• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Fancy Clown
Member
(09-06-2017, 04:03 PM)
Here are my impressions I posted in the trailer thread last week:

There's something very wrong with Derry, and it's not just the thing that looks like a clown. Is it a malignant presence within its people? Is it the place itself? History is brought up frequently as an important element of the plot, but IT never feels all that interested in exploring its most interesting narrative conceit beyond perfunctory exposition. It doesn't seem all that interested in a cohesive narrative structure either, and its attempts at using the characters as mouthpieces for its themes are...cumbersome, to say the least. No, IT's interests really lie in making a gang of losers you enjoy watching, and in throwing a barrage of horrific vignettes assaultive enough to make a crowded theater lose their collective shit. If my crowded preview screening was evidence enough, it succeeded handily in those aims.

The cast of young actors they assembled are clearly capable of being a likeable ensemble. Finn Wolfhard of Stranger Things fame has already proven himself on the small screen, and he gets all the best laughs here as the mouthy Richie. But besides their surface level ticks, the losers never really felt like characters to me. They have a lot of banter and the occasional tender moment, but while the movie takes its sweet time setting this gang up, in doing so it never bothers to tell us much about them beyond their surface ticks. That's because, much like The Conjuring series, IT treats many of its "scare" scenes as almost stand-alone sequences, that really less on eerie tension and more on grating noises and toothy creatures bum rushing the camera. That's not to say that neither the gang nor the scares work, because the best moments of the film come from some unexpected stylistic jolts as the group bonds, capturing their outsider status and endearing them to us at the same time, and the funhouse approach to horror leads to some really enjoyable sequences that are impressive not necessarily because of their craft, but in the gleefulness in which it chains together gruesome horrors in relentless fashion. The best compliment I can give the film is that at some point it flashes by a cinema marquee advertising a Nightmare on Elm Street sequel, and IT would feel right at home in that series (and not as one of the worse entries).

And of course I have to mention Bill Skarsgård's Pennywise. His performance has already garnered the lion's share of prerelease attention and it's not for nothing. His slobbering, gutterly gleeful take on the clown makes for a worthy mascot for the film, and though he doesn't get a lot of screen time he clearly makes the most of every minute.

Ultimately IT's heart is in the right place and will likely lead many an audience member to laugh and squeal as they sit through this haunted house ride of a movie. But I can't help but imagine what might have been if it spent less effort trying to get immediate and predictable reactions from a crowd, and more effort crafting a nightmare that lingers and festers in the dark spaces of your head like the thing that haunts Derry. Less in your face and more in the gutter. It's certainly good weekend fun, but a 27 year burn this is not.

GhaleonEB
Member
(09-06-2017, 04:04 PM)
GhaleonEB's Avatar
Let's fix this.

If you want to discuss the movie without spoilers, hit the review thread, where tags need to be used. Otherwise this thread will be one giant wall of spoiler text after another.
Toa TAK
Banned
(09-06-2017, 04:05 PM)

Originally Posted by GhaleonEB

Let's fix this.

Sweet
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
(09-06-2017, 04:07 PM)

Originally Posted by GhaleonEB

Let's fix this.

If you want to discuss the movie without spoilers, hit the review thread, where tags need to be used. Otherwise this thread will be one giant wall of spoiler text after another.

I'm out.

See ya Friday night.
GhaleonEB
Member
(09-06-2017, 04:11 PM)
GhaleonEB's Avatar

Originally Posted by ElBoxyBrown

I'm out.

See ya Friday night.

And on that note, me too! I'll be in the review thread until Friday night.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
(09-06-2017, 09:30 PM)

Originally Posted by Sir_Stoo

The Derry stuff needs to be a subtext not the focus.

There's subtext and then there's passing reference. Subtext still can sustain weight being placed upon it.

What's done in this movie regarding Derry and its nature is gauzy at best. It doesn't really factor into any of the scares, or the threats outside of the most superficial, glancing applications.

I don't think it needs to be right up front at all times - but without that aspect increasing the level of desperation and that feeling of the Losers being trapped in that town for the summer, the threat of Pennywise does deflate. Especially since, again - you never actually see the clown get his gloves dirty outside of Georgie.

