|
It.
Sept 23, 2017 2:16:54 GMT
Post by Allenism on Sept 23, 2017 2:16:54 GMT
Just browsed the thread to find reactions similar to my own, but...I wasn't really a fan. Predictably, it just feels too polished and CGI-laden to be truly scary, and the third act is an unmitigated mess of cheap jolts and slapdash, nonsensical character development. Some individual scenes are effective (e.g. the opening sequence) and the kids generally do a good job filling in their cliche-resistant roles, but the whole thing didn't hang together very well for me. Not particularly impressed with Skarsgard's interpretation of the titular character, either. I'm teetering between a 6.5 and a 7.
|
|
|
It.
Sept 23, 2017 23:15:01 GMT
Post by DeepArcher on Sept 23, 2017 23:15:01 GMT
|
|
|
It.
Oct 5, 2017 19:59:37 GMT
Post by alexanderblanchett on Oct 5, 2017 19:59:37 GMT
A new kind of terror. It was a great film. Not only as a horror film but also as a coming of age drama of a couple of outsider friends and their bond which is probably the best interpretation since "Stand by Me" in that matter. Yes the horror works, it is scary, definitely scarier than the original which is mostly due to the unbelievably charismatic performance of Bill Skarsgard who with his actually sympathich aura makes the character even more worse .. more evil. Excellent performance. I also liked that this adaption was very faithful to the book which remains as one of my all time favorites. The characters were introduced in the necessary detail so you care for them from the beginning to the end and this really makes you look forward to a potential sequel as you are desperate to know their fate (well… if you haven't read the book). The direction was excellent and director Andy Muschietti created some scenes that are already iconic. Wonderful atmosphere, soundtrack and surprisingly great cinematography. I liked the kids, especially Sophia Lillis was exceptional and so was Jeremy Ray Taylor. Jaeden Lieberher was also fine in the lead as was Finn Wolfhard and Jack Dylan Grazer. Did not care too much for Wyatt Oleff nor Chosen Jacobs but they were definitely decent enough. I really look forward to see it again. One of the best films of the year so far.
Nominations for:
Best Picture Best Director: Andy Muschietti Best Actor in a Supporting Role: Ben Skarsgard Best Adapted Screenplay Best Editing Best Make Up* Best Ensemble
Rating: 9/10
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Oct 7, 2017 3:30:55 GMT
It, as a movie to see in the movies, was an absolute pleasure. It's funny (I had more than a few laugh out loud moments), it's tense in some parts, and all the kids are pretty damn good in their roles. That's not to say it is without its flaws. The jump scares are pretty much telegraphed and for the most part don't do what's intended, Stan and Mike (and Ben too) are kind of afterthoughts in terms of the group, and the bullies were too bad for their own good (if that makes sense). All of that is forgiven since I did have a wonderful time watching it and that first hour or so went by like a breeze (I looked at my watch at one point, thinking only like 30 minutes went by and it was over an hour, kudos to them)... I can't forgive that ending, though... which felt Harry Potter 1-esque with "you defeated Voldemort because you had a mother's love in you!". Also, as much as I liked Skarsgard, all I could think about was "how awesome Curry would have been had he been given the chance in an R-rated It.
|
|
sg90
New Member
Posts: 52
Likes: 25
|
It.
Oct 7, 2017 18:31:36 GMT
Post by sg90 on Oct 7, 2017 18:31:36 GMT
Didn't really like it. The kids were good, but Pennywise was awful. He sounded like a retard and it was hard to believe Georgie would befriend him so easily since he spooked him at first sight. I'd have ran off. The jump scares and CGI ruined it for me. Also I disliked moving it from the 50s to the 80s, it just seemed like a cheap cash in on the Stranger Things mania. Actually preferred the original one, despite thinking it was incredibly cheesey.
|
|
AKenjiB
Badass
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 653
|
Post by AKenjiB on Oct 10, 2017 3:58:21 GMT
Didn't really like it. The kids were good, but Pennywise was awful. He sounded like a retard and it was hard to believe Georgie would befriend him so easily since he spooked him at first sight. I'd have ran off. The jump scares and CGI ruined it for me. Also I disliked moving it from the 50s to the 80s, it just seemed like a cheap cash in on the Stranger Things mania. Actually preferred the original one, despite thinking it was incredibly cheesey. I always interpreted Georgie's actions as being motivated by a fear of Bill being angry at him for losing the boat, not actually trusting Pennywise
|
|
AKenjiB
Badass
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 653
|
It.
