#1  
Old 09-06-2019, 09:15 AM
WOOKINPANUB's Avatar
WOOKINPANUB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: St Petersburg, Floriduhhh
Posts: 7,208

It Chapter Two


I've been waiting for this pretty much since the second the credits started rolling on part one. Going to see it tonight after work. Anyone else excited / planning on seeing it this weekend? I've read a few mixed reviews but even if they said it was utter shite, I'd still see it. I also read that Stephen King has a cameo that is definitely lengthy enough that you can't miss him and that there are some other "special appearances" so I'll have to watch carefully (between the fingers of my hands which will be over my eyes )
  #2  
Old 09-06-2019, 10:42 AM
Poysyn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,358
I am going on Sunday and really looking forward to this movie - It was my favourite SK for a long time.
  #3  
Old 09-06-2019, 10:44 AM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,706
I'll be wanting to catch it when I'm back home in NY.

(I think there may be theatres out here in the boondocks but I visualize them playing reruns of Sentimental Journey and midnight showings of Passion of the Christ in perpetuity)
  #4  
Old 09-06-2019, 12:03 PM
Hampshire is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 11,134
I've heard from a handful of talk radio people who've seen it and they all seem to have similar thoughts. It's was way longer than it needs to be, some of the f/x look dated or cheap, it wasn't really that scary.
  #5  
Old 09-06-2019, 12:21 PM
WOOKINPANUB's Avatar
WOOKINPANUB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: St Petersburg, Floriduhhh
Posts: 7,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hampshire View Post
I've heard from a handful of talk radio people who've seen it and they all seem to have similar thoughts. It's was way longer than it needs to be, some of the f/x look dated or cheap, it wasn't really that scary.
I've read some reviews like that and others that say the opposite, so it could go either way or be a mixed bag. One thing that I found promising is that it was mentioned that unlike many films these days, the previews don't give away the best / scariest parts and the trailers I've seen so far are pretty good so that makes me hopeful.
  #6  
Old 09-06-2019, 03:00 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,367
I'm definitely seeing it this weekend. Been waiting for it for too long!
__________________
Have I mentioned you are one of the most amoral/ethically impaired people I have encountered? - Broomstick
  #7  
Old 09-06-2019, 03:03 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,997
I'll see it today I hope. I'm looking forward to it. (heh)
  #8  
Old 09-06-2019, 03:36 PM
simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,352
Taking SimFamily to see It 2 Sunday......

Last edited by simster; 09-06-2019 at 03:37 PM.
  #9  
Old 09-06-2019, 06:50 PM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,792
A few quick remarks:

It was a fast 2:48

The original Stephen King material was excellent

The material changed by the filmmakers wasnt

The Eddie Kasperak character was really poorly written imo and not anything like the book Eddie

Again, I didnt agree nor necessarily liked the unneeded plot and character ark questions

There were only 16 people in the large theater (in Westwood, Ca) usually packed for openings

There are a few moments of very loud sound so if you use earplugs bring em

It is still awaiting a proper treatment; time for one of the long form entertainment providers to step up
  #10  
Old 09-07-2019, 01:18 AM
Infovore's Avatar
Infovore is offline
Doltish Snackhound
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Somewhere fictional
Posts: 11,569
I saw it today. Random thoughts in no particular order:

Enjoyed it. The casting was good. The jump scares were predictable enough that they didn't bother me, but a couple of them did freak me out a bit (especially the one with Beverly visiting her old home).

I did think it was a bit long. I called a certain character's reveal halfway through the film and kept waiting for the shoe to drop.

Was kind of bummed that they didn't have Audra or Beverly's husband come to Derry.

The scene in the Chinese restaurant was great. I loved that in the original miniseries, and they managed to top it.

The scene with
SPOILER:

Adrian getting killed while his boyfriend looked on

was very hard to watch.

Also, I was surprised that
SPOILER:

Bill wasn't able to save the little boy. I thought his death was an illusion, but apparently not.


The Stephen King cameo was fun.
  #11  
Old 09-09-2019, 08:27 AM
WOOKINPANUB's Avatar
WOOKINPANUB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: St Petersburg, Floriduhhh
Posts: 7,208
Saw it Friday, and my theater was fairly empty also, though I went to the 4:50 showing because I hoped there would be few people there (I have long since given up going when it's liable to be crowded. Thanks, dumbasses who don't know how to conduct yourselves ).

