IT (2017)

[baumer]

3 hours ago, rukaio101 said:

Come on, Baumer. The sewer sex scene? All that crap with the Turtle and the Ritual of Chud? There's a lot of things I like about the book, but that doesn't change that there's some really stupid stuff there.

 

Don't patronize me Ruk.  I told you I loved the entire book.  I told you respected your opinion, at least do the same with mine. 

 

The child orgy was an integral part of the story and the ritual of CHUD was one of my favourite parts of the book. 

[rukaio101]

4 minutes ago, Stutterng baumer Denbrough said:

 

Don't patronize me Ruk.  I told you I loved the entire book.  I told you respected your opinion, at least do the same with mine. 

 

The child orgy was an integral part of the story and the ritual of CHUD was one of my favourite parts of the book. 

Not trying to patronise you Bau, just struggling to understand how anyone can say "The child orgy was an integral part of the story" with anything resembling a straight face.

 

 

 

 

(FYI, I'm so going to quote you out of context saying that next chance I get.) 

[baumer]

Many people have problems with this scene, and for good reason. It's a difficult idea to get past, because to describe it baldly, it is essentially pre-adolescent boys engaging in group sex with one girl. This triggers many of our most ingrained taboos. So I'm going to offer my thoughts on what King was trying to do with this scene, and if you still can't get past it, I don't blame you. But here is how I interpret that scene.

 

This group of friends share a mystical bond. This is what gives them the power to fight back against It. The magical aspects of this bond are repeatedly emphasized in the book. After each encountering and escaping from It, indicating that these children are special, they then are drawn together by what feels like external forces. They discover that they are at their strongest only when all seven are together. They engage in rituals and magical thinking to guide them and heighten their power (smoke ceremony, silver bullets). Something unexplainable guides them through each of these rituals and each new decision; call it "ka".This is a recurring theme in King's more epic novels. He often writes of a mystical force, the "White," that guides (but doesn't control) the heroes to take a stand, to "stand and be true" for the greater good, whatever that takes. This is the force that is personified by the Turtle. There is no doubt that this particular ka-tet has good on their side, that their actions are being guided by something much bigger than themselves.After the battle with It, that bond is weakened. The children are panicked and lost; the group is falling apart. That is when Beverly acts. It is important to note that she is the instigator of the sex, even when the boys don't want to. It is her idea. Because all of the boys love her, each in his own way, this ritual -- and it is a ritual as much as any other ritual the group has engaged in -- works. The bond is re-established, their fear is broken, their confidence is restored, and they know which way to go. Beverly has saved them.

 

Consider who these children are and what makes them so special. They are all outsiders. That is why they are called the Losers' Club. For one reason or another, each of them was ostracized before they found one another. Each one also brings their own special talent or power to the group. That is why they form such a strong, cohesive whole. They are like the perfect weapon against It.Beverly is the only female member of the Losers' Club. She has suffered abuse from her father, motivated in no small part by her father's possessiveness of her and desire to keep her from being "taken" by any other male. "I worry about you, Bevvie. I worry a lot." All her life, she is at the mercy of the men in her life, not allowed to own her own body or her own sexuality. When she gives herself freely to the other boys, she is asserting her power and rejecting what she has been taught her whole life. She is doing the worst thing her father could imagine, the worst thing she could ever possibly do in his eyes, and because she is doing it freely and purely out of love, it is the thing that saves them. At its essence, her act isn't about sex at all, but about love and about her power.I think King chose this particular act deliberately,  knowing it would get the reaction that it got. Because it is so extreme, it is also so much more powerful than if Bevvie had simply kissed each boy or told them she loved them. And by presenting it as ritual, it is clear that this is not about pleasure or shock value. Rather, sex in this context is something sacred, a profound act that can express love and strengthen bonds in a way that no other act is capable of doing.The power of this scene, at least for me, is it forces me to move past the ickiness and my own cultural taboos, and to appreciate the power and beauty of Beverly's act.