Oct 10, 2017 4:08:42 GMT
Post by AKenjiB on Oct 10, 2017 4:08:42 GMT
I finished the book a couple days before watching the film and I was surprised at how much I liked it, although the film is not without its problems. The main issues are with some cheap jump and CGI scares, a rushed plot, and the complete sidelining of Mike, one of my favorite characters in the novel, who's turned into a token minority character. But the film really kept me engage with its atmosphere, cinematography, score, the performances, and retaining the meaningful themes of King's novel. I was shocked by how much I loved Skarsgard in it. I haven't seen the 1990 version, so no comparison but my only issue is that the film should've relied more on his performance to be scary rather than CGI and jump scares. The child actors (save Chosen Jacobs as Mike but that's only because he's not given anything to do) were all fantastic. Jaeden Lieberher does great at covering Bill's grief and anger. Sophia Lillis and Jack Dylan Grazer were the MVPs. Their scenes really stuck with me the most. Also the flute player was a great addition to the film! I think "It" still needs the miniseries treatment for a perfect adaptation, but the film largely succeeded in its goal of adapting the 1950s half of the novel into a 2 hour film. Hopefully the sequel will fix some of the shoddy CGI issues, give Mike more to do, and fully utilize Skarsgard's acting. Full thoughts here: akenjib-alex.blogspot.com/2017/10/it-2017-movie-review.html
|
|
AKenjiB
Badass
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 653
|
Post by AKenjiB on Oct 10, 2017 4:14:35 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. Hey, late reply, but yeah that's pretty disappointing making Mike a junkie. I hate to be that guy, but there's all kinds of unfortunate implications to first making the only black character (who's really important in the book) the least developed of the seven and then turning him into a junkie in the second film. Eh...I hope Muschietti changes his mind. Either that, or this junkie idea is actually going to be genius and I just don't realize it. Seriously, Mike is one of the most interesting characters in the novel. Please don't fuck up his character. I honestly really enjoyed the film, but his character deserves so much better.
|
|
|
It.
Oct 10, 2017 9:02:52 GMT
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Oct 10, 2017 9:02:52 GMT
I can actually get on board with the idea of Mike becoming a junkie. If they stick to the adult section of the novel fairly closely, then he's the one who is going to stay in this miserable town, not be a rip roaring success in life like his friends who leave and also be the one who spends his life remembering the horror they went through as kids. It seems reasonable to me that you could be driven to drugs by that. I don't necessarily think it's an incredibly creative or intelligent idea, but at the same time I don't think its a bad one either.
|
|
AKenjiB
Badass
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 653
|
It.
Oct 10, 2017 16:57:00 GMT
via mobile
Post by AKenjiB on Oct 10, 2017 16:57:00 GMT
I can actually get on board with the idea of Mike becoming a junkie. If they stick to the adult section of the novel fairly closely, then he's the one who is going to stay in this miserable town, not be a rip roaring success in life like his friends who leave and also be the one who spends his life remembering the horror they went through as kids. It seems reasonable to me that you could be driven to drugs by that. I don't necessarily think it's an incredibly creative or intelligent idea, but at the same time I don't think its a bad one either. That’s a fair point. Part 1 just butchered his character so badly but if they can sell the junkie idea in a way that doesn’t take away from his intelligence and doesn’t use it as an excuse to not give him any further depth, then it could work. Fingers crossed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
It.
Oct 30, 2017 3:37:22 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 3:37:22 GMT
Well, It was pretty good.
My biggest issue with the film is that the whole thing felt very, very rushed. Should have been three hours or a little longer if you're going to do this part of the story justice, IMO. I wanted a lot more time dedicated to the character interactions - wouldn't hurt if they were better written, either. Dialogue was pretty hit or miss.
The "bullying" aspect of the film was mostly ridiculous and very unconvincing, except for a few scenes they followed kind of closely from the source material. It's a shame how poorly Patrick's character was handled.
Now, this is an unusual number of complaints with I film I overall would say I liked, but here's why - the stuff that was good, was REALLY good. Some of the horror sequences are excellent and even slightly unnerving (a rarity for me nowadays), and they nailed the atmosphere of the town. I think the young actors do reasonably well with what they're given (the ones that played Bill and Beverly especially) and are generally fun to watch. This was probably one of the strongest adaptations of King's work yet, even if it didn't really live up to the book in some ways I hoped it would.
I'd rate it a light 7/10.
|
|
|
It.
Feb 6, 2018 18:23:38 GMT
Post by PromNightCarrie on Feb 6, 2018 18:23:38 GMT
I just saw it yesterday and while I liked some things about it (the character they were actually most successful with was the female character, Beverley), I think it had the potential to be a lot better. I think they should have kept the 50s setting from the novel. Having the children's part set in the 80s only achieved giving everyone Stranger Things vibes. I'm glad they included some of the creatures right out of the novel, but those moments were so terrifying to read and yet not scary enough for my liking on the screen.
