"The Human Centipede" Gives New Meaning to "Kiss My Ass"

So, I have to admit, yesterday was the first time I have seen "The Human Centipede." 

The plot: An achieved doctor known for his work in separating siamese twins at birth also is a mad scientist.  He is obsessed with conjoining human beings at the anus and the mouth; thus, making a 'human centipede.'  

One cold and raining night two American tourists in Germany (or at least a German speaking country) are driving their rental car.  They become lost on a dark and desolate road at which point their car gets a flat tire.  Neither one of the two girls know how to fix a flat tire.  They try to call the rental car place in order to have someone pick them up or fix the flat tire; however, there is no cell phone signal.  They begin to walk on the dark and desolate road, but somehow end up in the forest.  

They stumble upon a house, it begins to rain, and they bang on the door until you know who answers: the mad scientist.  He invites them in and offers them water.  They accept.  The mad scientist slips the date rape drug into their waters.  The drink the waters and pass out accordingly.  The mad scientist drags them to his "layer" and ties them to hospital gurneys.   

The mad scientist then obtains one more person, a Japanese fellow, and ties him to a hospital gurney in his "layer" next to the two American tourists.

The mad scientist then performs and operation wherein he sews one of the American girls' face, mouth open, to the anus of the Japanese guy.  The mad scientist, then, sews the other girl's face, mouth open, to the anus of the first American girl; thus, creating an ass-to-mouth 'human centipede.' You can infer the consequences of such a configuration; so, I'll let your imagination do that work.

The rest of the movie is about the doctor trying to condition, like one would do with a dog, the 'human centipede.'  

The Recommendation:

Strange movie to say the least.  I do not recommend it for anybody with a weak stomach or anyone who is not experienced in watching horror movies that push the boundaries of what can be done in the name of entertainment.  There really is not too much overt gore; however, there need not be because our imaginations are able to pick up on the pungent horrificness going on within the film.

I do recommend this movie for the experienced horror movie enthusiast.  This movie is especially suited for those who enjoy watching a film that takes you into the deep recesses of what the human psychology can label as 'enjoyable,' 'entertainment,' or even 'art.'  There is definitely some thoughtful debates about what counts as 'art' to be had after one views this film.  Those folks who are interested in that kind of debate are more likely than not going to appreciate this film rather than your average person who likes the occasional 'scary' flick.

"The Human Centipede" as of 2/6/2016 is available on Netflix.

I plan on watching "The Human Centipede 2" within the next couple of days.  So, stay tuned for a run down on that one, and a comparison to the first.

Let us know what you thought about "The Human Centipede" in the comment section.

What The Hell Did I Just Watch? "Stitches" Movie Review

Netflix, you dirty ol' bastard!  Well, I have just been tricked again by Netflix to watch a movie that I have mixed feelings about.  Let me explain.

First, let me just get the plot of this movie called 'Stitches' out into the open so you have an idea from where I am coming.

******Spoiler Altert******

Stitches is, essentially, a movie about a party clown (Stitches), who is killed within the first 10 minutes of movie as a result of receiving a kitchen knife to the face.  The rest of the movie is about Stitches coming back to life, a clown zombie if you will, and exacting his revenge on all those who have wronged him; specifically, the kids who teased him at the birthday party where he died.  

I am going to highlight the plot a bit further now in order to explain my mixed feelings about this film.

The movie begins when Stitches arrives at a kid's birthday party. Stitches, then, attempts to entertain the kids with a variety of clown tricks.  The kids are not thrilled by the clown's antics.  So, they begin to tease the clown and give him a hard time.  Specifically, one kid ties Stitches' shoe strings together (classic prank), while another kid throws a ball at Stitches causing him
to go off-balance and fall directly onto a kitchen knife that was placed, by an adult, in a dishwasher with the blade sticking straight up.

Who puts a kitchen knife in the dishwasher with he blade sticking straight up and then leaves the dishwasher open, especially with kids hyped up on cake running around???

