|
Stan's fear was by far the creepiest and something I could totally relate to.
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
ZeeBoi posted:Stan's fear was by far the creepiest and something I could totally relate to. Totally. I posted in another thread about it but it felt the most grounded as a real and odd childhood fear. There is so much stuff that terrifies children that isn't monsters and movies and stuff thats SUPPOSED to be scary, but just something that tickles you the wrong way. A strange painting at an aunts, your grandparents garage, a doll your mom keeps on a shelf, a bizarre old photo laying around, a strange picture book at your friends house from the 40's, a happy kids movie with one weird scene, whatever. I remember having reoccurring nightmares at like 3 or 4 years old about these playmobile toys chasing me and I couldn't go near those things. Having one of the losers childhood fears something that wasn't freddy kruger or a wolfman chasing them really stood out and I loved it. By far the best spook of the movie (also doesn't hurt how loving creepy that painting lady looked). That was one case where I felt it improved on the book. The dead kids were creepy, and the standpipe is iconic in the book along with its frightening backstory that gets explained, but the movie spook for him felt way more personal and scary. EDIT: Also, I don't think its likey at all to happen but considering it's his dad's painting, theres always the chance he inherits it when his parents pass away, and if its still hanging in his house as a 40 year old man when he gets that phone call from mike... Welp, I think you have a perfect set up for him to go straight upstairs and open up his veins. Tom Guycot fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Sep 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
I think another really well done nod to the power of belief in the film was the scene where Ben kisses Bev to wake her from her dead-light induced coma . It is exactly the kind of fairy tale bullshit that SHOULDN'T work - and on its face it seemed hamfisted. But because Ben believes in it, and because they're in the heart of a context where belief drives reality, it does. I just can't get over how much I liked this as a really well-done adaptation of a previous work. It's made me reflect on and re-engage with themes from the book in a deeper way, which is just the highest complement I can cave it. One thing I really miss - they completely forego delving into the relationship between Ben and his mom. I imagine it'll come up in Part 2 when he explains how he got skinny, but his relationship with his mother rounds out Eddie's with his mom and Bev's with her dad. Each relationship displays a perversion of the love of a parent for their child, and it's a great theme from the novel that plays on the corruption of Derry as a whole . VanillaGorilla fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Sep 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
Nroo posted:Just loving realized the movie made Mike a Killer of Sheep... drat, can't believe I missed that. I did think his fire backstory was kinda half-assed compared to the Black Spot backstory they were clearly originally intending. I have a lot of litte fannish nitpicks like that, but I still thought the movie was great overall, glad it felt empowered to be its own thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
VanillaGorilla posted:I think another really well done nod to the power of belief in the film was the scene where Ben kisses Bev to wake her from her dead-light induced coma . It is exactly the kind of fairy tale bullshit that SHOULDN'T work - and on its face it seemed hamfisted. But because Ben believes in it, and because they're in the heart of a context where belief drives reality, it does. I actually forgot about that part, even though I had that exact same thought when it happened thats straight out of a fairy tale, of course it would work for ben. So, yeah I guess theres some more examples of belief in there, still I wanted Eddie's acid spray and some silver, so so badly, but then... thats my nit picking and not fair to the film as its own entity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
ZeeBoi posted:Stan's fear was by far the creepiest and something I could totally relate to. that was definitely one of my favorite things they added for the movie, super well done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
I didn't stay past the credits. Was there a stinger?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I didn't stay past the credits. Was there a stinger? Yes. It said Pennywise the Clown WILL return, in IT: Chapter Two!
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
I'm still on the fence about going to see this at the show this weekend or next weekend. Checking Fandango, there's still some seating open including the IMAX out by me. As I've not yet been to the IMAX, I'm not sure if I should make IT my first movie there if I pick it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Tom Guycot posted:I actually forgot about that part, even though I had that exact same thought when it happened thats straight out of a fairy tale, of course it would work for ben. So, yeah I guess theres some more examples of belief in there, still I wanted Eddie's acid spray and some silver, so so badly, but then... thats my nit picking and not fair to the film as its own entity. I think it was Bev that had a copy of The Frog Prince in her room ten_twentyfour fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Sep 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
I'll bet seeing it in IMAX would be pretty cool, it's definitely a good big screen movie. Visually spectacular and some of those scare moments that fill up the whole frame really kill (GIANT PENNYWISE especially)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
They should have combined the characters of Patrick Hockstetter and Henry Bowers into one or just picked one to adapt, like the miniseries did with Henry Bowers, and left the other out entirely. There just wasn't enough time to flesh out both characters—hell, there wasn't even enough time to get a belch from Belch! The film would have been stronger for it. Instead, both characters suffered, but especially Hockstetter who was mostly relegated to being Derry's Dolph (which, by the way if Hockstetter is Dolph then Belch is totally Kearney).
