IT 2017 reviews are coming out...

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

And looking...mostly positive so far?

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/it_2017/ 92%

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1396484/ 8.6/10

Both aggregate scores subject to the whims of change, but not by me because I'm not going to keep updating this damn thing without pay.

http://www.empireonline.com/movies/stephen-king-2017/review/

So, has anybody got plans to see this? What do you think of the original and/or the book?
Personally, I...haven't seen or read either yet, somehow the only person to have failed in that. But am quite highly interested in this.

I'm very curious, but I feel like they've...missed the point of Pennywise? He wasn't supposed to be scary. At least not so...blatantly. He was supposed to be a funny, loving, joke telling, scene stealing goofy clown...who just happens to eat children.
He's not supposed to be scary the first time, and the kids are supposed to think he's funny until he's really not.

But I saw a clip of the scene where he has the boat and the little bro is all 'Oh hey, its a horrible killer clown! That's not good!' when he should be giggling his pants off, 'cause there's a puntastic clown telling jokes.

Maybe they're just bowing to the zeitgeist that clowns are scary?

Looking forward to this.

I liked the novel, but I'm actually a bigger fan of the mini series (except the ending of both, but whatever).

altnameJag:
Maybe they're just bowing to the zeitgeist that clowns are scary?

But its supposed to be set in the 1950s, before said zeitgeist was a thing! These kids aren't supposed to have access to creepy-pasta and Killer Clowns from Outerspace.

Silentpony:

altnameJag:
Maybe they're just bowing to the zeitgeist that clowns are scary?

But its supposed to be set in the 1950s, before said zeitgeist was a thing! These kids aren't supposed to have access to creepy-pasta and Killer Clowns from Outerspace.

1980s for this one (it does say in the OP). Must it be constricted to a previous performance? Sounds like another Mark Hamill's Joker.

Xsjadoblayde:

Silentpony:

altnameJag:
Maybe they're just bowing to the zeitgeist that clowns are scary?

But its supposed to be set in the 1950s, before said zeitgeist was a thing! These kids aren't supposed to have access to creepy-pasta and Killer Clowns from Outerspace.

1980s for this one (it does say in the OP). Must it be constricted to a previous performance? Sounds like another Mark Hamill's Joker.

Constricted?! To the source material?! Yeah, probably a good idea. The book is set alternatively in the 50s where they're kids, and the 80s when they're slightly bigger, hairier kids.

Silentpony:

Xsjadoblayde:

Silentpony:

But its supposed to be set in the 1950s, before said zeitgeist was a thing! These kids aren't supposed to have access to creepy-pasta and Killer Clowns from Outerspace.

1980s for this one (it does say in the OP). Must it be constricted to a previous performance? Sounds like another Mark Hamill's Joker.

Constricted?! To the source material?! Yeah, probably a good idea. The book is set alternatively in the 50s where they're kids, and the 80s when they're slightly bigger, hairier kids.

image
Either you've never experienced an adaptation before or you're being needlessly begrudging towards anything new, like my grandad was before his untimely, unfortunate and grisly death.
Also, this adaptation is focusing solely on the kid timeline, which is definitely explained in the OP. Do you ever read these things before posting dismissively?

Xsjadoblayde:
SNIP

Not dismissive. But its bonkers to think the 1950s part was from a previous performance, when its central to the original story. Its in the book, which the 1990s movie took its source from.
Its like saying 'Oh sure, have the Shawshank Redemption take place in a prison! How repetitive and cliche!'

Adaptions yadda yadda, who cares. Set it in whatever retro time period your audience thinks is retro. But the book being set in the 1905s and the movie being set in the 1950s wasn't a fluke or coincidence.

But does it have the pre-teen orgy, though?

PsychedelicDiamond:
But does it have the pre-teen orgy, though?

No, I read they explicitly called out that they didn't put that in this version.