Anyway, as I said before, Stitches falls on the knife and it goes through his left eye and out the top of his skull.  Blood, brains, and gore spray everywhere (I mean everywhere). It's hilarious the amount of blood and brains that spew from this clown's head wound.  But this is only the beginning of the gore that ensues during the rest of the movie.

At this point, Stitches is "dead" and buried in a grave yard.  The kid, who was having the birthday party, goes to the grave yard and witnesses an ancient clown ritual being performed.  Apparently, when clown's receive their official induction into the 'clownship' they are given an egg with their clown faces painted on it.  This egg is symbolic of the eternal life as a clown.  It also is the thing that ends up destroying the zombie version of Stitches at the end of the movie.

We fast forward 6 years later when the kids are adolescences in middle-school.  The former birthday boy has a pretty severe case of PTSD from the incident 6 years before.  He hallucinates frequently of people around him turning into clowns and performing gruesome acts on other people around him.  For example, one hallucination is when he is sitting in a classroom with his classmates, the teacher turns into a murderous clown, walks up to a kid and rips his dick off in the middle of class.  Then, the clown, who now has a kid's dick in his hand, trots around the classroom displaying the dick to everyone.  Oh, and as the viewers to this spectacle, we are graciously awarded the opportunity to watch the clown rip the kid's dick off while the camera is zoomed in on the entire ordeal.  So, not only do we see the dick being ripped off, but we see it up close and personal and there is plenty of flesh ripping imagery to accompany it.

Shortly after that entertaining sequence (can I call it entertaining???), we learn that it is the hallucinating kid's birthday again.  So, the kid wants to have a birthday party.  He invites the entire school over to his house and a ton of people show up.

During the party, Stitches is magically resurrected from the grave and on a mission to kill all of the kids responsible for his death.  The rest of the movie is about Stitches cleverly and creatively killing a bunch of kids.  For example, he kicks a kid's head off, stabs a girl through the eye with an umbrella, uses a ice-cream scooper to scoop a kid's brains out of his head while simultaneously making an ice-cream sunday; only instead of ice-cream, Stitches uses brains, and disembowels a one guy turning the removed bowel in a balloon animal; specifically, a dog.  All of these acts are accompanied by exaggerated gore, blood spewing, raunchy carnage, screaming, and howling cries of pain by Stitches' victims as they are mutilated.

The movie ends with the birthday boy destroying the egg with Stitches' clown face drawn on it.  When the egg is destroyed, Stitches explodes, but get this, he explodes and the resulting carnage is egg yolk.  And once Stitches is dead, everybody lives happily ever after.

Or do they???

Alright, let me return to what I started this post out with; namely, that I have mixed feelings about this movie.  However, I must first make a confession.  While writing this post I realized something -- I love this movie.  The hyperbolic gore, blood, bad acting, and overall raunchiness speaks to me in a way that I want an independent B-horror movie to speak.  I don't expect this kind of movie to have a good plot or character depth.  I watch these movies because I want to be grossed out, but I also want laugh at the grossness.  Let's call Stitches what it is, a low budget gross out film, and, as such, I can assure you that it delivers.

I don't need to bother recommending this movie because if you are a fan of B-horror movies, then you already know what Stitches is all about.  And if you don't like B-horror movies, then there is no need to waste time trying to convince you that you should watch it.  This movie was made for a particular audience and they know who they are.  However, for those of you who are on the fence about it, give it 15 minutes and if after that you don't like it, turn it off because chances are that you won't like the rest.

As of 2/5/2016 'Stitches' is available on Netflix (US).

What Are Your "go to" Scary Movies?

Late one night, I found myself looking for a movie to watch.  It was between that time where you're sleepy, but not tired enough to go to sleep. I decided that I wanted to watch a good horror movie, which is very hard to find these days.

