You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.
Did it seem odd to anyone else that they just went down there with spears and cattle gun? If I recall correctly in the book they used a slingshot and a silver earring because according to the monster lore they were familiar with silver could potentially kill it- and there was also the ritual of chud, which I think involved bills battle with the dead lights in the alternate dimension. The 'ritual' aspect had an empowering ancient/black magic thing going for it which conveyed if not the immediate solution to killing IT, at least some form of possible medium to make that happen. Maybe they are saving all of that for the second film, but I wonder why they didn't do the slingshot and earring bit (or the battery acid! Inhaler bit as well). I felt like in the book their salvation was faith through hope (faith that silver could kill any monster and the hope that they could pull it off), but those themes were scrubbed from the film.
I felt like they were scrubbed because abstractions are harder to express visually / on film...
... but yeah, that was one of my major disappointment sources. I've mentioned the inhaler bit, and the missing silver dollar, I think. I didn't really like how basically the resolution was
brat pack bust Pennywise a cap with essentially fence rods and lug wrenches
it felt a bit dumb and unbelievable. It would also give Bev something to do rather than essentially get captured.
They seem to be getting more metaphysical for Movie 2 but I don't know what that means specifically. I don't know what's in the deleted scenes either.
I felt like they were scrubbed because abstractions are harder to express visually / on film... ... but yeah, that was one of my major disappointment sources. I've mentioned the inhaler bit, and the missing silver dollar, I think. I didn't really like how basically the resolution was
brat pack bust Pennywise a cap with essentially fence rods and lug wrenches
it felt a bit dumb and unbelievable. It would also give Bev something to do rather than essentially get captured. They seem to be getting more metaphysical for Movie 2 but I don't know what that means specifically. I don't know what's in the deleted scenes either.
Yeah I don't recal bev ever getting kidnapped in her house and magically teleported to ITs lair, but I suppose it did provide an effective plot device in getting the kids back together after splintering apart. It felt like another one of those forced throwbacks in making the girl the damsel in distress, but even if that's what it was going for it already failed by making Beverly 'more' of a character than the rest of the losers. She stood out way too much and I never really got the sense that she was anything more to the boys than their token female to lust over.
I kind of liked the 'floating' thing though I have to admit, instead of the spiderweb cocoons in the book. Gives that iconic line some kind of sense. But I did not care for the lair layout and the whole sewer experience that much. They could have made so much more out of the depths and claustrophobia. I felt like they went 10 feet down the well and strafed over a few feet and there they were barely below ground with the sun visible through a giant glass dome above. In the book and even miniseries they entered through a pipe in the barrens, traveled forever to get under the wellhouse with maps, then snaked their way so deep into the sewers that they ended up in cave systems below it. As someone who did a lot of drain system spelunking as a child in the late 80s I can tell you there are no massive rooms like that down there.
Yeah I don't recal bev ever getting kidnapped in her house and magically teleported to ITs lair, but I suppose it did provide an effective plot device in getting the kids back together after splintering apart. It felt like another one of those forced throwbacks in making the girl the damsel in distress, but even if that's what it was going for it already failed by making Beverly 'more' of a character than the rest of the losers. She stood out way too much and I never really got the sense that she was anything more to the boys than their token female to lust over.
I kind of liked the 'floating' thing though I have to admit, instead of the spiderweb cocoons in the book. Gives that iconic line some kind of sense. But I did not care for the lair layout and the whole sewer experience that much. They could have made so much more out of the depths and claustrophobia. I felt like they went 10 feet down the well and strafed over a few feet and there they were barely below ground with the sun visible through a giant glass dome above. In the book and even miniseries they entered through a pipe in the barrens, traveled forever to get under the wellhouse with maps, then snaked their way so deep into the sewers that they ended up in cave systems below it. As someone who did a lot of drain system spelunking as a child in the late 80s I can tell you there are no massive rooms like that down there.
A friend who saw the movie over the weekend (and liked it) brought that up today too... like, damn, those are pretty nice, lofty expansive sewers. Who funded those things, and why was so much invested in them? Especially in a small town like Derry? You could move in down there, aside from the damp. yeesh.
I get the idea Fukunaga might have made them more cramped... he's dark and gritty.
I noticed the thing about Bev too. She wasn't QUITE sexualized... but pretty much for laughs and for interactions she was like "the dream girl" that all the boys were staring at or wanted to be with, and that was a minor subplot for Bill (him wanting to kiss her) through the end of the movie. I wish it hadn't been so extreme -- her being objectified a bit in the movie's approach. I will say that as a reader I found Bill, Ben, and Bev the most interesting characters, so I didn't mind if she got more screen time, but at the same time some of it was kind of like the "girl on the pedestal" thing where the book had her more on the level of the boys and scrappier somehow.
