|
MisterBibs posted:That's because they stood out so blatantly, at least to me, as someone who doesn't have that specific fetish. Also watching the ending for the second time, I don't think It's following them. The out-of-focus figure looks around a little bit, which is something It never does. Maybe It is dead or just passed on down the line, but I do think that no matter what, the two of them know how to deal with It and can get through it again.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
axleblaze posted:It's not too bad really. There isn't much death in general. What's there is graphic but nothing compared to HWAS. Perfect, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Saw it tonight. It was pretty good but I was a bit disappointed because I had hoped for a greater feeling of existential dread throughout the movie. I guess it REALLY didn't help that there was a group of 5 people 2 rows back laughing at everything including when Jay strips on the beach to go swim out to get hosed by the boat guys. BTW I think it's strongly implied that she didn't actually gently caress them. They probably were rightly weirded out and told her to get lost. Consider that she doesn't seem to get even a small bit of reprieve from IT and its implied she's still cursed since Paul offers to have sex with her. I think it would have been pretty funny for there to have been an after credit scene where A black title screen of "Two Months Later" comes up and suddenly Paul is in a doctor's office. The off screen doctor says to him "I'm sorry, you have tested positive for HIV." And he just looks right into the camera and goes "oh gently caress!" *cue creepy theme music.* Missed opportunity guys. Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Mar 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:BTW I think it's strongly implied that she didn't actually gently caress them. They probably were rightly weirded out and told her to get lost. Consider that she doesn't seem to get even a small bit of reprieve from IT and its implied she's still cursed since Paul offers to have sex with her. I don't know where people are getting this impression. What would be the point of the scene if nothing happened? What would be the point of hiding the fact that nothing happened? She also does get a reprieve, it just doesn't last long because the guys don't know what's coming for them.. quote:I think it would have been pretty funny for there to have been an after credit scene where A black title screen of "Two Months Later" comes up and suddenly Paul is in a doctor's office. The off screen doctor says to him "I'm sorry, you have tested positive for HIV." And he just looks right into the camera and goes "oh gently caress!" *cue creepy theme music.* Missed opportunity guys. No offense, but this is like the worst idea ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:
No poo poo dude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Sorry. Poe's law and all that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
I really liked it, though I kind of feel like they didn't do enough with the concept but on the other hand that might've led to the sort of 'just throw paint on it and trap it on a raft!' tension killing, puzzle solving thoughts
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Sure some things are a little unclear but god drat this was some good rear end film-making. Feel like I said "wow what a shot" like every 2 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
I feel like I want to give the movie a second viewing tomorrow but for some reason I'd feel kind of weird going by myself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I feel like I want to give the movie a second viewing tomorrow but for some reason I'd feel kind of weird going by myself. I did this tonight and it was awesome. My ex-girlfriend hated horror plus sometimes I forget how enjoyable it can be to just have some alone time, especially with something like this that you wanna zone in on. Go do it, the movie is definitely worth another watch. I'll probably go in 2 weeks or so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Couple problems for me were Hugh saying he got It from some girl a at a bar. So.....he sure knows a poo poo load about It from getting it from some girl that doesn't sound like told him very much about it. Why does It walk out from walls on seemingly multiple occasions. It's clearly seen following a sidewalk to go to a door once, then every other time it what, jumped down from a roof? Which I guess makes that scene with It on the roof makes sense, no wait, it should of been at the backdoor or something, but if it either follows sidewalks and crap or just walks over roofs, pick one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Grem posted:Why does It walk out from walls on seemingly multiple occasions. It's clearly seen following a sidewalk to go to a door once, then every other time it what, jumped down from a roof? Which I guess makes that scene with It on the roof makes sense, no wait, it should of been at the backdoor or something, but if it either follows sidewalks and crap or just walks over roofs, pick one. On the other hand, why pick only one when either can be effectively scary in its own right? Also, we don't know how long per se Hugh has been being stalked. He may have gone through this scenario over and over and over again, as it's suggested he did with the girl in the opening, who seems to be very cognizant of the ramifications of the curse, since she makes a tacit decision to just go to a secluded place (the beach, a persistent motif in the film) and wait for death. This implicates the really profound, weird sex-negativity of the film. As others have pointed out, Jay and Paul's coupling at the end is definitely supposed to invoke an awkward, potentially 