It Follows movie review: sexually transmitted dread

Not a credible review and should be ignored.

Why isn’t it credible? Is it factually wrong, or do you just happen to disagree with it?

There’s *almost* a cabin in the woods here. Because of course there is.

Lol. Bye bye 100% fresh rating. I haven’t seen the film, because It’s not opening anywhere near me, cause I’m deprive. But, it is with limited expectation that I will walk in and expect something half-intriguing, half been-there-done-that.

Hoping for the best. I hope this movie is *at least* fun, if it’s not going to be scary.

This may, or may not be related to this comment thread, but I’m curious what the reviewer thinks of *The Duke of Burgundy*, it is an acclaimed film that is situated at the very bottom of the ranking. It would make for a very interesting review.

It’s not acclaimed by me.

I’ll review it soon.

“The only way to stop the THING from killing you is to make and release a found-footage-style horror movie of your own.”

Lol what? The woman isn’t ‘punished for having sex’. In total there are 4 characters affected by it. 2 boys and 2 girls. Of them, 2 people die’ 1 boy and 1 girl. It’s fine to not like the movie but don’t drop the ‘sexism’ card, it diminishes the reality of actual examples of sexism and misogyny,

If only someone had come up with a way of scoring films on their representation of women, so that we could discuss this with data rather than prejudice.

just one more point you disliked this but liked Dracula untold wtf?

The protagonist is female. She is the central character. The story is *about* her.

Clearly, the Feminist Conspiracy are keeping periods to themselves in order to deny them to men.

Hilarious, and are we talking strictly vaginal intercourse here? Are you infected through anal?

ooof course it isn’t.

I can’t even read this.

Punctuation: It’s a Thing!

It’s pretty much all the decades.

So basically “I write shit reviews on movies I don’t actually watch, and play the social justice warrior card for more views”

I thought this movie actually bothered to develop nuanced, interesting characters, and the threat here is the same for both genders, both of which are unusual for this kind of teen scream horror. And while it follows the current trend of playing around with retro horror tropes, my sense was that the film is more about the fear of sex than it is about how sex should be feared – an important distinction, and one that does differentiate it from a lot of the more prudish 70s and 80s films it riffs on. The movie is the masterpiece some people are claiming it is, or even the best of the current crop of meta-retro-horror flicks, but this review feels more reductive than the film did in its reading of gender and sexuality.

Forgive me, but I’m confused. Why is it that only one line in this entire blog post actually refers to the film itself, while the rest is just commentary about its concept? Why did you spend several paragraphs of this blog post making snide jabs at the horror genre’s admittedly-dry fixation on the 1980s and slamming the film for being sexist to women, but only use one line to actually talk about what film critics are supposed to talk about?

Seriously. No joke, no sarcasm, I’m genuinely asking. Why did you spend an entire film review nitpicking the concept without going into detail about why it doesn’t work, or how it falls apart in the context of the film?

So, does the movie have a compelling plot and not rely on “jumpscares?” I get that the premise is stupid but is there anything fresh about this film? I’m not talking 97% fresh, just compared to other current horror movies.

Yes, it’s well crafted. I didn’t find it scary, but I generally don’t find movies labeled “horror” scary. It’s not a stupid movie. But it’s still not saying anything new or interesting. I didn’t particularly enjoy spending time with these characters. I didn’t find them particularly nuanced: they are all about getting away from their boogeyman.

I was not engaged. Sorry.

What are film critics “supposed” to say?

It’s skillfully made, but I did not find it particularly scary.

You don’t have to apologize for not being engaged. That’s relative. I’m interested in horror, (I don’t know if I’d go so far as to categorize myself as a ‘fan’) but, I found this review to be lazy and uncritical.

The characters weren’t strictly about “getting away from the boogeyman”; and even if they were, teens are typically all about avoiding unpleasantness. I don’t know if it’s saying anything new, necessarily, but it isn’t cliched. “Not finding ‘horror’ scary”, to me, either means that you only watch sub-par examples of the genre, or you fancy yourself too superior to assess them like any other film. Either way, why bother reviewing a film like this?

I’m sorry, Mary, but I agree with Geneva X that your argument is more than a little reductive. Indeed, I’m concerned that you’re playing “I spy misogyny.” (I know this is your clearly stated objective.)

Your thesis — that It Follows problematises female sexuality, and that the filmmakers seek to gloss over this difficulty by being “retro” or referential — can be complicated in a number of ways.

To start with, the gender dynamics and sexual politics depicted are more nuanced and complex than your analysis suggests. As others point out, the curse is gender inclusive, though we can go further than noting that “boys can catch it, too.”

Without including spoilers, the film posits questions about sex as social transaction in ways that upset straightforward gender hierarchies. There are ambiguities throughout with regard to who is being exploited, to what end, and where the balance of power lies.

In addition, there are two ellipses that force us to speculate on whether the curse was passed on, the nature of the exchange, missing narrative elements and the psychological and physical implications for all involved, building on the ambiguities outlined above. Moreover, It Follows touches on issues of political economy, class and female exploitation in ways that function as wider social critique. This film is about far more than gender, despite the fact that gender concerns are inevitably bound up with wider social and political considerations.

Secondly, it’s problematic to view Maika Monroe’s character as a cipher for women. At a fundamental level, the film is about young adulthood (a specific period in all of our lives) and traumatic sexual awakening. In this regard, its themes transcend gender distinctions and speak to universal experiences. Such a psychoanalytic reading is coded in the title — what follows (subtextually) is not a true demon or curse, but the legacy of our transition to adulthood. Certainly there’s more going on here in terms of irrepressible sexuality and recognition of one’s mortality, but my central point about young adulthood and shared or common experience stands.

On the question of “what follows,” we might also consider genre tropes. The slasher conventions you refer to are typically depictions of male on female violence, often through point of view shots that may replicate the male gaze (this is an outmoded position, but I’ll let it stand for simplicity’s sake). However, the “it” of the title is a) never represented through point of view, moving insidiously in and out of frame; and b) genderless, or at least switches gender regularly.

Finally, the film is certainly postmodern/meta/referential, but more subtly so that most recent horror efforts.

There’s more going on here than unimaginative nods to other movies. The filmmakers purposefully confuse iconography from multiple decades (not just the 1980s and present day) to lend It Follows a mythic, timeless quality. This point alone rather undercuts your claim that the filmmakers use referentiality to dodge responsibility for misogynistic representation. Further, the film’s mythic quality opens spaces for multiple identifications. For instance, whilst Jay’s experiences are extreme, one can identify with her character on some level irrespective of gender.

As several others have commented, you’ve said little about the craft on display; and while this has little to do with discussion of gender, the film, in my view, is virtually flawless in terms of composition.

Indeed, I’m concerned that you’re playing “I spy misogyny.”

You know when people usually stop playing “I Spy”? When they start having to actually look hard to find things.

I’m not generally looking for filmmaking ingenuity. I want a story and characters I care about. That’s it.

I suspect my voice is welcome to people who share my taste in scary movies.

Although your standards may seem low, unfortunately we rarely have genuine human beings and original stories in films nowadays. We need more of these.

She isn’t reviewing the film so much as identifying misogyny that isn’t even present. 4 people die from the sex monster, 2 female, 2 male.

The monster punishes people for NOT fornicating each other. Also, the monster is the antagonist of the story, we’re meant to side with the horny teenagers (I’m pointing this out for the sake of the stupid, which there are many in this board).