Overall, it was good scary fun, and I'm glad I saw it. The casting was perfect, as far as matching the adults to the young actors. I must admit that I don't recall how each of them was depicted in the book, looks wise. madsircool, if you mean that Eddie in the movie seemed too cynical / tough, I would have to agree. I think he matched how he was portrayed in the first movie but even watching the 1980s version over the weekend, Eddie seemed to be much meeker.

The jump scares were annoying and always come across as lazy and weak, no matter how good the rest of a film is.

I could have lived without
SPOILER:
the upshot of Bill Hader spewing. And then we get to see him puke again later? Was Ritchie particularly pukey in the book?


Mr. King's scene was a treat. I loved the running joke about the writer not being able to write a decent ending.

I agree with Infovore about
SPOILER:
the opening scene. It was sad and brutal


Bill Skarsgard was again, an excellent Pennywise. Sure, the makeup and CGI play a part, but he really creates a scary creature (have you seen the interviews where he demonstrates how he moves his eyes independently from one another? Also, that thing with his bottom lip).

I'm glad they included
SPOILER:
the scene with the Paul Bunyon statue. I was looking forward to that and it didn't disappoint. That was a really effective scene in the book


The Chinese restaurant scene was really good; the um, contents, of the fortune cookes were even better than in the tv movie
SPOILER:
especially the spider with the baby's head Great forshadowing of the final battle


I think the whole
SPOILER:
Ritual of Chud/ final battle/giant spider thing was handled just about as well as it could have been. I was curious (and semi dreading) what they were going to do about the giant spider part, and the solution was actually pretty good


I'm not sure how someone who isn't an SK fan or at least a fan of the tv movie would rate this. I had a great time with it but I'm unabashedly biased
  #12  
Old 09-09-2019, 08:48 AM
WOOKINPANUB's Avatar
WOOKINPANUB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: St Petersburg, Floriduhhh
Posts: 7,208
Oops, sorry for the double post; I forgot a couple of things. . .

Infovore, what character's reveal are you referring to?

Also,
SPOILER:
I think it was an odd / not a great choice to have it appear that certain things actually happened (as opposed to them being in the character's mind). Such as the Chinese restaurant. Did I not pay close enough attention, or after Mike(?) trashes the table with a chair the hostess comes in and the room is indeed trashed. In the tv version everything was normal by the time she somes in. Ditto the scene where Eddie gets attacked by the leper (?) He runs out of the pharmacy and shows up back at the hotel covered in blood. IMO that should have been all in his mind.
  #13  
Old 09-09-2019, 09:28 AM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by WOOKINPANUB View Post
Saw it Friday, and my theater was fairly empty also, though I went to the 4:50 showing because I hoped there would be few people there (I have long since given up going when it's liable to be crowded. Thanks, dumbasses who don't know how to conduct yourselves ).

Overall, it was good scary fun, and I'm glad I saw it. The casting was perfect, as far as matching the adults to the young actors. I must admit that I don't recall how each of them was depicted in the book, looks wise. madsircool, if you mean that Eddie in the movie seemed too cynical / tough, I would have to agree. I think he matched how he was portrayed in the first movie but even watching the 1980s version over the weekend, Eddie seemed to be much meeker.

The jump scares were annoying and always come across as lazy and weak, no matter how good the rest of a film is.

I could have lived without
SPOILER:
the upshot of Bill Hader spewing. And then we get to see him puke again later? Was Ritchie particularly pukey in the book?


Mr. King's scene was a treat. I loved the running joke about the writer not being able to write a decent ending.

I agree with Infovore about
SPOILER:
the opening scene. It was sad and brutal


Bill Skarsgard was again, an excellent Pennywise. Sure, the makeup and CGI play a part, but he really creates a scary creature (have you seen the interviews where he demonstrates how he moves his eyes independently from one another? Also, that thing with his bottom lip).

