Stephen King's It

El Duda

kerplun k wrote: »

Mr Starman wrote: »

Loud, bombastic, predictable, boring, overly stylistic, lacks any kind of subtlety, unoriginal annoying 80's references to every 80's film/TV show I grew up watching, over use of crap computer effects too.

If this is the kind of yawn inducing trash that gets great reviews these days then its no wonder people stop going to the cinema.

Just curious, but what would you consider a good film that was released this year?

As someone who agrees with Starmans point of view I'd answer your question by saying...

Guardians 2
Spiderman
Baby Driver
Dunkirk
Wonder Woman

All far superior 2017 releases.

readyletsgo

Mr Starman wrote: »

Loud, bombastic, predictable, boring, overly stylistic, lacks any kind of subtlety, unoriginal annoying 80's references to every 80's film/TV show I grew up watching, over use of crap computer effects too.

If this is the kind of yawn inducing trash that gets great reviews these days then its no wonder people stop going to the cinema.

So, you liked it??

God, it's about a billion times better than the original (besides Currys performance of course). Yawn inducing, lol!

I loved it.

kerplun k

El Duda wrote: »

As someone who agrees with Starmans point of view I'd answer your question by saying...

Guardians 2
Spiderman
Baby Driver
Dunkirk
Wonder Woman

All far superior 2017 releases.

Okay, I'll bite

Loud, bombastic, predictable, can be used to describe at least 3 of your favorites, which doesn't necessary mean they are bad, far from it, I actually agree with 4/5, but the reason why I asked Starman, is because his "review" of the film reads like a grumpy, fed up individual, went into any random film, with the sole purpose of complaining about modern film making, and not a fan of cinema. So I was just curious as to what the poster perceived to be a good film that was made this year.

I've read plenty of opinions on here, All who have raised many valid points about why they didn't enjoy this movie, and fair enough, each to their own and all that, but Loud, bombastic, predictable, overly stylistic??? So generic, and just lazy criticism.

Mr Starman

kerplun k wrote: »

Just curious, but what would you consider a good film that was released this year?

I went to that Gareth Edwards pile of dung around Xmas and it turned me off the cinema for 6 months. Was looking forward to Alien Covenent and I gave it a miss as soon as reviews came in.

Some 'clown' reviewer off Newstalk was praising this from the high heavens referencing 80's classics like Goonies, Stand By Me.....not even close. Guy must have left his brain at home. 'It's pathetic!

Mr Starman

kerplun k wrote: »

I've read plenty of opinions on here, All who have raised many valid points about why they didn't enjoy this movie, and fair enough, each to their own and all that, but Loud, bombastic, predictable, overly stylistic??? So generic, and just lazy criticism.

Did I mention humourless and charmless, leaves little to the imagination, yeah all that too.

The only thing lazy was the film making, 'jump scares' all over the place, zero buildup of tension or skillful storytelling.

johnny_ultimate

Taking silly blockbusters like It, Rogue One and Alien Covenant as your only examples of the state of modern cinema is your first problem there.

johnny_ultimate

Mickeroo wrote: »

Similar to John Carter of Mars being called an Avatar rip off when it came out (though that film had other problems...).

There's a slight difference here in that this film actually moves events to the 1980s, where it was originally imagined as a story set in the 1950s/60s. So the film adopts the language of the decade, and in doing so there is a case to be made that at times the imitated becomes the imitator! It certainly embraces distinctly 1980s motifs at time - how a digital watch plays a significant role, to pick an obvious example.

Things like Stranger Things are notable as much for their unapologetic affection for all things 80s as well as their stylistic / narrative embrace of the pop culture of the time. It IMO is the same - albeit not quite as overtly as some other examples - and creates another layer of meta-referencing in the process

As an aside: it occurs to me in hindsight that every overt cinematic reference to the 80s in the film - Lethal Weapon, Batman, Gremlins, Beetlejuice (may be more) - was made by Warner Bros, who just happen to have made this too :pac:

HandsomeBob

El Duda wrote: »

As someone who agrees with Starmans point of view I'd answer your question by saying...

