jesus this movie was shit. I can't believe this was so popular.

It would have been one of my favorites if:

A: They cut that stupid shit where they're hiding away at that beach house and instead of killing her instantly, the thing decides to play with her hair.
B: They fixed the ending and made it something remotely clever.

>>83742892
I didn't find the beach house nearly as retarded as trying to electrocute it in the pool with all that shit. Also I hated how in the beginning when she gets dropped off the police show up and her parents are there and it's realistic, then for the rest of the film the parents and cops aren't around despite crashing a car, going to the hospital and someone getting shot.

>>83742823

Why didn't they simply move into an igloo in Antarctica?

>>83742823
ITT Anon is mad because he has never had sex and thus can't relate

Don't worry, you'll bloom one day :)

>>83743201
I've had sex. it's dumb. people who think sex is a big deal have probably never done drugs and overcome their basic biological programing

>>83743388
really programs my biology

File: itfol.jpg (86KB, 1280x536px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1280x536px

>>83743015
The movie is about the acceptance of death as an adolescent. The parents are supposed to play a very minor role. In my opinion, it's either meant to focus the story on the kids, or it's meant to make adulthood seem dreary and depressing. You'll notice the parents always in the background, drinking alcohol, or just very dull and absent. To not see them later in the film even distances them more, and I think thematically is important.

I imagine the pool scene was supposed to be childish. They're revisiting a place they went as kids, hoping to defeat it, once again, clinging to childhood instead of accepting it.

Just shut the fuck up and watch the movie you pretentious fuckhead.

The movie got so acclaimed because of its visuals. They had an interesting color palette, the filming in Detroit, the "retro" ambient (The weird soda, the old horror movies, etc.)
The plot was almost secondary.

>>83743700
Nah, it's obviously about stds. Can't believe when it came out /tv/ parroted that shit

>>83743774
Also anachronistic with the elements

>>83743138
it would reach there eventually, it was shown it can swim in the ending pool scene

File: The_Entity_8.png (219KB, 463x371px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 463x371px

>>83742823
kino

>>83743700
>I imagine the pool scene was supposed to be childish.
This is completely right. Everyone who complains about the pool scene being stupid, misses the point entirely. It's supposed to be stupid a stupid idea some kids would have, because the only other way to get rid of the thing would be to do something the opposite of what a kid would think, which would be to fuck someone and pass it along.

>>83744155
but it's not like they are kids at all or have a problem fucking someone cause they did that already to pass it along and they got it in the first place. The idea was just retarded. They had no reason to think it would work and it was dangerous.

>>83742892
Nah, man, the stupidest part was where the movie reveals the monster is tangible to anyone
at that point the monster loses all fear points, just cover it in paint and go "hey look guys an invisible monster"

>>83744840
that honestly just makes it more dumb that they did the pool thing when you think about it

>>83745237
>>83744840
like, if they had decided to try and trap it at a police station or some shit with paint and we saw that happen then it would have been a better movie

>>83743998
>It's always moving, always following you
>Stands still on roofs, doesn't move
>Cant have actor walk down a slope
Why was it even on the roof?

>>83745291
>Why was it even on the roof?
this is more bothersome than the standing still. It had to break a window to get in the houses before but it's just chilling on the roof?

>>83745291
>It's always moving, always following you

You only think this because a scared character with limited information says so.

>>83743388
explain what happened to you after drugs?

>>83744840
I don't agree with this. It gives it a sense of reality as opposed of some psychological unexplainable shit. The rules are set and it stands by it. The movie gives some serious Terminator vibes.

>>83745480
>Thing can get electrocuted
>Shot in the head
>Break through wooden doors
Why would it stalk it's prey?

>>83743388
After my first shot of heroin I don't even think about sex anymore!

>>83745424
>>83745968
And you're fucking stupid. Like the school scene, if it doesn't always move and follow you; why not become a student and get close? Instead of walking across the field towards her?

>>83745570
>The rules are set and it stands by it.

Except no.
It's supposed to kill you as soon as it reaches you.
Instead, on the beach, it grabs the girl's ponytail JUST SO THAT EVERYONE ELSE CAN SEE IT'S THERE without her dying at that moment.
That part really bothers me.

