Stephen King's It

Loughc

Conall Cernach wrote: »

The Missus won't like me dragging her to something that won't have a proper conclusion.

I wouldn't worry, although this is Part 1, it's set to have it's own conclusion, Part 2 takes place 27 years later story line time wise when "IT" Returns.

It's more of a sequel than a concluding part.

Tylerdurex

Salems lot is my favourite King book and the 70's movie is great and creepy as ****, they made a remake with Rob Lowe a while back which wasn't great

Snake Plisken

Tylerdurex wrote: »

Salems lot is my favourite King book and the 70's movie is great and creepy as ****, they made a remake with Rob Lowe a while back which wasn't great

Yep that remake was rubbish. Sad to see the director(Tobe Hooper) of the 1979 version died at the weekend. When I saw that as a kid in the 70's that got me into reading King's works.
I really hope IT is a decent adaptation that does well at the box office.

Outkast_IRE

There was a reviewer on Neil Delamare show on 2fm yesterday talking about "It" he had been to the press screening.

He mentioned that there was an embargo so he couldnt give a full review. But he basically said he went into it expecting the worst as there have been many bad Stephen King adaptations but in a nutshell he said it was a very good film, he noted that it was very close to the book in terms of its themes, dealing with grief, abuse, bullying etc.

He gave massive praise to all the child actors and said they did an excellent job. He really had only good things to say about the movie, he said even if you remove the scary scenes with Pennywise the clown it stands up there with the best king adaptations.

Bacchus

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

There was a reviewer on Neil Delamare show on 2fm yesterday talking about "It" he had been to the press screening.

He mentioned that there was an embargo so he couldnt give a full review. But he basically said he went into it expecting the worst as there have been many bad Stephen King adaptations but in a nutshell he said it was a very good film, he noted that it was very close to the book in terms of its themes, dealing with grief, abuse, bullying etc.

He gave massive praise to all the child actors and said they did an excellent job. He really had only good things to say about the movie, he said even if you remove the scary scenes with Pennywise the clown it stands up there with the best king adaptations.

OT but to add to that list of bad adaptations... The Mist TV show on Netflix. Watched about 25 minutes of it last night. It's pretty damn weak and looks like a poor man's Under the Dome (which was fairly awful itself). Such a pity. Another waste of a King adaptation.

Liam McPoyle

Bacchus wrote: »

OT but to add to that list of bad adaptations... The Mist TV show on Netflix. Watched about 25 minutes of it last night. It's pretty damn weak and looks like a poor man's Under the Dome (which was fairly awful itself). Such a pity. Another waste of a King adaptation.

I watched the first episode last week and was rather non plussed with it however it was somewhat rescued by some relatively nasty gore. Gonna watch another couple of episodes and see where it goes.

On topic, I havnt read any reviews but the rumblings I've seen on a few SK groups is that thus far it is being very well received by critics.

Really looking forward to seeing it, hopefully this weekend.

Bebopclown

Reviews are starting to come in.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/it_2017

Mr Crispy

Promising.

Kablamo!

Saw this last night and I really, really enjoyed it. It's a lot more faithful to the book, and the child actors seem to really gel. Very "Stand by Me" comraderie between them. My boyfriend said there was a huge "Stranger Things" vibe from it. I didn't overly warm to Bill as Pennywise, but I really adored Tim Curry in that role so I think I'm just being overly fussy.

circos

Kablamo! wrote: »

Saw this last night and I really, really enjoyed it. It's a lot more faithful to the book, and the child actors seem to really gel. Very "Stand by Me" comraderie between them. My boyfriend said there was a huge "Stranger Things" vibe from it. I didn't overly warm to Bill as Pennywise, but I really adored Tim Curry in that role so I think I'm just being overly fussy.

The stranger things vibe I think is there due to the guys who created stranger things wanting to do the IT movie originally and instead ended up doing their own show with influences from Stephen King.

Mr E

Or it could just be because it's set in 1989?

circos

Mr E wrote: »

Or it could just be because it's set in 1989?

The 80 vibe does help! The book is set in the 50s when they are children so it's a bit of a change.

smurf492

And also hard wolffinn or whatever his name is from Stranger Things being also in IT...

Agent Coulson

Glenbhoy

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Yep that remake was rubbish. Sad to see the director(Tobe Hooper) of the 1979 version died at the weekend. When I saw that as a kid in the 70's that got me into reading King's works.
I really hope IT is a decent adaptation that does well at the box office.

I started reading Salem's lot aged 10, I finished it when I was about 17 (after 3 months of being scared to look out my bedroom window aged 10)!
Can't remember the ending, but I think it was one of the few king books which had a satisfactory ending.
I used to love so much about so many of his books, before giving up on them as they all had the same rubbish ending.
I gave under the dome a chance a few years ago for a holiday read, really enjoyed it up to a point, mind u, compared to the TV series....

Liam McPoyle

Bloody Disgusting (who I tend to agree with in the main) have given this two thumbs up. Didn't read the review barring the last few lines but they summed it up that they would put it in the same kind of bracket as Nightmare on Elm St in that it is destined to become a staple for Halloween viewing.