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
I know some stuff had to go but I really wish we got more Hockstetter because the actor playing him was great and his death scene was the scariest part of the book for me
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Did they include the dopey sex scene like in the book?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
An Apple A Gay posted:Did they include the dopey sex scene like in the book? Just a sly reference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
An Apple A Gay posted:Did they include the dopey sex scene like in the book? You know it and it was EXPLICIT AS ALL HELL!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
clown shoes posted:They should have combined the characters of Patrick Hockstetter and Henry Bowers into one or just picked one to adapt, like the miniseries did with Henry Bowers, and left the other out entirely. There just wasn't enough time to flesh out both characters—hell, there wasn't even enough time to get a belch from Belch! The film would have been stronger for it. Instead, both characters suffered, but especially Hockstetter who was mostly relegated to being Derry's Dolph (which, by the way if Hockstetter is Dolph then Belch is totally Kearney). Like the first thing we hear Belch do is belch. But I definitely would have liked more time with Patrick, and really his ending was about the only nit I'd want to pick. The refrigerator in the book was just so.... hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
My problem with Henry was just he felt pointless. It felt like they included Henry because "well, this is IT, you have to throw in Henry Bowers", but he was robbed of any real purpose. In the book he's like a force of nature, a kids universe version of IT who terrorizes the children of derry and especially the losers. Like a monster, they are constantly on the look out for him, worried about him, running from him, the barrens is defined almost by their need to hide from Bowers. The rock fight is the apocalyptic rockfight because it changes everything. It turns the table finally on the human monster of their world, and pushes Henry to the breaking point of his craziness. The rock fight in the film felt meaningless because Henry did. When he finally was under its spell fully, it didn't feel earned in any way. It never felt like he was getting pushed more and more and more over the edge. Hes just a common bully one scene, and apparently a cold murderer the next. Like was said above, there just wasn't time to get into Henry, let alone Patrick. As much as I wish they could have gotten into Patrick's next level sociopathy there just wasn't time and they shouldn't have included him at all. His death scene was great, but use that for Beltch or Vic going with Henry into the sewers. This is one of the few places the cheesy mini series did it better. Despite how sanitized it was Henry felt like a presence, and the rock fight felt apocalyptic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
I must have missed the belch. The couple next to me were loud eaters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
This movie was awesome and i think the film makers did an exceptional job depicting to the screen material that's really really hard to translate. I could nitpick IT but the flaws are so minor that it barely matters. I was honestly surprised how funny it was and how well that worked to jar the viewer out of a false sense of security. The constant and often abrupt shifts in tone were really unsettling and added to the the sense of disorientation, rendering the whole experience very chaotic and unpredictable. The ratio of laughs to creepiness is genuinely in the area of 40/60 and gives the film a really herky jerky feeling that mostly works to its benefit. A lot of the comedy was due to Ritchie's scene stealing and gradually that got a little tired but overall the cast was great and almost all the kids got a chance to shine. Tonally, it was Stand By Me combined with Stanger Things with added elements that struck me as very new and original which are very hard to describe. I started to write about IT last night when my mind was fresh but accidentally lost my post and forget the horror film I'd decided IT was most like. The scary elements were very effective though, if more often creepy than downright terrifying. I don't agree with most of the criticisms I've read here for the most part, simply because they seem nitpicky. The symbolism was obvious but rarely heavy handed (Bev's bathroom scene aside) and told very well. The central theme of children coming of age and the different fears they experience while growing into their sexuality was spot on. I don't buy the idea that Bev was a damsel in distress either. She was depicted throughout as one of the strongest characters. The pacing was really good, the acting and direction were exceptional, the script was tight, the mood was pitch perfect, the violence was heavy on occasion but not gratuitous, the make up and effects were terrific and they did a great job with such a large cast assigning each kid (and parent) a distinct personality. IT could have easily gotten confusing. I thought IT was a terrific piece of film making and plan on seeing IT again. It's a solid A- or 9/10 in my book. Your mileage may vary depending on taste but my theater was buzzing and the conversations I overheard while exiting were very positive. IT's never boring and I can't really recall a genuine low point or eye rolling groaner. Go see it. Do i need to spoiler any of that? Biggest applause went to Bev braining her Dad with the toilet cover
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Biggest applause went to Bev braining her Dad with the toilet cover Rebar straight into "his" throat, later on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Do you legit see Georgie losing his arm? Because I didn't think they'd do it being how graphic a scene it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Tim Whatley posted:Do you legit see Georgie losing his arm? Because I didn't think they'd do it being how graphic a scene it is. Yup. It's not very gory, but it is bloody. And then that stretch from point A to point B is really long....
