Umm, he could have just said, "There's something you need to see." The way they did it in the movie was creepier, I guess, but it made no sense at all. Any ANY girl in that situation would have unleashed hell on Hugh for what he had done.
So, he'd tell her that there's something she needs to see and make her wait for hours? She'd just leave. If he tried to stop her, she'd freak out and want to leave faster.
If he tries to explain the rules before the monster arrives she'll freak out because he's not making any sense and try to leave.
If he waits for the monster to arrive she'd freak out and try to run away if it looked like that naked woman, if it decided to look like a completely normal person she'd be in a big risk because she could walk up to it.
What he did is smart because he could easily explain it to her and demonstrate that he's not kidding.
What you're suggesting is careless and stupid.
Huh?? That is how ANYONE in that situation would have reacted! And if, as you say, these people loved Jay so much -- so much that they would destroy their own lives (which, by the way, wouldn't do her much good) -- then they would have unleashed hell on Hugh/Jeff as well.
They're simply not selfish. Definition of friendship and human decency in general includes such acts like putting your own life at risk to help another.
You can't know what every person on Earth thinks so you're in no position to say how anyone can act since we're all individuals with different ideas, ways of thinking etc. We're not some hive mind.
Last but not least, unleashing Hell on Jeff is an incredibly stupid decision.
They went there to get whatever info he has. Attacking him in his own home, in front of his mother no less, is stupid. They'd get kicked out of the house and what would they do then?
Acting calmly and making Jeff cooperate was a smart decision. Doing what you do would make them typical stupid horror movie characters.
Oh, come on! A true friend is not just some "yes man" (or woman) who stands idly by while someone they care about may be destroying herself.
Not trying to find Jeff would do more harm than good because Jay might start to freak out (and she was already freaking out a lot). They're not "yes men" for doing that, they expressed their doubts but if they didn't do it she'd destroy herself even more.
First, it didn't grab her by the hair, it played with her hair.
It grabbed her hair because the hair was lifted in the air.
It could have truly grabbed her by the hair and then broken her neck. Playing with the hair was just another artificial contrivance, nothing more.
And it was shown in the movie that it doesn't kill you like that, it rapes you (or does something that looks like rape to us). It also wants to play with your head first, it wants to hurt you.
1) It's supposed to be following Jay, yet the naked man is just standing on the roof, doing nothing.
Not an inconsistency. If the rule was "it will follow you without stopping in its tracks" then you'd have a point. There's nothing saying that it can stop if it wants to. It was shown in the movie multiple times that sometimes stops and observes its surroundings anyway, like when it grabs a rock to smash a window (that's something it did 2 times actually) and when it sees what they planned to do in the pool.
It's slow but not stupid, it can think and even intimidate its victims, play around with them, freak them out.
Plus, in that scene there was a chair on the door. Sure, it can break the door but that will give Jay and co time to escape, that's something it knows because she escaped it that time once already.
That's why it decided to climb the roof and go inside her room via window. It would catch them all off guard like that and have time to grab Jay while they're moving the chair and unlocking the door.
2) It can get shot in the head, which can kill it, except when it doesn't, except when it does.
It wasn't shown that a shot in the head kills it, the most it has shown is that it temporary stops it. Where was it shown that it kills it?
Even at the end they put a chair on the door and had sex. They weren't sure if it was dead. And it's shown at the very end that it's maybe indeed still following them.
How does it make them awful human beings?? Destroying their own lives won't do her any good. They won't be able to truly be there for her, and passing the "STD" onto someone else doesn't mean it entirely leaves the first person.
Luckily, they're not selfish bastards. They know what the risk is but still want to do it. That's what makes them decent human beings.
Oh and they will truly be there with her. Paul now shares Jay's burden. The ending implies that they'll face that thing together. One of them is safe and they can have sex so sometimes it can follow Paul, sometimes Jay. The creature is basically stuck in a loop and the curse can't be spread any further.
It's an attempt at profundity where none exists. It seems pretty clear that Mr. Mitchell wants to be the next David Lynch, but even Lynch would not be so pretentious as to include literary references.
Furthermore, Lynch, even at his weirdest, understands that dream logic has to follow certain rules.
What do you mean there's no profoundity?
Also, what are you talking about? A lot of works use literary references and other things like that. This isn't the first and last movie to do it.
For example, anime Neon Genesis Evangelion (highly influential and respected work btw.) uses many phyosophical terms and references. One episode is even called "hedgehog's dilemma".
What about all those movies that have some quotes at the beginning of the movie or which have characters recite sayings exactly. Are they bad and pretentious for using it?
Do you know what the meaning of that word is? What It Follows does isn't pretentious.
That's something what Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence likes to do a lot, here are some examples:
Togusa: His legions, angel forms, who lay entranced. Thick as autumnal leaves that strow the brooks.
Bateau: Now you're quoting Milton, but we are not Satan.
Bateau: "The less one forgets, the less one can remember."
To say that it's wrong to use it, pretentious, is absurd and I have to question your knowledge and common sense, especially since you've shown that you got facts wrong about this movie.
And, the movie did follow rules.
reply
share
felstein
8 years ago
>> I have to question your knowledge and common sense
Argumentum ad hominem... the last resort of the one who is losing the argument. That says a lot about the type of person you are.
Bye-bye.
reply
share
svalinanikola
8 years ago
I just don't have mercy who accuses the director of being pretentious for no good reason and who even gets facts about the movie wrong, all while trying to make himself sound like being in the right.
reply
share
eipmatt
8 years ago
You're an idiot; That's an ad hominem attack. The other poster put in a lot of time addressing each of your points, but it didn't really seem like you gave a crap about the discussion enough to consider a different perspective. You made up your mind before hand and then posted your opinion online looking for validation. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but it seems like the other poster thought about his/her opinion much more than you did. Why bother conversing with a broken record? It's better to just move on.
reply
share
felstein
8 years ago
** snore **
reply
share
Jeorj Euler
7 years ago
I agree that the questioning of felstein's "knowledge" and "common sense" was uncalled-for. However, hereby it's the consensus of four of five users that he/she couldn't think of an adequate rebuttal in the end and quite frankly didn't put forth all that accurate, logical or persuasive of an assertion to begin with in creating this thread. Anyway, we ought to be nice to each other. The thread was never meant to be about its participants, and five participants turned it into that. That makes us all losers (of argumentation), in sense, because we have likely failed to persuade anybody whom we thought needed persuading. The objective isn't to look like a smart arse or a clever conversationalist. The objective is to help people who don't understand a given thing. If the objective is not met, then it seeker has lost even if the presence or omission of just one sentiment would've meant winning.
reply
share
the_butch
7 years ago
no, the tc didn't make his/her mind up beforehand. instead, he/she tried to sound all smart and sh!t, typing that bullsh!t original post up without a second thought, and as soon as he/she got SOLIDLY put in place, he/she couldn't come up with anything else but a *snore*.
next time, think before you speak...... dumba$$
reply
share