criterionforum.org

Why would that piss them off? Is the idea of Ronald McDonald eating children beneficial to the McD brand in Russia?

I finally saw this and thought it was pretty good. I was already too old for the mini-series to have much of an effect on me and thought it was pretty crummy back then, so this was an improvement. Whatever flaws there may be, are with King‘s source novel, which I was never a huge fan of. When a monster becomes too powerful and can pull an unlimited amount of tricks out of its hat, I find it becomes somewhat unrelatable. There is an unnecessarily over-elaborate mythology at the core of It, though the film does well in dropping a portion of the mystical alternative universe mumbo-jumbo from the book.

But Muschietti pulls off some genuinely grotesque and disturbing imagery and the scares are well staged. The changes made to the novel, omitting the weird kiddie orgy and changing the monsters from their Universal Monster template to something more weird, are improvements. I didn’t have a problem with the jump scares we all are supposed to complain about these days in horror films. The only time I hate those is when they are fake scares. This is the type of fun house style spook show for which this approach works. Most importantly, the kids were likeable and kept me invested enough to care. The girl was particularly good.

Like the new Star Wars film, the reception of It followed a now familiar pattern. Early reviews declaring it a triumph, followed by a vicious online backlash where every aspect gets picked apart. I’m glad I saw it at some distance from that. This was a great year for horror films, so I’m not sure It even cracks my top ten but I‘m looking forward to the second part.

Is IT the only King novel that has that structure of cutting off mid sentence at the end of a chapter in one timeline only to match/finish it in the opening sentence of the next chapter in another timeline? It's the only King novel I've "read" all the way through. "Read" meaning I actually just listened to the audiobook instead.

I know Muschietti plans to have the kids back in the sequel. It'd be a cool thing to see that structure carried on in film form.

black&huge wrote: Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:15 pm Is IT the only King novel that has that structure of cutting off mid sentence at the end of a chapter in one timeline only to match/finish it in the opening sentence of the next chapter in another timeline? It's the only King novel I've "read" all the way through. "Read" meaning I actually just listened to the audiobook instead.

I know Muschietti plans to have the kids back in the sequel. It'd be a cool thing to see that structure carried on in film form.

The original film still had aspects of Cary Fukunaga's original script in it so there might be some tonal shift (Despite the obvious one) in the newer film. Fukunaga's original script was absolutely nuts. Far more violent and it ended with the most absolute batshit phantasmagoria.

I'm excited to see what Muschietti does nonetheless as I quite enjoyed the first chapter.

Big Ben wrote: Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:07 pm
The original film still had aspects of Cary Fukunaga's original script in it so there might be some tonal shift (Despite the obvious one) in the newer film. Fukunaga's original script was absolutely nuts. Far more violent and it ended with the most absolute batshit phantasmagoria.

I'm excited to see what Muschietti does nonetheless as I quite enjoyed the first chapter.

The one thing I wish they kept was the concept for IT's lair and the chase leading up to it. The upside down island with the surrounding waterfalls was an incredibly imaginative thing.

Only recently saw the new It and couldn't believe how terrible it was.

The opening is stunning, truly horrifying. You would think, after that, the filmmakers would say "hey! We really got the audience by the short and curlies now! We can treat this like the opening scene to Jaws and just build up the mood now! No need for ghostly shit for another half hour at least!" But instead of using the lingering effect of that jolt to spend considerable time on building up characters and setting tone, it shifts to jump scares like every 6 minutes.

For all the corniness of the TV version, it works much better (and for some reason, the score for that version really sticks with me).

connor wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:15 pm Only recently saw the new It and couldn't believe how terrible it was.

The opening is stunning, truly horrifying. You would think, after that, the filmmakers would say "hey! We really got the audience by the short and curlies now! We can treat this like the opening scene to Jaws and just build up the mood now! No need for ghostly shit for another half hour at least!" But instead of using the lingering effect of that jolt to spend considerable time on building up characters and setting tone, it shifts to jump scares like every 6 minutes.

For all the corniness of the TV version, it works much better (and for some reason, the score for that version really sticks with me).