As I was going through my Netflix and Hulu account, nothing looked enticing. So, I went inside my memory warehouse (I got that from Stephen Kings 'Dreamcatcher', great movie by the way) and looked for my "go to" horror movies that creep me out when I watch them by myself.  You know what I'm talking about, the movies that make you paranoid enough to always look over your shoulder, or run up the steps to your room when you turn off all the lights, or when every little house noise turns into a life and death situation.  If a horror movie can do this to me, then I know it's good. Here are two movies (more to come) that consistently scare and creep me out no matter how many times I watch them.

1.Silent hill

This entire movie had weird all over it from the first time I watched it in theaters. The eerie music, dim environment, and the people that lived in Silent Hill, at least to me, could be based off a real town in backwoods USA somewhere. But the icing on the cake is the little girl who plays 3 different characters in the movie (two if you want to get technical). She was basically an innocent child that was bullied and tortured because her and her mother were the outcasts of the town. When she was burned alive (and lived), a witch or demon came to her and made a deal to make the people and the town itself suffer. Creepy!

2. Rob Zombie's Halloween

Rob Zombie did an excellent job with this movie, taking the Micheal Myers that everyone knows and giving him the perfect origin story. First of all, that kid who played Micheal just had a face that had serial killer written all over it. They showed his crappy home life, being picked on, and seeing him killing animals for the fun of it. Just watching a kid grow up with all those issues gives me some justification for accepting Micheal as a murderer. The adult Micheal was just a huge, strong, violent guy with no remorse. No matter how many times I watch this movie I cringe at the shear brute force of the way he kills someone.

What is your "go to" scary movie? What do you do when you get scared?

Tucker and Dale vs. Evil - Review

Tucker and Dale vs. Evil is a horror/comedy that lives up to both genre labels, but is more heavy on the comedy than the horror. You're not going to be scared, but you are going to laugh.

The story is as follows: two backwoods country guys (Tucker and Dale) are taking a trip to fix up and renovate a vacation cabin that Tucker has just bought.  While Tucker and Dale are fixing up the cabin, they encounter some stereotypical dimwitted teenagers common to the horror genre.  Quickly, Tucker, Dale, and the teenagers find themselves in a situation wherein the line between who is good and evil is blurry at best.  Tucker and Dale think the teenagers are out to get them and at the same time the teenagers think the same about Tucker and Dale.  There's a kidnapping, people start dying in gruesome, but creative and  hilarious ways.  The movie basically rests on a HUGE misunderstanding due to a lack of communication.  

As I said at the beginning, this movie is classified as a horror/comedy.  However, the only thing about this movie that strikes me as being "horror" is that there is a lot blood, guts, gore, and death.  I suppose that could qualify as horror, but the story that is being told throughout the movie quickly dilutes any elements of "fear" or "scary-factor."  If you wanted to count the fear of dying as consistent with the "fear" representative of the horror genre, then this movie is within its classification.

I recommend this movie primarily because of the story and its hilarity, not necessarily because its scary in any meaningful sense.  There isn't great acting either; however, there are enough characters representing enough personalities that you get a little bit of everything in the way of character development, but don't expect anything deep.  So, if you like exaggerated gore and decent effects that are expected from a horror film and idiocy from characters and if you have an hour and a half to kill one day, then give this movie a shot.

It is currently available on Netflix as of 1/25/2016.   

Siding With a Murderer: Confessions of an Immoralist.

Superficially, what do Jason Vorhees, Freddy Kruger, and Michael Myers all have in common.  Among other things, they all kill a lot of people indiscriminately.  Arguably, the films are challenging to watch because, if you are like me, I am not sure for whom I should be cheering.  For example, do I root for the ignorant and stumbling teenager who Jason is chasing and is more than likely going to annihilate the face of with his machete?  Or do I root for Jason to slice that kid up into a thousand pieces and continue the rampage and impose his wrath onto his next victim?  The same questions can be applied to Freddy and/or Michael; who's corner am I in?  Let us take this in stride starting from the top.

