It Follows (2014) Poster

(2014)

User Reviews

Review this title
1,265 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Unsettling, lo-fi horror
Leofwine_draca1 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Well, here it is: IT FOLLOWS is a wonderfully old-fashioned slice of horror, a chilling ghost story that has much in common with the Japanese horror genre and is light years ahead of predictable, clichéd, American ghost story nonsense. It's a low budget but superior tale with a riveting premise: a girl is put under a curse whereby a ghost will mercilessly stalk her, taking on any appearance, and kill her if it touches her.

The plot is a simple one but the execution is spot on. The scare sequences in this one are really chilling thanks to the fact that they're subtle and straightforward and delightfully fresh-feeling. There's a classic old-school score to enhance the mood and a refreshing lack of CGI spook effects and the like; just creepy actors doing what they do best. I loved how the director has you automatically checking the background of every shot, and the sense of foreboding is next to none.

It also makes a change for the script to present likable and realistic youthful characters without resorting to that annoying and clichéd teen speak. The merciless nature of the ghost brings to mind the classic thrills of a film like THE TERMINATOR. There are a few problems with the film - it's a little overlong, for example - but none of them spoil what is a thoroughly engrossing and superior viewing experience.
118 out of 151 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
It Follows breathes new life into a dying genre
lnvicta2 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This is probably the best horror movie I've seen in the past decade. It Follows is a throwback to classic late '70s - '80s horror films and draws many comparisons to John Carpenter's style, from the music to the cinematography, and rather than appearing like a carbon copy or rehash of Halloween, director David Robert Mitchell executes this odd premise with such flair and finesse that you can't help but be refreshed by its cleverness. Everything about it works, from the brooding pace to the relatable characters, effortlessly sucking you into this gloomy world where STDs can pass on entities that follow you around no matter where you are. This is where most of the suspense comes from, because instead of relying on blood and shock value, It Follows is subtle and thought provoking - you never know where this thing is and it moves so slowly that you don't know when it will appear, and this uncertainty in waiting is what real suspense is all about.

One aspect that stands out, apart from the brilliant writing and directing, is the musical score by Disasterpeace. It's absolutely gorgeous in the most ominous, haunting way you can imagine. It's retro but not dated - heavy on synths and low on bombast, it sets the eerie tone of the movie right from the get-go and elevates the film's effectiveness into the stratosphere. Even as a standalone listen the music is brilliant, but when juxtaposed with the bleak imagery and unnerving atmosphere, it's downright masterful.

It Follows is not an overtly scary movie. It's a slowburner, and the emphasis on mood over jump scares makes it all the more terrifying. The acting is spot-on, the cinematography is glorious, the pacing is perfect - it's a breath of fresh air into the horror genre that has been on life-support for a while now. I can go on and on, but the thing to remember is that It Follows is not for everyone. If you're expecting this to be a paranormal slasher or something of the sort then you probably won't enjoy it. It's purely psychological, and these days, psychological horror is making a huge comeback. Last year we had The Babadook and this year the movie to beat is It Follows. Both movies are by new directors - Jennifer Kent and David Robert Mitchell respectively - which means they have their entire career ahead of them to rejuvenate the genre to the heights it used to reach. It Follows is a masterpiece in every respect and an absolute must-watch for horror fans that thought the genre was completely drained of originality. I can only imagine where horror will progress from here.
617 out of 985 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Arthouse wannabe?
x_manicure_x14 August 2021
Warning: Spoilers
"It Follows" is a unique film indeed, but I can't say I truly enjoyed it. The original premise and the refusal of modern horror gimmicks deserve some praise, but it felt too long, masturbatory, and slow-paced for its little content, with a lot of disposable scenes and too vague outcomes. There are many symbolic, hard to explain films that offer multiple interpretations but offer some kind of emotional payoff in return. However, it was not the case with "It Follows". It just felt like the director purposely left everything vague, disjointed, and unexplained just for the sake of keeping people talking about it and finding clues. In short, the film thinks to be smarter than it actually is and ends up offering just a little more than the archetypes of hipster filmmaking.

A group of teenagers close to reaching adulthood has to deal with a sexually transmitted curse: the last infected person gets chased and killed by a shape-shifting creature. The creature is only able to walk in a straight line, but is always aware of where the victim is and never stops its journey. Once it gets to kill you, it will start chasing the person you received the curse from and so on. It is transmitted through sex, kills through sex, it tends to take the appearance of familiar people and is usually naked or in bed clothing.