'doomed' marriage - with Paul clinging to Jay's broken wing, his fingers clenched tightly while hers seem to be trying to break away. But there's a more important subtext here which is implicit in the male characters always being the 'last' to have Jay's 'curse,' and of Paul scoping out the prostitutes. Essentially, if the curse does return, Paul not only has an incentive, but a responsibility to sew his wild oats on 'whores' who are doomed to be consumed by the demonic apparition of sex. The irony, however, is that the film leaves open specifically this question - whether Paul is strong enough or potent enough to defend Jay on this paternalistic level. Really, it doesn't matter if the "It" is a metaphor for S.T.D.'s or rape, because as that which is purely within the mind of someone cursed by it, it represents anything that essentially reproduces the sexual exploitation and repression of the story.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Just saw it, this movie was terrific. I thought the concept of the monster was brilliant In that you essentially always see it, but it takes different forms so you never actually do see it or get a sense of what it was. Sort of a hiding in plain sight sort of aspect, it made it really scary and now everyone who walks slowly in my general direction is going to creep me out for a few days. The director used a ton of wide shots and I found myself constantly scanning the backgrounds to try and spot the monster. Really effective. I also liked that there was only one fake out, I was worried the movie would be full of moments where the main character sees someone walking at them, but then whoops turns out it's just a normal person. THEN IT TURNS OUT IT WAS COMING FROM THE OTHER DIRECTION THE WHOLE TIME. But they were smart, almost every time a creepy walker shows up it's actually the monster, including her first solo encounter (The old woman). Also enjoyed that the monster actually existed and that other people could interact with it, they were just unable to see it. Glad they didn't go with the cliche "IS IT ALL IN HER HEAD?" ambiguity thing. I wasn't a big fan of the pool scene when it started throwing the appliances, I thought that was kind of dumb. Really tense, uses it's few jump scares very well, thick atmosphere, A+. Loved the music, too. A couple bits sounded too much like Fez but overall it felt very 80's John Carpenter in the best way. Gave it a unique sound when most movies like this would be very generic in the soundtrack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
The shot that you're all referring to as the ending shot isn't actually the ending shot, and that is important. The film is blatantly, almost hammer-to-the-head obviously about loss of innocence and acknowledgement of death/acceptance of fate, etc. The penultimate shot shows them walking hand in hand with possibly IT behind them. The final shot shows them from behind walking away from it. The key here is that they are no longer concerned about their fate. We're all gonna die and that sucks (as hammered home by the closing monologue), the idea of death is always looming behind you, but worrying about it and letting it take over your life is a spiritual death far worse than the literal one. They've turned their back on the fear of death and are living. Whether it's IT or not, thematically, they've won.
weekly font fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Mar 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Did everyone see the preview for Unfriended before their showing? It looked hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
Yes, followed by 3 more horror trailers that all look like exactly the same movie (down to identical plot beats and trailers). It's depressing how garbage 99% of the genre is, and doubly refreshing when something awesome like It Follows comes out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Did everyone see the preview for Unfriended before their showing? It looked hilarious. Lots of chortles and guffaws during it. If it's PG13 I imagine it's gonna make some dollars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
Febreeze posted:I wasn't a big fan of the pool scene when it started throwing the appliances, I thought that was kind of dumb. Well, theres an old legend that states that ghosts / spirits can't cross water, or at least large bodies of it. Note that 'it' refused to go into the pool and only did so after it was forced in. 'It' probably thought tossing the projectiles was the most convenient way to get at Jay The red cloud was probably the spirit trying to manifest into another form, but it was 'trapped' by the water. Also note that 'it' was still hot on her heels when she got up to the lake, it didn't pursue Jay to the boat. ''It' was probably waiting for the three bros when they took the boat back to shore and killed them off quickly since they were all together. Jay most likely jumped off the boat and swam to shore knowing it'd go after them first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:On the other hand, why pick only one when either can be effectively scary in its own right? A smattering of random thoughts here: I've loved your posts in this thread. I liked your earlier rumination on the curse being more about something like rape than STIs specifically. It especially seems interesting to me that once it's happened to you, you never lose sight of the thing, even though you're not currently at risk (and simultaneously are always at risk because you never know if it's kicked back to you by now). I've been trying to unpack my exact feelings on the reading of the film as sex-negative in the way you see it, though. What strikes me immediately is that yes, the curse on its surface is a punishment for sex, but the way this film is plotted and the curse referred