IT 2017 reviews are coming out...

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Casual Shinji:

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.

Pretty much. The new IT is a master of building suspense but generally fails when it comes to the horror climaxes.

It goes to say though, that pennywise is never supposed to -pass- as a normal person. He's never not creepy, though he can be disarming when he wants (Like his jokes with Georgie before he kills him)

Also, it's kinda interesting in a way because the new movie implies there was a human version of pennywise first, that IT took a liking to. His cart is at the base of It's trophy collection. I wonder what made some cosmic lovecraftian horror creature take his appearance and style.

undeadsuitor:
It goes to say though, that pennywise is never supposed to -pass- as a normal person. He's never not creepy, though he can be disarming when he wants (Like his jokes with Georgie before he kills him)

Yeah, but that's where him just showing up comes into play. You take the scene with Georgie, and what makes it really creepy and off is that there's what appears to be just a regular clown peering out of a storm drain. You take the new movie and his eyes are glowing, he's got sharp, yellow front teeth, he's got and evil grin -- it's like, why bother even being a clown?

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.

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.

King was clearly writing with this in mind. He really did not have to though. To be honest, him being on a heroin binge is more charitable than me contending he was going for soft core child porn, which by every definition I have read this is. It made sense in context. it making sense in context does not pass any smell check in making it defensible.

Piers Anthony has written some weird shit too. But I'm not attacking or defending him. I'm commenting on the necessity of a preteen gang bang in a coming of age style loovecraftian horror book. I won't say censor it. I'm not really into censorship. But there is way more time dedicated to describing preteen cock in that book than is healthy for a grown man to be doing.

Casual Shinji:

undeadsuitor:
It goes to say though, that pennywise is never supposed to -pass- as a normal person. He's never not creepy, though he can be disarming when he wants (Like his jokes with Georgie before he kills him)

Yeah, but that's where him just showing up comes into play. You take the scene with Georgie, and what makes it really creepy and off is that there's what appears to be just a regular clown peering out of a storm drain. You take the new movie and his eyes are glowing, he's got sharp, yellow front teeth, he's got and evil grin -- it's like, why bother even being a clown?

more or less. when he's talking to Georgie his eyes are blue and his fangs are buck teeth. the 2017 movie actually does a lot more than the 1990 one to have pennywise be...nice to him at first (the actual scene in the movie is much longer than the trailer cut)

but you're right, it's kinda pointless for IT to be a clown, other than the fact that IT kinda wants to me? faceless horror gotta be a faceless horror

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.

actually, it's not at all what is written in the book. IT is my absolute fetish book, i dont why, but i readed it... so many times that i lost count. i was maybe 8 or 9 when i first read it. i dont really why i liked that book that much. i guess that i could relate to bev because i'm a redhead, and that it was probably the first book that i've read with a main caracter that pretty much looked like me and that was my age.

i've seen maybe 10 minutes of the mini-series, but i couldnt watch it because the caracters were so far away from what i had in mind of what they should like that i couldnt bare watching it.

i know i'm going to see this one, because it seems to me that it's a better adaptation, and since i've try to watch the mini-serie i've learned to like book adaptation in movies without comparing them to the books.

ok, so on the pre-teen sex. the whole story is about magic circle. each of the loosers have the strenght to resist pennywise individually, but together they can fight it. and they know, they feel when the circle is complete, they feel that the magic is working around them without really knowing how it work. they know their friendship is olding the circle togheter and that their friendship is fuel by their experience against pennywise, and the revenche Bill is seeking for his brother. they feel that they need to accumulate magic, and they goes through a lots of passage rites. the whole book is about rites of passage, how we leave infancy to become adult. However, after defeating IT, the magic that was culminating around them, and the cohesion of their circle was suddently gone. they were panicked not because of IT, but because the suddent disparition of the magic. Bev decided that be having sex with all of them was a way to reforme the magic that was holding their group, because sex is a rite of passage. after that, they gained just enough magic to get out of the sewer system. to be honest, that part of the book is like, what, fewer than 2 pages in a 1000+ pages book ? and it's not that graphic.

Also pennywise is never suppose to look normal. first everyone see it differently, depending on their own fear. thed clown is IT main disguise, and it stays a least a bit in every other form he take (usually orange pompom and some silver somewhere), but every single person that claim to have seen IT, even adults says that they were afraid of the clown and that they felt uncomfortable with him. so the new appearance of pennywise in the movie seems actually more in the tone of the book than tim curry's pennywise.

finally, i'm not so sure that they could do the adult time line in a second movie. the main story is the children timeline. if you remove the 50's stuff from the book, there's not much left. not enough material for a movie i think. but have the two timeline in a single movie was probably too much, so i think it was actually a good decision to remove completely the adult timeline. but agai i've not seen the movie yet, so i dont know how much they left out that they could used later...