Guardians 2
Spiderman
Baby Driver
Dunkirk
Wonder Woman

All far superior 2017 releases.

Seems like you've a specific taste more or less.

This film to me even in itself and forgetting its ties to the book, stands on its own feet as a well made film. I can always appreciate that regardless of genre.

Tylerdurex

I found it disappointing to be honest, I found the bits that were supposed to be scary funny

q2xv9rjei4awgb

As much as it is against the grain and probably very hipster of me to do so, I think I'll go with Mark Kermode's opinion on it rather than certain ones on here.

I know, I'm a rebel

ISOP

thought it was a load of crap

Ash.J.Williams

El Duda wrote: »

As someone who agrees with Starmans point of view I'd answer your question by saying...

Guardians 2
Spiderman
Baby Driver
Dunkirk
Wonder Woman

All far superior 2017 releases.

Man that's a disasterous opinion... Are you for real?

q2xv9rjei4awgb

ISOP wrote: »

thought it was a load of crap

Well yeah...I mean...

Shapeshifting Alien, who looks like a clown, eats Children every 27 years. Bit like Alien, who is invincible, tries to save the world. Or, Woman who can live forever and is an Amazonian warrior....

If you look at it like that, everything is a load of crap really

El Duda

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

El Duda wrote: »

As someone who agrees with Starmans point of view I'd answer your question by saying...

Guardians 2
Spiderman
Baby Driver
Dunkirk
Wonder Woman

All far superior 2017 releases.

Man that's a disasterous opinion... Are you for real?

Given the fact that I enjoyed the films I listed and didn't enjoy IT. Yes, I am for real.

Some scores to help:

Guardians 2 - 7/10
Spiderman - 9/10
Baby Driver - 8/10
Dunkirk - 10/10
Wonder Woman - 7.5/10
IT - 5/10

IT just descended into noisy, jump scare awfulness. It has no lasting affects whatsoever. It will date horribly, just like all the Insidious & Conjuring films. It's horror for people who don't know what real horror is. LOUD NOISES = SCARY? I don't think so.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

El Duda wrote: »

Given the fact that I enjoyed the films I listed and didn't enjoy IT. Yes, I am for real.

Some scores to help:

Guardians 2 - 7/10
Spiderman - 9/10
Baby Driver - 8/10
Dunkirk - 10/10
Wonder Woman - 7.5/10
IT - 5/10

IT just descended into noisy, jump scare awfulness. It has no lasting affects whatsoever. It will date horribly, just like all the Insidious & Conjuring films. It's horror for people who don't know what real horror is. LOUD NOISES = SCARY? I don't think so.

Not really horror though, is it?
Opening scene was unsettling but, there were other themes to the movie that made it more than a horror.

I'll say one thing, it leaves the original in the dust. Makes it look like a cartoon in comparison

Der Stier

Saw this last night and as the book is my favourite King book (probably my favourite fiction book) I loved it.
It was different but not in a way that diverged too much from the book.
My only slight annoyance was why have

Mike Hanlons parents are dead in the film, the relationship Mike had with his father was absolutely KEY in the book, Mikes Dad knew
all about Derry's dodgy history and Mike was the one telling the other kids about this - not Ben.

But this is the first horror film I've seen in a long time that is genuinely creepy.
Also had the right amount of humour and emotion to make it more than just a horror film.
The scene where they all comforted Bill was almost a carbon copy of the same scene in the book (but I think they may have been adults in the book)
Can't wait for part 2 now pity pre production has not even started yet - so 2019 at the earliest for chapter 2

Ash.J.Williams

El Duda wrote: »

Given the fact that I enjoyed the films I listed and didn't enjoy IT. Yes, I am for real.

