|
Post by stephen on Sept 8, 2017 2:44:35 GMT
In terms of a coming-of-age story, It captured the spirit of the novel magnificently. Every single one of the kids was perfectly cast, and the dynamic brought the magic of the Losers’ Club to life in a way I never expected. (I personally thought Sophia Lillis's Beverly and Jack Dylan Grazer's Eddie were the best of a very strong bunch.)
In terms of the horror elements, the film was very unnerving and really inventive in finding new and exciting ways to terrify its audience without having to draw from the well of movie monsters that were a staple in the 1950s (the new film has been updated to the 1980s; Stranger Things comparisons will inevitably be drawn). As for Bill Skarsgard, his Pennywise was wickedly terrifying and I credit him for putting his own twisted brand on the character. And most of all, they perfectly evoked Derry from the novels. The town is as much a character as the kids that live in it and the evil that lives beneath it, and you can tell that director Andy Muschietti and the rest of the crew really did their best to do Stephen King’s haunted town justice. You can really feel the passion for the material oozing from every lusciously-shot frame.
If I had a complaint, it’s the film’s pacing. I understand the struggle of distilling a 1,200-page doorstopper to a two-plus-hour runtime. I get it. But It really needed some breathing room in between its fantastic sequences. Everything felt like it was on a rocket-sled and moving to break the sound barrier. Certain plotlines were cut short and characters were given short shrift simply because there wasn’t time to develop them (Mike, Stan, Henry). As it is, It comes off as a highlight reel of masterful scenes and strong performances, but as a cohesive whole, it really needed a bit more room to flex its muscles and breathe a bit. Still, I'd call it the strongest cinematic King adaptation in well over a decade.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 8, 2017 3:16:18 GMT
Post by theycallmemrfish on Sept 8, 2017 3:16:18 GMT
What was the last great big-screen King adaptation in your eyes?
|
|
|
It.
Sept 8, 2017 3:18:16 GMT
Post by stephen on Sept 8, 2017 3:18:16 GMT
What was the last great big-screen King adaptation in your eyes? Before this, it's Hearts in Atlantis. I don't count 11/22/63, which is the best King adaptation of the century.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
It.
Sept 8, 2017 12:29:42 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 12:29:42 GMT
I thought it was great. It made me think of it like a bloody/foul-mouthed version of The Goonies or Super 8 but with the same heart and charm as those movies. All the kids are excellent, and Skarsgard's Pennywise is truly freaky.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 8, 2017 20:08:06 GMT
Post by jakesully on Sept 8, 2017 20:08:06 GMT
Thought it was fantastic (even better than I was expecting) And yeah all the kids were PERFECTLY cast esp the kid from Stranger Things ("You're lucky we aren't measuring our dicks " ) he had a lot of funny one liners. Perfect chemistry from all of them and then there' s Bill Skarsgard. WOW, imo he really knocked it out of the park as Pennywise. Kudos to the director on a great job. I hope this makes a shit ton of money at the box office (I'm sure it will too) cause I want Chapter Two !
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Sept 8, 2017 20:19:50 GMT
Was massively let down. I see what you're saying, whittling down a 1000 plus page book is no easy task, and they just seemed to have gone with all the jump scares, and jettisoned everything in between. I was gutted, because I love that small town Goonies, Stand By Me, Stranger Things vibe, and while they did a decent job establishing it, I didn't think they did anywhere near enough with it, and yet... I thought the whole thing went on far too long as well.
If all you're going to do is jump scare scenes one after the other you don't need to go on quite so much.