Properly excited now. Missus has given me permission to go see it at 10 on Sunday morning (having a 5 month old has seriously curtailed my excursions) so hopefully the cinema will be mostly empty, I much prefer viewing alone.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Saw a clip on YT of Georgie's death...

Bit uncomfortable tbh...Certainly more graphic then the original

skylight1987

first I declare I have never read the book but I loved the tv mini series. scary when I first saw it but just a good classic now .I have been planning to read the book in expectation of this new movie but now I hear there is an orgy in the book of an innappropriate age ????I cant read this ....how bad is it and why oh why did king put it in the book . if they put this in the movie i'll walk out .

Kablamo!

It's not in the film, never panic.

Tony EH

skylight1987 wrote: »

first I declare I have never read the book but I loved the tv mini series. scary when I first saw it but just a good classic now .I have been planning to read the book in expectation of this new movie but now I hear there is an orgy in the book of an innappropriate age ????I cant read this ....how bad is it and why oh why did king put it in the book . if they put this in the movie i'll walk out .

As said, it won't be in the film. They wouldn't dare.

As to "how bad" it is, I was more confused as to what was going on when I first read it at school. I had to read it again, because I wasn't sure that King went there, as it were. The enduring bit is that the girl wasn't sure if she bleeding or if one of the boys had "finished".

As an adult, I find that sort of shocking. As a lad in school, when I first read it, it didn't really bother me. But, I was still left wondering why it was in the book.

Probably King had a coke induced spurt of writing on evening and thought it was a great idea at the time.

I wonder if he has since regretted it.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

"We all float down here. Oooooo yes we dooooooo HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

Creepy

Heckler

Loved the book apart from the ending. Enjoyed the mini series. Looking forward to it now after earlier reservations.

Read an interview with King where he said at one stage he was taking so much cocaine he had to plug up his nose to stop the blood dripping on his typewriter as he wrote :eek:

His drug (illegal and prescription) and alcohol abuse was crazy when he was younger.

Liam McPoyle

Tony EH wrote: »

As said, it won't be in the film. They wouldn't dare.

As to "how bad" it is, I was more confused as to what was going on when I first read it at school. I had to read it again, because I wasn't sure that King went there, as it were. The enduring bit is that the girl wasn't sure if she bleeding or if one of the boys had "finished".

As an adult, I find that sort of shocking. As a lad in school, when I first read it, it didn't really bother me. But, I was still left wondering why it was in the book.

Probably King had a coke induced spurt of writing on evening and thought it was a great idea at the time.

I wonder if he has since regretted it.

Saw something on FB where he addressed that particular scene.

He basically said that it was written over 30 years ago and that the world was a very different place then.

It's been many years since i read the book but I don't recall it being particularly graphic or in anyway titillating and I read it was when I was a teenager so could get turned on by a strong breeze.

Pelvis

I would have thought 30 years ago it would have been an even bigger deal?

No, it's not graphic or titillating, but there's some places you just don't go.

Tony EH

Business Cat wrote: »

Saw something on FB where he addressed that particular scene.

He basically said that it was written over 30 years ago and that the world was a very different place then.

It's been many years since i read the book but I don't recall it being particularly graphic or in anyway titillating and I read it was when I was a teenager so could get turned on by a strong breeze.

Um, I don't know whether the world "was a very different place then", 30 years isn't that long really. But, I suppose some things may have been different. But that scene wouldn’t have raised any less eyebrows then, than it does now. It’s remarkable in its misstep and the sheer un-necessity of it.

I haven’t read the book in decades myself, but even then I felt that the story had turned a corner it didn’t need to. It wasn’t “titillating” as you say, but it still presents a real leftfield whack in a story that was quite conventional in many ways.

py2006

Saw IT! Wow that was enjoyable. Incredible performances from the child actors. Did go down slightly about 3/4 the way though but picked up again. Was slightly disappointed with the so called humour, but thoroughly enjoyed.

Yamanoto

Pelvis wrote: »

I would have thought 30 years ago it would have been an even bigger deal?

No, it's not graphic or titillating, but there's some places you just don't go.

Children experimenting with each other happens in real life, so I'm not sure why that shouldn't be addressed in fiction.

arch_stanton

Alondra Savory Stew wrote: »

Saw a clip on YT of xxxxxxx...

Bit uncomfortable tbh...Certainly more graphic then the original

If that’s a spoiler please hide and tag it

q2xv9rjei4awgb

arch_stanton wrote: »

If that’s a spoiler please hide and tag it

It's not a spoiler... Everyone knows it.

transylman

Enjoyed the movie. Visually, they really nailed it. The town, the period and the monster all looked right. Was traumatized by the original as a 10 year old. As an adult it was never going to generate the same response but it was still scarier than any other recent movie I have seen. Only niggle was it could have used more deep psychological scares like the Georgie scene at the start.
Film is also crammed with easter eggs. Pay attention to background details for loads of references.