Once you get over the horrible premise, it's quite good.

Rating: 7/10 (18 November 2015)

Small non-gore, non-Hollywood horror films are something I like to take a chance with every now and then, since Hollywood can only spout out crap when it comes to this genre; jumpscares and uninventive PG-13 formula movies galore - all of things that I despise with a passion. So I bought the blu-ray after having heard good things about "It Follows".
"It Follows" is definitely not a masterpiece like so many claim. Let's not call everything "a masterpiece" just because it isn't crap like so many other seemingly similar movies. It offers something fresh and real, but still fails to differentiate itself enough from the clichÃ©-ridden horror tropes that bore and anger me to tears. It's easily better than average Hollywood mainstream horror though, that much is certain.
So let's get into it. The plot, or premise, for this movie is horrible. I do like the simple idea of being followed, but I can't take the reason for it seriously. "The Ring" came to mind. Not because of similarity in story elements (well, perhaps some) but because both movies give you something very stupid and ask you to believe it in order to enjoy the rest of the movie. I won't spoil it, but I had a hard time with it. Eventually, just like with "The Ring", I managed. Luckily this time even the movie itself didn't want to dwell on the reasons or origins of the phenomena it presented us, and instead just went with it. Props for that.
After we have been informed about the laughable main plot, and once we have gotten over it, "It Follows" shows its claws. Things happen in somewhat believable manner (if you excuse the "no parents" or "where did they change their clothes" kind of stuff and a few other stupidities for the sake of a tighter story) or at least the actors/director make it seem like it. When something seems off, another thing comes along to pull us back to the movie. If you're not easily immersed, this might not be the movie for you. It's a simple movie that doesn't hold up in scrutiny. It's all about being in the present and trying to keep you in the moment - and this is handled well.
We get no one-liners, no awful expository dialogue just for the sake of it, no senseless side events to distract us from what's happening, no teen slang attempts to make you rage. Because of how tight and straight everything was handled, I actually got scared every now and then. Some nice tricks are used well and creatively, and the pressing atmosphere is there almost all the time. That atmosphere and several well-handled creepy bits are indeed something that I've been waiting and missing from horror movies lately.
...But just when you think you're watching a real gem, you count your third jumpscare or witness some of the messy writing, especially during the bigger ending scene. It's almost a shame that a movie like this uses jumpscares, when there is plenty of atmosphere already. It's not all over the place and this movie certainly isn't built around them, but the fact they used them - often for no purpose and without earning them beforehand - grinds my gears.
The main story has a final act that seems forced, especially the last "action" scene. It seems to be there just because so many other movies and stories did it. At this point, we realize we are watching a movie that couldn't ride all the way with its fresh approach. Perhaps the approach and the gimmicks came first, and the script came last.
"It follows" is pretty well shot. Shots are framed and lit nicely, and while sometimes the quality of equipment (or the quality of blu-ray, not sure) shows, the movie looks good in general. I might have noticed some CGI in couple of shots, but those were probably the only shots with CGI in the whole film. This is a good thing, and I must say that many practical "tricks" were handled with style.
The music was hit or miss, most of the time miss. There were a few bits when it managed to complement the scene or the movie itself, other times it made my ears bleed. I want to be immersed, not annoyed. I like the idea of using synths in general though, and at least they tried something different. Many have mentioned getting a John Carpenter-vibe out of it, even if I didn't.
Actors did a fine job. Maika Monroe, Geir Gilchrist and Jake Weary were good. There were other characters with no real purpose, I guess the actors were alright for those parts too, but the characters themselves stood out as glorified extras. Not that you can't have them, but you could see where a few "let's have something happen to that one, or let's give that one something to do" thoughts got the best of writer/director David Robert Mitchell. The results were clunky, annoying or pretentious (one side character gets to read a "deep" quote from a book). Anyway, the actors were fine. Thumbs up for some of the "creatures" and the actors portraying them too. At their best, they were excellent. They had small roles but very important ones.
I will now compare this movie to many Stephen King books; Good, atmospheric and gripping piece of entertainment that falls flat at some points along the way, not knowing or daring what it wanted to do. I do recommend it though. I bickered a lot about this movie, but only because it could have been so much better. The potential was there.
"It Follows" is better than most horror movies nowadays, and I don't regret purchasing the blu-ray. Just don't expect a masterpiece and you might be rewarded. Go check it out.