The only horror in the last 20 years that didn't suck ass and it brought something new to the genre

>the only horror in the last 20 years that didn't suck ass and it brought something new to the genre

>Sup Forums hates it

Why?

Perhaps, I could recommend you some hard terror films??

the babadook

Nothing

Happens

>woah the thing is here lol! Gotta go
>lmao its here again! Gotta run
>gotta go fast this time! Its here again

>"I've never seen Groundhog Day"

Incredible.

pls do

But user, that's not Trick r Treat.

tfw you don't know what movie were talking about

I don't hate it. It got fucking silly when it came to the beach scene, but the first half of the movie is great.

Daily reminder that It Follows and The Babadook are Plebbit as fuck.

This shit is for teenage girls, no offense.

>plebs forget You're Next!

>mfw we will never see a sequel

It hurts every Halloween season.

I’m still astonished whenever some shit eating retard says this movie was good.

>the score was good tho!
>the cinematography was so good tho!

Both were complete shit. The score was grating SoundCloud-tier tryhard garbage. The cinematography was flat as fuck digital bullshit spinning on a tripod. Makes me wonder what someone who likes this tripe uses as criteria for a good film

Nothing special, desu

I have hope. It will happen if Dougherty's Godzilla: King of Monsters does well.

why did their phones look like the thing sailor moon uses to turn into sailor moon?

but yeah; this shit was trash. bunch of navel gazing and felt like a love letter to suburbanite nostalgia than an actual film.

came out during that very short period wherein directors were flocking to detroit for its "aesthetic".

lost river came out the same year, i believe.

Isn't that the basic formula for all horror, except they will occasionally hide instead of running.

I went in to this completely blind beyond the basic idea of the monster and thought It Follows was great.

there's plenty of horrors that brought something new they just made so much money they had to make sequel after sequel

i don't even remember how this movie ends it was so dull and simple

the people who like this movie are plebs who see things only at face value and are a bit deluded in their own taste.

They think that because it does a throwback to older horror movies, it's immune from criticism or simply "plebs just don't get it lmao I'm so smart because this movie reminds me of older ones"

It was like a student movie with a big budget

kys yourself my man

Herpes: The Motion Picture

>It was like a student movie with a big budget

explain.

>it's easy as fuck to protect yourself against the monsters
>they don't because they are retarded
Poetic metaphor for VDs

this scene was so fucking hot.

Not him, but he is 100% correct. Just as one direction or justin bieber appeals to young girls, this film also can only appeal to someone with such a shallow pool of experience to draw upon. The dearth of any real quality, the utter superficiality of it can only be appreciated by someone with no basis for comparison

To this day it's the one movie I believe was shilled here.

>teenage slut punishment
>new

I've watched It Follows over a dozen times.

Use actual examples/themes from the movie to explain your point

it was an enjoyable. interesting premise that plays with paranoia, teenagers that are more realistic than your typical horror movie, subverts your expectations at certain points, with no clear resolution, which is refreshing.

Good Lord, the hubris of this fucker.

he sounds like the same faggot who keeps criticizing blade runner 2049. says the same shit about that movie, that people who enjoy it have pedestrian tastes and must not watch enough movies, while he gives nothing but banal, platitudes as criticism.

more moives need casually barefoot girls like it follows

>jay is a girl

STOP PUSHING YOUR MENTALLY ILL GENDER FLUID TRANNY AGENDA

Alright. Firstly, there’s the fetishistic “retro” vibe slathered all over everything from the poster to the score to the concept of the film itself. The film attempts to emulate 80s aesthetic without any understanding of what made those films great in the first place. It’s an empty, shallow attempt to showcase the filmmakers’ taste in film, hoping that will win over like-minded audiences. This is particularly offensive because it’s difficult to dismiss this as anything but a marketing strategy and in the end reduces the film to what’s more or less a vaporwave wallpaper.

because every character in it was just horror movie cliche retarded to the point where it was distracting

You're Next is not even a horror movie. Want to see a horror movie that'll blow your mind, watch Lake Mungo. Morons will tell you that it's boring, ignore them.

what sound effect did they use for this scene?

