It Follows, 2014

Discussion in 'Film & TV' started by TomTB, Feb 19, 2017.

  1. TomTB

    TomTB Administrator Staff Member

    I've just finished watching this, and whilst it's way past my bedtime, I will say that I ended up liking it a lot more than I thought I would after the first 20 mins or so, and it's one I'd definitely recommend. I freakin loved the music .. such a throw back to the horror films I watched in my youth! Anyhow .. nighty night!
     
    Diziet Sma and Boreas like this.
  2. Diziet Sma

    Diziet Sma Well-Known Member

    This is the type of film, which would have made me jump behind a cushion some years ago: evil approaching the lens while strident violin music plays in the background.
    I have enjoyed the naïveté of its premise, the teenage atmosphere rather simplistic and uncomplicated. The retro feel managed rather well through locations such as the cinema and their home, even the protagonist’s underwear and swimming costume reminded me of a lesser Bridget Bardot wannabe.
    I haven’t found It follows scary in any way, but rather sweet and ingenious. Enjoyable watch though...
     
  3. TomTB

    TomTB Administrator Staff Member

    I liked the fact it didn't explain the reason for the 'evil' .. it was just there, and it kind of threw you in the deep end with it.

    I loved the scene on the beach when her 'friend' was walking up behind her, then you saw the same friend in the ocean, then the proverbial shit hit the fan!

    And I thought the ending was great too. Very bittersweet!
     
  4. Boreas

    Boreas n log(log n) Staff Member

    I thought the film was great. I loved the slow build-up, the atmosphere, and the mood the soundtrack created. Very creepy movie. You're right, not exactly scary, but still full of understated suspense in the best way possible. Actually, I take that back. It is scary. Especially not even knowing what the hell 'It' is. Doubly so when 'It' can take any form.

    I thought that somehow 'It' was insubstantial to anyone else not marked until the beach scene.

    Visuals were great. The photography of the scenic drives, the leaves, the light, even that early scene in the abandoned building when 'Hugh' was initiating Jay on the major problem she's soon going to have. Loved the sweet innocence of the characters, and the fact that no one over-acted like they would in big budget films.

    But what the hell does it all mean? And why Dostoyevsky? And yeah, that ending was bittersweet, and inside I was thinking, "fuuuuuccckkkk, at least turn around once to confirm," even though you already know.
     
  5. Boreas

    Boreas n log(log n) Staff Member

    Even though I'm not much of a horror buff, what I liked about this movie was that it actually went back to basics compared to the more modern ones I've seen. Like Tom says, you don't know what the evil is. That's how the supernatural often is, something primal and unknowable. You can try to rationalise it, but you'll fail. And this keeps the mystery and makes it all the more horrific, because it remains inexplicable and there's no logic for why you're caught up in these events. This felt a little like old school John Carpenter, from how it was filmed to even the music. Incidentally, I'd love to do a John Carpenter marathon and watch all his films from beginning to end over some weeks (in case anyone's interested in joining me).
     
  6. TomTB

    TomTB Administrator Staff Member

    I watched this with the Mrs, and we've just been discussing it. One thing we can't work out was ... what era was the film set in? There were old school tv's .. there were old school telephones (not a mobile phone in sight), the cars were mostly 1970s/1980s era, there was an organ player in the cinema! They only watched black and white 1950s things on the TV. But the clothes were modern, the friend with glasses had a modern sea shell e-reader. Very weird!

    And regarding the 'it' .. it had a physical presence .. it had to have the door opened to enter a room, the guy had set up a load of cans/bottles on string so he'd know if it tried to get into his house (via physical disturbance). But it also had a supernatural presence. It was invisible to anyone other than those it was pursuing. It acted like a poltergeist in the final pool scene. Again, very weird!
     
  7. TomTB

    TomTB Administrator Staff Member

    Saying that, and thinking about it, didn't the main character see the 'it' following her boyfriend in the cinema, before she had slept with him? Hhhmmm ...
     
  8. Diziet Sma

    Diziet Sma Well-Known Member

    Ha! But were they really being followed? It is an open ending. It could also be interpreted that Jay and Paul decided to spread it like bunnies to distance themselves from it. Or even sweet love can conquer all and together they will prevail.

