Don't Believe the Hype, but Check Out "It Follows" Anyway*

It Follows

*If you're looking for an '80s slasher movie inspired, weird horror film.

If there’s one thing that can ruin a good horror film (aside from a major spoiler), it’s a hyperbolic quote from a review. For some reason, horror films seem to be the only genre that have this problem. Sure, comedies and other films deal with lines like “the funniest movie in decades” or “the best comic book movie ever,” but everyone pretty much ignores them. But call a scary movie “the most terrifying film you will ever experience” (from the poster of the recent Evil Dead) or “one of the most striking American horror films in years” (a quote from The Dissolve featured on the poster for It Follows) and the film instantly creates a schism (at least online). It must be because of the goal of most horror films: scaring the viewers. Some people like to be scared, but an equal amount like to watch so-called scary movies just to dismiss them as “dumb” or “not scary at all.” There’s nothing wrong with this necessarily except that it cheapens the rare, unique horror film. It Follows is one of those rare horror films. Like any good horror film of recent years (such as last year’s equally divisive The Babadook), there’s more to the film than jump scares and creepiness. For the record, I found It Follows to be fairly effective in that some of the imagery stuck me with me days after watching it. Also for the record, whether or not the film was “scary” did not factor into my opinion. 

It Follows can be viewed on a literal level, and possible enjoyed on that level as well. On the surface, this is a story about a sexual curse. We’re not told the origins, but at some point someone was cursed and followed by a malicious entity (the titular It) that will follow you wherever you go. If it gets close enough to touch you, It will kill you. Then it will go the person who gave it to you and so on until the original cursed person is killed. So you have to pass it on and hope that person keeps the chain going. This sounds a bit silly, but consider these two elements, and it becomes creepy. First, It can take on pretty much any human appearance. Sometimes it’s a (very creepy looking) stranger, sometimes it is someone you know, and usually they are naked or generally scary-looking. Second, and more important for the psychological horror aspect, you can never feel safe once you’ve been cursed. The fact that It will work back down the chain means passing on the curse is only a temporary solution. 

When dealing with such a strange concept, it’s easy to search for an allegory. The most obvious, but problematic, theory would be that It represents sexually transmitted diseases. That works with the whole “follows you the rest of your life” aspect, but the fact that you seemingly “have” to pass it on makes it questionable. I can’t think of any other allegories that promote the spreading of STDs. 

The more interesting theories don’t focus on the sexual nature of the film. After all, It Follows is certainly reminiscent of another franchise that punishes young people for having sex: Friday the 13th. Those films used the sex as part of the thrill of the film. It’s a horror movie cliché now (check out The Cabin in the Woods for a hilarious send up of said clichés). It Follows pays homage to that factor but doesn’t focus on the sex as the punishable activity. In fact, there is no reason for this curse at all. It just is. There’s something in actual life that just exists without a clear reason: death. That’s what all horror films are about, really, but It Follows looks at it in a surprisingly deep way while also taking part in the fun of ‘80s slasher movies. (In that way, it reminded me of one of my favorite film's from last year, The Guest.) It's understandable if you think that I'm looking too far into this movie, and it really is just a simple horror film. I would be inclined to agree if not for a character reading from Dostoevsky's The Idiot multiple times in the film, usually quoting passages ruminating on the anticipation of death. This is the kind of thing that makes a movie like It Follows stand out from the pack.

Almost equally important, however, is the fact that It Follows fits in with the pack too. It is very much a slasher movie in its tensest moments. The stalking It is truly chilling and, honestly, more disturbing than your stereotypical movie monster. What makes it even better is the fact that It can be anyone. This means every scene has the potential for horror. I was constantly scanning the background looking for It. That made for a more rewarding experience. The  hypnotic camerawork adds a perfect amount of tension to the proceedings. It's all topped off with a synthesizer-heavy soundtrack that seems lifted from the early '80s. 

If this all sounds a bit weird it's because it is. Those looking for a standard horror film will come away disappointed. The film takes place in modern times, but there is very little evidence (The Idiot being read from an e-reader is pretty much the only modern...anything in the film) of this. It reminded me of Wes Anderson's style a bit, especially when you factor in the plan to get rid of It near the end. Perhaps a better comparison for the look of the film would be to imagine a horror film taking place in the world of Napoleon Dynamite. Not that It Follows is all that humorous; it just has a timeless style. 

Friday the 13th, The Idiot, Wes Anderson, Napoleon Dynamite, synthesizers...It Follows is definitely a strange concoction of a horror film, and that makes it that much better. Is it the "scariest" whatever in centuries? No. But why does it have to be? Can any movie truly be the best, scariest, funniest, dumbest, weirdest, etc.? Anything ending in "est" means it's the viewer's opinion. So don't worry about what some stranger's opinion on a poster or preview says. Don't worry about my opinion. Form your own based on your own experience. When I see something is being touted as the "scariest" or "most striking" film in years, I don't take that as a challenge to disagree. I hope it means the film is different from most. It Follows is certainly different, and that's good enough for me.

