|
It.
Sept 12, 2017 17:45:07 GMT
Post by Viced on Sept 12, 2017 17:45:07 GMT
Anybody else (cough Viced ) see The Replacements poster in Bev's bedroom? Yep, the highlight of the movie for me (and I liked the movie!). The only downside was they only showed it once, and I kept waiting to see it pop up one more time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
It.
Sept 13, 2017 12:34:51 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 12:34:51 GMT
So, Xavier Dolan is calling the film his favorite of this century... Tweet
|
|
|
It.
Sept 13, 2017 12:59:28 GMT
Post by JangoB on Sept 13, 2017 12:59:28 GMT
So, Xavier Dolan is calling the film his favorite of this century... TweetAnd here's Guy Lodge giving him shit for it and him being pissed off: Check out the bickering under the individual replies too. Fun stuff.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 13, 2017 13:01:25 GMT
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Sept 13, 2017 13:01:25 GMT
So, Xavier Dolan is calling the film his favorite of this century... TweetI loved the hell out of it, but that seems a stretch.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 13, 2017 18:18:06 GMT
Post by idioticbunny on Sept 13, 2017 18:18:06 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. Finally caught the film a couple days ago and wasn't near a computer to offer my complete thoughts, but I agree with all of this. This was the Derry I had envisioned in the novel. The bright orange summer sky lighting up a small town but at night a darkly sinister, humid, rainy world. They pretty much got it perfect. And as you said, it's clear they wanted to do King's material justice and they very much did so. At least, as much as you can in a two-hour film (granted they're only adapting about 600 pages of a 1,200 page novel, but the material is so dense, it's practically impossible to adapt for a film). So kudos to them for at least doing the characters and the town justice. This was much better than the T.V. mini-series. However, I have the same gripe as you. They were so worried about giving Pennywise all the screen time that they rushed by all the main characters. Mike was given the worst shaft. They made him an orphan, so his interactions with his father that were so powerful in the novel and gave him depth as well as explained why he (not Ben...) was such a history buff that led him to becoming a librarian and staying in Derry (wonder how they'll play that off in Chapter Two...) were completely passed by. He had like two minute scenes each that served as exposition for his character more than anything else. Felt like he was hardly even present. Richie was another one. You get NO back story with him at all. He's simply the comic relief for the characters. Thankfully, that's about all he was in the novel, and he really shines among his friends. They got Richie down perfectly. But instead of a lame one-minute montage at the end of the second act showing Bev and Bill, they could've at least spent that time to strengthen their other characters (Richie, Ben, Mike, etc.). It seemed like they spent far too much time giving Bev depth, and even Stan (who actually has practically no development in the novel, so I was kind of okay with that) all this screen time but dismissing all the other characters. Especially since Ben Hanscom was my favorite from the novel, so I was happy they at least got the character right this time compared to the mini-series, but they also gave him very little development outside of his admiration for Bev. I think it'll need a re-watch when it gets released on Blu-ray. That way I can kind of set aside my gripes between novel vs. film (though my gripes are mostly like Ben divulging history versus Mike who is supposed to be the buff and go on to be a librarian or Henry Bowers and his exit... will he be part of Chapter Two like he should be or did he die at the bottom of the well, like he also probably should have logically speaking? ). And these gripes are really just because I worry they might not have completely thought it through for when they make Chapter Two because those are crucial elements. But for now, as it stands as simply It, and not as It: Chapter One, they did a damn good job and I'm mostly pretty happy. And it's largely due to the kids who did an amazing job (Sophia Lillis was MVP for me, but Bill Skarsgard was a damn good Pennywise, too).
|
|
|
It.