to, I actually think this is a hard read for me. I say that because first, as people have been saying, whereas most horror is preoccupied with a strict punishment of the "main girl"'s sexuality, here the idea of sex becomes almost of a duty - technically you're punished for entering the sexual realm, but from that point, you're safest the more you have sex (and then the more the people you have sex with have sex on down the line). It was interesting to me that someone brought up shots of feet upthread, because what attracted my eyes most were that on two occasions we're meant to get a very clear shot of Jay's hand without her thumb (made more vibrant by the bright nail polish she wears), followed pretty closely by a shot of just the thumb with the other fingers missing. I need to rewatch and make specific note about what happens near those shots. Favorite Twitter reaction? Someone said, essentially, that if they were in the movie, they'd just sleep with a flight attendant and let the thing get some exercise. EDIT: I forgot to talk about how much I appreciated the weirdness about not knowing exactly how fast "It" moves - it walks, but once you leave the immediate vicinity, the film makes it hard to know exactly how long we've been waiting for it to travel any distance (especially since we're not told cheesily "but I drove for three hours!" In addition, the film plays with barriers in a way that make it unclear exactly what is prohibitive - the curse knocks and doesn't seem too easily interested in breaking down doors, and suddenly it blows out the door of the shed. The curse doesn't seem to have any interest in getting the water whatsoever, but once it's there, it's just as large a threat as it was prior. At no point does anyone give a specific rule about dealing with the thing except "Don't let it catch you!" Beforehand fucked around with this message at 12:32 on Mar 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
weekly font posted:The key here is that they are no longer concerned about their fate. We're all gonna die and that sucks (as hammered home by the closing monologue), the idea of death is always looming behind you, but worrying about it and letting it take over your life is a spiritual death far worse than the literal one. They've turned their back on the fear of death and are living. Whether it's IT or not, thematically, they've won. That's a bit much. Cheap cynicism is a pure excuse for triumph. The relationship we see at the end of the film is essentially one that has been built one a tenuous social obligation. Again, Paul manages to accomplish that which he could not, under any circumstances but the threat of death, accomplish before, which is the compliance of his dream-girlfriend. The ending of the film is oppressive and morose not because the threat of death isn't gone or dissipated, but because the fear of death still continues to drive them along this narrow pathway, this pre-determined, nuclear set-up, which, ironically, has no destination, but death. It doesn't matter if that really is Death behind them - or, for that matter, if the reverse shot that closes the film is from the point of view of Death getting closer! The fate of the characters, no matter how far they go from Death, is just to wrap around and meet it again. This isn't 'living,' this is the suburban nightmare. In response to Beforehand, this is precisely what makes the diegesis, if not necessarily the 'message' of the film, sex-negative. The irony is that, by weekly front's estimation, the only character who 'truly lives' in the film is Greg, who assumes the curse, gallivants with the ladies, and goes back to his home to have a good night's sleep, living remorselessly without fear of death, because he doesn't even perceive it. Now, obviously, this ignorance in and of itself is bad, but let's juxtapose the scene of Greg chatting it up with the three women at the mall, and two other sequences: 1) The cruelest sequence of the film, where Jay descends into the water (an overt parallel to the 'pool' scenes in her backyard when the neighborhood kids are spying on her, as well as the final confrontation with It in the bigger pool) in order to have coerced sex with three middle-aged men, and 2) The scene where Paul drives by the pair of prostitutes in some Detroit wasteland. Remember that sex-negativity doesn't mean that you think all sex, regardless of context, is bad. Rather, sex-negativity, in the Judeo-Christian sense, treats sex as the strict domain of marriage and procreation. In the feminist sense, this is as an oppressive, paternalistic sexual framework that permeates dominant ideology and perpetuates moral values that demonize women who inevitably do engage sexually with men who are given greater privilege to exit this conventional structure. And this is absolutely the structure that the film depicts. When Jay and Hugh go to - loving Charade of all things - Hugh points to the married man as who he would like to become. Furthermore, the curse of the film isn't really instigated by a casual, consensual fling. While we are never shown Hugh explicitly raping Jay, and still fundamentally severs any bond of legitimate trust or mutual passion by pacifying Jay so cruelly. The elaborateness through which Hugh goes, again, is clearly actually quite an elaborate ritual to attempt to shock Jay into compliance with the image of impending Death. But it doesn't take the first time. She goes all the way to Hugh's house only to find out exactly what he told her already. With Gregg, the film presents one of two counterpoints. When Gregg agrees to the assume the curse from Jay, we are presented with her total removal of herself as Gregg almost mechanically 'makes love' to her. There's not an ounce of erotic tension or pleasure involved, it's just that survivalism has taken over. But