• 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.

IT - Official Trailer 1

Majora

Member
How is Pennywise rushing at the screen not a jump scare? I thought you were giving the impression that the movie relies heavily on jump scares, due to that aspect and "modern horror"

Pennywise rushing at the screen isn't generally played as a jump scare in my opinion. It happens too often and I think it looks silly, but it's usually fairly well telegraphed. Maybe because a couple of them were present in the trailers I had a sense for when they were going to occur. Perhaps others may disagree, I just didn't see them as a traditional jump scare with a large music crash etc. I recall jumping at the movie maybe twice and neither time was Pennywise rushing the screen.

The aspect of 'modern horror' I disliked most was the overuse of CGI and the tendency to show everything on screen in great detail rather than leaving things to the audiences' imagination. I think horror works best when you show just enough to scare but not so much that the fear is lost. For example, I actually enjoyed the first maybe 30 minutes of Insidious but once it showed the guy properly and you knew exactly what it was and it showed it in great detail all the time thereafter, all the tension was sapped out of the movie for me.

With IT, it renders a LOT of stuff front and centre in rather middling CGI and I think much of it would have worked better implied or partially obscured/in the shadows/whatever old school horror tricks you care to think of. There's one scene in particular I have in mind when I talk about this and it's Stan's fear. Good idea, really poor CGI execution, would have worked so much better if much more had been left to the imagination. My distaste for CGI is not necessarily about the quality of the effect, it's about the way many directors use it as a way to show everything on screen when it is very often not the best approach for the genre. Just because you can doesn't mean you should etc.
 
The Running Man is a shitty film and an even shittier adaptation.
I saw the movie first. Then I read the book years later

Never have I switched my opinion on something so drastically. From a kind of fun satirical Arnold action movie to perhaps one of the worst book adaptations ever, up there with "World War Z in name only". At least WWZ was a decent zombie movie to make up for being such a shit adaptation
 

wenis

Registered for GAF on September 11, 2001.
I for one would love a (new) remake of Maximum Overdrive. Steven Kings TRUE film masterpiece.
 
I missed the title discussion for the sequel earlier, but I know someone who's seen the movie and he said the final title card for this movie is IT: CHAPTER ONE, so yeah.
 
I'm going to a sneak peek of this tomorrow.

I hate horror movies for the most part, and I will likely be seeing most of this with my face turned to one side or through my fingers with ears plugged. SO THIS OUGHT TO BE FUN!

I'll let you all know how it goes.
 
Usually that's the case when the movie is not a studio project or when the movie's commentary feels "relevant" to the times.

Horror is real divisive, for this movie to get an 85%, it'll need to be a fucking masterpiece.

All indications are that it's great, but a little more standard studio fare than you might think. I'll go 78%.
Eh, not really. The Conjuring has 86% score and it's sequel a 79%. I wouldn't call either of those movies masterpieces or even innovative. They're just good horror movies with good characters.

Not a high bar for IT.
 

Majora

Member
I missed the title discussion for the sequel earlier, but I know someone who's seen the movie and he said the final title card for this movie is IT: CHAPTER ONE, so yeah.

Yeah, some of the audience I was with groaned at this, which was weird! Surely everyone knows by now there's an adult part too! The movie does kind of work on its own as a self contained experience if a sequel was never greenlit, but I would think it would be obvious to most people that it's not the entire story given the ending (will spoiler just for safety but if you've read the book/seen the miniseries it's fine)

where they make a pact to return if IT comes back

With that as the ending who wouldn't expect a sequel?
 

wenis

Registered for GAF on September 11, 2001.
Gotta be directed by Stephen King again.

I would love that. He's sober now, I'd love to see the difference.

Emilio can come back and be a truck driver. They should also get Frankie Faison, Giancarlo Esposito and Yeardly Smith back into the mix. Frankie would play a great Hendershot. Champin' on a cigar with a rocket launcher.
 
What do you think of The Witch? That's probably my favorite horror movie of the last 5 years

I'd also consider Green Room a horror movie, a horror thriller.

Both of those movies are way, way better than IT. IT is in Conjuring 1 territory for me. It's a fairly fun ride but it's too focused on "scary moments" that aren't all that scary because of their in your face obviousness and it doesn't build any sustained tension that pervades the film. Direction feels pretty workman-like too, with out any of the unique artistry The Witch and Green Room have. The decisive action beat in the climax randomly feels like they couldn't film it so they just resorted to a series of incredibly shaky close-up quick cuts that you have no idea what's going on and almost makes Bourne look like it was shot by Kubrick (the rest of the film is shot a lot more competently).
 