To sum up, MaryAnn is a sexist oaf who expects special treatment for her gender. This review is a complete joke and is part of the reason why real feminists are given a bad name

But that would mean working to counter your acknowledged bias; an impossible objective for anybody, yet still one worth striving for, intellectually and critically.

If you look for evidence to bolster an existing position, you’ll inevitably find it.

With regard to craft, film is of course a language; a series of techniques and formal conventions that communicate the narrative and character elements you focus on.

If alternative techniques had been applied the film would become a different text, with different meanings, at every level.

In short, craft, narrative and character are inseparable and cannot be considered in isolation.

better critics than you

You have every right to say this, of course, and MaryAnn has had much worse things said about her. Still, your comment makes me think of how much people think they can get away with saying, when they forget that there’s a real person on the other side of the screen. Would you go up to an artist exhibiting her work and tell her to her face, “I’ve seen better artists than you”?

And by “better critics,” do you actually mean “critics I agree with”?

I congratulate you, though, for a perfectly constructed passive-aggressive comment.

“If your objective is to seek out misogyny wherever you look, then guess what, you’ll see misogny wherever you look.”

Something something superficial and prescriptive.

Mulvey? Really? Am I supposed to be impressed?

“that boys are socialised to feel ashamed of their sexuality.”

Except that they’re not. Not the way girls are.

Also, if David Mitchell had wanted to subvert or invert the standard Sex is Evil tropes here, he could have, easily.

“But such an observation doesn’t fit MAJ’s analysis, so it’s best not to mention it. What we get instead is a soundbyte review, in whch the writer must neglect other aspects of representation to service a prior objective.”

With all due respect to bluejay’s response to GenevaX, this right here is the most perfect passive-aggressive comment on the thread.

wanted their freshness to be maintained

In what universe is that a reasonable thing to want?

One could riff on this scene and observe that boys are socialised to feel ashamed of their sexuality.

Only if you consider spying on a woman an appropriate expression of male sexuality.

The safest escape from the monster is literally by f***ing other people

Yeah, even if you don’t want to! Even if sex becomes a rote, joyless chore.

This is how I write. This is how I do film criticism. If it’s not to your taste, there are literally hundreds of other critics you can turn to.

I agree with Ebert, and I have quoted that very quote before at this site. And this review is very much in keeping with it. I am not “blasting” the film’s “concept” because I “don’t like it.” I am saying that the film is not interesting in how it goes about being about it!

No, you’re not supposed to be impressed by reference to “Visual Pleasure,” since this is the most commonly cited source in film studies.

And that’s my point. It’s easy to cry misogyny when working with obsolete theory (or no theory at all); and easier still when demonstrating zero interest in details that might complicate your preconceptions.

I get that I’m a guest on here and I appreciate your efforts to mark your territory; but you know nothing of me, what I do, or my knowledge of film (and indeed feminist) theory.

I could be a fraud invoking the one film studies article I’ve read; or I might be an academic who has spent decades assimilating literature on film.

You’ve nevertheless presumed a level of naivete and incompetence on my part.

We could have a lengthy discussion on website politics, hierarchies and taste cultures, though I’m not sure you’d enjoy it much. If you’re unfamiliar you could start with Kate Egan’s article on “Nasty” fans. You’d need to work through Bourdieu and Thornton first, and literature on cult sensibilities and distinctions. (Mathijs and Mendik’s reader is extremely helpful and includes the Introduction to Distinction.) The point is that I’m not impressed by virtual fist shaking and crude derision.

Rather than seeking to mock you, I’ll assume that you’ve read Grant’s edited collection The Dread of Difference, which contains several essays that get to the heart of my concerns about discourses on gender and horror.

Clover’s work on this subject is pertinent, though as I’m sure you’re aware, this literature is far from new.

One final note, in my experience, people who have earned the title Dr. tend not to introduce themselves this way.

I endeavour to acknowledge my own biases.

I’m not even seeking to disprove your argument in absolute terms, though I think there are aspects of composition and subtext that muddle your position, which is both unequivocal and extremely forthright.

Of course It’s easier to accuse me of condescension than to engage directly with my observations on the film.

But everybody looks, Mary. That’s what we do as sexual beings, for good or ill.

Stating that it’s inappropriate for boys to express sexual curiosity cuts to the heart of the issue — it problematises male sexuality in precisely the way I observed above.

And don’t worry, I’ve little inclination to continue this discussion, since neither yourself or the fake Doctor has attempted to engage with my posts in anything that constitutes adequate detail. Rather, I’ve been subjected to territorial p*ssings marking out your corner of the internet.

I’ll encroach no more. Yout territory is defended. Shutting conversation down through insult or faux outrage is more effective than debating someone who holds a contrary view. Who’d have thunk it!

I would say I think you miss the point but I will say I dont see it from your point of view. This film has nothing to do with sexual politics, it just happens that the main character is female. You could argue that she was significantly less punished for having sex than her kindly neighbour across the street! I watched this with my feminist partner and neither of us saw your perception of this film. It’s very rare to see a horror film with any originality, you should try and enjoy it for that and not bring sexual politics into it. If you really want to do that, how do you explain the pathetic loser male who would risk his life for this girl? I just saw young people in a horror film. Not everyone is out to get ‘you’!

It Swallows

I’m not sure why I’m tempted back, since arguing against a community predisposed to gang up on perceived interlopers is largely futile, though I will say the following:

I referenced academic sources for two reasons:

1. The sources cited dicuss, among other things, website hierarchies, subcultural practices, and a need to assert one’s status. “Dr.” Rocketscience’s responses to my posts merely quoted me, before calling me stupid for making such claims. It would have been nice if he (I assume it’s a he) engaged with my points on It Follows, but sadly that wasn’t the case. Dr. Rocketscience clearly demonstrated behaviour explicated in the literature referenced, which is precisely why I listed these sources.

2. I referenced texts that complicate assumptions about gender and horror, since I was seeking to move past conceptions of misogyny. My views do not come out of the blue, but are considered and informed by feminist scholarship. What concerns me most are suggestions that I’m arguing against a feminist position, which was never the case. (I’ll note that nobody has stated this explictly, though some comments imply a lack of understanding on my part, since I couldn’t possibly comprehend the positions articulated.)

I’m not sure “spite” and “superiority” are accurate descriptors, though I’ll concede that I could have phrased the post you quote more diplomatically.

Finally, I’m entirely comfortable with you thinking of me as insecure. Perhaps it helps to think of me as spineless when you’re seeking to dicredit all I have to say. I mean it probably works better than engaging with my points on the film in question.

I do care about more than character and plot. But craft cannot make up for the lack of character and plot that appeal to me.

I haven’t; are you saying academic commentary isn’t welcome here? If so, why?

I’m not sure why I’m tempted back, since arguing against a community predisposed to gang up on perceived interlopers is largely futile

Oh, lordy. All your work, shot to hell in a twenty-two word tantrum.
Tell you what? I’ll go unroll my eyes, while you go grow up.
Should take about the same amount of time.

Okay thanks for replying, if it makes it’s way onto Netflix I may watch it. It sounds like some effort went into it at least, I’ve been pretty disappointed with the horror genera lately.