Secondly, the film was among a small wave of “smart” nu-horror films (see: the babadook, ich sie, ich sie etc) in which the lack or subversion of traditional horror tropes is an intellectual selling point. Again, this is dishonest filmmaking. Pointing out that you’re aware of horror movie cliches and then demonstrating that your movie is “different” doesn’t make the movie clever, only self-aggrandizing.

*brrrrrrrt*

they were idiot, dysfunctional teenagers who were scrambling to defend a friend from a super natural entity most of them couldn't see. the fact that they kept fucking up their half assed, rushed plans was realistic.

is that a visible anus?

Roasties btfo

>Sup Forums hates it

That's how you know it's good.

guys something is wrong..
not a single BRRRRAP post in this thread in over a hour. what the fuck.

was it just 1 guy all along? is he sleeping?

It was good until the thing turned into a generic monster that can easily be killed by someone who can see it. Much better when there's no stopping it

>can easily be killed by someone who can see it

It can't be killed. Did you watch the movie?

Yeah. First occurrence of big guy in the hallway was fantastic.

m'lady

bix nood

>the only horror in the last 20 years
Where have I seen that before..

the vvitch doesnt belong here, delete this.

What if you were to fuck the thing? Would it have to kill itself over and over?

I liked it, but you gotta admit the scene where they set the trap to kill "it" is fucking goofy, reminded me of the first nightmare on elm street with that rube goldberg shit

>dude what if we have a monster that can only be seen by the last person to have sex
>it can only be seen by the "infected" and it can change form for them too
>then when its time for the monster to kill, we used clever editing and cut aways and then see the terror it left in its wake

Pretty fucking cool right?

>bro then, when the main character is getting attacked! BRO THE MONSTER IS INVISIBLE AND GRABS HER HAIR BRO! THEN PEOPLE HIT IT AND IT ACTUALLY GETS HIT AND IT ALSO SCREAMS TO SCARE BRO!

...

But I watched it because Sup Forums kept recommending it. Same with Babadook.

I get more scared reading Creepypastas than I do watching "horror" movies.

The phones were to try and make the time period ambiguous. Is it the 90s or the future well never know.

Fuck yogo mats they do absolutely nothing. Feels like you better off with a beach towel

source?

>didn't suck ass
wrong
>brought something new to the genre
laughable
i'm convinced saying you like it follows is a meme and i keep getting rused. the film was dogshit

>Sup Forums hates it
Sup Forums only likes movies and shows when they can self-insert with the characters. These characters have sex so...

>first defense of the film is to call anyone who doesn't like it a virgin
so this... is the power of film majors

they can't self insert as the beta orbiter?

none of the film school drop outs knocking the movie have given any meaningful criticism of the movie.

the premise is maybe several decades old. There's nothing original about this

have you even read the thread or are you purposefully ignoring the actual criticisms of the film in favour of the "it's bad" comments?
>boring
>no actual sense of terror during the entirety of the film
>monster's rules are unclear and even its basic rule -it's always follwing you- is disobeyed during the film
>characters are cliches despite the film trying to be self aware about horror tropes
>monster is easily avoidable and we're supposed to believe it's smart when it routinely presents itself as something completely out of the ordinary; a 7 foot man, an old woman in a hospital gown in the middle of a school campus etc

>boring

Subjective and not a criticism

>no actual sense of terror

Nor is this. It's a horror movie, not a scary movie.

>monsters rules are unclear

It's all second hand information.

>characters are cliches despite the film trying to be self aware

Are you sure?

>monster is easily avoidable

Which is noted in the film itself. The drama is that while it's easy to avoid, it never stops coming.

>boring
not valid.

>no actual sense of terror during the entirety of the film
the paranoia and slow realization that escape is futile and you'll always have to be watching your back is scary.