..."My idea of Mike in the second movie is quite darker from the book," says Andy. "I want to make his character the one pivotal character who brings them all together, but staying in Derry took a toll with him....
I was interested in this movie, because I remember the mini-series fondly. But upon watching the Red Letter Media review of both, I have cooled on both. I don't know if I should damn the reviews because they took away something to look forward to, or thank them for saving me time. Oh, well, now looking forward to wrestling with various forms of internal angst over the new Blade Runner movie.
I was interested in this movie, because I remember the mini-series fondly. But upon watching the Red Letter Media review of both, I have cooled on both. I don't know if I should damn the reviews because they took away something to look forward to, or thank them for saving me time. Oh, well, now looking forward to wrestling with various forms of internal angst over the new Blade Runner movie.
I'm glad someone liked the mini-series. I can't stand it. Preferences, I guess. Too short, too watered-down, bad casting aside from Pennywise, and just flat and too tame. But it's also been many years since I have seen it.
Also interesting is that at some point they might try to splice the two films together to resemble the book more. I get the idea that, while they invested in this movie, the studio was trying to hedge its bets in case the movie flopped. Which is unfortunately, since they couldn't really take the movie to a higher level when they weren't balls-to-the-wall.
I love Jessica Chastain, but I think she wouldn't be the greatest cast for Beverly; she's too "cool" an actress and very cerebral, even when she's trying to not be depending on the role... she just has this level of detachment / separation to her, a feeling of "controlled-ness," and my impression of Beverly is more emotional and fiery and not necessarily cerebral.
Double-posting.. not sure which is the "official" discussion about this movie, & I want to participate with everyone.
Just saw this at the cinema 3 days ago.
I'll start by saying the novel is actually my all-time favorite. I first read it when I was about 8 years old (hooray for limited supervision). I've re-read it countless times since. Always absorbing something new.
I think some of King's best stories will never translate well to a movie format. Perhaps to a very well-produced television series, but even then, there are always limitations. I try to calibrate my expectations for that, whenever I see movies based on his works. Most of them are so atrocious, they're just plain funny, which I can still derive plenty of enjoyment from. The film reels tailored in our minds by King's particular turn of phrase are impossible to duplicate outside the realm of imagination.
I was overall unimpressed by the new IT. Honestly, it felt like, "Stranger Things Presents IT." Not just because they used the same actor. General vibe, the alteration of the timeline. Look, I grew up in the 80s, too. I love that ridiculous, tacky decade. There's so much nostalgia for it in TV & film lately, though. It's oversaturated to the point of distraction. Given that generation are adults now, it feels almost mastubatory, in a way. Which is fine, in moderation (for the record, I enjoyed Stranger Things).
Pennywise was not remotely menacing. I appreciate the direction the actor took, but the CGI effects really detracted from the performance, for me. Also, the voice reminded me too much of Hoggle from Labyrinth. Just didn't do it for me.
I feel like the creators tried too hard to inject their own voices into the storyline, pander to a specific audience.. so much that the depth of the themes, the multidimensionality of the characters was lost. It felt diluted, mixed all wrong. Unpleasant aftertaste. At times it felt like whoever made this film had merely read the jacket summary. Like someone made a cocktail they've never even tasted before. Just plucked ingredients from one skimmed page of a bartender's guide, & made weird substitutions, before ever sampling the real thing.
Some specific gripes:
When I saw a casting call/breakdown for this film a couple yrs ago, I was ecstatic to see PATRICK HOCKSETTER listed as a character. I was so excited to know that this disturbing as hell (albeit short-lived) character would be getting some screen time. Needless to say, it was a pretty big letdown when he turned out to be just some cardboard supporting stock sidekick to the primary school bully in this production.
Also, I dislike how they purposely avoided referring to Mike as "the black kid." It felt like PC nonsense. Racism and all the ugliness that comes with it was a big deal for that character. Now he's just "the homeschooled kid?" People were racist jackasses in the 80s. They were in the 50s. They are even now. There was no need to dance around that. I get that there's more to Mike than the color of his skin. The bigotry in the story emphasizes that, actually. Much of the novel highlights the evil within humanity. I found it patronizing that it was glossed over in the film. Like perhaps it was rewritten because people are too easily offended by it. But child sexual assault (in Bev's situation) is something we can all get behind as "evil." No room for controversy or debate among viewers, there. It just rubbed me the wrong way.