You can talk like an academic, but you’re not going to get much traction here. When you say things like “early Mulveyan invocations of Freud,” you’re excluding everyone who hasn’t read Mulvey. Which will be most people here, I suspect, because this isn’t a film studies site. And *I* don’t care what Mulvey says or thinks! I care about *my own* reaction to a film. I am not interested in having dry discussions about what other people think. I want to share how a movie makes me feel and hear how it makes others feel.

So. How does *It Follows* make you *feel*? What was your visceral response to it?

Again, thanks for your rigorous examination of my commentary.

This time you’ve really addressed my observations on the film. That’s quite a relief, since your earlier posts simply quoted mine and accused me of being a stupid child.

My posts have been considerably more respectful than community responses, though apparently I’m the juvenile in this conversation.

As a general point, growing up is a considerably longer process than eye-rolling. It’s a strange comparison, but let’s not concern ourselves with logical consistency.

Wait a minute, what’s that you say? You’d appreciate some logical consistency in my posts, or some other observation on my psychological or intellectual deficiencies.

I’ll certainly reflect on community members’ scalpel-like dissection of my arguments and character. I’ve learned a great deal, about both feminism and myself. Thanks for the education.

I really haven’t talked like an academic on here and it’s a shame you find my observations dry.

Mulvey’s “Visual Pleasure” is well known outside of academic contexts; and people don’t need to have read Mulvey (or other literature on film and gender) to engage with my points on It Follows.

This will inevitably sound snarky, or be perceived as such by other members, but I’d argue that a feminist film critic should take an active interest in what feminist film scholars have to say. Academia remains a bastion of feminist activity. Solidarity and all that.

As for my visceral response to It Follows, I found it a supremely effective and well crafted suspense piece.

I engaged with points of feminist criticism because that’s the focus of your review (and website more generally). I find it strange that such discussion is so fiercely resisted on a forum such as this.

Mulvey’s “Visual Pleasure” is well known outside of academic contexts

I’ve never heard of it. My friends and family and I are mostly college-educated and mostly inclined towards the liberal arts, and that text has never come up in conversation. Perhaps it’s not as familiar outside of academic film-studies contexts as you assume.

Yup. And that is why the filmmakers succeded in making a truly terrifying concept.

Is it possible to ask for a moratorium on the personal insults, from both sides? There may initially have been some value in suggesting that one person was being condescending, or that someone else was being evasive (I “upvoted” a few of those comments), but this discussion no longer has much to do with the movie, feminism, or MaryAnn’s review. I’m not sure it’s productive to keep arguing about how to argue, and I’m afraid the conversation is going to degenerate into “Well, he started it!”

Who is “Mary”? This is MaryAnn’s site.

What about the men who also get punished for choosing to have sex?

What about them? They are not whom this movie is about.

Using your logic, James Cameron is punishing all his characters who board the titanic for making the choice to buy tickets. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

This tells me you don’t understand logic.

very old fashioned notions of women being “either a virgin or a whore”

This tells me you have no idea how women are treated in the real world and also, in general, on film.

ordering a pizza and giving the restaurant a negative review.

And this tells me you don’t understand how criticism works.

You’re on a roll!

And yet I’m the one who can’t see what’s in front of my face…

This review comes off more as what you think of the slasher movie genre in general and less about an individual film. I hate the way most writers and directors picture college kids as dumb drunks that don’t have the common sense to run away from a situation instead of sticking around. That opinion doesn’t stop me from enjoying the plot and a well shot movie. As for the sex equals death aspect to me the sex part of the film is more of a means to pass this curse on. To you this idea sounds dated to me it’s no more dated then being bitten, using witchcraft, or voodoo which all have been used in films for decades. If the point of a review is to give me insight on whether or not I would enjoy the movie or if it’s worth the money. I would have to say this review fails at doing that.

Italics fail. My bad.

Luke: “What’s in there?”
Yoda: “Only what you take with you.”

You can’t honestly believe that I’m the source of all antagonism on this website and thread.

That’s hardly a balanced assessment, but so be it. I tried to engage with you in a civil manner on more than one occasion today, though you seem far from willing to respond similarly.

Maybe we could have found some common ground, but that’s tough if you jump to insult in every single response and look for patronising subtext in my every comment.

I’ll let you have the final word or this could go on forever. And nobody wants that, myself included. It’d be nice if you could say something vaguely conciliatory, so not to end on such a sour note.

As I stated above, it takes two to argue. I’ll admit that I played my part and used language that at times slipped into veiled insult. I apologise.

At the same time, member responses were often disproportionately nasty and abusive and my first post was nothing like as antagonistic as you claim.

It’s not the case with the concerned company, but some people do not actually watch the movie before pronouncing judgement.

Other people may remember ‘different’ films and lose track of certain details (or possibly cognitive dissonance).

It’d be nice if you could say something vaguely conciliatory, so not to end on such a sour note.

You know what? Okay. I’ve scrapped a couple of snarky responses to your comment, and I’ll just say this: The Internet is a tough place, full of strong opinions and misunderstandings, and without all the contextual cues of a face-to-face conversation it’s all too easy to believe the worst of someone. I berated someone on a different thread for forgetting that there’s a real person on the other side of the screen; perhaps I should remind myself of that here. You may not be as unpleasant as you seem online; and by the same token, perhaps those you’ve engaged with here are not as unpleasant as we may have seemed to you.

Be good and do good, out there in your real life. Peace.

why wouldn’t it be scary?

subtle

Half the main characters in this film are male and you’re saying this film “isn’t about them”.

This is true in that same way the vast majority of films are not *about* the one or two token women present in the cast. I’m sure you know there is a difference between the protagonist and supporting characters.

Regardless of how many X chromosomes you have, this film invites you to side with the main character

See, you *do* know. And the way the world feels about women who have sex outside of narrow permitted parameters is wildly different from how the world feels about men who do the same. Therefore, a female protagonist in this context is wildly different than a male one.

You’re just a stubborn old fool

Oh, I’m *so* wounded.

Why are you enforcing these stereotypes of how other people view women on the filmmakers? At no point do they address her as (you would call it) a ‘whore’. She’s a 19 year old, doing what most 19 year olds do.

If anything, ‘It Follows’ criticises male sexuality, in the sequence where her friend (the guy with the long hair) opts to have sex with her, not because he believes the story, but because he wants to get some.

As a result, the monster kills him.

To use an example of how ludicrous your interpretation is, it’s almost like me saying that James Cameron hates mothers, because The Terminator is trying to kill a woman who makes a son that will one day save the world.

Stop making the directors look evil by enforcing your hilarious misinterpretations on them. There is far more sexist media out there. It Follows is not of that creed.

I wasn’t asking you to predict if I would enjoy the movie. All I’m asking for is some perspective about it so I could make a choice whether or not to see it. Instead what I got was you focusing on one detail about the entire film you didn’t like. You are a movie “critic” right? I mean after reading your review I don’t really grasp anything about the movie other then you feel like the main character is being objectified. Not to mention, for someone who criticizes other people’s work for a living you seem a little thin skinned. I’ve read many of your responses to other posts and you come of as snarky and entitled. I know there are some pretty dumb posts on here calling you out but aren’t you the professional that’s suppose to take the higher road. A review is a person’s own opinion and I don’t fault you for yours. I just wished you had conveyed it a little better that’s all.

