IT 2017 reviews are coming out...

[bjj hero]

EDIT: If it makes a difference, its not so much an orgy as it is a train. I mean, it's doesn't really make a difference, but it is what it is.

Thank you for clearing that up. We can now all sleep soundly in our beds.

 

[Baron_BJ]

Having seen it on release night (future land of Australia, so yesterday for me), I can say that I never found it scary, though the film was really well put together and I was never once bored. It's one of my favourite films of the year so far, but Pennywise had nothing to do with that. The Banter between the kids was consistent and hilarious, you really got attached to them. Genuinely one of the funniest movies I've seen all year and a lot of that comes from just how real and natural the kids' shit talk was.

 

[Cycloptomese]

Having seen it on release night (future land of Australia, so yesterday for me), I can say that I never found it scary, though the film was really well put together and I was never once bored. It's one of my favourite films of the year so far, but Pennywise had nothing to do with that. The Banter between the kids was consistent and hilarious, you really got attached to them. Genuinely one of the funniest movies I've seen all year and a lot of that comes from just how real and natural the kids' shit talk was.

Yes, this. My wife and I saw a special early showing of it last night. We had assigned seats with reclining chairs that vibrate and everything. I'd never done that before and it was really cool.

Anyway, I didn't really find it terribly scary either. This may be because I've seen so many horror movies over the years, but I could see how a younger me might find it scary. It was however very entertaining. It was very well paced and there was basically no down time. Also, the sound engineering folks deserve an oscar. Seeing this film in the theater is worth it for that alone.

Also, you're right. It was refreshing seeing an accurate portrayal of pretty much exactly how kids talk under no adult supervision.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I haven't read the book or seen the original version; I'm interested in the movie purely because it was made by a fellow Argie.

 

[Kotaro]

I'm just glad we got at least one good King adaptation this year. The Dark Tower was abominable.
Just my luck, really: the King series I love gets a shitty movie, and the King book I don't like all that much gets a really good one.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I'm just glad we got at least one good King adaptation this year. The Dark Tower was abominable.
Just my luck, really: the King series I love gets a shitty movie, and the King book I don't like all that much gets a really good one.

Come on, though. You can't tell me you didn't see it coming. The Dark Tower series, whatever else it may be, is a colossal, complicated mess. It never had a prayer of being made into a good movie, unless they mutilated it to the point where it was an adaptions in name only.

 

[jklinders]

Watched it yesterday. Read the book several times though it was a while back. I think I'm pretty qualified to weigh in on this both as a movie and as an adaptation.

This was an adaptation of the book, and while there were nods here and there to the 1990 mini series that's about the only relationship you will see. The makers seemed to recognise that you cannot really cram in all the elements to such a large tome into a 2 hour running time. I also like that they scaled the time span of the movie to match the current period. in that, I mean that as kids it was the 80s and as adults, it will be about now. This has problems but also assets. Now there were changes made in the movie from the original. Some of it was excusable, some not so much.

The bullies were not really all that well fleshed out and the movie killed off Patrick Hocksteader nearly immediately. As he was with the very slightly possible exception of Henry the most fucked up of the bunch i felt his inclusion into the movie on an "in name only" basis to be useless. Should have just scratched him off and gave Mike Hanlin more screen time instead. Mike was reduced to the token black. In the book, he was the historian and lighthouse keeper. His role is diminished to the point here that he was better off not included at all. It was simply disappointing. Eddie, Richie, Stan and to an extent, Beverly were spot on. Ben kinda took over Mike's role as historian which was unnecessary as he was otherwise already the smart one. Bill was diminished for some reason. He was considerably more badass in the book.

Pennywise was perfect. I saw one or two people complain that he was...in some way off as kids would not go near him. He needs to be off though. this is essentially a Lovecraftian monster masquerading as a clown. Not an actual clown so it worked. And it worked VERY well. A bit more polish on some of the adult characters would have been nice as it was rarely very clear what kind of control IT was exercising over the whole town like it eventually became in the book.

Interestingly, I read somewhere that when the sequel comes out, the director intends to splice the two movies together in directors cut have the alternating timelines like in the book.

It was an adaptation, not a copy. Things were excised that I wanted to see in there and references to the Turtle are completely absent. As is the Ritual of Chud. The fight against Pennywise boiled down to a brawl that IT lost because the kids were no longer afraid. The kids were scared shitless in the book but shielded from its effects by other forces. But then that fear being absent also allowed certain other scenes to be seamlessly ignored which is a good thing for both the censors and frankly human decency.