Jason and Freddy share another crucial factor, namely - they were wronged and are out seeking revenge.  Jason was brutally teased as a child, Freddy was lured by the parents of his victims to a building, where he was set on fire and burned to "death."  Michael, on the other hand, from the beginning of his life was just a sociopath with a murderous personality.  In the case of Freddy or Jason, I can sympathize with their intentional positions in that if I were treated the way they were, I may consider externalizing my rage on the world in a similar fashion.  However, in the case of Michael, it is a little bit harder to sympathize with him because I do not know what it's like to see the human as something to be killed for pleasure.  Though it is harder to sympathize with Michael and easier with Freddy and/or Jason, I still have found myself siding or cheering for any one of the three as they slice, chop, hack, and claw their ways through victim after victim.

If your like me and have ever cheered for Michael, Freddy, or Jason, then we must admit that we have cheered for a murderer.  Regardless of what Jason or Michael's intentions are for why they kill, the fact is that they are murderers.  I have actually watched one of the Friday the 13th films and picked out one of the characters I hated and hoped Jason killed them.  Then when Jason actually did kill that character, I would be excited and thankful as if the character deserved it.  Moreover, if the killing was especially brutal, namely if the character received a machete through the face, this would enhance my excitement.

If you have made it this far, then we probably have similar experiences.  Here is where things get a little complicated, though.  We cheer for Freddy, Jason, or even Michael to slaughter their targets, but would you cheer for the 9/11 terrorists, James Holmes (guy who shot up the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado) Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bombing), Ted Bundy (serial killer), Jeffrey Dahmer (serial killer), Osama Bin Laden (suspected mastermind behind 9/11), I could go on but you get the point.  Did we cheer as the people, who were stuck in the Twin Towers, jumped out of the windows to avoid being burned to death or die of asphyxiation?  Would we cheer if we were to watch a replay of the Aurora shooting while people were shot in their faces or delight as a pregnant woman has her stomach ripped open by a bullet causing the fetus to ooze out of the wound?  Do you think the juries, who watched the multiple bodies Dahmer chopped up to consume carried out of his apartment, were eating popcorn and relishing in the film?  My guess is that the answer to all of the above is "No" we would not cheer, delight, or relish in any of this.  So why do we do it in the cases of Freddy, Jason, and Michael?

There are going to be some who are chomping at the bit to make this argument, which is as follows: Jason, Freddy, and Michael are fictitious characters in fictitious movies not grounded in reality whatsoever.  The movies do not even pretend to depict real life events.  In other words, Freddy, Jason, and Michael are just simply not real and neither are the characters they kill or the plots they carry out.  However, those people who jumped out of the Twin Towers, the victims in the Oklahoma City bombing, Holmes' gunshot victims were real.  Those events actually happened and those victims actually died.  Cities, communities, and families were ripped apart, destroyed, and annihilated due to the acts of a few or single actors.  There is a difference between real life events and consequences and fictitious events and consequences.  One should not conflate the two or argue that the two are similar.

While I am sympathetic to this argument, there is a nagging itch I have to make another argument which is as follows: Jason, Freddy, and Michael are murderers.  When I cheer them for their accomplishments, I am cheering murder.  Yes, the murder is pretend; however, the object of my delight is murder nonetheless.  Murder, I argue, is a concept which transcends the realm of fiction.   Murder is supposed to be bad, wrong, evil, immoral etc. regardless of where, when, how, or to whom it happens.  A note must be made here that justified homicide i.e. self-defense or defense of others is not murder, it is justifiable homicide; there is an argument that they are different both morally and legally.  When I cheer Jason, Freddy, or Michael I am blurring my normal moral evaluations and engaging in behavior that would otherwise illicit condemnation from others and from myself as well.  Yet, when my friends and I watch Jason, Michael, and/or Freddy dice someone up with a cleaver, machete, or in Freddy's case that wicked claw he has for a hand, and cheer we feel neither guilt nor shame or condemn each other or ourselves for this behavior.  Are we immoralists?