I'm glad they included
SPOILER:
the scene with the Paul Bunyon statue. I was looking forward to that and it didn't disappoint. That was a really effective scene in the book


The Chinese restaurant scene was really good; the um, contents, of the fortune cookes were even better than in the tv movie
SPOILER:
especially the spider with the baby's head Great forshadowing of the final battle


I think the whole
SPOILER:
Ritual of Chud/ final battle/giant spider thing was handled just about as well as it could have been. I was curious (and semi dreading) what they were going to do about the giant spider part, and the solution was actually pretty good


I'm not sure how someone who isn't an SK fan or at least a fan of the tv movie would rate this. I had a great time with it but I'm unabashedly biased
Quote:
Originally Posted by WOOKINPANUB View Post
Oops, sorry for the double post; I forgot a couple of things. . .

Infovore, what character's reveal are you referring to?

Also,
SPOILER:
I think it was an odd / not a great choice to have it appear that certain things actually happened (as opposed to them being in the character's mind). Such as the Chinese restaurant. Did I not pay close enough attention, or after Mike(?) trashes the table with a chair the hostess comes in and the room is indeed trashed. In the tv version everything was normal by the time she somes in. Ditto the scene where Eddie gets attacked by the leper (?) He runs out of the pharmacy and shows up back at the hotel covered in blood. IMO that should have been all in his mind.

I agree with everything else you wrote. I think I am so hard on the film because I loved the book and would have liked to see the general structure of it kept intact. I would have liked them to keep the original timeframe (1958 and 1985) because the separation in time from today would have made it scarier for younger viewers who tend to believe that everything old is scary.

SPOILER:
I believe that Infovore was referring to Richie being gay.

About Eddie...in the book and the first movie he was much meeker. Him dropping eff bombs in his first few lines was a little shocking given the way King had written him. And it was annoying that his profession (and a couple of others) was changed for no logical reason.

It struck me as weird that Mike was almost forgotten in the first film (iirc it was Ban who became the keeper of Derry lore. In the 2nd film he was overpowered (Bowers had stabbed him in the library and he was in hospital when they killed IT) at the expense of the real and spiritual leader of The Losers, Bill. Again, I do not understand why the filmmakers had to change such an integral plot device.

Totally agree about the jump scares and the sound editing in general. When Adrian was being beaten in the opening moments of the film the enhanced punches were distracting. It would have been much more powerful imo to simply hear the sound of fist to flesh and bone.

As far as the Ritual of Chud, in the book, because it happened in a different plane of existence, maybe they could have used an animated cut scene to pull it off.

And they really missed the boat on the town of Derry itself. In the book the town had become a character itself. It was dark and brooding and held ugly secrets. it had been deeply scared by the decades of murder and violence. In the film, Derry seemed like a bright and cheerful place. I got no sense whatsoever that there were unspoken evil secrets. WE has a doc airing No One Saw A Thing about a town coming together to kill a violent a dangerous man and the effect that murder had on the town itself. In the book IT, the townspeople of Derry guns down a 1930s gangster crew. Im hoping that this part of the book along with the burning of the Black Spot will turn up in special features on the DVD.

Last edited by madsircool; 09-09-2019 at 09:28 AM.
  #14  
Old 09-09-2019, 10:07 AM
Eyebrows 0f Doom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
I agree with everything else you wrote. I think I am so hard on the film because I loved the book and would have liked to see the general structure of it kept intact. I would have liked them to keep the original timeframe (1958 and 1985) because the separation in time from today would have made it scarier for younger viewers who tend to believe that everything old is scary.

SPOILER:

It struck me as weird that Mike was almost forgotten in the first film (iirc it was Ban who became the keeper of Derry lore. In the 2nd film he was overpowered (Bowers had stabbed him in the library and he was in hospital when they killed IT) at the expense of the real and spiritual leader of The Losers, Bill. Again, I do not understand why the filmmakers had to change such an integral plot device.
I think you're confusing the film with the miniseries:
SPOILER:
Mike was absolutely there when they killed IT in the film. He led the whole Chud ritual. In the new movie, Bowers really had no point at all since he did not put anyone in the hospital.
  #15  
Old 09-09-2019, 10:10 AM
WOOKINPANUB's Avatar
WOOKINPANUB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: St Petersburg, Floriduhhh
Posts: 7,208
Re the character reveal . . .

