the things i love as well
Polkablues, glad you liked the movie, but no need to be baffled by a differing opinion. And for God sakes, don't let it kill you to see others not like it. Take solace in the fact that you stand with the majority (see rotten tomatoes score) in thinking this movie is some kind of masterpiece. Time will tell.
I predict it's another Garden State or Drive... a movie embraced by the multitudes for its stylishness and "tone" but quickly disregarded once it goes out of mode.
this movie was fucking garbage. also the sister is way hotter.
Well, I'm convinced.
the wild inconsistencies in the way "it" is used in the film, which ultimately is indicative of narrative laziness, dismantle any attempt to make sense of this movie being more than a really boring genre pastiche. it's such a smug Metaphor (intentional capitalization) that i'm glad it amounts to nothing. polka, the movie you describe would be great, but it completely omits the major construct of the narrative that makes it NOTHING like real life, and yet it's such a major motivating factor for the characters that not addressing it is like talking about a completely different movie. i guess it could just come down to willingness to suspend disbelief in this story, but i feel like when you set ground rules, even if it's from an unreliable source (and then there's the question of how does he know all this shit... further and further down the rabbit hole of bullshit), it really needs to be more thought out that simply having a line where a character says "it can be ANYTHING!!!" and just running amok from there. as it stands, it's just a random device that's implemented whenever the director wants shit to start getting scary.
also that this is passing for excellent craft makes me sad. have standards been lowered to the point where something like this is going to be lauded as exceptionally made? it isn't amateur hour but i hardly find anything about the film's craft worth celebrating.
ALL SPOILERSQuote from: piscesvirgorising on March 16, 2015, 05:03:33 PM
I don't know why they thought electrocuting a ghost that was impervious to bullets would work... Where that idea came from? The thing could break windows and doors, why could it not throw things?
Director addresses this in a Vulture interview (http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/it-follows-director-the-spoiler-interview.html).
Talk to me about our heroes' final plan to kill the monster in the pool. I was rooting for them, but I also felt like it was sort of naïve to think that plan would work, given how little they really know about the monster.DRM: It's the stupidest plan ever! [Laughs.] It's a kid-movie plan, it's something that Scooby-Doo and the gang might think of, and that was sort of the point. What would you do if you were confronted by a monster and found yourself trapped within a nightmare? Ultimately, you have to resort to some way of fighting it that's accessible to you in the physical world, and that's not really going to cut it. We kind of avoid any kind of traditional setup for that sequence, because in more traditional horror films, there might be a clue that would lead them to figure out a way to destroy this monster. I intentionally avoided placing those. Instead, they do their best to accomplish something, and we witness its failure. It's probably a very non-conventional way of approaching the third-act confrontation, but we thought it was a fun way to deal with it.
*Spoilers*
It's an alright film. Some points of disagreement with the general applause, but anyways....
First, it's not scary. I'm sorry, but horror needs to retire the plot structure of focusing of one heroine who will likely survive until the end or near it. She's the protagonist and focal center, yes, but she's also the guarantee every threat against her will go by the wayside and be unsuccessful until the film gets into third act territory. Even then, probability says she survives past the end credit sequence. Crazy, but a concept of killing a heroine early in 1960 with Pscyho still stands up as novel. The people who actually die in the film were entirely predictable.
I think to get scarier the film would have been better to narrow the vision of the film. I was fascinated by the boyfriend who initially gave her the curse. When the lead girl was researching who he was, she saw his apartment and how much he changed his life to adapt to new circumstances of something always on the hunt for him. He completely destroyed his life to prepare for what his reality had become. I think if the film focused solely on one character slowly becoming accustomed and changing and not wanting to tell anyone because of public perception (likely what the bf did), I think you get closer to a narrative track that overwhelms the viewer with a claustrophobic fear. The film could play more with atmosphere, music and a momentum building up to personal insanity. Instead It Follows is about a girl in fear with a host of family and friends. The other characters have plot points onto themselves and the focus gets shuffled around more. After a little while, there became a standardization of the girl relaying personal issues, a few other scenes with other characters, and then frightening chase scenes. It didn't take long for a recycling effect to happen with order playing out.