In fairness to Muschietti that's the way it is in the book too. That isn't an invention of the screen. I don't think that necessarily negates your criticism but I think it's important to note.

Thinking on my own memories of the book I just don't think it's possible ( Ratings, legal and budgetary reasons) to do an incredibly faithful adaptation. Muschietti didn't have a Nolan budget and it certainly showed. We'll see how much a larger works for him in the next installment.

Director Xavier Dolan will also appear in the sequel, no doubt as a favor to his BFF Chastain. Once I found out who he's playing, I couldn't deny it was spot-on casting:

Spoiler

He's playing Adrian Mellon, the first present day victim of IT / gay bashing.

I'm surprised they're including the character, as it seemed like something they'd not bother to keep, but it gives me a modicum of curious hope. Wonder if they'll keep the other interludes from the book too, especially since they're also of the zeitgeist

Kind of looks okay and then the 90s music video shutter-speed fast moving creepy garbage starts and

I was more baffled by the use of soaring superhero theme music two-thirds of the way through than anything else

No surprise here, though it might just be a bad teaser.
I thoroughly disliked the 1st movie, but am curious about how this one will turn out, since I quite like usually Chastain, McAvoy and Hader.

Was pretty decent, like everyone says, until the last 30 seconds. The chosen music was atrocious.

Someone in the midsommar thread said that movie's trailer gave away too much and was awful. Well we have here a trailer that gave away what could have been one of the most anticipated scenes redone for this version and it takes up a whole goddamn 2 minutes. Just release it as a separate clip in that case. Also it looked stupid. The last 30 seconds is all this teaser should have been.

Won't be watching the new trailer; the last few posts illustrate why I watch hardly any these days outside of a theatre. As for Part 1, I'm with connor and tenia. It was terrible, but I don't even have kind words for the opening. I was giggling from Pennywise's first appearance, and the moment when Georgie goes down the drain is a prime example of flimsy, weightless CGI totally negating a scare. The living photo album sequence or the stretchy showerheads from the original TV movie are far creepier than anything in Muschietti's film, ditto the menace of Beverly's father and Eddie's mother. The interactions exist in a kind of hyperstylized vacuum (poor phrasing perhaps, but it's what I gots) that leaves no room for discomfort tethered to any kind of recognizable reality. Whatever King's faults as a writer, he is skilled at depicting the dread and longing of youth, their interrelation, and I felt none of that here. I think it's essential to the material: there was nothing worth caring about for the creature to corrupt, or the film to preserve. Not helped by my having never been more thoroughly annoyed by a cast of young actors, though I'm willing to concede the new Richie and Stan (and the crap they have to say) may have blinded me to any virtues possessed by the rest.

Also, Steve Buscemi's 30 Rock episode did the teeth thing better

tarpilot wrote: Fri May 10, 2019 1:33 amWhatever King's faults as a writer, he is skilled at depicting the dread and longing of youth, their interrelation, and I felt none of that here. I think it's essential to the material: there was nothing worth caring about for the creature to corrupt, or the film to preserve.

That was my main issue too. It had been a veeery long time since I read the book, and I remembered it as much more atmospherical than what the movie achieved. I've never seen the TV movie, so can't compare, but the 2017 movie just felt like trying too much to do something it doesn't know how to achieve. It tries putting a vague weight on the adults but doesn't spend enough time to do so, it tries putting an atmospherical threat but relies on jump scares, it also tries "depicting the dread and longing of youth" and all it does is 5 minutes of kids playing by the river and other few similar clichés.

Whatever new or original or effective people who liked it saw in it, I didn't. It just felt like a modern take on the material that failed to do it properly, ending up with a result not too far away from other recent "blockbuster" horror films like many Conjuring-related ones (for instance).

The movie being 2h30 doesn't help.

Top YT comment

These McDonalds commercials are getting out of hand.

