|
Honestly my biggest problem is with Pennywise's design. In the book he's basically described as looking like a "normal" 50's-era television host Bozo-type character. It hunts by using subterfuge, and it sees being a clown as being an easy way to lure in kids. Hell, after the initial shock of seeing Pennywise pop up in the storm drain Georgie goes on to have a full conversation with him, and expresses more confusion at this clown being in the sewers than outright fear. This weird, grungy Silent Hill-looking interpretation really misses the mark on all of that. Pennywise isn't scary because he has claws; he's scary because he knows what makes you afraid, and uses it to the fullest effect. Otherwise I think the trailer looks decent enough. The slideshow is a fun update to the living photograph album bit. And it looks like they're going to use the burning of the Black Spot for Mike's encounter with It, instead of the giant bird. I'm okay with that. It's certainly a way more visceral image. And I'm perfectly okay with the story sticking to the kids. I actually think that's a really smart move. Tart Kitty fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Mar 29, 2017 |
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
Violator posted:If you freeze frame on the clown reveal at the end, it's all clean and normal looking. I'm guessing he gets grungy once he narrows in on the group and is trying to scare them. The Black Spot was the African American bar/club that is firebombed by white supremists. Mike Hanlon's father survived the fire and was who passed the story on. The lumberjack bit wasn't It either, but some guy who just goes nuts. Both cases were examples of how It's presence in Derry was like a toxic element that infected the townspeople and would occasionally blow up in horrific acts of violence..
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:This happens and IIRC later on another kid is there and runs into a homeless guy that is probably also It trundles after him screaming that he'll suck the kid's dick for a quarter over and over again. The leper's in this adaption, as it happens. There's a shot in the trailer of one of the kids running towards the camera away from the house on Neibolt Street (i.e. the decrepit Tim Burton house), and you can just barely make out near the bottom of the frame that the leper is chasing him.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Violator posted:I think the really surprising thing is that it got printed. None of the editors said "Hey man, maybe you can have them do a blood brothers oath or something instead? Cut their fingers instead of group sex?" I'd love to be a fly on the wall of that meeting where King successfully argued keeping that scene in to his editor. It's must have been some black belt-level word karate on his part to justify it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Yea that's what I was referring to earlier when someone complained about Pennywise being to overtly scary. He doesn't have claws in that scene for no reason, its because it goes with the form he's taking. I wasn't complaining about Pennywise being scary, I was commenting on the fact that his default state is "Victorian tuberculosis patient" instead of Saturday Morning variety show clown, as is how he is described in the book. I'm well aware that It takes the form the teenage werewolf in Niebolt Street. I was just usIng the claws to comment on the fact that it isn't the traditional sharp teeth/glowing eyes that makes It inherently scary; most of it comes from it using the fear of those it hunts against them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I just don't see anything in there to suggest that we won't get the Saturday Morning version too. You could be right but we don't have any evidence yet. The marketing (trailers, posters, publicity stills ) has been pushing almost exclusively towards a Pennywise that looks exclusively deformed and monstrous, which inherently defeats the purpose of It choosing a guise to lure in children. But like you said, it's still early, so who knows?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:That... would be bad rear end. Dude who directed Mama.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Werewolf scene stuff still sticks, just because there were a butt load of Werewolf movies in the 80s. If Everett McGill bursts through a wall wearing an eye patch and dressed as a reverend, movie gets an auto 5 stars. 10 stars if Gary Busey bursts through the opposite wall looking for a rematch.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Bozo was definitely still on air when I was a kid, and I was born in '85. Not to mention the fact that Ronald McDonald was a staple of late 80's/early 90's marketing, if we're just talking about the presence of "good clowns" in the pop culture of the era.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
So what do y'all think the odds are that the stinger to It will be adult Stu slitting his wrists after learning that It's back? I mean, it seems almost too obvious to pass up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:King is largely sympathetic towards Jack, because King's writing about himself as a neglectful alcoholic father and bad husband. Kubrick saw Jack as a gently caress-up, child abuser and as a reincarnated psycho. No wonder King's defensive. This is the biggest thing to me. Despite the ghosts and whatnot, there are large portions of The Shining that read as largely autobiographical (namely concerning the substance abuse and pressures of providing for a family through writing). Kubrick saw Jack through an objective lens, whereas King was as close to the character as he could get without swinging around a roque mallet. Jack is pretty much batshit crazy from go in Kubrick's flick. I imagine that read must have been akin to getting an earful about how much of an rear end in a top hat you turned into at that party once you started drinking.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
WescottF1 posted:Sneak peek at the Leper from IT: Kind of want a buddy movie about that thing and Mason Verger from Ridley Scott's Hannibal taking a road trip to New Orleans or something.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
