More_Badass
Member
Not in a good way
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Stephen King's IT |OT| He thrusts his fists and then he posts (Unmarked spoilers)
- Thread starter Kyleripman
- Start date
MosquitoSmasher
Member
Yeah there's just something about that scene. I can imagine it scaring the living shit out of you. Watching those slide shows and then seeing Pennywise appear on it and then after a few more he's gone from it... yeah. Great stuff.
I liked that scene with the three doors too, haha. That was great. Not scary at all, scary and very scary I believe, haha.
Yeah I noticed that too but especially with the bullying scenes too. Or the scene with one of the bullies that was about to shoot a cat. And soon proceeds to go on and end his dad. That guy was nuts.
Oh and can't forget about the scene with Ben in the library with the balloon and him then going down the stairs, great scene too. And for a while I thought to myself "wtf is up with these weird zombies/things" but it's the fear from the boy. That's why each kid saw something different at times. Great concept really. I forgot all about that.
MrCookiepants
Member
I loved this movie a lot. It had its issues but I've just never seen horror with character arcs, drama, laugh out loud humor, positive messages etc. In a weird way it was kind of a feel-good, wholesome movie. It's not just about scares. It really has something for everyone.
This could open up the genre's true potential. It feels like the birth of the horror blockbuster.
This could open up the genre's true potential. It feels like the birth of the horror blockbuster.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Yup. It is as much as a horror book as it is about a group of losers, as it is about the town of Derry.
The movie seems to be getting two aspects right, that is, Its portrayal and the kids, and people are coming out going 'Huh...it wasn't that scary but it was actually funny and interesting'. And I think that's fine. Horror movies don't have to have extreme horror in them.
I think Its in a unique position, where it is adapted really well, and at the same time it has something for everything(Going off by reviews and what not...I'm excited)
Majmun
Member
Yes. A lot
And I myself didn't find the movie scary at all. I don't get scared easily. But I was creeped out by that deformed painting lady. And the beginning with Georgie was really well done as well. I was actually more smiling because how well the horror is done.
Other recent movies that creeped me out: It Follows and Under the Shadow. Nothing else.
And Resident Evil VII in VR hehehe
MosquitoSmasher
Member
Oh and that scene when the kid has broken his arm and Pennywise comes out of the fridge, great scene. And Pennywise's face when he notices the other children while he had his hand on the kid's face. For some reason I just love that part.
I don't often go for a second time but I will watch this again later this month.
I don't often go for a second time but I will watch this again later this month.
Majmun
Member
I also loved the three door concept with "Very Scary", "Scary" and "Not so Scary" written on each door.
But I didn't like the execution much. That deserved more time. But yeah, Eddie needed help
I'm going again this friaday with different friends. Can't wait to pick up more details.
But I didn't like the execution much. That deserved more time. But yeah, Eddie needed help
I'm going again this friaday with different friends. Can't wait to pick up more details.
Now that we're all talking about spoilers I guess I can openly say that I HATED the execution of the lady from the painting. It makes sense that a kid would be scared of quite an abstract, heavily stylized painting of a woman, but the way they translated a 2-D abstract painting into a 3D CGI model was laughable at best in my opinion. Less would have resulted in so much more with that particular scene. This appears quite early in the movie and it set alarm bells ringing but luckily it was the worst part of the movie for me. Until it reappeared at the end anyway.
I generally found the final confrontation with Pennywise quite dull as the horror and fear had kind of seeped out of the movie at that point, but I will say that I thought the scene between Georgie and Bill in the sewers was outstanding. It nearly, nearly gave me a bit of a lump in my throat even though I obviously knew it wasn't really Georgie. Excellent acting by both kids there.
I generally found the final confrontation with Pennywise quite dull as the horror and fear had kind of seeped out of the movie at that point, but I will say that I thought the scene between Georgie and Bill in the sewers was outstanding. It nearly, nearly gave me a bit of a lump in my throat even though I obviously knew it wasn't really Georgie. Excellent acting by both kids there.
RuinerPrime
Member
What? He talks way too much in the mini series, so much in fact it leaves nothing to be scared of.
-book spoilers-
I've been reading it the past few weeks, only 3 chapters to go, so the book is pretty fresh in my mind. He appears as other monsters the majority of the time to the kids, there is no doubt about that. In the first 6 chapters alone after Georgie's death he appeares as
A Mummy (he talks to Ben here and goes from clown to mummy in front of bens eyes)
Dead children
Creature from the Black Lagoon
Giant Bird
Then after chapter 6 he appeares as the Leper (who's pretty chatty in the worst way) the wolfman, the Paul Bunyan statue, drowned children in the standpipe, flying leeches, eye ball with tentacles & vampire with razor blades for teeth and the Frankenstein's monster. They do see him as a clown in the photo album/Derry histroy album (both times) but my point is that you don't seem him as a clown that often in the kid sections.
