IT (2017)

[somebody85]

9 hours ago, K1stpierre said:

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.

And hopefully they let Skarsgard act more and interact with the characters instead of relying on CGI so much. Got so many Heath Ledger vibes from him.

Edited September 12, 2017 by somebody85

[K1stpierre]

10 minutes ago, somebody85 said:

And hopefully they let Skarsgard act more and interact with the characters instead of relying on CGI so much. Got so many Heath Ledger vibes from him.

Yes! Thank you! I said the exact same thing in my initial review. Every scene where he talked he was great to me, I don't know why they forced all the CGI bits. 

[somebody85]

On 9/8/2017 at 11:21 AM, K1stpierre said:

Now back to the arm being eaten off, because that's another overall huge gripe I have with the film: The use of CGI. I just found the CGI to absolutely suck, and take me right out of the movie. The scene were he bites Georgie's arm off was horrible, it was super lame and the teeth looked so fake. It's not even showing the teeth I minded but the CGI. Instead, they should of went with something more real like animatronics or puppets or even Skarsgard himself, I don't know something that looked REAL and not just a computer image. And not to mention, after that you didn't really see any violence or gore from Georgie, he yelled for like two seconds and then was sucked down........like, wow, that really just left me super bummed out. I would of preferred had that scene (with the incredible build up it had) been something along where Pennywise grabs him and shoves him against the sewer drain, almost crushingly where you can hear his bones smashing against the drain, straining. Meanwhile he's yelling out a real blood curdling scream. Meanwhile the neighbor they showed walking outside where she could hear/see Georgie (which I THOUGHT the film was hyping us up for, to see this person's reaction), it would of been perfectly painted everything wrong with Derry: a child writhing on the ground, blood soaked and spilling underneath him while screaming, being compressed and squeezed awkwardly against a sewer drain, yet meanwhile have said adult just stand there still in terror, helpless. Georgie's shoulder loses mass, sinks a bit into the hole from his loss of an arm and his shoulder now popping, until it's clear to viewers he's being eaten into the whole, his shoulder devoured through and in a flash he's contorted awkwardly through the drain. Silence follows. (of course the book had it where Georgie was left in the middle of the road with a bone stump, visibly dead).

I liked this scene but damn it, your version is so much better and I agree (with first watch) that this was the peak of the movie. I waited a month to see the conclusion to this (after seeing the 4 minute Annabelle preview) and knew what was coming and then the CGI happened (especially the actual shot of Pennywise biting his arm - as the alien with his eyes looking like a fish from Finding Nemo) after ALL of that tension and I was like.....really? Fine...

I loved the way Pennywises arm came out more and more towards George crawling away before he was dragged in screaming leaving a trail of blood though. Also loved how the title came up after that.

Your version would have been great but probably too mean for critics and most of the GA who would not want to see that done to a child (but who knows with TWD lol). Horror fans!

Bill did so awesome here, that I wanted more of these interactions.

Edited September 12, 2017 by somebody85

[K1stpierre]

7 minutes ago, somebody85 said:

I liked this scene but damn it, your version is so much better and I agree (with first watch) that this was the peak of the movie. I waited a month to see the conclusion to this (after seeing the 4 minute Annabelle preview) and knew what was coming and then the CGI happened after ALL of that tension and I was like.....really? Fine...

I loved the way Pennywises arm came out more and more towards George crawling away before he was dragged in screaming leaving a trail of blood though. Also loved how the title came up after that.

Your version would have been great but probably too mean for critics and most of the GA who would not want to see that done to a child (but who knows with TWD lol). Horror fans!

Bill did so awesome here, that I wanted more of these interactions.

 

I mean, I feel like my version wouldn't be that bad as it wouldn't be contingent upon seeing gore or blood. Would it be violent and terror? Sure, absolutely. So if critics would rate it based on that, then maybe. 

 

It's tough, I'm one of the minority as I've grown up and watched the horror/thriller classics like Alien, The Thing, Psycho, Original Friday the 13th, and my god....so many I could name. I just don't understand how films that came out 40-45 years ago can still beat movies today. I almost feel like the use of CGI have actually made directors worse, like almost lazy. Back then directors had to FILM a movie a certain way, be creative with their shots to entice terror. Today, I feel like directors rely on CGI to solve their problems. 