 

In the broadest sense, IT is about corruption and loss of innocence, and at some level the hold that Pennywise has on Derry is an amplification of the corruption of ideals and innocent belief that comes with adulthood.   The adults of Derry have turned their back on the  reality of the town's corruption at the hands of Pennywise; conversely the kids understand that Pennywise is the embodiment of the corruption of the town and their own elders. Adolescence and the sexual awakening that comes with it are hugely powerful in King's world....note that the threats the Clown (and many of the indirect threats felt from the corrupted town) makes against the kids are often sexual in nature -- especially for Bev who is just marking time before her own father escalates his abuse of her.   As kids, the Loser's club can see the Clown and the corruption he represents in a way the adults cannot.  At the same time, the kids' own developing sexual awareness is beginning to crack the group apart, as eventually happens to any group of platonic friends going through puberty, and as a result their ability to see and combat Pennywise begins to crumble.  But the kids (especially Bev) neatly turn the tables in the only way they can by taking control of their own loss of innocence, and reaffirm their bond to each other in the process.   

 

 I would also highlight the fact that the Losers are at the cusp of adolescence, at the end of childhood. That's a powerful time, and a powerful time for Stephen King as well. Many of his greatest characters and stories are set at that time in someone's life. There are several ceremonies that are communions throughout the book. At one point, each Loser takes a puff of Eddie's inhaler. The smokehouse. It's as if these young people are unconsciously - or consciously - searching for ways to focus their power and turn it to the White.

 

So bottom line is that by each of them losing their virginity with Bev, they will each have a bond with the other, one that cannot be broken.  

 

You can disagree with the scene, thaty's fine, it's not an easy scene for people to digest.  But King didn't include it to be a creepy old man, there was a method and a logic to it.  To me, it makes perfect sense.  

[Deja23]

Great movie. As someone who doesn't like scary movies I enjoyed it, as did the 5 other people with me. It wasn't really scary like I thought it'd be but there were times I looked away/covered my face. It was definitely creepy and had me squirming at times. I only noticed a couple of jump scares. The movie did begin to feel very long around the middle when you just got scene after scene of It appearing to each individual kid. 

 

The kids and their relationships with each other were the best part and I was impressed by their acting. Ritchie was a crowd favorite and his lines got the most laughs. Eddie was also great. Billy was good, but got annoying at some points. Beverly was great, and along with Bill, the emotional anchor. 

 

The only issue I had with the kids was how normal they acted at some points after witnessing the horrors It subjected them to. I guess it might have something to do with the resiliency of children. The parents were pretty awful for the most part, and seemed absent, except for the two overbearing abusive ones (Beverly's dad and Eddie's mom). Eddie's mother being overprotective made me suspect she was trying to keep him indoors and safe from the evil she knew was in Derry, but I haven't read the book so she may just be weird.

 

Overall an enjoyable experience. I felt exhausted by the end because I got so invested in their survival. So I probably won't be repeating this in theaters. The only death I saw coming was Georgie so I got anxious wondering who else would die. Glad that the whole group survived. They made the fact that there's a sequel obvious with the Chaper thing and some people seemed surprised by that. Looking forward to the sequel. 9/10

[K1stpierre]

5 hours ago, eXtacy said:

I see most reviewers praising the changes from the book saying its a great improvement. Glad I didn't read it because as a movie goer only this was extremely entertaining with probably the most likable group of kids I have seen. As for K1sT complaining about CGI what (TF?) are you expecting when its only got a 35m budget and is a whopping 2hour 20mins long. I thought the use of CGI was rather seemless and only one scene did I think that looks fake to point it was distracting (when he was coming out of the projector). Pennywise himself is an awesome villain and they brought him to life very well.

 

9/10

 

So if a movie has a low budget, we as viewers just have to accept it and like it? 

 

My complaint was that they could of went away with cgi and not have used so much. Like the projector scene, they could of gotten away with that dumb ass cgi pennywise and instead had one of the kids stumble backwards while the projector is going on and off, and pennywise (the real actor pennywise) be behind him. It would of given it a much scarier feel, but also gave Skarsgard more screen time to actually act and talk.

[The Panda]

IT was definitely one of the most fun theater experiences I've had this year.  It's a very engaging movie when there's a packed audience, and it's filled with laughter, emotion and effective horror.  It's bizarre yet also incredibly engaging.

 

It's shot well and it's a movie based on the backs of child actors that manages to succeed in the actor's believability.  Pennywise is effective and Skarsgaad really drives the role home.  

