FIRST RELEASED: May 17, 2014 (March 13, 2015 in the US)
STUDIO: RADiUS-TWC (The Weinstein Company subsidiary)
GENRE: Suspense/Horror
DIRECTED/WRITTEN BY: David Robert Mitchell
PLAYERS:
Maika Monroe - Jay (Jamie)
Keir Gilchrist - Paul
Daniel Zovatto - Greg
Jake Weary - Hugh/Jeff
Olivia Luccardi - Yara
Lili Sepe - Kelly
It's rare when so much buzz hits a film that, until a few weeks ago, was not heard of. Especially when there are no bankable stars, producers, directors, musicians or premise. After all this is Hollywood we're talking about, folks. The land of sequels, remakes, reboots and comic-book/novel/short story/videogame adaptations. The home of the "we won't let you fail because we won't wide-release your movie *coughcoughSerenacoughcough* if it does" mentality. In the horror genre you've got no exceptions. Here comes this year a third iteration of Insidious (I haven't seen the first two, forgive me), a sure to be tepid remake of Poltergeist starring very out of place but renowned actors Sam Rockwell and Jared Harris, a fifth Phantasm (that may be good, we'll see), another tired Amityville film called The Lost Tapes (ooh, never heard that one before guys), a Goosebumps adaptation starring Jack Black (???) and a Frankenstein reboot starring James McAvoy as the doctor and Daniel Radcliffe as his assistant Igor. The Frankenstein retread is supposedly in a Scary Monster Character Cinematic Universe with Dracula Untold and more upcoming films. I don't know whether to shrug my shoulders or shrug them extra extra hard at that fact. I am hoping it is good because if you've got young Xavier, Harry Potter and the director of Push (yes I enjoyed that movie) it ought to be okay. I still haven't seen Dracula Untold despite my liking the leads, premise and idea. It just looked... off. So about the SMCCU (see above), thanks for creating a monster, Marvel (pun intended). Among all these I'm only holding out for Crimson Peak which wasn't listed because it's *drumroll* an original creation. I love you, Guillermo del Toro. Make anything you want. Heck, take over that Frankenstein picture if you want. You can even make a My Little Pony movie. I don't care. I'll see it and buy it.
Then you have a tiny movie that is called out on its own poster as "one of the most striking American horror films in years." If you're a horror fan and this little blip hits across your radar, do you want to check it out? Of course you do. It doesn't matter if the quote is from the same guy that said the same thing about The Blair Witch Project. You're going to the movies and you're going to bring someone to suffer with you through it. Or if you're me, you do like you always do and go alone.
Naturally, It Follows' posters and press are excellent. It's billed as retro horror. It's touted to bring back the old psychological thrill of 80's horror films. I don't know what horror films the press was watching in the 80's. I was watching Evil Dead, the endless Freddy and Jason sequels, the stupid Texas Chainsaw sequels (Dennis Hopper, ugh), some very bad Romero sequels, Creepshow (not psychologically thrilling so much as gut-busting funny), Tales From The Crypt, some terrible Halloween sequels, Prom Night, Fright Night, Gremlins, Critters, Poltergeist... should I keep going or stop there? 80's horror was campy. Sometimes there were some cheap thrills and jumps, but for the most part it was a simple formula of sex, drugs and head explosions. Check out a scene on Friday the 13th Part 3, I hear it's a real "eye opener." Okay I'll try to be done with the puns. I will try.
The standouts of 80's horror are easy. The Thing (remake, but John Carpenter outdid the original by miles and miles), Evil Dead (1 or 2, take your pick; I prefer 2), A Nightmare on Elm Street (the first, but I also enjoy Dream Warriors), Hellraiser (wicked crazy movie in which all sequels were trash), Poltergeist (see Hellraiser), The Lost Boys (what? haters gonna hate) and The Shining (duh). In between all that greatness was a ton of camp and farce. That's what I most remember about the 80's cinema in general, the camp and the farce. The difference was that camp and farce in the 80's was more cool because it was way over the top and most times tasteful, unlike the (Epic, Scary, Not Another Teen, blah-blah etc.) Movie films that came out in the 2000's. It used to be a heck of a lot better than it is because despite cinematic self-deprecation the filmmakers of those days were indeed trying.
