|
Eshettar posted:Been there, see it, bought the t-shirt. Well...not so much that last part but if they were selling shirts, I definitely would have picked one up. Despite my reservations upon hearing that Beverly gets kidnapped and used as bait for the other Losers, I am soooo ready for Chapter Two to come out! Ohhhh yeeeeah, this rocked! In the book there were some corpses, and at least one live person, wrapped up in webbing in IT's lair, but they were never described as floating. The floating was always just corpses in the sewer water, or broken minds floating in the deadlights.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
I mean yeah, you're gonna have to take some of these visuals as surreal metaphor. Those aren't actual corpses, just the representation of bodies as the empty husks stuck in that spider's web.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Our DCP was hosed up at the part where the gang went in the house to rescue Beverly. Can someone tell me what happened after that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Pingiivi posted:Our DCP was hosed up at the part where the gang went in the house to rescue Beverly. Well I hope you got refunds on your tickets so you can go again. It's such a great Act 3. I was going to spoilerblock all the stuff, but I was like at item #13 or #14 and still nowhere near the end and I said gently caress it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Literally every complaint about this film is exactly the same as in Mama - the monster as such is as much a character as any of the people in it, there's no clear demarcation as to what is real and what isn't (the film is too blatantly surreal), the kids are TOO likeable, etc. Bodes well for part 2. one of the problems of the movie is the monster isn't much of a character (in comparison to the book).
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:one of the problems of the movie is the monster isn't much of a character (in comparison to the book). To be fair though, everyone is more of a character in the book. It's 1400 pages
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:one of the problems of the movie is the monster isn't much of a character (in comparison to the book). The monster is simply a succinct character in the film because a filmmaker must characterize him visually, exactly as in Mama. His characterization is dependent on who he appears to, see: the very odd appearance of Ed's mother, note what is on the TV when we see Beverly come home the first time (a home that looks like a labyrinthine sewer), the still figures surrounding Ben...
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Disgusting Coward posted:Although I was beyond done with LOUDMUSICLOUDMUSIC scarymonster BLARGHLEELEAHAHAHAHCLOWNRUN by the end, I agree that Pennywise's physicality and movement were really well done. I especially liked how it always left the scene by kinda...retracting. Like, eyes blanked, body inert, sliding away backwards. Put me in mind of a fisherman's lure being reeled in. Yeah, I know it tends to get overused in horror films lately, but the tracking on his face while Pennywise dances for Bev is great. Just the way his head stays perfectly still while everything else in the frame descends into inarticulate madness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The monster is simply a succinct character in the film because a filmmaker must characterize him visually films are not silent nowadays. Macdeo Lurjtux posted:Yeah, I know it tends to get overused in horror films lately, but the tracking on his face while Pennywise dances for Bev is great. Just the way his head stays perfectly still while everything else in the frame descends into inarticulate madness. it does that a few times when it's chasing them. i've never seen it in a horror film, only stabilized gifs. thought it was neato. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Sep 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
I can safely say I would not have wanted Pennywise to be more of a character in this movie. I wouldn't have minded some more of the imagination-based fighting against Pennywise, but it also would make sense if they're saving the bulk of that stuff for the sequel. Kinda has more of an impact if the adults have to revert to childlike behavior when they fight It again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:films are not silent nowadays. There's sound in those parts, they use it pretty effectively, too! Uncle Boogeyman posted:I can safely say I would not have wanted Pennywise to be more of a character in this movie. He couldn't be more of a character, he's all over the film. One of the bullies is designed to resemble him. They can't even escape in books or in TV or looking at old photos. Giving him more lines would probably be stupid, I agree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I can safely say I would not have wanted Pennywise to be more of a character in this movie. They used a lot of restraint, which was the best way to have done it. Groovelord Neato posted:films are not silent nowadays. Ahahaha
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
I liked the implication that their beliefs are what give them power. Mike shouting at Bill that the air hammer wasn't loaded, but Bill still fired it and it wounded Pennywise a bit still.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
IT made $51 million on Friday. http://variety.com/2017/film/news/box-office-it-movie-stephen-king-1202552701/
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Medullah posted:I liked the implication that their beliefs are what give them power. Mike shouting at Bill that the air hammer wasn't loaded, but Bill still fired it and it wounded Pennywise a bit still. well yeah the inhaler wasnt battery acid either
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