SPOILER:
Thanks, madsircool. I had considered coming in here and asking if there was some reason the Ritchie character ended up being gay. Then I wasn't sure I read it right. I mean, there's the scene at the end where he recarves the R + E (I forget; was that originally put there by Henry Bowers?)but I wasn't sure if we're meant to take that literally. Also, the voiceover when that part is shown seems to be saying something about being free to love or something along those lines. So now I'm still wondering why that choice was made. Ritchie in the tv movie was a womanizer, and I can't remember a thing about Ritchies sexuality in the book.


I too hope there's some great extras on the DVD. I don't think I'll feel the need to watch the film again for awhile, but I do love extras!
  #16  
Old 09-09-2019, 10:13 AM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,792
In the book....

SPOILER:
Henry Bowers attacks Mike in the Library and they are both terribly wounded. Mike is in the hospital when the remaining Losers finish off IT. I reread the novel before It Chapter 1 was released.
  #17  
Old 09-09-2019, 10:24 AM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by WOOKINPANUB View Post
Re the character reveal . . .

SPOILER:
Thanks, madsircool. I had considered coming in here and asking if there was some reason the Ritchie character ended up being gay. Then I wasn't sure I read it right. I mean, there's the scene at the end where he recarves the R + E (I forget; was that originally put there by Henry Bowers?)but I wasn't sure if we're meant to take that literally. Also, the voiceover when that part is shown seems to be saying something about being free to love or something along those lines. So now I'm still wondering why that choice was made. Ritchie in the tv movie was a womanizer, and I can't remember a thing about Ritchies sexuality in the book.


I too hope there's some great extras on the DVD. I don't think I'll feel the need to watch the film again for awhile, but I do love extras!
Me neither unless they reedit the two films into one long film ala The Godfather Saga with deleted scenes reintroduced.

Im sure its weird, but over the years Ive come to feel like I know Derry and The Losers. I really hope someone gives IT the longform and true to the book treatment it deserves. It was a pleasure getting to know you Losers.
  #18  
Old 09-09-2019, 12:23 PM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,792
Andy Muschietti hints at more Pennywise to come

https://screenrant.com/it-2-sequel-f...ies-pennywise/

Quote:
When asked point-blank if he would personally like to direct another Pennywise movie, Muschietti replied “Eventually.” So clearly, the door is open on the possibility of Muschietti returning at some point to mine the rich Pennywise mythology set up by King’s book. Even if Muschietti doesn’t return himself to make another Pennywise film, it seems almost certain that Warner Bros. and New Line will want to continue with the character,
  #19  
Old 09-09-2019, 12:34 PM
WOOKINPANUB's Avatar
WOOKINPANUB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: St Petersburg, Floriduhhh
Posts: 7,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
Andy Muschietti hints at more Pennywise to come

https://screenrant.com/it-2-sequel-f...ies-pennywise/
I'd like to see Pennywise back in the early days of Derry so we can see the mayhem of the Easter egg hunt and all his other bad deeds. And, even though he's got a sort of (sick) sense of humor, I definitely wouldn't want to see the character turn into some kind of Freddy Krueger. He has to remain dark.
  #20  
Old 09-09-2019, 12:43 PM
simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by WOOKINPANUB View Post
I'd like to see Pennywise back in the early days of Derry so we can see the mayhem of the Easter egg hunt and all his other bad deeds. And, even though he's got a sort of (sick) sense of humor, I definitely wouldn't want to see the character turn into some kind of Freddy Krueger. He has to remain dark.
I don't need to see more of Pennywise - except maybe as a 'background' thing that we know is contributing to the mayhem that is Derry.

I would like to see more of Derry and it's stories - While it had a few issues - the Castle Rock show was quite interestingly done.

As for IT2 - I found myself kinda bored about midway thru - the jumps were not that good, the resolution sucked and I am reminded why I dislike much of SK's work.

THere were some legitimately well done bits - but.... I'll never feel the need to watch IT again.

