itt: it

I already discussed this in the thread on King adaptations as well, but I liked it. Nothing really scary beyond the prologue (though I did jump during the projector scene), and (echoing clemenza in the other thread), I'm just sick to death of busy CGI effects. It would be nice if the whole 80s nostalgia thing that a lot of movies/TV are going for these days would extend one of them using 80s-style practical FX.

The cast was fantastic, and I would go so far as to say that this is one of the best set of child actors I've ever seen on film. The film worked for me as both a coming-of-age movie and even as a sentimental Spielberg-esque suburban fantasy (call me a sap, but the stuff with the brothers worked for me in a straightforward tearjerker-y way). Just not so much as a horror movie.

the kids' swearing was the best part of the movie

loved the book and was disappointed by the movie, structurally it was a failure because the power and immensity of the evil of 'it' in the book is best demonstrated by the frequent flipping back and forth between the childhood/adult timelines. despite everything they went thru as kids, they forgot everything and ended up repeating and recreating the abusive and traumatic and toxic circumstances of their youth (i.e. beverly's husband). that was totally lost in the movie and defanged 'it'

this is one of the best set of child actors I've ever seen on film

otm. issues I had were with the script, not with the performances. the adults didn't really act like recognizable humans to me, but I kind of understand that as an artistic choice. the novel makes clear that It affects all the adults in Derry to make them either monsters or bystanders. but it could've been a little less bodysnatchers-y

Yeah I could see what they were going for and I liked that they made Henry's & Bev's dads and the pharmacist even nastier but it's a bit much to have every adult be a dead-eyed psychopath the whole time

Similarly the creepy tv show in the background the whole time is neat in some ways but having the adults be literally hypnotised by a subliminal message is a bit too, well, literal

Reminds me of a similar moment in twin peaks s3 where shit's getting crazy and there's a sudden cut to a master shot that just hilariously deflates the scene

― scrüt (wins), Thursday, February 1, 2018 9:32 AM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Ha, okay, the TP scene you're referring to is hilarious and I think you've sold me on this for all the wrong reasons.

iirc from the book, the pharmacist was not a bad dude at all.

In the book it's suggested that even tho he's "doing the right thing" he takes a sadistic pleasure in upending eddie's world

Ha, okay, the TP scene you're referring to is hilarious and I think you've sold me on this for all the wrong reasons.

If you go in for the comedy those are prob the right reasons! It's what this film does well

yeah the pharmacist was certainly mean, at the very least. he was also very involved in the 1930 murder of the gangsters in the book.

Oh yeah, I remember that now.

i haven't watched this one yet but is it actually any good?

it got a lot of mixed reviews

maybe if you haven't read the book

i actually haven't

so a classic case of book is better?

worth watching for sure, prob better if you haven't read the book

FUCK THIS MOVIE

well then

lol

yeah i mean there isn't really any way to adapt a 1,100+ page novel into a two or even three hour movie. should've been another miniseries. but i can't emphasize enough how badly they fucked up the movie by altering the structure of the book. one of the central ideas/qualities of 'it' is that it is eternal & cyclical, and by flipping back and forth between the 50s and the 80s in the book, demonstrating how nothing has changed in the future even as the kids struggle and fight and do their best in teh 50s, the book really successfully conveys an omnipresent evil that is so much larger and more vague and scarier than its main avatar, a scary clown. the book is about childhood trauma and how it reverberates into adulthood. the movie is about killing an evil clown. dud

unfortunately i think w/the way Hollywood tries to maximize their product, dividing IT into two separate parts in this way was the most palatable way for the films to reach a wider audience. they can easily say, oh sure the kids in Pt 1 and the adults in Pt 2 and be done with it, they don't even have to be structurally clever or interesting.

obviously a weird decision but i mean this is an industry that turned a 300 page kids' book into a 9 hour trilogy just to get the most bang for their buck.

maybe not "weird" per se, it makes perfect sense, but it's the easy way out.