I really wish they left in the scenes with Bill and Georgie's picture book, including the part where the picture winks at him, and the moment with Richie where his hand gets stuck into Georgie's photo book. That would have been cool to see on film, and it had a purpose because it was finally when the Richie character took It seriously.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 6, 2018 18:25:54 GMT
I just saw it yesterday and while I liked some things about it (the character they were actually most successful with was the female character, Beverley), I think it had the potential to be a lot better. I think they should have kept the 50s setting from the novel. Having the children's part set in the 80s only achieved giving everyone Stranger Things vibes. I'm glad they included some of the creatures right out of the novel, but those moments were so terrifying to read and yet not scary enough for my liking on the screen. I really wish they left in the scenes with Bill and Georgie's picture book, including the part where the picture winks at him, and the moment with Richie where his hand gets stuck into Georgie's photo book. That would have been cool to see on film, and it had a purpose because it was finally when the Richie character took It seriously. Yeah, the more time that passes, the more that the film's issues really stick out for me. It still feels like a highlight reel of great sequences that lack cohesion or connective tissue. I do still wish that they'd kept the '50s-era aesthetic, but they did as well as they could with the updated timeline. They really did get Beverly perfect, didn't they?
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Feb 6, 2018 18:38:27 GMT
I just saw it yesterday and while I liked some things about it (the character they were actually most successful with was the female character, Beverley), I think it had the potential to be a lot better. I think they should have kept the 50s setting from the novel. Having the children's part set in the 80s only achieved giving everyone Stranger Things vibes. I'm glad they included some of the creatures right out of the novel, but those moments were so terrifying to read and yet not scary enough for my liking on the screen. I really wish they left in the scenes with Bill and Georgie's picture book, including the part where the picture winks at him, and the moment with Richie where his hand gets stuck into Georgie's photo book. That would have been cool to see on film, and it had a purpose because it was finally when the Richie character took It seriously. Yeah, the more time that passes, the more that the film's issues really stick out for me. It still feels like a highlight reel of great sequences that lack cohesion or connective tissue. I do still wish that they'd kept the '50s-era aesthetic, but they did as well as they could with the updated timeline. They really did get Beverly perfect, didn't they? Highlight reel is exactly what it seemed like. I don't hate it, but I wish it was better executed as a whole piece. They certainly did. My favorite character from the book was Ben Hanscom though. I liked their casting of Ben, but I felt his scenes could have had more impact if they were less rushed.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Feb 6, 2018 18:38:29 GMT
I just saw it yesterday and while I liked some things about it (the character they were actually most successful with was the female character, Beverley), I think it had the potential to be a lot better. I think they should have kept the 50s setting from the novel. Having the children's part set in the 80s only achieved giving everyone Stranger Things vibes. I'm glad they included some of the creatures right out of the novel, but those moments were so terrifying to read and yet not scary enough for my liking on the screen. I really wish they left in the scenes with Bill and Georgie's picture book, including the part where the picture winks at him, and the moment with Richie where his hand gets stuck into Georgie's photo book. That would have been cool to see on film, and it had a purpose because it was finally when the Richie character took It seriously. For an adaptation of It to have the same staying power and scare effect of the book, it should have been an HBO series, imo. Too much stuff has to be cut from the book for a theatrical movie.
|
|
|
It.
Feb 6, 2018 18:41:37 GMT
Post by PromNightCarrie on Feb 6, 2018 18:41:37 GMT
I just saw it yesterday and while I liked some things about it (the character they were actually most successful with was the female character, Beverley), I think it had the potential to be a lot better. I think they should have kept the 50s setting from the novel. Having the children's part set in the 80s only achieved giving everyone Stranger Things vibes. I'm glad they included some of the creatures right out of the novel, but those moments were so terrifying to read and yet not scary enough for my liking on the screen. I really wish they left in the scenes with Bill and Georgie's picture book, including the part where the picture winks at him, and the moment with Richie where his hand gets stuck into Georgie's photo book. That would have been cool to see on film, and it had a purpose because it was finally when the Richie character took It seriously. For an adaptation of It to have the same staying power and scare effect of the book, it should have been an HBO series, imo. Too much stuff has to be cut from the book for a theatrical movie. So true. A two-part movie is certainly better than one, but imagine an HBO miniseries directed by Cary Fukunaga.
|
|
|
It.