Have sex some day and maybe you’ll get the point? Come on MaryAnn, dying a virgin is so 70s slasher. One other thing, for a woman who appears to have a pathological need to prove she’s the smartest person in the room (on the board?), I’d have expected you to know it’s “not who”, not, “not whom”: (referring to one of your oh-so-snarky responses above). It’s only “whom” after a preposition i.e. To whom is unfounded allegations of sexism a knee-jerk allegation, covering her stunted ability to criticise adequately?

I hear that John Wilkes Booth gave a great performance in Our American Cousin, but all the critics focused on that one moment at the end when he broke character.

I will confirm your deepest secret fear: When you say things like this, the grownups in the room know that your are actually projecting your own anxieties onto others.

I assume you prefer feminists who are demure and quiet and keep their opinions to themselves, or at least restrict themselves to opinions you find acceptable.

Jack, you are the moron you’re looking for.

I see none of you are attempting to refute my points and instead have opted for name calling.

She can be as loud and obnoxious with her views as she wishes, just don’t be suprised when people bite back.

And believe it or not, I’m don’t dislike feminism (uck, did I really need to type that sentence?), I just think that MaryAnn, as an individual, is full of shit.

But I’m a white man, so what do I know, huh?

And in two weeks, the film will open in the U.S., and we can have this discussion all over again.

It’s most definitely NOT fun. This is very dark, weird horror, not fun horror. It has some horrible scenes, but not much gore at all, and I can’t remember the last time a film frightened me this much. It’s essentially a very clever, tense, eerie piece of filmmaking that somehow manages to sustain a high level of tension and a constant sense of impending doom. It does use classic horror tropes, but not in a way I’ve ever seen before, and I’ve never seen it done this well either.

And the discussion has become pretty heated! Personally I didn’t see anything that felt sexist in the film, although perhaps I was just distracted by the sheer terror I felt for most of its duration. Thinking about it after, I think my own view is probably similar to Kim Newman’s, who writing for Sight&Sound says: “This is not a story about a woman punished for having sex, but an indictment of the calculating guy who gets out from under the curse by passing it on to an innocent. Jay agonises about the moral implications of following suit in a way he didn’t even consider.” I think that also explains why it is easy to identify with the female lead and we always feel on her side. There is never any sense she is any way deserving of her fate.

That doesn’t account for the hundreds of comments on that Sapphires thread, I think it was the one about the DVD box.

But, otherwise, yes. And a children’s movie. Those get a lot of people excited. Sometimes even me!

So we’ve got race, children’s stories, nudity, violence and films based on books.

I think the Venn Diagram is going to be one big circle. Or our algorithm is going to be
http://youtu.be/ANoTdbZVVuw

I don’t get why anyone would be really angry at this movie. Sure I get someone not liking the sex=death theme (to each their own). It’s not like they remade “I Spit on your grave”….anger at that I would understand.

I disagree. If I was to take any message from this it’s that the female characters respect the danger of STD’s more than males. I find your view at once reductive and contrived.

Only losers use that excuse.

No matter what Carter said, Reagan would respond by shaking his head in a sorrowful but personable manner and saying: “There you go again.” This was brilliant, because (a) it required the candidate to remember only four words, and (b) he delivered them so believably that everything Carter said seemed like a lie. If Carter had stated that the Earth was round, Reagan would have shaken his head, saying, “There you go again,” and millions of voters would have said: “Yeah! What does Carter think we are? Stupid?“

—Dave Barry, Dave Barry Slept Here

That’s right, Airbender’s thread was long.

Well, whatevs. I guess these people think its important.

Gotta run, hun’. See ya round.

Also, the Airbender thread is bog standard nerdrage.

Occasionally?
o_O

Sometimes, I’m asleep.

It is a fair point. She doesn’t seem to have anything critical to say about the movie itself, but rather simply bemoans her dislike for the premise and how it applies to her worldview. She could’ve watched only the trailer and written the exact same piece. Her review definitely has an agenda behind it, so it has no critical credibility.

But is there *ever* truly a sense that the girls who die in horror movies after having sex deserve it? I don’t think so. I don’t think this movie acts like Jay deserves her fate. And yet the filmmaker constructed a story around it anyway.

Isnt someone allowed to review your review without being seen as being obnoxious? Thats obnoxious…

The “fear of sex” thing is about adolescent nervousness around losing virginity/STDs, right? I don’t think any kind of moral panic around female looseness comes into it. As others have pointed out, the characters are constantly encouraged to have more sex in order to pass the thing on.

You might see it as old hat for cinematic subject matter but young people will always be worried about sex. So movies dealing with that will probably crop up now and again.

“Girls weren’t allowed to have sex in the 80s, and if they did, they were sluts. If they wanted it, they deserved to die.”

This really isn’t anywhere in the film.

a shallow cheerleader who only cares about popularity

So is this sort of character being punished for beings shallow, or for having sex?

This misses the entire point of the movie, it’s a commentary on the perception that having sex “marks” you. The Guest was also a phenomenal movie, do you just have something against throwbacks?

Wonderfully well argued point, I wish I could put my response down in words so eloquently!

How do you know it’s genuinely interesting and original, if you haven’t seen it? Why not see it first and THEN form your opinion?

I say fear and apprehension is due to abstinence-only sex ed. Sex is fun. Like any physical activity, it does require a little knowledge to reduce associated risks. Personally, I wear a helmet when playing hockey, for instance. I also wouldn’t get on the ice if I had a sprained ankle. Likewise, I don’t have sex if I’m not healthy in the contact zones and I use protection.

The fear is socially imposed by messed up attitudes.

If you haven’t seen the film yet, how can you speak to what it’s about or how it’s about it?

Darling, the passive aggressive, “the one who smelt it dealt it” argument is weak at the best of times. For a woman with a pathological need to share her inanity with the world under the misguided trope of feminist critique, is truly bathetic. Oooh look MaryAnn big words!!! We can all play the “let’s talk out of our ass” game, you just don’t play it anywhere near as well as you’d like to imagine. Moreover, the most “punishing” and transgressive act of sex revenge in the film happens to the boy who willingly took the curse because he didn’t believe it, where he was fucked to death by a doppelgänger of his mother. In that respect the feminist aggressors were both the heroine passing on the curse and the monster plumbing the depths of the Freudian male wound… blah blah blah blah… maybe I can take over from MaryAnn? I certainly talk shit as (un)convincingly as she does and at least I am aware I’m talking out of my ass!

Oh, dear, I’m so very sorry for upsetting you, sir. Shall I get into the kitchen and make you a sandwich? How else can I make you more comfortable? You shouldn’t have to listen to angry lesbians complaining about movies! How dreadful for you.

Hey, you got, B3!

Also B2, along with the invisible square in the sixth row that says, “You are an old, bitter lesbian.”

I know a few old, bitter lesbians. Their critical judgment is terrific.

Sorry, my “gender views” aren’t going anywhere.

1) This is MA’s site. You are welcome to start your own site and deposit your nuggets of manly wisdom there.

2) She typically deletes comments that have nothing of value to add to the discussion. For example, your comment and mine have nothing of significance to add and could be safely removed without disrupting the flow of ideas.

3) The regular visitors to this site come not only to read the reviews, but also because the inane, infantile blabber that inundates most other sites is not tolerated here.