It Follows receives a:

The Unreal, Dead Worlds of Wes Anderson: A Sort of Review of "The Grand Budapest Hotel"

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Wes Anderson has been one of my favorite filmmakers for years. Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums are two of my favorite films from my high school years (a.k.a. when I started seeking out "good" movies). Since those two films, Anderson has exaggerated his style to a fault. Some people were already put off by his first films for their focus on quirk instead of character (indeed, I am not a fan of Bottle Rocket or The Darjeeling Limited because I could not get invested in the characters), so it's understandable if viewers take issue with his recent work for its lack of reality.

All of Anderson's films are arguably ridiculous, but most of them stay withing the confines of reality: Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Darjeeling Limited, and Moonrise Kingdom. Of these, some might argue that Tenenbaums and Moonrise are outside of reality, but I found them to take place in fantasized, though still realistic, worlds.  No one can deny the style of any of them, however; an Anderson movie is still an Anderson movie whether it takes place in reality or not. Anderson's other three films, I would argue, take place in a completely fictional world: The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, and The Grand Budapest Hotel.

My reasoning for this is that the first five films claim to take place in a real setting, even if that real setting is given unreal qualities. To be fair, Moonrise is somewhere in between the two groups due to some of its more cartoonish elements, but I think it sticks with reality more than fantasy. On the other side of the coin, Life Aquatic is somewhere in between as well due to some realistic settings and the violence, but I think it is more in the fantasy realm because of the made-up sea creatures.

Fantastic Mr. Fox is the easiest film to distinguish since it is animated, but I think The Grand Budapest Hotel is in the same boat. Or perhaps it is simply because there are a few extremely similar aspects between the two films. First, the escape sequences are very similar. Second, Willem Defoe plays a villain. Third...you know what?, I don't want this to end up being some point by point comparison. Just watch both of these films. They simply feel like the same film, even more so than how all Anderson's films feel the same. Perhaps it has something to do with the setting.

Mr. Fox takes place on a fictional farm area, and Grand Budapest takes place in a fictional European country. But it is the population, or lack thereof, that makes them similar. In Fox, the world felt constructed (because it literally was) and unpopulated. Grand Budapest has that same feeling (most of the locales seem devoid of human life), but it's a bit more odd since the main setting is a hotel...where people stay. I'm not sure if it's a good thing or not that Anderson made a populated world feel dead. I suppose that's where the emotional disconnect most viewers feel comes from. I have enjoyed the majority of Anderson's work very much, but I must admit that only Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, and Life Aquatic made me care all that much about the characters. The atmosphere created in his more fantasy-based films, however, makes up for that lack of emotion. With Grand Budapest, he nearly accomplished the feat of creating a unique world and having characters I cared about. To be fair, I did want things to work out for Gustave (Ralph Fiennes), and I very much liked his character. But he was the only one I connected with.

Not unlike the Overlook, this hotel is largely dead inside.

Still, almost accomplishing both things makes Grand Budapest among Anderson's best. The complex narrative, nostalgic style, and amazing cast culminate to make this one of the year's best. Anderson's characters lack emotional appeal at times, but no one can accuse them of being uninteresting. And while it's come to be expected at this point, Anderson's ability to create that vague feeling of nostalgia (even for eras I never experienced) is still his strongest asset. Hats off to the production designer (Adam Stockhausen), art directors (Stephan Gessler, Gerald Sullivan, Steve Summersgill), and the set decorator (Anna Pinnock) for this, as well. 

The strongest asset of Grand Budapest, however, is Ralph Fiennes. Known for his intensity, Fiennes may not be someone's first choice for quirky comedy, but Gustave is the perfect character for him. He's funny, but he is also pretentious and, at times, intensely angry...and vulgar. Anyone who's seen In Bruges knows that Fiennes is more than capable of bringing the intense comedy. Plenty of moments in Grand Budapest were reminiscent of Fiennes's best moments from Bruges. Plus, he's surprisingly likable. I'm convinced that Fiennes's performance, not necessarily his character, is the reason for the emotional connection. 

So that was a very roundabout way to say Grand Budapest is Anderson at his best, with special thanks to Ralph Fiennes. But the comparison to Mr. Fox is not completely pointless. It seems that Anderson is content with making live action cartoons now that he's made a stop motion one. I imagine dealing with actors is easier than dealing with props. There's nothing wrong with that, because that means his films will look like nothing else out there. Grand Budapest is significant in that it shows that he may one day be able to make me care about the majority of his characters (like I did with Tenenbaums) while also creating a unique, if dead, world. That didn't sound very complimentary, but it is actually high praise. I can't wait to see what's next from Anderson. 

The Grand Budapest Hotel receives a:

"Moonrise Kingdom"

Directed by Wes Anderson, written by Anderson and Roman Coppola, starring Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, and Jason Schwartzman - Rated PG-13



"I love you, but you have no idea what you are talking about."