The kids' personal/psychological talismans were almost entirely overlooked. The power of magical thinking in childhood. The ordinary objects, mantras or ideas that fragile, growing minds shield &/or empower themselves with to survive. The beauty of contrast is all over that book. The movie mostly focused on the power of their fears, the darkness of their imagination, less so the light. Eddie's inhaler. Stan's bird book. Richie's Voices come to life. Bill's speech exercises. Perhaps Ben's simple and pure love for Beverly. The list goes on. The most significant belief is of their power as a group, their love for one another. Even that felt only lightly touched upon, somehow.
The whole showdown at 29 Neibolt Street was really disappointing. I balked at the addition of a stupid well in the basement. Where the fuck is the Derry Standpipe in this version? They messed with two major landmarks in King's universe. That irked the hell out of me. I can't help it.
I'll probably come back to this and say more, once I've reflected a bit. I'm still kind of digesting it.
It's not a horrible film, but it was totally unremarkable for me, and didn't come close to doing the novel justice.
I am admittedly biased. Nothing will probably ever do it justice, in my mind. And certainly not this.
Also, cinemas are freaking LOUD, now. I have to wear earplugs whenever I've gone, in recent years. Otherwise my ears are ringing for a few hours afterward.
Yeah, I think I might downgrade my first score down to a 3.5/5. I have found that there have been some movies that I feel some way on first viewing, that then my feelings change after they sit and "solidify" a bit. (I think it's for those I've sit and thought a lot about, or have certain concerns over, so in trying to connect to the film I am either too harsh or too forgiving and need time to just let myself emotionally respond to get my "true reaction" to.)
It's hard because a 2:15 hour movie (even if it's just "part 1") cannot do the novel justice. As someone else mentioned, this would have been better handled through a few seasons' TV show if it is going to really capture the essence of the book.
Considering everything that might have gone wrong with a movie like this, it was way more on track than The Dark Tower (and many other King adaptations) and I think that is what people are responding to, although I don't like all the extra hype that makes the movie sound like more than it is. Usually for me, the "best" movies are ones that I either (1) feel compelled to rewatch repeatedly because they either capture my mind or resonate inside in some way or (2) watch once and even if I don't ever want to rewatch, I can sit there and think, "Yeah, that was a damn well-crafted movie." (I feel this way about "Lost In Translation" for example... it's a great movie that I'm not sure if I want to rewatch much but while watching, I can admire the craftsmanship, the willingness to live in ambiguity, etc.)
I can rewatch this movie, sure, but it doesn't really capture the feelings I experience when reading the book and doesn't generate new ones that drive me to reexperience them. It's more like, "Okay, that scene really captured the book scene well" or "I could see what they were trying to do there but it didn't really recapture the book."
Then again.... the movie is just too short to really be able to do what I wanted it to do.
I'll be honest, I wasn't enamored with "Stranger Things" either and was kind of surprised when so many people seemed to really feel something for it.... there were a few great ideas but felt more like "Tales from the Darkside - 80's Kitchen Sink" version to me.
I think some of King's best stories will never translate well to a movie format. Perhaps to a very well-produced television series, but even then, there are always limitations. I try to calibrate my expectations for that, whenever I see movies based on his works. Most of them are so atrocious, they're just plain funny, which I can still derive plenty of enjoyment from. The film reels tailored in our minds by King's particular turn of phrase are impossible to duplicate outside the realm of imagination.
yeah, there are a few reasons for this from what I can see:
(1) King has enough skill style that he can make things work on a page (through language) that look and sound silly when translated to audible sound and visual image if taken literally.
(2) A lot of King's prose is internal to the characters rather than extroverted -- and unless you get the right filmmaker, most films are about what you can "show" outwardly. It's just a different art form. It would take a special director to really be able to translate King's work to screen... a director AND a screenwriter who don't work in literalism... and yet then you'd have some audience folks complaining that the film is not literal enough.
(3) his books are typically damned long and they don't translate well to a 90-120 minute format... even a 150 minute format.
(4) King himself admits he doesn't have great taste in movies sometimes. Which is funny, since he can produce... but he seems to enjoy a lot of types of things regardless of quality. Like, he has loved some of the movies that people have made of his books that pretty much the book-reading audience hated. It reminds me of Terry Brooks recently stating he "loved" the MTV adaptation of "The Elfstones of Shannara" for its Shannara Chronicles while many folks panned it, and the whole thing either made me laugh or depressed me because it didn't at all capture the nature of the characters I loved so much. (It's like it was mainly non-book readers that liked it because they had nothing to compare it to or were watching it for what it was, whereas book readers wanted to see it to relive the feelings they had reading the book.) Like WTF, though, with Brooks? King lately is advising folks to watch the movie "Cell" based on his book as his favorite adapted movie that people have panned. Okay, like maybe I'm curious enough to watch it... but I don't have high hopes.