The events are clearly set in the suburbs of Detroit, but it's nowhere in time, with seasons completely mixed up. Characters watch 50s movies on a vintage TV set, go to see "Charade" at a movie theater, but also ride modern cars and read books on a new generation e-reader. The characters spend their days doing nothing, lost in their teenage spleen, as they were aware of their futility and powerlessness. They sometimes do crazy things to get away from the curse, but adults are always absent and never intervene as if they didn't care.

David Robert Mitchell's direction intentionally steps away from classic slasher cliches and keeps the pacing extremely low, with a lot of static camerawork and silent scenes that convey the characters' melancholy and paranoia. Many wide and deep shots draw your eyes to what is happening afar as if we are continuously playing "where's Waldo?". Many times we are tricked into misunderstanding regular people with the creature. The film rarely relies on sounds and jump scares, with the creature mostly creeping from far away line instead of jumping in from the foreground. Music is minimal and, unfortunately, mostly sounds cheap and amateurish, with the same couple of themes repeated all over again. Something that you would get on your average hipster indie film.

People keep saying the creature represents STD's, but I have never heard of STD's that you can get rid of by passing them to someone else. As an interpretation it's also too literal for a film that tries to be such a smart ass. It could be a metaphor for the psychological effects of sexual abuse. Think about all those days that Jay passes lying down in her bed, depressed, continuously looking at her own body. People who did not experience it cannot "see" it, all they can do is trying to sympathize and imagine what it feels like. They try to help, but all they do backfires (God, that swimming pool scene). However, all the sex in the film is casual but definitely consensual, so it still doesn't make much sense. Maybe sex is seen as a means to temporally exorcise the awareness of death and its unavoidability? At first, you think that death does not belong to you, but the more you live and lose innocence (have sex), the closer its presence feels. In the end, Jay finally has sex with someone caring and loveable, but their relationship still feels disjointed. Anyways, no matter the interpretation, the film is overall interesting enough to watch, based on an original premise, but could have been better executed.
16 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Modern Horror Classic
SushiStoner10319 April 2015
Inspired by 70's and 80's horror, it follows is a refreshing psychological horror film with a simple premise and a chilling concept. The cinematography is electrifying, every shot is beautiful and the score holds brilliance, it carries a very obvious John Carpenter vibe to it. The tension is raw, avoiding cheap jump scares and relies on music. Its eerie atmosphere is extremely effective keeping you inches above your seat for the majority of the runtime. The characters are interesting, providing depth and emotional attachment, most modern horror films seem to forget the importance of character development, its nice to see the genre hasn't completely lost it yet. There are several jumps scares, but they work, as they are not carried with unnecessary piecing music jolts but with the use of disturbing and sudden imagery.

The only errors I could detect were the unconventional editing style, the transitions were a little dodgy lacking fluency, this left the film to appear choppy at times but this flaw can be easily forgiven. Its outstanding cinematography and soundtrack make up for this. The film leaves a daunting stain of disturbing after effects that follow you for a long while, with a constant reminder to always check behind your back. An exceptional low budget indie horror film, strongly recommend.
464 out of 836 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Tag, You're it
ferguson-69 February 2015
Greetings again from the darkness. Known for an endless stream of copycats and re-treads, the horror genre periodically surprises us with a dose of originality. Heck, we don't even ask horror filmmakers for anything too revolutionary … just give us something we haven't seen a few dozen times before. Writer/director David Robert Mitchell "gets it" and delivers a game of psycho-sexual-tag-you're-it featuring the most sinister STD ever.

A definite departure from the all-too-common teen slasher films, the slow-drip terror of this one has more in common with dread and eventuality than scream-inducing terror and "made you jump" scares. When we first meet Jay (Maika Monroe), she is a typical pushing-twenty student who enjoys leisurely swims in her suburban backyard pool, hanging out with friends, and a healthy dating scene. Well, healthy until one evening of back seat passion with Hugh (Jake Weary) sets off the above-mentioned sinistry. See Jake has purposefully "passed on" some kind of affliction that attracts a death-seeking entity who slowly, but purposefully pursues its target. Supposedly the only options are to be killed or pass it on through more passion … the worst kind of "pay it forward".

Jay is supported in her ongoing attempts to avoid the entity by her sister Kelly (Lili Sepe), her neighbor and classmate Greg (Daniel Zovatto), and Paul (Keir Gilchrist) her not-so-secret admirer who would do anything to protect her. The big catch is that only Jay can see the entity … making heroism quite elusive for her support group.

Lest there be any doubt of the dire situation, director Mitchell begins the movie with a very vivid example of the likely result in being "caught" by the entity, and adds the score from composer Disasterpeace … an ominous throwback techno-sound that would be distracting if not so fitting. This has all the makings of a breakout role for Maika Monroe, with similarities to Jamie Lee Curtis in the original Halloween movie (1978).