clown shoes posted:IT made $51 million on Friday. Ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Pingiivi posted:Our DCP was hosed up at the part where the gang went in the house to rescue Beverly. My new favorite one-liner happened. Real answer: the kids climb down the well with Mike holding the rope. Then Henry Bowers attacks and almost kills him until Mike knocks him down the well. That's the last we see of Henry. Mike then climbs down to join the rest. Bev reveals to Pennywise that she doesn't fear him and it annoys him. Instead, he opens his mouth to reveal some lights that put her in a trance and cause her to float in the air. Coincidentally, Pennywise's lair is filled with corpses floating in the air. Later, the others find Bev and Ben tries to wake her up via kissing her. That actually works and she realizes he wrote the love poem. In the form of the painting woman, Pennywise comes very, very close to eating Stan's head and although he's driven off, Stan is mentally hosed up and pissed off about it. As others try to help him, Bill wanders off and meets with "Georgie." They have a conversation and Bill finally accepts Georgie's death, as their meeting is a lure so he can use one of those sheep-killing guns on Georgie's head. Georgie turns into Pennywise and Bill fires at him again. Mike knows that the gun isn't loaded anymore, but for a brief moment, Pennywise's forehead caves in anyway. Then the kids pick up weapons and fight Pennywise to a relative standstill. His attempts to scare them individually don't work because there's still six others who can dogpile him. Finally, he grabs Bill and makes an offer: he can eat them all or he could just eat Bill, hibernate and the rest will go on to live their lives. Finn goes on a huge rant about how this is all Bill's fault and runs down all the horrible stuff Bill put them through, seemingly agreeing to Pennywise's terms, until picking up a baseball bat and saying, "and now I'm gonna kill this loving clown." The kids dogpile on him once again and Bev deliveres the last major blow. Pennywise crawls into a hole and crumbles apart. Afterwards, we see it's September. The seven do a blood pact to destroy Pennywise if he ever returns, then go their separate ways. Bev is leaving town the next day. Bill kisses her before she leaves. Before the credits role, the screen says "IT: Chapter One."
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Medullah posted:I liked the implication that their beliefs are what give them power. Mike shouting at Bill that the air hammer wasn't loaded, but Bill still fired it and it wounded Pennywise a bit still. Yeah I feel like that was their way of teasing the idea and they'll go into it more in the sequel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Yeah I feel like that was their way of teasing the idea and they'll go into it more in the sequel. I also agree that it would work much better with the adults doing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
One concern I have for the sequel is that the kids know objectively that to fight it you just stop being afraid and kick its loving rear end Obviously in the book this is explained away by the adults having lost their memories. But in the book, the reader becomes aware of the memory at the same time as the characters In the next movie, if the characters forget how to beat It, the audience is gonna be sitting around for two hours waiting for the characters to figure out something the audience already knows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Odeon's handing these out, by the way. Pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
how much bike riding is there in the film
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Tired Moritz posted:how much bike riding is there in the film Instead of establishing shots there are bike riding scenes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
I don't know why we got two shots hammering home that Bill was riding Silver honestly
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
glad it's making mad money cuz it'd suck if they didn't do the next one. i wanna see how they do its true form.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
The Cameo posted:You think it’s going to make almost $700 million? By the way, this is tracking on part with the first Hobbit Movie and POTC: At World's End, both of which made around a billion worldwide. I think this has the potential to be an insanely big movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Saw it. Loved IT. I wish they hadn't given all of Mike's thunder to Ben. Otherwise it was great. I also liked the bit where Bev discovers Ben's poster. I can totally understand Stan committing suicide.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Having slept on it, I can safely say this was a terrible horror film and an excellent children's adventure movie in the vein of The Goonies, The Lost Boys and Indiana Jones. You know, back when kids would gleefully watch violent movies and buy action figures from Predator and Terminator, and Freddy Kreuger had a TV show. The horror was exceptionally one-note. Long quiet, loud appearance, monster runs at the camera. The big problem here is you, the audience, are always a step ahead of the film and while you jump at loud noises through sheer reflex, you can always brace yourself mentally. "It's quiet, what's going to show up? Okay, that's our monster for the scene, it's going to rush me." The one exception I can think of was Ben flipping through the book about the Easter disaster. You know the book is zoning in on something, but you only see branches. You start looking for a monster. When it settles on the image, it takes you a few seconds to realize you were looking for a monster while staring at a dead boy's head. It doesn't open it's eyes or rush you, it was simply there all along and you didn't see it. While the way it played out wasn't in the book, there was mention of a woman finding it in her tree some days after the event. I thought that scene really captured what must've been her reaction very well and it served as a good horror moment: The movie was ahead of you far longer than you realized. So I'll recommend this as a children's adventure movie. Go into it expecting a children's adventure movie. You'll enjoy it that way. It was loud, it was fun, the kids were good actors with good chemistry (though Bill's dad seemed... not good?), Richie was actually humorous rather than a collection of obnoxious impressions like in the book, there are some nice set pieces and visuals and my audience laughed a ton. I even got the elusive clapping theater audience! First time!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
"I had to brace myself for the scary parts. 1 out of 10."