It actually is a really good adaptation in my opinion as well as a very good moivie in it's own right.

 

[shrekfan246]

I'm being dead serious. So, the story is, when they were, like, 11 years old they had their first encounter with the monster in the sewers of their town. And... I don't remember it perfectly but their was this part where they had to strengthen their bond, right? And there was one girl among them. So the story is, the girl let them take turns dicking her down in the sewers and after this heartwarming rite of passage they could finally get out.

What the actual fuck

For some inexplicable reasons all adaptations left that part out though I couod hardly think of a scene more deserving to be adapted to the big screen.

I can think of a few reasons that wouldn't be put into an adaptation.

 

[jklinders]

I'm being dead serious. So, the story is, when they were, like, 11 years old they had their first encounter with the monster in the sewers of their town. And... I don't remember it perfectly but their was this part where they had to strengthen their bond, right? And there was one girl among them. So the story is, the girl let them take turns dicking her down in the sewers and after this heartwarming rite of passage they could finally get out.

What the actual fuck

For some inexplicable reasons all adaptations left that part out though I couod hardly think of a scene more deserving to be adapted to the big screen.

I can think of a few reasons that wouldn't be put into an adaptation.

I can only imagine both King and his editor were flying high on the same heroin when that made its way into the manuscript and he has been bending over backwards to justify it since it hit print. It really is an example of something that maybe was not seen as being as bad in the 80s but there are actually obscenity laws in Canada that should make this print edition illegal but somehow it slipped through. I guess if you sell enough book copies there is all manner of shit you can get away with.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

I'm being dead serious. So, the story is, when they were, like, 11 years old they had their first encounter with the monster in the sewers of their town. And... I don't remember it perfectly but their was this part where they had to strengthen their bond, right? And there was one girl among them. So the story is, the girl let them take turns dicking her down in the sewers and after this heartwarming rite of passage they could finally get out.

What the actual fuck

For some inexplicable reasons all adaptations left that part out though I couod hardly think of a scene more deserving to be adapted to the big screen.

I can think of a few reasons that wouldn't be put into an adaptation.

I can only imagine both King and his editor were flying high on the same heroin when that made its way into the manuscript and he has been bending over backwards to justify it since it hit print. It really is an example of something that maybe was not seen as being as bad in the 80s but there are actually obscenity laws in Canada that should make this print edition illegal but somehow it slipped through. I guess if you sell enough book copies there is all manner of shit you can get away with.

To be fair to King, in the context of the book, it makes sense. It's not something that comes out of the left field.

To be fair to reason, King's the author, and while the road that led to that scene may have made sense, he didn't have to build it that way.

This sort of thing also isn't entirely unique. There's quite a few authors that have done worse - Ever read Piers Anthony's Firefly?

If you haven't, don't.

 

[shrekfan246]

Spoiler

I'm being dead serious. So, the story is, when they were, like, 11 years old they had their first encounter with the monster in the sewers of their town. And... I don't remember it perfectly but their was this part where they had to strengthen their bond, right? And there was one girl among them. So the story is, the girl let them take turns dicking her down in the sewers and after this heartwarming rite of passage they could finally get out.

What the actual fuck

For some inexplicable reasons all adaptations left that part out though I couod hardly think of a scene more deserving to be adapted to the big screen.

I can think of a few reasons that wouldn't be put into an adaptation.

I can only imagine both King and his editor were flying high on the same heroin when that made its way into the manuscript and he has been bending over backwards to justify it since it hit print. It really is an example of something that maybe was not seen as being as bad in the 80s but there are actually obscenity laws in Canada that should make this print edition illegal but somehow it slipped through. I guess if you sell enough book copies there is all manner of shit you can get away with.

To be fair to King, in the context of the book, it makes sense. It's not something that comes out of the left field.

I would contend this, but I admittedly have not actually read the original book and thus can only use what I've read and what I've seen other people say in the wake of learning this. But I would argue that even from a position of common sense, any argument that defends the scene can be used to equally defend any alternative to the scene: why is "oh, let's have the one female character decide to let all the guys bang her" the automatic signifier of losing childhood innocence? Why is that the only thing that could bring the group together and "strengthen their bond"?

