|
Post by JangoB on Sept 6, 2019 21:54:49 GMT
Also, who cares about the Stephen King cameo when we've got Peter Bogdanovich super randomly popping up in the beginning?
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Sept 6, 2019 22:09:02 GMT
Also, who cares about the Stephen King cameo when we've got Peter Bogdanovich super randomly popping up in the beginning? And he looked so good too! 80 years old, and more spry than I've ever seen him minus the hair.
|
|
|
Post by Christ_Ian_Bale on Sept 7, 2019 8:18:19 GMT
And her father only JUST DIED a few years ago?! Bro, how you gonna just believe Pennywise like that?
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Sept 7, 2019 18:03:05 GMT
As someone who didn't like the first one, I thought this was just rubbish. Muschetti is a damn poor filmmaker based on this duology. And honestly, I haven't read King's book but from the looks of it...it seems like a pretty ridiculous piece of work too. Not only did I find the filmmaking to be shoddy here but it's just the story itself that I felt was really dumb. Phhft, you don't know what you're talking about! The 1st film was terrific, Muschietti is a damn SUPERB filmmaker, and the book was terrific.
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Sept 7, 2019 18:09:56 GMT
So many different opinions Judging by the reviews and the posts in here, it's probably a decent movie but not as good as the first part. I'm very curious about that... I don't usually agree with the general critical consensus opinion, but they're pretty on-the-money about this one. Good, but not nearly as good as the first. Also, too long and not scary enough. Hader and Ransone are terrific, though. And while the final battle is about as cheesy & anti-climactic as in the miniseries and the book, the "prologue" that follows it was (surprisingly) pretty darn moving & heartfelt. I actually got teary-eyed!
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 7, 2019 21:32:10 GMT
So many different opinions Judging by the reviews and the posts in here, it's probably a decent movie but not as good as the first part. I'm very curious about that... I don't usually agree with the general critical consensus opinion, but they're pretty on-the-money about this one. Good, but not nearly as good as the first. Also, too long and not scary enough. Hader and Ransone are terrific, though. And while the final battle is about as cheesy & anti-climactic as in the miniseries and the book, the "prologue" that follows it was (surprisingly) pretty darn moving & heartfelt. I actually got teary-eyed! I just came back from the theater. Maybe tomorrow I post my thoughts but my general opinion is I liked it. It was not as good as the first chapter, I agree. But it was close imo. I liked Hader and McAvoy.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Sept 7, 2019 21:55:00 GMT
Very good. Not as good as the 1st (mostly due to the source material) but still satisfying.
I always thought this part would be harder to adapt, especially with the mythology behind It.
- Hader is great - De-aging was very distracting for some of the kids - I don't think they needed to add all of the material with the kids - 7/10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2019 4:55:27 GMT
I think this is the most Shia LaBeouf I’ve seen McAvoy be.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Sept 8, 2019 5:09:28 GMT
I like it more today than I did last night and I liked it then. At the time I found it overlong and thought the scares we’re having diminishing returns because there were so many. Reflecting I like the ambition, scale and the audacity of the near non stop horror scenes. Also very loyal to the source material because the book had something scary in basically every chapter.
Fantastic images and cast too. Like everybody said Hader is the standout. Legit nomination worthy. Loved Ransone too. Those two were the best cast characters all around in the series. Turned some of my least favorite characters from the book to my favorites.
Has it’s flaws but so did the adult portion of the book so that was to be expected but I’m ok with what they did.
I do agree that they relied too much on the kids for flashbacks. I liked that they added the Paul Bunyan bit because it was in the book and Eddies flashback was cool. The rest were just kind of there. Perhaps they could have just replaced them with Mike’s bird.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Sept 8, 2019 12:10:44 GMT
So when the second part of an adaptation of your favourite book ever is on the agenda, this was always going to be my most hyped film of the year. Honestly, I haven't been as excited for a film since I went to see Jurassic Park as a dinosaur obsessed eleven year old. The very, very high quality of the 2017 first part, combined with the untold potential to deal with some of the most interesting parts of the book, which were not really possible to explore in the 1990 film, had me truly believing that the team behind this epic two-parter would pull it off.
High expectations indeed; and while they weren't completely dashed, they most definitely were not met. The main issue with this film wasn't it's run-time at all, it was the complete misuse of it's run-time. The pacing was all over the place and the overall tone of the film was a jumble. I don't think Muschietti ever really seemed to know what sort of film he wanted to deliver us, and this wasn't only an issue from scene to scene, as within several scenes you had a mess of ideas that just didn't play well for me. It was just all rather devoid of the atmosphere that made part one so strong.