 

It's an effective adaption of the child half of the book, even if it can't touch on everything.  There's also issues with its overreliance on jump scares instead of really driving home a creepy atmosphere.

 

Probably an A-/B+, a fun blockbuster that should be a major crowdpleaser

[theultimatebiu]

I kinda agree that the book did have some bits that felt like filler and just slogged the book down in too much detail and weird rituals. I truly hope they dont have the stupid spider finale and the native American stuff kinda felt silly in the grand scheme of the book.

 

 

 

 

 

[theultimatebiu]

Ive just seen it.

 

I enjoyed it a lot but it isn't even remotely scary...creepy, yes but not scary. I did like that their real life issues (sex abuse, controlling mother, bullying etc...) was much more disturbing then Pennywise but overall it was not really scary.

 

The kids were great. They all felt like real children and all were developed well ( Mike could have had much more to do then they gave him).

 

There was an editing problem and it jumped a little too fast into dealing with the scares rather then build up tension and atmosphere.

 

Still I enjoyed it and I hope the sequel builds more layers.

 

8/10

 

It's better if you take it as a coming of age tale with horror elements

[ddddeeee]

It might be because I'm nursing one hell of a hangover (or maybe I'm just a sap) but I cried when Bill confronted 'Georgie'. The kid who played Georgie was incredible and I thought his death scene was devastating. I can't stop thinking about his screams when he tried to crawl away. In the book the relationship between Bill and Georgie is too cloying in the opening, but here it was perfectly pitched.

[La Binoche]

This was like a drawn out, R-rated episode of Goosebumps, gory and with a lot of swear words, but not scary at all. The movie favors jump scares over suspense, and its monsters are way too CG and glossy to be truly frightening. That glossy sheen of artifice permeates the whole movie. For example, the house where Pennywise dwells looks like something out of a haunted maze or movie set. 

 

That being said, it's a fun and engaging kids adventure. The kids are (for the most part) great and they carry the movie. It clearly has its audience but to me it felt like a missed opportunity to deliver something truly scary and disturbing on a primal level. 

 

C+ 

 

Edit: also, Amy Adams as Beverly in the sequel please!

Edited September 10, 2017 by La Binoche

[Rorschach]

I don't know. I have a lot of mixed emotions on the movie right now. Probably a lot more mixed than I ever would've expected. Having just finished reading the book, there are some things in this film that just stuck out like a sore thumb.

 

For the positives, however, I feel they outweigh some of the weaker aspects. I enjoyed Bill Skarsgard's performance as Pennywise. I felt he did a good enough job distancing himself from Tim Curry's version to make himself stand out a bit more. Makeup on him was pretty good too (though the CGI was a little cartoony imo but I'll talk about that in my negatives). Wouldn't be surprised if this film picks up a nom for Best Makeup at the Oscars. The kids were all fantastic in their roles. Even if some were a little more characterized than others, I still felt the sense of a functioning group amongst all of them. The standouts for me personally were Sophia Lillis as Beverly, Finn Wolfhard as Richie, and Jack Dylan Grazer as Eddie. Grazer and Wolfhard provided a lot of the best laughs in the film for me but Lillis as Bev really brought the film up as a whole for me. Honestly, I'd say she was the heart and soul of the film. The score was also really impressive. I can probably see myself listening to a lot of the tracks constantly. And good god, the cinematography was GORGEOUS. 

 

Unfortunately, I have a few issues with the film and a lot of it has to do with the fact that I just cannot help but draw comparison to the book. Not to drone on too long but in a condensed version: Mike and Ben felt like afterthoughts (especially Ben), Henry's character arc is so condensed it might as well have been cut from the film altogether, the scene where the Losers' blow up at each other just felt so out of character and really mean-spirited (I fucking hate that cliche in movies where a group of people or a couple breaks up because of their differences and you KNOW they are going to get back together but everyone is just going to go do their own thing and they just mope around and GOD I HATE THAT STUPID CLICHE), and the lore of It is barely touched upon. Other problems I had were some of the cartoony CGI moments that took me out of the film, some of the editing choices were odd, and the pacing felt off in some areas. Some scenes were slow as hell (again, that stupid part where they breakup just grinds the film to a halt) while others felt so edited down that just flew by. Also, was it me or did the ending fight scene between the Clown and the Kids feel like a Jason Bourne film. Something about the way it was shot and edited just did not sit well with me.