It's a movie with gallons of blood in it that feels oddly bloodless. Which I think will play really well with audiences, honestly. It's fun. It's not scary.
Timu
Member
(09-06-2017, 10:21 PM)
Timu's Avatar
I'm guessing the death count is just a few people right?
RuinerPrime
Member
(09-06-2017, 10:56 PM)
RuinerPrime's Avatar
The Horror of IT

This is a great video!
Timu
Member
(09-06-2017, 10:59 PM)
Timu's Avatar

Originally Posted by RuinerPrime

The Horror of IT

This is a great video!

Yeah, this vid is pretty cool.
Robdraggoo
Member
(09-06-2017, 11:00 PM)
Robdraggoo's Avatar
Quick drive by post to say i love the OT title. I havent seen the movie yet and dont want spoilers so bye :)
More_Badass
Member
(09-06-2017, 11:30 PM)
More_Badass's Avatar

Originally Posted by RuinerPrime

The Horror of IT

This is a great video!

Old It or new It?
MosquitoSmasher
Member
(09-06-2017, 11:31 PM)
MosquitoSmasher's Avatar
30 minutes until the midnight showing. Looking forward to it for damn sure.

This is how it looks at the cinema now. They even had a Pennywise cosplayer too, haha.

http://imgur.com/9MwvpR0
RuinerPrime
Member
(09-06-2017, 11:41 PM)
RuinerPrime's Avatar

Originally Posted by More_Badass

Old It or new It?

The book mostly, no spoilers for the new movie.
oatmeal
Member
(09-07-2017, 12:00 AM)
oatmeal's Avatar
GUYS IM SO FUCKING EXCITED TO SEE THIS
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
(09-07-2017, 12:07 AM)
Kung Fu Jedi's Avatar
Glad to see this is getting good reviews. I have zero interest in seeing it, but I'm being dragged to it reluctantly this weekend. At least it sounds like it is well made, which is better than sitting through a horrible movie when you already don't want to be there.
TheKingOfSheep
Member
(09-07-2017, 02:03 AM)
TheKingOfSheep's Avatar
Didn't know this thread existed when I posted my impressions. So I'll share them here. Warning major spoilers and a long read.

This is a long read, with a bunch a spoilers. So be warned. Again. This read contains spoilers!

I’m going to ignore the novel – I’ve read it several times during my life, most recently a couple a months ago, and it’s very dear to me – as well as the 90’s mini-series. The novel in particular I’ll ignore, because it’s such a massive beast, containing a lot of Derry lore, and so much character background, which would be impossible to translate into one or two films (maybe HBO or AMC... one day, maybe). I wanted to experience IT as a film that stands on its own. And it does, that’s the good news - so go see it. The bad news is, problems actually arise when IT tries to get too close to the source material.

The plot is messy. The film begins with Bill in his pj’s folding a paper boat for his little brother Georgie. We are to assume Bill is ill – but this isn’t obvious, mind you – it wasn’t to me at least. And it should be, because that’s the reason he can’t accompany his little brother chasing the paper boat down the rain flooded streets. But before Georgie can go outside and play, Bill sends him for an errand. To get paraffin. In order to waterproof the boat. Now the writers, for whatever reason, have equipped Georgie with a walkie-talkie (which’ll become relevant when 'dead Georgie' is near; but that’s not obvious, as Bill doesn’t always have the walkie-talkie on him for us viewers to see when Georgie is near; but I think it was supposed to be a plot device – the walkie-talkie creaking when Georgie is near – and it just ended up being poorly implemented: maybe inspired by something Stranger Things did?). And while in the cellar, Bill calls out to Georgie over the walkie-talkie. And yes, several scenes later Georgie is outside, in the rain, while his brother warns him over the walkie-talkie, to be careful – they could’ve kept talking... A moment later the paper boat dives in a storm drain. And that’s when Pennywise first appears. What comes next, is pretty much the only scene in which Bill Skarsgård gets to ‘act’ as Pennywise. Because every other scene, with Pennywise in it, from thereon on, you’ll only get the bloodthirsty, insane, ravenous half of the character, who rarely utters more than a few words.