Sept 13, 2017 18:18:37 GMT
Viced likes this
Post by idioticbunny on Sept 13, 2017 18:18:37 GMT
Anybody else (cough Viced ) see The Replacements poster in Bev's bedroom? Yep, the highlight of the movie for me (and I liked the movie!). The only downside was they only showed it once, and I kept waiting to see it pop up one more time. What?? I missed this! Bev just got even cooler.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 13, 2017 18:27:46 GMT
Post by stephen on Sept 13, 2017 18:27:46 GMT
Finally caught the film a couple days ago and wasn't near a computer to offer my complete thoughts, but I agree with all of this. This was the Derry I had envisioned in the novel. The bright orange summer sky lighting up a small town but at night a darkly sinister, humid, rainy world. They pretty much got it perfect. And as you said, it's clear they wanted to do King's material justice and they very much did so. At least, as much as you can in a two-hour film (granted they're only adapting about 600 pages of a 1,200 page novel, but the material is so dense, it's practically impossible to adapt for a film). So kudos to them for at least doing the characters and the town justice. This was much better than the T.V. mini-series. However, I have the same gripe as you. They were so worried about giving Pennywise all the screen time that they rushed by all the main characters. Mike was given the worst shaft. They made him an orphan, so his interactions with his father that were so powerful in the novel and gave him depth as well as explained why he (not Ben...) was such a history buff that led him to becoming a librarian and staying in Derry (wonder how they'll play that off in Chapter Two...) were completely passed by. He had like two minute scenes each that served as exposition for his character more than anything else. Felt like he was hardly even present. Richie was another one. You get NO back story with him at all. He's simply the comic relief for the characters. Thankfully, that's about all he was in the novel, and he really shines among his friends. They got Richie down perfectly. But instead of a lame one-minute montage at the end of the second act showing Bev and Bill, they could've at least spent that time to strengthen their other characters (Richie, Ben, Mike, etc.). It seemed like they spent far too much time giving Bev depth, and even Stan (who actually has practically no development in the novel, so I was kind of okay with that) all this screen time but dismissing all the other characters. Especially since Ben Hanscom was my favorite from the novel, so I was happy they at least got the character right this time compared to the mini-series, but they also gave him very little development outside of his admiration for Bev. I think it'll need a re-watch when it gets released on Blu-ray. That way I can kind of set aside my gripes between novel vs. film (though my gripes are mostly like Ben divulging history versus Mike who is supposed to be the buff and go on to be a librarian or Henry Bowers and his exit... will he be part of Chapter Two like he should be or did he die at the bottom of the well, like he also probably should have logically speaking? ). And these gripes are really just because I worry they might not have completely thought it through for when they make Chapter Two because those are crucial elements. But for now, as it stands as simply It, and not as It: Chapter One, they did a damn good job and I'm mostly pretty happy. And it's largely due to the kids who did an amazing job (Sophia Lillis was MVP for me, but Bill Skarsgard was a damn good Pennywise, too). I really wish that Mike had been given more of the “historian” storyline as opposed to Ben, and I wish they’d used Steven Williams (a fine actor) more to give his own viewpoint and experiences on Derry. I know they intended to have the Black Spot scene in the film, but they ran out of money to shoot it. What I would give to hear Williams tell Mike the story, even in a DVD bonus feature. We’re supposed to get the Black Spot flashback in the sequel. Ben really needed more fleshing out as the heart of the Loser’s Club. I really wish they’d delved a bit more into the weapon-crafting from the novel, as Ben excels at building stuff and it would’ve been really cool if he’d gotten to use his ingenuity at crafting something, be it silver slugs or even a silver bolt for Mike’s gun. Oh yeah, no way Henry survived that. One of my biggest complaints was how they shafted Henry, Vic and Belch (to the point that I believe the latter two are still standing around that car in Henry’s yard to this day). If they were going to have Henry in the next film, show him survive. But when you tumble a hundred-foot drop like that, you’re dead. Sorry, Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Sept 13, 2017 18:28:48 GMT
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. Yeah, I think it would have been better to leave his character out entirely because at least then you wouldn't be doing him an injustice. His small couple of pages of back story in the novel was probably one of my absolute favorite moments. He's such a disturbing character, and if it were a TV series, he should get his own episode ala Orange is the New Black because his whole story - in a book involving a clown that kills children - was the most disturbing part of the novel. So yeah, considering the small scope of the film, they probably could've left him out rather than keeping him in as fish bait instead.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 13, 2017 18:37:20 GMT