I've got a pretty high "terrible poo poo happening to innocent people in film" tolerance, but Aja's Hills Have Eyes was a one-and-done for me. That is a pervasively brutal movie.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:It was a pretty traumatic experience for me too. One of the very first "extreme" horror films I'd seen, I was much more used to relatively tame slasher fare like the Scream series. I'd seen Hostel but The Hills Have Eyes was much more brutal. I think for me it's not just that the characters die horribly and realistically, but they often do so right in front of blood relatives. A camp of teenage deadmeats getting racked by Jason is one thing, but Aja's THHE has a bonkers amount of prolonged emotional trauma. The movie revels in pain, and not in an a Hostel-esque absurdist way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Isn't there also some big, dumb wrassle fight between the son-in-law and the Pluto stand-in in Aja's flick? I distinctly remember it having a whiplash third act in terms of trying to shift into a different tone.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
I will say that the score to Aja's Hills remake by tomandandy is pretty rad, especially the weird, synth bass driven theme.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
The Nightmare on Elm Street remake is one of the most baffling non-movies in recent horror cinema history. Jackie Earle Haley was wasted, and the movie doesn't commit to doing anything interesting or original (especially concerning how it toes the line with Freddy maybe being innocent, whoops nope he's a child molester). I mean, it's pretty notable that I can't recall a single kill in a Nightmare movie.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Pretty sure it's a budgetary thing. There's an old story about Rob Botin freaking the gently caress out on the set of The Thing during the scene where they burn the spider-thing because it was a one-and-done shot, and if they didn't get it they were basically hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
The NOES remake could have actually benefitted from CGI, had they had some creativity and used it to push towards a more surrealistic kind of movie. But again, laziness. EDIT: if you want to see CGI done "right," watch basically any latter David Fincher movie. An insane amount of Zodiac's environments are CGI, for example. Tart Kitty fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
scuba school sucks posted:Pretty sure Akroyd claims that Ghostbusters is autobiographical and the ghost sex part is a true story but with the names changed because gentlemen never kiss and tell. I feel like a bulk amount of the Akroyd estate is resting in the form of Necronomicons.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Violator posted:What's this talk of King's son writing semi-sequels to IT and The Shining? Dr. Sleep is a sequel to The Shining. It's... not great. There's a prequel to Salem's Lot - Jerusalem's Lot - that is pretty fun. It shows up in one of King's short story collections. EDIT: There's also another short story that deals with Salems Lot... I want to say it's called One For The Road? That's pretty good too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
The TCM remake is nu-metal cover of a classic punk song. It might be using the same lyrics and chords, but the talent it's being filtered through significantly weakens the energy that was contained in the original.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Hold my vagina gun. I'm going in.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Red Dragon is a great film to point to when you want to give an example of a movie being "soulless." All the pieces are there. It has a great cast, is shot beautifully, and the script is pretty dece. But it just feels utterly lifeless. Side note: can anyone point to anything that Ratner is successful as, director-wise? I know he's got some good producer credits under his belt, but when it comes to him in the chair I come up empty. He doesn't really have a "style," and he's not one of those guys who is good about covering his own limitations with strong casting (as evidenced by the waste in Red Dragon and even X-Men: The Last Stand).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I still love the first Rush Hour. I remember Money Talks being kinda fun too. So, he was good at glossy '90s action-comedies. I guess that's true, though it's been forever since I've seen either. Looking at his IMDB page, I'm kind of struck by how slight it is. Dude gets a lot of venom, but he's far less prolific as a filmmaker than I always think he is. I mean, the last notable movie he directed was that Dwayne Johnson Hercules flick from a couple of years ago. I guess that goes to show that it doesn't take much to leave a long-lasting bad taste.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Homie makes a movie that feature a flaming, wheelchair-bound Philip Seymour Hoffman uninteresting. That's kind of an accomplishment in its own right.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, I completely forgot that Harvey Keitel was Jack Crawford in Red Dragon, too. That cast was stacked.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Speaking of Hannibal, what's the consensus here on Ridley Scott's adaption? I mean, it doesn't hold a candle to Silence Of The Lambs (which I adore), but I know it has its champions in certain circles. Personally, I find the movie to be a bit of a conundrum. It's beautifully shot, well-acted, and seems to be trying to do something, but I'm not sure any of its pieces come together as a whole. It's a very strange little flick that seems to go through an identity crisis during its runtime.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:The effects during that final big scene are very lame. Watching Red Dragon and Hannibal back to back in college made me realize that what I really liked about Silence of the Lambs wasn't the actors or the character of Hannibal Lecter, but the way the film is directed. Not to poo poo on Anthony Hopkins or any of the cast, of course. Agreed on all points. SITL gets an amazing amount of its personality from Jonathan Demme's direction. And if you're referring to Ray Liotta's monkey brain soup in the last scene of Hannibal - also agreed. LesterGroans posted:Not a big fan overall, but it maybe does an even better job than Silence of the Lambs of capturing what's interesting about Thomas Harris's books, melding the profane with the operatic. I do like how much Hannibal seems to celebrate the grotesque, though. Its at odds with the tone of its prequel, but there is something interesting about its operatic approach to violence, as you mentioned. Tart Kitty fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