When he does talk (kid sections) it's mostly luring and threatening "we all float down here" and so forth, not including their final confrontation. You don't get a real sense of "it's" personality until he talks to the adults & Henry and from his own mini chapter told from "it's" perspective, you learn that it feels anger and pain for the first time and so forth.
And yeah he even talks more and appears more to the adults as soon as the adults get to the Jade of the orient and onward. He begins to threaten each one of them once they all separate (library, baseball field, Bev's house etc) and he definitely talks the longest(as the clown) when he's in the library with adult Ben. And he talks A LOT to adult Henry Bowers(but as the Moon & his dead friends)
And doubt he was alive? When would you even doubt he was alive? Mike calls them and tells them he's back. Pennywise even drags a man away and bites him after he is thrown off a bridge in 1984 in chapter 2. There is no doubt that pennywise is alive.
IT isn't just a clown monster, IT is a shapeshfting, fear eating, Lovecraftian horror from another dimension.
M
Macapala
Unconfirmed Member
Just got back from seeing this and I'm a bit disappointed.
Patrick Hockstetter is such a disgusting and horrific character in the book, yet in the movie he's nothing but one of Henry's henchmen and then he gets killed off. Why was he even in this movie? What a waste...
The thing that bummed me out the most is the kids didn't discover IT's weakness. The way they work out IT's weakness (that IT itself isn't even aware of) in the book and use it to defeat him the first time is so clever.
Overall it isn't a bad movie, all the child actors are brilliant, but to sum it up - you'll enjoy the movie more if you haven't read the book.
Patrick Hockstetter is such a disgusting and horrific character in the book, yet in the movie he's nothing but one of Henry's henchmen and then he gets killed off. Why was he even in this movie? What a waste...
The thing that bummed me out the most is the kids didn't discover IT's weakness. The way they work out IT's weakness (that IT itself isn't even aware of) in the book and use it to defeat him the first time is so clever.
Overall it isn't a bad movie, all the child actors are brilliant, but to sum it up - you'll enjoy the movie more if you haven't read the book.
TheKingOfSheep
Member
@Macapala They do discover his weakness though: not believing in him (not being afraid of IT). First time house on Neibolt St. Bills says to Ritchie about the pampflet that says Ritchie is missing: 'It's not real'. And Bev figures out, right after, that they need to stick together. But it might not be obvious. When Pennywise tips over in the well (last scene not the one in the house), - his grand finale - he utters the word 'Fear!' if I recall correctly.
Hocksetter could've just been left out. But maybe in part II they'll zoom in on the character. Who knows? There is a lot of stuff mentioned, during conversations, that we never get to see. Like apparently in the film's story something happened between Bev and Bowers - or between her and his clique - as during the rock fight Bowers alludes to this - and I don't mean the rumors that were doing the rounds about her.
My major gripe is how the 80's are depicted. Kids born in the early noughties that go see this film, might believe the 80's looked like the 50's. Also, not a single boy from the 80's would dare bring a tape of New Kids on the Block to school - I mean, we had M.J. Madonna, Guns and Roses, Nirvana, Metallica, George Michael, and on and on... Boybands were for a girls, or to listen to you in private in your bedroom.
The 80's were really more like a John Hughes movie.
Hocksetter could've just been left out. But maybe in part II they'll zoom in on the character. Who knows? There is a lot of stuff mentioned, during conversations, that we never get to see. Like apparently in the film's story something happened between Bev and Bowers - or between her and his clique - as during the rock fight Bowers alludes to this - and I don't mean the rumors that were doing the rounds about her.
My major gripe is how the 80's are depicted. Kids born in the early noughties that go see this film, might believe the 80's looked like the 50's. Also, not a single boy from the 80's would dare bring a tape of New Kids on the Block to school - I mean, we had M.J. Madonna, Guns and Roses, Nirvana, Metallica, George Michael, and on and on... Boybands were for a girls, or to listen to you in private in your bedroom.
The 80's were really more like a John Hughes movie.
hey_monkey
Banned
I just want to know if that one scene is in the film, because I have complicated feelings about it
and also because I'm not sure I want to see it enacted on film.
(some narrative reason/but also maybe fucking your token female character for great power is like wow but also okay sure coming of age but also wow)
RuinerPrime
Member
It's not.
MosquitoSmasher
Member
I also loved the three door concept with "Very Scary", "Scary" and "Not so Scary" written on each door.
But I didn't like the execution much. That deserved more time. But yeah, Eddie needed help
I'm going again this friaday with different friends. Can't wait to pick up more details.