And yes - the opening was overly gruesome and violient to my knowledge iterved no purpose that I can see for the rest of movie other than to set the stage that 'bad things happen in Derry" - someone please correct me that it somehow fitted in OTHER than showing the return of PennyWise to the audience.
  #21  
Old 09-09-2019, 02:26 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,104
I saw it yesterday, and I agree with a lot of the comments here. There were some parts that were very well done, but on the whole it was only ok-to-good, not great.

Things that were great:

1. The opening scene. By far the most gut-wrenchingly visceral.
2. The repeated joke about King not being able to write endings. I about lost it when King himself delivered it. Good for him for having a sense of humor about the whole thing.
3. The casting.

On the one hand, I appreciated the self-deprecating humor and lampshade hanging. On the other, it's probably not a good sign when the character representing the author at the beginning of the movie based on the author's book has writer's block about writing an actual good ending to the in-film movie he's writing and is castigated by the director and his wife and every other character about not being able to write good endings.
  #22  
Old 09-09-2019, 03:00 PM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by simster View Post
I don't need to see more of Pennywise - except maybe as a 'background' thing that we know is contributing to the mayhem that is Derry.

I would like to see more of Derry and it's stories - While it had a few issues - the Castle Rock show was quite interestingly done.

As for IT2 - I found myself kinda bored about midway thru - the jumps were not that good, the resolution sucked and I am reminded why I dislike much of SK's work.

THere were some legitimately well done bits - but.... I'll never feel the need to watch IT again.

And yes - the opening was overly gruesome and violient to my knowledge iterved no purpose that I can see for the rest of movie other than to set the stage that 'bad things happen in Derry" - someone please correct me that it somehow fitted in OTHER than showing the return of PennyWise to the audience.
If you are referring to the murder of Adrian Mellon, that was one of the very first scenes in the book. It did introduce readers to a modern iteration of Pennywise.
  #23  
Old 09-09-2019, 03:08 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,803
I thought it was very good, better than Chapter One. They handled the multiple characters really, really well.

The one thing I didn't like - apologies if this is supposed to be an open spoiler thread but:

SPOILER:
The Henry Bowers character was pointless. He threatens the Losers twice; the first time he fails to stab a man half his size to death, and the second he gets his ass kicked. At no point is he really much of a threat, and the movie should have either not had him at all or significantly upped the ante on how dangerous he was.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #24  
Old 09-10-2019, 12:49 AM
Asylum is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Annapolis, Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,310
I think Chapter 1 was great, and Chapter 2 was good. If you liked the first one you'll enjoy the second one.

I can agree with most of not all of the criticisms regarding the movie's length. It definitely could've used some stronger editing. But, still a good flick with a great cast.

HOWEVER,
SPOILER:
what was up with the soundtrack suddenly blaring Angel of the Morning by the Pretenders during Eddie's fight with the leper? That was jarring AF.
  #25  
Old 09-10-2019, 01:14 AM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,997
I loved the first movie. I liked the second movie, but only because the first one was so good. In general, I thought there was a real dip in the quality of the story telling, the scares were a lot more "jump" and a lot less psychological. The adult characters are nowhere near as developed and in many ways didn't tie back to their childhood selves. I was disappointed with the movie.
  #26  
Old 09-10-2019, 01:18 AM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
I agree with everything else you wrote. I think I am so hard on the film because I loved the book and would have liked to see the general structure of it kept intact. I would have liked them to keep the original timeframe (1958 and 1985) because the separation in time from today would have made it scarier for younger viewers who tend to believe that everything old is scary.

SPOILER:
I believe that Infovore was referring to Richie being gay.

About Eddie...in the book and the first movie he was much meeker. Him dropping eff bombs in his first few lines was a little shocking given the way King had written him. And it was annoying that his profession (and a couple of others) was changed for no logical reason.

It struck me as weird that Mike was almost forgotten in the first film (iirc it was Ban who became the keeper of Derry lore. In the 2nd film he was overpowered (Bowers had stabbed him in the library and he was in hospital when they killed IT) at the expense of the real and spiritual leader of The Losers, Bill. Again, I do not understand why the filmmakers had to change such an integral plot device.

Totally agree about the jump scares and the sound editing in general. When Adrian was being beaten in the opening moments of the film the enhanced punches were distracting. It would have been much more powerful imo to simply hear the sound of fist to flesh and bone.