Eh, not really. The Conjuring has 86% score and it's sequel a 79%. I wouldn't call either of those movies masterpieces or even innovative. They're just good horror movies with good characters.

Not a high bar for IT.

I mean, I'd disagree as to "The Conjuring". Admittedly, it's a jump scare fest, but it's probably the best execution of a "Spook-A-Blast" technique there is. It may not be a masterpiece as a movie, but as a horror film, it's one of the best. Conjuring 2 suffered in reviews because it didn't really elevate anything in "The Conjuring" outside its jump scare construction.

We just saw the release of "Annabelle: Creation" (a movie I quite like) that cribbed a large amount of its effectiveness directly from the jump scare construction of "The Conjuring" as a franchise. While it was reviewed positively, it's RT is in the high 60s rather than what we're looking at with The Conjuring.

My read on all this: Reviewers still like jump-scare heavy studio horror, but they're ok with going more critical on it. As such, expect plenty of positive reviews, but know that even scoring in the high 80's is a big victory for this movie.

EDIT: As Funky Clown notes, IT appears closer in design to the new jump-scare school of horror than it does to the current indie darlings I wish it emulated more (It Follows, Babadook, Get Out, Green Room, The Invitation)

True, but most horror movies are just straight horror. Even something like Babadook, the drama is another facet of the horror. If the horror doesn't work for the critic, the movie as a whole fails. This sounds like it's as much horror as it is coming-of-age/friendship story, so those elements might engage viewers even if the horror doesn't

That's a facet that I hadn't considered. I could see an RT going higher because of it; however I could just as easily see some reviewers say: "While I loved the friendship in this rag-tag group, I wish IT focused more on that than on its limp scare tactics" - Rotten
 

groansey

Member
Honestly a lot of these early reviews seem overly harsh to me. I'll see it Friday so maybe I'll agree, but from what's described this does not sound like a bad film, just people wanted it to be something else - comparing it to The Witch or indie horror... yeah, it was never going to be that.

The original tv series was pretty bad and it is much-loved, everything we've seen of this so far looks great - so I still have pretty high hopes for this.
 
My read on all this: Reviewers still like jump-scare heavy studio horror, but they're ok with going more critical on it. As such, expect plenty of positive reviews, but know that even scoring in the high 80's is a big victory for this movie.

EDIT: As Funky Clown notes, IT appears closer in design to the new jump-scare school of horror than it does to the current indie darlings I wish it emulated more (It Follows, Babadook, Get Out, Green Room, The Invitation)
But IT as a story was nothing like those stories. The main villain is a thing that turns into stalking horrors and like to take the form of an unsettling clown that often makes "jokes" to its victims. He's akin to Freddy Kruger. The horror was a mix of unsettling dread and slasher movie stalker
 
But IT as a story was nothing like those stories. The main villain is a thing that turns into stalking horrors and like to take the form of an unsettling clown that often makes "jokes" to its victims. He's akin to Freddy Kruger

I'm not trying to say IT should emulate the plot mechanics of those movies. I completely agree, IT is entirely its own beast (and even served as inspiration for the best stuff in "It Follows"). I'm just saying there will be reviewers out there who see IT as a studio product and compare IT unfavorably to the recent uptick in quality indie horror films.

If there's an aspect of IT that I hope it does emulate from those films, it has nothing to do with the plot and everything to do with the inherent tension of the setting each of those movies sits in. If Derry is as recognizable in feel as suburban Detroit from "It Follows" or the backwoods Oregon Skinhead club from "Green Room", I will be insanely thrilled.
 

wenis

Registered for GAF on September 11, 2001.
You're just mad about Sub-Zero

You mean Plain Zero?

Nah, it was just a piece of shit in general. The action isn't good, none of the characters are really characters (outside of Killian, who is just Richard Dawson really), and I think it's the first movie where Arnie was allowed to come up with his own one-liners semi-regularly, which is why they suck as bad as they do.

It's not very good at being '80s cheese, which means its really not good outside that metric.
 
The Running Man is a shitty film and an even shittier adaptation.


wrong.gif
 
That's Commando. Which was a better movie than The Running Man in almost every way imaginable.

I know you kids love to stick up for dogshit that got poured down your eyeballs by basic cable out of some sense of nostalgic loyalty to a childhood that deserved better, but really, The Running Man is subpar trash not worth your time.
 

wenis

Registered for GAF on September 11, 2001.
That's Commando. Which was a better movie than The Running Man in almost every way imaginable.