Agreed. I was hoping they would open the other two doors. Kinda like "well shit, the not scary door was horrible after all. Maybe the other two are actually not that bad, let's open them." something like that. Still a nice scene though.
I hope part 2 has more scenes like those and the projector scene because even though it didn't creep me out, that scene definitely was really well done for this genre. Overall a surprisingly good film and especially the acting was quite unique for this genre. Probably gonna be hard to get back to other horror movies where the acting is just meh. Generally I don't really care for the cast either in most horror but here I definitely did.
hey_monkey
Banned
thank you!
Skiptastic
Member
Oh I hope not because I left lol.
I'm going to do my review here because I don't like spoiler tags, but if I need to move it to the review thread, I will...
So I mentioned that I am not a big fan of movies like this, so perhaps the best thing I can say is that I didn't hate it and was scared at times. So that's a pretty good indicator that if you like pop scares and spooky things, you'll probably really like this movie.
A few things though to highlight:
1. Sophia Lillis, the actress who plays Beverly Marsh, is going to be a star. She was the best part of this movie, and she's only 15! I was both disappointed and overjoyed when the Stranger Things kid called her Molly Ringwald, because that's who I was thinking of about halfway through. She was the best actor of the group, and I thought she came off extremely genuine, which was excellent. I think she showed enough range to do almost any role, not just horror.
2. All of the Losers group were well acted. I thought all of them did a good job of playing their characters, and even Stranger Things was a different kind of character than he was on Stranger Things. I didn't necessarily feel like I got enough of a backstory/development with some of them (Bill got a lot, Eddie got a good amount, Ben got a good amount, but Richie had nothing but his motor mouth and I wish there was more for Mike, who got a good monologue but not enough for my liking). I'm sure this is where the book comes in, or whatever, and it's hard with a big cast like this to give everyone their due without it going for three hours, but there it is.
3. I didn't like the whole Bowers gang thing. Like, I understand kids getting bullied and not telling someone, but getting their stomach carved with a knife and (a) not going to the hospital and (b) not telling someone IMMEDIATELY? Maybe it made more sense in the 1950s but having that shit happen in the 1980s did not make one bit of fucking sense to me. If the explanation is going to be that IT was influencing Henry and the gang to be more violent, then there really needed to be more to show that. Why did you show that one kid in his gang showing concern at the whole stomach carving thing, then have absolutely ZERO come of it? If the kid is just going to go along with it, then don't fucking show that part. If he isn't, then have him do something of value.
4. That fucking part where IT comes out of the slide projector was the scariest part and really freaked me out. That whole sequence was great.
5. I didn't really buy Georgie not running away from Pennywise right from the start. That clown is creepy as fuck and hanging out in a sewer? I mean, I get not wanting to lose the boat your brother made for you, but I would buy into it more if it was a valuable boat that Georgie borrowed from Bill without his permission. Not some paper boat they made with wax. Like, fuck that, scary clown has my paper boat? I'll make a fucking different one. Kid was old enough to make that decision. Needed to be younger if I'm buying it.
6. Final thing: They realize they all need to stick together or IT will have more power over them and so they all go into the thing together. Fine, I'm down with that. Stan gets lured away and almost eaten. Okay, fine. Then they are all back together again....for five seconds as Bill, who was the one who was preaching "Stick Together!" runs off to find what he knows is an illusion. WHAT THE FUCK MAN. FOLLOW THE PLAN.
So those are the things that really bugged me or I liked.
But, yeah, overall, creepy fucking movie that I'll never see again but I bet will be absolutely huge.
TheKingOfSheep
Member
@judhudson There isn't, as far is I can tell (but didn't stay the full crawl), just a mention that there'll be a Part II - but this was the version I saw here in Europe, to be clear.
M
Macapala
Unconfirmed Member
That's only part of it, though. I was referring to the part in the book
where the kids discover that IT takes the form of their worst fears and then theorise that, possibly, IT also takes on any weaknesses of the form he is currently in. Like when the kids use a silver bullet to injure IT while in his wolfman form.
A few thoughts after seeing it last night. Keep in mind I have no attachment to the book or miniseries. I only started reading the book like a week ago and am only like 50 pages in. I'm also terrible and remembering names so bear with me.
* That said, the Georgie scene is right out of the book. And Pennywise is great in it. A great mix of childish and silly and creepy AF.
* The Loser are great. Bev and Stranger Things kid are the obvious standouts, but I loved the fat kid as well. The NKOTNB jokes were great.
* Billy was hit or miss, but the stuff with Georgie was effective as hell.
* Bill Skarsgard overall was really good and I wish we got more of him actually talking. But the action stuff was a lot of fun as well.
* The main bully is great, but the other 3 are afterthoughts. No one even cared one of them died!
* Are there any good parents in Derry? Dear lord.