If you accept the premise that the concept of murder is a transcendental one and is bad, wrong, evil, immoral at anytime in anyplace, as I have been taught through my experience living in the world, then I need to justify my tendency to side with Jason, Freddy, or Michael when they murder their victims.  Perhaps, I side with them because I do not wholeheartedly believe that murder bad, wrong, immoral evil etc.?  Do these kinds of movies speak to a deeper level of consciousness, or perhaps the unconscious, within us?  They may allow us to indulge in our more animalistic tendencies for violence, destruction, and carnage.  Siding with Jason, Freddy, and/or Michael could be a way of appreciating the suppressed inner killer that is shadowed by prohibitive moral judgments.  How many times have you been cut off in traffic and wanted to unleash a furry of anger toward the person guilty of the infraction, but didn't?  Watching Jason, Freddy, and/or Michael murder at will may allow us to vicariously appreciate real unadulterated violence without real consequences.

The Perfect Host (A Hidden Gem)

For those of us who use Netflix or any other kind of streaming service, we are all too familiar with taking a chance on a movie and it turning out to be awful.  Sometimes if I start a movie on Netflix and I get 20 or 30 minutes in and I'm uninterested, I'll just turn it off and do something else or find another movie.  Searching for quality movies worth investing two or even two and a half hours of our time can almost be as painful as trying to by a car (notice I said almost, buying a car is still more of a pain in the ass).  However, sometimes randomly taking a chance on a movie pays off and you actually find a good one.

In the case of The Perfect Host, the chance I took payed off big time.  This movie is by far one of the best movies I have ever seen.  The genre of movie that The Perfect Host falls under is psychological thriller mixed with elements of horror.  The twists and turns within the plot of this movie are more than likely enough to keep anyone entertained (who is interested in these genres of course).  The plot in a nutshell is difficult to put into words because I do not want to give the wrong impression about the movie or mislead anyone.  I, first and foremost, absolutely do not want to provide any spoilers because the twists built into the plot are what push this movie from good to great.  I could just be a simpleton, but the ending caught me completely off guard.

So, in light of not wanting to spoil anything for a future viewer regarding this movie, I will just say a few simple words about the plot.  Actually, using Netflix's description of the movie is sufficient, it says "A fugitive on the lam crashes a dinner party.  But he regrets it when the host has him convinced that he would have been better off hiding elsewhere."  If anyone is really interested in learning more about the plot, then go to IMDB or any other professional or amateur site and look it up.  You can also find other movie reviews sites to satisfy your curiosity.  However, I strongly suggest and recommend that anyone, who takes my recommendation at face value, not do any research on this film before you watch it.   I assure that the plot is excellent, acting is brilliant, and the twists that unfold at the end are well worth giving this film a shot.

Film and The Self: Do the films we enjoy reveal our character?

It is not a stretch to suggest that every able-minded person will, at some point in their life, ask the question: Who am I?  Some individuals will settle on answers in the form of a preordained societal list containing various adjectives representing their respective value system for better or worse.  Others may not be inclined to settle on answering the question in such straight forward terms.  Instead, these individuals may wish to use similar adjectives but redefine them to fit their own value system, again for better or worse.  Some may even be hesitant to apply any adjectives to themselves for fear of commitment to any value system.  Some individuals may see the self as a process and not subject to a fixed description.  Others may reject the question entirely and argue the self is an illusion.  This is not an exhaustive list; however, it does reflect some popular ways that individuals handle the question.

When making our determinations about who we are, what evidence or reasons do we appeal to in order to provide an answer?  Some may look at their consumer possessions i.e. car, diamonds, houses, furniture, fashion items etc. Others may consider their relationships with others i.e. mothers to children, wives to husbands, cousins to uncles, grandparent to grandchild.  Yet others might ask whether they live according to a religious belief system i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Muslim, Hindu etc.  We might consider everything together, but still weigh one area more heavily than others  i.e. the billionaire may weigh his material possessions more heavily than his religious belief system.  Again, the list is not exhaustive, but sufficient to make the point that answering the simple question, "Who am I" requires a complex answer.