As far as the Ritual of Chud, in the book, because it happened in a different plane of existence, maybe they could have used an animated cut scene to pull it off.

And they really missed the boat on the town of Derry itself. In the book the town had become a character itself. It was dark and brooding and held ugly secrets. it had been deeply scared by the decades of murder and violence. In the film, Derry seemed like a bright and cheerful place. I got no sense whatsoever that there were unspoken evil secrets. WE has a doc airing No One Saw A Thing about a town coming together to kill a violent a dangerous man and the effect that murder had on the town itself. In the book IT, the townspeople of Derry guns down a 1930s gangster crew. Im hoping that this part of the book along with the burning of the Black Spot will turn up in special features on the DVD.
I agree with everything you've got here. I think they really missed some opportunities to continue with the build up of creeping dread and evil.
  #27  
Old 09-10-2019, 01:52 PM
Poysyn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,358
I thought the movie did pretty well managing what is, essentially, an unfilmable ending. I loved everything with the Turtle in the book, but realized that probably will not work in the movie. I did not love the changes, but recognized that describing a monster as "so alien it makes your brain hurt to look at it" is not something easily achieved, regardless of how far CGI has come. I was happy that the fight with Tom was not drawn out, and that Henry's escort back to Derry was way creepy. I still would have liked it to have been in Christine though.

We loved the reveal:

SPOILER:
We loved Richie being gay, mostly because it brought it full circle. He was teased and bullied and not able to be comfortable in his own skin, and now he could be. That was a nice wrap-up. Also, after Adrian's murder I felt it was important. The scene with the little girl under the bleacher and the boy in the mirror house were pretty heartbreaking. I freaking hate glass mazes/mirror houses.


I left the theatre during Adrian Mellon's murder. I knew it would be brutal and just could not manage it. Eddie was a hell of a lot funnier in the movie, and why did he just keep getting puked on? Poor Eddie. I read a ridiculous review that completely missed the point that Pennywise/It is not just feeling off the children, it is feeding off their fear, so a fast, quick death is not as desirable as playing and toying with the kid first.
  #28  
Old 09-15-2019, 03:47 PM
Quimby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,470
I enjoyed it but I definitely felt it's length. Not sure what they could cut though.

It has been a long time since I read it, the reveal that Ritchie is gay was not in the book right?.

I also thought it was interesting how they turned around Stan Uris' suicide. In the book it was an act of fear. In this an act of defiance.

I read review after review that said it was not scary. Some went as far as to say it isn't even a horror film. I have no idea what they are talking about. It had plenty of scares.
  #29  
Old 09-15-2019, 04:29 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
I never saw Part 1, but I've read the book. Why Part 2? Did Part 1 not cover the whole story? Or have they added something to the story?
  #30  
Old 09-15-2019, 04:36 PM
Quimby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
I never saw Part 1, but I've read the book. Why Part 2? Did Part 1 not cover the whole story? Or have they added something to the story?
The first Movie was the story of the children (in the 50s in the book; in the 80s in the movies). The current movie is the Adults 27 years later with some pieces that fill in the blanks of the kids' story. Rather than Intercut the stories they told it this way which I think works better for a movie.
  #31  
Old 09-15-2019, 05:03 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quimby View Post
The first Movie was the story of the children (in the 50s in the book; in the 80s in the movies).
So they're not Boomers?! That makes a big difference! The novel was all about Boomers, like Hearts in Atlantis was about Boomers!

Last edited by kirkrapine; 09-15-2019 at 05:04 PM.
  #32  
Old 09-15-2019, 05:36 PM
Infovore's Avatar
Infovore is offline
Doltish Snackhound
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Somewhere fictional
Posts: 11,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
So they're not Boomers?! That makes a big difference! The novel was all about Boomers, like Hearts in Atlantis was about Boomers!
It translates okay. They updated all the music and other time-specific stuff, but I didn't notice a big difference for the most part. Derry is kind of the little town that time forgot.
  #33  
Old 09-15-2019, 06:53 PM
dorvann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 816
I loved it. I think Bill Skarsgård did a good a job as Tim Curry playing Pennywise the Clown. I think the movie flew by pretty fast considering how long it was.