I liked the kind of weird calliope effect the usual fake Zimmer pounding had, but that’s about all I took away from this. Silly stuff like Pennywise having a dog’s tongue are just affirmations that this isn’t a movie I’m apt to enjoy

For those who have read the book and were curious about what creatures do and do not appear in the finale, according to people who've seen it

Spoiler

Spider: Yes; Turtle: No

domino harvey wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:16 pm For those who have read the book and were curious about what creatures do and do not appear in the finale, according to people who've seen it

Spoiler

Spider: Yes; Turtle: No

......well fuck that.

However,

Spoiler

A taxidermy (stuffed) turtle does appear on a teacher's desk for a few moments about 3/4 of the way through the film, which only adds to the inevitable letdown.

Seeing Chapter Two was an incredibly frustrating experience (endless flashbacks, useless and unnecessary grotesqueries, tonal jumps galore), which only set in stone how poorly the skeletal material of the book has aged, at least in the hands of Muschietti, and how promising the stew that became Chapter One was, sadly, a one-time event. Whereas the TV series had the time to approach this wide array of characters in a plausible, human way (Harry Anderson's Richie always was a high point then, as is Bill Hader, here), this form has no time for nuance, but plenty of time for ineffective gore in all the predisposed places. The doom is less looming, the fear less palpable, though everyone is trying their hardest to keep the party going (McAvoy's characterization almost gets there, but just barely). I kept wanting the big gestures to be bigger, the small moments smaller, but I don't even like horror movies! I do love the ideas that horror movies can induce, even when poorly executed, but seeing the Maine town overhead pullaway only reminded me of how King's adaptations always lack his spark/turn of phrase, which can make even the most implausible ideas genuinely terrifying.

I saw this last night and didn't feel it matched the tone or pacing of part 1. I'm not a huge fan of the first one but I thought it worked pretty successfully.

Chapter Two was a tedious parade of jumpscares, with nothing added to distinguish it from the first movie except the change of lead actors. A three-hour horror movie is rarely a good idea, especially when the source of the horror comes from shock cuts to scary faces and loud bursts of music. What made the first movie successful in my eyes was the environment - the town itself was a sinister presence, with every one outside the Losers' Club intent on intimidating and terrorizing the kids. They were stuck because they were kids, they had no choice but to endure their parents and the other leering adults populating the town. Everything outside of the Losers was oppressive, making their bond all the more believable. Here, the adult Losers don't deal with the town all that much except wandering around freely to relive some bad and good memories. That feeling of oppression is gone, and thinking back on it so is most of the town - outside of an adult Henry Bowers and a kid that Bill meets randomly on the street, the adults never interact with anyone else in the town. Which leaves the movie to rely on Pennywise to carry it along, but a clown widening its toothy mouth and chasing the target Loser gets old pretty fast.

Which leads me to the ending (and just like in my first review I'll highlight that I have not read the source material here):

Spoiler

The Losers gather around to chant and trap the Deadlights in an ancient vessel, except it turns out the vessel never worked and Mike just brought them all down there because he thought maybe it would work this time? What? And then the Losers end up doing the same thing they did in the first movie - make fun of Pennywise until he cowers away, but this time they kill him. It's an unspectacular and unfortunately predictable end to a movie that felt entirely superfluous.

Murdoch wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:16 am

Spoiler

Here, the adult Losers don't deal with the town all that much except wandering around freely to relive some bad and good memories. That feeling of oppression is gone, and thinking back on it so is most of the town - outside of an adult Henry Bowers and a kid that Bill meets randomly on the street, the adults never interact with anyone else in the town.

Spoiler

Yes, despite an expanded runtime compared to the miniseries, the second film’s focus is very much on the Losers, to the point of jettisoning Bill’s wife as a character (beyond the early scene with Peter Bogdanovich). The intent behind this is surely to make the sentimental ending land, which for many people it surely will, but not so much for me. It seems to be going for much the same tone as the last few scenes as Avengers: Endgame, though without twenty preceding films to generate the goodwill to back it up!

I saw them together as a double bill and wondered throughout if a re-edit (or fan edit?) that hews closer to the structure of the book would mitigate some of the pacing issues, at least in the first film where it feels like a never-ending succession of noisy, exhausting jump scares with no real pay-off.