    I’m a BIG chicken and get scared easily with horror movies but not with this one… I enjoyed it but seriously, did you jump off your seats with any scene..?

    I think the era theme was more of a mood filter, as there are contradicting items regarding its timing: the girl on the beach in the very first scene using the mob phone, the items thrown into the pool were both modern and more dated: an old Ollivetti type machine, a very modern hair dryer, modern clothing but more 60s underwear...

    Mmmm, could it be a type of alter ego. The evil guy in the pool was Jay’s dad, a missing presence during the film portrayed by those weird photos hanging from the TV room walls. They reminded me somehow of the Victorian tradition of post-mortem photography…

    Well , I think this might have been a mistake, as well as trying to kill it with a gun. Jay already tried that in the cabin and after putting one bullet in the it brain, it got up and carrying on walking...
     
  9. TomTB

    TomTB Administrator Staff Member

    I just read a review for this that made me laugh ..

    "Basically, the worst STD ever!"
     
    Boreas and Diziet Sma like this.
  10. Boreas

    Boreas n log(log n) Staff Member

    She couldn't see the person in the "yellow dress" that her boyfriend pointed to when they were playing the game. That's why he knew it was 'It', since it can appear as a stranger or as someone familiar.
    Right, it had a physical presence, but initially I thought only for those 'marked'. At school, 'It' passes between two girls who're talking right next to each other with what seems like hardly any space between them for someone to pass through normally, but 'It' does, and they don't seem to feel anything. But people seem to be physically affected and included within the ambit of those who are 'marked' if they try to stop the 'presence' like Jay's friends did with her visual cues. That's the way I saw it.
    Modern times. People often have a hodgepodge of technologies. It's not like everyone transitions (or can afford to transition) immediately to new stuff as and when they come out. Besides, that suburban community looked like it wasn't doing very well financially. There were plenty of abandoned houses and what looked like lower middle class areas. I've still got 1980's technology lying around, and my parents' and grandparents' houses still have tech going back to the 1960's. My grandmother has a mobile phone (not smartphone), but her landlines still use rotary phones that look perfectly 1970's. She still uses gas stoves with gas cylinders in her kitchen. Nothing is electric in her kitchen except for the microwave, the fridge and the lights.
    It was certainly suspicious with that regular gait of the out-of-focus person in the background. I took it to mean that 'It' was still following. If not immediately behind them, then at least potentially. Do you think that Paul really did sleep with prostitutes to spread it around? It seems like a dangerous and inefficient way to do it, especially if they're located in the same town as himself.
    No, not really, but I'm weak when it comes to suspense. It wasn't a particularly scary film in terms of individual scenes, but my heart was still beating faster in some of the more tense moments. As an overall concept, it's fucking terrifying!

    So, I've been thinking why Dosteyevsky. The main character in The Idiot is very different from those in Brothers Karamazov or Crime and Punishment. Much more innocent and good and earthy. Not prone to abstraction and hypotheticals where moral questions are examined. He's so inherently good that he's viewed as the titular idiot by those around him. But I think the primary difference is that he lives in the moment, and understands that death is an ever-present phenomenon, so not worth worrying about. The very act of thinking about death is more torturous to the soul than the event itself, as that quote from Jay's sister proclaims. So life must be valued on a moment-by-moment basis. That's the general gist of it, although Dosteyevsky is a thousand times more eloquent. But I still have a hard time connecting this with the nature of this 'presence' in the film. It spreads through sex, and the more sex you have, the more you spread risk and extend the time with which this curse or 'presence' might finally come for you. What, so even the worst of life can be postponed temporarily through an act of pleasure? So, indulge in pleasure as a form of temporary release and escapism even though you know you're going to succumb to that final outcome? Seems a decadent and very superficial way to spend your life if this is, at least tangentially, an implication of the STD/death/pleasure link in the film. At least, in terms of the main character in The Idiot and the film's protagonist, I can see that connection of innocence. The rest, I'm not sure.

    I've got to say again that it's a great film, and I really liked it a lot. I've already recommended it two friends.
     
    Diziet Sma likes this.

Share This Page