The most disturbing thing about that scene was how casually it occurred to Beverly to flirt with him like that. :eek: While buying tampons for the time.
They could just have him be the inventor of a Uber/Lyft analogue.
They were getting out of middle school and one of the kids mention he’ll be 40 in 27 years so they’d be 13. The middle school could be attached to the high school, or Henry could’ve just failed a grade or 2. What was the minimum driving age in Maine in the late '80s? Some states used to licence drivers as young as 15 (or even 14 in some cases).
Here’s a good Entertainment Weekly article that talks about some of the stuff coming up in Part II. Sounds like Mike will indeed have a pivotal part (and he’ll be the one who stays behind, paying a high price).
I’m a big King fan and have read most of his books multiple times, but haven’t reread IT since IT first came out, even though I remember IT being really good. I always glance at IT when I’m in that section of the library but always end up choosing something that seems like less of a…long term commitment. So my memories of the book are pretty fuzzy and I didn’t notice a lot of the stuff mentioned in this thread like the Ben/Mike switches.
I definitely did notice that Bev seemed noticeably older than the boys (those kids are 14 IRL? Are they on hormone blockers or something?!), to the point that it was a little distracting. Maybe she just hit a big growth spurt after the casting was finalized? I thought all the young actors were excellent, especially the kid who played Henry. The thing with Bev’s father was confusing; it wasn’t clear if he was actually molesting her or was just being really creepily overprotective. I figured it must have been the former after she found it necessary to crack his head open to get away from him, but it seems like it was “just” physical abuse, which I don’t recall ever being shown or implied in the movie.
Only Easter egg I noticed was that Bill says the Derry sewer system ultimately drains into “The Barrens”, which was also the name of the desolate area where Detta Walker went to smash crockery and whatnot.
I never saw the 1990 version, but have the opportunity to see it on the big screen this week; seems like the consensus is that I should?
I’d love to see it on the big screen. I know a lot of people thought it was a bit cheesy, but I really liked it. It’s different than the current movie, but it’s definitely still got some scares in it. And Tim Curry is fantastic.
Nope. The first scene in the book is modern-day, the gay-bashing murder of a man by group of three toughs.
The closest he came was near the end, but before the flood, where he demands to know if Beverly has been “messing around” with the boys she’s been hanging out with. She denies it and he says something like, “Come here. I know how to check.”
As the parent of middle-schoolers, I had no problem believing the ages. Middle school is where you see huge differences in apparent ages among kids, with girls in particular looking much older. Some of the boys might already be growing facial hair, and some look like little kids. It makes sense that boy members of the Losers Club would be more on the late bloomer side. And Beverly looked like plenty of regular 13-14 year old girls.
I don’t like Modigliani enough myself to hang a print in my home, but I DO have a Fernand Khnopff picture hanging over my bed which would possibly set Stan off.
When I asked my 21 year old son what he thought of my new art, he said, “You mean the creepy woman?”
Just got back from seeing it. Never read the book or watched the mini-series.
I know the novel came out in 86’ but as far as a 2017 movie it didn’t feel all that original. It felt like a lot of stuff I saw a long time ago or more recently.
A lot of it felt like I was watching the original Nightmare on Elm Street. A whole lot of scenes with Freddy/Pennywise terrorizing kids in creative ways until the kids decide to ‘fight back’ the enemy on their turf, dreamworld/sewer.
The whole kids in a small town thing felt very very much like Super 8. Even having a bunch of geeky boys and the lone girl everyone crushes on that has daddy issues at home. Again a mysterious small town terror that the kids must solve.
And even more recent it had a Stranger Things vibe to it. Stranger Things however really nailed the 80s vibe while It, even though set it 89’, almost had a 70s look to it. Cars, fashions, bicycles, etc.
And lastly it reminded me of the animated “Monster House”.
I enjoyed the film and didn’t remember the book well enough to share the above feelings about Mike’s character.
I thought the actors did a great job esp Jack Dylan Grazer as Eddie. I shared the curiosity about the time it was set as it did have a more 50/60’s feel and then BAM! - The Cure. (That having been said - as an XTC nut I’m delighted Andy Partridge will be getting some cash coming his way) Or ‘look everyone Tim Burton’s Batman - not the other ones!’
I agree with those who’ve said it wsn’t as scary as it might have been but there were enough jumps, frights and disturbing imagery to keep me and my daughter entertained. She was amazed Georgie wasn’t returned to his family. She said she’d convinced herself throughout that films wouldn’t have him dead. (She’s 23 and loves scary movies)
I too don’t really dig what was done with the Mike character. His grouchy grandfather and his “don’t let the man get you down” speech seemed out of place. It’s almost as if they shifted Mike’s original role of the groups’ historian to Ben so they could then emphasize the difficulties of his being black in a lily white town . . . and then they did nothing with it. Which then made the actor look bad because he had nothing to work with. Or he’s just a bad actor; I’m not sure.
I think they could have toned down the blood coming out of the bathroom sink a bit. Hearing voices coming out of the drain followed by a spray of blood seems scary enough. No need to also have the character tied down (by hair? tentacles?) while a Bellagio size fountain covers every square inch of the room. It reminded me of when Johnny Depp gets sucked into his bed in the first Nightmare on Elm St.
These are just minor nits I’m picking. Monday morning film critiquing, if you will. I don’t know if I’ll see it again on the big screen but I’ll probably watch the hell out of it when it comes out on blue ray.
Now that I have had time to digest the film, A few issues have popped up in my mind which annoy me.
They nerfed Pennywise. He was never a real threat to the kids. The studio/filmmakers invented the fiction that losing the fear of Pennywise made him harmless. He needed at least 2 more on screen kills to convince the audience of his power.
They substituted jump scares and musical tells for real suspense building.
The book emphasized that it was the unity of the kids that gave them power. In the movie they would separate the kids for no reason and Pennywise would menace.
How the he’ll could Pennywise get Brb from her apt to his lair without anyone noticing? That whole plotline change was moronic. As were the floating kids.
Changing how Eddie breaks his arm takes away from the overall terror of the plot. It makes Henry look weaker than He was and misses a chance to show the kids bonding.
Over all I do think it was an entertaining film and was very fast paced. But I think they made to many compromises on the darker material and the studio decided to go for jump scares and stereotypes than real characterizations and slow build horror.
I agree with all of this for the most part. In the book, each of the kids *was *terrorized separately so I didn’t mind that so much, but yeah, as good as Bill Skarsgard is physically, some of the plot did seem to weaken the scare factor of the Pennywise character.
And I hated the floating kids part.
I think it’s quite a feat, trying to stay true to the original work while keeping it coherent and interesting for those not familiar , putting one’s own creative spin on it,not to mention the shear volume of material he was working from. What to cut? What to add?
Now I think I *will *go see it again and maybe see if it strikes me any differently.
I agree and hope that they have some deleted material that can be resurrected for a directors cut. It would also be cool if the far larger budget for 2 will allow more stuff to be filmed even if it doesn’t make the movie again for the sake of the DVD.
Thinking ahead to 2, I wonder how they will handle the material about Bevs husband? The way the filmmakers constructed her character, it seems odd that they could have her be abused like that? And why did they have her kill her Dad? That means the witch material likely won’t be in 2.
I think we criticize because we love the story. I hope the studio recognizes that its the story we love and not their alterations.