One of the keys to a successful horror film in my eyes is to never overuse your villain, and Chapter two fell right into this trap. Pennywise is a masterful villain, and he was handled and performed so well in the first film, but it all seemed a little tiresome this time around and instead of writing him scary, they used overly glossy CGI, which sucked all the life out of the character, and hamstrung the Skarsgard performance to a certain extent. In regards to other characters, the adults of the piece, for an almost three hour film to rush their development as much as this film did is rather unforgivable. No one had any time to breath. I didn't care about any of the adults like I did the teens, and this was not the fault of the actors who really did their best.
Now, all that shouldn't be taken as me calling the film a flat out failure, as for all of its flaws, it was enjoyable and entertaining and other than a patch in the second hour, I thought it all chugged along rather quickly. The things they changed from the book weren't so egregiously stupid that they irritated me, but with source material as good as they had here, I don't quite understand why the needed to alter certain parts of the story. The cast were strong, with the teens stealing the show again. I expected that, so there you are. Jack Dylan Grazer, Bill Hader and especially James Ransone were the best in show for me.
So overall, my disappointment lays in the fact that I know this film could have been so much better. I did like it, but I know I could have loved it; and for that reason it seems like a failure.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 8, 2019 13:54:14 GMT
OK, here we go:
I liked it and I give it a 6.5/10. Not as good as the first but in my mind the first was a 7/10 so the difference is not big.
It had scare jumps, laughs, solid character development, fine performances and lived up to the book.
What I didn't like was that I caught myself caring more about the kids in the flashback scenes than the adults. The grown-ups timeline needed to build its characters better, be more nostalgic and touching.
And of course it could (should, really) be a little shorter and tighter. At least 20 minutes shorter. The first part (the comeback calls, Stan's reaction, the Derry reunion) is one of the finest parts of the book but in the film all these were covered in about 25-30 minutes. I believe all those scenes with the adults looking for their artifacts etc, should have been much shorter.
Overall it was less scary than the first film but it was equally entertaining and enjoyable to watch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2019 17:17:39 GMT
Did anyone else have a bunch of little kids in their theater?
Anyway, thought it was messy and dumb but well acted and enjoyable enough, despite a pretty terrible theater experience. 6/10.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 8, 2019 17:55:46 GMT
Did anyone else have a bunch of little kids in their theater? I had a bunch of stupid teenagers around 15 years old who thought it was ok to make noise and do stupid things. One of them played a prank on his friend in order to scary him and make him scream.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2019 18:01:33 GMT
Did anyone else have a bunch of little kids in their theater? I had a bunch of stupid teenagers around 15 years old who thought it was ok to make noise and do stupid things. One of them played a prank on his friend in order to scary him and make him scream. Yeah, I had plenty of talkative teenagers (in fact my entire theater seemed to think it was ok to offer consistent commentary). But there were also a bunch of like 5-10 year olds making a shit ton of noise. There was even a toddler crying for a good portion. All that, + having to sit in the front row + having to deal with the world's most incompetent worker at the concession counter beforehand, made for a pretty terrible experience. Movie was alright, though.
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,388
Likes: 1,270
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Sept 8, 2019 18:25:04 GMT
The first chapter at least had a metaphor I could latch onto, this one is just incompetent filmmaking, lazy as hell, there's no logic behind it, why would each and every one of the adults separate the moment they arrive to the town, is like asking to be murdered, lel. And I lost all my respect to that clown when in the final battle he just could't fit into a tiny hole, betrays the entire premise. Hader definitely stand out in his scenes, the architect is hot and why I can't remember anything else from Chastain's character apart from being the girlfriend of an abusive partner ? .... 5/10 if generous
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Sept 8, 2019 18:40:38 GMT
Did anyone else have a bunch of little kids in their theater? Yes. It was really annoying too. The row I was in had about ten of them, and three of them were being obnoxiously annoying. The remainder of their group had to tell them to shut up on several occasions. Thankfully they did in the end.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 8, 2019 20:04:08 GMT
I had a bunch of stupid teenagers around 15 years old who thought it was ok to make noise and do stupid things. One of them played a prank on his friend in order to scary him and make him scream. Yeah, I had plenty of talkative teenagers (in fact my entire theater seemed to think it was ok to offer consistent commentary). But there were also a bunch of like 5-10 year olds making a shit ton of noise. There was even a toddler crying for a good portion. All that, + having to sit in the front row + having to deal with the world's most incompetent worker at the concession counter beforehand, made for a pretty terrible experience. Movie was alright, though. Sounds like a fucking nightmare!!! Worst thing when watching a movie...