I mainly found the opening scene between George and Pennywise menacing. However, the more Pennywise appeared, the less severe the stakes felt. Like, he seemed to be all bluster and no bite.
I guess the big question would be, if you were to be the director adapting this, what would you have done? I see so many problems in trying to adapt the book, I tend to be a bit more forgiving I guess -- I can see why certain choices were made and the difficulty in pulling other things off. The effort was made, but the constraints of time and the medium generates some big problems that could not necessarily be overcome.
I agree with everything you said in your Spoiler. I'm just not sure how all that can be tackled in 2.25 hours without other tradeoffs.
King was REALLY bold with the racist stuff. Like the stories from Mike's dad, about the racism in town and in the military, and the fire of the Black Hole. I thought it was great (and horrifying) in the book. Then again, like I noted, the stuff about Bev was directly part of the plot; the Mike stuff did not relate directly to the throughline, so it was more expendable. I also felt like movie Mike had nothing to do with book Mike, he was some other guy completely.
Yeah, Patrick Hockstetter got the short end of the stick. But damn, you could make a 90 minute movie about 'birth of a serial killer" about patrick. I am really bummed that did not get treated in the way the book treated it; then again Patrick is a minor character, and the movie already had seven major characters plus any other "major" minor characters. Movie has limited real estate; boom, Patrick hoskstetter gets cut down and changed. Are they making the movie for people who don't know the book or for just book readers?
I wish they had gone the route of the TV series and taken its time.
I'm later to the party, but I just came out of the theater and I want to throw in my two cents.
My general opinion that the film felt "overdone". Like a restaurant meal that has too much sauce in it. The cinematography was great, but the directing was a bit too much - a crane shot in almost every scene. What is this, a Michael Bay film? It was distracting. Also felt like there wasn't much story or character development, rather an arrangement of scary scenes - kind of like going into one of those haunted houses in an amusement park, where shit just happens to scare you. Not much of a build up to anything. More like "Ok here we go, now THIS kid's shit gonna get fucked up". Also [MENTION=5159]Lexicon[/MENTION] mentioned Stranger Things - I'm pretty sure they used the same locations for the film. That alleyway where the black kid almost get run over, and that cliff definitely looked like the same locations from that tv show.
I must say though, I liked the 3rd act. When the kids go down the well the movie really picked up and found it's footing. I think the fact that the film ended on the right note made the people give it more credit than it deserved (the film has an impressive score on IMDb). Anyway, I thought it was worth watching.
[MENTION=5159]Lexicon[/MENTION] mentioned Stranger Things - I'm pretty sure they used the same locations for the film. That alleyway where the black kid almost get run over, and that cliff definitely looked like the same locations from that tv show.
Incidentally, I just started rewatching season 1 of Stranger Things over the weekend, in prep for the upcoming season 2 premiere. As soon as I saw the quarry scene, I thought of IT, too. It’s possible they used the same location, but then again, a lot of quarries tend to look the same to me.
I must say though, I liked the 3rd act. When the kids go down the well the movie really picked up and found it's footing.
On a less substantial, sort of related note regarding a cast member of IT, I recently rewatched a couple episodes of Perfect Strangers, which I hadn’t seen since I was five or six. Vaguely recalled Balki played the maladjusted, at-sanity’s-edge Craig Toomey in the TV mini-series adaptation of Stephen King’s The Langoliers. Wanted to see the contrast of both over-the-top performances side-by-side. Stupid things make me happy.
Anyway, it hit me when the platonic neighbor friend showed up. She’s an eerie doppelgänger of Sophia Lillis, who plays Beverly Marsh in this new IT film. Maybe I’m the only one who sees it, but the similar facial structure & expressions struck me. Probably more amusing to me than it should be, but I thought I’d share.
It's kind of like the first release -- it's a decent enough adaptation undermined by medium, you just really can't do an 1100-page book justice in five hours of cinema. TV would be a better medium but THEN you have the big problem of kids who are rapidly aging up, so you would have to write and shoot a few seasons of the kid Losers first and hope to hell you have everything you need for the final seasons.