Post by idioticbunny on Sept 13, 2017 18:37:20 GMT
I really wish that Mike had been given more of the “historian” storyline as opposed to Ben, and I wish they’d used Steven Williams (a fine actor) more to give his own viewpoint and experiences on Derry. I know they intended to have the Black Spot scene in the film, but they ran out of money to shoot it. What I would give to hear Williams tell Mike the story, even in a DVD bonus feature. We’re supposed to get the Black Spot flashback in the sequel. Ben really needed more fleshing out as the heart of the Loser’s Club. I really wish they’d delved a bit more into the weapon-crafting from the novel, as Ben excels at building stuff and it would’ve been really cool if he’d gotten to use his ingenuity at crafting something, be it silver slugs or even a silver bolt for Mike’s gun. Oh yeah, no way Henry survived that. One of my biggest complaints was how they shafted Henry, Vic and Belch (to the point that I believe the latter two are still standing around that car in Henry’s yard to this day). If they were going to have Henry in the next film, show him survive. But when you tumble a hundred-foot drop like that, you’re dead. Sorry, Charlie. Yeah, at least using Williams as a father figure to Mike would've been better than just simply offering exposition about his parents' death. Just seemed odd. But that's awesome to hear about the Black Spot! Mike's interludes were probably my favorite aspect of the novel. Just because it showed how vast the It universe was. Could make an entire television series like Fargo just focusing each season on one of those historical interludes. So, I'm very happy to hear it could be a thing in Chapter Two! Agreed on Ben as well. I loved his character for exactly that reason, he was the heart of the group. Such a tender kid, and it was always great to watch him come to life when he built things. So yeah, simply doing a flip-flop on Mike and Ben in the film would've been more fitting, I think. At least, if they plan to be as accurate as possible with Chapter Two. Exactly. Especially since they shafted Patrick Hockstetter as well. It's strange when, as much as I disliked the original mini-series, they actually were more faithful to the plot (even if not as much to the characters). Having Henry, Vic, and Belch follow the kids as well as having there be a major storm brewing outside (instead of the same sunny, Terence Malick-y disposition outside like they had at the climax of the film) would've made for much larger stakes than the somewhat anti-climatic fight toward the end. I just don't think they were really thinking too far ahead with Chapter Two, but I guess we'll see. I mean, I hope he comes back because he made for such an incredible antagonist in the adult portion of the novel, but there'd have to be a hell of an explanation if he did.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 13, 2017 18:57:19 GMT
Yeah, at least using Williams as a father figure to Mike would've been better than just simply offering exposition about his parents' death. Just seemed odd. But that's awesome to hear about the Black Spot! Mike's interludes were probably my favorite aspect of the novel. Just because it showed how vast the It universe was. Could make an entire television series like Fargo just focusing each season on one of those historical interludes. So, I'm very happy to hear it could be a thing in Chapter Two! Agreed on Ben as well. I loved his character for exactly that reason, he was the heart of the group. Such a tender kid, and it was always great to watch him come to life when he built things. So yeah, simply doing a flip-flop on Mike and Ben in the film would've been more fitting, I think. At least, if they plan to be as accurate as possible with Chapter Two. Exactly. Especially since they shafted Patrick Hockstetter as well. It's strange when, as much as I disliked the original mini-series, they actually were more faithful to the plot (even if not as much to the characters). Having Henry, Vic, and Belch follow the kids as well as having there be a major storm brewing outside (instead of the same sunny, Terence Malick-y disposition outside like they had at the climax of the film) would've made for much larger stakes than the somewhat anti-climatic fight toward the end. I just don't think they were really thinking too far ahead with Chapter Two, but I guess we'll see. I mean, I hope he comes back because he made for such an incredible antagonist in the adult portion of the novel, but there'd have to be a hell of an explanation if he did. My dream would've been an eight-part miniseries a la True Detective's first season, with the first few episodes bookended with an interlude as written down by Mike. It would've been really tough to portray Patrick as he is in the novels and nail the freaky nature of the kid, especially as much of it isn't plot-relevant. Still, really was hoping for the leeches.