Silentpony:
I'm very curious, but I feel like they've...missed the point of Pennywise? He wasn't supposed to be scary. At least not so...blatantly. He was supposed to be a funny, loving, joke telling, scene stealing goofy clown...who just happens to eat children.
He's not supposed to be scary the first time, and the kids are supposed to think he's funny until he's really not.

But I saw a clip of the scene where he has the boat and the little bro is all 'Oh hey, its a horrible killer clown! That's not good!' when he should be giggling his pants off, 'cause there's a puntastic clown telling jokes.

Well if that's the case, then the original movie with Tim Curry got it wrong too. He was always creepy as hell.

Happyninja42:

Silentpony:
I'm very curious, but I feel like they've...missed the point of Pennywise? He wasn't supposed to be scary. At least not so...blatantly. He was supposed to be a funny, loving, joke telling, scene stealing goofy clown...who just happens to eat children.
He's not supposed to be scary the first time, and the kids are supposed to think he's funny until he's really not.

But I saw a clip of the scene where he has the boat and the little bro is all 'Oh hey, its a horrible killer clown! That's not good!' when he should be giggling his pants off, 'cause there's a puntastic clown telling jokes.

Well if that's the case, then the original movie with Tim Curry got it wrong too. He was always creepy as hell.

Oh come on! He was hysterical!


The dude may have been a child eating space spider, but he was the best ham and cheese sammich of the 90s!

Silentpony:
I'm very curious, but I feel like they've...missed the point of Pennywise? He wasn't supposed to be scary. At least not so...blatantly. He was supposed to be a funny, loving, joke telling, scene stealing goofy clown...who just happens to eat children.
He's not supposed to be scary the first time, and the kids are supposed to think he's funny until he's really not.

Yeah. I like how Pennywise's expression could change on a dime. That was the biggest strength of the original. One moment he looked like this harmless doofus and then the next moment he could look like something genuinely terrifying crept into him.

The new It looks way too stylized and slick to be even remotely scary in my opinion. Pennywise looks like the cliche scary clown. There is no mystery or ambiguity to the character anymore or anything that gave the original It such an atmosphere of lingering dread and anxiety.

The new It looks like the typical high-budget overproduced crap though I haven't seen it yet so ofcourse it can still surprise. :p

Silentpony:
I'm very curious, but I feel like they've...missed the point of Pennywise? He wasn't supposed to be scary. At least not so...blatantly. He was supposed to be a funny, loving, joke telling, scene stealing goofy clown...who just happens to eat children.
He's not supposed to be scary the first time, and the kids are supposed to think he's funny until he's really not.

But I saw a clip of the scene where he has the boat and the little bro is all 'Oh hey, its a horrible killer clown! That's not good!' when he should be giggling his pants off, 'cause there's a puntastic clown telling jokes.

I've read the book two times and from what I recall Pennywise really only does the whole nice clown thing once maybe twice. Most of the time he just cuts out the middle man and goes for pure terror right off the bat. He only really chooses a clown form because clowns are just unsettling as is. With that being said, I agree that the preview made his encounter with Georgie waaaaay to blatant on the horror front. I'll make a full judgement when I see the movie this weekend.

Silentpony:

Xsjadoblayde:
SNIP

Not dismissive. But its bonkers to think the 1950s part was from a previous performance, when its central to the original story. Its in the book, which the 1990s movie took its source from.
Its like saying 'Oh sure, have the Shawshank Redemption take place in a prison! How repetitive and cliche!'

Adaptions yadda yadda, who cares. Set it in whatever retro time period your audience thinks is retro. But the book being set in the 1905s and the movie being set in the 1950s wasn't a fluke or coincidence.

I don't think that it being set in the late 1950's had a whole bunch of bearing in the book other then it was written in the early 80's and didn't have a lot of time periods to use. For the most part I think it being now set in the 80's now is still close enough to the late 50's/60's in terms of technology to be able to keep the story one to one. Just my opinion though.