* The half an hour or so of all the kids getting scared was really good individual set pieces, but as a whole felt a bit rushed and scattered. Then it took like another half an hour for any of them to bring it up, which kinda makes sense, but also made the pacing feel off.
* That said, the Georgie scene is right out of the book. And Pennywise is great in it. A great mix of childish and silly and creepy AF.
* The Loser are great. Bev and Stranger Things kid are the obvious standouts, but I loved the fat kid as well. The NKOTNB jokes were great.
* Billy was hit or miss, but the stuff with Georgie was effective as hell.
* Bill Skarsgard overall was really good and I wish we got more of him actually talking. But the action stuff was a lot of fun as well.
* The main bully is great, but the other 3 are afterthoughts. No one even cared one of them died!
* Are there any good parents in Derry? Dear lord.
* The half an hour or so of all the kids getting scared was really good individual set pieces, but as a whole felt a bit rushed and scattered. Then it took like another half an hour for any of them to bring it up, which kinda makes sense, but also made the pacing feel off.
eso76
Member
Wait, they call her Molly Ringwald in the movie ? (And why ?)
Wasn't the actual Molly R. playing Bev in the series ?
FAKE EDIT remembered as I was typing, nope she was in The Stand TV Series
TheKingOfSheep
Member
@Macapala Yeah, no. The movie completely butchers that concept. The kids don't really have well developed fears (like fear for movie characters, or the man in the closet, or fear of heights, or spiders, or anything remotely 'normal') - nor dig deep into what IT is supposed to be. Like Ben's fear is not really a genuine fear. He sees a picture in the library of the Easter Egg Hunt tragedy - when that factory exploded, Derry lore from the book - with a decapitated head in a tree. Moments later a headless zombie does a creepy crawl - a creepy crawl effect that the vfx department could pull off with Pennywise, but not with this character, as he seems to have no weight to him, because of lighting issues or something I don't, but it looked poor. And that's it. We don't know what Ritchie fears - which in the book is the Wolfman from the movies, and in this movie it should've been Pinhead, or Freddy Krueger, but we only see him freak out over a pamflet that says, he's missing - he also acts more like Stan in the book: in that Ritchie really resists the endeavour to fight IT the most, and I think that was Stan's theme the most in the book, because of his Jewish background.
Stan btw fears an Edvard Munch type deformed face painting. It's not explained why that painting is so scary to him. It just seems random. Now Bev though, her father seems to have sexually abused her - I gather this from some vague things he says in his final scene - while in the book the guy only beats her, and never considered sexually abusing her - the blood in the sink scene has a nice add on, though.
But the stuff you mention, is well developed in the book - believable. In the movie though, it all lacks cohesion. Motives, and themes are all over the place. They should have cut a lot more stuff from the book.
Imho, the Ritchie character is ruined. Most of the time he's jabbering in the background, and hard to hear - in the book he's the one who introduces Bev, here he doesn't seem happy with Bev at all. Plus his jokes, there not remotely near what a kid in the eighties would say. And he doesn't do any recognizable impressions - I think he eve does one from the fifties that was in the book?
The only joke that made sense for that character to say, was a Molly Ringwald quip, aimed at Bev. But it felt oddly out of place, because none of the kids ever mention tv or the movies, or refer to actors or famous people of the time - something that was common in American tv shows at the time, just watch an episode of Seinfeld and see the characters namedrop famous people, to see what I mean. So you might wonder whether the character actually know who Molly Ringwald is.
Stranger Things, objectively speaking is really well designed compared to this. Nonetheless, it's still something you'll want to see. And a lot could be fixed in part II, with lots of flash backs. But my verdict is, the character development in the mini-series is actually better, more solid, more rounded. This movie would have benefitted if they just dropped several characters in favour of focussing a lot of attention on those that remain.
Sorry for this being overly long, though.
Stan btw fears an Edvard Munch type deformed face painting. It's not explained why that painting is so scary to him. It just seems random. Now Bev though, her father seems to have sexually abused her - I gather this from some vague things he says in his final scene - while in the book the guy only beats her, and never considered sexually abusing her - the blood in the sink scene has a nice add on, though.
But the stuff you mention, is well developed in the book - believable. In the movie though, it all lacks cohesion. Motives, and themes are all over the place. They should have cut a lot more stuff from the book.
Imho, the Ritchie character is ruined. Most of the time he's jabbering in the background, and hard to hear - in the book he's the one who introduces Bev, here he doesn't seem happy with Bev at all. Plus his jokes, there not remotely near what a kid in the eighties would say. And he doesn't do any recognizable impressions - I think he eve does one from the fifties that was in the book?