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Sept 13, 2017 20:34:17 GMT
My dream would've been an eight-part miniseries a la True Detective's first season, with the first few episodes bookended with an interlude as written down by Mike. It would've been really tough to portray Patrick as he is in the novels and nail the freaky nature of the kid, especially as much of it isn't plot-relevant. Still, really was hoping for the leeches. I would be cool with that, too. Honestly, I think the only perfect way to really adapt the novel is as a mini-series. And not just a Part 1/ Part 2 thing they did in the '90s, something far more extensive. Just too dense to limit to two two-hour films, even though I did like this one a lot. I wanted the leeches, too! Well... Wanted and simultaneously didn't want as I have a huge fear of bugs. So bugs + creepy clowns = nightmares for days. Either way, I agree that Patrick's back story, or character himself, is useless to the overall story. I just think another aspect that made the book so great is knowing how terrible and creepy regular townsfolk are in comparison to the clown. You almost forget that the clown is a threat next to Henry Bowers, Butch Bowers, Patrick Hockstetter, Bev's dad, etc. So for a mini-series/series, having an episode dedicated to Patrick and/or Henry would certainly exemplify that.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 13, 2017 20:39:37 GMT
I would be cool with that, too. Honestly, I think the only perfect way to really adapt the novel is as a mini-series. And not just a Part 1/ Part 2 thing they did in the '90s, something far more extensive. Just too dense to limit to two two-hour films, even though I did like this one a lot. I wanted the leeches, too! Well... Wanted and simultaneously didn't want as I have a huge fear of bugs. So bugs + creepy clowns = nightmares for days. Either way, I agree that Patrick's back story, or character himself, is useless to the overall story. I just think another aspect that made the book so great is knowing how terrible and creepy regular townsfolk are in comparison to the clown. You almost forget that the clown is a threat next to Henry Bowers, Butch Bowers, Patrick Hockstetter, Bev's dad, etc. So for a mini-series/series, having an episode dedicated to Patrick and/or Henry would certainly exemplify that. That's the problem with boiling everything down into a single film. Honestly, I kinda wish they'd done two films focusing on just the kids, one released at the start of the summer and one at the end of it. This film was going to make bank, so why not spring for two films? Gives you more time to get to know the characters, no one gets shafted, and we get some interlude material.
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Sept 13, 2017 21:41:26 GMT
That's the problem with boiling everything down into a single film. Honestly, I kinda wish they'd done two films focusing on just the kids, one released at the start of the summer and one at the end of it. This film was going to make bank, so why not spring for two films? Gives you more time to get to know the characters, no one gets shafted, and we get some interlude material. I would've been okay with that, too. Certainly would have been unique, and could have made serious bank off of it. But considering how they didn't even know how much money they were going to make until after production was over and they dropped a trailer, I'm not surprised they went the easier route. In time, perhaps, someone will make a truly perfect adaptation. Considering how much money this made, you know it'll just be a matter of time before they reboot it again (hopefully in another twenty-something odd years).
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 13, 2017 21:42:01 GMT
I would be cool with that, too. Honestly, I think the only perfect way to really adapt the novel is as a mini-series. And not just a Part 1/ Part 2 thing they did in the '90s, something far more extensive. Just too dense to limit to two two-hour films, even though I did like this one a lot. I wanted the leeches, too! Well... Wanted and simultaneously didn't want as I have a huge fear of bugs. So bugs + creepy clowns = nightmares for days. Either way, I agree that Patrick's back story, or character himself, is useless to the overall story. I just think another aspect that made the book so great is knowing how terrible and creepy regular townsfolk are in comparison to the clown. You almost forget that the clown is a threat next to Henry Bowers, Butch Bowers, Patrick Hockstetter, Bev's dad, etc. So for a mini-series/series, having an episode dedicated to Patrick and/or Henry would certainly exemplify that. That's the problem with boiling everything down into a single film. Honestly, I kinda wish they'd done two films focusing on just the kids, one released at the start of the summer and one at the end of it. This film was going to make bank, so why not spring for two films? Gives you more time to get to know the characters, no one gets shafted, and we get some interlude material. By the way, I absolutely love that they made Butch a cop in the film, rather than the dirt-poor farmer he is in the novel. Having Butch as an authority figure in town emphasizes Derry's poisoned influence (and there can be something to be said for the social commentary of having that corrupt man on the force), knowing that while he's "investigating", the cases will never be solved, and knowing that Butch's influence can stretch further than simply the borders of his shit-shambles farm. Shame it didn't get much screentime.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 14, 2017 0:25:51 GMT