The same can be said for the movie It Follows. There isn't a lot of camp and farce, at least none over the top, but the filmmaker and all of his key components (music, cameras, actors, script) are trying. You can just tell that they are. That's a quality that lacks so hard in much of the cinema today. Look at a movie like Green Lantern, The Amityville Horror remake, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, RIPD, A Million Ways To Die In The West... okay I'll stop listing Ryan Reynolds movies (side note: I really do want to like him as a lead actor, but he makes it very very difficult sometimes. Deadpool is your LAST chance pal!). The point is that sometimes Hollywood thinks they can cast actors and actresses, writers and directors together in a movie melting pot and just make it work. That's not true at all unless your name stars with a Joss and ends with a Whedon. But for the first time in several independent horror films, everything is cohesive.
Set in Michigan and suburbs of Detroit, the movie opens with a woman running frantically out of the front door of her home. She is not running from anything apparent, but is visibly shaken and frightened beyond repair. She feigns concern from her neighbors and father until finally driving away from home to a secluded beach. Leaving her father a remorseful and loving message, she sits on the sand with the car lights facing her. The next morning she is mysteriously murdered in gruesome fashion.
Cut to lead character Jay, a young (college or high school, still not sure) student and an attractive girl in a suburb with a humdrum existence with her sister Kelly and friends Paul, Yara and Greg. She's seeing a guy named Hugh who is distant but nice. On a date they play a game in which they have to find someone around them they'd like to trade places with and the other person has to guess who they picked and why. They both pick incorrectly, but when Hugh picks a woman that he can see clearly and Jay can't he is instantly traumatized and tells Jay they need to leave. Confused, Jay wants to make things better. After deciding one night to finally have sex with him in an attempt to be closer, she is betrayed by Hugh and rendered unconscious with what is likely chloroform on a rag. That won't give any young woman in the audience intimacy issues and won't make for any awkward first date conversations at the theater at all now, will it?
Jay is bound in rope to a wheelchair by Hugh in an abandoned and ruined parking lot. He tells her he slept with her so that he could rid himself of a curse, a "thing" that "follows" him. If it catches him, he's dead. "It can take the form of anyone or you know," he warns her. "It's slow but it's not stupid," he continues. She sees it in the form of a slowly approaching naked woman. He acknowledges seeing it too and pushes her away, dropping her back at her house. She is terrorized by these slowly following visions of people through school, home and her community and slowly unravels from there.
For the rest of the movie, Jay & Co. are left to pick up the pieces. Who is Hugh really? What is this curse? More importantly, how can Jay be rid of it? Even more importantly, can she keep it in her pants long enough to solve the problem? Given that she's a young and budding adult around young and budding adults, I'll let you think that one through yourself. If you think you have come to the right conclusion, you're right. Hint: it's a freakin' horror movie.
WHAT IT DID WRONG: The actors and screenplay could have used a spare bit of extra work, especially in dialogue and in small elements of story. It's all workable but with a few edits it could have easily been great. To be honest it's not really that the film itself did anything wrong per chance, but if there is one thing that is true overall it's that It Follows was hyped to be more than it was, no two ways about it. The buzz surrounding this film is unfortunately a tad bit hollow. It isn't striking and honestly it really isn't horror once you finish the film; you'll see what I mean. I can't fault anyone or anything, least of all the film, for that though because if I'm putting something out for profit and/or end user consumption, I want the best advertising I can get.
WHAT IT DID RIGHT: The film had a fantastic soundtrack, relatively unknown cast which is cool to me, great camerawork (seriously, great work), a truly original screenplay and premise, good emotional rapport between leads and secondary characters, eye candy and solid scene building. As far as starter films go, this was a knockout and it was very well executed. Even through the mire of the plot device as the film untangles, it was watchable and enjoyable. This director uses the right lenses and the right angles at the right times. He's reminiscent of John Carpenter in his prime and that's something horror of these days lacks. The man has a good eye and I want to see what he can do with more. The film isn't overly gory or scary, just plain tense. The soundtrack is also sublime and right on the money. Disasterpeace's themes and motifs are reminiscent of a very dark Kavinsky or M83. Wonderfully done and fits the film well.
SHOULD I SEE IT IN THEATERS?: Yes. Films like this don't get chances like this often, especially not in horror. This filmmaker has a chance to go places. If he had a bit more money, time and an editor or two, he could produce a true masterpiece by his third or fourth film.