Also I'd like to point one thing out:

SPOILER:
The scene with the spider with a baby's head is a homage to the movie The Thing (the 1982 film). One of the characters even uses the same line as a character in The Thing did in response to seeing it: "You gotta be f........ kidding."
  #34  
Old 09-15-2019, 07:24 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by dorvann View Post
I loved it. I think Bill Skarsgård did a good a job as Tim Curry playing Pennywise the Clown. I think the movie flew by pretty fast considering how long it was.

Also I'd like to point one thing out:

SPOILER:
The scene with the spider with a baby's head is a homage to the movie The Thing (the 1982 film). One of the characters even uses the same line as a character in The Thing did in response to seeing it: "You gotta be f........ kidding."
I haven't seen the movie, but your spoilered description sounds like a character from Toy Story (in addition to being a homage to the John Carpenter movie image) --

SPOILER:
Babyface, the baby-doll head on 'spider' legs. Images:
https://www.google.com/search?lr=&as...iw=994&bih=835
  #35  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:15 PM
Quimby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
So they're not Boomers?! That makes a big difference! The novel was all about Boomers, like Hearts in Atlantis was about Boomers!
That would have turned the Adult portion into a period piece which I think would have been distracting.

What this does bring to mind is the book made a big deal about how the Losers went on to great financial and career success (other than Mike). It implied this was part of the Magic of them forgetting (maybe giving them an incentive to stay away). The movie hints at their success but doesn't do much with it or even mention it directly.
  #36  
Old 09-16-2019, 09:27 AM
WOOKINPANUB's Avatar
WOOKINPANUB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: St Petersburg, Floriduhhh
Posts: 7,208
I meant to bring this up before . . . a lot of negative reviews I've read mention the poor quality of the special effects. On the one hand, I was able to identify which scenes were being referred to as they happened, yet it seems to me it was a deliberate choice. For instance,

SPOILER:
Henry Bowers's dead buddy (Belch?). That was some old school, Creepshow style make-up, but I took it as the way It would imagine a human would imagine a reanimated corpse. Does that makes sense? Same with, for instance, the leper. It was nowhere as realistic as it could have been, had the director been going for realism. It's been planted in the mind of someone reliving a horrifying childhood memory and looks like what a child would imagine a rotting leper to look like.

Did anyone else see it that way? Did everyone else think / realize that's how we're meant to take it, and I'm just . . .slow?
  #37  
Old 09-16-2019, 12:37 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,407
So, I found out I was going to see IT chapter two, so I rented IT chapter one beforehand and watched them both within 24 hours of each other.

I think I liked the first one better. The second one was just too long. Too much stuff crammed in there. I think I would have preferred it if all or most of the 80's stuff was in the first movie, but maybe that would have just made the first movie too long. I don't know. I just know the second movie was too long.

Spoilers:

SPOILER:


I did find it odd that, if you connect the dots, it's pretty obvious Richie was gay and in love with Eddie. I however, did not pick up on that AT ALL in the first movie. And I don't know why they played that so low key. Yes, nobody was coming out in the 80s so that makes sense, but if it weren't for the carving I don't think I would have picked it up even in the second movie. Seems like an odd choice to be that low key in something that takes place in 2019. Oh well, I guess people are in the closet today and he's just one of them. Seemed kind of odd tho.

Also, what was the deal with one of the gay couple using an inhaler? Why would you have 2 characters use an inhaler in the same movie if it didn't serve a plot point? I was like "is that supposed to be Eddie?," even though he wasn't being called Eddie.

Did anybody think something bad was going to happen in the end when they were swimming in the lake? I've been taught that horror doesn't end till the credits roll in a horror movie, but that whole "looking for the glasses" thing seemed creepily done and more than just a reason for Ben and Beverly to kiss.

Also, I wish Amy Adams had played Beverly and not Jessica Chastain. She is just closer in both mannerisms and looks.


Last edited by Ashtura; 09-16-2019 at 12:37 PM.
  #38  
Old 09-16-2019, 12:46 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,407
Why does Pennywise suck so much at killing people?

If Pennywise is a real, physical manifestation, he should have no problems making mincemeat out of anyone, children and adults alike. Yet, even in direct conflict, people seem to have about a 90% survival rate against him, at least on-screen.