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
I don't know why I thought this but I thought it was going to be more of a redo of "It" then an adaptation because I wasn't expecting there to be a continuation, that it was going to end with them as kids. Definitely my favorite scene was the thing in the kitchen when Pennywise comes out of the fridge and does his terrifying clown strut in beat to the pounding music. The whole sequence in the house was tense leading up to that point but despite the build up he doesn't get to do anything with that momentum he just scares the kid then runs away. I think that sums up my feelings to the whole movie. The new Pennywise is a pretty powerful character disturbing, menacing, terrifying, monstrous, yet in the end no matter how scary he is that's all he gets to do because it's an adaptation and there's going to be a sequel as well. When he shows up and scares the poo poo out of everyone but then retreats over and over it just sucks all the air out of the room. The new "It" surpassed the original in a lot of ways I wish they could have just run with that and maybe committed to making it more of a horror movie for adults and less of a kids coming of age fighting their fears kinda thing. Speaking of which, there were a lot of kids in the theater. I was sitting next to a family who looked like they had a six year old and an 8-10 year old and seriously what the hell are these people thinking. I mean maybe the scary bits and bloody bits I can understand but there was too much colorful language for kids that young. It was a really really loving dirty movie. The other favorite thing of mine was at the beginning when he's talking to Georgie and drooling the whole time I thought that was a really cool touch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
I read a critic who described the movie as not so much scary as much as it is intense and I think that is the best description
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
The lack of on-screen kills, specifically Belch and Criss really made IT a bit less menacing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:The lack of on-screen kills, specifically Belch and Criss really made IT a bit less menacing. I feel like ripping the arm off a child in the first five minutes kinda made it unnecessary
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Yeah, the film never hits a level of horror higher than the opening, but holy poo poo did that opening work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Yeah, the film never hits a level of horror higher than the opening, but holy poo poo did that opening work. Comparing the scene to the tv movie I realized that Tim Curry played It as an adult while Skaarsgard played him a lot like a kid. The new IT feels like a peer to the kids.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:"I had to brace myself for the scary parts. 1 out of 10." I was a step ahead of the movie the entire time with the exception of one scene, and I imagine that true for anyone who's watched a bit of the genre. That is a problem in terms of horror. If you want a good recent example of horror, look at the first half of Insidious. Everything has your mind panicking to catch up or scrambling to understand "Did I really just see that?" The unknown is the core of fear. Having a firm grasp of the scene, knowing, spoils that. Like I said, it's an exceptional 80's children's adventure movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:"I had to brace myself for the scary parts. 1 out of 10." A reviewer I trust said pretty much exactly what Das Boo said...it's not a scary film, but if you go in expecting Stand by Me/The Goonies but with spooky stuff you'll enjoy it. Is that pretty accurate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
i wish scare chords were illegal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:I was a step ahead of the movie the entire time with the exception of one scene, and I imagine that true for anyone who's watched a bit of the genre. That is a problem in terms of horror. If you want a good recent example of horror, look at the first half of Insidious. Everything has your mind panicking to catch up or scrambling to understand "Did I really just see that?" The unknown is the core of fear. Having a firm grasp of the scene, knowing, spoils that. I am honestly at a bit of a loss what horror movie this doesn't apply to. I'm not trying to judge your criticism but "I could anticipate what was coming" is something I can say about almost every horror movie I've seen except for when I was young because beyond a certain point you learn to read the language. I didn't at all have the response to Insidious that you did for example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
toiletbrush posted:I read OP as saying 'it was bad as a horror film because the scares were mostly jump-scares that were massively telegraphed'. Are you saying that's an inaccurate description of the film, or that it's not a valid criticism? I thought there were very few jump scares and the whole sense of dread comes from the fact that you as the audience are expecting shock at every moment of slow tension. Like the only jump scare is maybe the coffin
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 20:02
|
|