>monster's rules are unclear and even its basic rule -it's always following you- is disobeyed during the film

it's an unknowable super natural entity, the rules that dictate those kinds of creatures are unclear, and it is always following you, but as you say below, it's also clever.

>characters are cliches despite the film trying to be self aware about horror tropes

they're normal teenagers with nothing particular special about them. no tropes like, jock, nerd, teenager, etc.

>monster is easily avoidable and we're supposed to believe it's smart when it routinely presents itself as something completely out of the ordinary; a 7 foot man, an old woman in a hospital gown in the middle of a school campus etc

it's not easily avoidable, when you can't sleep, constantly have to be on the run, or have somebody always watching your back.

>Subjective and not a criticism
the ability to keep audiences engaged is a key component to a film, therefore it is a valid criticism. very few monster encounters interspersed with dialogue between characters the audience has no reason to give a shit about is an objectively boring film
>Nor is this. It's a horror movie, not a scary movie.
you're obviously supposed to feel a rising sense of dread during the film which just isn't there because the monster is so easy to escape. your rebuttals so far have been "nuh-uh".
>It's all second hand information.
monsters with undefined rules are objectively bad monsters. at that point it becomes a fanfic tier monster that can do whatever it wants.
>Are you sure?
the film definitely played on classic horror tropes in a tongue-in-cheek way, the films entire premise being based on arguably the oldest horror trope. despite this, the characters are still cliche morons who act like any horror film characters
>The drama is that while it's easy to avoid, it never stops coming.
why would i be worried if the monster is always coming if it's so easy to avoid? being able to escape a monster by briskly walking in front of it isn't good horror

>not valid
see above
>the paranoia and slow realization that escape is futile and you'll always have to be watching your back is scary.
see above
>but as you say below, it's also clever.
if you actually read my post you'd see how i said we're supposed to believe it's clever but it routinely does stupid things. why wouldn't it disguise itself as a student in the school? her parents in her home?
also, a monster without clear rules is a bad monster, see above
>it's not easily avoidable, when you can't sleep, constantly have to be on the run, or have somebody always watching your back.
see above

look at this oldfag

I thought it was a legitimate 1/10.

I wouldn't even call it a movie. It just felt like a long YouTube video. A bunch of people mucking about pretending to be in a movie about /x/ pastas.

Not once did I manage to suspend my disbelief while watching it.

The only other modern film I can think of where I encountered that, strangely enough, was the Nightmare On Elm Street remake.

I don't even need to go into the plot, etc etc, because it failed on the most fundamental level for me as a television show or movie - I mean, actual episodes of Matlock succeed on that level for me.

Is there any particular reason you can't tell the difference between subjectivity and structural problems?

The acclaim the film received counterpoints your "boring" comment as well as your second one. Why? Because it's a subjective criticism. You might as well say chocolate is better than vanilla because you say so.

In fact, because you say so is pretty much your whole criticism.

The monsters "rules" aren't rules. They're second hand information from 1 character.

>the film definitely played on classic horror tropes in a tongue-in-cheek way, the films entire premise being based on arguably the oldest horror trope. despite this, the characters are still cliche morons who act like any horror film characters

Proof? "Stupid teenagers" is indeed a bit of a trope. Teenagers are stupid. Other than that, there is nothing to support your claim.

>why would i be worried if the monster is always coming if it's so easy to avoid? being able to escape a monster by briskly walking in front of it isn't good horror

Because you have to keep walking. You can't really sleep and you're always on guard. Persistence Hunting is an effective technique for that very reason.

>between subjectivity and structural problems?
are you trying to argue that the conversations the characters have between monster appearances are engaging? because if not, structurally, long periods of nothing engaging happening between short periods of engaging things happening is objectively boring.
>a film is rated highly so your criticisms are invalid
if my criticisms are subjective, so are people's praises, doesn't that make them invalid too?
>They're second hand information from 1 character.
and again, undefined rules for a monster makes a bad monster, why are you avoiding this point?
>Because you have to keep walking.
oh no, that sounds utterly terrible

>you're obviously supposed to feel a rising sense of dread during the film which just isn't there because the monster is so easy to escape.

as i said escape is futile. it will always come after you, and while you get tired, it doesn't. you're essentially stuck running and hiding for the rest of your life. even if you pass it on, you're always on its list. your life, your hopes and dreams are over.


