It's interesting to see what passes for "scary" in this movie. I had expected "it" to be some kind of ghoul or something. Instead, all the "its" were just normal-looking people who are really tall, naked or pissing themselves. I literally laughed when the tall "it" came in through the door. So, tall people are scary?
A slow methodical force, much more scary than some bs cg monster. Let me guess, you find Saw to be "horror" moreso than this?
shareLet me guess--you've never seen any horror movies before your time, such as Rosemary's Baby, The Shining, The Exorcist, Carrie, Night of the Living Dead, etc. Right? I'm saying that because I'm having a hard time believing that anyone who's watched classic horror movies of that caliber would think there is any horror in this movie.
shareBizzare because the slow pace of this movie is closer to the classics than modern crap. I have seen all of the movies out have mentioned.
shareYou listed films that are similar to It Follows, yet you criticize the film for being like them. Odd.
shareIt's certainly not scary in the traditional sense, but the fact it doesn't look like a monster is what is scary. The concept is what's scary. The sense that it's never truly gone. It may be passed on, but it'll always loom in the background and could always come back to you unexpectedly.
Visually no, it's not scary, but that's the point. It's the threat.
Exactly. I've never found that visual horror is really scary; how could it have been made to look scary? It's not about its appearance. What's scary about it is that it's an unstoppable force that forces you to look over your shoulder for it every second of every day.
shareAgreed. Traditional monsters, it's all about not knowing the rules. Once you know the rules, horror vanishes. Perhaps you will be able to shoot the werewolf with a silver bullet before it kills you, perhaps you won't, but horror lasts only as long as you don't know how to fight it.
Here, on the contrary, you can know the rules and it won't matter. They can buy you some time, but you still will looking back everyday because eventually it will be back, and eventually it will kill you. That's much more scary.
I know! I was looking forward to this movie when it came out, because it was marketed as having a monster that could look like a regular person. But, as you pointed out, every shape the monster assumes is really fucked up looking or out of place. It makes it immediately obvious who the monster is in any scene, instantly destroying all tension that could arise from that premise. I get that the aspect of its relentless pursuit could spook some people out, but... this movie wasn’t that. Sometimes it’s relentless, other times it apparently has time to dick around on the roof for no reason 🤷🏼♀️
shareI'm sure there are dumber posts on this forum, but I can't think of them right now.
shareCare to justify your comment with any of your own observations? Or can you not refute anything I’m saying, but you feel threatened when people don’t agree with you?
shareFirst of all. At no point was the movie advertised as you claim. The movie was described as having a monster that is heading towards its victim at all times and that it appears normal enough to blend into the crowd until it gets close to its victim.
You didn't even try to provide an example. Just a blanket claim that you could tell the monster "immediately" and "obviously" each time. That's usually good indicator that someone is full of it.
The movie clearly states how it intends to create tension by having the monster adopt familiar, unremarkable forms that only reveal their other-ness when they've gotten close to their intended victim. Where does it say that the only way for tension to rise is for the monster to be undetectable as a monster by anyone at any time?
It does not make it immediately obvious who the monster is in every scene except the ones where we know that the monster is stalking BEFORE we even see it, e.g. when Jay's date introduces her to It the first time, and when It breaks into the house the first time.
About midway through the movie though, the movie shifts from concealing the monster in a seemingly ordinary human, to making a point with WHO it appears to be, Jay's friend (the one Greg was ogling), the first victim we saw, Jay's father.
What's especially dumb is determining what it will take to scare you and how it will work at scaring you BEFORE seeing a film. Dumb as shit. No offence meant.
I get that you didn't find it scary and didn't like it. That's too bad but I'm not threatened by that or any other opinions. I was just calling the argument that you're using to uphold your opinion dumb.
At no point was the movie advertised as you claim. The movie was described as having a monster that is heading towards its victim at all times and that it appears normal enough to blend into the crowd until it gets close to its victim.
You didn't even try to provide an example. Just a blanket claim that you could tell the monster "immediately" and "obviously" each time. That's usually good indicator that someone is full of it.
The movie clearly states how it intends to create tension by having the monster adopt familiar, unremarkable forms that only reveal their other-ness when they've gotten close to their intended victim.
Familiar as a human, and not a monster.
Are you telling me that if you see a Grandma in an unusual venue then it's a "clearly" a monster and therefore not scary?
Where does it say that the only way for tension to rise is for the monster to be undetectable as a monster by anyone at any time?
It does not make it immediately obvious who the monster is in every scene except the ones where we know that the monster is stalking BEFORE we even see it, e.g. when Jay's date introduces her to It the first time, and when It breaks into the house the first time.
About midway through the movie though, the movie shifts from concealing the monster in a seemingly ordinary human, to making a point with WHO it appears to be, Jay's friend (the one Greg was ogling), the first victim we saw, Jay's father.
What's especially dumb is determining what it will take to scare you and how it will work at scaring you BEFORE seeing a film. Dumb as shit. No offence meant.
Jesus. You're point was that the movie made it obvious to the audience which "person" was the monster and that this violated the promise of its marketing.
You're whole post was about how it didn't do x and y so it wasn't scary.
Good day, sir.
No, I said it was looking forward to the movie because that was mentioned as a feature and it wasn’t, I then expressed disappointment within that very limited context.
I also said that there was no tension because of the ramifications of making the monster’s presence so blatant. Not because I assumed what the ramifications of this decision would be before even seeing the film, as you so claimed.
Perhaps, before replying to someone’s post, you should make sure that you actually understand it’s contents.
Here's what you posted.
"...because it was marketed as having a monster that could look like a regular person. "
It does have a monster that could look like a regular person.
I accept that you didn't like it and weren't scared. But your arguments are spurious to say the least.
If that was the case, then surely you would have been able to debate what I actually wrote rather than fictionalising the contents of my post. As it stands, you weren’t able to.
shareThis movie is the nightmare where something sinister is stalking you and when it finally grabs you you wake up terrified
share