I kept thinking about films that did better to create claustrophobia by narrowing the focus, but I think It Follows more just wanted to be a well done typical 1970s-type horror film. it does that and it does better than most films today. Especially with the music and composition sequences, but I don't think it's that great of a film. Cabin in the Woods is nonsensical at its core but more inventive and well done. People want to make the comparison and it's not there, but Cabin in the Woods (for what it was) is much more refreshing in what it does.
biggest hit xixax has had in a long while, so that's interesting
http://www.avclub.com/article/david-robert-mitchell-his-striking-new-horror-film-216215 check out this interview
Sex and sexual trauma have long served as a subtext integrated into the grammar of nearly all slashers, but It Follows makes this issue central to both the effectiveness of its scares and the impact of its thematic content. Survivors of sexual assault can be haunted by fear, shame and guilt. For Jay, these enduring effects of her assault are given monstrous, corporeal form, and they follow her everywhere she goes. - http://socialistworker.org/2015/04/09/facing-our-monsters
this was the only analysis that went in depth with the sexual trauma angle that i could find its how i also saw the movie
QuoteMitchell's film, like last year's The Babadook, eschews neat answers to its crushing, impossible, thematic questions, and is both scarier and more politically interesting as a result. That mainstream commentators completely miss this only proves how deeply our societal aversion to discussing the topic ultimately runs.
what is that called? i think it's called a fallacy of composition. i have no aversion toward this theme and that's a crazy thing to say
i have an aversion to themes in general. as demonstrated by this movie and ex machina and my recent iv post. themes are for a classroom and all i want to do is live inside movies. hey, i can't make any of you like a movie i enjoyed because of how i felt while watching it, though i try, and you can't make me like a movie because of how the theme made you feel, though you can try
Quote from: jenkins<3 on May 06, 2015, 08:20:28 PM
i have an aversion to themes in general. as demonstrated by this movie and ex machina and my recent iv post. themes are for a classroom and all i want to do is live inside movies. hey, i can't make any of you like a movie i enjoyed because of how i felt while watching it, though i try, and you can't make me like a movie because of how the theme made you feel, though you can try
I feel the complete opposite. Theme is everything when it comes to storytelling. Any time a film has made you feel something, it has been because of themes that resonated with you. Every great character, every great piece of dialogue, every great scene, sequence, set-piece, everything exists to serve the themes, and it's only by the relatability of those themes and their consistency within the narrative that we get what we get out of a film.
Analyzing themes may be for the classroom (debatable), but experiencing them is the most primal and human thing we do with story.
yes i know you're the complete opposite! but i know we'll dance together in the future. i don't think theme is everything because i don't think storytelling is everything. i think storytelling gets dangerous, i do, because i don't think it's healthy to imagine our lives in storyform or ourselves as omniscient narrators. and i'd say resonation can exist subtheme (or supertheme, hmmmm) and a story that culminates in a theme is a message movie. the messages of it follows and ex machina didn't control the experience i had with those movies. it's not primal enough? i mean that sounds harsh. it didn't click with me and you don't marry everyone you meet
All narrative art is storytelling, though. Even Stan Brakhage at his most avant-garde was engaging in storytelling, just in a deconstructed, abstract way, like what Rothko's art was to portrait painting. Humans are wired to find cause, effect, and meaning in everything they experience. And that's all story is: cause, effect, and meaning.
Of course some things will click with you and other won't. Everyone has different tastes, different experiences, different contexts... I would just argue, and continue to argue on and on ad nauseum, that it's precisely the theme, the meaning, of the work that you're clicking with or not. Whether it resonates or not is dependent on your individual relationship to the themes at play, and your conscious or subconscious perceptions of how well the film illuminates them, but I don't believe you're experiencing anything sub- or super-thematically. Theme exists within all aspects of story, and story exists within all narrative art.