It Follows is a good movie and worth at least one viewing for fans of horror, young adult or independent films. Outside of that, I'm not sure it would grab your attention much. You'd probably ridicule it if you're not a film of either three and even those will probably find something bad with it. It wasn't as good as it was made out to be and it won't be as bad as the complainers will say. I enjoyed it and will watch it again. Especially way before I see another Ryan Reynolds movie.
It's rare when so much buzz hits a film that, until a few weeks ago, was not heard of. Especially when there are no bankable stars, producers, directors, musicians or premise. After all this is Hollywood we're talking about, folks. The land of sequels, remakes, reboots and comic-book/novel/short story/videogame adaptations. The home of the "we won't let you fail because we won't wide-release your movie *coughcoughSerenacoughcough* if it does" mentality. In the horror genre you've got no exceptions. Here comes this year a third iteration of Insidious (I haven't seen the first two, forgive me), a sure to be tepid remake of Poltergeist starring very out of place but renowned actors Sam Rockwell and Jared Harris, a fifth Phantasm (that may be good, we'll see), another tired Amityville film called The Lost Tapes (ooh, never heard that one before guys), a Goosebumps adaptation starring Jack Black (???) and a Frankenstein reboot starring James McAvoy as the doctor and Daniel Radcliffe as his assistant Igor. The Frankenstein retread is supposedly in a Scary Monster Character Cinematic Universe with Dracula Untold and more upcoming films. I don't know whether to shrug my shoulders or shrug them extra extra hard at that fact. I am hoping it is good because if you've got young Xavier, Harry Potter and the director of Push (yes I enjoyed that movie) it ought to be okay. I still haven't seen Dracula Untold despite my liking the leads, premise and idea. It just looked... off. So about the SMCCU (see above), thanks for creating a monster, Marvel (pun intended). Among all these I'm only holding out for Crimson Peak which wasn't listed because it's *drumroll* an original creation. I love you, Guillermo del Toro. Make anything you want. Heck, take over that Frankenstein picture if you want. You can even make a My Little Pony movie. I don't care. I'll see it and buy it.
Then you have a tiny movie that is called out on its own poster as "one of the most striking American horror films in years." If you're a horror fan and this little blip hits across your radar, do you want to check it out? Of course you do. It doesn't matter if the quote is from the same guy that said the same thing about The Blair Witch Project. You're going to the movies and you're going to bring someone to suffer with you through it. Or if you're me, you do like you always do and go alone.
Naturally, It Follows' posters and press are excellent. It's billed as retro horror. It's touted to bring back the old psychological thrill of 80's horror films. I don't know what horror films the press was watching in the 80's. I was watching Evil Dead, the endless Freddy and Jason sequels, the stupid Texas Chainsaw sequels (Dennis Hopper, ugh), some very bad Romero sequels, Creepshow (not psychologically thrilling so much as gut-busting funny), Tales From The Crypt, some terrible Halloween sequels, Prom Night, Fright Night, Gremlins, Critters, Poltergeist... should I keep going or stop there? 80's horror was campy. Sometimes there were some cheap thrills and jumps, but for the most part it was a simple formula of sex, drugs and head explosions. Check out a scene on Friday the 13th Part 3, I hear it's a real "eye opener." Okay I'll try to be done with the puns. I will try.
The standouts of 80's horror are easy. The Thing (remake, but John Carpenter outdid the original by miles and miles), Evil Dead (1 or 2, take your pick; I prefer 2), A Nightmare on Elm Street (the first, but I also enjoy Dream Warriors), Hellraiser (wicked crazy movie in which all sequels were trash), Poltergeist (see Hellraiser), The Lost Boys (what? haters gonna hate) and The Shining (duh). In between all that greatness was a ton of camp and farce. That's what I most remember about the 80's cinema in general, the camp and the farce. The difference was that camp and farce in the 80's was more cool because it was way over the top and most times tasteful, unlike the (Epic, Scary, Not Another Teen, blah-blah etc.) Movie films that came out in the 2000's. It used to be a heck of a lot better than it is because despite cinematic self-deprecation the filmmakers of those days were indeed trying.
The same can be said for the movie It Follows. There isn't a lot of camp and farce, at least none over the top, but the filmmaker and all of his key components (music, cameras, actors, script) are trying. You can just tell that they are. That's a quality that lacks so hard in much of the cinema today. Look at a movie like Green Lantern, The Amityville Horror remake, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, RIPD, A Million Ways To Die In The West... okay I'll stop listing Ryan Reynolds movies (side note: I really do want to like him as a lead actor, but he makes it very very difficult sometimes. Deadpool is your LAST chance pal!). The point is that sometimes Hollywood thinks they can cast actors and actresses, writers and directors together in a movie melting pot and just make it work. That's not true at all unless your name stars with a Joss and ends with a Whedon. But for the first time in several independent horror films, everything is cohesive.