The storm drain scene is my favorite scene with Pennywise in the whole movie. Pennywise introduces himself to Georgie and tries to be friendly. And the way Skarsgård plays this side of Pennywise, however short it is, makes the character come off a little (just a little) less threatening at first, just enough so, that it is believable that Georgie has a chat with him, even shares a laugh, instead of running home frightened out of his mind. But, and that’s the best part in this scene, you really see that Pennywise has a hard time keeping his composure. You’re also convinced ‘IT’ is reading Georgie’s mind. Several times Georgie seems suspicious of the clowns intentions. The clown manages to keep Georgie from leaving, by addressing the kids fear of disappointing his brother by having to go home and tell him, he lost the boat. But, either because Georgie’s mind blocks him out out of raised suspicion, or because IT is done ‘playing’ with its food, at one moment he just blankly stares passed Georgie. And Georgie picks up on this. It's seriously well done, and uncanny. But I’ll say no more about this scene, the acting by the kid, though, and Skarsgård is really convincing. And I hope, in Part II – which is announced when the end credits roll – Skarsgård is allowed to do more ‘acting’. Instead of just standing there a few seconds, looking insane, and then running towards the camera – which pretty much sums up what he does the rest of the film.

From then on it all goes pretty fast. We get to meet the kids at school. Apparently Georgie is considered missing, not killed (we don’t experience what the Denbrough family goes through; there is a small scene between Bill and his dad, but that’s all). Bill, Eds, Stan and Ritchie already know each other, and, although this (again) isn’t obvious, one can assume they already formed the Losers-Club. I deduce this from several scenes later on, when one of them mentions it in passing: that they’re The Losers.

This movie runs for about 135 minutes – give or take – but somehow the filmmakers weren’t able to provide any of the characters with half descent backgrounds. I won’t discuss all of them here, just hint at some issues I had with certain specific characters.

Take Henry Bowers. He's seriously bonkers. The problem is: why? His dad is a cop. We find this out in the second scene that we see this guy. And from that scene you can deduce that he might be abusive – but that’s not at all obvious (he might be similar to the cop father character in 13 Reasons Why). In the scene I’m referring to, he catches his son getting ready to fire a pistol at a cat, held out by Belch. The father takes away the gun before he gets to shoot the cat. Then fires a couple of rounds right before Henry’s feet, in anger - and says some things to humiliate his son. But all this, is later on in the movie. The first scene with Henry in action, he just starts cutting up Ben. But, he does this out of the blue. He doesn’t have to chase Ben or anything – for all we know he doesn’t even know Ben (Ben is the new kid on the block). He just appears on the sidewalk with his buddies, and starts carving his name in the poor boy's belly. This is pretty early on in the film. Why he feels this much hate, isn’t clear at all. And that makes the scene feel abrupt, out of the blue – like so much in this movie feels out of the blue, and abrupt.

Then there’s Patrick Hockstetter – probably misspelled his name. One moment he’s part of Henry’s group, and then (what ten minutes in?), he gets killed. Later on we see a missing persons pamphlet of him, but that’s it. Henry or his crew never mention him again. Nor is ever brought up again in the story. Why have him in there at all?

Another gripe I have is with the production design. This movie is supposed to play in the 80’s. The movie tells us, it’s 1989 – if I recall correctly. Now, Bill's room has a poster of the movies Gremlins and Beetlejuice. At one moment Ben wears an Airwolf t-shirt (he also wears a t-shirt that stems from the 2010s, while he’s in the library. The T-shirt features a double exposure illustration by Andreas Lie, I think, of a fox). And in the background, while the kids are standing around someplace in the middle of Derry, we notice the cinema is showing Lethal Weapon II and Batman – the first Tim Burton one. Later on we see another shot of the theater marquee. This time the movie A Nightmare on Elmstreet V is playing. Oh, and Ben has a thing for the New Kids on the Block. But that’s pretty much it.

Now, I’m from the eighties. And my room, and my friends bedrooms where riddled with He-Man, Transformers, M.A.S.K., StarCom, G.I.Joe, and so on. (Ritchie does play Streetfighter in an Arcade a bit, though, but no Atari or NES at home, nor VCR) Also, we spoke about movies, music, candy, tv-shows, Nike trainers, etc all the time. Nothing of that is in this movie. The whole movie, for the most part, could just as well have been set in the 50’s – like originally in the novel. It’s totally not anchored in the eighties. And that’s where my gripe with the Ritchie character comes in.

