Review of It Follows (2015) by Jake9041 — 29 Mar 2015

After reading the reviews, my brother and I decided to go check this out earlier today and were both extremely disappointed. The movie just drags on for what seems like forever after an admittedly intriguing opening, only to devolve into shots that go on for way, WAY too long that focus on nothing of real significance, little is explained as to what "it" is, why "it" follows, why "it" is at times unable to open a door, which "it" then resorts to breaking windows, then is able to hurl large electronics into a swimming pool and take on a completely different level of physicality that makes you question what the hell it's actually capable of. That's how a lot of the movie is: something is vaguely eluded to and you think you know the 'rules', because as an audience, we're being told a story and we want to feel like we have a personal stake in the film, feel a little immersion, etcetera. But little to nothing is ever explained. Characters are just not interesting. Jay's sister seems to be there to be a shoulder to cry on in close ups when things "get crazy" and doesn't really have an arc to her story at all. There's another girl with glasses and a "shell phone" in the group that provides almost nothing other than famous quotes delivered in a monotonous, pretentious tone of voice during low points, just to keep it's floundering head above water in hopes that the audience will put up with just a little more punishment.

There is some good here, though. The lead actress, Maika Monroe, is genuinely great. She's convincing when she needs to be and most importantly, does a fantastic job acting terrified, confused and worn down. The cinematography is beautiful, showcasing the various suburbs, beaches, vacant buildings, worn down houses and schools with some artistic flair, wide shots that are awesome to look at and the sound design is great as well.

The score is alright, but songs are repeated to the point of ad nauseum and I think he's trying too hard to be John Carpenter. But to wrap this all up and to maybe paint a better picture of what I'm trying to say, let's talk about Halloween, a film I've seen some reviewers compare this to. You have the character of Michael Myers, who for the most part is a mute, slow-moving stalker of teens, much like the "it" of this film. The reason Michael works and this doesn't is because everything about him is laid out by Dr. Loomis. You have exposition to explain what he is, what makes him tick, he had a legitimate purpose and goal. Jason of the Friday the 13th movies is the same: we the audience know his motivation. Those movies aren't about the teens, they're about the monsters. But it's a monster we identify with. "It Follows" is like this: we like the 1980s, let's get some old televisions with classic monster movies on them, older cars for this never fully defined time period because what the hell, that's pretty cool. Get some teens having sex in here because that's what Craven and Carpenter and Romero would have done, right? But get this...what if I was so original as to come up with the idea that our "Michael Myers" is transmitted from kid to kid like an STD?! Except it isn't always the same guy and nobody can see him unless you have it. Oh, and nobody ever knows what it is and I'll never say because it's better for the audience to just come to their own conclusions about the scraps of information I've fed them, sparsely, over a 2 hour time span. I mean, Kubrick never had to explain "The Shining", right? I can be Kubrick.

Guys..