Silentpony:
I'm very curious, but I feel like they've...missed the point of Pennywise? He wasn't supposed to be scary. At least not so...blatantly. He was supposed to be a funny, loving, joke telling, scene stealing goofy clown...who just happens to eat children.
He's not supposed to be scary the first time, and the kids are supposed to think he's funny until he's really not.

The problem, it seems, is that you're expecting a redo of the 'original' acted version. In the books, Pennywise is only non-threatening peripherally (To people uninvolved in whats going on, mostly adults) or to the lunatics that Pennywise frequently manipulates to set up the tragedies that occur (Most of which are already so bonkers that they wouldn't recognize their own toes, let alone the monster that is Pennywise). To everyone else, he's almost always instantly recognized for what he is - something creepy at best, and murderous at worst. Even the first toddler he kills in the book is wary of him at first glance, and has to be convinced he's not dangerous (Which he is).

In short, Pennywise spends the majority of his time monstrous, and it's actually an exception when he's not.

BreakfastMan:

PsychedelicDiamond:
But does it have the pre-teen orgy, though?

No, I read they explicitly called out that they didn't put that in this version.

Say it ain't so! I wonder where all those people who complain about 'media censorship' are now. Probably too busy bitching about a titty being covered to come champion this cause.

PsychedelicDiamond:
But does it have the pre-teen orgy, though?

I have never read It or watched its adaptions. Please tell me this is a joke?

crimsonshrouds:

PsychedelicDiamond:
But does it have the pre-teen orgy, though?

I have never read It or watched its adaptions. Please tell me this is a joke?

Nope.

In the context of the book, it makes more sense. I mean, it's still gross, and I don't know how much paint thinner King was huffing at the time to make it seem like a good idea, but it makes more sense.

EDIT: If it makes a difference, its not so much an orgy as it is a train. I mean, it's doesn't really make a difference, but it is what it is.

BreakfastMan:

PsychedelicDiamond:
But does it have the pre-teen orgy, though?

No, I read they explicitly called out that they didn't put that in this version.

And here I was getting my hopes up.

crimsonshrouds:

PsychedelicDiamond:
But does it have the pre-teen orgy, though?

I have never read It or watched its adaptions. Please tell me this is a joke?

I'm being dead serious. So, the story is, when they were, like, 11 years old they had their first encounter with the monster in the sewers of their town. And... I don't remember it perfectly but their was this part where they had to strengthen their bond, right? And there was one girl among them. So the story is, the girl let them take turns dicking her down in the sewers and after this heartwarming rite of passage they could finally get out.

It was one of the most batshit insane and utterly disturbing sections in Stephen Kings entire work, simply because there seemed to be absoluty no awareness at all on King's part how fucked up it was what he was writing. For some inexplicable reasons all adaptations left that part out though I couod hardly think of a scene more deserving to be adapted to the big screen.

I am a little worried about the personality of Pennywise compared to the Tim Curry version. The best thing about Steven King is that particular villain type he has. That cocky, arrogant, monster type. E.G Leland Gaunt, Barlow and Straker, Mr. Grey, etc. I think Tim Curry captured that better than the new guy has. But I'll have to wait and see.

DefunctTheory:

EDIT: If it makes a difference, its not so much an orgy as it is a train. I mean, it's doesn't really make a difference, but it is what it is.

Thank you for clearing that up. We can now all sleep soundly in our beds.

Having seen it on release night (future land of Australia, so yesterday for me), I can say that I never found it scary, though the film was really well put together and I was never once bored. It's one of my favourite films of the year so far, but Pennywise had nothing to do with that. The Banter between the kids was consistent and hilarious, you really got attached to them. Genuinely one of the funniest movies I've seen all year and a lot of that comes from just how real and natural the kids' shit talk was.