another twisted irony of the film is that, in support of what Beforehand points out, Gregg is, at least for the time, a viable patsy of this 'curse,' being attractive and social dominant enough to 'line up,' as he does in the mall, a string of potential mating prospects. But it turns out that Gregg, like most people, really doesn't have that much sex. The thing about the "It" 'virus,' if you will, is that it's very self-contained. It doesn't take long for it to kill most people, therefore it doesn't spread with particular ease. This is the persistent, black comic joke of the film, even though it's never particularly funny. Being sexually desirable and active isn't a magic blessing from Heaven that guards him from the curse of Death, and yet he is the most content of the characters with his potential fate, because he doesn't really believe in it. But for Jay, because she knows about and understands the curse, can no longer have a sexual relationship that isn't implicitly coerced - "You can survive a little longer if you have sex with me." The point of deliberate satire of this paradigm is represented with Paul, who, as the film draws to a climax, is faced with the fact that the only kind of women he can attain regularly are totally unattractive to him. The overarching diegesis that the film presents is overtly sex-negative. If Paul and Jay want to live, they must pretend that they have not understood the petrifying meagerness of an existence constantly chased by Death, taxed - as with the girl in the opening - to continue the chain of suffering, or to make themselves ready and await death terrified, always teetering on a kind of precipice of coercion and male dominance that implicitly can't be justified. It can only end when its characters, make an decision to 'tie off the line,' either through martyrdom or marriage (the symbolic martyrdom).
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Hugh points to a child, explicitly not the married man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Maarak posted:Hugh points to a child, explicitly not the married man. Correction granted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Scanned this thread for "feet" and it did not disappoint. This is an extremely feety movie. I didn't like it very much, though, all the characters just sort of lie there on the page, so to speak. There's a real lifelessness to this, despite the attempt to clutter it up with interesting details. Lingering on how pretty Maika Monroe's blank face is is very chillwave, very American Apparel and all that. Lil' Johnny Depp and Elliot Rodger Jr. were well cast, as was the nerd sister but I could take it or leave it. It's all just narratively inert and packs no punch, has no real arresting images like TOAD ROAD or what have you. If you like to jerk off to teenagers' feet, though, this is an acceptable way to pass the time without going full Larry Clark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Funny, I didn't notice a single so-called foot shot, but the way peoples hands were shot was captivating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
The feet shot with Paul and Jay on the couch was loving awesome I totally thought she was going to sleep with him right there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Maarak posted:Funny, I didn't notice a single so-called foot shot, but the way peoples hands were shot was captivating. Thinking back on it I can remember a few shots of bare feet--Jay on the swing, Jay on the couch inching her toes closer to Paul, etc--but none of it ever seemed excessive. Like you, I was way more interested in the shots of hands and arms, but this might all be confirmation bias. I think the camera just tends to linger on Jay in odd ways. It's never lurid, but it likes to sneak peaks of her wherever it can.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
It's not so much about there being inset shots of feet, the stuff with the hands is very intimate and very well done, textbook Sundance stuff. It's more about the way she is luxuriously posed whenever there are bare feet. It looks like an ad for a glossy magazine that some fetish burglar has taped up in his dark lair.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
It's definitely the most mumblecore horror film I've ever seen but I thought that added more to the coming of age story.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
weekly font posted:It's definitely the most mumblecore horror film I've ever seen but I thought that added more to the coming of age story. I can think of a few that are way more mumblecore, but I don't think that's a synonym for "bad" or anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It's not so much about there being inset shots of feet, the stuff with the hands is very intimate and very well done, textbook Sundance stuff. It's more about the way she is luxuriously posed whenever there are bare feet. It looks like an ad for a glossy magazine that some fetish burglar has taped up in his dark lair. I'm pretty sure Maika Monroe is the kind of person who exists entirely in luxurious poses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It's not so much about there being inset shots of feet, the stuff with the hands is very intimate and very well done, textbook Sundance stuff. It's more about the way she is luxuriously posed whenever there are bare feet. It looks like an ad for a glossy magazine that some fetish burglar has taped up in his dark lair. I never really felt like any of the film was very compellingly eroticized. In general it's a very oppressive, disturbing movie about a rape monster. You know the foot shot that stood out the most to me? When It took the form of Jay's 'dying aunt' or whatever and pissed itself. The movie is lurid, but it's lurid in the way that is constantly pervaded by this theme of trauma and deception.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