One area that may reveal a great deal about ourselves to ourselves and help us answer the question "Who am I" is considering the genres of film we enjoy.  What can be inferred by an individual regarding their personality, who prefers slasher horror genre to romantic comedies.  Why would one have that preference?  How does having that preference effect the view of themselves toward themselves?  I cannot provide answers to these questions.  Answers, if there are any, are reserved for the selves that contemplate the question "Who am I" and use the films they enjoy as evidence for who they think they are.

Movie genres are often not exclusive.  Often times a movie that generally fits into a genre will also have elements of another genre.  Likewise, the individual may have personality characteristics fitting a genre; however, the individual may have elements of other genres as well.  However, we are often closed off from discovering what other elements of other genres we possess.  Perhaps this is why film is a superior choice of evidence when considering the question "Who am I," rather than using consumer goods, relationships, or even religious belief systems.  The human personality is a complex enterprise.  Cornering ourselves into one genre does not allow for us to account for our complexity and diversity.  For example, I may only consider myself a Christian, husband, and father according to the value system of my community.  Here, I have closed myself off to considering what other elements from other genres I possess.  Maybe examining the films I enjoy would help unearth my complexity and my diverse elements incorporated from those other genres?

Asking ourselves "Who am I" is a difficult and burdensome question.  Nonetheless, it's a question we are destined to confront at some point in our lives.  We are also destined, for better or worse, to categorize, label, and box ourselves into genres, which is not, in and of itself, a disservice to ourselves.  However, the damage is done when we allow ourselves to know ourselves by only one genre and not consider the elements from other genres.  This is where film can assist us in answering the question "Who am I?"

Let us know how your personality is reflected by the genres of film you enjoy in the comment section.

The Lost Art of Patience and Its Implications on Film

Watching movies is about as relaxing of an activity that one can engage.  Or is it?  This poses an interesting question.  How should one watch a movie?  If  movie watching is an aesthetic experience, then there are underlying rules for watching a movie.  One should focus their attention on elements of a film such as: how the soundtrack blends with whats happening on the screen or how successful different colors in a scene evoke the appropriate emotional reaction.  These are obvious elements of a film that even the most amateur viewer, such as myself, are able to identify.  A viewer is more likely to recognize these elements if that viewer is paying attention to the movie.  A distracted viewing of a film is surely not going to have the impact on a viewer that an active, even semi-active, viewer will have.  

A subtle yet almost imperative faculty one should possess when watching film, especially one like “It Follows,” is that of patience.  Patience is a lost art in the fast paced, sound bite, and twitter induced nausea culture that has unfolded in the last decade or so.  Afraid of the implications of the loss of patience as a virtue, I began to contemplate those implications on film and viewership.  This contemplation manifested itself during my viewing of “It Follows.”  

This movie, of which I have posted a brief review with no spoilers, is a slow-paced, slow-developing, suspenseful movie that requires a complete level of patience and focus.  There are no explosions, limited gore, no scream queens, and no dumbass decisions made by characters that do not reflect a shred of rationality -- which we are regularly exposed to by Hollywood films.  With the Hollywood status quo as of late, there is no need for patience because everything is intense all of the time.  “It Follows” deviates from the Hollywood formula and actually spends quite a bit of time building suspense. 

During my viewing of "It Follows," I initially suffered from action withdraw.  However, after some brief introspection, I became aware that I had a problem.  I was not being patient and allowing a sufficient amount of time to pass for the movie to develop meaningful suspense and anticipation.  Time is required to develop suspense within a plot which, hopefully, leads to an eventual climax.  A viewer should have a high level of patience and be actively focused on the film in order to allow the film to work on their consciousness.  “It Follows,” is arguably an example of a film that requires this level of patience and focus in order for the story-line to work on the viewers consciousness so that the viewer feels a sense of climax at the appropriate time.  