Baron_BJ:
Having seen it on release night (future land of Australia, so yesterday for me), I can say that I never found it scary, though the film was really well put together and I was never once bored. It's one of my favourite films of the year so far, but Pennywise had nothing to do with that. The Banter between the kids was consistent and hilarious, you really got attached to them. Genuinely one of the funniest movies I've seen all year and a lot of that comes from just how real and natural the kids' shit talk was.

Yes, this. My wife and I saw a special early showing of it last night. We had assigned seats with reclining chairs that vibrate and everything. I'd never done that before and it was really cool.

Anyway, I didn't really find it terribly scary either. This may be because I've seen so many horror movies over the years, but I could see how a younger me might find it scary. It was however very entertaining. It was very well paced and there was basically no down time. Also, the sound engineering folks deserve an oscar. Seeing this film in the theater is worth it for that alone.

Also, you're right. It was refreshing seeing an accurate portrayal of pretty much exactly how kids talk under no adult supervision.

Just saw it last night and thought it was pretty solid. the first half of the movie is rough and clearly just the flashback scenes put back to back to back. Each kid gets a scare, theres some plot, repeat. Once they all meet Pennywise in the house for the first time though, the movie kicks off and doesn't stop.

There's a lot of cheap jump scares, most of which go -too- far and become hilarious (georgie being taken is one) but when pennywise is allowed to be creepy it works.

I haven't read the book or seen the original version; I'm interested in the movie purely because it was made by a fellow Argie.

I'm just glad we got at least one good King adaptation this year. The Dark Tower was abominable.
Just my luck, really: the King series I love gets a shitty movie, and the King book I don't like all that much gets a really good one.

Kotaro:
I'm just glad we got at least one good King adaptation this year. The Dark Tower was abominable.
Just my luck, really: the King series I love gets a shitty movie, and the King book I don't like all that much gets a really good one.

Come on, though. You can't tell me you didn't see it coming. The Dark Tower series, whatever else it may be, is a colossal, complicated mess. It never had a prayer of being made into a good movie, unless they mutilated it to the point where it was an adaptions in name only.

Kotaro:
I'm just glad we got at least one good King adaptation this year. The Dark Tower was abominable.
Just my luck, really: the King series I love gets a shitty movie, and the King book I don't like all that much gets a really good one.

if the makers of IT had tried to squeeze the entire book into one movie, it would have been just as bad. that seems to be the main difference. Hell, they split IT into two parts and they were still rushing

Watched it yesterday. Read the book several times though it was a while back. I think I'm pretty qualified to weigh in on this both as a movie and as an adaptation.

This was an adaptation of the book, and while there were nods here and there to the 1990 mini series that's about the only relationship you will see. The makers seemed to recognise that you cannot really cram in all the elements to such a large tome into a 2 hour running time. I also like that they scaled the time span of the movie to match the current period. in that, I mean that as kids it was the 80s and as adults, it will be about now. This has problems but also assets. Now there were changes made in the movie from the original. Some of it was excusable, some not so much.

The bullies were not really all that well fleshed out and the movie killed off Patrick Hocksteader nearly immediately. As he was with the very slightly possible exception of Henry the most fucked up of the bunch i felt his inclusion into the movie on an "in name only" basis to be useless. Should have just scratched him off and gave Mike Hanlin more screen time instead. Mike was reduced to the token black. In the book, he was the historian and lighthouse keeper. His role is diminished to the point here that he was better off not included at all. It was simply disappointing. Eddie, Richie, Stan and to an extent, Beverly were spot on. Ben kinda took over Mike's role as historian which was unnecessary as he was otherwise already the smart one. Bill was diminished for some reason. He was considerably more badass in the book.

Pennywise was perfect. I saw one or two people complain that he was...in some way off as kids would not go near him. He needs to be off though. this is essentially a Lovecraftian monster masquerading as a clown. Not an actual clown so it worked. And it worked VERY well. A bit more polish on some of the adult characters would have been nice as it was rarely very clear what kind of control IT was exercising over the whole town like it eventually became in the book.