The only joke that made sense for that character to say, was a Molly Ringwald quip, aimed at Bev. But it felt oddly out of place, because none of the kids ever mention tv or the movies, or refer to actors or famous people of the time - something that was common in American tv shows at the time, just watch an episode of Seinfeld and see the characters namedrop famous people, to see what I mean. So you might wonder whether the character actually know who Molly Ringwald is.
Stranger Things, objectively speaking is really well designed compared to this. Nonetheless, it's still something you'll want to see. And a lot could be fixed in part II, with lots of flash backs. But my verdict is, the character development in the mini-series is actually better, more solid, more rounded. This movie would have benefitted if they just dropped several characters in favour of focussing a lot of attention on those that remain.
Sorry for this being overly long, though.
It was twards the end of the movie when they all get in a fight after visiting the house and Stranger Things kid calls her that, asking who invited her into The Losers.
TheKingOfSheep
Member
eso76 Only Ritchie calls her that once, as a reference to the John Hughes movies - Ringwald starred in a lot of them. I had the destinct feeling though none of the kids knew what Ritchie was talking about. As they don't ever once discuss movies or tv shows. Streetfighter gets mentioned though, and we see Ritchie playing it. But no vcr, no Atari - or NES which was at its height in '89.
Kids and Teens born in the noughties, who go see this, must think the 80's were like the 50's.
Kids and Teens born in the noughties, who go see this, must think the 80's were like the 50's.
(mat)
Member
Ritchie straight up says he's scared of clowns, and then gets locked in a room with a bunch of clown statues, dolls, and figures (one of which was wonderfully paying homage to Tim Curry's portrayal of It).
Mister Wilhelm
Member
Repost from the review thread:
Just got back from IT. I'd give it a B+ overall.
Don't read the post if haven't seen it yet and want to go in blind.
The Good
+ They accomplished something visually remarkable for the budget. Wardrobe, makeup was totally on point. CGI was mostly on point (see below).
+ It's actually pretty faithful to the book. It does chop a bunch out but I can respect the direction they went with it.
+ Bill, Ben, Beverly and especially Eddie's actors did an amazing job. Georgie was really good as well even with his limited screen time, though he gets more big moments than Stanley.
+ Speaking of Georgie, I DID NOT expect them to go as hard as they did with his death scene and holy shit...I can't recall another child death that graphic in a mainstream American horror movie other than maybe the 80's Blob remake.
+ The color palette was solid and helped build the atmosphere.
+ Pennywise. Fantastic take on the character. I personally slightly prefer Curry's performance although the modern aesthetics are obviously more developed.
The Bad
- The pacing. It's really all over the place at the beginning of the movie and through some of the middle.
- Horrible CGI a few times in the movie (Georgie's boat, the red balloons) but most people won't notice this
- Henry. His actor did a fine job, but ...his arc just kind of came and went and by the time things really got going with him, he just kind of sputtered out in the last act with a whimper. Pretty disappointing because the parallels between him and Pennywise are a big part of the overall theme and it just wasn't explored much.
- Stanley and Mike. Stanley felt really underdeveloped compared to the rest of the cast. He didn't have any real scenes outside of being scared by Pennywise in the office. Mike seemed to join the group way too late in the first act and they didn't do much with him after that. Also, the actors for both of these characters were definitely the weak links of the cast.
- Lots of your typical horror movie characters doing dumb things. Slightly more forgivable because they're children, but I audibly groaned a few times.
- A couple of seriously jarring tone shifts New Kids on the Block on the door reveal and the rock music during the rock fight.
- The ending. Very abrupt and they didn't explain what happened to the kids they found or how the town reacted to all these children suddenly being found.
I'm sure there's stuff I'm forgetting, but overall I liked it and I would recommend it to anyone on the fence.
Oh and one final thing - I HATED that they had Beverly's dad audibly groan TWICE while he was on the floor unconscious from a head wound. It was way too loud and clearly added in post as if they really, really wanted the audience to know he was alive and didn't want to or couldn't do reshoots. His mouth isn't even open and it just looks and sounds ridiculous.
Just got back from IT. I'd give it a B+ overall.
Don't read the post if haven't seen it yet and want to go in blind.
The Good
+ They accomplished something visually remarkable for the budget. Wardrobe, makeup was totally on point. CGI was mostly on point (see below).
+ It's actually pretty faithful to the book. It does chop a bunch out but I can respect the direction they went with it.
+ Bill, Ben, Beverly and especially Eddie's actors did an amazing job. Georgie was really good as well even with his limited screen time, though he gets more big moments than Stanley.
+ Speaking of Georgie, I DID NOT expect them to go as hard as they did with his death scene and holy shit...I can't recall another child death that graphic in a mainstream American horror movie other than maybe the 80's Blob remake.
+ The color palette was solid and helped build the atmosphere.