Post by idioticbunny on Sept 14, 2017 0:25:51 GMT
That's the problem with boiling everything down into a single film. Honestly, I kinda wish they'd done two films focusing on just the kids, one released at the start of the summer and one at the end of it. This film was going to make bank, so why not spring for two films? Gives you more time to get to know the characters, no one gets shafted, and we get some interlude material. By the way, I absolutely love that they made Butch a cop in the film, rather than the dirt-poor farmer he is in the novel. Having Butch as an authority figure in town emphasizes Derry's poisoned influence (and there can be something to be said for the social commentary of having that corrupt man on the force), knowing that while he's "investigating", the cases will never be solved, and knowing that Butch's influence can stretch further than simply the borders of his shit-shambles farm. Shame it didn't get much screentime. Good point. I didn't even think about that. I wasn't a fan of it after leaving the theater, since having him as a policeman didn't show that he was schizophrenic or at least had some mental illness, but that's certainly a more harrowing point. We ought to just collaborate on the mini-series ourselves, Stephen.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Sept 14, 2017 7:17:31 GMT
That's the problem with boiling everything down into a single film. Honestly, I kinda wish they'd done two films focusing on just the kids, one released at the start of the summer and one at the end of it. This film was going to make bank, so why not spring for two films? Gives you more time to get to know the characters, no one gets shafted, and we get some interlude material. By the way, I absolutely love that they made Butch a cop in the film, rather than the dirt-poor farmer he is in the novel. Having Butch as an authority figure in town emphasizes Derry's poisoned influence (and there can be something to be said for the social commentary of having that corrupt man on the force), knowing that while he's "investigating", the cases will never be solved, and knowing that Butch's influence can stretch further than simply the borders of his shit-shambles farm. Shame it didn't get much screentime. Totally with you on the changes to Butch, it was one of the best differences from them novel.
|
|
atn
Full Member
Posts: 680
Likes: 353
|
It.
Sept 17, 2017 8:06:14 GMT
Post by atn on Sept 17, 2017 8:06:14 GMT
Soulless, uninteresting, exploitative garbage. Completely dropped the ball on pivotal themes, character development, etc. in favor of loud noises and ugly visuals. Univentive scares (how many times do we have to see a variation of zombie?), annoying two dimensional kids defined only by the most superficial characteristics, cartoonishly obnoxious bullies, hamfisted "jokes," disingenuous nostalgia. No aspect was genuinely unnerving, thought provoking, moving, horrifying... interesting... Entirely artificial and repetitive.
45 minutes in, I leaned over to my brother and whispered, "Christ this is exhausting." Little did I know I was in for an hour and half more of this putrid mess.
God I fucking hated this movie. No idea what everyone else is seeing here (no offense). Worst thing I've had the displeasure of watching this year since Beauty and the Beast.
And I'm a King fan. Was genuinely looking forward to this. Smh.
DogshIT.
|
|
eliuson
Junior Member
Posts: 273
Likes: 55
|
It.
Sept 17, 2017 8:42:18 GMT
via mobile
atn likes this
Post by eliuson on Sept 17, 2017 8:42:18 GMT
Soulless, uninteresting, exploitative garbage. Completely dropped the ball on pivotal themes, character development, etc. in favor of loud noises and ugly visuals. Univentive scares (how many times do we have to see a variation of zombie?), annoying two dimensional kids defined only by the most superficial characteristics, cartoonishly obnoxious bullies, hamfisted "jokes," disingenuous nostalgia. No aspect was genuinely unnerving, thought provoking, moving, horrifying... interesting... Entirely artificial and repetitive. 45 minutes in, I leaned over to my brother and whispered, "Christ this is exhausting." Little did I know I was in for an hour and half more of this putrid mess. God I fucking hated this movie. No idea what everyone else is seeing here (no offense). Worst thing I've had the displeasure of watching this year since Beauty and the Beast. And I'm a King fan. Was genuinely looking forward to this. Smh. Dogsh IT.Good to know I wasn't the only one. What a colossal bore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
It.