In a way I do get it, because sex is some mysterious nebulous thing that adults do when you're a child, but having sex doesn't make someone more mature or kill their innocence any more than witnessing any of the horrific things from It would. And it certainly wouldn't magically make one of the kids know how to leave the sewer they're trapped in, even allowing for a bit of suspension of disbelief because of the setting and knowing who you're reading. Shit, even the description for the scene on the Stephen King Wiki makes it sound awful:

When the Losers' travel into the sewer with the intent of destroying It, they momentarily find themselves hopelessly trapped. As the boys start to panic, Beverly comes up with the idea of having sex with the others in order to calm them down, as a result the other Losers take turns having sex with her. Because King didn't wish this to be viewed as a lewd scene, the narrative explicitly states that the act of intimacy with each of the boys' helps to further strengthen their friendship; and Beverly only experiences orgasm while having intercourse with Bill Denbrough and Ben Hanscom.

Again, I don't have the context of the actual novel, but I'm assuming that's written by somebody who did, and if that's the best way they could portray it, I'm not convinced it was a necessary scene.

This sort of thing also isn't entirely unique. There's quite a few authors that have done worse - Ever read Piers Anthony's Firefly?

Snip

If you haven't, don't.

Your image doesn't appear to work, but yeah, Piers Anthony is a special brand of shitty writer on a level mostly inhabited by people who will never be nearly as (in)famous as he ever was.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

Spoiler

I'm being dead serious. So, the story is, when they were, like, 11 years old they had their first encounter with the monster in the sewers of their town. And... I don't remember it perfectly but their was this part where they had to strengthen their bond, right? And there was one girl among them. So the story is, the girl let them take turns dicking her down in the sewers and after this heartwarming rite of passage they could finally get out.

What the actual fuck

For some inexplicable reasons all adaptations left that part out though I couod hardly think of a scene more deserving to be adapted to the big screen.

I can think of a few reasons that wouldn't be put into an adaptation.

I can only imagine both King and his editor were flying high on the same heroin when that made its way into the manuscript and he has been bending over backwards to justify it since it hit print. It really is an example of something that maybe was not seen as being as bad in the 80s but there are actually obscenity laws in Canada that should make this print edition illegal but somehow it slipped through. I guess if you sell enough book copies there is all manner of shit you can get away with.

To be fair to King, in the context of the book, it makes sense. It's not something that comes out of the left field.

I would contend this, but I admittedly have not actually read the original book and thus can only use what I've read and what I've seen other people say in the wake of learning this. But I would argue that even from a position of common sense, any argument that defends the scene can be used to equally defend any alternative to the scene: why is "oh, let's have the one female character decide to let all the guys bang her" the automatic signifier of losing childhood innocence? Why is that the only thing that could bring the group together and "strengthen their bond"?

In a way I do get it, because sex is some mysterious nebulous thing that adults do when you're a child, but having sex doesn't make someone more mature or kill their innocence any more than witnessing any of the horrific things from It would. And it certainly wouldn't magically make one of the kids know how to leave the sewer they're trapped in, even allowing for a bit of suspension of disbelief because of the setting and knowing who you're reading. Shit, even the description for the scene on the Stephen King Wiki makes it sound awful:

When the Losers' travel into the sewer with the intent of destroying It, they momentarily find themselves hopelessly trapped. As the boys start to panic, Beverly comes up with the idea of having sex with the others in order to calm them down, as a result the other Losers take turns having sex with her. Because King didn't wish this to be viewed as a lewd scene, the narrative explicitly states that the act of intimacy with each of the boys' helps to further strengthen their friendship; and Beverly only experiences orgasm while having intercourse with Bill Denbrough and Ben Hanscom.

Again, I don't have the context of the actual novel, but I'm assuming that's written by somebody who did, and if that's the best way they could portray it, I'm not convinced it was a necessary scene.

I'm not saying it was necessary, only that it makes sense. All the kids in the Losers Club come from heavily dysfunctional families, and most of them turn their fucked up lives and notions into weapons against it (They can make what they truly believe real). Eddie, for example, has a mother that's constantly insisting he's sick and weak, forcing him to use an aspirator for asthma he doesn't have. He's able to twist this up enough to use it as a weapon against It.

Beverly's got a physically abusive father that's sexually attracted to her. She's able to twist this up into something positive (Though massively gross and, outside the novel, morally questionable).

You're right about everything else. It's pretty unnecessary and questionable, and one could make all sorts of arguments and complaints about the woman's sole power being sex (Beverly does a lot of things in the book to keep her from being a one note sex object, but sex does seem to come up a TON with her), and how detailed the scene is when it absolutely DOES NOT need to be, and how there just had to be a better damn way, but I don't think we need to go any deeper into that at the moment.

Ever read Piers Anthony's Firefly?

Snip

If you haven't, don't.

Your image doesn't appear to work, but yeah, Piers Anthony is a special brand of shitty writer on a level mostly inhabited by people who will never be nearly as (in)famous as he ever was.