Some scores to help:

Guardians 2 - 7/10
Spiderman - 9/10
Baby Driver - 8/10
Dunkirk - 10/10
Wonder Woman - 7.5/10
IT - 5/10

IT just descended into noisy, jump scare awfulness. It has no lasting affects whatsoever. It will date horribly, just like all the Insidious & Conjuring films. It's horror for people who don't know what real horror is. LOUD NOISES = SCARY? I don't think so.

Wonder Woman though....

homerun_homer

Finally worked up the courage to see this last night since the first one used to scare the living daylights out of me as a kid:pac:

It's a good movie, enjoyed the atmosphere of it and the gang but the negatives sorta feel like what I'm about to focus on.

The Georgie scene was incredibly creepy, they set him up perfectly as an adorable kid who you don't want to get killed by this horrible clown. What disappointed me with the rest of the movie is that Pennywise doesn't have the same interaction with the other kids. That is one of the scary things about him from Tim Curry's version (as bad as that movie may now look), he would antagonise the kids verbally as well as in scary situations. In this one it was just poorly rendered CG nightmares to the kids which I didn't find at all effective. For that reason I'd have preferred them to come up with a non-CG scary alternative or just stick with the Pennywise act and hive Bill Skarsgard more room to scare.

While I did like the losers club, some of the kids really got a raw deal like, the Jewish kid and Mike Hanlon. I really liked Ben's (the fat kid) performance but he just slips into the background and barely registers after they exit the scary house midway. Eddie was a bit OTT acting at times and Stranger Thing's Richie was a bit too forceful and annoying with the constant jokes. Something about Finn Wolfhard's comedic performance didn't sit right with me. It felt a bit try hard. Also, what was the deal with the overly green screen background look to close ups of the jewish kid at times? Not only was he underwritted but they must have had to call him in for reshoots when they were like "ehh, we should try feature you a tad more".

Henry Bowers and his goons were half used well, but they did all this set up and then

just have him knocked into the well, surely dead unless Chapter 2 has a contrived way of having him survive, maybe via Pennywise.

he's dead then the whole set up for him in the second film is wasted.

Also... there is a serious lack of on screen kills in the film, his goons should have joined him in the sewers for the extra scares and kill factor.

Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise was very effective but I think the script let him down. Like I said, too many bad CGI iterations of the kids fears were not as effective as the image of his clown chasing them (black goo, leper, creepy painting lady). The instances he appears are very brief and when added together ultimately feels like no time until the kids kick his ass. I liked when he appears during the projector scene, but not that he is fanged, giant and behaving like a rottweiler. The simplicity of him appearing and antagonising the kids and instilling fear in them would have worked far better.

Overall though I enjoyed it but I am not sure if the sequel will be very scary since the adult section of previous version (never read the book mind you) was less scary. The kids proved a bit too effective at "not being afraid" of Pennywise that I can't see them cowering as adults, except for the Jewish kid. Hopefully they pull something cool out of the bad and up the anti and scares.

kerplun k

The more I think about this, the harder chapter two is going to be. Some of things that chapter one had going for it is now gone.

Chapter one won't be able to rely on 80s nostalgia, the chemistry, humor, and friendship between the young cast, the shock value and anticipation of seeing Pennywise is now gone. It's also hard to replicate the same emotion with Kids being in peril than adults, especially in a world where the adults are part of that danger. Muschietti has a hard task of recapturing the magic from the first film. Its a task I don't envy, but one thing is for sure, if he stands any chance of succeeding, he needs a strong cast of good actors.... And with that, what would peoples choices of casting be for the losers club in C2?

Bill- Alexander Skarsgård
Ben - Ryan Reynolds
Bev - Mireille Enos
Richie - Jason Sudeikis
Stan - James Franco
Mike - Donald Glover
Eddie - Jason Bateman

Basq

^ They're bringing the kids back for flashbacks in Chapter 2 as far as I know anyways..