 

Overall, while I doubt I'll ever get over some of the weaker stuff in the film (having read the book and all), I still feel the good stuff was just so well done that it brought the film up much more for me. I guess my overall hype for the film did raise my expectations up a little too high. Oh well, what can you do? Had a fun time watching this with a packed theater on a big IMAX screen. Probably the best way to watch the film imo. 

 

B+

 

[baumer]

3 hours ago, Rorschach said:

I don't know. I have a lot of mixed emotions on the movie right now. Probably a lot more mixed than I ever would've expected. Having just finished reading the book, there are some things in this film that just stuck out like a sore thumb.

 

For the positives, however, I feel they outweigh some of the weaker aspects. I enjoyed Bill Skarsgard's performance as Pennywise. I felt he did a good enough job distancing himself from Tim Curry's version to make himself stand out a bit more. Makeup on him was pretty good too (though the CGI was a little cartoony imo but I'll talk about that in my negatives). Wouldn't be surprised if this film picks up a nom for Best Makeup at the Oscars. The kids were all fantastic in their roles. Even if some were a little more characterized than others, I still felt the sense of a functioning group amongst all of them. The standouts for me personally were Sophia Lillis as Beverly, Finn Wolfhard as Richie, and Jack Dylan Grazer as Eddie. Grazer and Wolfhard provided a lot of the best laughs in the film for me but Lillis as Bev really brought the film up as a whole for me. Honestly, I'd say she was the heart and soul of the film. The score was also really impressive. I can probably see myself listening to a lot of the tracks constantly. And good god, the cinematography was GORGEOUS. 

 

Unfortunately, I have a few issues with the film and a lot of it has to do with the fact that I just cannot help but draw comparison to the book. Not to drone on too long but in a condensed version: Mike and Ben felt like afterthoughts (especially Ben), Henry's character arc is so condensed it might as well have been cut from the film altogether, the scene where the Losers' blow up at each other just felt so out of character and really mean-spirited (I fucking hate that cliche in movies where a group of people or a couple breaks up because of their differences and you KNOW they are going to get back together but everyone is just going to go do their own thing and they just mope around and GOD I HATE THAT STUPID CLICHE), and the lore of It is barely touched upon. Other problems I had were some of the cartoony CGI moments that took me out of the film, some of the editing choices were odd, and the pacing felt off in some areas. Some scenes were slow as hell (again, that stupid part where they breakup just grinds the film to a halt) while others felt so edited down that just flew by. Also, was it me or did the ending fight scene between the Clown and the Kids feel like a Jason Bourne film. Something about the way it was shot and edited just did not sit well with me.

 

Overall, while I doubt I'll ever get over some of the weaker stuff in the film (having read the book and all), I still feel the good stuff was just so well done that it brought the film up much more for me. I guess my overall hype for the film did raise my expectations up a little too high. Oh well, what can you do? Had a fun time watching this with a packed theater on a big IMAX screen. Probably the best way to watch the film imo. 

 

B+

 

 

I felt exactly the same way and so did @75livesinDerry.  Every issue you had with the film, we had as well.  

 

And then we both went to see it a second time and tried to see it just for a horror movie and not a movie based on a book that we cherish.  Both of us ended up liking it much, much more the second time around.  I'd recommend you trying to see it again, but ignore all of the changes from the book.

[Rorschach]

27 minutes ago, Stutterng baumer Denbrough said:

 

I felt exactly the same way and so did @75livesinDerry.  Every issue you had with the film, we had as well.  

 

And then we both went to see it a second time and tried to see it just for a horror movie and not a movie based on a book that we cherish.  Both of us ended up liking it much, much more the second time around.  I'd recommend you trying to see it again, but ignore all of the changes from the book.

Honestly, the changes from the book didn't bother so much as the way they were presented in the context of the film itself. 

 

But yeah, I am considering seeing it a second time. I'm considering going back to the theater around Halloween to watch it (really not that many appealing horror movies in October this year).

[FantasticBeasts]

The problem with adaptations of really long books is that fans expect to see what they have read directly on the screen while it isn't possible.