>>83746147
Why do you assume that? It seems like something that would take its time tormenting.

Everyone in this thread is missing the entire point of the movie. It Follows, follows the logic of dreams. The pool scene is something you would do in a dream, a completely absurd idea that would never work. Even the monster or whatever is dream like. You guys have never had dreams where you are trying to complete a task but nothing you do works? Like running fast and you're slow, or punching someone and your punches don't do any damage. Or trying to escape or run away from someone and you're going nowhere.

From the director himself:Writer and director David Robert Mitchell conceived the film based on recurring dreams he had in his youth about being followed: "I didn't use those images for the film, but the basic idea and the feeling I used. From what I understand, it's an anxiety dream.

File: 1374896111400.png (902KB, 624x601px)

902KB, 624x601px

>>83746465
>take its time tormenting
>Terminator vibes.
pick one

>>83746779
Also

"I'm not personally that interested in where 'it' comes from. To me, it's dream logic in the sense that they're in a nightmare, and when you're in a nightmare there's no solving the nightmare. Even if you try to solve it."

>>83746147
The rules aren't rules. They're just what's been observed by one guy. It's obvious that It has no rules and it loves to fuck around with people.

>>83746781
It turns into her dad at one point just to fuck with her. It even stands on her roof which some theorize her father jumped off to commit suicide
There isn't a lot of exposition on what It is, what rules it may be bound by, or why it does what it does. All we get is what that other fag pieced together about it, and it's very possible he's not entirely correct.
But we have enough evidence to assume that it's cruel and enjoys fucking with those it follows.

>>83743700
>>83743800
>>83746779

I read it as an allegory for sexual abuse, personally

The movie felt like a metaphor for sexual guilt or something.
It doesn't actually have any conclusion though, like it was setting up for a sequel. Would have been for the best if we had a graphic rape scene with the main girl to rap up the story.

I find it interesting the way it seems to have a different approach depending on whether it's pursuing a man or a woman. You might say this is just because the protagonist is female and they can't just have her die, but it's still worthy of analysis.

It seems far more crafty when going after men. It disguises itself as a girl in a dress in the movie theater and is convincing enough that even someone who knows about It is fooled. It might not even be walking directly toward its target at the time.
Later, when it pursues the guy the protagonist fucked, it does exactly what a rational, shapeshifting monster that just wants to kill its target would do. It becomes someone the target knows the first time it comes for him, and even knocks on the door as though it's a normal person. All of this in the middle of the night, when he's confused and groggy. It quickly leaps at him and kills him somehow and then grinds on him erotically. The grinding is very interesting, especially with the sexual themes throughout the film.
It shows none of this candor when pursuing the protagonist. It isn't crafty, trying to fool her so it can get the kill, it's very straightforward. It's a lot more brutal and violent, as we can also see was the case with the corpse of the girl at the beginning. If anything, its primary goal seems to be to terrorize the protagonist more than actually get it over with and kill her.
The methods, and perhaps even the ultimate goal, are quite different depending on gender. Crafty and deceptive when pursuing a man, with the ultimate goal of finishing him off and grinding on him sexually? Direct and forceful when pursuing a woman, with the ultimate goal of causing as much harm as possible, both physical and psychological.
I thought it was interesting to think about when you consider how the worst sexual experiences might differ depending on gender. A man might be more likely to be deceived and misled, while a woman might suffer violence.

It Follows isn't a particularly scary movie while watching. In fact, certain moments are even comical. But I liked the way some of the dialogue lingered in my mind after watching. The idea of having something that is 'always following you, no matter where you are,' and the advice to 'never go into a place with only one exit.'
Maybe I'm a little bitch, but I found myself thinking about it when I went into my basement, with the stairs as the only way out.

>>83744155
>The filmmakers were just pretending to be retarded!

>>83746863
It's still a real tangible thing and works within established logic. It's not teleporting around or doing unrealistic jumpscares. So it's possible to figure out it's method and avoid it or try to kill it. This is why the movie works so well.