+ Pennywise. Fantastic take on the character. I personally slightly prefer Curry's performance although the modern aesthetics are obviously more developed.
The Bad
- The pacing. It's really all over the place at the beginning of the movie and through some of the middle.
- Horrible CGI a few times in the movie (Georgie's boat, the red balloons) but most people won't notice this
- Henry. His actor did a fine job, but ...his arc just kind of came and went and by the time things really got going with him, he just kind of sputtered out in the last act with a whimper. Pretty disappointing because the parallels between him and Pennywise are a big part of the overall theme and it just wasn't explored much.
- Stanley and Mike. Stanley felt really underdeveloped compared to the rest of the cast. He didn't have any real scenes outside of being scared by Pennywise in the office. Mike seemed to join the group way too late in the first act and they didn't do much with him after that. Also, the actors for both of these characters were definitely the weak links of the cast.
- Lots of your typical horror movie characters doing dumb things. Slightly more forgivable because they're children, but I audibly groaned a few times.
- A couple of seriously jarring tone shifts New Kids on the Block on the door reveal and the rock music during the rock fight.
- The ending. Very abrupt and they didn't explain what happened to the kids they found or how the town reacted to all these children suddenly being found.
I'm sure there's stuff I'm forgetting, but overall I liked it and I would recommend it to anyone on the fence.
Oh and one final thing - I HATED that they had Beverly's dad audibly groan TWICE while he was on the floor unconscious from a head wound. It was way too loud and clearly added in post as if they really, really wanted the audience to know he was alive and didn't want to or couldn't do reshoots. His mouth isn't even open and it just looks and sounds ridiculous.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Stop spoiler tagging shit
TheKingOfSheep
Member
Yeah, that's true - I forgot that one. But it was uninspired. I mean, seriously the movie's antagonist is a freaking insane murderous thing that most of the time looks like a clown. And the whole point of the story was that each kid would have an actual unique fear that IT could feast upon. It's just a cheap copout of the filmmakers.
But tell me, what was Bill afraid of? And Ben? And Eddie? What were they actually, consistently afraid of?
@PudieRSC that might not have been intentional. As Pennywise often comes creepy crawling for the camera. The footage is sped up to achieve that effect I think - what do they call it, time remapping or something? If you don't rotoscope or masked out the character from the background, say, everything around him will obviously speed up as well - like dust particles, and fog, added in post and stuff. Also there were scenes when a shaking effect was applied to the footage, and obviously only Pennywise was to suppose to shake, not his enviorment - but I don't know, I can't remember, will watch it again, and look more closely. Now this worked all very well on pennywise. But the headless zombie, in the library scene, seemed completely devout of weighed. And the creepy crawl (or shocking walk or whatever its called) looked really bad on him, though - it was af if not only the creature stuttered but the frames as well, again as if they hadn't lift the zombie from the background - from the greenscreen - and just dropped the framerate (from 24 to 12 or did some really odd time remapping), that's really how it looked to me.
TheKingOfSheep
Member
Well, I don't know how fast of a reader you are. By the time you finish this beast, IT might be out on Bluray. Go see it, and start reading as well. Just watch the movie for what it is. You will have fun, that's for sure.
I would just watch the movie and then read the book afterwards if you're so inclined. It might actually be better to go into it with no preconceptions and enjoy it for what it is rather than what it isn't by constantly comparing it to the book.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
The only surprising moment, outside of the reinterpretation of what "floating" means, was seeing Aphex Twin attached to Stan's head. I thought for a second they were actually gonna off him there.
But then they didn't.
Honestly, Stan probably should have been pretty broken by the end. I kinda wish his "I hate you guys" had been played straight, no tension breaking smile.
Regarding Henry (Bowers): I'm wondering if they're going to have him somehow survive the fall, leading to physical and mental handicaps, and that's why he's in an institution when the moon starts talking to him.
But then they didn't.
Honestly, Stan probably should have been pretty broken by the end. I kinda wish his "I hate you guys" had been played straight, no tension breaking smile.
Regarding Henry (Bowers): I'm wondering if they're going to have him somehow survive the fall, leading to physical and mental handicaps, and that's why he's in an institution when the moon starts talking to him.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Honestly, it doesn't feel like a horror movie, more like of an action thriller for me.
I enjoyed it though. Hopefully this movie is doing enough to warrant a sequel where the kids grow to adults.
I enjoyed it though. Hopefully this movie is doing enough to warrant a sequel where the kids grow to adults.
TheKingOfSheep
Member
Obviously it's a bottomless well. And Henry will end up in an institution, yes, but for the criminally insane. Cause they're going to pin all the murders on his ass. And if not, then he's going down for murdering his father. Pennywise will have captured him in deadlights and put him somewhere in his lair for the cops to find. Simple as that.