Weird. That's the third 'broken' image I've pulled off of Google in 24 hours.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Yeah. I like how Pennywise's expression could change on a dime. That was the biggest strength of the original. One moment he looked like this harmless doofus and then the next moment he could look like something genuinely terrifying crept into him.

The new It looks way too stylized and slick to be even remotely scary in my opinion. Pennywise looks like the cliche scary clown. There is no mystery or ambiguity to the character anymore or anything that gave the original It such an atmosphere of lingering dread and anxiety.

The demonic clown is kind of self defeating. By making him look straight-up evil and ghoulish you take away what makes a clown creepy; the uncanniness. Clowns look fake and unnatural, like a doll, and it's in that where the creepiness lies.

The new It looks like a decent enough creature flick, and it is nice to see an R-rated horror movie again starring kids, but from what I've seen and from Pennywise's new design it lacks any real spooky scares. It seems too loud and eager for that.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

 

[Casual Shinji]

It goes to say though, that pennywise is never supposed to -pass- as a normal person. He's never not creepy, though he can be disarming when he wants (Like his jokes with Georgie before he kills him)

Yeah, but that's where him just showing up comes into play. You take the scene with Georgie, and what makes it really creepy and off is that there's what appears to be just a regular clown peering out of a storm drain. You take the new movie and his eyes are glowing, he's got sharp, yellow front teeth, he's got and evil grin -- it's like, why bother even being a clown?

 

[jklinders]

Spoiler

I'm being dead serious. So, the story is, when they were, like, 11 years old they had their first encounter with the monster in the sewers of their town. And... I don't remember it perfectly but their was this part where they had to strengthen their bond, right? And there was one girl among them. So the story is, the girl let them take turns dicking her down in the sewers and after this heartwarming rite of passage they could finally get out.

What the actual fuck

For some inexplicable reasons all adaptations left that part out though I couod hardly think of a scene more deserving to be adapted to the big screen.

I can think of a few reasons that wouldn't be put into an adaptation.

I can only imagine both King and his editor were flying high on the same heroin when that made its way into the manuscript and he has been bending over backwards to justify it since it hit print. It really is an example of something that maybe was not seen as being as bad in the 80s but there are actually obscenity laws in Canada that should make this print edition illegal but somehow it slipped through. I guess if you sell enough book copies there is all manner of shit you can get away with.

To be fair to King, in the context of the book, it makes sense. It's not something that comes out of the left field.

To be fair to reason, King's the author, and while the road that led to that scene may have made sense, he didn't have to build it that way.

This sort of thing also isn't entirely unique. There's quite a few authors that have done worse - Ever read Piers Anthony's Firefly?

If you haven't, don't.

King was clearly writing with this in mind. He really did not have to though. To be honest, him being on a heroin binge is more charitable than me contending he was going for soft core child porn, which by every definition I have read this is. It made sense in context. it making sense in context does not pass any smell check in making it defensible.

Piers Anthony has written some weird shit too. But I'm not attacking or defending him. I'm commenting on the necessity of a preteen gang bang in a coming of age style loovecraftian horror book. I won't say censor it. I'm not really into censorship. But there is way more time dedicated to describing preteen cock in that book than is healthy for a grown man to be doing.

 

[cathou]

When the Losers' travel into the sewer with the intent of destroying It, they momentarily find themselves hopelessly trapped. As the boys start to panic, Beverly comes up with the idea of having sex with the others in order to calm them down, as a result the other Losers take turns having sex with her. Because King didn't wish this to be viewed as a lewd scene, the narrative explicitly states that the act of intimacy with each of the boys' helps to further strengthen their friendship; and Beverly only experiences orgasm while having intercourse with Bill Denbrough and Ben Hanscom.

Again, I don't have the context of the actual novel, but I'm assuming that's written by somebody who did, and if that's the best way they could portray it, I'm not convinced it was a necessary scene.

actually, it's not at all what is written in the book. IT is my absolute fetish book, i dont why, but i readed it... so many times that i lost count. i was maybe 8 or 9 when i first read it. i dont really why i liked that book that much. i guess that i could relate to bev because i'm a redhead, and that it was probably the first book that i've read with a main caracter that pretty much looked like me and that was my age.

i've seen maybe 10 minutes of the mini-series, but i couldnt watch it because the caracters were so far away from what i had in mind of what they should like that i couldnt bare watching it.

i know i'm going to see this one, because it seems to me that it's a better adaptation, and since i've try to watch the mini-serie i've learned to like book adaptation in movies without comparing them to the books.