This review might be pointless.  I’m not doubting my critical skills (I’ll leave that to you, the reader), but reviewing Wes Anderson films in the traditional sense just doesn’t make much…well, sense.  Here’s the thing: If you like Anderson’s previous work then you should at the very least watch Moonrise Kingdom; if you hate his movies, then definitely skip it.  He has certainly not changed his style.  So this review is pointless if you don’t like his films.  If you are like me and you very much enjoy the majority of his work, then keep reading; I might have some thoughts that interest or anger you.

I am not the biggest Wes Anderson fan out there, but the films of his that I do enjoy, I enjoy immensely.  My favorite films, in no particular order, are Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and Fantastic Mr. Fox.  That list alone might get an argument started with cinephiles because of a title or two that’s included and one or two that is left off.  The important thing is that I am a fan of Anderson’s style, both the visuals and the dialogue.  It’s just sometimes the story doesn’t work for me or it seems a bit pointless.  The point of all this is that I am happy to say that Moonrise Kingdom can be added to my favorites list. 

Moonrise Kingdom has the style you’ve come to expect from Anderson in that it is set in 1965 (nearly all of his films look like they are set in the 60s, but this one actually is).  The production design and soundtrack are great as usual, so no need to delve into details, other than to point out that it is funny to see a few of the actors dressed as boy scouts.  It’s all very quirky and amusing, and I am being sincere.  I’m usually one to say that the aesthetics of Anderson’s work are just there for the sake of quirk, but in this case it is more about homage.  Apparently this film is influenced by the Jean-Luc Godard film Pierrot le Fou.  I must admit ignorance when it comes to Godard’s films, but I am definitely going to check out a few now, if only so that I can appreciate this film a bit more.  It’s obviously not required viewing, though, since I enjoyed it very much and I didn’t know about the influence until after I had seen Moonrise Kingdom. 

Having an influence isn’t what made the style completely worth it for me, though.  The story and the characters are touching and humorous, and that is what makes some of Anderson’s films great.  (I need to clarify that this film was co-written by Roman Coppola, so Anderson didn’t do all of this on his own.)  Moonrise Kingdom is essentially a love story about two young people who don’t fit in.  Sam (Jared Gilman) is an orphan with “emotional” problems who wants to escape from his khaki scout troop and run away with Suzy (Kara Hayward), a “troubled” girl who wants to escape from her family.  They travel all over a New England island, engaging in amusing conversation and awkward first love.  It’s all very sincere and you really want things to work out for them.

Nearly everyone else in the film tries to keep the two apart.  This group consists of the heavy hitters of the cast like Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Bruce Willis, Tilda Swinton, and Edward Norton.  These actors, along with Jason Schwartzman, are the faces you’ll see in all of the promotional material for the film, but they are supporting players.  They all do a fine job and it’s really just about personal preference when it comes to picking favorites.  Simply the idea of Bruce Willis appearing in a Wes Anderson film is funny to me, so he was definitely my favorite, especially since he gives a heartfelt performance that we haven’t seen in a long time. Norton and Schwartzman were a close second and third because of their sincerity.  Norton is channeling his gee-whiz performance from the under-seen Death to Smoochy to great effect and Schwartzman seems to be picking up right where Rushmore left off with equal success. 

The whole khaki scout aspect of the movie was great.  I thought it was funny how the scouts were basically run like a military organization.  An impressive tracking shot revealing the workings of the camp near the beginning of the film fits in perfectly within the Anderson canon.  The scout stuff also lends to plenty of interesting visuals (my personal favorite was the tree house that was far too high). 

Visually speaking, this is one of Anderson’s most beautiful films.  All of the outdoors scenes allowed him to try something new as far as setting is concerned and he shot in some great locations.  On top of that, a storm near the end of the film (this isn’t a spoiler since the narrator lets the audience know about right from the start) created some great moments as well.

Moonrise Kingdom isn’t anything new for Anderson, but that isn’t such a bad thing.  What’s wrong with a guy knowing what his style is and sticking with it?  If you don’t like his style, don’t watch his films.  Simple as that.  If you are a fan of it, then definitely check this one out.  You might not count it among your favorites but it is very unlikely that you’ll be disappointed by the film because it is about as Wes Anderson as Wes Anderson can get.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Since he wasn't in any previews or in the opening credits, I'm guessing Harvey Keitel's appearance is meant to be a surprise.  I just wanted to point out how funny it was to see him pop up in this film, only to promptly blown up.

I really like the title of the film and thought it fit in perfectly with the tone of the film.  The actual Moonrise Kingdom was a very beautiful spot in the film as well, and there's something to be said about the fact that it has disappeared after the storm. 

Another very Anderson aspect to the film: The kids seem to know exactly what they want, while the adults are the truly lost characters who need to change and grow by the end of the film.