As for Stan, it were just needle pricks, apparently. But how about Eds, huh? Pennywise could've killed him off, he was on him. What was he waiting for? Also, who was it again, who sets Eddy's broken arm? I don't recall having ever seen a kid do that to another kid.
(mat)
Member
Eddie was afraid of germs. That was also well established. The other kids certainly didn't have as many clear-cut fears.
Bill
Fear: The loss of his brother, I guess?
Overcome: He overcomes this fear by shooting "Georgie" in the head.
Eddie
Fear: Germs
Overcome: When he stands up to his overprotective mother.
Shit I just got called to work. Somebody fix/finish this list for me for the other kids.
TheKingOfSheep
Member
True, true Eds was a germaphobe, and this fear was manifested in the lepper on neighbolt street, my bad for not recalling that.
Bill, yeah, I'll give you that one too. Especially because of the scene with his father. When he wanted to demonstrate where Georgie might have ended up, if he fell in the storm drain - he clearly wanted to believe Georgie was still alive, he didn't want to let go.
But Ben's was wonky, you have to admit. After he sees a decapitated head on that picture of historic Derry, he's chased by a headless zombie moments later: so what kind of fear is that?
And Mike's was also vague. His parents died while there house was on fire. He managed to escape or was rescued. And, so what, he's afraid of getting stuck in a burning house again - or being pulled into the burning house again by his dead parents? Obviously, the kid has been through a traumatic experience - that's obvious. But it's so vague, his background. And I really hate that they have slaughter sheep. - I trying to consider this film separate from the book, but Mike was pivotal (for background on Derry), and here, it felt like padding - a character that could've easily been combined with Ben. Also Henry says something to Mike, to the extend that the house was not SET on fire by him, but someone else, and that Mike should never have come Derry. But who set the house on fire. Certainly not Henry's dad? I mean the guy, a policeman, saved a cat.
Not going to lie: I'm just damn disappointed they didn't at least gave Ritchie a fear of Freddy Krueger - it's New Line/ Warner Bros. they could've put in Freddy with no hassle - they own him, or a least a perpetual license to the property I think. Or at least let Ritchie do impressions of pop culture properties from that decade. But they can still do this in part II with flash backs. Considering, IT is going to make a killing at the box office, Warner Bros. might go all out for Part II.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Pretty sure it was Ritchie.
I remember thinking, as they were all running out of the house, that it probably would have rang a little truer (true as this haunted house movie could ever be, considering the nature of it) if Eddie was passed out and being carried by Ritchie & Mike as opposed to running out under his own power, because there is no way Ritchie re-sets that arm like that and Kaspbrak doesn't just black out.
But this movie isn't trying to operate in that way, and the next scenes came quickly enough that it wasn't much of a problem.
SPEAKING OF EDDIE:
Unless you were already familiar with the book and/or the miniseries, would you even know that the placebos were Sonya's means of controlling Eddie before Eddie yells that very accusation at her? It didn't occur to me until my friend brought it up, but there's not much about Mrs. Kaspbrak that's done well at all. She's not oppressively doting and protective. She's just kinda sweaty and gross. Using the pills as a lever of control over Eddie isn't really shown to be her plan until Eddie says it is, just before blowing that plan to hell and storming out.
(Also thought it was kinda questionable that the pharmacist wasn't the one to point it out, but instead a shitty schoolmate)
I didn't really question Ben's fear until a friend asked me to name all Pennywise's shspeshifting and all I could come up with for Ben was 'headless torso that may have been someone in military uniform'. I didn't make the connection between the photos he was looking through previously although it does make sense. I thought it was because his dad was in the military, although I don't think this movie ever even mentioned that so it would have been an odd fear to have.
I agree though, it's quite weak to have someone's fear be related to something they just saw 10 seconds ago, it should be something much more deep-rooted than that.
TheKingOfSheep
Member
Well the schoolmate was probably the daughter of the pharmacist. Considering she was behind the counter. I think btw, there might actually be lots more footage, maybe for a three plus hours DC bluray maybe? Take this girl, the pharmacists daughter. She's also Bev's nemesis. So there is more background there, why else have her pop up again in the pharmacy, if she only is a bully to Bev - there is a similar character in the book btw, like Bev's nemesis at school, but that girl (in the book) is more the popular girl type.
Eds behaviour is not consistent. A germaphobe /hypochondriac, the sort of sissy type Ed is suppose to depict, would almost certainly have passed out after seeing his broken arm - actually every kid probably would.
Eds mom kind of reminds me of the a type of creepy fat woman stereotype, seen in Texas Chainsaw Massacre - the remake - and in lots of eighties horror films, as well. Also in several of Kings short stories that type woman shows up.