[somebody85]

Just now, K1stpierre said:

 

I mean, I feel like my version wouldn't be that bad as it wouldn't be contingent upon seeing gore or blood. Would it be violent and terror? Sure, absolutely. So if critics would rate it based on that, then maybe. 

 

It's tough, I'm one of the minority as I've grown up and watched the horror/thriller classics like Alien, The Thing, Psycho, Original Friday the 13th, and my god....so many I could name. I just don't understand how films that came out 40-45 years ago can still beat movies today. I almost feel like the use of CGI have actually made directors worse, like almost lazy. Back then directors had to FILM a movie a certain way, be creative with their shots to entice terror. Today, I feel like directors rely on CGI to solve their problems. 

I'm in the same boat as a huge horror fan. The CGI here reminded me of The Thing prequel (2011). Meanwhile it's the first remake that gets remembered nowadays.

That first shot of Pennywise biting Georgies arm (the actual shot makes him look like a fish with extremely sharp teeth)....it took away from this being Pennywise to me. Like if you're going to use CGI at least have it still look like the actor.

I get that IT is an alien and that's why I can let some of this go but I wish more of his scenes were done with prosthetics (I thought this was going to change with TFA and other movies going back to real effects). Sometimes when he transformed he felt like something else entirely and that took me out of it.

[somebody85]

5 minutes ago, K1stpierre said:

 

I mean, I feel like my version wouldn't be that bad as it wouldn't be contingent upon seeing gore or blood. Would it be violent and terror? Sure, absolutely. So if critics would rate it based on that, then maybe.

Right, I was just commenting on hearing his bones crush and being distorted into the sewer (think the girl who gets swallowed by the broken escalator in Final Destination 5)...I don't think audiences would want to see that happen to a little kid lol. The dragging effect would probably look the same...minus the blood coming out of the mouth. And there it was kind of played goofily (even though it actually happened a few years later in China).

The way you laid it out would have been very effective. I'm looking forward to watching it again.

[K1stpierre]

3 minutes ago, somebody85 said:

I'm in the same boat as a huge horror fan. The CGI here reminded me of The Thing prequel (2011). Meanwhile it's the first remake that gets remembered nowadays.

That first shot of Pennywise biting Georgies arm (the actual shot makes him look like a fish with extremely sharp teeth)....it took away from this being Pennywise to me. Like if you're going to use CGI at least have it still look like the actor.

I get that IT is an alien and that's why I can let some of this go but I wish more of his scenes were done with prosthetics (I thought this was going to change with TFA and other movies going back to real effects). Sometimes when he transformed he felt like something else entirely and that took me out of it.

Exactly, and I agree The Thing prequel's CGI was laughable, not scary in the sense (of course, the film had other things wrong with it). It's sad that a film that came out decades before it with less technology can still kick films asses today, hense the original Thing vs. the remake.

 

Same. I agree 100%. And people on here have said "Well, it had a low budget so what do you expect?"......Um....Sorry but like, I don't care? lol. There have been films with shitty budgets and have made it work, that's no excuse. I judge a film on what I see, period. I think the only good CGI this film had was at the end when Pennywise opens his mouth to bev and shows her his dead lights, that part I actually liked. All the rest of the CGI, I hated it. 

[junkshop36]

I'm glad I went into this having never read the book or seen the TV movie. Didn't cloud my judgment or anything regarding whatever changes they made. I could enjoy it for what it was; which I did. 

 

I thought it was really good. Wasn't really scary though. More atmospheric and creepy with a few decent jump scares; which is fine by me as I'm not really a big horror guy lol. 

 

Skarsgard killed it(😬) as Pennywise. That first scene in the drain was creepy as fuck. Didn't have a problem with the CGI. There's no way, in this day and age, that they're going to do everything practically. Plus, he's not human. He's a supernatural being who can transform and contort his body anyway he wants. Did it always look great? No. But it didn't affect my enjoyment of the movie. 