ISOP

this film isn't scary, I watched it in Leicester Square, the audience were laughing most of the time, well those that hadn't left before the end. It doesn't know what it is supposed to be, its like a crap 1950'S B movie with the crap jokes

Billy86

ISOP wrote: »

this film isn't scary, I watched it in Leicester Square, the audience were laughing most of the time, well those that hadn't left before the end. It doesn't know what it is supposed to be, its like a crap 1950'S B movie with the crap jokes

Haven't got around to seeing it yet but I find it odd that a lot of people would be leaving a movie that has got excellent reviews and generally great audience feedback so far. Did someone let one rip or something?

Billy86

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Wonder Woman though....

That was a surprisingly, really good film - and I've found literally every other DC/WB release thus far to complete and utter dross. Could well wind up being their equivalent to 'Iron Man' that gave a blueprint for the Marvel universe to build upon.

El Duda

Bev should clearly be played by Amy Adams.

Although a world class actor like her wouldn't want to be associated with disposable dirge like this.


Wonder Woman's only major problem was the third act/main villain.

kerplun k

El Duda wrote: »

Bev should clearly be played by Amy Adams.

Although a world class actor like her wouldn't want to be associated with disposable dirge like this.


Wonder Woman's only major problem was the third act/main villain.

Maybe Gal Gadot would take the role.

Hector Savage

Yamanoto wrote: »

Children experimenting with each other happens in real life, so I'm not sure why that shouldn't be addressed in fiction.

Exactly and I don't understand why people always freak out about that part of the book - they are all kids the same age! - there is no abuse going on ...

Ash.J.Williams

El Duda wrote: »

Bev should clearly be played by Amy Adams.

Although a world class actor like her wouldn't want to be associated with disposable dirge like this.


Wonder Woman's only major problem was the third act/main villain.

Wonder Womans main issue was it was a bag of sh1te

readyletsgo

El Duda wrote: »

Given the fact that I enjoyed the films I listed and didn't enjoy IT. Yes, I am for real.

Some scores to help:

Guardians 2 - 7/10
Spiderman - 9/10
Baby Driver - 8/10
Dunkirk - 10/10
Wonder Woman - 7.5/10
IT - 5/10

IT just descended into noisy, jump scare awfulness. It has no lasting affects whatsoever. It will date horribly, just like all the Insidious & Conjuring films. It's horror for people who don't know what real horror is. LOUD NOISES = SCARY? I don't think so.

I watched 'Goodnight Mother' the night before I went to see IT.

Both far superior films than all the film's above, except Baby driver (although on a second watch, the soundtrack is the star of the film), Dunkirk I haven't seen yet, but heard mixed things from people who had seen it, not the millions of great reviews about it in papers and online, but I'll watch it at some point.

Wonder Woman, ugh, I found it incredibly needlessly long, and kinda boring, but then, it's kinda overkill with all the super hero movies now. Guardians 2, was the first movie all over again, so I kinda checked out through a lot of it.

But review scores are just a person's opinion. They may love a movie, where as you might hate it. And vise versa

PhiloCypher

I must be the only one who prefers Bill Skarsgards Pennywise over Tim Curry's . Tims sounds like a creepy old uncle who smokes and drinks too much , Bills with his cherubic face and childlike manner is creepier, at least to me. You can actually imagine "Georgiiiieee" being drawn to his death despite himself by Bills childlike Pennywise far more then Tims creepy pedo clown.

How recently have people watched the old mini series, (I watched a loads of pennywise best bits after watching the new one for comparison) just wondering is it a sacred cow situation where because you were terrified of Tims pennywise as a kid anything else pales in comparison?

The one thing I would say tho is I far prefer Tims fanged teeth then the cgi fangs of Bills pennywise.

readyletsgo

PhiloCypher wrote: »

I must be the only one who prefers Bill Skarsgards Pennywise over Tim Curry's . Tims sounds like a creepy old uncle who smokes and drinks too much , Bills with his cherubic face and childlike manner is creepier, at least to me. You can actually imagine "Georgiiiieee" being drawn to his death despite himself by Bills childlike Pennywise far more then Tims creepy pedo clown.

