Stephen King's It

El Duda · 14-09-2017 04:54PM

kerplun k wrote: »

Mr Starman wrote: »

Loud, bombastic, predictable, boring, overly stylistic, lacks any kind of subtlety, unoriginal annoying 80's references to every 80's film/TV show I grew up watching, over use of crap computer effects too.

If this is the kind of yawn inducing trash that gets great reviews these days then its no wonder people stop going to the cinema.

Just curious, but what would you consider a good film that was released this year?

As someone who agrees with Starmans point of view I'd answer your question by saying...

Guardians 2
Spiderman
Baby Driver
Dunkirk
Wonder Woman

All far superior 2017 releases.

readyletsgo · 14-09-2017 05:00PM

Mr Starman wrote: »

Loud, bombastic, predictable, boring, overly stylistic, lacks any kind of subtlety, unoriginal annoying 80's references to every 80's film/TV show I grew up watching, over use of crap computer effects too.

If this is the kind of yawn inducing trash that gets great reviews these days then its no wonder people stop going to the cinema.

So, you liked it??

God, it's about a billion times better than the original (besides Currys performance of course). Yawn inducing, lol!

I loved it.

kerplun k · 14-09-2017 05:15PM

El Duda wrote: »

As someone who agrees with Starmans point of view I'd answer your question by saying...

Guardians 2
Spiderman
Baby Driver
Dunkirk
Wonder Woman

All far superior 2017 releases.

Okay, I'll bite

Loud, bombastic, predictable, can be used to describe at least 3 of your favorites, which doesn't necessary mean they are bad, far from it, I actually agree with 4/5, but the reason why I asked Starman, is because his "review" of the film reads like a grumpy, fed up individual, went into any random film, with the sole purpose of complaining about modern film making, and not a fan of cinema. So I was just curious as to what the poster perceived to be a good film that was made this year.

I've read plenty of opinions on here, All who have raised many valid points about why they didn't enjoy this movie, and fair enough, each to their own and all that, but Loud, bombastic, predictable, overly stylistic??? So generic, and just lazy criticism.

Mr Starman · 14-09-2017 05:34PM

kerplun k wrote: »

Just curious, but what would you consider a good film that was released this year?

I went to that Gareth Edwards pile of dung around Xmas and it turned me off the cinema for 6 months. Was looking forward to Alien Covenent and I gave it a miss as soon as reviews came in.

Some 'clown' reviewer off Newstalk was praising this from the high heavens referencing 80's classics like Goonies, Stand By Me.....not even close. Guy must have left his brain at home. 'It's pathetic!

Mr Starman · 14-09-2017 05:55PM

kerplun k wrote: »

I've read plenty of opinions on here, All who have raised many valid points about why they didn't enjoy this movie, and fair enough, each to their own and all that, but Loud, bombastic, predictable, overly stylistic??? So generic, and just lazy criticism.

Did I mention humourless and charmless, leaves little to the imagination, yeah all that too.

The only thing lazy was the film making, 'jump scares' all over the place, zero buildup of tension or skillful storytelling.

johnny_ultimate · 14-09-2017 06:30PM

Taking silly blockbusters like It, Rogue One and Alien Covenant as your only examples of the state of modern cinema is your first problem there.

johnny_ultimate · 14-09-2017 07:30PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

Similar to John Carter of Mars being called an Avatar rip off when it came out (though that film had other problems...).

There's a slight difference here in that this film actually moves events to the 1980s, where it was originally imagined as a story set in the 1950s/60s. So the film adopts the language of the decade, and in doing so there is a case to be made that at times the imitated becomes the imitator! It certainly embraces distinctly 1980s motifs at time - how a digital watch plays a significant role, to pick an obvious example.

Things like Stranger Things are notable as much for their unapologetic affection for all things 80s as well as their stylistic / narrative embrace of the pop culture of the time. It IMO is the same - albeit not quite as overtly as some other examples - and creates another layer of meta-referencing in the process

As an aside: it occurs to me in hindsight that every overt cinematic reference to the 80s in the film - Lethal Weapon, Batman, Gremlins, Beetlejuice (may be more) - was made by Warner Bros, who just happen to have made this too :pac:

HandsomeBob · 15-09-2017 06:39AM

El Duda wrote: »

As someone who agrees with Starmans point of view I'd answer your question by saying...

Guardians 2
Spiderman
Baby Driver
Dunkirk
Wonder Woman

All far superior 2017 releases.

Seems like you've a specific taste more or less.

This film to me even in itself and forgetting its ties to the book, stands on its own feet as a well made film. I can always appreciate that regardless of genre.

Tylerdurex · 15-09-2017 07:29AM

I found it disappointing to be honest, I found the bits that were supposed to be scary funny

q2xv9rjei4awgb · 15-09-2017 07:44AM

As much as it is against the grain and probably very hipster of me to do so, I think I'll go with Mark Kermode's opinion on it rather than certain ones on here.