I saw It in theaters today. It was OK.

I have seen the miniseries. It was forgettable. All I remember was being really disappointed with the ending.

This It was pretty slick. Not scary at all. It had some humor. I thought the performance of Pennywise was really good. Other than that, I probably wouldn't feel that bad if I had skipped it. I would have, but there was nothing really good playing in theaters right now. It had to do.

I didn't intentionally tried to put the word "It" that many times. I just went with...it.

Saw it a few hours ago. I liked it. Different to other new horror movies. Also a Stephen King adaption that isnt ridiculous and stupid. One thing, minor spoilers ish. Who in the fuck has a picture like that in their office? That's fucking haunting. As a child I was afraid of large portrait painting cause I felt the eyes were following. SCREW THAT!!! Pennywise would have fucked my head with that.

Speaking of Pennywise, love him. Cant wait for part 2. Those damn Skarsgard's and their talent.

Once again another cinema experience with a horror movie ruined a bit by talking teens and phones that can't stay hidden for two FUCKING HOURS!! Shoulda gone in the morning.

ok i finally saw it yesterday. here's what i think.

it's a ok adaptation of the book, and it's a great movie by itself. I understand why they cut both the adult timeline and the interdimentional/mystic parts of the book. there's a lot of easter eggs for those who have read the book. The caracters are very well adapted from the book, and the most iconic part of the book are in it. maybe they should explain that it is bound in the form he his, and that's why if in werewolf form, silver can kill him, and that It doesnt actually have to eat children but he's obligated to do so because it's a by product of the various monster form he take. but i'm not so sure they take this in consideration in the movie

now i will put a spoiler here

i give it a solid 8/10

Saw the movie earlier today. I enjoyed it. Really intense, good pacing, great performances, and some really affecting emotional moments. The build up of the encounters with IT were suitably tense and spooky. The imagery was more disturbing than truly horrifying, though I'm also the kind of guy who finds horror in more understated works. The one shot we got of the three lights leads me to hope that they'll really knuckle down on the cosmic horror elements in the second movie.

**Spoilers Abound Children!**
Okay so a little late to the party, but I finally got around to seeing this tonight. Yeah yeah, its been a few weeks, but between the protests here in St. Louis, and that spider thing last weekend, its been busy.

So me and the guys finally brought in some cheep booze and went to see this. And oh me oh my! This move is something special!
Its not good in the traditional sense, i.e. with a coherent story, good execution, threatening antagonist, good actors, etc...no, this is Plan 9 from Outspace good. This is My Science Project good. This is Robot Jox good.
This is a corny, terribly acted 80s B-movie "horror" magnificent train wreck!

Let's get the obvious out of the way. Pennywise. He's so fucking over the top and deliberately not silly its impossible not to laugh at everything he says. His first dialogue with Jordi I was bursting out laughing. He sounds like an SS officer promising a Jewish kid there's free candy inside this gun barrel. There was no effort to seem even remotely not demonic evil clown. I'm surprised they even bothered to have him speak - just bite the kids arm and call it good.
Through the movie he's a scene stealer, true. But its sooo goofy, sooo poorly done, and that smile makes him look like a beaver in white-face! And his voice was always so deep and resonate it sounded like Darth Vader trying to do stand-up.

The kids were...okay. For kids. Meaning they're not great actors, but its not really fair to hold it against them. Their dialogue is terrible - obviously written by 40 something who have no idea how teens act or talk. Sentences and conclusions that no 13 year old would draw, from situations no teen would be in. The new kid spends his time during summer researching clown related mass killing in Derry...for no reason. A librarian hands him a book on I guess old pictures of Pennywise and boom! There we go, horrible exposition for no reason. Gotta shoe-horn in that backstory somewhere, might as well have the CSI kid already be a historian specializing in centuries long mass missing persons cases.
Beverly Crusher is okay if binary - she has two facial expressions, scared(which she does pull off very well) and died 7 days ago and no-one told her.
The kid who told jokes...oh man, and I thought Seth Green was bad! He's impossible! Telling puns and jokes that in no way seem realistic. He sounds less like a kid fighting a demon clown, and more like an actor deliberately trying to make an out-take for the DVD release.
The black kid is there. Kinda' weird that the only black kid is the one who brings a gun to the final showdown, but whatever. Maybe its in the book and I don't remember the bolt-stunner.
The other kids are decent, if completely token. The Jewish kid is afraid of a Modigliani painting? Why?
Also I love how they all promise to stay together for safety, then run off on their own for no reason other than the story really needed them to run off for no reason.
Like the ending in the sewers I couldn't follow at all. Kids were just appearing in different locations, but the locations were real, but the kids were magically teleported there, but also stumbled there blindly, and well....Gabby Hayes is heavily involved.
The bullies are standard Stephen King bullies - no redeemable traits, just 100% assholes for no reason.

