MovieChat Forums > It Follows (2015) Discussion > Electrocution...

Electrocution...

posted 6 years ago by helba (65)
8 replies | jump to latest

So this is my 4th and final post after viewing this movie because I enjoyed it so much.

Was anyone else frustrated as fuck when they didn't toss in one of the items around the pool to electrocute it after it had been shot in the head a second time?

It clearly considered electricity as a threat since it was throwing all of them in before going after Jay.

Before anyone says that they weren't causing anything to happen to Jay anyways, so the power was off or something... It was throwing all of the objects in with such force that the plugs were being ripped out of the sockets before they made contact with the water.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Did you notice that was the girl's father at the swimming pool? That's the key to understanding the whole movie (that's why she bleeds in the water, her father took her virginity).

[–] helba (65) 6 years ago

I saw the blood in the water at the end, but I didn't think it was her blood?
Anyways, I'm not diaagreeing with you. I noticed it was her father, but is there further proof of her abusive past? That's something I definitely didn't take from the movie.
What about the other victims? Did they have signs of sexual abuse?

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Watch it again. The boy across the street is attacked by his mother, yes? Why else would the showdown scene involve the girl's father? It's been a while since I've seen it, but I'm not the only person to come away from that movie with that reading of it (the STD theory is totally off).

[–] Prelude (1443) 6 years ago

She didn't bleed in the water - that blood came from the gunshot wounds to the "follower" Gilchrist's character shot. The film takes a few liberties with the nature of the "followers" -- they seem to be both a ghost that isn't seen by everyone, and also a physical entity that can be wounded. The other kids couldn't see the "thing" until they threw a blanket over it, but could kill it and cause bleeding by shooting it.

[–] NoEasyBuckets (350) 6 years ago

Pretty sure when she gets hit by one of the objects, you can see her checking her head and then some blood streaming out. Then when she's swimming out you can see a trail of blood behind her.

[–] fountainhead (323) 2 years ago

Yes, this was my only major complaint with this movie. They went through all that trouble of bringing the toasters and lamps there and when the moment was just right, they had the monster in the water, Jay was safely out of the water, only to fail to execute their plan.

[–] Zarkoff (1906) 6 months ago

Their plan was flawed anyway, at least it would have been according to real world physics. An appliance in a big pool like that wouldn't kill someone. Even if one falls into a tub, it might not kill a person like it usually does in the movies.

And the demon, ghost, whatever it was got back up fairly quickly, barely affected by being shot in the neck earlier in the movie. I'm not sure why they thought they could electrocute it or shoot it by the end. It seemed to be supernatural, pretty clearly.

[–] Nanook (1960) 6 months ago

My take as well. They were high school kids who maybe had never heard of a circuit breaker, or like you said, knew how 115V AC electricity would behave in a huge swimming pool.

Still one of my favorite semi-recent horrors.