As a jaded horror fan, I wasn't sure what to expect from "It Follows." I heard it was scary, some even saying it was the scariest ever. But it seems like every few years some new film comes out and gets the same lip service, only to prove either uninteresting, unoriginal, or just plain irritating ("Blair Witch Project," anyone?) So I was relieved when "It Follows" had me right from the beginning, and downright delighted when it followed through on the promise shown in its first few minutes. Indeed, it reminded me of George Romero's "Dawn of the Dead." Not because there are any zombies or shopping malls, but because it's a low-budget yet well-crafted, inventive film that delivers the goods while sneaking in some social commentary.
For starters, let's talk about the characters. One of the most common flaws in fright flicks is that the viewer never feels much attachment to the protagonists, so there's no real sense of loss when they're in danger or even when they die. We've all sat through movies where we don't care if the characters get killed, or even worse, we wind up rooting for them to get killed. That is not the case here. The film takes what could've been very stock, clichéd characters and fleshes them out, and the young cast does an excellent job of bringing them to life. As the story went on it was as if I could see a little of myself in each of them.
Second, the film's premise carefully builds and then reinforces a haunting sense of dread, another vital ingredient missing from so many entries in this genre. I felt it when I read Stephen King's "'Salem's Lot" and the first time I saw Romero's "Dawn." Those works, like "It Follows," give the reader/viewer a troubling uneasiness... that awful feeling (like you have in dreams) that while you can run, you can't hide. As one character puts it, "All you can do is buy yourself some time." In King's novel, it was knowing that every night, the town's (human) population was getting smaller and smaller, while the number of vampires was getting bigger and bigger. In Romero's film, it was the constant threat of the zombies; no matter where you go, no matter how much you barricade the door, you never know when you'll look up and see a flesh-hungry walking corpse ready to make you its lunch. And in "It Follows"... well, I won't say anything. Just see the film and you'll know what I mean.
Another noteworthy aspect of this film is that it manages to seem fresh even though it's not that original. There are elements of John Carpenter's "Halloween," Wes Craven's "A Nightmare on Elm Street," and Gore Verbinski's "The Ring." (I include the names of the directors not to sound pretentious, but to differentiate them from the remakes and diluted sequels that followed them. At least for the first two - I've never seen either the Japanese film "Ringu," of which Verbinski's film is a remake, nor "The Ring Two.") It's arguable (and doubtless is being argued on a web forum somewhere at this very moment) that we've seen all this before, and yet "It Follows" doesn't at all seem like another by-the-numbers horror movie. It's well-crafted and polished, with extraordinary attention to detail in virtually every shot. (One thing I'm still trying to figure out is when exactly is the story supposed to take place? Again, see the movie and you'll see what I mean.)
Finally, there's the social commentary sprinkled throughout the movie. It reminded me of Paul Thomas Anderson's "Boogie Nights," in that the commentary here is both subtle and non-judgmental. This isn't a slasher flick where the vices of teenagers and young adults equal a death sentence. It's just part of who these people are. They're decent kids who have a drink or a smoke now and then; who doesn't at that age? And as for the dangers of premarital sex... again, just see the movie.
If you're a horror fan, "It Follows" is a must-see. And if you're one of those who doesn't like horror because it seems like once you've seen one, you've seen them all, you should really give this one a look as well. It may seem familiar at first, but trust me, you haven't seen this one before.
For starters, let's talk about the characters. One of the most common flaws in fright flicks is that the viewer never feels much attachment to the protagonists, so there's no real sense of loss when they're in danger or even when they die. We've all sat through movies where we don't care if the characters get killed, or even worse, we wind up rooting for them to get killed. That is not the case here. The film takes what could've been very stock, clichéd characters and fleshes them out, and the young cast does an excellent job of bringing them to life. As the story went on it was as if I could see a little of myself in each of them.
Second, the film's premise carefully builds and then reinforces a haunting sense of dread, another vital ingredient missing from so many entries in this genre. I felt it when I read Stephen King's "'Salem's Lot" and the first time I saw Romero's "Dawn." Those works, like "It Follows," give the reader/viewer a troubling uneasiness... that awful feeling (like you have in dreams) that while you can run, you can't hide. As one character puts it, "All you can do is buy yourself some time." In King's novel, it was knowing that every night, the town's (human) population was getting smaller and smaller, while the number of vampires was getting bigger and bigger. In Romero's film, it was the constant threat of the zombies; no matter where you go, no matter how much you barricade the door, you never know when you'll look up and see a flesh-hungry walking corpse ready to make you its lunch. And in "It Follows"... well, I won't say anything. Just see the film and you'll know what I mean.
Another noteworthy aspect of this film is that it manages to seem fresh even though it's not that original. There are elements of John Carpenter's "Halloween," Wes Craven's "A Nightmare on Elm Street," and Gore Verbinski's "The Ring." (I include the names of the directors not to sound pretentious, but to differentiate them from the remakes and diluted sequels that followed them. At least for the first two - I've never seen either the Japanese film "Ringu," of which Verbinski's film is a remake, nor "The Ring Two.") It's arguable (and doubtless is being argued on a web forum somewhere at this very moment) that we've seen all this before, and yet "It Follows" doesn't at all seem like another by-the-numbers horror movie. It's well-crafted and polished, with extraordinary attention to detail in virtually every shot. (One thing I'm still trying to figure out is when exactly is the story supposed to take place? Again, see the movie and you'll see what I mean.)
Finally, there's the social commentary sprinkled throughout the movie. It reminded me of Paul Thomas Anderson's "Boogie Nights," in that the commentary here is both subtle and non-judgmental. This isn't a slasher flick where the vices of teenagers and young adults equal a death sentence. It's just part of who these people are. They're decent kids who have a drink or a smoke now and then; who doesn't at that age? And as for the dangers of premarital sex... again, just see the movie.
If you're a horror fan, "It Follows" is a must-see. And if you're one of those who doesn't like horror because it seems like once you've seen one, you've seen them all, you should really give this one a look as well. It may seem familiar at first, but trust me, you haven't seen this one before.