The low budget caused some obvious production limitations – in particular an awkward bounce from day to night and back again, and some iffy effects. However, the suburban Detroit setting provides a nice backdrop, and of special note are the Redford Theatre (est 1928) replete with its beautiful pipe organ, and the indoor swimming pool put to spectacular use in the film's climax. As long as the audience is not expecting the typical teen slasher, this creative horror film should gain an audience while putting director David Robert Mitchell on the fast track to bigger budget films.
117 out of 214 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Lets talk impact-to-budget (I/B) ratio
A_Different_Drummer12 May 2015
That is the only way to review this film.

The goal of every journeyman film-maker from the beginning of the medium to the present, is to produce something that has the most impact per dollar spent.

Think of the first Night of the Living Dead. Shot on location with unknowns and local residents as extras. And the local butcher donated the entrails.

Think Ginger Snaps, which started as an obscure Canadian horror flick but found an audience because of the great writing and the charisma of its stars.

What we have here is another attempt to strike film gold by going for a high I/B ratio.

A small cast. Minimal special effects. No special sets or backgrounds.

A really clever idea, sort of a take off on the Ring which itself was a riff off a Japanese horror classic.

So what's the bottom line? Well done for what you get. Writer/Director Mitchell has a heck of a career ahead of him. Several "jump out of your seat" moments. And also a plot riff which you just know was contributed by some of the frat boys who crowd-sourced the film -- "you can get rid of the curse if you just sleep with someone, fast!"

The bad news? It is not in the same class as Living Dead or Ginger. There are lulls. There are gaps. There are times you start to wish you have purchased the extra large popcorn and coke.

Great career launch.
111 out of 210 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Beware the relentless hunter.
Sleepin_Dragon22 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
It follows breaks the mould of modern horrors, by lacking gore, blood and the usual set of rules. Instead this film moves at a slower pace, and relies on storytelling and the dying art of suspense.

It follows has a quite unusual storyline, which sees some unknown being torment it's victims perpetually, with only them able to see it, with the victim followed day and night without any let up. The only way to escape the grips of the being, to sleep with someone and pass the curse on, or so the theory goes anyhow. A pretty clever story with lots of twists.

Well acted with some decent characters. The film has one help of an accompanying soundtrack, which is straight out of the eighties, big and brash, I loved it, worked so well for the film. Some great moments, most notably the beach scene, slow and very deliberate. If you've watched Torchwood, you'll know why I was reminded of an early episode.

Really good film 8/10.
37 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good idea
jack_o_hasanov_imdb28 August 2021
The metaphor was fine. In general, I liked the movie.

There are metaphors and subtexts in good horror movies that have been made recently. This is a good thing I think.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
return of the real horror
lukamaras28 May 2015
Finally a real horror in a long time! No more bloody, slasher crap. This is how the really scary movies were made. Suspense and fear are created by great cinematography and music.

The pace of the movie is slow and almost no to few special effects are present. I surely hope that this movie hails the return of the great horror genre: we are scared of the unknown and not violence for the sake of it.

All the young actors are promising, they really pulled it off. Kudos to the director who also wrote the script, I am looking forward to his next movie.

Go see it, you won't regret it!
188 out of 311 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Unique Plot, Poor Execution, BUT Has Charm
Geek_Kinks8 June 2017
The plot I found amusing at first, as I had no idea what to think of a curse passed by intercourse. After giving it a try, It was a good concept. However, there were quite a few parts that I didn't care for, which I find common in horror/suspense movies. Characters make decisions that are just unlikely, in my opinion. Unfortunately, it seems this genre often requires people to make silly choices, or some nonsensical things to happen, to build suspense? or just because? Nonetheless, I call it poor execution.

I did love the cinematography, the fact that it does have an 80s horror feel (especially the music/soundtrack)and the acting was pretty good.

I like the fact that this movie is thought provoking, and doesn't spell everything out. So, you have to pay attention to catch or understand some of the story line. Yet, there are some things that are just unexplained, and maybe I just need to watch it again....but it wasn't that good that I would probably do that anytime soon.

I have seen a lot of reviews that speak very highly of this movie, but I kinda feel its overrated. Much like the Babadook. It is deserving of a descent score but definitely does not come close to a nearly 7/10 stars. Perhaps, its somewhat obscure plot, and/or story line? Nonetheless, its definitely worth a watch whether it leaves you frustrated, or intrigued, I think that's kinda the charm of this flick.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not worth it.
aoutorihan15 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Now, I don't mind movies that don't make any apparent sense. In fact, I can appreciate some of them when they are, for example, paired with a quirky humour, deep wisdom, or absolute horror. In short, if there is something about it that makes it worthwhile.