I never found it to be compellingly lurid, for that matter. There's a couple good shots in this vein, where the nude woman is standing at the edge of the tracks. It's just enough and then it stops for a moment. Another is when she sees her dad standing on the roof. That was strong. I think the scariest moment in the film is when it's first coming for her in the house and what's his face leaves to investigate the broken window, and it just lingers on like a closet door from her perspective for just a moment. I wish it held there for a while, instead of wanting you to be so in love with her vacant expression. Basically, I think the main character should've been the nerd girl with the clamshell Kindle or whatever that thing was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:Yes, followed by 3 more horror trailers that all look like exactly the same movie (down to identical plot beats and trailers). It's depressing how garbage 99% of the genre is, and doubly refreshing when something awesome like It Follows comes out. Content aside, it's completely understandable that a horror movie is going to have trailers for more horror movies before it. One thing I I didn't like about the Follower (for lack of a better term): I didn't like that it has the ability to actively alter the environment, such as throwing bricks, kicking holes into doors, or throwing poo poo around a pool. By and large, I think it would have been a bit more powerful if it didn't have that ability. The scene where the Follower glides in behind someone else was a powerful image rich with imagery, much more so than ones where we see it breaking a window to get inside. Also, I think the pool scene is much more Follower knows that they are trying to electrocute it and less 'Spirits Don't LIke Getting Wet', fwiw. Unrelated, but it looks like it's not doing well in theaters, which isn't surprising: quote:The high profile expansion this weekend was It Follows. The acclaimed festival darling horror film had a smashing four-screen debut two weeks ago, which caused distributor Radius-TWC to change course and go for a semi-wide theatrical release instead of a VOD debut yesterday. I wish I could say they made the right call, and I’m glad that horror fans will get to see this one in theaters (my wife and I are checking it out tonight), but a $1.4 million “opening” on 1,218 screens does not bode well for the film or whatever hopes horror fans were pinning on it in terms of resurrecting original multiplex horror. We’re talking The Quiet One numbers here, and it’ll end up with an opening weekend of around half of You’re Next.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
It's not doing well because you can't just flop a movie into theatres, no matter how many you put it in, and expect it to do well. Like a week ago we weren't even sure how to get it on VOD and now all of a sudden it's at AMC with no fanfare?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Febreeze posted:I wasn't a big fan of the pool scene when it started throwing the appliances, I thought that was kind of dumb. I actually loved that, it referenced the earlier statement "It's slow but it's smart." It saw exactly what they were trying to do and used it against them. .
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It's not doing well because you can't just flop a movie into theatres, no matter how many you put it in, and expect it to do well. Like a week ago we weren't even sure how to get it on VOD and now all of a sudden it's at AMC with no fanfare? I don't think the quoted passage is necessarily disagreeing with you? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I don't think the quoted passage is necessarily disagreeing with you? Not every post on the Internet is intended to be an argument. He was just elaborating on the reasons why It Follows isn't destined to be a box office smash.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Sarchasm posted:Not every post on the Internet is intended to be an argument. He was just elaborating on the reasons why It Follows isn't destined to be a box office smash. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
I like Scott Mendelson and he's usually pretty on-point but he had to say SOMETHING was flopping this weekend to get pageviews, considering everyone out there was trying to undercut Get Hard and Home and they're both doing fine. A $4 million weekend for a movie on 1200 screens that was going VOD just three weeks ago and got next to no publicity is at worst decent and honestly pretty drat good. Would it have done better if it was given a big studio push? Maybe. But that $4 million it's getting in a single weekend is probably very close to what its overall VOD grosses would have been otherwise. It's likely going to crack the top 5 at the box office this weekend, which is impressive no matter which way you look at it. Everyone benefits from this. Horror fans get to see something different in theaters, critic reviews actually had a positive effect on a movie's reception and the Weinsteins and the filmmakers get a return of $10-15 million off the film instead of the $5-10 million they'd get from the original VOD plans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It's not so much about there being inset shots of feet, the stuff with the hands is very intimate and very well done, textbook Sundance stuff. It's more about the way she is luxuriously posed whenever there are bare feet. It looks like an ad for a glossy magazine that some fetish burglar has taped up in his dark lair. I don't think the feet stuff is supposed to be read as fetishy, given that the movie seems fascinated with body parts in general.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 22:47
|
|