How recently have people watched the old mini series, (I watched a loads of pennywise best bits after watching the new one for comparison) just wondering is it a sacred cow situation where because you were terrified of Tims pennywise as a kid anything else pales in comparison?

The one thing I would say tho is I far prefer Tims fanged teeth then the cgi fangs of Bills pennywise.

I love both version but in fairness they are so different from eachother.

I love the new one, but I also have fond memories of Tims version. He's more colourful, were as bills version is more black and white? if that makes sense?

Tony EH

Skarsgard's is like 2nd prize in a "Draw a scary clown" competition.

Curry's is just creepy and unnerving in that esoteric way that people find clowns creepy.

Also, Pennywise wasn't meant to be scary. He's supposed to just look like a "common or garden" clown. That's how he draws kids in.

No child on the planet would approach Skarsgard's Pennywise.

weadick

I remember the IT tv movie being a big deal back in the early 90's, something we were allowed to stay up to watch. I watched some clips of it online (doesnt seem to be possible to get the full movie) and was surprised at how bad it looked. Tim Curry really did carry that whole production with his performance but aside from him the acting was terrible as was everything else about it. So as a whole I 'd say the new one is far better even if it still amounts to an average enough film.

TerrorFirmer

I think nostalgia is a strong factor in how people remember the 1990 movie. I'm not saying it's a bad production - it's aged quite badly however, but it's still watchable and Curry is good - but having watched the original for the very first time a year or two ago, I find the 2017 movie far superior.

I thought Pennywise was done well, but perhaps a little overdone as Tony EH is suggesting above. The simplicity, plainness and innocence of Curry's Pennywise is somewhat more credible in understanding how he does what he does.

Skarsgard's Pennywise is far more sinister and unsettling from the very get go, which makes for perhaps better viewing at times but undermines the point of 'it' assuming the form of a clown somewhat.

Still though. Much prefer the 2017 version of the film. People who are complaining that it wasn't scary enough are somewhat missing the point of the production - the original isn't that scary either but both are about far more than just plain horror.

And let's be honest here, too many people are mis-remembering the original as being scarier simply because they were young when they saw it - imagine watching the 2017 film as a child, either? I know I would have been scared out of my pants.

Tony EH

The TV movie is pretty bad, but in line with nearly every TV movie of the period. No doubt the cinema version will have a number of improvements over it. I won't know til I see it in a couple of months. No doubt there's some element of nostalgia at play, but I think most people just remember Tim Curry's Pennywise as the enduring image.

However, right off the bat, the cinema version has a few advantages. It's a feature film, with a grossly superior budget to anything anyone had to work with on a 90's TV film. It has access to better actors, though I enjoyed the kids in the TV version. It can also make a play for more hard hitting scares than a 90's TV film (although I believe it actually doesn't) and it can employ better special effects (although I keep hearing that they're actually pretty bad and overdone).

So, I am expecting that it will be better than 'It' from 1990, which I wasn't even that fond of when I saw it first.

The book, though, had a big impact on kid me. I know this will be nothing like that (or 'It').

Billy86

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I think nostalgia is a strong factor in how people remember the 1990 movie. I'm not saying it's a bad production - it's aged quite badly however, but it's still watchable and Curry is good - but having watched the original for the very first time a year or two ago, I find the 2017 movie far superior.

It is woeful. Watched it again about two years ago and it is an utterly terrible three hour long punishment of a movie. You're right about people remembering it as being scarier than it was too, the four of us watching it were in stitches throughout - and not just through the Pennywise scenes. Most of all, and I'm guessing it's a nod to the ending in the book, but the amount of creeping all of the lads do with the female character is unintentionally hilarious.

But anyone who tried to deny that Tim Curry was anything stupendous in it needs their head examined, he is the only reason that movie is still well known today outside of Stephen King fans, otherwise it would have gone the same way as the Rob Lowe version of The Stand and The Langoliers in terms of public awareness. One of the best examples of amazing performances hidden in a bad movie that I can think of.