Not so the teen-horror "it follows". We're never really told what it actually is, that follows - some sort of STC (sexually transmitted curse), first cast by a witch scorned/horny and angry/pi**ed and hateful? Who knows. All we know is that it follows until you give it to someone else, and again if they happen to die.

Up to a certain point, the movie wasn't too bad. That must have been the point where I started doubting there ever would be some sort of solution or explanation, and it starting to make no sense. Running away from your follower forever is hardly a solution. Transmitting the curse until it comes back to you isn't either.

Following the example of other such movies about curses, the group of friends could have at least tried to figure out where it was really coming from. Insert some exciting amateur sleuth work, the usual frantic newspaper search in a marathon with time, a back-tracking of sexual partners or at the very least some detecting about "mysterious death cases" after "running from an invisible threat". Anything? Really?

No. Instead, they come up with some sort of mysterious "plan", isolate themselves in an abandoned pool, put the girl inside for bait while decorating the edge with plugged-in electrical appliances. Why? Are you guys intending to fry the thing? We've never seen it in water, while we have indeed seen it wet. When Jamie points to the invisible threat and tells her friends how it is indeed not getting in the water (while always walking an accurate zip-line to its victim, right?) we may begin to form the theory it truly abhors water. If that were the case, why not camp out on an island somewhere? No, instead you put the victim in a pool ready to be electrocuted. "If I'm gonna die I'm gonna take a few with me?" You think the thing is going to die if the victim dies voluntarily? Or was the plan to electrocute it? Shooting it didn't work. Not sure why electrocution should. (There's other nonsense like "You're going to die if it touches you!", yet it touched Jamie about twice - the immediate effect was painful marks, not death.)

Well, while the follower seems reluctant to get in the water, instead throws things at Jamie, the friends try to shoot it, until it ends up in the water.

But then, as they finally have Jamie out of the water... why did they never follow through with the electrocution plan? All they do is huddle around her and yell hysterically about the invisible's whereabouts. Which still is the water. As it mysteriously disappeared in a cloud of blood.

Soooo it is allergic to water after all? Is it "dead"?

The end of the movie, with Jamie having sex with her friend, and her friend driving through a red light district, suggests otherwise.

Either way, they did nothing really to stand up against it, and nothing is explained, with neither smart dialogue or ancient wisdom woven into the story.

Left me about as satisfied as Jamie, each time she was part of a transmission.

Stars for cinematography, soundtrack, and the fact it was entertaining *up to that certain point*.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Completely original. Certain to become a classic. Wonderful addition to the best of horror lists.
markgorman6 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER: It Follows begins how it ends.

Mysteriously.

A young woman runs from her suburban home half dressed, terrified, confused.

She crosses the road haphazardly, then runs back to her house picks up her bag and escapes in her car, with her father shouting after her trying to work out what the hell is going on.

It is not explained.

The movie then unfolds. No captions. No narrative. It just unwraps itself in a way I have never seen in horror.

Whilst it nods at convention (the music is unquestionably influenced by early John Carpenter and the cast is a bunch of Sorority kids) it is completely original in every other way.

It's beautifully shot, carefully scripted without a single ham line and has a plot that is entirely unpredictable.

The basic premise is this. A "thing" (monster, demon, zombie, entity: call it what you like) is passed between couples having sex. And then it follows the 'host' until it is passed on to the next host, again following sex.

It manifests itself as a sort of walking zombie that follows the host. Should it catch them it will not only kill them but possibly all those in the chain behind.

That's easy to understand. What isn't is how our heroine Jay, played beautifully by Maika Monroe, attempts to resolve her plight. Really, this is a rare horror performance, understated and properly acted. Her fear is palpable. And she doesn't go wandering into unlit basements every five minutes. It's up there with Jamie Lee Curtis in Halloween.

However, the plot becomes pretty confusing, but it kind of doesn't matter because throughout this great movie you're just taken in by its vitality, outstanding cinematography, freshness and the endless MacGuffins.

Seriously there must be 20 times you're expecting to be scared to death (Hitchcock style musical and SFX builds) only for nothing to happen.

Anyone walking slowly in this movie could be the 'entity' and that's repeatedly used as a trick.

Another great thing about it is the setting in Detroit. It's never overplayed but it adds a decaying creepiness that is entirely appropriate.