Ritchie is played by our favorite star from Stranger Things. Ritchie is supposed to be the character that vents 80’s pop culture (as he does 50’s in the novel) through wisecracks and impressions – but there is none of that. In the film they have the character ramble in the background while other characters are talking, so that most of the time, you can barely hear his jokes. They really gutted this character. And this was one the characters that could’ve helped anchor this film in the eighties. It’s such a missed opportunity.
The kids worst fears could’ve been connected with 80’s pop culture – as the novel does with 50’s pop culture. But it doesn’t. And that brings us to manifestation of the kids fears through Pennywise. They’re utter crap. For instance Stan’s, is a manifestation of a character that resembles an Edvard Munch type painting – albeit in a more realistic style – of a woman with a deformed head; don’t know if it’s an actual artwork or just a painting specifically for this film, I suspect the latter though. Beverly’s consists of her father – although there is a blood-from-the-drain-scene as well, following close or right after she bought Tampax: which is btw the moment she befriends The Losers - trying, what might be construed, as abusing her sexually.

You can spot a Pennywise doll that looks like the Tim Curry version – not going to tell you where, but it’ll be pretty obvious.

I love the kid actors. They did a great job, all of them. Derry though, is not really developed at all – the few adults we encounter are small town odd, but they have no background. There is no mythos in the movie either, not really, and locations don't matter and, except maybe for the house on Neibolt St. and the Barrens nothing is really named by the kids. Yes, Ben does library research (the easter egg hunt drama, with the factory explosion; a body with a missing head from a historic picture of this tragedy is what haunts Ben btw...) – Mike apparently knows nothing at all – he mentions something about Derry that his grandfather told him, but that’s it.

The film has sort of its own look, and feel. It’s not Spielbergian or anything like that - it just doesn't capture the spirit of childhood to achieve a Spielbergian feeling. I don’t think it tries to be, either. Maybe more Richard Donner Goonies-like (but again, the spirit is missing).

Also, I think in contemporary Hollywood movies, this has become uncommon (for obvious reasons): when two of the kids are in a dialogue on the foreground, the others are talking in the background, but nearby enough so that it all gets mixed up – it’s also where Ritchie does a lot of his talking, in the background. I recall this from The Goonies, where it worked, but it doesn’t here – it comes off as chaotic and you can’t properly hear what the kids are saying sometimes.

Another point of critique, is how the passing of time is handled in the movie. You can’t really say whether a day, or a month, or a week has gone by. Only at the end we’re told it’s September, and that’s when the group parts way. We don't know if this final scene takes place right after their confrontation with IT, or if time has passed in between; and if so, what did they do in the mean time, is this final scene the first time they discuss that confrontation?

Maybe in Part 2 they zoom in more on that summer, and show us some specific days were the kids had other encounters with Pennywise?

Now, I did enjoy the movie. Mainly because we haven’t had something like this for a while – J.J.’s Super 8 comes to mind; and Stranger Things. But as an adaptation of one the greatest and most beloved Stephen King novels, it’s disappointing. The writers should’ve just cut a couple of the characters from the novel, for their adaptation. That way they could’ve focused on developing the characters they would’ve kept, and given them a solid background and real drives and motivations (because that's what's lacking in all of them, even in Bill, because we really never see him grief his brother) – the source material would’ve easily made this possible.

Also, Pennywise should’ve turned into Jason Voorhees, or Freddy Krueger or hell, a bunch of Gremlins even – why show us a poster of that movie, or name drop A Nightmare on Elmstreet V, but having none of the children go watch that film, or talk about films even? Again the actors, these kids, are really talented. But they didn't play kids, like say those childactors in Stranger Things played their characters (I blame the writing). These kids behaved just too rational, too mature and too gloomy most of the time. Kids in the eighties, they behaved differently. I know, because I’m from the eighties.
Majmun
Member
(09-07-2017, 02:52 AM)
Majmun's Avatar
Just came back from the midnight showing. Movie was great. Went with 8 other people and we all loved it. What a ride. Going friday again with someone else.

I also read the book. The movies has so many differences. But it was really well done.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
(09-07-2017, 03:02 AM)
I think the rollercoaster/haunted house vibe of the thing is definitely going to engender repeat viewings in a way horror flicks don't tend to get, I don't think.

That and the camaraderie between the kids (Richie and Eddie, especially) will probably give this thing legs horror films typically don't get.