4) If you aren’t a feminist, you probably aren’t going to agree with much of the content here, but as long as you engage with the ideas in the review, support your position with examples from the movie in question, don’t resort to lazy ad hominem attacks, and don’t repeat the same points ad nauseum, your comments will most likely live on. If you play your cards right, you might even get to participate in a rational discussion. I hear they can be quite a thrill.

5) I know it’s illogical, but seeing that you are a fan of Conan makes me slightly sad. I can only hope that were he to read what you wrote, he would not be a fan of you.

Thank you.

You’re so right. My delicate ego and tiny penis are the reasons that I am here. not the fact that this is the internet, and I can voice my opinion just like anyone else. My original point was that it’s pretty hypocritical to have a review site, and then threaten to delete reviews of your own review, if said review doesn’t agree with your point of view. You’ve got an opinion, good for you, I’m not shutting it down. Funny though, how you only want equality if it’s in your favor.

But hey, power to the women! You are mighty and head strong, and I applaud you for your strength. Go forth and conquer the internet.

Your original point was ad hominem. That’s not a ‘review of a review’. Disagreement with argument and point-making is fine.

Otoh, you come in belligerent, then no one’s surprised when some others respond in kind.

Pal, the commons of the internet refers to the infrastructure, not the individual sites.

Waiting. :-)

Gandhicon 3, pretending it’s still in gandhicon 2. How cute.

I like this.

l have no idea what you are talking about

Not you.

Somewhat disappointed that this has been decided as a critically relevant review. You entirely missed the point of the film, and have instead decided to fall into the weird (and somewhat new) pitfall of labelling EVERYTHING as sexism even if it really doesn’t hold up under scrutiny – as has been seen multiple times in the other comments below.
The fact that the distribution of this monster is even between two males and two females is irrelevant just because the main character is female? How does that even begin to make sense?
You’re reading a lot into the film that simply isn’t there, and instead projecting your own views onto it and thereby providing a pretty awful review.

well…even white supremacists hate OJ…

Arrogant cunt.

This review is the truth. Its totally not written by an extreme feminist at all. Even though two males get brutally murdered this whole plot is totally just another way that the inferior penis barer race is trying to oppress the all mighty vagina. The entity totally give males a get out of jail free card.
If you male you have nothing to worry about or fear from this movie. As the entity clear only ̶s̶l̶a̶u̶g̶h̶t̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶r̶e̶g̶a̶r̶d̶l̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶s̶e̶x̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶s̶l̶e̶e̶p̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶u̶r̶s̶e̶ ̶b̶a̶r̶e̶r̶ wants to kill those whore females. If your a male and you have sex with curse spreading whore you will be totally r̶a̶p̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶d̶e̶a̶t̶h̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶m̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶m̶o̶m̶ fine it won’t even bother with you inferior male genitals. If you disagree with this review you are clearly o̶p̶e̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶m̶i̶n̶d̶e̶d̶ a evil male troll and should get deleted. This is Mary’s webpage and if you disagree with her reviews you should just go spree your evil woman hating views some where else.

“Now, it’s true that if there’s one single original thing about It Follows — and there’s pretty much just the one — it’s that a horror flick has never laid it out this explicitly that the yer-gonna-die! curse is sexually transmitted, is actually directly connected to the fact that you touched your naughty bits to someone else’s naughty bits like some kind of freak because, Jesus, who does that?”

The point is it could happen to anyone, I suppose.

This review is the truth. Its totally not written by an extreme feminist at all. Even though two males get brutally murdered this whole plot is totally just another way that the inferior penis barer race is trying to oppress the all mighty vagina. The entity totally give males a get out of jail free card.
If you male you have nothing to worry about or fear from this movie. As the entity clearly only ̶s̶l̶a̶u̶g̶h̶t̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶r̶e̶g̶a̶r̶d̶l̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶s̶e̶x̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶s̶l̶e̶e̶p̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶u̶r̶s̶e̶ ̶b̶a̶r̶e̶r̶ wants to kill those whore females. If your a male and you have sex with curse spreading whore you will be totally r̶a̶p̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶d̶e̶a̶t̶h̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶m̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶m̶o̶m̶ fine it won’t even bother with you inferior male genitals. If you disagree with this review you are clearly o̶p̶e̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶m̶i̶n̶d̶e̶d̶ a evil male troll and should get deleted. This is Mary’s webpage and if you disagree with her reviews you should just go spree your evil woman hating views some where else.

Yes! It’s true: Opinion on art is formed by general consensus. This has always been the case.

Cool story bro. Cheers for climbing out of her arse long enough to tell it.

And you are gone.

so what is it to be: film criticism by mob rule?

You think a critic should worry about a Rotten Tomatoes score? You think *anyone* should be so invested in it that s/he gets actually *upset* when a score is “ruined” by a honest review?

You think I should be kind to those who would abuse me based on what I say about a movie?

I venture to guess that you haven’t been on the shit end of bile from deranged movie fanatics over the course of many years.

Now I’m just going to throw out there that I am coming from Rotten Tomatoes and also that I haven’t seen the movie yet. Now that that’s out of the way here are my two cents. Isn’t the only way to get rid of the curse TO have sex? Genre conventions say that for a girl to have sex is a death sentence, they’re going to die. This has been originates from late 70s through the 80s horror films. Here that isn’t the case, the characters must instead have sex with someone for there to be any hope of survival. Now what is your opinion as a critic who has see. Because I think your assessment might have been a bit superficial. Am I wrong? If so how? If my comment is simply been deleted I’ll be disappointed because I’m just trying to understand why you think what you do.

Well there is that 20 day old warning stating just that. I’ll comment again once I’ve seen it.

That comment was a response to people who said, “But 95% of the critics on Rotten Tomatoes loved it, so your review is WRONG!” or, even worse, “You’ve ruined the film’s perfect score on Rotten Tomatoes!”

No, sex can keep her alive a bit longer, at the cost of adding more people to the inevitable death chain. Which seems like a pretty easy moral choice, frankly.

If you are in the business of publicly critiquing something, expect to have your review critiqued.

There’s a difference between “critique” and “abuse.” If you don’t know what that difference is, you’re probably doing the latter.

Oh, and *another* thing that’s problematic about this movie: Now that she has had sex, she *must* keep having sex. She was not a virgin before she sleeps with the guy who passes on the It that Follows to her, but because she slept with him, she now has no choice but to have sex again. This mirrors an unfortunate belief that lingers in our culture, that once a woman loses her virginity she cannot ever say no to another man again, or that once she has sex with a particular man once she cannot turn *him* down again. We see this in the virgin/whore dichotomy, in the notion (which plenty people still hold) that a prostitute cannot be raped, in the notion only recently made generally illegal (but still held by plenty people) that a woman cannot sexually refuse her husband and that a husband forcing his wife to have sex should not be considered rape, and in lots of other aspects of rape culture.

Is this movie advocating rape? Of course not. But it is not a pleasant depiction of female sexuality, and the ways in which the movie is intentionally unpleasant (ie, the traditional horror aspects) have nothing to do with this.

This is a bad review, and you should feel bad for writing it. It’s cynical and smug and intellectually lazy.

This site seems to be largely dedicated to looking at film through a feminist lens. It examines how women are treated in each film that comes out and how women are treated by popular culture at large. I think that’s great. That’s a very valuable perspective to me.