Still, the kids were really, really good.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 8, 2017 22:13:17 GMT
Post by stephen on Sept 8, 2017 22:13:17 GMT
Was massively let down. I see what you're saying, whittling down a 1000 plus page book is no easy task, and they just seemed to have gone with all the jump scares, and jettisoned everything in between. I was gutted, because I love that small town Goonies, Stand By Me, Stranger Things vibe, and while they did a decent job establishing it, I didn't think they did anywhere near enough with it, and yet... I thought the whole thing went on far too long as well. If all you're going to do is jump scare scenes one after the other you don't need to go on quite so much. Still, the kids were really, really good. I definitely know what you mean, and I don't think you're wrong about the jump-scares, and some of the changes they made from the source material don't really work for me . . . but nevertheless, I still came out really pleased with what I saw.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 8, 2017 22:48:48 GMT
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Sept 8, 2017 22:48:48 GMT
If all you're going to do is jump scare scenes one after the other Fuck. About to head in, so hopefully I'll like it, but this disappoints me. I just wish we'd get off that train of putting ten to fifteen or more of those in every mainstream horror movie.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Sept 9, 2017 2:28:16 GMT
Happy to be wrong. God.. 😰 Even though this is my first step into the story (haven't seen the miniseries or read the book), I could tell there were chunks still missing and that they were rushing through things. And I know I've said this before, but I really hate how horror movies (at least mainstream ones) shoehorn so many jump scares. But you know what? I frankly don't give a damn, because this movie's just that good. Everyone's already said this, but are the kids fan-friggin-tastic. Every single one of them get their necessary time to shine and get developed, each of them are distinct and deeply engaging, and the chemistry they share with each other leads to some of the sweetest, funniest, most affecting moments of the film. But just as impressive is when a mainstream horror of this caliber manages to frighten and unnerve me so well, building up such an intense and grotesque atmosphere that makes me squirm with every image. Even the jump scares (while I could have done with a few less) are largely earned, and actually serve a purpose to the narrative (That projector scene is gonna give me nightmares), made all the more reliable by Skarsgard's blood-curdling, sadistic, and downright inhuman performance. Could the film have been more expansive? Sure, but for what we ended up getting, I feel I've got nothing to lose sleep over... at least, when I'm not losing sleep over other things. A whole write-up without once uttering the word "It".
|
|
|
It.
Sept 9, 2017 19:49:28 GMT
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Sept 9, 2017 19:49:28 GMT
|
|
|
It.
Sept 9, 2017 20:12:41 GMT
Post by notacrook on Sept 9, 2017 20:12:41 GMT
Pretty much ^ It was an absolute blast to see in the cinema. They really made an effort with this one, and they were successful more often than not. Worth seeing, just don't expect a horror great or anything. Review: letterboxd.com/g_stephenson/film/it-2017/
|
|
|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Sept 9, 2017 20:38:04 GMT
Also, this has to be the funniest scene I've seen all year.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 9, 2017 20:41:21 GMT
Post by notacrook on Sept 9, 2017 20:41:21 GMT
Also, this has to be the funniest scene I've seen all year. Unintentionally funny scares were a pretty big problem with the film. Still, it made it more fun as well.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 9, 2017 21:02:46 GMT
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Sept 9, 2017 21:02:46 GMT
Also, this has to be the funniest scene I've seen all year. Unintentionally funny scares were a pretty big problem with the film. Still, it made it more fun as well. It gets even better.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 10, 2017 1:33:48 GMT
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Sept 10, 2017 1:33:48 GMT
Figured I'd get one out before the storm hits. Not my most polished, but hope you guys enjoy.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 10, 2017 4:50:14 GMT
via mobile
Post by Billy_Costigan on Sept 10, 2017 4:50:14 GMT
I absolutely loved it. Forget the clowns, it's just a good film. I read the book and thought this was an almost perfect adaptation. It's definitely tough to adapt, but they did a great job sticking to what the story is about - It's a coming of age story about friendship and overcoming your fears. One of my favorites of the year.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 10, 2017 15:40:37 GMT
Post by Pavan on Sept 10, 2017 15:40:37 GMT
I liked IT. A coming-of-age story that uses horror as a metaphor (and direct in parts) for fear. Loved the entire cast, especially the girl and Mike from Stranger Things. Skarsgard is terrfic as Pennywise.
The film makes good use of Stephen King's strong material.
The moody cinematography and ominous score elevated the film. Direction isn't IT's strongest element though. Doesn't feel accomplished and the pacing is way off sometimes. All in all a good *not your generic* horror film.