It's a great addition to the world of horror. Not as terrifying as some say, but absorbing and pure quality from start to startling finish.
225 out of 400 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Original, creepy and worthy of modern cult-classic status
kclipper3 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Here is an exercise in atmospheric creepiness, eerie repugnance and downright unsettlingly intensity. This Little horror film from genre newcomer David Robert Mitchell, who wrote and directed this dark and weird tale of the supernatural, conveys unexplained phenomena in a twisted display of disjointed storytelling. "Unexplained" is the best way of describing the action that takes place, but metaphorically this film stands alone in its attempt to recreate and pay homage to the 1980's horror films dealing with teenage sexuality and its repercussions. It seems that there is this entity, and I feel that that's the only appropriate way to define it, an "entity" that can take any human form it wants and mark its victims consecutively as they engage in sexual relations with each-other. It seems confusing, but quite simple in fact. This supernatural entity is somewhat of a sexually transmitted disease that is only visible to those that are marked. It has super-human strength and cunning will follow, track down and perversely destroy those that it targets without emotion, feeling or remorse.

This atmospheric film, although quite incoherent and strange at times incorporates a ambiance that is obviously influenced by 1980's films by John Carpenter, and it achieves his approach towards mood and tension over character development and story. In other words, its a horror film for horror fans, and that's all. There is no explanation for the "Hows" or "Whys". It just is what it is, and the plot devices and suspenseful set-ups are on par with those great films of the 80's that got under our skin for no definable reason other than its sheer weirdness and paranoia. Maybe future sequels will build up towards a more precise explanation, but in the meantime, audiences will be enthralled by its mystery. Its a film that poses many questions, but continues to surprise and shock. That's all I can say without completely spoiling the fun, but I will say this much...The performances are believable, the music and mood are unbearably tense, and it has a psychological effect that is inexplicable. Look out for those most disturbing scenes...The swimming pool scene, and creepy next door neighbor standing naked on the roof of the house is a hoot. Remember, Be careful who you sleep with and always watch your back.
66 out of 127 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Really?
How is this scary? The only thing that scared me was how long this trash was!
24 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
restrained and effective
pawful30 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I enjoyed the movie. The audience I was watching it with were a little weird at first (tittering and talking back at the screen, it was a film festival, they always seem to want to demonstrate their engagement with the the film early) But after a big fake scare early on, they settled down. The film was naturalistic for a horror film, the actors were wearing minimal makeup, the indoor settings looked to be locations as opposed to sets, and the performances restrained. It kind of reminded me of the Virgin Suicides, lots of girls with long blonde hair lying around and a story revolving around sex and death. The soundtrack was effective but it was definitely visually scary as well. It didn't rely solely on tricks to get its scares. The story jumped in places, and lagged in other places (the shots of expressionless blonde girls lingered too long to sustain my interest) It felt like there was symbolism, deeper meanings and themes running throughout, but i couldn't understand them. If I was meant to get something from the film it wasn't overt enough to be satisfying. However it worked on an entertainment level. The sequences I found to be most memorable were the wheelchair scene, the first attack in the house (especially the very tall man), the beach scene. The scenes I really didn't get was the boat scene, the pool, and the ending. I actually wanted the movie to go on a little longer.
149 out of 306 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A new concept of fear
raynaking06 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
After hearing many people say how lame this movie was I dragged my husband to the movies to see it. I usually never listen to other people's reviews. I like to see things for myself and I'm glad I did this time because it honestly wasn't all that bad. It definitely wasn't the best movie ever but it wasn't the worst. Maybe I'm just a chicken but I thought the movie was pretty scary. The opening scene at the beach terrified me. The concept is pretty cool. Everyone knows the people who have sex in horror movies are going to die. It's the easiest clue. This movie brings that rule to a whole other level. You basically get the worst STI ever. This thing starts following you and kills you. It looks different every time and can be pretty scary looking. The acting was pretty good. I didn't recognize any of the actors but they whole cast did a great job. The storyline was well written. I really liked how they didn't explain why or how this started. Does it only follow you if you have sex as a teen? The guy who passed it to Jay was 21 but we don't know when he lost his virginity. Does it only follow you if you have premarital sex? What even is it? A ghost? It's completely up to the audience to figure out. The ending was a cliffhanger. I hope they make a sequel!
80 out of 159 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Even through shortcomings and mixed ideas, the film's heart is always evident
StevePulaski30 March 2015
Right before I saw David Robert Mitchell's "It Follows" at my local theater, I was greeted with previews for forthcoming supernatural horror films like "Before I Wake," "Insidious: Chapter 3," and the remake of "Poltergeist," all of which could've probably taken clips from one another and I wouldn't have even noticed. This is how basic and thoroughly unimpressive horror has gotten over the last few years and why we need to support films like this one. Is "It Follows" worthy of such praise along the lines of "the best horror film of the decade," "one of the scariest films ever made," and so forth? Sadly, no. I sometimes think critics either speak too soon or simply want to see their name stamped before advertisements, claiming such outlandish assertions that could not only be disingenuous to their actual viewpoints but, in turn, set unrealistic expectations up for films that leave the audiences disappointed.