That being said the site is very frustrating. I am a film fan and loved It Follows very much. I haven’t been this excited about a horror movie since Let the Right One In. As a film fan I have the urge to be protective of films that I loved as much as this one. A lot of people have this. It’s usually labeled “fanboy rage” or something like that. I would have no problem with an article examining the specific way in which the film treats women (the bechdel test does this and makes no claim that it correlates to the quality of the movie). This article uses these things to dismiss the movie entirely. I am a man. I don’t know the struggles of women first hand. I try to recognize that every day. I know Internet comment boards are littered with terrible misogyny. I also really liked this movie. I was taken with the retro vibe and the wide screen visual. I felt nostalgic about the john carpenter like score. I liked the way it used the punishing “sin” trope from horror movies of the 80’s. It sucks to feel like I just don’t understand the trials of a group of marginalized people because I liked It Follows.

you must be fairly new to the site; the examination of the role of women in film, is separate from the actual reviews of the movies. there are many movies that maryann gave a green light to at the least, and yet are on the downside when it comes to representation of women in film. look at her movie ratings, then look at the WATW ratings. they do not correlate across the line.

This site seems to be largely dedicated to looking at film through a feminist lens.

You mustn’t have looked very hard, then.

I am a film fan and loved It Follows very much.

I am a film fan, and I didn’t love it. Does that make us even now? Is it a contest? (Hint: It isn’t a contest.)

It sucks to feel like I just don’t understand the trials of a group of marginalized people because I liked It Follows.

It’s okay to be a fan of something while also recognizing its problems. If that were not possible, that very few women or nonwhite people (for example) could enjoy most geeky things, which exclude them to large degree when they’re not actively denigrating them.

But one way to start understanding the trials of people who aren’t like you is to *listen when they complain about something.* And take them seriously. And don’t presume that they’re only trying to ruin your fun.

The review is certainly cursory (although I’d call it jaded and exasperated rather than cynical and smug); however, if you apply some empathy, the brevity is logical. MA is arguing that the film is built around tropes that made it impossible for her to appreciate the story and main character, essentially ruining the entire movie.

For her, this is a glaring problem — a dead mouse in the soup, a murdered president at the play, a collapsed stage at the concert — you may not agree, but surely you understand that a lengthy, delicate critique would be a bizarre act of masochism on her part.

As you left your comment, you may have been thinking, “I could offer constructive criticism and mention scenes I enjoyed, but why would I? This critic didn’t take time to think and write about the movie. It would be a waste of time to respond in depth to such a poor review. Anyway, that isn’t my job. My job is to like or dislike things briefly and cleverly.”

Well, the feeling that stopped you from engaging with this review in a deep, meaningful way is somewhat analogous to the feeling that stopped MA from writing a lengthy, intellectually subtle review. Additionally there is a disconnect between your idea of what MA’s job is and her idea of what her job is (which you gotta admit is probably more accurate than yours). Until you nail that down, you’ll mostly be talking past each other.

Oops, I’m rambling again. Sorry for getting so Dr. Phil-ish. If you have an interesting analysis/defense/interpretation of the movie, I honestly would like to read it sometime.

I didn’t say your comment was abuse. But your comment, “expect to have your review critiqued,” is in direct response to her comment (which you quote) about “those who would abuse me based on what I say about a movie.” I don’t know how many comments you’ve read in this thread and other threads, but MaryAnn does get a lot of comments that clearly cross the line from civil disagreement to personal, hostile attacks. When she says “abuse,” she MEANS it.

So, just a friendly reminder: There’s a difference between critique and abuse. If you consider the two the same (as you seemed to in your earlier comment), then it’s likelier that you’ll engage in abuse yourself at some point. Don’t be that kind of person.

Oh, it’s warnings now is it?

My first comment was, in my opinion, sufficient. Then the cheeky response from you piqued my attention. Now I’m bored. Should you continue to refuse to engage in conversation with someone who has opposing views and doesn’t understand where your ideas are coming from, your readers will lose interest.

I imagine you or your friend will either come up with some more cheeky, ignorant responses or this will be deleted. Regardless of which it is, this encounter has been eye-opening.

Pretty sure Martin meant the point and laugh superiority complex.

it must be exhausting, trying to be offended by everything and seeing things that aren’t there. we expect movie reviews, not socio-politcal polemics.

it’s funny but also sad how you’re convinced you can read the director’s mind and know their intentions and motivations. pretty cool superpower!

Your profession hinges on two things: writing ability and…thoughts. Too bad you have neither.

Wow, you sound like a real stick in the mud… compared to every horror from the last five years? This movie was great!

Didn’t the movie punish both men and women for having sex? I mean wasn’t the curse spread via unprotected sex in which they (for the lack of a better term) make a creampie? Shouldn’t unprotected sex be discouraged among non-married/nonlong-term couples due to the risk of stis that could kill you? Maybe “It” is supposed to be representative of an sti of some sort and as such people (particularly younger ones) should practice safe sex (ie condoms). I saw Hugh as that one guy that seems so nice and all you want to have is a natural and healthy relationship, but when you later have sex with him he says, oh I have *insert sti of choice.

Sorry you don’t like the criticism (and folks, just FYI, she deleted about half of the valid responses I made…because she’s that mature).

Ah, but you can’t seem to tell the difference. I raise valid points, you censor me. Not sure how that’s namecalling and abuse, unless ‘differing opinion’ means ‘namecalling and abuse’ to you.

Here is a comment on MaryAnn’s review of “The Voices” that disagrees almost completely with everything she says. It has not been deleted, and probably never will. Can you see why?

If you can’t tell the difference between that comment and the ones you’ve been making, then you have some work to do.

So we teach ’em how NOT to have kids or get a disease and be safe. We do NOT teach them to be afraid of something they are going to do anyway.

Jesus.

I am not saying you are not, but the odds significantly go down (so long as the persons involved do not cheat and were clean from the start).

arbitrary.

I feel like you missed a lot of the points that I got from the movie, but to be fair, I don’t really think this movie is meant for everyone. In fact, I’m not sure how glad I am it got a wide release. It’s verging on being a straight up arthouse horror film, and I’m not really sure if the hype and promotion used is the correct representation for a film like this.

Anyway, it’s clear you didn’t really get the subtext of the movie, but again, that’s ok, because I somehow doubt you’re the target audience.

Yep.

and yet…i’ve never been deleted on AVC. go figure.

Man: An argument isn’t just contradiction.

Mr. Vibrating: It can be.

Man: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn’t.

Man: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.

Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

Man: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’

Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!

Man: No it isn’t!

Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

(short pause)

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn’t.

So you’re saying you want teens to get pregnant contract disease and not watch good movies??? That’s the devil’s trifecta.

What, pray tell, is the subtext of the movie that I missed?

Mrs./Ms. Johanson, I’m not going to talk you into liking a movie. For one, I have no desire to. I’m not going to go super fanboy on your and call you names for not digging what I dig, but I do feel like your review verges on obnoxious. For two, as I previously stated, not everyone is going to like this movie. I really don’t think mass consumption of this film was the way to go. It’s just, not a film for the general movie-going public. That’s more for films like Paranormal Activity or Insidious.

That said, if you’re going to write a negative review for the film, I feel like you should at least pan it for the right reasons. Let’s just start off with the beginning of your article. You refer to the movie as ’80s.

The thing is, movie doesn’t take place in the 80s. There are certain aspects of the film that certainly feel very 80s, sure, and that’s certainly not an accident. But there’s also certain aspects of it that feel like further back than that, like the present, and even at times almost like something of a recession bruised future.