Interestingly, I read somewhere that when the sequel comes out, the director intends to splice the two movies together in directors cut have the alternating timelines like in the book.

It was an adaptation, not a copy. Things were excised that I wanted to see in there and references to the Turtle are completely absent. As is the Ritual of Chud. The fight against Pennywise boiled down to a brawl that IT lost because the kids were no longer afraid. The kids were scared shitless in the book but shielded from its effects by other forces. But then that fear being absent also allowed certain other scenes to be seamlessly ignored which is a good thing for both the censors and frankly human decency.

It actually is a really good adaptation in my opinion as well as a very good moivie in it's own right.

PsychedelicDiamond:

I'm being dead serious. So, the story is, when they were, like, 11 years old they had their first encounter with the monster in the sewers of their town. And... I don't remember it perfectly but their was this part where they had to strengthen their bond, right? And there was one girl among them. So the story is, the girl let them take turns dicking her down in the sewers and after this heartwarming rite of passage they could finally get out.

What the actual fuck

For some inexplicable reasons all adaptations left that part out though I couod hardly think of a scene more deserving to be adapted to the big screen.

I can think of a few reasons that wouldn't be put into an adaptation.

shrekfan246:

PsychedelicDiamond:

I'm being dead serious. So, the story is, when they were, like, 11 years old they had their first encounter with the monster in the sewers of their town. And... I don't remember it perfectly but their was this part where they had to strengthen their bond, right? And there was one girl among them. So the story is, the girl let them take turns dicking her down in the sewers and after this heartwarming rite of passage they could finally get out.

What the actual fuck

For some inexplicable reasons all adaptations left that part out though I couod hardly think of a scene more deserving to be adapted to the big screen.

I can think of a few reasons that wouldn't be put into an adaptation.

I can only imagine both King and his editor were flying high on the same heroin when that made its way into the manuscript and he has been bending over backwards to justify it since it hit print. It really is an example of something that maybe was not seen as being as bad in the 80s but there are actually obscenity laws in Canada that should make this print edition illegal but somehow it slipped through. I guess if you sell enough book copies there is all manner of shit you can get away with.

jklinders:

I can only imagine both King and his editor were flying high on the same heroin when that made its way into the manuscript and he has been bending over backwards to justify it since it hit print. It really is an example of something that maybe was not seen as being as bad in the 80s but there are actually obscenity laws in Canada that should make this print edition illegal but somehow it slipped through. I guess if you sell enough book copies there is all manner of shit you can get away with.

To be fair to King, in the context of the book, it makes sense. It's not something that comes out of the left field.

To be fair to reason, King's the author, and while the road that led to that scene may have made sense, he didn't have to build it that way.

This sort of thing also isn't entirely unique. There's quite a few authors that have done worse - Ever read Piers Anthony's Firefly?

If you haven't, don't.

DefunctTheory:

jklinders:

I can only imagine both King and his editor were flying high on the same heroin when that made its way into the manuscript and he has been bending over backwards to justify it since it hit print. It really is an example of something that maybe was not seen as being as bad in the 80s but there are actually obscenity laws in Canada that should make this print edition illegal but somehow it slipped through. I guess if you sell enough book copies there is all manner of shit you can get away with.

To be fair to King, in the context of the book, it makes sense. It's not something that comes out of the left field.

I would contend this, but I admittedly have not actually read the original book and thus can only use what I've read and what I've seen other people say in the wake of learning this. But I would argue that even from a position of common sense, any argument that defends the scene can be used to equally defend any alternative to the scene: why is "oh, let's have the one female character decide to let all the guys bang her" the automatic signifier of losing childhood innocence? Why is that the only thing that could bring the group together and "strengthen their bond"?

