We received a letter from someone who thinks It Follows - a film about a shape-shifting, sexually transmitted monster - isn't factually accurate enough

Can you remember a better-reviewed contemporary horror movie than It Follows? Writer-director David Robert Mitchell's nerve-shredding chiller about a young woman relentlessly pursued through suburban Detroit by a sexually transmitted supernatural entity has been a critical and commercial hit.

The Telegraph's own Tim Robey called it "a contemporary horror fan's dream come true." The New Yorker compared It Follows to John Carpenter's original Halloween, the Guardian praised the film's "brooding menace" and "economically staged set-pieces"; and it has a 96 per cent fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

So, absolutely everybody loves It Follows. Everybody, that is, except the writer of an anonymous letter we recently found under a pile of post in a dark corner of our office. Addressed to our critic Tim Robey and bearing a Portland, Oregon postmark, the missive goes into enormous detail about the lack of scientific rigour and realism in It Follows.

Among its questions: What if the heroine moved to Australia? Does lesbian sex count? Can you really run that fast in high heels? And what's with the weird music? 

You can read the full, exhaustively detailed complaint below, but be warned: doing so will ruin the movie for you, in every conceivable way:

Dear Mr Robey,

I was alarmed to learn that you gave It Follows a positive review, and am concerned that perhaps you didn’t fully examine the film? It seems to me even a superficial examination reveals just how ludicrous the entire film is. It is, in fact, laughable from the very beginning. Why is the initial screen victim running out of her house in her underwear and red high heels? What teenage girl would be dressed like that in her home with her dad? Is this some kinky fantasy the writer/ director wanted to put on film? Ask any young woman if – even when scared – she would attempt to drive wearing stiletto heels!

The entire premise of the movie – a creature that stalks you unless you have sex with someone – is ridiculous. How did this sequence of events get started? Where did the creature come from, and why would it be driven to kill the most recently infected person? In order to protect yourself from the creature you have to pay it forward (or “lay it forward” if you will). How did anyone ever figure this out? And why would that work? And supposing that the creature did work its way through killing all of those going back in the chain, then what? What would it do? What would happen to it? Hugh/ Jeff says there is “only one” of these creatures  – how does he know?

Follow that: the mysterious letter from Portland, Oregon

The film – to its detriment – only ever considers that Jay would next sleep with a male. What if she were to sleep with a girl (like Kelly)? Would that count? Or does there have to be an exchange of bodily fluids for the “mark” to be transferred? What if the couple’s intimacy only consists of mutual masturbation, does that count? Or does there have to be physical penetration?

Much is made of the fact that the creature must “walk” to its next victim. What if Jay moved to Australia? Would the creature walk across the bottom of the Pacific Ocean to get to her? How long would it take someone to “walk” to Australia? What if she calculates this, and then flies to the UK a week before the deadline? Now the creature has to walk from Australia to the UK!

If the most recently infected person gets killed by the creature, it next targets the most recent infector  – again, how did anyone ever find this out? Suppose the most recently infected person dies in a car crash before having sex with anyone else. Would that stop the creature? Or would it just revert back to the infector again, even if it wasn’t the one that made the kill?

The creature appears good at camouflage: it appears as a patient at a hospital, as a high school student at a high school. So why does it appear as a naked man standing on a rooftop?

Maika Monroe in David Robert Mitchell's psychological horror 'It Follows'

The creature can be covered by a sheet to reveal its shape to non-victims, and has to break into windows et cetera to gain physical entry to a locked residence. Clearly this is a physical being that happens to be invisible, not an incorporeal phantom. So why doesn’t Jay try running it over with the car rather than just driving away from it?

If the gunshot to the head didn’t stop it at the beach, why would they think electrocuting it would? And on that note, isn't it irresponsible filmmaking to teach young people in the audience that they can survive throwing electrical objects into the water the way Jay does?

At the end of the film, Jay doesn’t want to say what form the creature has taken when it enters the pool room. We imagine something hideous. Then we shrug when it turns out to be just a bearded guy. Later we find out it’s her dad. I posit that it would have been more disturbing to know at the time that it was her dad.

On that note, how does the creature know what Jay’s dad looked like? Did it establish a telepathic link to her when Hugh/Jeff put his penis in her? Or is it really good at memorising portraits in the houses it enters, for future reference?

If Jay could be “saved” by having sex with someone but she initially rejects that course of action, what if Paul were to have raped her to save her? Did the writer/director decide not to bring that up for fear of glorifying rape?

Speaking of Jay’s “refusal” to have sex with a stranger, there is a scene that shows her disrobing on the shore in front of a boat with three guys, The point of this scene is clearly to imply that she goes to the boat and has a foursome?

Speaking of the three guys in the boat, does the infection only happen once? In other words is only the first guy on the boat who entered Jay now infected? Or are all three of them infected and at risk of being “followed”?

On a more fundamental filmmaking level, the score by Disasterpiece comes across as intrusive and over-the-top. Worse, it has hokey motifs that jar with the alleged seriousness of some scenes. Furthermore, no attempt is made to give some of the characters names apart from in the credits, and even the protagonist (a woman oddly named Jay for some unexplained reason) isn't called by name until almost halfway through the film.

And for a horror film, there are surprisingly few deaths. Apart from the mystery girl’s death that opens the film (we never find out how she related to the rest of the characters), the other main on-screen death is Greg, killed in his bedroom. Given that the creature walks toward the victim until it reaches them, how very convenient that it so seldom appears in the middle of the night while the victim is asleep! Where’s the “don’t fall asleep” warning à la invasion of the Body Snatchers and A Nightmare on Elm Street?

With so many lapses in both storytelling and filmmaking, one wonders why anyone could think highly of this sloppy and absurdly illogical film. The only way all of the above could possibly make any sense is for it to have been one of the characters’ nightmares. And of course “and they woke up and it was all a dream” is the lames of storytelling clichés.

There was no signature. Do you know who wrote this? Is he or she fun at parties? And are they planning to make their own rigorously fact-checked monster movie? We'd love to see it...