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Sept 9, 2019 22:43:43 GMT
As good as Hader was, I'm saddened to see virtually no notices for Skarsgard's work in this film (or for the last film either honestly). His vision of Pennywise is exactly how I read him in the book and he's absolutely terrifying. My favorite scene of the film was with he and the little girl under the bleachers. THAT is what the film should have had more of - horror played for horror, not with added levity and humor to make it Spielberg-ian (and it's strange because if I remember correctly, that scene wasn't even in the novel).
The film wasn't bad at all IMO. I actually enjoyed it more than the first film simply because it was willing to add that extra necessary hour and give the characters room to breathe. Mike was still shafted for whatever reason, but at least he had more than two lines compared to the first film (even if his lines were mostly just exposition). Hader, Ransone, Mustafa, and McAvoy (surprisingly) were all great picks. Jay Ryan was fine. Ben Hanscom and Mike Hanlon were my favorite characters from the novel and both films royally misused those characters, but at least they cast them well enough. Jessica Chastain felt like too easy of casting (I still stan hard for Deborah Ann Woll as Beverly Marsh!), and she did okay, but I think it was the script this time that ruined her as Sophia Lillis was my Supporting Actress winner for 2017 and easily the best performance of both films together.
But yeah, it was enjoyable. Though as Stephen mentioned, it was never going to be completely faithful (or at least as much as it should be) with just two two-hour movies. It deserves a mini-series (at the very LEAST). That being said, if Muschietti follows through on his promise of a combined 6-hour film of both the kid and adult stories, then at least I can count on that to quench my thirst whenever I'm in the mood to relive the book again. Because despite all its flaws, at least they got the characters and the location down perfectly and that's what made me love the book so much to begin with (though of course, the book will always reign supreme).
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Sept 9, 2019 23:46:09 GMT
Eh, it's okay, pretty big step down from chapter one. Similar with the first I have to give kudos to the casting department -- especially adult Stan who made a big impression with so little screen time. The lack of atmosphere and scares was disappointing, though the bleachers and funhouse scenes were good stuff. It relied heavily on comedy which I don't think was all that successfully balanced, but I did love the Angel of the Morning puke shot and The Thing reference had me cackling. Shame about the CGI, especially the deepfakes-level uncanny valley look of some of the kids.
|
|
|
Post by pessimusreincarnated on Sept 11, 2019 15:24:24 GMT
How can a movie feel so sluggish and drawn-out, yet rushed and underdeveloped at the same time? The pacing to this thing was just the pits. Some good moments here and there, Hader and Ransone are delights, Pennywise has a cool appearance or two...but overall this was an awkward and monotonous slog that I don't see myself watching ever again. The first movie functions fine on its own.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Sept 13, 2019 13:41:54 GMT
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,613
Likes: 1,776
|
Post by dazed on Sept 14, 2019 15:57:21 GMT
So I ended up watching this in the theatre even though I had no intention to. This movie was all over the place. The actors were solid for the most part, especially Hader and Ranson who had great chemistry. Had a decent bit of funny parts. The de aging was very distracting at times, in particular with Bens kid actor and Richies kid actor to an extent. The CGI looked really fake to the point where it was comical. This movie had no clue what it wanted to be. The scene where Eddie goes back to the pharmacy’s basement and remembers what he seen sums up this movie. Especially when that song Angel of the Morning played. One of the most ‘why the fuck did they do that ’ scenes I’ve seen.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 14, 2019 16:02:47 GMT
I also wanna give some praise to the casting director for finding Teach Grant, who was perfect in the role of playing an adult Henry Bowers. I mean, he was absolutely wasted in this movie, but it was genius casting.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Sept 14, 2019 19:13:50 GMT
The scene where Eddie goes back to the pharmacy’s basement and remembers what he seen sums up this movie. Especially when that song Angel of the Morning played. I like to pretend that bit was just a bad fever dream. Yeah, that’s it.
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,388
Likes: 1,270
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Sept 20, 2019 7:43:14 GMT
Very late but, did anyone came across that stupid thinkpiece about Pennywise being homophobic and going through life committing hate crimes ? What's going on ? I have to give credit to the movie for not making fuzz about Richie' preferences and say it out loud, I took for granted that part but his storyline was decently done and enhaces better King's allegory, but surprisingly enough, in the last week the people I been talking to about the film, this is the story they found more affecting, even though it could've been resolved in a better way, ( 3. fucking. hours ) and of course the opening scene.
|
|