Set in Michigan and suburbs of Detroit, the movie opens with a woman running frantically out of the front door of her home. She is not running from anything apparent, but is visibly shaken and frightened beyond repair. She feigns concern from her neighbors and father until finally driving away from home to a secluded beach. Leaving her father a remorseful and loving message, she sits on the sand with the car lights facing her. The next morning she is mysteriously murdered in gruesome fashion.
Cut to lead character Jay, a young (college or high school, still not sure) student and an attractive girl in a suburb with a humdrum existence with her sister Kelly and friends Paul, Yara and Greg. She's seeing a guy named Hugh who is distant but nice. On a date they play a game in which they have to find someone around them they'd like to trade places with and the other person has to guess who they picked and why. They both pick incorrectly, but when Hugh picks a woman that he can see clearly and Jay can't he is instantly traumatized and tells Jay they need to leave. Confused, Jay wants to make things better. After deciding one night to finally have sex with him in an attempt to be closer, she is betrayed by Hugh and rendered unconscious with what is likely chloroform on a rag. That won't give any young woman in the audience intimacy issues and won't make for any awkward first date conversations at the theater at all now, will it?
Jay is bound in rope to a wheelchair by Hugh in an abandoned and ruined parking lot. He tells her he slept with her so that he could rid himself of a curse, a "thing" that "follows" him. If it catches him, he's dead. "It can take the form of anyone or you know," he warns her. "It's slow but it's not stupid," he continues. She sees it in the form of a slowly approaching naked woman. He acknowledges seeing it too and pushes her away, dropping her back at her house. She is terrorized by these slowly following visions of people through school, home and her community and slowly unravels from there.
For the rest of the movie, Jay & Co. are left to pick up the pieces. Who is Hugh really? What is this curse? More importantly, how can Jay be rid of it? Even more importantly, can she keep it in her pants long enough to solve the problem? Given that she's a young and budding adult around young and budding adults, I'll let you think that one through yourself. If you think you have come to the right conclusion, you're right. Hint: it's a freakin' horror movie.
WHAT IT DID WRONG: The actors and screenplay could have used a spare bit of extra work, especially in dialogue and in small elements of story. It's all workable but with a few edits it could have easily been great. To be honest it's not really that the film itself did anything wrong per chance, but if there is one thing that is true overall it's that It Follows was hyped to be more than it was, no two ways about it. The buzz surrounding this film is unfortunately a tad bit hollow. It isn't striking and honestly it really isn't horror once you finish the film; you'll see what I mean. I can't fault anyone or anything, least of all the film, for that though because if I'm putting something out for profit and/or end user consumption, I want the best advertising I can get.
WHAT IT DID RIGHT: The film had a fantastic soundtrack, relatively unknown cast which is cool to me, great camerawork (seriously, great work), a truly original screenplay and premise, good emotional rapport between leads and secondary characters, eye candy and solid scene building. As far as starter films go, this was a knockout and it was very well executed. Even through the mire of the plot device as the film untangles, it was watchable and enjoyable. This director uses the right lenses and the right angles at the right times. He's reminiscent of John Carpenter in his prime and that's something horror of these days lacks. The man has a good eye and I want to see what he can do with more. The film isn't overly gory or scary, just plain tense. The soundtrack is also sublime and right on the money. Disasterpeace's themes and motifs are reminiscent of a very dark Kavinsky or M83. Wonderfully done and fits the film well.
SHOULD I SEE IT IN THEATERS?: Yes. Films like this don't get chances like this often, especially not in horror. This filmmaker has a chance to go places. If he had a bit more money, time and an editor or two, he could produce a true masterpiece by his third or fourth film.
It Follows is a good movie and worth at least one viewing for fans of horror, young adult or independent films. Outside of that, I'm not sure it would grab your attention much. You'd probably ridicule it if you're not a film of either three and even those will probably find something bad with it. It wasn't as good as it was made out to be and it won't be as bad as the complainers will say. I enjoyed it and will watch it again. Especially way before I see another Ryan Reynolds movie.