Feb 6, 2018 18:42:29 GMT
Post by stephen on Feb 6, 2018 18:42:29 GMT
Yeah, the more time that passes, the more that the film's issues really stick out for me. It still feels like a highlight reel of great sequences that lack cohesion or connective tissue. I do still wish that they'd kept the '50s-era aesthetic, but they did as well as they could with the updated timeline. They really did get Beverly perfect, didn't they? Highlight reel is exactly what it seemed like. I don't hate it, but I wish it was better executed as a whole piece. They certainly did. My favorite character from the book was Ben Hanscom though. I liked their casting of Ben, but I felt his scenes could have had more impact if they were less rushed. Ben's my favorite Stephen King character, and while I thought Jeremy Ray Taylor perfectly embodied him, the film really did shaft him (although not to the extent it did to Stan and Mike's actors). I've said it before and I'll say it again: they don't need a sequel with adults. What they needed to do was split the childhood section into two standalone movies, released at opposite ends of the summer. The first film would deal with the Losers' individual interactions with Pennywise and eventually coming together at the apocalyptic rockfight against Henry Bowers, and the second film would be about the siege at Neibolt Street and them going into the sewers. If you absolutely have to do an adult-centered film (which I don't want them to, because those sections were the weaker parts of the novel and the book is about confronting childhood and nostalgia, something that doesn't quite come across in the finished film adaptation), fine, but you haven't squandered any of the great child actors' performances in the process.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
It.
Feb 6, 2018 18:43:10 GMT
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 18:43:10 GMT
I just saw it yesterday and while I liked some things about it (the character they were actually most successful with was the female character, Beverley), I think it had the potential to be a lot better. I think they should have kept the 50s setting from the novel. Having the children's part set in the 80s only achieved giving everyone Stranger Things vibes. I'm glad they included some of the creatures right out of the novel, but those moments were so terrifying to read and yet not scary enough for my liking on the screen. I really wish they left in the scenes with Bill and Georgie's picture book, including the part where the picture winks at him, and the moment with Richie where his hand gets stuck into Georgie's photo book. That would have been cool to see on film, and it had a purpose because it was finally when the Richie character took It seriously. For an adaptation of It to have the same staying power and scare effect of the book, it should have been an HBO series, imo. Too much stuff has to be cut from the book for a theatrical movie. Not a bad idea at all. 7-8 hour long episodes would be perfect. As for the movie being the way it is, I think for now I still stand by my earlier "light 7" rating, although I agree that the flaws of the film become more and more clear as time passes.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 6, 2018 18:45:35 GMT
So true. A two-part movie is certainly better than one, but imagine an HBO miniseries directed by Cary Fukunaga. True Detective was basically a trial run for It. Eight episodes, with each opening with an interlude. You wanna know something random about the film I hated? How they made Mr. Keene such a creep. The Mr. Keene in the books was kind of an asshole, but he wasn't leering at little girls.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Feb 6, 2018 19:00:12 GMT
So true. A two-part movie is certainly better than one, but imagine an HBO miniseries directed by Cary Fukunaga. True Detective was basically a trial run for It. Eight episodes, with each opening with an interlude. You wanna know something random about the film I hated? How they made Mr. Keene such a creep. The Mr. Keene in the books was kind of an asshole, but he wasn't leering at little girls. Not only that, but TD had lots of elements of horror throughout. ...god, that first season is just the bees knees.
|
|
|
It.
Feb 6, 2018 19:00:55 GMT
Post by stephen on Feb 6, 2018 19:00:55 GMT
True Detective was basically a trial run for It. Eight episodes, with each opening with an interlude. You wanna know something random about the film I hated? How they made Mr. Keene such a creep. The Mr. Keene in the books was kind of an asshole, but he wasn't leering at little girls. Not only that, but TD had lots of elements of horror throughout. ...god, that first season is just the bees knees. Rust Cohle: "And finally we arrive at Pennywise the Clown."
|
|
|
It.
Feb 6, 2018 19:02:57 GMT
Post by theycallmemrfish on Feb 6, 2018 19:02:57 GMT
Not only that, but TD had lots of elements of horror throughout. ...god, that first season is just the bees knees. Rust Cohle: "And finally we arrive at Pennywise the Clown." "I knew it had to be a dream because It had clown faces on."
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 6, 2018 19:04:51 GMT
Rust Cohle: "And finally we arrive at Pennywise the Clown." "I knew it had to be a dream because It had clown faces on." "Once there was only dark. Then there was Derry." "World needs clowns, Eddie. They keep the other clowns from the door."
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Feb 6, 2018 19:06:45 GMT
"I knew it had to be a dream because It had clown faces on." "Once there was only dark. Then there was Derry." "World needs clowns, Eddie. They keep the other clowns from the door." God damnit, Fukunga, why couldn't you make this shit happen!?
|
|
|
It.
Feb 6, 2018 19:10:04 GMT
Post by stephen on Feb 6, 2018 19:10:04 GMT
"Once there was only dark. Then there was Derry." "World needs clowns, Eddie. They keep the other clowns from the door." God damnit, Fukunga, why couldn't you make this shit happen!? "Derry's like somebody's memory of a town, and the memory is fading." "You know me. I don't see the connection between two dead kids and a clown in the sewer . . . but I'm from Derry." "Someone once told me this balloon is a flat circle. They said it to me from a sewer grate in '57."
|
|