Make no mistake however, for "It Follows" is definitely worth seeing and is bound to be one of the strongest horror films of the year. Even if we consider its few shortcomings and some instances of serious monotony, I'm more than happy to support this little festival darling and commend it for what it does well. As I stated, just before you settle into watch the film, you'll more than likely see previews for horror films made by people and studios who have simply stopped trying to make good, memorable films and copped out at settling for mediocrity. Here's to a film that went left when most of the pack went right.

After an opening sequence that hooks you from how absurd it is, we focus on Jay and Hugh (Maika Monroe and Jake Weary), a couple of twentysomethings out on a movie date. In the theater, Hugh notices a woman in a yellow dress, who apparently cannot be seen by Jay or anyone else, and orders her out of the theater. When the two are alone in their car, following sex, Hugh takes a chloroform rag to Jay, knocking her unconscious and ties her to a wheelchair. It's here when Hugh informs Jay that something has been following him for a long time but only he can see it. It often appears to be a naked woman, but can take the form of anyone, even the people you know and love, and passing it on occurs by having sex with another person. The soul will follow whomever is affected by its curse at walking pace, and if it catches up to Jay, it will kill her, and proceed to go after Hugh.

"It Follows" is an early candidate for one of the most beautifully shot films of the year, and more than likely to be the most beautiful looking horror film of 2015. It has a delightful moodiness to its cinematography, captured crisply by Mike Gioulakis, as it uses a dark purple, gray, and teal color palette to look simultaneously uninviting and immersing. Colors like blood red boom with the feel and visual power that echoes Dario Argento, almost like an homage to "Suspiria" in look and feel. The story moves with the kind of slowburn intensity we've seen from horror directors John Carpenter and Wes Craven, or even Ti West, if we're talking more contemporary.

The real aesthetic treat here is how Disasterpeace's music combines with the film's cinematography. The use of heavy, bass-rattling synthesizers makes the film look and operate like a horror film of the 1980's to the point where looming tension becomes almost overcompensating in the way it appears to be taking over the entire film. The synths are loud and unsettling, and at times, can really propel the film to a suspenseful climax. Other times, however, they are obnoxious for the sake of being obnoxious and slightly disrupt the tonality Mitchell sets by making the film operate on a low-key playing field.

While the plot appears confusing, "It Follows" is surprising in how little there really is to it. Teenagers walk around, run from ostensibly nothing, comfort one another through sex and aimless conversations, and assure one another that it will all be okay amongst discussing different ways to combat this force. It's almost like Larry Clark made another horror film, as the tonal shifts feel like they're almost part of a coming of age film in addition to a horror film. These shifts aren't bad, however, as they function nicely to the film's more suspenseful elements by slowing the action down but never coming to a grinding halt. There's an unevenness, but it's not made as apparent as one would presume.

I find this is largely because of how well everyone works together here. With Gioulakis evoking consuming cinematography, Disasterpeace emphasizing a score that's alive and intense, Mitchell taking screen writing and directorial risks for his genre (employing long, clean shots that provide for a beautiful sense of location), "It Follows" is sound on almost all fronts. The only negatives that arise from the film are occasional structural burdens, or the fact that, towards the end of the film, its idea seems to change to fit the situation and create something unexpected.

Nonetheless, "It Follows" is a film to see and support, for it's one of those many opportunities we have as consumers that we keep blowing to see quality entertainment. It's almost like voting in elections; vote now and hopefully experience something that will satisfy you in the future. Even if "It Follows" isn't the perfect gem some have claimed, I'd rather see a pretty good independent horror film than a mediocre or downright abysmal carbon-copy that's spit into 3,000+ theaters with nothing but money in mind. There's heart in "It Follows" and that, at all times, is evident.
115 out of 200 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not as scary as beautiful...
MovieJunkie197631 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
**Warning! Spoiler Information Inside!**

I had heard far and wide (meaning on various internet chat spots and blogs) that It Follows (2014) , was a decent horror flick , and after viewing twice I agree it was.

Jay is just an ordinary teenage girl having the ordinary teenage first time sexual encounters. She ends up being used by another high school student to pass along what seems to be an existential form of demonic STD. As the story moves along many events prove this is no fantasy.