I know, I'm a rebel

ISOP · 15-09-2017 08:54AM

thought it was a load of crap

Ash.J.Williams · 15-09-2017 08:56AM

El Duda wrote: »

As someone who agrees with Starmans point of view I'd answer your question by saying...

Guardians 2
Spiderman
Baby Driver
Dunkirk
Wonder Woman

All far superior 2017 releases.

Man that's a disasterous opinion... Are you for real?

q2xv9rjei4awgb · 15-09-2017 09:08AM

ISOP wrote: »

thought it was a load of crap

Well yeah...I mean...

Shapeshifting Alien, who looks like a clown, eats Children every 27 years. Bit like Alien, who is invincible, tries to save the world. Or, Woman who can live forever and is an Amazonian warrior....

If you look at it like that, everything is a load of crap really

El Duda · 15-09-2017 10:29AM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

El Duda wrote: »

As someone who agrees with Starmans point of view I'd answer your question by saying...

Guardians 2
Spiderman
Baby Driver
Dunkirk
Wonder Woman

All far superior 2017 releases.

Man that's a disasterous opinion... Are you for real?

Given the fact that I enjoyed the films I listed and didn't enjoy IT. Yes, I am for real.

Some scores to help:

Guardians 2 - 7/10
Spiderman - 9/10
Baby Driver - 8/10
Dunkirk - 10/10
Wonder Woman - 7.5/10
IT - 5/10

IT just descended into noisy, jump scare awfulness. It has no lasting affects whatsoever. It will date horribly, just like all the Insidious & Conjuring films. It's horror for people who don't know what real horror is. LOUD NOISES = SCARY? I don't think so.

q2xv9rjei4awgb · 15-09-2017 10:38AM

El Duda wrote: »

Given the fact that I enjoyed the films I listed and didn't enjoy IT. Yes, I am for real.

Some scores to help:

Guardians 2 - 7/10
Spiderman - 9/10
Baby Driver - 8/10
Dunkirk - 10/10
Wonder Woman - 7.5/10
IT - 5/10

IT just descended into noisy, jump scare awfulness. It has no lasting affects whatsoever. It will date horribly, just like all the Insidious & Conjuring films. It's horror for people who don't know what real horror is. LOUD NOISES = SCARY? I don't think so.

Not really horror though, is it?
Opening scene was unsettling but, there were other themes to the movie that made it more than a horror.

I'll say one thing, it leaves the original in the dust. Makes it look like a cartoon in comparison

Der Stier · 15-09-2017 10:43AM

Saw this last night and as the book is my favourite King book (probably my favourite fiction book) I loved it.
It was different but not in a way that diverged too much from the book.
My only slight annoyance was why have

Mike Hanlons parents are dead in the film, the relationship Mike had with his father was absolutely KEY in the book, Mikes Dad knew
all about Derry's dodgy history and Mike was the one telling the other kids about this - not Ben.

But this is the first horror film I've seen in a long time that is genuinely creepy.
Also had the right amount of humour and emotion to make it more than just a horror film.
The scene where they all comforted Bill was almost a carbon copy of the same scene in the book (but I think they may have been adults in the book)
Can't wait for part 2 now pity pre production has not even started yet - so 2019 at the earliest for chapter 2

Ash.J.Williams · 15-09-2017 10:55AM

El Duda wrote: »

Given the fact that I enjoyed the films I listed and didn't enjoy IT. Yes, I am for real.

Some scores to help:

Guardians 2 - 7/10
Spiderman - 9/10
Baby Driver - 8/10
Dunkirk - 10/10
Wonder Woman - 7.5/10
IT - 5/10

IT just descended into noisy, jump scare awfulness. It has no lasting affects whatsoever. It will date horribly, just like all the Insidious & Conjuring films. It's horror for people who don't know what real horror is. LOUD NOISES = SCARY? I don't think so.

Wonder Woman though....

homerun_homer · 15-09-2017 11:14AM

Finally worked up the courage to see this last night since the first one used to scare the living daylights out of me as a kid:pac:

It's a good movie, enjoyed the atmosphere of it and the gang but the negatives sorta feel like what I'm about to focus on.

The Georgie scene was incredibly creepy, they set him up perfectly as an adorable kid who you don't want to get killed by this horrible clown. What disappointed me with the rest of the movie is that Pennywise doesn't have the same interaction with the other kids. That is one of the scary things about him from Tim Curry's version (as bad as that movie may now look), he would antagonise the kids verbally as well as in scary situations. In this one it was just poorly rendered CG nightmares to the kids which I didn't find at all effective. For that reason I'd have preferred them to come up with a non-CG scary alternative or just stick with the Pennywise act and hive Bill Skarsgard more room to scare.

