Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I loved both It movies, the old one and the new one, but Im confused by the trailer for the sequel, it looks like they are going to go down the road of 'Pennywise' being a human at one point, if that is true, its a major deviation from the book and the original movie.
I really hope Im wrong, but I dont think I am from that trailer.
Pennywise was never human. Hopefully they don;t portray him as such.
The movie is saved by a truly outstanding cast. Kids and adults alike are both absolutely fantastic in the movie. Which is good, because the movie itself is a mess. Pacing if way off. There are extraneous characters that should have been cut, and others that were introduced, then forgotten. The way the Losers finally defeat IT makes no sense at all. And many of the "monsters" are more goofy than scary.
To be fair, a lot of that was a failing of the original novel as well. But the movie failed to save it.
Great cast. And in the midst of an all-around great cast, Bill Hader does indeed still the show. But yeah, the movie is a mess.
Every other scene seemed to be a theme of running away from some terribly rendered CGI creature ("The Thing" did it way better, and with real animatronics).
Could have used some better editing and lot less repetitive scenes.
The movie is a c.g.i abortion. Paid $4 and wanted 2 back after... I know, how does it feel - to want. I wouldn't recommend it with any caveats. For the longest time The Stand was my favorite SK novel of those that I've read. Then I reread IT and it's now number one. The Shining being right up there with The Stand. The best film rendition for me continues to be The Mist (short story with a different ending than SK's - which he liked btw).
This premiered on HBO last night, and I have to say, I'm really glad I didn't spend any money watching this in the theater when it came out. IT Chapter 2 was about as mediocre as you can get.
I agree with everyone saying that it was a great cast and Bill Hader was great, but IMO Bill Hader's strong presence really turned this into more of a parody comedy-horror. It didn't feel scary at all. The large amount of cgi took away from any true horror feeling. That's why the original TV adaption, while somewhat cheesy, the more low budget (no cgi) worked much better for creating the feel of terror.
Same with Pennywise. I find the original tv version much scarier. This version uses way to much cgi and the acting is over the top (he's trying too hard to be scary). The original Pennywise was naturally scarier, and actually looked like a clown to draw you in and then in the right spots hit you with terror you weren't expecting. In fact, the original one help to promulgate the fear of clown among pop-culture among kids/teens.
I never read the book, but I understand that this was somewhat true to the book, but I just think the level of cgi and the look/feel that, that brought, didn't set the right mood of terror that IT deserved. Wasn't a scary film, which I was hoping they would pull off after the first one. I wasn't a huge fan of chapter 1 either, but I did like how they really explored the child characters.
The bad ending was just icing on the cake for how mediocre this film was. I'd give it a C being generous. I did really like the actors, but the actual story and scenes were pretty bad for me.
I noticed it on HBO last night as well and started watching. I got about halfway through and gave up. Too long.
I also got a little turned-off with the foul mouthed kids. I liked the tv version. Two of those actors are now
dead (John Ritter & Harry Anderson).
I noticed it on HBO last night as well and started watching. I got about halfway through and gave up. Too long.
I also got a little turned-off with the foul mouthed kids. I liked the tv version. Two of those actors are now
dead (John Ritter & Harry Anderson).
Agree. I think in general that old-school (pre-cgi) works much better for horror. I love horror, and I rewatch some of the classics and still find them much more creepy. I think the use of CGI and theatrical cinematography messes up horror because it feels like you're watching a movie. Decades ago, when there was less of that, it seemed much more realistic and you get caught up in the film and it seems less like a "movie." Even the shots of Derry seemed like they were being filmed right on-set the whole time. Automatically took away any true terror.
I also thought that all the cursing by the kids in Chapter 1 was a little too much. Stephen King does have a good amount of cursing in his novels, so that may have been why they were liberal with it.
Agree. I think in general that old-school (pre-cgi) works much better for horror. I love horror, and I rewatch some of the classics and still find them much more creepy. I think the use of CGI and theatrical cinematography messes up horror because it feels like you're watching a movie. Decades ago, when there was less of that, it seemed much more realistic and you get caught up in the film and it seems less like a "movie." Even the shots of Derry seemed like they were being filmed right on-set the whole time. Automatically took away any true terror.
I also thought that all the cursing by the kids in Chapter 1 was a little too much. Stephen King does have a good amount of cursing in his novels, so that may have been why they were liberal with it.
Yes - the special effects today are very advanced but something gets lost in translation. The loud, thrown at the screen, in your face "scares." Not very subtle.
When we were kids, we used to watch an old movie called Horror Hotel. It was about witches. A pretty low-budget, black and white movie but it always had an eerie feel to it. It scared us!!
Consider what most people still consider to be the scariest movies ---
ALIEN
PSYCHO
JAWS
ROSEMARY'S BABY
Or even more recent examples ---
THE BABADOOK
THE CONJURING
The thing they all have in common: For most of the movie, they only hint at the monster. We don't really get a good look / resolution until the end.
Fear is built on what MIGHT happen. Once you see the monster, you know what's going to happen. Real fear is gone. You can still be grossed out or horrified. But afraid? Most of that is gone.
Consider what most people still consider to be the scariest movies ---
ALIEN
PSYCHO
JAWS
ROSEMARY'S BABY
Or even more recent examples ---
THE BABADOOK
THE CONJURING
The thing they all have in common: For most of the movie, they only hint at the monster. We don't really get a good look / resolution until the end.
Fear is built on what MIGHT happen. Once you see the monster, you know what's going to happen. Real fear is gone. You can still be grossed out or horrified. But afraid? Most of that is gone.
Yes. Completely agree. Also, I'm not sure what they can do about it, but the High-Def, theatrical visuals that are used today almost immediately take away the fear element from horror movies.
Yes, the movies look visually better, and for comic/superhero movies, they are enhanced greatly by the visuals. But for horror, the blurry, low budget feel (which makes it seem much more realistic and creepy) works so much better IMO. I can't really honestly say that I've been "scared" by any movie post-2000.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It scared us!!