So, it appears that director David Robert Mitchell had a steady diet of 80s slasher and horror flicks in his pool of influences for this film , Noting also that he penned this films script as well. There are many subtle homages to this era if the viewer looks close enough.

However, the real win of this movie is its scenes and sequences. I swear (or would bet heavily) that the Director of Cinematography Mike Gioulakus was a fan of Late Director Stanley Kubrick's The Shinning (1980). So much of the frames in this film hold that kind of power that the viewer can enjoy film because of it's cinematic style.

It also is a big plus, in the face of film flow that makes a turtle look like a marathon runner. The Plot has gimmicky and unbelievable Situations , well it is a horror film , however , the cast comes off well with no really unbelievable acting performances. As well the Pulp Fiction (1994) effect before cause film editing style is a good approach for holding interest here.

If you want good teen summer horror fare , this is one to see.

Three Stars(of 5).
77 out of 157 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
It Follows (2014)
groomeschase1223 April 2015
It Follows is a horror film made for horror fans, and it's about time one of those came around again.

This is a movie that was light on the jump scares, which is a delightful change of pace. In the past few years more and more horrors have relied on jump scares to make up for the true scariest part of any horror film, the sense of dread. Dread is felt in this movie almost immediately because it combines so well with the tone, another forgotten about ingredient in horrors.

There is no real way to explain the plot of this film without it coming across like a more twisted game of "tag," which played a part in exactly how many people I could talk into seeing it after the mixed feelings from the trailer. That being said, the film breaks a lot of the norms set by today's "scary" films. This is a movie that knows what it's doing, and its main concern is to make the audience feel as if they are a part of the experience with the sense of realism. With the enemy being as far-fetched as it may come across in conversation, it's easy to get caught up in the surroundings of the characters looking for "it." Having to watch over the characters' shoulders throughout the movie makes it all the more frightening when something IS seen, and there's never a sense of safety.

It Follows takes a good deal from the greats in the horror genre, namely Halloween. I recall a great deal of times thinking "wait, that was in Halloween," where the background is scarier than what could pop up out of the shadows with some loud sound surrounding it. The score in this movie is simply unnerving and remarkable. It adds to the tone and creates an even more frightening and uncomfortable feeling when "it" has appeared. It was as if I were watching a great Carpenter movie in the theater, and it's been a great while since such a possessing and haunting score has come along. It truly is like another character in the movie, but used so well it adds to already-present uneasy feeling that one has while watching.

It Follows delivers where other recent horrors have failed, it creates memorable moments and characters which the audience feels for. Also unlike recent films, there is no way to predict what direction the movie will take, and there is finally not a completely predictable ending. Horror movies have taken easy ways out and desensitized the audience throughout by having things jump on screen which make the "big moments" feel insignificant and forgettable because audiences have been jumped at so much they just don't care anymore and they're ready to see "the monster die" (I'm oversimplifying of course, but the intent is clear). Meanwhile, this film has (quietly) some of the most memorable terrifying sequences of the decade thus far.

Of course, I'd have a useless review if I didn't address the performances of It Follows. All of the other elements I've brought up in the review were almost created by, and greatly assisted by, the acting. If the acting is bad (which is a common thing in horrors), then it's hard to make anything else believable, which distances the audiences and takes away a lot of the sense of terror. The acting is so real by the cast that they make this plot seem genuine. They're not the usual teens that the audience can scream "why did they not think of.." or "I would've.." at. They address the horrifying situations as real people would, they're not magically filled with some convenient insight and they're not face-palmingly idiotic, either.

In a year filled with soon-to-be many blockbusters and money makers, It Follows will be remembered by many as one of the best of the year. It is a film that embodies all things horror, and pays great homage to what made people adore the genre. Like a good brand of medication, without the side-effects, It Follows is what the genre needed and is, to me, one of the best horror films of the decade to this point. With all of the key ingredients in place, we've got a great film here. 9/10.
356 out of 655 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A film which you can't leave behind
b-connal22 March 2015
A simple but clever premise which draws upon horror traditions, especially the work of John Carpenter, is sustained throughout the movie to produce a memorable and tense 100 minutes.

The subject of sex, sexuality, disease, the transition into adulthood (you sense the director believes too early transition) and relationships between friends and family are played out against the backdrop of a once great Detroit. The films opening scenes summarise the movie perfectly and convey the central themes of the movie expertly.