...or maybe it frontloads like most of 'em do and IT falls off by the 4th week.
MosquitoSmasher
Member
(09-07-2017, 03:11 AM)
MosquitoSmasher's Avatar
Just got back. I thought it was fantastic. The cast which mostly is child actors did a fantastic job and it really reminded me of Stranger Things for sure. Absolutely loved some of the scenes here and the CGI was great.

But as expected it didn't scare me at all. Now horror in general doesn't manage to scare me anymore, I think I've sadly become desensitized for that but the scenes that are meant to be scary were great nonetheless. Pennywise himself didn't really seem all that creepy to me at all but I can understand if some people do think he is. For me the clown that would freak me out more easily is Twisty from AHS.

Now on to spoilers....

The floating children near the end, are we to assume they are still alive just like how the girl was still alive? We don't really see much of this.

Her father, although never shown but definitely clearly implied, he likely was abusing her wasn't he?

Now that the kids aren't afraid of him anymore and he clearly will be returning, what's going to happen in chapter two I wonder.


Going to be hard to top.
Majmun
Member
(09-07-2017, 03:14 AM)
Majmun's Avatar
Word of mouth should be quite positive. The movie is scary and very funny at the same time. And it has a goodfeel vibe going on thanks to the great execution of the losers club.

Should be a crowd pleaser.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
(09-07-2017, 03:16 AM)
The floating kids are dead.

I thought that was an interesting-yet-obvious implementation of "Float" really. Hadn't occurred to me and then I saw it and was like "Oh, huh. That makes all sorts of sense, visually. Why the hell not."

But yeah, all those kids got eaten up.
MosquitoSmasher
Member
(09-07-2017, 03:36 AM)
MosquitoSmasher's Avatar
It has been a long long time that I saw the mini series but is it ever explained what he actually is? His origins etc?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
(09-07-2017, 03:40 AM)
He's some sort of pre-historic horror from another dimension or something like that.
More_Badass
Member
(09-07-2017, 03:41 AM)
More_Badass's Avatar

Originally Posted by MosquitoSmasher

It has been a long long time that I saw the mini series but is it ever explained what he actually is? His origins etc?

An eons-old lovecraftian entity from beyond the stars
Prompto
Banned
(09-07-2017, 03:46 AM)
Enjoyed the movie a lot even though it had its faults. Crowd was really into it too. Word of mouth should definitely be good.

Originally Posted by Bobby Roberts

He's some sort of pre-historic horror from another dimension or something like that.

Originally Posted by More_Badass

An eons-old lovecraftian entity from beyond the stars

Wished they showcased that more but I guess they will dive deeper into IT's background in the sequel?
MosquitoSmasher
Member
(09-07-2017, 03:55 AM)
MosquitoSmasher's Avatar

Originally Posted by Prompto

Enjoyed the movie a lot even though it had its faults. Crowd was really into it too. Word of mouth should definitely be good.



Wished they showcased that more but I guess they will dive deeper into IT's background in the sequel?

Likely because if we get the same group of kids again, I wonder how that will play out because fear isn't going to work on them anymore. Pennywise is not a fear for them any longer. I noticed a few people at the cinema saying they had expected the movie to be scarier as well, so I definitely wasn't the only one.

Maybe they can make some really creepy, disturbing scenes for part 2. I mean, while some scenes were really awesome, the scenes where he just charged at the camera did very little for me. I did love the scene where the kids were in the garage looking at those slide shows and the moment he appears. Yeah some great scenes in this one. Or the one with the clown puppets in that room.
Vincent Alexander
Member
(09-07-2017, 03:57 AM)
Vincent Alexander's Avatar

Originally Posted by MosquitoSmasher

Maybe they can make some really creepy, disturbing scenes for part 2. I mean, while some scenes were really awesome, the scenes where he just charged at the camera did very little for me. I did love the scene where the kids were in the garage looking at those slide shows and the moment he appears. Yeah some great scenes in this one.

This has been my fear that we'd have a bunch of this.
More_Badass
Member
(09-07-2017, 04:02 AM)
More_Badass's Avatar

Originally Posted by MosquitoSmasher

Likely because if we get the same group of kids again, I wonder how that will play out because fear isn't going to work on them anymore. Pennywise is not a fear for them any longer. I noticed a few people at the cinema saying they had expected the movie to be scarier as well, so I definitely wasn't the only one.