The actors were fine. The only casting I felt excited about was Bill Hader as Richie, but even the ones I was worried about (like Chastain) did fine. They basically had changed Bev's character a bit in the first movie, and Chastain was more emotive even if she's really an introvert and Bev felt more like a quiet extrovert in the book. I still feel like they could have cast Bill better but McAvoy is a good enough actor to do okay. Liked Eddie (a lot) and Mike. And Ben was pretty much a hottie, but the thing is the adults actually did look kind of like their younger counterparts.
As expected, they had to change a lot of shit in the endgame, although they did do homages if you're aware of the source material. (For example, the turtle motif showed up a couple of times, even if the turtle in the book was far more prominent and part of the plot.) IT does take on spider-like attributes in the end game but not like a giant spider, and with the impossibility of filming the ritual of Chud (unless they had hired on a pretty surreal director -- I can name a few that MIGHT have done something interesting with it, but most directors can't), they did okay in changing things around to reach a conclusion.
Remarkably, after all the jokes about Big Bill not being able to write a satisfying ending, they managed to half-screw that up. I was okay with a lot of the ending, but I hated the last minute, which really sucks in terms of rewatch. Like, the book often leaves me choked up in the last few pages; but the film left me kind of "meh," it descends into a bit of pabulum and wimps out on one of the most bittersweet angles of the book. (That's one thing I loved about King, he typically doesn't wuss out -- he's willing to dish out the bad with the good, and even a happy ending often leaves pain in its wake.)
Ultimately, the thing is, I think the movie did as well as it could and it's not a bad film. But it leaves kind of indifferent afterwards; just like with Chapter One, I remember enjoying it while watching because it got enough right, then I would feel kind of empty afterwards. (IN this case, I did watch the whole story within a 12 hour period -- watched the first one until 2am, then went to bed, got up, and drove to the theater for Chapter Two.)
Bill Hader has a lot of buzz. I don't mean to be a buzzkill. Hader is great... but the role isn't meaty enough to REALLY stretch him. What he's got is this amazing talent to be both dramatic and comedic at once, I've seen a number of films with him in them and he just has a knack for it. Still, there's lots of good stuff here by him, and he's utterly hilarious when he launches into impromptu impressions of Pennywise. The audience burst out laughing once or twice. Bill Skarsgaard is also great, he couldn't have done a better job with the role. If there's a deficiency, it's in the scripting... but as I know the source material pretty well, I could see what problems they were trying to solve in the script and they did as well as they could in the time they had. They did manage to give every major character a bit of time in separate / back story segments, which is why it ran almost three hours. It did not feel long to me; however, I can understand if someone didn't know the source and felt it was long.
Anyway, they did capture some of the book scenes -- especially the chinese restaurant scene, and they even put freaking Paul Bunyan in the film -- I was kind of delighted by that, because I didn't expect it.
Some of the audience complained because it wasn't "scary." It's really a drama film with horrific elements. I will say, I wasn't often "scared" but boy was I disturbed. Pennywise is a sick f*ck. I think that's the best way to understand it. S/he's (because in the book, IT is female at core) is the worst kind of predator -- the one who pretends to be a friend, then if that fails, pretends to be a victim and/or plays off the best feelings of altruism in its prey in order to bring them in for the kill. There are a few really horrible scenes in the film -- they're beautifully done, but just absolutely dreadful and made me ill / angry simultaneously. So kudos for that. Don't feel bad when Pennywise gets what's coming to them, honestly and in the manner it happens in the film.
I was telling one of my friends I saw this, and she said that her stepkids' grandfather (who is native american -- the kids are half-NatAm) was a consultant on the film; there's a few things where Native Americans are discussed, and the Ritual of Chud, etc., and aspects of Pennywise's ability to shape shift.
It's got me interested. I can get lost and drown in Horror books if Im not careful; and King sandpapers my undercarriage better than most. It was one of those that slipped through the cracks with me, I like Tim Curry, I like creepy clowns (Its the happy clowns that make me nervous, Sad clowns are the only clowns you can really trust, and even then, as John Connoly observed. Clowns arent made theyre born. But I am looking forward to reading It. Totenkindly is my movie reviewer. I know I can enjoy a movie if they do She is my Spirit guide
(1) King has enough skill style that he can make things work on a page (through language) that look and sound silly when translated to audible sound and visual image if taken literally.
When I read "The Body" as a kid, I seem to remember him writing of the dead body smelling like "old farts" or something to that effect. While that worked on the page, I can see how it may have sapped the film version's scene of its weight by having Richard Dreyfuss talking about old fart smells in the narration track.