There are a lot of reviews suggesting that slower-paced films, such as “It Follows,” are poor films because they are boring or not catchy which implies a fault in the film.  However, I argue that while the film may have its faults, it is strongly correlated with a viewership not mentally equipped to watch it.  A viewer who has their reserves of patience and focus tapped before a film like “It Follows” builds even a ounce of suspense has fallen victim to the nausea.  A culture pregnant with people demanding unlimited attention and patience, ironically, have none to give. Unfortunately, this may be leading to a surplus of passive, distracted, inattentive people, which seemingly has implications on how movies develop the element of suspense.

Let me know what you think in the comment section.

Zombeavers: Yea, I watched it.

So, I finally gave in to Netflix's constant pestering recommendation of Zombeaevers.  The best way I can summarize this movie is to ask the question: what would Jason Voorhees do if he were a beaver?  I do not want to give any spoilers in case anybody reading this wants to give the movie a shot.  I will say that if you have an hour and seventeen minutes or so, you might want to think about trying to watch it.  But seriously, the movie does not seem to be meant for academic or professional criticism.  So, any reviews out there that try and turn this in to an academic enterprise, or apply a lot of fancy vocabulary while staring down their noses critiquing this film are going to come off as awfully pedantic and pompous (yea, kind of like that last sentence sounded).

Zombeavers is a comedy/horror movie, but weighing more heavily on comedy rather than horror.  As mentioned above, you could take any movie from the Friday the 13th franchise formula (expect Jason in space or Jason vs. Freddy) and replace Jason with raging beavers.  A group of females go to a cabin deep in the woods to party, drink, and escape their boyfriends.  A water supply is tainted with toxic sludge and beavers ingest the chemicals becoming zombeavers.  The beavers then begin to terrorize the females and everybody in the small surrounding community.  This is a summary of the plot in a nutshell without giving any spoilers to the "twists" within the plot.

The enjoyment one might receive from watching this film is not from the suspense, intensity, or any passionate love story between characters.  Instead, if you are someone who can stomach some gory scenes, laugh at the ridiculous story, and allow yourself to be entertained by crude and sophomoric humor, then you'll be just fine.  You might even recommend it to somebody else.

Oh and if you do watch it, watch the bloopers and cut scenes at the very end.  You can tell that this movie was fun for the cast to make.  

Tell us what you think in the comment section.

Link to imdb for cover photo and trailer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2784512/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

It Follows: A Theory of How to Avoid "It"

It Follows: A Theory on How to Avoid "It"

SPOLILER ALERT: If you have not seen the movie, please read this post at your own discretion.

As you know, there’s not a lot of back story on where ‘It’ came from. But we do know a couple of things. ‘It’ comes after you as soon as you have sex with the person “It” is currently following. ‘It’ moves very slowly (you can outrun it), never stops, and can imitate anyone to it’s liking. ‘It’ will kill the person “It” is after and go after the next person down the line. “It” is kind of like a paranormal STD.

‘It’ will always come after you and the only way to temporarily get ‘It’ to stop is to have sex with someone else. Then, I believe that ‘It’ resets itself and starts after the new person. I say resets because it takes a long time for ‘It’ to come after that new person. I think ‘It’ goes back to its origin from where it came and starts from there. This ties into how I think you can survive ‘It’ following you.

If ‘It’ resets itself after you have sex with someone and then comes after the new person, why don’t you just have sex with the previous person you just had sex with?  The main character sleeps with multiple people throughout the movie to get ‘It’ to stop following her. Of course it worked temporary, but knowing what we know, it’s not a permanent fix. At the very end of the movie she sleeps with her best friend and they walk down the sidewalk together knowing that ‘It’ is following one of them.  Just keep sleeping with each other every day and you should be in the clear due to the time "It" takes to reset.  Of course this is assumes "It" resets and returns to its origins after every sexual encounter.  This is a common theory among the people who have seen this movie.  I think it is basically correct given what we know right now about "It."  More information is needed into the actual origins of "It" in order to flesh out my avoidance theory.  I hope a sequel is made addressing issues such as: where "it" came from, what "it" is, or even why sex is the only way to transmit "it." 

Tell me what you think below.