I know you kids love to stick up for dogshit that got poured down your eyeballs by basic cable out of some sense of nostalgic loyalty to a childhood that deserved better, but really, The Running Man is subpar trash not worth your time.

or...and hang on here.

people like what they like. sincerely.
 
or...and hang on here.

people like what they like. sincerely.

Yes, people like what they like.

They like dogshit.

It's dogshit, Wenis.

(the presence of the "you kids" shoulda been the tipoff that grumpy old man-isms aren't being meant with the utmost seriousness but YOU FUCKING KIDS ARE SO GODDAMN SENSITIVE IN HERE I SWEAR TO CHR
 

Paracelsus

Member
I know this is a stupid question but nonetheless: is there any way for people in Europe to watch it in english, like a streaming service where you buy a digital ticket, watch the thing and move on? I really don't want to watch it dubbed nor do I want to wait for the disc release.
 
Yes, people like what they like.

They like dogshit.

It's dogshit, Wenis.

(the presence of the "you kids" shoulda been the tipoff that grumpy old man-isms aren't being meant with the utmost seriousness but YOU FUCKING KIDS ARE SO GODDAMN SENSITIVE IN HERE I SWEAR TO CHR

Yes it's utter dogshit but having seen it in the theater at like nine years old it was my first view into a dystopian fictional/cyberish world (blade runner was later in my life) and because of that I will always love it.

What's more I take serious umbrage at you saying it's not even fun cheese. It's definitely that. It's garbage for sure but it's hilarious garbage
 
What's more I take serious umbrage at you saying it's not even fun cheese. It's definitely that. It's garbage for sure but it's hilarious garbage

I acknowledge your umbrage and dismiss it blithely and with zero regard for your agency as a human being because I am just that arrogant and ill tempered.

Of its many sins, its unceremonious discarding of Yaphet Kotto is fucking unforgivable.

DID YOU KNOW: Work on the film had to be stopped for a little bit to allow screenwriter Steven De Souza to rework Richard Dawson's lines because he was ad-libbing so much on set and being so charming that the director was essentially filming entire game shows-worth of patter at a shot because Dawson wouldn't shut up.
 
I acknowledge your umbrage and dismiss it blithely and with zero regard for your agency as a human being because I am just that arrogant and ill tempered.

Of its many sins, its unceremonious discarding of Yaphet Kotto is fucking unforgivable.

DID YOU KNOW: Work on the film had to be stopped for a little bit to allow screenwriter Steven De Souza to rework Richard Dawson's lines because he was ad-libbing so much on set and being so charming that the director was essentially filming entire game shows-worth of patter at a shot because Dawson wouldn't shut up.

Hahaha that is amazing and I would love the movie for evil Dawson alone. And yes Yaphet deserved better than to play damsel in distress to Arnold's thinly veiled pro American gi joe

Still a hilarious movie tho I don't care what anyone says. And I actually think in the right hands the movie could be remade and be amazing. Not following the book but the actual movie. The movie being far inferior to the book is another topic altogether
 
That movie was hampered by its budget, yeah (although I don't think Glaser directed it well anyway, even if he had been given a bunch of money) - I think you could remake the film and blow it out to ridiculous levels of pop-culture satire, but I also don't know that the satire would work as well in 2017 considering the current state of things.

When the actual president is a shitty reality show star, suddenly Running Man seems way too low-key/low-stakes in comparison.
 
That movie was hampered by its budget, yeah (although I don't think Glaser directed it well anyway, even if he had been given a bunch of money) - I think you could remake the film and blow it out to ridiculous levels of pop-culture satire, but I also don't know that the satire would work as well in 2017 considering the current state of things.

When the actual president is a shitty reality show star, suddenly Running Man seems way too low-key/low-stakes in comparison.
The reality tv satire has been done to death but I think there's room for a critique on the wealth inequality which maybe was already made in the book it's been so long for me. Dawson sort of represented that 80's rich sleaze to perfection but hed fit right in now too. While I said the reality TV thing has already been done there's still room to talk about other things that act as opiates for the masses and keep us all dumbed down and Ill informed.

Anyway back OT I can't be any more excited for IT. Even if the reviews are settling down some I'm just thrilled to finally be getting another decent king adaptation and maybe this will keep talisman alive since the dark tower obviously wanted to kill it dead lol
 
Top Bottom