Lorelli!

Watched it last night and enjoyed it. I agree that the older one is dated. I got it on DVD a few years ago but would still need to watch it again to give a proper comparison.

From memory, I think that Tim Curry's Pennywise had more personality and got into the group's head more. I found that the new one relied more on a monstrous Pennywise but lacked the mystery and intrigue of Curry's version. Still I enjoyed the film. All I could think at the end was "is Beverly going back home to her dad now after that?"

Also had very fond memories of The Stand as mentioned and watched it again recently and thought it was very 90's looking, acting wasnt great and went off a lot at the end.

Edit; also found that the little quirks and personalities of the kids in the group were more stand out and memorable in the original.

kerplun k

It's not fair to Judge something made 27 years ago by today's standards, especially a TV movie.

Ash.J.Williams

The people here saying it wasn't scarey enough? Do you get scared often? Do you bring spare underpants to the cinema generally?

Billy86

kerplun k wrote: »

It's not fair to Judge something made 27 years ago by today's standards, especially a TV movie.

Perfectly fair to compare acting, scripts, pacing, editing and such to be honest. A whole lot of recent remakes have been deemed as inferior to their 20+ year old originals also. I'm not doing a comparison personally because I've yet to see the new one, but the original was an objectively bad movie from a technical standpoint. Tim Curry though, was out of this world and pretty much the embodiment of 'chewing the scenery' in it.

Decuc500

I saw it last night and enjoyed it. It's a good film to watch on a Friday night in a busy cinema. It was more of a crowd pleasing horror film. There was nothing particularly original about how the scares were delivered and it never made me feel uneasy.

It worked very well as a coming of age film. It held a certain charm and the young cast were mostly very good. Also I like a good montage scene and I have that Cure song going through my head today.

I saw it in the Lighthouse and one guy arrived in full clown makeup. He caused a bit of a stir going to the toilet at one stage, walking down the cinema steps, red balloon floating above his head...

HandsomeBob

PhiloCypher wrote: »

I must be the only one who prefers Bill Skarsgards Pennywise over Tim Curry's . Tims sounds like a creepy old uncle who smokes and drinks too much , Bills with his cherubic face and childlike manner is creepier, at least to me. You can actually imagine "Georgiiiieee" being drawn to his death despite himself by Bills childlike Pennywise far more then Tims creepy pedo clown.

How recently have people watched the old mini series, (I watched a loads of pennywise best bits after watching the new one for comparison) just wondering is it a sacred cow situation where because you were terrified of Tims pennywise as a kid anything else pales in comparison?

The one thing I would say tho is I far prefer Tims fanged teeth then the cgi fangs of Bills pennywise.

Yeah agreed. Look Curry's performance is the only reason that the tv movie is looked upon fondly and was simply awesome.

But watching Bill's performance as you said absolutely sucked you in like it sucked in Georgie. Affable and child like, no wonder poor Georgie was lured in.

ancapailldorcha

Saw this earlier this week. I haven't seen the mini-series nor have I read the novel though I plan to read it.

Overall, it's quite good. The tone is set properly with the humour kept to a minimum though the jokes tended to land more often than not. The child actors all do an excellent job and work well together. I read a comment on Goodreads that the novel is much more than a simple horror story. Much of this seems to have been omitted in the transition to the big screen. I didn't feel that the main characters were quite fully developed. Much of it seemed too predisposed towards loud noises and cheap jump scares which was a bit of a letdown. Bill Skarsgård isn't given much to work with beyond odd poses and weird walks with a minimum of dialogue.

I'm a tad annoyed at the way IT was released. Given that the latter half of the story takes place 27 years after the first half, it makes little sense that it's going to take so long to see the latter chapter of the story though it is nice that the first half is given so much time instead of being crammed into half a feature.