ok, so on the pre-teen sex. the whole story is about magic circle. each of the loosers have the strenght to resist pennywise individually, but together they can fight it. and they know, they feel when the circle is complete, they feel that the magic is working around them without really knowing how it work. they know their friendship is olding the circle togheter and that their friendship is fuel by their experience against pennywise, and the revenche Bill is seeking for his brother. they feel that they need to accumulate magic, and they goes through a lots of passage rites. the whole book is about rites of passage, how we leave infancy to become adult. However, after defeating IT, the magic that was culminating around them, and the cohesion of their circle was suddently gone. they were panicked not because of IT, but because the suddent disparition of the magic. Bev decided that be having sex with all of them was a way to reforme the magic that was holding their group, because sex is a rite of passage. after that, they gained just enough magic to get out of the sewer system. to be honest, that part of the book is like, what, fewer than 2 pages in a 1000+ pages book ? and it's not that graphic.

Also pennywise is never suppose to look normal. first everyone see it differently, depending on their own fear. thed clown is IT main disguise, and it stays a least a bit in every other form he take (usually orange pompom and some silver somewhere), but every single person that claim to have seen IT, even adults says that they were afraid of the clown and that they felt uncomfortable with him. so the new appearance of pennywise in the movie seems actually more in the tone of the book than tim curry's pennywise.

finally, i'm not so sure that they could do the adult time line in a second movie. the main story is the children timeline. if you remove the 50's stuff from the book, there's not much left. not enough material for a movie i think. but have the two timeline in a single movie was probably too much, so i think it was actually a good decision to remove completely the adult timeline. but agai i've not seen the movie yet, so i dont know how much they left out that they could used later...

 

[KissingSunlight]

I saw It in theaters today. It was OK.

I have seen the miniseries. It was forgettable. All I remember was being really disappointed with the ending.

This It was pretty slick. Not scary at all. It had some humor. I thought the performance of Pennywise was really good. Other than that, I probably wouldn't feel that bad if I had skipped it. I would have, but there was nothing really good playing in theaters right now. It had to do.

I didn't intentionally tried to put the word "It" that many times. I just went with...it.

 

[Parasondox]

Saw it a few hours ago. I liked it. Different to other new horror movies. Also a Stephen King adaption that isnt ridiculous and stupid. One thing, minor spoilers ish. Who in the fuck has a picture like that in their office? That's fucking haunting. As a child I was afraid of large portrait painting cause I felt the eyes were following. SCREW THAT!!! Pennywise would have fucked my head with that.

Speaking of Pennywise, love him. Cant wait for part 2. Those damn Skarsgard's and their talent.


Once again another cinema experience with a horror movie ruined a bit by talking teens and phones that can't stay hidden for two FUCKING HOURS!! Shoulda gone in the morning.

 

[cathou]

ok i finally saw it yesterday. here's what i think.

it's a ok adaptation of the book, and it's a great movie by itself. I understand why they cut both the adult timeline and the interdimentional/mystic parts of the book. there's a lot of easter eggs for those who have read the book. The caracters are very well adapted from the book, and the most iconic part of the book are in it. maybe they should explain that it is bound in the form he his, and that's why if in werewolf form, silver can kill him, and that It doesnt actually have to eat children but he's obligated to do so because it's a by product of the various monster form he take. but i'm not so sure they take this in consideration in the movie

now i will put a spoiler here

Spoiler

however, there's a few difference that i dont think serve well the story. First in the book, George die from having it arm ripped off and they found him dead in the street. Nobody is asking, hey maybe georgie is not dead after all. that make the main motivation for Bill in the book to be revenge and guilt. revenge, because he want to know who's the killer and kill him, and guilt because he fell it's is fault that george die. In the movie george is gone, and nobody know where, and Bill seems to think it's possible to find him alive. i would have prefer to keep revenge as his main goal.

then, after Eddy broke his arm, they fight each other, and it seems to be imply that they didnt see each other for about a month. then out of nowhere, just when Bev is about to leave Derry, It decide to attack Beverly, and use Henry to chase the others kids. But it's already established that if they are not all togheter, they cannot hurt It, so when attack beverly ? why not just wait her to go away, and kill the others one by one. it's the attack on berverly that pring them back togheter. in the book, It choose to attack the kids and push them in the sewers by henry because he's afraid of them, and want to kill them before they get prepared.

This also make beverly a typical damsel in distress, that the guys must save. that is totally outside the story and caracters.

and then they save beverly, but screw the other kids. it's never explain why berverly is alive, and if the other kids are alive or not.

i give it a solid 8/10