THIS STUPID MOVIE HAS CGI BLOOD IN LIKE THE FIRST 5 MINUTES. JUST USE REAL FAKE BLOOD, FUCKING IDIOTS. ALSO EVERYTHING DOESN'T HAVE TO BE STRANGER THINGS, DICKHEADS!

when that diaper baby "every one floats down here bobby" or whatever scene the baby boy gets dragged and it's like the worst cgi blood in the history of the medium fuck fyck fuckfyewhfoi

it's like the worst cgi blood in the history of the medium

why is this bad tho

because it look stup and dumb and not goopy and drippy

and like filmmakers that dont just drag a baby boy and use real fake blood in a fuckin HORROR MOVIE in a scene where a boy is dragged and blood is there are just shitty filmmakers by default and they should just kill themselves. also that stupid clown dance was stupid and for idiots.

https://media.giphy.com/media/XyAGm96eUIPsc/giphy.gif

WOW REAL SCARY

https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/pennywise-dancing.gif?w=650

I MEAN WOW REAL SCARY

kurt, did you miss the part in the book where he's a russian cossack dancer pumping up a bicycle tire and kinda angry sad about it?

I have no opinions about cgi blood but I agree that the dance is scary

lol, what are those props back there anyway? Like the thing he kicks?

one of the central ideas/qualities of 'it' is that it is eternal & cyclical, and by flipping back and forth between the 50s and the 80s in the book, demonstrating how nothing has changed in the future even as the kids struggle and fight and do their best in teh 50s

someone said in an interview that the kids are gonna return for flashbacks in part 2. but yes, even though the adult story is less interesting imo, the cutting back and forth was super disorienting and helped build up that sense of dread.

Don't most productions these days use CGI blood, since it's a lot cheaper than resetting with freshly cleaned up actors and new squibs?

cgi blood is not cheaper than just dumping some liquid on the floor and filming it. it's done out of laziness.

the most drippy goopy scary movies ever made are the lowest of the low budgets.

and cgi blood does have its place i guess, but this particular instance just looked so BAD

cgi blood was used v effectively and beautifully in the tv series hannibal

https://media.giphy.com/media/ZSdirlR9iUm6Q/giphy.gif

Things were certainly gloopier back then

https://findingfaeries.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/itbloodinsink.gif

the fake blood in the chinese detective series WHEN A SNAIL FALLS IN LOVE (which everyone shd be watching as it is interesting) is a mysterious orange colour
luxury, criminal decadence, martial-arts cops and profiling on the streets of the people's republic of china: WHEN A SNAIL FALLS IN LOVE

https://findingfaeries.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/itbloodinsink.gif

Wow things were also drippy back then kurt I think you're into something

https://78.media.tumblr.com/5748cb55a0b4b34ec90f917618a95b94/tumblr_ogqb8yvplN1r2lmkgo3_400.gif

Should have been that image, my beautiful joke is ruined

the ponytails were longer back then

Re Jon Boy and his drippiness the 1990 version has one of my favourite unintentionally funny moments when bill is furiously tapping out his latest novel, obviously meant to be a Stephen King stand-in, and you hear the words in v.o. as he types them and it's complete fucking flannel, and then he leans back and whispers to himself "yeah. yeah."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE1oX0A-qKk

It's exactly 1 minute in here

the pile of cocaine must have been just offscreen

The only other good thing in the adults part of that miniseries is ben the architect's apartment

"hampstead heath, england"

s/b "west england"" iirc

xp: he's got a french horn or something up here, right?

Also, love the phrase "complete fucking flannel".

I am otm but probably too relentlessly sometimes - as a person who will rewatch thinner I am glad some people are enjoying this bad movie 🙂 I can see myself maybe softening on it over time as long as I never have to watch it again

Re the “curious decision” to make Richie the gay one (was trying not to spoil this earlier as it’s a surprising choice that actually works), I strongly suspect either that this was made after casting Hader or that the filmmakers were just big Richie fans - that actor/character is given the only interesting stuff to do p much. One of the more egregious examples of “nothing can matter” is the losers being surprised to see Richie grieve their friend who died horribly minutes before. It’s a good moment for him but shouldn’t those guys give a shit as well?

The mook they got to play hunky Ben = total void

I liked the first "chapter" for the engaging performances from the child actors and because it hit my 80s nostalgia sweet spot. Chapter 2 is three hours of expensive-looking CGI.

Otm

Yep. Tried watching the second one twice, fell asleep both times.

I stand by most of what I wrote (while buzzed) above but have no desire to ever watch it again, to be clear.

Ok, I did laugh at the King and Bogdanovich cameos.

Chapter 2 was definitely a chore

it was an assload of fuck

It’s back!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAPDKRvoz00-

pass

lol yes your opinions duly noted upthread!

would watch only if it was a crossover with Derry Girls