Just read that the sequel will have some flashbacks/supplemental scenes with the kids, so some
of my fears of how they split it up are sufficed.
of my fears of how they split it up are sufficed.
Stephen King's IT (2017) (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vee
- Start date
I thought IT was just okay.
Well-- better than okay, it was competent, decent, well-made, looked great, and solid... which is a lot done right for a big studio horror release... and it's box office is helping the horror industry like WHOA-- all good news. But that's the problem-- it's a mainstream horror film, so in terms of horror, it took the path of least resistance.
A lot of the best horror films decide from the start that LESS is MORE. It, from the script, to the scares, to the music, to everything, decided that MORE was MORE. We get fully Pennywise glory in the first sequence, removing any real mystery. From there, you get the same three scares over and over and it neuters them.
Honestly, the bully and Bev's dad were the scariest things in the movie because I didn't know what they were going to do next. Pennywise became the same beat over and over.
The kids were great though, and their character moments carried me over most of the flaws. They better cast the hell out of the adult parts for Part 2 or it'll be in trouble.
Well-- better than okay, it was competent, decent, well-made, looked great, and solid... which is a lot done right for a big studio horror release... and it's box office is helping the horror industry like WHOA-- all good news. But that's the problem-- it's a mainstream horror film, so in terms of horror, it took the path of least resistance.
A lot of the best horror films decide from the start that LESS is MORE. It, from the script, to the scares, to the music, to everything, decided that MORE was MORE. We get fully Pennywise glory in the first sequence, removing any real mystery. From there, you get the same three scares over and over and it neuters them.
Honestly, the bully and Bev's dad were the scariest things in the movie because I didn't know what they were going to do next. Pennywise became the same beat over and over.
The kids were great though, and their character moments carried me over most of the flaws. They better cast the hell out of the adult parts for Part 2 or it'll be in trouble.
Monkey67
Sr Member
I'm still laughing at the one point when mike is getting beat up at the creek. pennywise is just sitting in the bushes eating the little kids arm. Next they show mike noticing Pennywise off to the side watching everything. pennywise smiles at mike while using the little hand to wave "Hi" to him.
Gimpdiggity
Master Member
Saw the film today. Loved it.
To me it played very similarly to "Stranger Things," which is a very, very good thing. I found it to be less of a horror film and more of a tense drama...however I don't scare easily at all and can't think of much that has actually scared me in films.
I thought the acting, visuals, and overall tone of the film to be really solid. It had just enough comedy to keep it from ever being overly serious.
If if there is one thing that I would have liked to see is SOME form of explanation as to what It is. It's been YEARS since I watched the TV mini-series, and I can't even remember reading the book it's been so long. If I recall, in the book doesn't the narrator shift and end up actually being It to describe what It is?? Now I certainly wouldn't have wanted that, but I thought just a tiny bit of exposition on that front would have been good. I was kind of a cow ting Bev to tell Bill something she had seen while she was floating...I thought that would have taken care of that aspect for me nicely.
To me it played very similarly to "Stranger Things," which is a very, very good thing. I found it to be less of a horror film and more of a tense drama...however I don't scare easily at all and can't think of much that has actually scared me in films.
I thought the acting, visuals, and overall tone of the film to be really solid. It had just enough comedy to keep it from ever being overly serious.
If if there is one thing that I would have liked to see is SOME form of explanation as to what It is. It's been YEARS since I watched the TV mini-series, and I can't even remember reading the book it's been so long. If I recall, in the book doesn't the narrator shift and end up actually being It to describe what It is?? Now I certainly wouldn't have wanted that, but I thought just a tiny bit of exposition on that front would have been good. I was kind of a cow ting Bev to tell Bill something she had seen while she was floating...I thought that would have taken care of that aspect for me nicely.
Last edited:
Gimpdiggity
Master Member
I'm sorry. I meant to edit my first post.
Gimpdiggity
Master Member
I thought Mike reloaded it after Henry shot it at him then dropped the REST of the cartridges. That's why it worked the first time but then didn't again.
Also, did they say that Bev killed her dad? I was under the impression she just cold clocked him and was going to live with her aunt.
Last edited:
Yeah, Mike reloaded it after Henry, and Bill used the one shot on Pennywise when he was disguised as Georgie. But then, after Pennywise changed back to normal, Bill held the bolt-gun up to his head again. Mike started muttering that the gun wasn't loaded, but Bill didn't appear to hear him. Bill fired the empty gun, believing it had another shot in it, and because of that belief, it actually worked on Pennywise. I thought that was a fine idea, a nice shortcut around melting the silver dollar for the werewolf in the book and Eddie believing that his inhaler was acid, but the filmmakers then totally ignored it.