Essentially a horror movie with a strong idea and 'conservative' message its strength lies in the realistic portrayal of teenagers, their relationships and what they think is the right thing to do faced with the horror that faces them and to an extent cannot escape.
77 out of 157 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Nothing special but not a waste of time
graciemavin28 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This movie had notes of a classic 70s/80s horror which I enjoyed. Paying tribute to where horror came from. I also felt like this movie moved along okay, there weren't any scenes that dragged on too long. The movie did have enough action to keep you interested. The issue is the action could have been improved on. There was very little character development and we basically found out what "it" was and that was that. There was no more to what this force was or why it wants to kill you. However, I understand this may have been relating to STDs which would explain it. I just wasnt very interested and the ending made no sense. Also what was the broken leg about? This movie had potential but fell short.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A solid film
geddyneilalex282 April 2015
While I am not sure this film is as advertised, "the best horror film in a decade," or how one would measure such a thing, my wife and I both enjoyed (I am not sure that is the right word) this film very much.

I think too often people confuse horror with slasher. Now, I am all about a nice Friday the 13th marathon, or the original Texas Chainsaw massacre, or even Halloween (1978 version), but these are not so much horror as slasher films. I think the distinction is important before one even begins to determine how they feel about a movie. Same thing with people who conflate a thriller like say, North By Northwest (a little old school, but hopefully you take my point) with a horror film. As my wife and I sat in the car trying to find the right adjective to describe this film, we landed on disturbing. The music was freaky, the concept of being pursed endlessly, any statement of sexual promiscuity the filmmaker might be trying to make, was all disturbing in our minds.

I would place this film with movies like Sinister, which my wife and I also "enjoyed;" best seen on a big screen with a massive tub of popcorn, holding the wife close.

I get that some people hate it; somebody always hates a film, song, TV show, play, book etc, while others think it is a perfect 10. For us, it was disturbing, and great way to spend about 90 minutes.
150 out of 272 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Something different. Enjoyable and frustrating.
teaandpies28 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
'It Follows' was a nice change from the usual tripe we are being spoon fed by Hollywood at the moment, well certainly in this genre anyway. Just being different was enough to make me watch it in the theatre however just because it's different doesn't mean it's amazing.

The film seems to be set in an alternative universe to our own. The world building was probably one of the best things about this movie yet we learn only from observation as nothing is explained to the audience through clumsy exposition, news broadcasts, news papers etc. Its definitely got a late 70s early 80s feel to the movie but with technology hints such as a touch sensitive eReader device with dual screens, modern looking cars in the background, 1 mobile phone seen once and even fizz drinks cans had the modern ring pull. Everything else is dated technology by our standards.

I had no real problems with the characters, everyone done a pretty good job with their support roles but aside from our main characters Jay, Paul and Greg there's not a lot of character development really but my real issue was with the demon/ghost. I felt it was given a very ambiguous power set and lack of back story. The demon walks you down, literally rapes the life out of the victim mangles the body and will do this in public it seems yet the fact that it must have killed publicly before never seems to be reported or talked about even as rumour or folk tales. It's also a little inconsistent with how long it takes for it to catch up with our protagonist victim, surly after the car crash she would have been caught? Why was the demon standing on the roof of her house when it had already demonstrated that it could use doors or smash it's way into buildings? What happened in the pool? It seems our ghost likes to do things for dramatic effect rather than be effective at what it's supposed to do.

Aside from the director just expecting the audience to 'just go along with it' and not ask any questions about time, distance, where, how and why, the film keeps you interested. I was looking forward to seeing how the movie would finish. I might have missed something but I didn't fully understand the final encounter plan.

BRILLIANT film score, interesting hook, visually gorgeous and genuinely unique. I'd say go see it.

I personally had issues with the film but the great thing about opinions is you have them also so go watch the movie yourself and make up your own mind on it.

DON'T HAVE CASUAL SEX!
44 out of 85 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What's truly frightening is a 6.8 IMDb rating. Now that's horror
dan-dubya30 October 2021
I admit, it's better than 1. It's no better than 5.5 and I feel that is quite generous (there were a few aspects that were pretty good) The only people who should watch this are cinemafiles who have seen all the other horror movies - oh and they will not be impressed. There are so many better horror movies than this. This is more like a drama / sub horror.
20 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Huge disappointment
pavle21k13 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Never have I expected so much from a movie and received so little in my entire life. Upon reading a couple of reviews, I was stoked to watch this horror movie. As the movie goes on, it did in fact manage to keep me engaged, so I wouldn't necessarily call it a boring movie. But as it goes on, the plot develops very slowly, with some pointless scenes, like the one at the pool. And to top it all off, the most pointless ending I have ever seen, and I've seen quite a few. Maybe it's just because I've expected too much, nevertheless, 2/10 just because it kept me engaged until the end, which was a huge disappointment. My advice to you is - do not watch it at all costs. P.S. No scares at all.
45 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed