Connect with us

Reviews

‘It Follows’ Review: For the love of G-d, take off your heels!

Published

on

I was utterly underwhelmed by It Follows (2014), from the first scene to the last. The movie as a whole is inconsistent, and the premise, though intriguing, lacks the development to raise the film out of the “problematic” territory.

Let’s start with the opening. A young girl, Annie, is escaping some danger . . . in high heels. Although we don’t know what she sees, we can assume that it’s getting closer when Annie starts running . . . in her heels . . . on grass. I may have forgiven this illogical action and chalked it up to a director with limited, if any, experience walking in heels, had the following actions been better thought-out. Alas, it was not to be. Annie drives to the beach and calls her parents to tell them she loves them. Was she driving with the shoes on? Most heel-wearers, even teenagers, know that heels are not the best footwear for pressing the gas and braking. Maybe Annie took off the shoes in the car, right? Well, if that was the case, why the hell would she put them on again for the sand? Uneven surfaces are not conducive to walking in stilettos. Even walking barefoot on sand provides plenty of resistance, so I can only imagine the struggle of doing so in a state of high anxiety and a pair of heels. Plus, her feet were probably killing her faster than the unseen pursuer after all that time. At least we get one good shot the next morning. Unfortunately, that shot is also the highlight of the film.

Much of my confusion came from the lack of grounding. When does the movie take place? We see corded landline phones, one cell phone, several not-flat screen televisions playing cheesy, black and white sci-fi flicks, a movie theater seemingly screening only one movie (1963’s Charade), boxy car designs from decades past, contemporary fashion choices, and a bizarre clamshell e-reader. Does It Follows exist outside of our timeline? Is everyone in this suburban town reluctant to keep up with the technology of the time, whenever that may be?

Then we have a score reminiscent of the 1980s. I keenly felt the influence of ‘80s slashers, what with the teenagers having sex and being in danger and the lack of parents, not to mention the other odes to classic teen screams. The absence of parents led to more confusion on my part. First, Jeff’s real identity is found out to be a high school student, not a 21-year-old man, and most of the friends don’t look much older. Jeff apparently rented a crappy apartment in the city, but how could he have done so with a teenager’s budget? Perhaps he hacked his parents’ bank accounts or ransacked their wallets. But such actions aren’t even intimated. Second, our protagonist Jay says, “We slept together in high school,” which would indicate that at least she and Greg (the other member of the “we”) had graduated. I had a hard time believing Jay was a high schooler to start with, so this seemingly throwaway line didn’t help. The poorly calculated details reminded me once again of ‘80s flicks, in which the scares mattered more than the plot.

I also want to talk about the clamshell e-reader. Olivia Luccardi’s character Yara is connected to this weird e-reader like many people are to their smartphones. She is reading Dostoevsky’s The Idiot on it. There must be a reason why writer and director David Robert Mitchell chose that one, especially considering that Yara reads aloud from the text. However, I don’t quite know what that reason is. The Idiot centers on a good person caught in a web of deceit and corruption. Meanwhile, I didn’t find any characters to sympathize with in It Follows, and the web of deceit and corruption was mostly a string of sex-shaming evil. A T.S. Eliot poem is also narrated in the film. Don’t ask me why there are literary references. I just can’t parse them.

Advertisement

Lastly, let’s discuss the premise. A sexually-transmitted demon of sorts, or an STD, if you will, is killing people who don’t spread it. What I glean from this is: stay chaste and you’ll survive. Have sex once, and you’re doomed to a life of promiscuity. The concept obviously mandates sex scenes, which are fine in moderation, but which are also complicated by showing so much . . . grinding between potentially underage people. Keep in mind that they may very well be in high school. I know that none of the actors are actually teenagers, but adults acting as teenagers having sex is shady territory.

I expected more nuance, aesthetic, and plot from this well-acclaimed movie. In short, I expected more from It Follows. It’s possible, of course, that I’m looking into it too much, but there were just too many details I didn’t like for me to ignore. I can love bad movies, big- or low-budget. This one simply wasn’t for me.

Amanda Nevada DeMel is a born-and-raised New Yorker, though she currently lives in New Jersey. Her favorite genre is horror, thanks to careful cultivation from her father. She especially appreciates media that can simultaneously scare her and make her cry. Amanda also loves reptiles, musicals, and breakfast foods.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Reviews

‘Shadow of God’ Review: A Bold Indie Horror That Falls Short

Published

on

Whether they land or not, it’s hard not to appreciate how impressive it is that Shudder gives a platform to myriad independent films. While Screambox struggles to finish the race, Shudder is doing a victory lap. Even the greats trip up occasionally. Shadow of God is a film I heard minor rumblings about across the interwebs, and as someone who isn’t into exorcism-like films, it still piqued my interest enough to seek it out. Then I watched it.

Shadow of God: A Promising Premise Falls Flat

Shadow of God follows alcoholic exorcist Mason Harper (Mark O’Brien) as he travels back to his hometown following a death during an exorcism. Mason meets up with his ex-beau, Tanis Green (Jacqueline Byers), who gives him a place to stay while he’s back. The semi-happy reunion between Mason and Tanis is cut short when the dregs of Mason’s deceased father’s cult learn of his arrival. Everyone’s faith will be tested as something more sinister than anyone could imagine rears its ugly head.

It feels like there was a disconnect between writer Tim Cairo and director Michael Peterson, as Shadow of the God feels nothing more than scattered parts of better films clumped together into a heaping mess of something. While full of awful dialogue, Cairo’s script tells a compelling and somewhat unique take on the religious horror subgenre. The bones of a better film exist deep within the script. A rewrite (or three) could have helped to trim the fat and identify the elements of the story that truly work. On the other hand, Michael Peterson seems to have little to no control over whatever he was doing here.

Digital Effects Ruin Emotional Depth

The real issue with the film is the unfortunate digital effects slapped on before the final cut. Any semblance of an okay film quickly flew out the window with the slapdash effects. Nothing takes you out of a well-crafted emotional moment like a giant, badly composited white light shooting out of someone’s forehead. I was so checked out by the end that my final note written about the film simply says, “barn effects BAD.” To be completely honest, I don’t even know what I meant by that.

Not a singular solid performance graces the screen during this hour and 27-minute series of images. I get that independent films face difficult and unique challenges that larger budget films don’t. But the performances feel as if the cast were given the script seconds before the scenes were shot. Mark O’Brien was a huge sell for me with this film, as I adored him in Ready or Not, and it feels like [maybe] his agent dropped the ball on this one.

Advertisement

The Potential Buried in Shadow of God

Shadow of God had the trappings of a film that could stand out from the exorcism slop that floods Tubi’s recommended feed, but ultimately failed to do anything of note. As I said, Shudder takes chances on films, and that’s commendable. There’s a need for streamers like Shudder to give a voice to filmmakers who are trying to change the game. I can see what Tim Cairo was going for here, and I think a different director could have taken this film to the next level. Shadow of the God is, sadly, a huge swing and a miss for me.
Continue Reading

Reviews

‘Jurassic World: Rebirth’ Review: Show Me Your Teeth

Published

on

It has been just three years since Jurassic World: Dominion put the latest trilogy in the franchise on ice with the bite force of a smurf, but like any money-maker in Hollywood, no IP stays extinct for long. Universal decided to revisit the franchise’s roots, heading back to the lab to poke and prod at its barely fossilized remains in an attempt to mix up its DNA enough to warrant a reboot. Jurassic World: Rebirth promised a thrilling return to form – a journey into dino-infested waters that put the terror back in Tyrannosaur. With horror-adjacent auteur Gareth Edwards (known for Monsters and Godzilla) directing and writer David Koepp (who adapted Jurassic Park and The Lost World), returning after a nearly thirty-year absence, expectations were colossal.

What they delivered is a glossy, crowd-pleasing theme park ride into nostalgia that never fully commits to genuine horror or the deeper scientific soul of the 1993 original. It’s enjoyable for fans who love every iteration unconditionally, but it is sure to frustrate those with a more critical eye who expected something closer to a cold-blooded classic.

Jurassic World: Rebirth – A New Chapter or Nostalgic Retread?

For those needing a refresher on the events leading up to Rebirth, you can snag yourself an honorary degree in paleontology with our handy Jurassic Horror 101. After closing out the first reboot trilogy with a whimper, Universal needed to steer the narrative away from pseudo-science and half-baked existentialism toward a more visceral experience; nothing will compare to Spielberg’s masterpiece, sweetie!

The elements for success are all here: Edwards has a strong resume in titanic horror, Koepp is the man behind the original film adaptation, and the fresh faces of Scarlett Johansson, Jonathan Bailey, and Mahershala Ali bring star power to the tropics. Yet, whether due to studio interference or simply buckling under nine tons of pressure, they still haven’t figured out how to catch lightning in a bottle twice.

Dinosaurs, Big Pharma, and a Tropical Mission

Set five years after dinosaurs were left to coexist with humans, we learn that the prehistoric beasts are once again facing extinction, both physically and metaphorically. Unsustainable living conditions within Earth’s rapidly changing ecosystems are eliminating them faster than an ice age, and – perhaps in a nod to our apathy in a digital world – the humans around them largely do not give a damn. As dino merch turns to ash and people avoid the roaming beasts like an invasive flash mob, pharmaceutical company ParkerGenix recruits mercenaries Zora Bennett (Johansson) and Duncan Kincaid (Ali), along with soon-to-be-unemployed paleontologist Dr. Henry Loomis (Bailey), for an adventure their wallets can’t resist.

Advertisement

It seems that dinosaurs are still thriving on small islands surrounding the equator, and ParkerGenix has discovered within these surviving creatures a medical miracle that may provide a cure for heart disease. However, this being a Jurassic movie, our beautiful trio is tasked with retrieving this biomaterial from an island overrun by failed genetic experiments abandoned by the infamous company that started it all – InGen.

Rebirth’s script does touch upon the ethical dilemmas of serving Big Pharma for a seven-figure payout. Still, these moral quandaries are explored no more deeply than a child kicking at sand on the beach, hoping to uncover something shiny underneath the silt. Thematically, the franchise has painted itself into a corner since 1993. The existential wonder, quiet pathos, and scientific stakes have since been mined dry, which makes the shift toward more human-scale horror a welcome pivot. Two reboots in, we may never see a film that so effortlessly balances terror and philosophy as the original did. So, while I could continue to rip the script to shreds, why bother? Instead, let’s get to why you’re really here and tear into the horror of it all.

Does Jurassic World: Rebirth Deliver on Horror?

As is common with blockbuster films, Rebirth finds itself at odds with its behind-the-scenes talent and the studio executives at Universal. They clearly chose Edwards for his experience with films of kaiju proportions, and Koepp’s portfolio includes its fair share of bangers, including 2025’s critically acclaimed Black Bag. The marketing heavily features the newly hatched D-Rex, a “Xenorancor rex” level monstrosity that by all accounts should be the scariest thing this franchise has ever seen. However, the cold open, which includes a Final Destination-like mishap that allows the D-Rex some bloodlust, is all too brief. And that is the film’s biggest flaw: They have to let it linger, and they don’t.

A certain sense of style and cinematic flair that horror’s best know how to use is simply missing. Is this a creative misstep, or is the studio afraid to alienate families? The hallmark sequence that strands our heroes — a franchise staple — lacks the dread felt in the original’s historic T-Rex attack or even the epic trailer cliff dive from The Lost World. Since the human characters in these movies survive far more often than they should, they could at least leave us a bit shaken after such a spectacle. That said, the film does include a tense river raft sequence from Michael Crichton’s novel that fans have been begging for since the 90s, and it is undoubtedly the movie’s highlight.

CGI vs. Practical Effects in Jurassic World: Rebirth

I could overlook the lack of scares, or at least choose to politely ignore them, if they had gone back to basics and incorporated quality practical effects. Most are aware that OG’s lasting reverence is at least partly due to its extensive use of lifelike, tangible dinosaur prosthetics and robotics. In 2025, a solid combination of quality CGI and practical magic would go a long way. Backed by Edwards’ love of lighting a dramatic silhouette, the D-Rex does have some ominous and visually impressive moments as we catch glimpses of her amidst fire and fog. Then you see mother monster full frontal without the filters, and it feels like catching sight of a sweaty drag queen after a summer brunch performance.

Advertisement

The editing does the film’s attempts at horror no favors either, exhibiting strange spatial logic during tense beats where dinosaurs seem to vanish between cuts and human characters appear to ignore the massive beasts that were chasing them moments earlier.

A Love Letter to Jurassic Fans

As mentioned, fans of the franchise do have a lot to love here, despite Rebirth flopping in the horror department. Instead of the over-the-top fan service found in Dominion, we are given plenty of self-referential nods and visual echoes, from mirror messages to rescue flares and raptors in the kitchen. The excellent score by Alexandre Desplat likewise resurrects a familiar tune that accompanies a sequence featuring mutated Brachiosauruses that look ripped from Annihilation, which almost brought a tear to the eye of this longtime fan. What the movie lacks in scares, it makes up for in charm, and moments like these, along with a central trio of likeable characters, are enough to keep the formulaic plot moving along.

It’s no surprise that Wicked’s Jonathan Bailey, as the eager and inexperienced Dr. Loomis, is as charming as ever. The flitters of interaction between him and Johansson’s gruffy mercenary, Zora, are endearing, and Mahershala Ali’s characterization of Kincaid rounds out the trio with enough wit to establish them as the reboot’s next generation. A paper-thin backstory helps us understand why these would-be heroes are risking their lives for the better part of two hours, leaving room for improvement in potential sequels.

There’s also a forgettable family with the personality of wet rags who get caught up in the action, serving more as catalysts for set pieces than as developed characters. Still, their scenes provide some comedic relief through Gen Z’s himbo boyfriend, Xavier (David Iacono), and a cute baby dinosaur named Dolores (could a Labubu crossover be on the way?).

Is Jurassic World: Rebirth Worth Watching?

Overall, Jurassic World: Rebirth is more entertaining than innovative. It won’t convert any skeptics into dinosaur enthusiasts, but true fans can find plenty to enjoy in this sweaty jungle romp. It’s predictable and lacks the horror elements that readers of Horror Press crave, but I had a good time despite it all. The franchise still has teeth, albeit buried deep within its gums. Hopefully, Universal will allow some creatives the freedom to yank them out in bloody glory for the next one.

Advertisement

Jurassic World: Rebirth is now in theaters!

Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria
Advertisement
Advertisement