What stood out to me, is that Eds mom shows up in Neighbolt street... in a training suite. Why the f*ck would she wear that? When every other scene she's in a dress? She wasn't white trash - don't want to offend any one btw. But they made her freaky, over-caring, deranged and white trash at the same time. White trash, is usually not overly preoccupied with hygiene, germs and what not. But that's my opinion. That training suite, was just completely out of place.
Edit: but if anything, I do believe this movie will really do well, and might pave the way for a whole slew of great King adaptations. The thing is, his short stories are perfect for the big screen - in the right hands (Darabonts that is). And the novels tent to work better in longer format, something handled by HBO for instance - that would be perfect.
I liked the movie. It was creepy and fun.
BUT... the pacing was REALLY weird. There were a lot of times I felt it was really rushed. The sparse individual scares for each kid for example felt so weird... they are good as individual creepy scare scenes, but they didnt really felt cohesive with the narrative.
The kids' acting and the clown were the stars of the movie. Clown was creepy and the kids interactions were amazing.
Also, I didnt read the books so I have a question: is there any explanation for why the parents are so creepy in the movie? Everyone felt like a psycho... what is the deal with that?
Edit: other thing I didnt like it was how the fat kid was a walking Town-Wikipedia, but I guess it was needed to move the narrative forward. Oh well.
BUT... the pacing was REALLY weird. There were a lot of times I felt it was really rushed. The sparse individual scares for each kid for example felt so weird... they are good as individual creepy scare scenes, but they didnt really felt cohesive with the narrative.
The kids' acting and the clown were the stars of the movie. Clown was creepy and the kids interactions were amazing.
Also, I didnt read the books so I have a question: is there any explanation for why the parents are so creepy in the movie? Everyone felt like a psycho... what is the deal with that?
Edit: other thing I didnt like it was how the fat kid was a walking Town-Wikipedia, but I guess it was needed to move the narrative forward. Oh well.
More_Badass
Member
Derry is a corrupted horrible place, a twisted abyss of hate and willful ignorance and madness under the nice facade of a small town. It sold its soul to IT in a way, better to ignore and accept the dark heart of the town than confront it
It's the American small town version of a Lovecraftian hamlet that accepts their good harvest by remaining quiet about annual sacrifices
Bobby Roberts
Banned
There's an explanation for it in the books (and it's only kinda hinted at in the film in passing reference) but it's basically that the town itself is a mean, gross, scared little place, and the people who have lived there long grow to become complicit and a little twisted the longer they're there. Either they learn how to ignore the 27-year cycle, or they quietly figure out how to do their part in helping feed it, however small those parts might be.
So Eddie's mom and Bev's dad are shown to be the primary examples of this (almost none of the other adults really register. Mike's granpa gets one scene and that's primarily to set up Bowers putting a gun to his head at the end), but the sanitizing of Derry (it really is just a setting, not a character) hollows this aspect out, so it just kinda plays weirdly. Nothing in the town is as mean as it could (or probably should) be.
I do wanna speak to the earlier complaint that Ben Hanscom wouldn't have listened to New Kids: Plenty of boys did. I'd imagine a sensitive little kid who writes bad poetry on library postcards might find something of value in "Please Don't Go Girl" or whatever. That didn't throw me out of the movie at all, and set up one of the more satisfying sets of running jokes in the film.
TheKingOfSheep
Member
@Memento The adults are affected by IT, and the whole of Derry is as well. In the book, Derry is basically haunted by IT, or IT has become Derry.
@Bobby Roberts Sure, boys would've listened to the Back Street Boys, East 17, Mili Vanilli... but not New Kids on the block... NOT New Kids on the Block - really, they wouldn't. And if so, then exclusively in the privacy of their bedrooms. You sure as hell didn't bring a New Kids on the Block cassette to junior high. Also, in the eighties, being sensitive would get you beat up.
New Kids on Block, of all the reference, they chose that one. It must have been a favourite of the director's - or his sister. It also stands out that a kid like Ritchie has no pop culture references - except the Ringwold quip, and street fighter. When he was character that needed it the most.
@Bobby Roberts Sure, boys would've listened to the Back Street Boys, East 17, Mili Vanilli... but not New Kids on the block... NOT New Kids on the Block - really, they wouldn't. And if so, then exclusively in the privacy of their bedrooms. You sure as hell didn't bring a New Kids on the Block cassette to junior high. Also, in the eighties, being sensitive would get you beat up.
New Kids on Block, of all the reference, they chose that one. It must have been a favourite of the director's - or his sister. It also stands out that a kid like Ritchie has no pop culture references - except the Ringwold quip, and street fighter. When he was character that needed it the most.
Dash_Riprock
Member
Only gonna ask this cause it determines whether I see this tomorrow or wait for dvd/Netflix
Turtle or no turtle?