In a way I do get it, because sex is some mysterious nebulous thing that adults do when you're a child, but having sex doesn't make someone more mature or kill their innocence any more than witnessing any of the horrific things from It would. And it certainly wouldn't magically make one of the kids know how to leave the sewer they're trapped in, even allowing for a bit of suspension of disbelief because of the setting and knowing who you're reading. Shit, even the description for the scene on the Stephen King Wiki makes it sound awful:

When the Losers' travel into the sewer with the intent of destroying It, they momentarily find themselves hopelessly trapped. As the boys start to panic, Beverly comes up with the idea of having sex with the others in order to calm them down, as a result the other Losers take turns having sex with her. Because King didn't wish this to be viewed as a lewd scene, the narrative explicitly states that the act of intimacy with each of the boys' helps to further strengthen their friendship; and Beverly only experiences orgasm while having intercourse with Bill Denbrough and Ben Hanscom.

Again, I don't have the context of the actual novel, but I'm assuming that's written by somebody who did, and if that's the best way they could portray it, I'm not convinced it was a necessary scene.

This sort of thing also isn't entirely unique. There's quite a few authors that have done worse - Ever read Piers Anthony's Firefly?

Snip

If you haven't, don't.

Your image doesn't appear to work, but yeah, Piers Anthony is a special brand of shitty writer on a level mostly inhabited by people who will never be nearly as (in)famous as he ever was.

shrekfan246:

When the Losers' travel into the sewer with the intent of destroying It, they momentarily find themselves hopelessly trapped. As the boys start to panic, Beverly comes up with the idea of having sex with the others in order to calm them down, as a result the other Losers take turns having sex with her. Because King didn't wish this to be viewed as a lewd scene, the narrative explicitly states that the act of intimacy with each of the boys' helps to further strengthen their friendship; and Beverly only experiences orgasm while having intercourse with Bill Denbrough and Ben Hanscom.

Again, I don't have the context of the actual novel, but I'm assuming that's written by somebody who did, and if that's the best way they could portray it, I'm not convinced it was a necessary scene.

I'm not saying it was necessary, only that it makes sense. All the kids in the Losers Club come from heavily dysfunctional families, and most of them turn their fucked up lives and notions into weapons against it (They can make what they truly believe real). Eddie, for example, has a mother that's constantly insisting he's sick and weak, forcing him to use an aspirator for asthma he doesn't have. He's able to twist this up enough to use it as a weapon against It.

Beverly's got a physically abusive father that's sexually attracted to her. She's able to twist this up into something positive (Though massively gross and, outside the novel, morally questionable).

You're right about everything else. It's pretty unnecessary and questionable, and one could make all sorts of arguments and complaints about the woman's sole power being sex (Beverly does a lot of things in the book to keep her from being a one note sex object, but sex does seem to come up a TON with her), and how detailed the scene is when it absolutely DOES NOT need to be, and how there just had to be a better damn way, but I don't think we need to go any deeper into that at the moment.

Ever read Piers Anthony's Firefly?

Snip

If you haven't, don't.

Your image doesn't appear to work, but yeah, Piers Anthony is a special brand of shitty writer on a level mostly inhabited by people who will never be nearly as (in)famous as he ever was.

Weird. That's the third 'broken' image I've pulled off of Google in 24 hours.

stroopwafel:
Yeah. I like how Pennywise's expression could change on a dime. That was the biggest strength of the original. One moment he looked like this harmless doofus and then the next moment he could look like something genuinely terrifying crept into him.

The new It looks way too stylized and slick to be even remotely scary in my opinion. Pennywise looks like the cliche scary clown. There is no mystery or ambiguity to the character anymore or anything that gave the original It such an atmosphere of lingering dread and anxiety.

The demonic clown is kind of self defeating. By making him look straight-up evil and ghoulish you take away what makes a clown creepy; the uncanniness. Clowns look fake and unnatural, like a doll, and it's in that where the creepiness lies.

The new It looks like a decent enough creature flick, and it is nice to see an R-rated horror movie again starring kids, but from what I've seen and from Pennywise's new design it lacks any real spooky scares. It seems too loud and eager for that.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here