You've never read the book or seen the miniseries, have no knowledge about the rest of the story?
MosquitoSmasher
Member
(09-07-2017, 04:02 AM)
MosquitoSmasher's Avatar

Originally Posted by Vincent Alexander

This has been my fear that we'd have a bunch of this.

Yeah the trailer showed it a few times didn't it? If they had done this once that would have been better. It just wasn't ever scary during those moments. The garage scene is something I could consider a bit scary. Where we see him appearing on the slide shows as they go by and then he's just gone from the picture and he appears, I loved that. He was huge there, actually reminded me of Michael Jackson's Ghosts minifilm where we eventually see a huge MJ demon face.

Anyway, if they can tone down those kind of scenes and make something different that would be great. Should be interesting to see what they come up with for chapter 2.

Originally Posted by More_Badass

You've never read the book or seen the miniseries, have no knowledge about the rest of the story?

To be honest it's been so very long that I saw the miniseries that I barely remember it. Never read the book either.
elrechazado
Banned
(09-07-2017, 04:05 AM)
elrechazado's Avatar
Dude, wall of spoilers, don't need to spoiler your review.
The Driver
Member
(09-07-2017, 04:06 AM)
The Driver's Avatar
I think the majority of people see Pennywise just as some killer clown with shape shifting abilities (if that), I don't think too many people actually know his weird origins.

Which is kinda crazy for how for how well known he is.
More_Badass
Member
(09-07-2017, 04:07 AM)
More_Badass's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Driver

I think the majority of people see Pennywise just as some killer clown with shape shifting abilities (if that), I don't think too many people actually know his weird origins.

Which is kinda crazy for how for how well known he is.

How well known Tim Curry's version of him is, which was mainly just a killer demon clown
MosquitoSmasher
Member
(09-07-2017, 04:23 AM)
MosquitoSmasher's Avatar
While I didn't find Bill scary at all as Pennywise this guy definitely thought he was. He calls him scary and off-putting, nah.

https://youtu.be/HjMTqZA6un8

He gives a fantastic performance though and his evil stare is great, it's just not really creepy to me. I do like when we see his demonic teeth come out, lol.
Leeness
Member
(09-07-2017, 04:26 AM)
Leeness's Avatar

Originally Posted by Vincent Alexander

This has been my fear that we'd have a bunch of this.

I think it's just the director's signature move haha.

Rumblebones
Banned
(09-07-2017, 04:29 AM)
Just got back from my viewing. It was pretty good, some choppy child acting aside. I wasn't scared in the slightest but I rarely am and still recognise it as a scary and effective horror. I went with a pretty big group and 12/15 were thoroughly creeped out.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
(09-07-2017, 04:31 AM)
The Garage appearance is probably the best one, yeah.
kevin1025
Banned
(09-07-2017, 04:33 AM)
Gave my mini review in the movies thread. I liked it a bunch! Beverly is the standout, she's great. Some good laughs, and while not scary to me personally, I think it had some really great horrific imagery. Plus the movie is more brutal than I was expecting. Definitely recommend it!
More_Badass
Member
(09-07-2017, 04:36 AM)
More_Badass's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rumblebones

Just got back from my viewing. It was pretty good, some choppy child acting aside. I wasn't scared in the slightest but I rarely am and still recognise it as a Scarff and effective horror. I went with a pretty big group and 12/15 were thoroughly creeped out.

I think there's a distinction between horror that is scary for the characters versus horror that is scary for the viewers.

I think it's hard for something to truly scary someone, especially a horror movie vet because you know all the tricks, but it's even harder to make an atmosphere that makes you feel scared for the protagonists. I'd consider the latter stuff like The Witch or The Exorcist. I never felt scared by those movies, but there's easily some of the most effective horror movies I've ever seen
Bobby Roberts
Banned
(09-07-2017, 04:42 AM)
I do think this is very much like a King book in one important way: It's going to work really well on the people who, by virtue of their age, shouldn't technically be consuming it.

I've always felt that King's sweet spot with a reader is like, 12-16. Which is not who is supposed to be reading his books, but that sort of illicit thrill of forbidden goods heightens his work a hell of a lot.