weekly font posted:Stop talking about the non-Lambs Lecter movies and start talking about Manhunter. How come Tom Noonan never made it into Tiger Beat
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Word. Like I said, I'm iffy on it, but it doesn't help that the source material is cobbled-together dogshit. All else aside, the makeup on Mason Verger is still one of the best prosthetic jobs I've seen on film, though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:Reading through the thread, i'm surprised people find the "adult" portion of It boring. I think the childhood narrative is just leaner and cleaner. The adult portion introduces a bunch of side characters, like Bill's wife and Bev's abusive husband, and boils down to a bunch of parlor scenes. The second half is a lot less visceral than the first half, and loses some serious forward momentum. Henry Bowers going insane and getting sage advice from the moon is pretty great, though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Apparently Warner Bros. Is getting sued for a billion dollars over The Conjuring film series because they failed to check copyright ownership. It stems from a "no compete" clause that the Warrens were claimed to have signed back in 1980 for the rights to publish their life story. Unsurprisingly, grifters gonna grift.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
I'm a little curious as to why Fukanaga felt the need to change character names. Stuttering Will? Travis Bowers? Fuckin Snatch Huggins? I know it a a silly think to nitpick on, but like, why.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Snatch Huggins is an amazing name. Snatch Huggins sounds like the name of a world renowned thief who gets pulled out of retirement for one last job. Preferably played by by Dom DeLuise. "Ya gotta steal The Fuhrer's mustache comb, Snatch!" (Dom DeLuise hiss laugh)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:It's also way creepier and more disturbing to just see a clown grab him and pull at him and not show him transform or anything other than maybe grow sharp teeth. Showing IT in it's pure monster form in the first 5 minutes is legitimately one of the worst decisions you could make with the movie. This right here. A huge part of what makes Pennywise scary is how out of place he is. There's inherent surrealism in having a Bozo-looking clown just being, well, anywhere outside of television or a circus. Adrian Melon's boyfriend kind of touches on that surrealness in the very beginning of the book when he recounts Melon's murder to the cops. I mentioned it earlier, but one of the creepiest touches of the encounter between Pennywise and Georgie is that Georgie isn't really scared - he's mostly just confused about how this funny old clown got in the sewer.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
I swear to god the worst phrase introduced to film in the last decade is "shared cinematic universe." I know the old Universal monster flicks had crossovers galore, but each of the initial core films were independent stories. Now we have Russell Crowe showing up as Dr.Jekyll in The Mummy, and I guara-goddamn-tee that it has a stinger featuring Johnny Depp as the invisible man, or Javier Bardem as Frankenstein's Mobster just cuz. And that should not annoy me because Bardem as the Monster is some top-tier rad poo poo, but this is the hell we have made for ourselves.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Violator posted:Holy poo poo I hope this is real. It's real. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Monsters_(2017_film_series) Don't get me wrong; I am on-board with that casting. But Universal wants to make this their Marvel Cinematic Universe. And that gives me I, Frankenstein night terrors. Thirsty Girl posted:Buying tickets for Frankenstein's Mobster as we speak. There's like, an 80% chance that this will actually be a movie released by The Asylum in the next three years. Tart Kitty fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
sticklefifer posted:To be fair, "shared cinematic universe" has been around much longer under other terms. Spinoffs, prequels/sequels that follow different characters, "versus" films, etc. Technically every movie with a sequel that wasn't originally intended to have one is a shared universe. Obviously it's seen a resurgence since superhero movies took over, but I feel like horror films with tons of sequels creating a franchise of a villain's mythology are just as much to blame. I certainly get that, what with the old-school Universal monster movies and whatnot, but I was specifically speaking to this new template of filmmaking where those connections are pushed from inception. Before we ever got Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman both of those characters had their own, completely independent installments. Russell Crowe is showing up in The Mummy as Jekyll. That's already putting narrative pressure on what should otherwise be a relatively simple monster flick to set the stage for whatever the next installment in this shared universe will be. I don't have a problem with these characters existing in the same universe, but I'm worried about the movies being forced to conform in tone. I mean, I would much rather see Javier Bardem in an adaption of Frankenstein, with makeup design based on Bernie Wrightson's artwork, than forcing that interpretation to ride shotgun with Tom Cruise or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
Finally got around to watching The Void tonight. Really frustrating because it has some interesting concepts, but wasn't really able to form any of them into a coherent narrative. I've seen some people describe it as having a kind of "dream logic" vibe to it, but that just feels like a cop-out for the weird editing and poor exposition. And I know that comparing it to John Carpenter is like comparing an etch-a-sketch to Guernica, but by the end all I wanted to do was rewatch Prince of Darkness. Same basic idea, much better execution.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 07:08
|
|