The film being set in Detroit I think works to its advantage of having a bit of a timeless feel. And that is what you, seemingly, have failed to notice in your comparing it to just being an 80s throwback.

One of the biggest strengths this movie has is that it didn’t feel like it was paying homage to hundreds of horror films gone by. I yawn when I see that in horror films of today. It was truly its own movie, and the ambiguity of the time setting works well in establishing the dream-like quality so many other critics have regarded in It Follows. To just simply call it 80s retro is lazy and ignores one of the defining aspects of the movie. Admittedly, sure the score does invoke feelings of John Carpenter, but then again so did the score for You’re Next. I take this more as a sign of filmmakers being sick of the generic scores infesting the horror films of the present. Whatever happened to movies where the score was front and center? Quite frankly I think we need more of that. Forget John Carpenter for a moment and think of Jaws or Psycho. The score is what everyone remembers.

But ambiguous time periods aside, the true subext you have evidently missed, as displayed in your rather glib analysis of the sex theme, is the sex theme itself.

I (and I can’t believe I’m having to explain this to someone who clearly considers themselves an academic) don’t think that Mitchell was trying to say girls rubbing their “naughty bits” against other guys’ “naughty bits” is something that one should be punished for. Maybe you don’t really think that, in fact it would be hard for me to believe that you did, but I’m just going on what your article says, I’m not sifting through all these bile filled comments.

I believe the presence of The It makes a statement about the shame that follows girls (and women) around when they are used for sex. She thought Hugh (Jeff) was seriously interested in her. Clearly she came from a broken and/or damaged home and was reveling in the idea that she had found someone to spend her time with. I think the premise of the movie spoke more on the idea of people using one another for sex, through emotional manipulation and the shame that “follows.” I don’t feel like anyone was being punished per se, I think there is a kind of universal feeling of shame that we (most of us anyway) feel when we find out someone has ulterior motives in getting to know us on an intimate level.

I actually found myself seeing the guys as the dopes in the movie, and if the movie had anything to say in regards to gender, it’s how unbelievably shallow and predictable guys can be when it comes to wanting to have sex with a girl. Here we have the girl who is literally cursed to be followed around by some kind of demon monster, and if you have sex with her, you’re going to be followed around by the same demon monster… and the guys are literally lining up to fuck her. I honestly felt myself utter an audible chuckle when Paul said “I want to help.” It’s like, WOW, what an idiot. He doesn’t want to help, he just wants to bang his crush. Guys will do literally ANYTHING to get laid. I can attest to the accuracy of Mitchell’s depiction.

Anyway, obviously, think what you like, and write what you like. You asked a legitimate question, and I feel I’ve provided a legitimate response. Thanks for taking the time to read, if you did in fact read all of this.

But, see that’s the thing. Clearly she initiated the sex because she felt like she was with someone who cared for her,but he didn’t. He manipulated her into liking him, and he didn’t push the sex on her because he didn’t want to scare her away. But beyond the shadow of a doubt, his only angle was to have sex with Jay so that he could pass this curse onto her.

She wanted to have sex with someone she thought cared about her, he wanted to have simply for personal gain, even if that gain was just a little more time. He had NO intention of EVER going any further with her than penetrative sex.

And I don’t know about you, but if I found out that someone I thought cared about me was just trying to get sex out of me… I’d feel used. I might even feel some shame.

Sure. But that’s a lot more oblique, and it’s a lot harder to say that she was “used.” I don’t recall any declarations of love on Jay’s part, either. Sometimes girls just want to get laid, too.

Thank God. I thought I was the only one who even really saw this movie. I can’t tell if “It Follows” is a tone-deaf attempt at commenting on sexual politics from a director who seems to have no business doing so or just an absurd idea played at face value, but either way it’s just plain dumb.

Your first mistake was assuming you’re talking to a critic instead of a whiny, self-righteous, sexist wino.

Wonderful non sequitur. Thank you! It all makes sense now.

I have been seeing the picture of this girl tied to a chair for what seems like a year now! Thank you for at least giving me an idea of what this movie is about. I look forward to seeing it.

A True Scotsman fallacy as told by someone who hates the metaphorical True Scotsmen. Classic.

Oddly enough, the film takes on a far worse implications for women if you stereotype the men…

A common sexual stereotype is that men always enjoy sex. When you consider the fact that It Follows goes out of its way to show that the protagonist does NOT always enjoy sex (via Jay’s pool), but never establishes the opposite, the premise of the movie takes on undertones that are inherently more sinister towards women. Setting aside the consequences for the person who the curse is being “passed on” to, this means that the affected men have to choose between death and pleasure, whereas the women must choose between death and tricking men into raping them.

That said, I had almost no sympathy for Jay. Her character was rather bland. All of her actions were self-serving and put others in harm’s way. To me, a pull-string talking doll that says “Don’t let it get me!” would have been more interesting, and possibly more entertaining.

Dammit! I forgot to check in with the collective feminist hive mind before I wrote my review! Now I shall have to turn in my Angry Woman Power Beaver membership card.

I just believe that there is a lot more going on this film than you gave it credit for. I hear what you’re saying about It Follows about being simply a problematic cautionary tale about sex and being slut shaming and victim blaming in how it’s presented, but I really feel like it goes deeper than that. For one it seems like the film explores, pretty thoughtfully some really important issues. For example, what consent really means. So early in the film the protagonists enthusiastically consents to sex with her boyfriend, right, but of course she didn’t not consent to being haunted by this evil relentless presence. It brings in to question the idea of informed consent and what that really means. Which is of course is an extremely important discussion. Also, I feel like the movie kind of inverts the abstinence only scare tactics that many horror movies employ–that being if you have sex you die. But it’s turned in on itself here; I mean she can only save herself by avoiding abstinence. Of course, that brings all sorts of ethical questions to the surface regarding saving yourself by sacrificing another and also about being pressured into sexual activities by society or by various other pressures. In my opinion there’s quite a lot of allegories going on in this story and, to me, it’s refreshingly subtle- I mean you’re not being hit over the head with the meaning, it’s fairly open to interpretation. Also, it’s nice to see a female lead, especially in a horror movie, who is actually quite a fully realized, three dimensional character and has agency and power. I’d argue that pretty much all of the characters in the movie are fleshed out pretty convincingly, which is rare for a genre movie like this. Anyway, it’s subjective…it’s just my opinion and no more valid than yours.

I don’t believe that I ever explicitly or even implicitly said anything to the extent that all feminist must think alike and agree on everything. I never said that and I don’t believe that. I posted an article that to me explored some interesting themes in the movie, such as voyeurism, poverty and patriarchy.

“in which case we will point and laugh at you”

Yeah, tell me again why I should ever take you and your criticism seriously when you obviously have the mental capacity of a 9 year old looking for the last word on the playground? As is evident by the fact that you’re all over this comment board making sure your voice is the loudest when anyone disagrees with you.

Quite frankly, you’re nothing. Absolutely nothing. You’re just some blogger screaming your opinion into the big bad ether of opinions. I wouldn’t even know you exist without Rotten Tomatoes. That’s how much of a nothing you are.

You’re an absolute nobody who has the unwarranted misguided ego of someone who thinks they are someone of relevance. Hate to burst your bubble but when you write childish crap like what you wrote above, it just makes me laugh at YOU and your worthless ego all that much more.