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Tim Whatley posted:Do you legit see Georgie losing his arm? Because I didn't think they'd do it being how graphic a scene it is. Yeah, it surprised the hell out of me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Tim Whatley posted:Do you legit see Georgie losing his arm? Because I didn't think they'd do it being how graphic a scene it is. Yes, it caught me by surprise especially since right after they have no issue showing Georgie crawling on the ground with the stump of an arm bleeding profusely (there's a lot of blood) crying for help trying to save himself. It owns. sigher fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Sep 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
That does bring up another fairly minor nitpick I had: I kinda prefer Georgie being found with his arm mysteriously torn off and the people of Derry just sort of accepting it as a freak accident instead of looking further into it to the movie's "Georgie is still out there somewhere and I'm gonna find him!" plot There were some other fun hints to Derry's weird and hosed up adults though, like the couple just driving by and doing nothing when the Bowers gang is beating up Ben.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
And then the lady turns back around, sees the blood, then turns away. PERFECT.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
This broke Deadpool's R-rated Thursday night record ($13.5 million to $12.7 million). The weekend's gonna be huge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
An Apple A Gay posted:Did they include the dopey sex scene like in the book? Almost every review I read said "no" and "thank god". Hoping to see this over the weekend.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE posted:And then the lady turns back around, sees the blood, then turns away. Uncle Boogeyman posted:There were some other fun hints to Derry's weird and hosed up adults though, like the couple just driving by and doing nothing when the Bowers gang is beating up Ben. This was another element they nailed, I felt. The way that ALL of the adults were not only untrustworthy and wouldn't protect the children (at best), but were, in many cases, shown to be borderline to completely complicit and openly contributing to the children's fears and weaknesses. IT added to what I took away as the central theme of the film which was basically "childhood and puberty are scary, adults can't protect you, monsters ARE real (and not always clowns) and at a certain age you have to conquer your fears or you'll suffocate yourself." The Pharmacist scene genuinely gave me the creeps. The parent's roles were depicted in such a way that they ALL made things worse. NO adults were any help at all and that's what hitting puberty feels like. The losers are straddling their childhood fears along with the new ones they face as adolescents (and gradually coming to realize that it's "cool" to be a "loser) in addition to all of the ones they're parents are teaching them, except, in every case, the fears the adults are teaching them are congruent but also different to the ones that they stopped believing in as they grew out of childhood. The adults are pouring gasoline on a fire, are no help at all and in fact always hinder. This theme was further exemplified when the Losers debated the ideas of basically kicking the can down the road for another 27 years and submitting to resignation or confronting evil and fear head on as they faced IT, as It is implied that their Derry resident parents did. The adults chose the convenient and easier route of least resistance and suffered more for IT, ultimately passing their failures onto their kids. The whole film was incredibly well executed and the simple, yet wonderfully explained theme that runs throughout, is basically "are you going to live your life in constant fear in the face of reality as IT reveals itself to be increasingly horrible or grow up and confront the things that scare you?" I think that message really came through and that's how I read IT. Sorry to get all SMG about IT but, for once, there IS a tremendous amount of subtext to analyze and this movie really nails the delicate balance needed to communicate that in ways that aren't eye rolling or heavy handed. There's a lot of layers to the film, which is why i want to see IT again and pay more attention to different things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
I loved everything about the kids show. 
clown shoes fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Sep 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Pheeets posted:Almost every review I read said "no" and "thank god". My audience seemed genuinely surprised that the movie was in two parts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
clown shoes posted:I loved everything about the kids show. The kids show kicked rear end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
The losers just beating the poo poo out of It with poles and baseball bats was completely stupid. Moronic. I didn't appreciate the 'save Bev' change at all. Didn't like her dad being made more rapey either. I dunno, Bev felt wrong all round in this honestly. I liked the garage scene, that was pretty cool. Everything else was generic horror which was disappointing, but that's what people like I guess because everybody keeps doing it. Bowers was criminally underused. I dunno how to make an effective movie of It to be honest, there's far too much important ground to cover and most isn't actiony enough to get greenlit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
bummer they left out the leeches scene that might've been the creepiest from the book. cgi was overused and often bad. p good otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
IT was okay. It's kind of hard to judge this movie separately from the book, because the movie frequently goes for beats from the book without actually weaving them into the film's story. I think the only changes from the source that truely bothered me were Mike not having his dad around, because they had such a genuinely sweet relationship, and Georgie going missing instead of being found dead. I realize they wanted Bill to be obsessed with finding his brother, but I would have preferred something else. Also I thought Mike living in the Neibold house was kinda lame. I think where the second movie could really succeed is in making IT a POV character. I really want to get into its paranoia and plotting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
good movie, the kids did a great job. thumbs up
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Child actors were really great and felt like they had real chemistry. I loved the scene where they turn around to find the three doors replacing the one. Pennywise just loving with them. Also the movie is surprisingly funny with the child actor from stranger things getting the most laughs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
It was ok, but all they did was remake the movie with more teeth to sell more soda in a theater. Odd school system, the 16 yr old kids go to the same school as the 10 yr olds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
Mike... LIVES... in the house on Neibolt Street? Are you loving serious?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 23:40
|
|