 

All the kids did a really good job as well. I loved the whole dynamic they had going on with all the different personalities. 

 

I only had a couple of negatives. I felt Stan was a little uninteresting as a character and I wasn't really feeling his fear. Also, there wasn't enough set up or back story for Henry and his father abusing him. That scene where he kills his father just didn't feel earned to me regarding his character. 

 

Other than that I pretty much enjoyed everything else about it. I look forward to seeing what happens in chapter 2 

 

A-

[Rorschach]

I liked the idea about the teeth even if the execution with CGI was rather silly. It reminded me so much of the Xenomorph from Alien, how it had a second set of jaws. I'd say it felt like a mix between a Xenomorph's teeth and a shark's teeth (being that there were rows and rows of teeth not clearly visible at first glance).

[somebody85]

40 minutes ago, K1stpierre said:

Exactly, and I agree The Thing prequel's CGI was laughable, not scary in the sense (of course, the film had other things wrong with it). It's sad that a film that came out decades before it with less technology can still kick films asses today, hense the original Thing vs. the remake.

 

Same. I agree 100%. And people on here have said "Well, it had a low budget so what do you expect?"......Um....Sorry but like, I don't care? lol. There have been films with shitty budgets and have made it work, that's no excuse. I judge a film on what I see, period. I think the only good CGI this film had was at the end when Pennywise opens his mouth to bev and shows her his dead lights, that part I actually liked. All the rest of the CGI, I hated it. 

I thought it looked alright in the Neibolt house with Eddie too but IT was transitioning back and forth between forms and there was more acting there.

[somebody85]

18 minutes ago, junkshop36 said:

Plus, he's not human. He's a supernatural being who can transform and contort his body anyway he wants. Did it always look great? No.

Right and this is why I'm willing to give it some leeway for some of those scenes. It just took awhile getting used to. IT is an alien not some demonic clown...so I understand.
 

I also thought it looked fine when he chomped on the stair after chasing Bill.

[somebody85]

18 minutes ago, Rorschach said:

I liked the idea about the teeth even if the execution with CGI was rather silly. It reminded me so much of the Xenomorph from Alien, how it had a second set of jaws. I'd say it felt like a mix between a Xenomorph's teeth and a shark's teeth (being that there were rows and rows of teeth not clearly visible at first glance).

Right, remember in Finding Nemo when Dory and Marlin go towards the fish with the really bright shiny light. That's what it sort of reminded me of in area, especially with the white eyes.

Edited September 12, 2017 by somebody85

[junkshop36]

1 hour ago, somebody85 said:

Right and this is why I'm willing to give it some leeway for some of those scenes. It just took awhile getting used to. IT is an alien not some demonic clown...so I understand.
 

I also thought it looked fine when he chomped on the stair after chasing Bill.

 

Is there a chance that they explain what IT actually is in the second movie? 

 

Like I said, I never read the book

[baumer]

14 hours ago, La Binoche said:

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. 

 

IT was written 30 years ago.  Stranger Things did not do it first, or better.

[somebody85]

5 hours ago, junkshop36 said:

 

Is there a chance that they explain what IT actually is in the second movie? 

 

Like I said, I never read the book

Yes. But the explanation is so freaking out there that I kind of hope they do something different and not over complicated it. Simpler is better.

[Gopher]

I think I'm particularly harsh to movies that have the capacity to be better, as opposed to movies that never really stand a chance from their opening scene. I enjoyed this quite a bit: I found its imagery inspired, its casting impeccable, its one-liners funny, and its point of view (kids in fear of adults) specific and consistent. Moments from this movie - a tortured lamb, a dancing clown, a balloon delivering a knife - will stay with me as long as any other horror movie's.

 

Its knee-capping problem is how every beat feels executed within its own vacuum: Muschietti is so delicate at telling stories at a micro-level of a scene, he largely ignores the cumulative effects these dreams hold on these kids. Nothing changes, no real shift in character between the first and third acts. By not letting the time and space of its world build momentum, It becomes a slog, a 135-minute barrage of jump-scares that wears out its welcome well before they stroll up to the haunted house.