As someone else said, this attitude does not do you any service at being a reputable critic. It just makes you look like a joke.

In the vast movie environment, men get to do and be and say everything a human being can. Women are not allowed that privilege, and mostly get slotted into roles defined by their sexuality. That’s why it’s a problem that yet again this happens to a female character.

Please cease all writings

I don’t think I will.

That’s not Jay at the beginning of the film, but it doesn’t bode well for Jay.

I suspect that you have a very limited and simplistic view of what misogyny and sexism look like. You remind me of the people who think that if a movie follows a girl or woman character, it is automatically feminist or woman-friendly. It just doesn’t work that way.

The protagonist is a woman. This story is *about* a woman, in a genre that has a long history of punishing women for sex.

But nice “But what about the menz?!” And thank you for another vote for my proposed rant about how saying “But bad stuff happens to men too!” is not a justification for the way women are treated onscreen. I’ll have to get to that soon.

Now that I think about it some more, death isn’t the punishment for sex in this movie. Death is the punishment for monogamy. Promiscuity is rewarded. And the more promiscuous one is, the further removed they’ll be from the monster.

You folded an issue you have with the treatment of women in 80s horror movies into your review of this particular movie. I get that you’re looking at a larger context, but this is a review of one very specific thing. I don’t think your points are wrong in the larger context. In fact, they’re spot on. I don’t care at all about a stupid RT score or that someone on the internet disagrees with me. I do think, however, that your points about this movie don’t really fit in the larger context that you take issue with. Very specifically, this movie doesn’t punish women for having sex. But yes, broadly, women have been treated horribly in movies and TV. For instance, Law and Order SVU and its endless parade of rape and violence. How is that shit entertaining? I don’t get it. But I think you’ve painted an unfair portrait of this movie by trying to make it fit in the larger context of movies and the treatment of women. If anything, this movie treats the genders as equal. Its monster doesn’t distinguish between the sexes when determining who gets punishment. Why are you doing that?

Why are you so worried about people complaining? You wouldn’t have to worry if you used both hands to type your review. Instead, you used your dominant one to stroke your feminist boner and using your southpaw to claw at the keyboard like the feminist cat you are!

I understand your view on the film. I myself found it to create great tension and a feeling of anxiousness that other horror films fail to do, but it lost some of that near the ending. I do disagree though with your “Horror movies are still doing the punishing-girls-for-having-sex thing?”. Seeing as this “It” is getting passed on through sex, for each girl there is a boy in the chain, don’t pin this on being a female thing. I think this film is more trying latch onto something that every teenager is trying to achieve (boy or girl) and that aren’t always thinking about the consequences.

I’ll tell you a story.

Having just come out of this movie with a sense of betray after the hype on the internet and the reviews aggregator, i went looking for dissident opinions in order to find some insight in the wrongdoings of this motion picture. And i stumbled across FlickPhilosopher which allegedly proposed a bit cooler opinion.

What i found, after a quick tour of the “website”, was a shock with no surprese. A biased approach to film criticism, uniformed, shallow, trite and laughable at best. In reviewing It Follows, not a single word about dramatization, performances, aesthetics, subtext, construction and so on an so on. Just a premeditated assumption (horror movies = women victim) stressed out ad nauseam to camouflage the reviewer’s utter inadequacy.

The commentators who accuse you of bias are RIGHT. You simply do not have the means for a critical analysis.

Proof of that is the very simple fact that YOU ARE NOT A FILM CRITIC. Plain an simple. All you have is a website with intrusive request of donation to God knows what companyltd at your name, which luckily prevent the visitor of having immediate impact with the content of said website.
So when you credit yourself as a critic you are committing a FRAUD. I do not make a business card saying ‘Designer’ because i fen chuied my room and fool people into thinking i am. Even if i’m doing it since the 1990s!
Show us your contract with a REAL newspapermagazine, which states that you are HIRED BY SOMEBODY to be a film critic and you will be able to call yourself one.

Up until that moment, you are a crook and a fraudster who should do a quick search on recent comments made by film directors on internet critics. I’ll give you a hint: Cronenberg and Loach. But i might suspect that they might be under your radar. Because they are men, perhaps?

Peace.

In your last stand for Mrs. Johanson you are very careful in ignoring my previous observation. The fact that she is NOT a critic despite her hypocritical claiming so, that’s what i was aiming with my last statement. What you call a sexist joke was in fact a paradox to observe her incompetence.

Your claim that every film critic is just a viewer expressing hisher personal opinion is a common mistake of beginners. Critics are a powerful lobby in the entertainment industry, for a number of reason mostly related to the same advertisers that buy space on the publications on which they write. My suggestion on bias in criticism: read Bazin.

My issue is with everybody calling themselves “criticts” without the credentials for doing so. But i eagerly wait Mrs. Johanson’s credentials in PROFESSIONAL film criticism.

here’s a suggestion: go elsewhere… find a site that fits your narrow definition of criticism and be happy there. stop subjecting the rest of us to your didactic tirades.

Who is Mrs. Johanson?

Haha, okay, I admit that I did avoid responding to that criticism, but only because the proof was (as others pointed out) in her bio page. I figured that any response to an accusation of fraud made with the proof being so readily accessible was unnecessary :)

New ideas? A bunch of chewed up slogans from the darkest part of the otherwise noble history of feminism? Which planet are you living in?

I know you can’t comment anymore, so you’ll just have to read my reply and bear it. Your argument about the employment status of film critics is laughable, and reveals nothing but your gatekeeping snobbery and your ignorance of the current economic environment for film criticism. Go read Roger Ebert for his broader view of the profession.

http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/the-golden-age-of-movie-critics

Also, you devoted the last three paragraphs of your original comment to calling MaryAnn “a crook and a fraudster.” That’s a personal attack, no matter how much you deny it.

There are many things I could call you based on your behavior, but I wouldn’t want to engage in ad hominem myself. I’ll just say goodbye and let you go to your room to think about what you’ve done.

I probably read more of the comments than MaryAnn’s review. Not a bash on you MaryAnn whatsoever.
I may be getting to foggy to recognize all these nuances, what like this movie is all art house now, like it is Tartovsky or something. Give me a break, it lost it’s luster easily halfway though. It started out ok, but fell into typical horror clichés and the pool scene uggh, then it got funny.
It could have been better but it wasn’t.
Also a tip for everyday movie lovers: Nothing more annoying than hearing genius thrown out every other movie.

The fact that the person who wrote this, in their respected opinion, is in the comment section terrorizing people for their different opinion, shows how immature some adults can be. Also the fact that I’m only 16, and telling you that you need to grow up, says something.

I didn’t like the movie either, not because the protagonist was for most of part of the movie a dumbass. But it took so long for something to be explained that I lost interest on the movie, like the soundtrack though, the only good part is the giant pool scene, which made me laugh when “it” hit her with a iron, may I say i enjoyed this scene a lot more than the whole movie combined. But it isn’t a great horror movie by far. It just medium, sometimes awkward and lame, sometimes cool. I would say that if you have time to kill, go ahead, otherwise watch “babadook” that is way scarier and you can cheer for the monster to kill the annoying kid. IMO the premisse is different, what it doesn’t mean is good, it follows its a supernatural DST. I would recommend watching it with a condom on.