The adults are baffling. There doesn't seem to be a single sane one in the entire mix. I get that the losers are just that, losers. Their family lives are fucked up. Sure, good, great. Even the bullies, as technically characters, have fucked up families...ish. But everyone else acts in this bizarre Pennywise is real and we're in on it, and a we don't know anything. I mean at one point a red balloon appears in a car. What's that mean? Pennywise controls the adults? All the kids are Pennywise's children? The adults help Pennywise?
Granted its a Stephen King novel, and he's never met a single person in his life, but still...I would have hoped one of the writers had. It would have been less awkward if all the adults just said 'Its a spooky clown movie, roll with it!'

Loads of plot holes. Enough plot holes for a giant space spider to fit in! How are the new kids's parents okay with him getting carved apart so often? The hypochondriac mother doesn't believe the kids they were attacked, nor care another kid is literally holding his guts in in front of her? Also props on the fat kid for his endurance. I haven't seen that level of wound ignoring since Starship Troopers when Carmen hugged her friends with a shoulder with an 8' hole in it.
Does no-one care the chick killed her dad?
Doesn't the bully survive? I could have sworn he lives...
What, the parents still think the kids are lying about Pennywise when they show up with deep gouges and other impossible wounds?
Do they bury the kids from the sewers? They clearly show all the bodies floating down - do none of the losers inform the police? They can literally bring the bodies of a dozen kids to prove their case and...nothing?

Like I said this is an amazing movie. Everything that could have gone wrong went wrong! Its the perfect mixture of comedy and 80s cheese!

Was it a good movie? Yes.
Was it scary at all? Not really. It felt like the movie tried to be more unnverving the actually frightening. It actually reminded me more of 80's movies where kids are main characters (see Goonies).

Silentpony:

The bullies are standard Stephen King bullies - no redeemable traits, just 100% assholes for no reason.

For no reason? The main bully has a father he seems to be terrified of. If that doesn't twist a person's moral compass, what will?

The adults are baffling. There doesn't seem to be a single sane one in the entire mix. I get that the losers are just that, losers. Their family lives are fucked up. Sure, good, great. Even the bullies, as technically characters, have fucked up families...ish. But everyone else acts in this bizarre Pennywise is real and we're in on it, and a we don't know anything. I mean at one point a red balloon appears in a car. What's that mean? Pennywise controls the adults? All the kids are Pennywise's children? The adults help Pennywise?

Pennywise is in control of Derry and the adults living there. If It wants them to forget something they saw, it happens. That is why people haven't left Derry because of its dark past. Pennywise doesn't allow it, atleast not in huge numbers. It wants an endless source of food, so It makes the adults rather passive, ready to look the other way when something awful happens.

As for the balloon in the car. Maybe It is using its influence that the driver doesn't intervene in what the bullies are doing. And that is represented by a red balloon? Remember, It loves fear, so making Ben even more scared by seeing adults who don't care what happens to him, makes sense

Doesn't the bully survive? I could have sworn he lives...

Maybe they're making the bully a sewer lurker in the sequel who cares for It's needs while It's still healing from It's wounds? *shrugs*

What, the parents still think the kids are lying about Pennywise when they show up with deep gouges and other impossible wounds?

Maybe they don't see the wounds, or see them as something else? Remember Beverly's blood scene? Remember how her father reacted?

Do they bury the kids from the sewers? They clearly show all the bodies floating down - do none of the losers inform the police? They can literally bring the bodies of a dozen kids to prove their case and...nothing?

Good question. I have no idea, I'm not even sure if they're all dead.

It's a bit late, but I just got back from seeing it. I thought it was pretty bad.

Jute88:

Do they bury the kids from the sewers? They clearly show all the bodies floating down - do none of the losers inform the police? They can literally bring the bodies of a dozen kids to prove their case and...nothing?

Good question. I have no idea, I'm not even sure if they're all dead.

They're almost certainly dead. They say in the movie the only reason Beverly's not dead is because she wasn't afraid. Pretty sure everyone else was terrified.

 Pages PREV 1 2

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