It's like the late Harry Potter films when I had the same debate with everyone I was talking about them.. You shouldn't go in and start looking for what is in and what not from the book. Just enjoy it as a competely different experience. A different take on the same story. 

[afalconer7]

Loved this movie! Way better than the miniseries! This movie is creepy, scary, funny, and emotional. One of the things I love most about this movie is the bond between the kids. They felt so real and they don't hold back when it comes to realistic children behavior. These kids cuss and say inappropriate shit just like any kid. It was such a touching friendship. Also Bill Skarsgard is really great as Pennywise he is inviting at first and then he goes full out psycho-bitch very quick. Especially during Georgie's death scene. Everything leading up to that scene was so suspensful. Also Georgie's death scene is great. I don't think that scene will leave my head for a while. Also the jumpscares are handled very well and aren't false. The only flaw I really have with this movie is the CGI at some points were very goofy and it took me out of the movie for brief moments. I can't recommend this movie enough to horror fans. Definitely one of the best Stephen King adaptations out there. 9.5/10

Edited September 10, 2017 by afalconer7

[Mrwick]

That was it?

 

So i went in expecting a scary horror, what i got was a clown trying to be scary for 2 hours then get scared away by a bunch of toddlers? Lol. This film sucked, there was no sense of dread, hell no-one seemed to die. Its not frightening having a clown scare you phsycologically for 2 hours when you know there is no way of him harming you, it just gets boring.

 

D

 

IT gets a D simply because the child actors were great, everything else bar a few good shots sucked. Its feels like one of those films that wasnt suppose to be the big breakout it is and WOM will suffer for it. Still a big hit though

[That One Girl]

22 minutes ago, Mrwick said:

That was it?

 

So i went in expecting a scary horror, what i got was a clown trying to be scary for 2 hours then get scared away by a bunch of toddlers? Lol. This film sucked, there was no sense of dread, hell no-one seemed to die. Its not frightening having a clown scare you phsycologically for 2 hours when you know there is no way of him harming you, it just gets boring.

 

D

 

IT gets a D simply because the child actors were great, everything else bar a few good shots sucked. Its feels like one of those films that wasnt suppose to be the big breakout it is and WOM will suffer for it. Still a big hit though

 

...

Edited September 11, 2017 by That One Guy

[La Binoche]

3 hours ago, Mrwick said:

That was it?

 

So i went in expecting a scary horror, what i got was a clown trying to be scary for 2 hours then get scared away by a bunch of toddlers? Lol. This film sucked, there was no sense of dread, hell no-one seemed to die. Its not frightening having a clown scare you phsycologically for 2 hours when you know there is no way of him harming you, it just gets boring.

 

D

 

IT gets a D simply because the child actors were great, everything else bar a few good shots sucked. Its feels like one of those films that wasnt suppose to be the big breakout it is and WOM will suffer for it. Still a big hit though

The movie does fail at the most important thing: horror. It's nice that the kids are great and their relationships are credible but Stranger Things did it first and did it better. 

[K1stpierre]

I re-watched it yesterday by myself in what was almost a sold out theater (that's big considering it was Sunday and super nice outside). I think it did help my view of it to a certain extent, though my main gripes still remain with it. I might bumped it up to a C+, 6.5/10. I am glad it's making good money, hopefully the sequel will get the budget it needs in order for it to get better. Plus with them being adults, I'm hoping they won't pull back on the horror and actually amp it up a bit.

[somebody85]

On 9/9/2017 at 7:30 AM, Deja23 said:

The only issue I had with the kids was how normal they acted at some points after witnessing the horrors It subjected them to. I guess it might have something to do with the resiliency of children.

Thank you. I haven't seen this mentioned much elsewhere and I kept thinking....wow wouldn't these kids be traumatized after nearly being eaten or seeing a giant clown come out of the wall at them in the dark? Bill pretends like nothings happened the very next scene.

I'm definitely going to watch it again this week but with the first watch, I also had some of the same problems with the CGI. I don't think WB knew what they had and agree that some of those scenes would have been more effective with prosthetics. But IT is an alien so I get it....I just kind of got 2011 Thing vibes from Pennywise whenever his eyes rolled sideways and he morphed (which was a lot). Skarsgard did such a good job too...I wanted more from him.

 

Edited September 12, 2017 by somebody85