Overall, it's a functional horror film buoyed by good set pieces and strong performances from the cast.

jones

Saw this last night and really enjoyed it. Funny, jumpy and some great scenes 8/10

Mantis Toboggan

Saw it tonight, very good film, really well put together, as horror films go this is definitely one of the better ones.

Bacchus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm a tad annoyed at the way IT was released. Given that the latter half of the story takes place 27 years after the first half, it makes little sense that it's going to take so long to see the latter chapter of the story though it is nice that the first half is given so much time instead of being crammed into half a feature.

What do you mean by this? A sequel should be out by 2019. Are you suggesting they should have been filmed back to back and released closer together?

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I thought Pennywise was done well, but perhaps a little overdone as Tony EH is suggesting above. The simplicity, plainness and innocence of Curry's Pennywise is somewhat more credible in understanding how he does what he does.

Skarsgard's Pennywise is far more sinister and unsettling from the very get go, which makes for perhaps better viewing at times but undermines the point of 'it' assuming the form of a clown somewhat.

I've not seen IT (yet) but big fan of book. It sounds like 2017 IT is closer to what IT should be. In the book, even in clown form IT (as Pennywise) was sinister, initially at a distance looking like regular clown (albeit in an unusual surrounding - e.g. under a bridge) but on closer viewing had decaying flesh and long claw like hands. IT was sinister and unsettling, so to me it sounds like they totally 'got the point of IT'. IT's ability to lure in children was not about handing out balloons or looking friendly. IT sort of hypnotised it's target while scaring the sh*t out of the child (for added flavour :P).

ancapailldorcha

Bacchus wrote: »

What do you mean by this? A sequel should be out by 2019. Are you suggesting they should have been filmed back to back and released closer together?

Ideally, especially given that the cast will be almost entirely different.

Bacchus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Ideally, especially given that the cast will be almost entirely different.

I guess it was too much of a risk to film back to back. King adaptions are more miss than hit. It'd have been very unusual to do it that way anyway... particularly for a horror movie.

MrStuffins

Watched this last night and loved it. I was afraid it would just be a generic jump-scare fest but it was so much more than that.

People giving out about the jump-scares are being overly critical IMO. If they're saying the movie "relied" on these, they must not have been paying attention to the other elements of "horror" haunting the kids, like Bev's father for example.

It was very very well acted I thought and Skarsgard did a great job of "Michael Scott"ing this, in putting his own stamp on a character while staying completely away from an original pair of shoes that were (literally in this case) way too big to fill!

About 30 mins from the end, a patron from the row directly in front of mine left briefly and returned in a full creepy clown costume. Some thought it was funny, some didn't. A girl in my row literally left in terror and never returned :pac:

Very good movie and highly recommended.

8/10

razorblunt

Really liked this, currently reading the book.
I thought the jump scares weren't needed as the film itself was quite unsettling in its own right.

The adults were more monsters at time than IT! Loved the fact it was shot from the kids point of view and gradually raised while their confidence grew. The actors playing the kids were fantastic.

the purple tin

Would recommend after seeing it last night.
Has some good laughs some good scares and a dollop of childhood angst.
The new Pennywise actor has gone his own way rather than trying to copy Tim Curry and he turns in a great performance, super creepy.
The kids in the film are excellent and hopefully they will get more work through this in future. The adult actors in part 2 will have a hard act to follow.
Apart from the 80's setting this version stuck more closely to the book than the old tv movie, for instance, the bathroom cleanup and the well house on neibolt street didn't feature in the tv one. This film also tried briefly to address the idea that It had some sort of control over the adults of Derry that made them so unhelpful or hostile to the kids. More backstory on Pennywise (flashback to the slaughter of the gangster couple for instance) would have been nice, but they might do that in the second part.

Some parts really put the wind up me, The scene where Bill follows Georgie down into the basement, that Scene where the Aerosol and zippo bully chases Ben into the storm drains and the creepy projector in the garage scene.
The town of Derry looks perfect, just like in King's books. Overall a great film that drags a little at one point but lets rip again toward the end. I can't wait to see the second chapter.