I'm excited to see how the kids fight Pennywise or their inner-demons to be precise, after 27 years- 7.5/10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2017 21:21:10 GMT
It was an absolute blast.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 11, 2017 0:02:33 GMT
Post by cheesecake on Sept 11, 2017 0:02:33 GMT
I loved it. A bit jump scare heavy and wish some characters got more development -- but over all I thought it really delivered.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 11, 2017 0:06:22 GMT
Post by Viced on Sept 11, 2017 0:06:22 GMT
Saw the thing today (I wanted to avoid saying It there but now it just looks like I forgot to capitalize the Carpenter movie) and liked it a good deal. Wasn't blown away, but it was definitely well done. All the kids were great, and Skarsgard didn't disappoint. It had a few goofy moments, but overall I was creeped out when I was supposed to be creeped out. And I've never had a problem with jump scares either-- unless they're poorly done or it's the only thing a scary movie has to offer-- and the one in the bathroom after Beverly toileted her father almost made me piss my pants... and at least 2 people sitting in my vicinity screamed. I agree that some characters were underdeveloped, which was a shame. And part of me will always wonder what could've been with Fukunuga at the helm, but overall this was a very solid adaptation and I'm looking forward to what they do with Part II.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 11, 2017 0:44:27 GMT
Post by mhynson27 on Sept 11, 2017 0:44:27 GMT
Now that both It and Detroit have come out, how do people think Poulter would have been as Pennywise?
|
|
|
It.
Sept 11, 2017 0:49:20 GMT
Post by stephen on Sept 11, 2017 0:49:20 GMT
Now that both It and Detroit have come out, how do people think Poulter would have been as Pennywise? Skarsgard and Poulter are both tall, gangly guys, and I take it they would've still gone for a sprightlier, more physically imposing Pennywise. The difference is that I doubt Poulter would've played Pennywise like the slavering, wall-eyed beast that Skarsgard did; he probably would've come off less animalistic. Which I'm sure would've worked well, but probably would've felt closer to what Curry did.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Sept 11, 2017 8:01:28 GMT
Got to see the film yesterday and I bloody loved it. I have practically no complaints at all. The kids were fantastic, which is the most crucial thing of all when adapting the novel. If they don't have chemistry and you don't believe how much they all care about each other, then the whole thing falls to pieces and it didn't and I'm relieved. As Stephen said, the Derry vibe was great too, it was good to see that old lady in the beginning just ignore the potential danger George was in. It set an early standard of a town that is deliberately blind to the horror that lives there.
Bill Skarsgård was a brilliantly twisted Pennywise. His portrayal was so different to that of Tim Curry's that I wouldn't even waste time comparing them.
As people have said, it did lean on jump scares quite a bit, but I didn't necessarily mind that, as I quite like when a jump scare actually works on me, as 99 out of 100 don't and one of them in It did. Also, the people in my packed showing seemed to be having a blast with the jump scares, and as they still seem to work for the majority, I don't think they will ever leave the horror genre, they are just too easy I guess. Cheap as they are sometimes, I fully believe most of the horror viewing public want them.
One thing that disappointed me on a selfish note was Patrick Hockstetter. He's a fascinatingly disturbing character in the book, with even Henry Bowers being somewhat scared of him, so when I saw that he was actually going to be in this adaptation, I was really excited to see how they would use him; so it was disappointing to see him become a quick early victim. I guess for the purposes of adapting such a monster book, they felt they only needed one psycho older teenager sticking around for the last act.
I'm so hyped for Part 2 of this now, but I loved this first part so much that it will be almost impossible for it to live up to an even equal level of quality in my eyes. Having said that, giving us on onscreen depiction of the fire at the Black Spot, which I'm now very hopeful of, would help with that.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Sept 12, 2017 2:54:53 GMT
Big disappointment, I thought. In some ways, shockingly bad. Very uneven and heavy-handed. And it's mainly the leadfoot director's fault. He forgets that a horror film has to build and breathe. So many moments feel merely interpolated, or empty, or rushed, or unearned. I can't even say it was shot well... and I love Chung-hoon Chung. MVP by a good bit: the kid that played Eddie. And why can't Bev be with Ben at the end? Studio alert.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 12, 2017 17:38:51 GMT
Post by Mattsby on Sept 12, 2017 17:38:51 GMT
Anybody else (cough Viced ) see The Replacements poster in Bev's bedroom?
|
|