This movie is bloody, and there's a shit-ton of cursing, but it's also sweet as hell, and I can't imagine that if anyone in the age of 12-16 actually saw this thing, they'd love it to death.

I remember feeling similarly when I saw Stand By Me at age 11. That was rated R, it was not "meant" for me, but it was endearing and immediate because it was honest about what being a kid that age felt like.

Since that's the exact thing this movie does really well, I think this will play best to those kids. It's essentially a YA film with all the PG-13 shackles taken off. Honestly, a lot of King's best stuff is the same way.

I bet the scares work a lot better on kids of that age than they might on kids of my age, too.
Skiptastic
Member
(09-07-2017, 04:50 AM)
Skiptastic's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bobby Roberts

The Garage appearance is probably the best one, yeah.

Yeah that part really got me.
Gozer the Gozerian
Member
(09-07-2017, 04:51 AM)
Gozer the Gozerian's Avatar
So speaking of that thread title, does the classic "he thrusts his fists against the posts" line make an appearance in the movie?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
(09-07-2017, 04:52 AM)
It does. Most of the book's catchphrases make a couple appareances, but that's the only one that seems to work.

Beep Beep Richie really doesn't make any sense at all as its used in the movie. Pennywise is the only person who says it, and he only says it once.
Toa TAK
Banned
(09-07-2017, 04:58 AM)

Originally Posted by Bobby Roberts

I do think this is very much like a King book in one important way: It's going to work really well on the people who, by virtue of their age, shouldn't technically be consuming it.

I've always felt that King's sweet spot with a reader is like, 12-16. Which is not who is supposed to be reading his books, but that sort of illicit thrill of forbidden goods heightens his work a hell of a lot.

This movie is bloody, and there's a shit-ton of cursing, but it's also sweet as hell, and I can't imagine that if anyone in the age of 12-16 actually saw this thing, they'd love it to death.

I remember feeling similarly when I saw Stand By Me at age 11. That was rated R, it was not "meant" for me, but it was endearing and immediate because it was honest about what being a kid that age felt like.

Since that's the exact thing this movie does really well, I think this will play best to those kids. It's essentially a YA film with all the PG-13 shackles taken off. Honestly, a lot of King's best stuff is the same way.

I bet the scares work a lot better on kids of that age than they might on kids of my age, too.

What about us boring people in our early 20s?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
(09-07-2017, 05:00 AM)
You'll float too
jeremy1456
Junior Member
(09-07-2017, 05:02 AM)
jeremy1456's Avatar
I'm very worried about the lack of dialogue from Pennywise.

In both the book and TV miniseries that was a defining aspect of the character. The big part of what made Pennywise... Pennywise.

My fears are they forsake that here by having him just rush the camera, which seems to be the case from impressions I've read.
Toa TAK
Banned
(09-07-2017, 05:07 AM)

Originally Posted by Bobby Roberts

You'll float too

o ok
RuinerPrime
Member
(09-07-2017, 05:21 AM)
RuinerPrime's Avatar

Originally Posted by jeremy1456

I'm very worried about the lack of dialogue from Pennywise.

In both the book and TV miniseries that was a defining aspect of the character. The big part of what made Pennywise... Pennywise.

My fears are they forsake that here by having him just rush the camera, which seems to be the case from impressions I've read.

He talks why more in the adult sections of the book. He also doesn't appear as pennywise the clown that often in the book.
jeremy1456
Junior Member
(09-07-2017, 05:39 AM)
jeremy1456's Avatar

Originally Posted by RuinerPrime

He talks why more in the adult sections of the book. He also doesn't appear as pennywise the clown that often in the book.

I've read the book multiple times so what do you mean when you say he talks more in the adult section? He leaves notes sure, but that's not talking. It's almost geared to make you wonder if he's still alive at first, so that's not accurate.

Almost positive he doesn't talk more in the adult section. Just in the Bill chapters alone he's a chatterbox.

Also he appears more as the clown in the novel than the other forms combined. You should re-read it.

I think you're confusing the TV mini series and the book.
Shauni
Member
(09-07-2017, 05:59 AM)
Shauni's Avatar
Yeah, Pennywise talks as much in the kid section of the book as he does the adult really.
Galactic Specter
Member
(09-07-2017, 07:08 AM)
Galactic Specter's Avatar
Does Alvin Marsh worry about his daughter a lot?

Thread Tools