Is that why he possessed Henry? Because Henry is a more effective killer than Pennywise?
  #39  
Old 09-16-2019, 01:21 PM
WOOKINPANUB's Avatar
WOOKINPANUB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: St Petersburg, Floriduhhh
Posts: 7,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Why does Pennywise suck so much at killing people?

If Pennywise is a real, physical manifestation, he should have no problems making mincemeat out of anyone, children and adults alike. Yet, even in direct conflict, people seem to have about a 90% survival rate against him, at least on-screen.

Is that why he possessed Henry? Because Henry is a more effective killer than Pennywise?
Not sure if I'm understanding this. He doesn't have a problem making mincemeat out of people, he just likes to play with his food first I think he even said at one point the smell of their fear made them that much more delicious. As for the group being able to defeat him - twice!- I think we're just meant to go along with the concept that their imaginations, love for one anther, yada yada yada allowed good to triumph over evil.
  #40  
Old 09-16-2019, 02:27 PM
simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by WOOKINPANUB View Post
Not sure if I'm understanding this. He doesn't have a problem making mincemeat out of people, he just likes to play with his food first I think he even said at one point the smell of their fear made them that much more delicious. As for the group being able to defeat him - twice!- I think we're just meant to go along with the concept that their imaginations, love for one anther, yada yada yada allowed good to triumph over evil.
Wasnt about love - it was about them conquering their fear - apparently by bullying.
  #41  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:06 PM
Poysyn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Why does Pennywise suck so much at killing people?

If Pennywise is a real, physical manifestation, he should have no problems making mincemeat out of anyone, children and adults alike. Yet, even in direct conflict, people seem to have about a 90% survival rate against him, at least on-screen.

Is that why he possessed Henry? Because Henry is a more effective killer than Pennywise?
He doesn’t get his power by killing people. He is powered by fear. He can only kill when someone is scared, because he becomes he physical manifestation of their fear - so he needed Henry because Henry can just kill people whenever.
  #42  
Old 11-08-2019, 09:15 PM
Mahaloth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 30,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poysyn View Post
He doesn’t get his power by killing people. He is powered by fear. He can only kill when someone is scared, because he becomes he physical manifestation of their fear - so he needed Henry because Henry can just kill people whenever.
So then why/how did he kill that little girl? He told her he could remove her birthmark, but had to count to three. She was totally soothed and not afraid and then he jumped at her and ate her.
  #43  
Old 11-09-2019, 01:37 AM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poysyn View Post
He doesn’t get his power by killing people. He is powered by fear. He can only kill when someone is scared, because he becomes he physical manifestation of their fear - so he needed Henry because Henry can just kill people whenever.
Im not sure that I agree with this.

IMO, he becomes the manifestation of a childs fear because it makes them easier to kill. He burst Bowers out of the Psych Hospital because he already hated the Losers and he would add confusion and fear into them. The It films were horrible at plot and character and changed things whenever it suited the filmmakers.

Pennywise got his power from being an extraterrestrial almost immortal being. He killed because he needed to eat and humans became his food source.

The real terror in the book at least was the nature of the town and its people. And all the broken lives and unspoken misery.
  #44  
Old 11-09-2019, 08:17 PM
Mahaloth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 30,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
Im not sure that I agree with this.
Then why at the end of the first movie did they say that IT did not kill the girl because she was not afraid?
  #45  
Old 11-09-2019, 08:48 PM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahaloth View Post
Then why at the end of the first movie did they say that IT did not kill the girl because she was not afraid?
The movie sadly isnt anything like the book. Like Wookinpanub pointed out, fear makes Its food taste better. It doesnt kill because its evil or bloodthirsty. It has to eat. We are its cattle. However, in the book, it incites violence in other human beings. As I remember, the lumberjacks in the bar, the gangster shootout in the streets of Derry, The Black Spot fire and the explosion at the factory during the Easter Egg Hunt.

The movies were a massive missed opportunity to recreate the unspoken fear and dread that IT brought to Derry.

I guess we will have to wait for an extended miniseries to get a fair recreation of the novel.

Last edited by madsircool; 11-09-2019 at 08:49 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017