Sept 17, 2017 11:25:14 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 11:25:14 GMT
Worst thing I've had the displeasure of watching this year since Beauty and the Beast dude u actually paid to watch it wtf
|
|
AKenjiB
Badass
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 653
|
It.
Sept 17, 2017 20:35:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by AKenjiB on Sept 17, 2017 20:35:48 GMT
I'm holding off watching the film until I finish the book (just theee chapters left). But I'm glad people are generally enjoying it, though I'm also worried the changes and things cut out are gonna bother me. Like Mike's an orphan? Really? also sad to hear Mike isn't developed because I think he's one of the most interesting characters in the novel. I definitely agree with others that a perfect adaptation of It would be a miniseries. Like at least 8 episodes. But hopefully I'll still be able to enjoy it for what it is.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 17, 2017 22:29:12 GMT
via mobile
Post by Billy_Costigan on Sept 17, 2017 22:29:12 GMT
Saw it again today. Probably my favorite film of the year. Such a great experience.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 18, 2017 18:38:25 GMT
Post by idioticbunny on Sept 18, 2017 18:38:25 GMT
I'm holding off watching the film until I finish the book (just theee chapters left). But I'm glad people are generally enjoying it, though I'm also worried the changes and things cut out are gonna bother me. Like Mike's an orphan? Really? also sad to hear Mike isn't developed because I think he's one of the most interesting characters in the novel. I definitely agree with others that a perfect adaptation of It would be a miniseries. Like at least 8 episodes. But hopefully I'll still be able to enjoy it for what it is. Yeah, and it seems they're only going to continue dropping the ball on Mike for Chapter Two as well, making him a junkie. At the same time, all the kids were perfectly cast in the roles. Even if they made a lot of change to plot or certain character developments, all the kids play are about as close to the novel as possible. Over the past couple weeks, the admiration for the film has waned a bit, but it's still a decent adaptation of a pretty unadaptable (at least in terms of 2 two-hour films) novel.
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,390
Likes: 1,274
|
It.
Sept 19, 2017 4:00:42 GMT
Post by avnermoriarti on Sept 19, 2017 4:00:42 GMT
It was entertaing to a point, it was like Super 8 in that regard, as many blockbusters of the summer, the third act was a mess, scare after scare, it was like a remix, and only shows the limitations of a character like It.
Still, there are many aspects I appreciate, one, how "clean" it was for such a horror film, every other King adaptation I've seen has been quite ugly to look at just for the sake of it, this was had a more perverse look going on.
But the real highlight for me was one particular shot and I wish the entire movie was done from that perspective, earlier in the film, in a scene where Stanley is in front the picture of that woman the camera switch perspective and we see everything through the eyes of this entity, that moment was the only one that gave me chills, I wish the movie had done that more.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 21, 2017 3:43:56 GMT
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Sept 21, 2017 3:43:56 GMT
The more I keep reflecting on it, the more I've been appreciating it. I have to say, this is both making me more excited, and more skeptical for how Chapter Two is going to play out. Not in the way that I'm worried it'll botch the book (I swear I'll get to it at some point), but I just hope that the adult sections will recapture the same good heart and spirit of the first entry.
Although, if I have any one wish for it above all else, I really hope that they keep to the mystery of Pennywise's true origins. I really appreciate that the film didn't try to get too bogged down in over explaining things by letting the monster speak for itself, and retaining the utter horror of his appearance with that vagueness. He's already such a well-formed character at this point, so I would love to see them continue down that road, or at least keep exposition to bare bones essentials. I just have this worry that the more we know about him, the less interesting he'll become.
And a couple less jump scares would be nice next time, but still, looking forward to it.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 21, 2017 15:14:20 GMT
Post by stephen on Sept 21, 2017 15:14:20 GMT
Rewatched it in IMAX the other night. The individual scenes are excellent, but as a cohesive whole, I still feel it's shy of a truly great film. It really needed to be two films, released on opposite ends of the summer, with the kids coming together under the threat of It in the first and then deciding to take action against It in the second. It gives more time to get to know the characters, as well as opening up more avenues such as Henry Bowers's storyline.
|
|