 

Also this might be sacrilege to say but it could've lost a couple of kids. Would've happily said goodbye to Little Jew to get more scenes with Mike.

[dxmatrixdt]

Well I'm glad I saw it again before posting on here.  After my first viewing, I was pissed off and gave it a C.  I finished the book Thursday night and saw the movie Sunday afternoon.  I rewatched the miniseries in between.  Upon the second viewing, I ignore the book and took it as the movie it was.  I purposely reserved my seat on discount Tuesday late at night assuming a sold out crowd, and when I arrived late to my reserved seat, the box office said sold out.  The experience was good and I enjoyed it more, So I am upping this to a B.  I guess it is a good movie.  But ughh, where do I even begin?  I will start with the worst.  When It took Beverly and the kids had to go rescue her.  Damsel in distress...wtf!?  I really think it followed an Avengers like plot.  They all got into a fight and broke up, girl gets kidnapped by super villian and the heroes come together with their magic to defeat the evil.   Like seriously?  I guess I can forgive that they ignored the Barrens as the main setting with the sewer pipes leading to deep dark musty depths underneath Derry where they find It's lair, and then how they replace this climax with It living under the house on Neibolt street where it has a sunroof....lol.  I did not mind the special effects either.  The book is loaded with special effects and the budget restraints left most of it out.  The scene in the garage with the projector I liked.  It totally got me.  I did not see that coming.  I also liked that scene because that is something that could have been in the book.  I thought that was a well written insert into the original story. The only special effect that made me mad was the hair in the sink pulling Beverly downward.  This is not Mama or The Grudge.  There did not need to be CGI hair shooting out and doing that.  STUPID!  The teeth were fine.  They were scarier than the miniseries.  Another complaint is the lack of character development of Henry Bowers.  His specific targeting of Ben Hanscom and carving the H on his stomach could have used a quick scene at the school as motivation rather than them just waiting on him because school is out.  In the book, Ben Hanscom defied them in some way first which made them act out worse.  And when he targets Mike Hanlon, again, no setup.  Maybe if Henry's dad was not a cop and instead was a farmer who was competing with the Hanlon's would have made more sense?  lol.  Ok what else?  Beverly looked older than the boys.  Bill Denbrough was supposed to be the alpha of the group, but he was a bit scrawny for me. In the book, he is the guide.  Everyone is lost without him.  They always look to him for decisions.  Ben Hanscom looks younger then everyone else.  Greta Gerwig has a job at the pharmacy.  Eddie was too aggressive and seemed too alive and animated.  Again, no barrens but I said i would forgive that since there is really nothing else I can do about it expect fret.  No barrens = the less dramatic rock fight.  Without the strong Barrens setting, there was nothing to claim after the rock fight.  However the Barrens were beautiful.  All the scenery was just like how I imagined it.  Sooo much better than the miniseries where it was just one set with the kissing bridge in the background.  Since entering the barrens to get to the sewer to defeat It was not in the film, then neither was Henry and his gang chasing them into the sewers and getting picked off with Henry remaining and taking the blame for  all the missing children (after they find his father dead).  So finally I will revisit my #1 complaint.  Bev getting taken.  Seriously, the director and the writer could have pulled it off fine getting the motive to get the Losers Club to go after It on their own without having to team up and save Bev being there motivation.  They could have added scenes with some of them where their bravery in the encounters with It scared it off.  Stan and his birds.  Bill and his speech.  Any sort of strength and It is repulsed.  Then they take their strength a group and beat It on willpower.  Ughhhh, so frustrating.  Hope they do this in the sequel.

[Noctis]

^ No one's going to read that.

[dxmatrixdt]

5 hours ago, Noctis said:

^ No one's going to read that.

??

[The Stingray]

I think IT works as a fun breezy little adventure. IT does the Stand by Me thing quite well. The kids are great and the interactions between them sweet (the girl steals the show). Where IT falls completely flat is at horror. The director doesn't seem to be bothered with such crucial horror elements as suspense, pacing and atmosphere. What we're left with is jump scares of the cheapest variety and an overabundance of goofy special effects.

 

7/10