It seems like what you're reacting most strongly against is when films explicate their themes too brazenly, and that's a totally valid stance, which I completely agree with unless it's done particularly well, which I personally judge It Follows and Ex Machina to have done. Shouting your themes through a bullhorn is a risky maneuver, and I understand if some people will, as a matter of course, object to being shouted at.
i said i don't think storytelling is everything. i'm not talking about throwing stories or themes out the window, although i do think i sound a bit that way, and i think you had a pinpoint reading about my problems with these two movies we're talking about, but i'm saying those elements tend to guide the movie without guiding me, and i think there's ample evidence of me expressing this perspective. you're saying you can't believe how i watch a movie, and the way you watch a movie envelops the all and everything. well that's something. i can remember people's faces and the way their hands move and if a background character opened a door in a funny way, and i can value those things as much as the all and everything happening, i don't know what to tell you. it isn't the story, it isn't the theme, it's the existence of the movie itself that most penetrates me. that sounds sexual. perfect
you made a fine and graceful post though, and i think if this conversation was taken to the long haul it'd become even more apparent how the very qualities you're appreciating can elevate the overall movie. for sure
If storytelling and themes are so unimportant how come you give them so much power when it comes to ruining a film for you?
...because i have an aversion to them, it's the first thing i said. to say it another way, which i've also said before, there's nothing i like less than being able to see gears turning
a defense of storytelling and themes is a cake-walk. no, i think a defense of storytelling and themes makes a cake-walk look difficult. of course you guys can stand by its side, and of course you'll have your supporters, but you'll just be singing the same song that's always sung. if that's what you want to sing, sing it, and i'll sing my own song
damn, what a fucking drag. as I get older, and watching movies becomes difficult because of work, kids, responsibilities; I get more and more pissed when I realize half way through that some film I'm seeing is not going to cut the mustard.
about the moment when the girl runs out of the house to the park at night I felt this was probably going to suck and it just kept getting more boring and repetitive. hate to see it being compared with the babadook, which was fucking INSANE and tense and scary most of the time. yeah, I hate jump scares and all those horror movie cliches. and perhaps this film biggest achievement is being the quietest horror film in many years. but there was nothing to care about.
Late to the game, stirring the pot
SPOILERS
Quote from: wilder on March 14, 2015, 01:18:50 PM
It's like a motion picture tumblr.
That's right. That's exactly right. And sometimes cool shit is enough. Should be enough, even. Garden State wasn't cool. Drive was cool. Drive's still cool enough.
It Follows would've been cooler if It moved slowly the whole time; we never actually saw what It does; the one It wasn't peeing; the pool scene was something else; and It wasn't a tangible physical entity, capable of interacting with objects (save doors and windows) and suffering harm.
Still, it was pretty cool.
A couple years ago kids would've said you guys have no chill.
a couple years ago kids watching movies felt chill watching his previous movie The Myth of the American Sleepover.
Which I should revisit in light of this one being pretty cool. I did not like it at all the first time around. Perhaps I am the one without chill.
Just watched this. I completely understand why it's divisive, but I fall decidedly on the pro side. I wasn't quite sure why I liked it, honestly. Then coming back here and reading Polka's reviews crystallized my feelings.
Expectations are important. I'm not sure this is even a horror movie. I guess I understand the urge to get fixated on the monster, as it were, but I'm puzzled why people got so caught up with the mechanics of It. That's the least interesting conversation you can have about this movie. (And obviously the kids were just trying whatever, because they had no idea what to do.)
I appreciate how little the movie gives you. Entire scenes seem to be missing. That enhances the effect of disorientation and really captures the feeling of being a teenager, when you have these horrifying realizations that you don't actually understand how the world operates.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on April 21, 2016, 11:52:05 PM
I appreciate how little the movie gives you. Entire scenes seem to be missing. That enhances the effect of disorientation and really captures the feeling of being a teenager, when you have these horrifying realizations that you don't actually understand how the world operates.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkvWwy1V.jpg&hash=97a697c2986ad80d53da8069be6e22cc0d57e848)
(it's over a year a half since i saw It Follows once, and whatever the conversations have been i've forgotten the movie anyway, so that's my final opinion)