I mean, there are CGI monsters in it. My interpretation, which many share, is that the monsters are entirely in the protagonist's head. No one else directly interacts with them and no one is killed by monsters. They're all killed in falls or accidents.

I thought it was exactly the solution a bunch of teenagers would come up with. They keep thinking about this thing literally and they don't all see what she sees. They're not playing with all of the clues and I thought their plan was a good signifier showing how far in over their heads they were.

I think a common interpretation of The Descent is that there are no monsters. There's just one insane killer and the damage and paranoia she unleashes.

I think most people did. I certainly thought that but lots of discussions I've had since seeing the movie have been with people who want to treat It Follows more like a standard horror film and, as such, see that scene more as a failure which I think is missing the point.

I agree. This is why the best and only Paranormal Activity movie I can really recommend is 3.

There was an interview with the director on Vulture where he said that the pool idea was meant to be stupid. He was coy about whether or not It is some sort of evil that you can't stop but the idea was that the pool scene was supposed to be a naive solution to something the teenagers don't fully understand.

COME ON JORDO, WATCH "THE DESCENT" IT'S SO GREAT

I have such a bad completionist streak when it comes to movies and TV that once I start one, it's really hard for me to stop halfway through. I've rolled my eyes through a lot of third acts.

I get that it's a natural race to a conclusion. The story has to be wrapped up so we have to decide if the protagonists survive or not and how they do so. That naturally leads to action which I understand and I think there have been really successful horror movies that embraced this, with "Alien" being a solid example…

It definitely trades in the dread and horror of the first half for something much more expected in the second. I still liked it but it's not a great third act.

I do remember that now. I remember liking it but I don't know that I would really watch it again or recommend it much.

I mean, they can see it lifting and throwing stuff then and see it walking through the sand. I thought the movie communicated that in a fair way.

*Drinks, throws glass at wall, cries, roll credits*

I remember thinking Oculus was fine but I couldn't tell you a thing about it right now. It just seems very familiar.

My standard for most horror movies over the last couple of years is "not everyone hated it so I'll probably watch it at some point."

The third act was my favorite bit. [SPOILERS] I liked how much the movie leaves up to the viewers, particularly when it comes to whether or not something happens with the guys on the boat or what the blood dispersing in the pool means. I liked that more than most of the movie although the scene where It arrives at the…

Before the Spambot was Guest, it was CAROL

When I was a younger person, I convinced my younger brother that the dummy from "Night of the Living Dummy" lived behind the toilet. I'm fairly sure I inadvertently did some lasting damage there.

Exactly. I don't think there's a way to make it not look silly. I think the only way it really passes for me is when we clearly see or feel the presence of whatever is causing them to do what they do. I think the reason the opening scene of Sinister, where the family is hung, works so well is because we're unnerved…

"Dead Silence" really scared me when it came out and I don't really remember why. I still haven't seen Insidious 2 and would probably have to rewatch the first one just to remember all of what was going on in it anyway.