IT 2017 reviews are coming out...
- Thread starter Neurotic Void Melody
- Start date
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.Baron_BJ said:
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.
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.
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.Kotaro said:
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.
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.
What the actual fuckPsychedelicDiamond said:
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.shrekfan246 said:
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.jklinders said:
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.
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"?DefunctTheory said:
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:
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.
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.
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.shrekfan246 said:
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.
Weird. That's the third 'broken' image I've pulled off of Google in 24 hours.
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.stroopwafel said:
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.
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?undeadsuitor said:
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.DefunctTheory said:
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.