As for Bev's dad, yeah, I did not assume he was dead. Just severely wounded. IIRC, he dies before Bev returns to Derry as an adult, so he's not around in the "adult" storyline either way.
mkstewartesq
Sr Member
Well, I made that statement, and I figured (assumed, perhaps incorrectly) that he was dead because (i) "pool of blood spreading around the head" is usually film-speak for "dead"; (ii) Beverly mentioned moving away at the end to live with relatives (which could be indicative of a dead dad/no parents, or just that she and her dad that she just beat the crap out of are not on good terms ATM), and (iii) the Wikipedia (I know, I know) summary for the film. as well as the Stepehn King Wiki (I know) stated that she killed him. But I've not seen any "official" statement that she killed him.
M
Gimpdiggity
Master Member
See I viewed the second shot as just Pennywise playing it up because Bill didn't know the gun wasn't loaded. I felt that it was Pennywise...excuse the pun...clowning around in order to make Bill THINK it had done something, when in reality it hadn't.
Wikipedia's summary currently says that she "incapacitated" him.
I dont know, maybe it's just me, but I didn't see that as her killing him at all. They even showed him moving a bit and grumbling after he hit the floor.
mkstewartesq
Sr Member
So it's been changed since the weekend. Probably for the best. You know - I read something recently about some film (which I hadn't seen yet at the time) that made a specific reference to "so we added a groan in editing to make clear the person wasn't dead'. I honestly can't remember if that article might have been about It. Could've been.
M
I didn't get the whole "if you believe . . ." thing from that scene either. I think poor editing is to blame. It's a shame they didn't play that aspect of the story up more since it is pretty integral to the core of good vs evil in this story.
MrSouthpaw
Sr Member
This movie was a mixed bag. The Losers forming and the stuff outside the scares was great.
There was very little that was scary here. Jump-scares and startles are not horror. Mostly, I found Pennywise unintentionally funny. Bev's father and the bully were far scarier.
In the clown room. Lower-left of the coffin. I think that clown-statue was a Curry homage.
There was very little that was scary here. Jump-scares and startles are not horror. Mostly, I found Pennywise unintentionally funny. Bev's father and the bully were far scarier.
In the clown room. Lower-left of the coffin. I think that clown-statue was a Curry homage.
MooCriket
Master Member
Penny wise almost took the form of...Freddy Krueger! Man, I would have loved that.
http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/3...sidered-pennywise-taking-form-freddy-krueger/
http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/3...sidered-pennywise-taking-form-freddy-krueger/
That's funny, because the "if you believe..." thing was instantly the first thing I thought of with the second bolt-gun shot. I thought this scene was their "movie shorthand" for the silver-dollar slugs and the inhaler-as-acid.
As you said, it's pretty integral to the story. Which made me all the more puzzled that it wasn't emphasized more. Especially since they made more than one reference to Bill's bike being named "Silver," and how the bike and the "belief" angle both play into saving Audra.
Which reminds me - what kid in 1988 is going to name his bike after something from "The Lone Ranger"? '58, makes perfect sense. '88, no way.
Monkey67
Sr Member
Maybe it's a Nod to "Silver Bullet" which came out in 85. The kids likely saw that movie in their theater. That was sweet motorcycle / wheel chair. Plus it's also a SK book. But kids thought of bikes as their horses. Can't say I know too many other horses from tv who had names. What would you call your bike Mr.Ed or Silver?
I think it begs the question to assume kids in 1989 would necessarily name their bikes after any horse, much less one from a TV series that had been defunct for 30 years. I would argue that "The Lone Ranger" was not even a nominal part of the tween zeitgeist in 1989. Kids had long since moved past playing "cowboys and Indians".
Maybe there's an explanation later - the bike originally belonged to Bill's dad, who would have grown up at the height of "The Lone Ranger"'s popularity and would have named his bike "Silver" - but as it stands in the film, it's an odd anachronism.
mkstewartesq
Sr Member
Well, you make a good point, and isn’t there even a little more to it than that? In some of the scenes where he is riding the bike, can’t you also hear him faintly yelling “hi-yo, Silver -AWAY!”? Pretty sure you can – but then again, I’ve also re-watched the miniseries recently, so maybe I am just mentally confusing them. In any event, I was born in 1968 and my only exposure to the Lone Ranger was on crappy local stations up to about 1974 ( I remember my dad and I discussing then when I was around four or five). Since then, I don’t believe I have ever even seen reruns available on TV. So definitely an anachronism in 1988.
M
You caught that too?! :thumbsup
:lol That was the only time I and my friends "Jumped" on this film.
It amazes me so many people were scared by this film, I was falling asleep for most of it! :lol
:lol That was the only time I and my friends "Jumped" on this film.
It amazes me so many people were scared by this film, I was falling asleep for most of it! :lol
I remember there being an animated Lone Ranger show in the 80s and even a live action movie. I know it wasn't super popular, but that could explain for keeping that reference in this version.
Similar threads