>monsters with undefined rules are objectively bad monsters. at that point it becomes a fanfic tier monster that can do whatever it wants.

so many monster don't have coherent rules, you're impugning tons of classic monsters. it adds to the unknown and unpredictability of the super natural.

>the film definitely played on classic horror tropes in a tongue-in-cheek way, the films entire premise being based on arguably the oldest horror trope. despite this, the characters are still cliche morons who act like any horror film characters

no they act like regular teenagers. not, ultra clever and witty cliches. teenagers are dumb and make mistakes.

>if you actually read my post you'd see how i said we're supposed to believe it's clever but it routinely does stupid things. why wouldn't it disguise itself as a student in the school? her parents in her home?

it appeared as the tall guy likely for the intimidation factor, it also seemed to gain the attributes of the physical personas in embodied. it appeared as the old lady, likely because it wanted to appear as the most unthreatening thing imaginable.

>why would i be worried if the monster is always coming if it's so easy to avoid? being able to escape a monster by briskly walking in front of it isn't good horror

it's not easy to avoid because it can appear as anyone, it can sneak up behind you, it doesn't sleep but humans do, it can break doors. you'd have to be on your guard for the rest of your life.

>the only horror in the last 20 years that didn't suck ass and it brought something new to the genre

Fixed. It Follows is just a shit version of pic related.

And, like it or not, Babadook was a fairly original plot, too.

This movie does dread better, and is just generally better in every way.

>that'll blow your mind
how?

He thinks we're talking about happy death day. Which was good too

Whose bottom is that?

>because if not, structurally, long periods of nothing engaging happening between short periods of engaging things happening is objectively boring.

No, they're not objectively boring. It's how you characterize.

>if my criticisms are subjective, so are people's praises, doesn't that make them invalid too?

They're as equally valid as yours.

>and again, undefined rules for a monster makes a bad monster, why are you avoiding this point?

Because you don't have one. There is 1 rule. It Follows. Never stops.

>oh no, that sounds utterly terrible

About as terrible as having water dropped onto your forehead. Yet it's a form of torture.

I love the witch, but i think the movie lacked something. Like, some hidden spooks or something.

I enjoyed the film on the surface. I hate all of the sexual allegory in the film though.

Its not often you can gauge how fat a person is from their post but I think you nailed it.

i love her

This reminds me of the Rick and Morty pasta.

>It's how you characterize.
characterise into what? "i'm sad bc gonna die"
we get the same "characterisation" throughout the entire film. this is boring.
>They're as equally valid as yours.
and yet you're outright dismissing mine because they're subjective while using theirs as evidence that i'm wrong. either you think subjective opinions hold weight or you don't, make up your mind
>There is 1 rule. It Follows. Never stops.
and yet it breaks this rule in the film when it's just stood on top of the house.

Anyone who thought the babadook was good is a hardcore faggot loser.

>dishonest filmmaking meme
I hate so much. You post this non-criticism about movie and then you never explain what “dishonesty”.
>they used tropes? Fucking plebbit!
>they didn’t use tropes? Fucking plebbit!

why havent you doxxed the cunnyspammer yet?
because you're him?

Because it was pretty one dimensional movie.

yes only good scene

It's called background.

>and yet you're outright dismissing mine

No one is dismissing yours, just your suggestion that your opinion is objective.

>and yet it breaks this rule in the film when it's just stood on top of the house.

It's still following, user, by being on top the house want watching.

It was a cool idea that was poorly, amateurishly executed. Plus, there were frequent pretentious film school student parts that made me cringe.

I don't hate it, I just prefer this.

Was he wearing a mask?

I think virgins like it because they wanna save some rando-slut from a monster and then think they'll forever evade it together with their new gf who is totally gonna hold hands with them forever