While I did like the losers club, some of the kids really got a raw deal like, the Jewish kid and Mike Hanlon. I really liked Ben's (the fat kid) performance but he just slips into the background and barely registers after they exit the scary house midway. Eddie was a bit OTT acting at times and Stranger Thing's Richie was a bit too forceful and annoying with the constant jokes. Something about Finn Wolfhard's comedic performance didn't sit right with me. It felt a bit try hard. Also, what was the deal with the overly green screen background look to close ups of the jewish kid at times? Not only was he underwritted but they must have had to call him in for reshoots when they were like "ehh, we should try feature you a tad more".

Henry Bowers and his goons were half used well, but they did all this set up and then

just have him knocked into the well, surely dead unless Chapter 2 has a contrived way of having him survive, maybe via Pennywise.

he's dead then the whole set up for him in the second film is wasted.

Also... there is a serious lack of on screen kills in the film, his goons should have joined him in the sewers for the extra scares and kill factor.

Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise was very effective but I think the script let him down. Like I said, too many bad CGI iterations of the kids fears were not as effective as the image of his clown chasing them (black goo, leper, creepy painting lady). The instances he appears are very brief and when added together ultimately feels like no time until the kids kick his ass. I liked when he appears during the projector scene, but not that he is fanged, giant and behaving like a rottweiler. The simplicity of him appearing and antagonising the kids and instilling fear in them would have worked far better.

Overall though I enjoyed it but I am not sure if the sequel will be very scary since the adult section of previous version (never read the book mind you) was less scary. The kids proved a bit too effective at "not being afraid" of Pennywise that I can't see them cowering as adults, except for the Jewish kid. Hopefully they pull something cool out of the bad and up the anti and scares.

kerplun k · 15-09-2017 11:55AM

The more I think about this, the harder chapter two is going to be. Some of things that chapter one had going for it is now gone.

Chapter one won't be able to rely on 80s nostalgia, the chemistry, humor, and friendship between the young cast, the shock value and anticipation of seeing Pennywise is now gone. It's also hard to replicate the same emotion with Kids being in peril than adults, especially in a world where the adults are part of that danger. Muschietti has a hard task of recapturing the magic from the first film. Its a task I don't envy, but one thing is for sure, if he stands any chance of succeeding, he needs a strong cast of good actors.... And with that, what would peoples choices of casting be for the losers club in C2?

Bill- Alexander Skarsgård
Ben - Ryan Reynolds
Bev - Mireille Enos
Richie - Jason Sudeikis
Stan - James Franco
Mike - Donald Glover
Eddie - Jason Bateman

Basq · 15-09-2017 12:20PM

^ They're bringing the kids back for flashbacks in Chapter 2 as far as I know anyways..

ISOP · 15-09-2017 12:44PM

this film isn't scary, I watched it in Leicester Square, the audience were laughing most of the time, well those that hadn't left before the end. It doesn't know what it is supposed to be, its like a crap 1950'S B movie with the crap jokes

Billy86 · 15-09-2017 12:50PM

ISOP wrote: »

this film isn't scary, I watched it in Leicester Square, the audience were laughing most of the time, well those that hadn't left before the end. It doesn't know what it is supposed to be, its like a crap 1950'S B movie with the crap jokes

Haven't got around to seeing it yet but I find it odd that a lot of people would be leaving a movie that has got excellent reviews and generally great audience feedback so far. Did someone let one rip or something?

Billy86 · 15-09-2017 12:52PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Wonder Woman though....

That was a surprisingly, really good film - and I've found literally every other DC/WB release thus far to complete and utter dross. Could well wind up being their equivalent to 'Iron Man' that gave a blueprint for the Marvel universe to build upon.

El Duda · 15-09-2017 01:02PM

Bev should clearly be played by Amy Adams.

Although a world class actor like her wouldn't want to be associated with disposable dirge like this.

Wonder Woman's only major problem was the third act/main villain.

kerplun k · 15-09-2017 01:09PM

El Duda wrote: »

Bev should clearly be played by Amy Adams.

Although a world class actor like her wouldn't want to be associated with disposable dirge like this.

Wonder Woman's only major problem was the third act/main villain.

Maybe Gal Gadot would take the role.

Hector Savage · 15-09-2017 01:31PM

Yamanoto wrote: »

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

Exactly and I don't understand why people always freak out about that part of the book - they are all kids the same age! - there is no abuse going on ...

Ash.J.Williams · 15-09-2017 01:57PM

El Duda wrote: »

Bev should clearly be played by Amy Adams.

Although a world class actor like her wouldn't want to be associated with disposable dirge like this.

Wonder Woman's only major problem was the third act/main villain.

Wonder Womans main issue was it was a bag of sh1te

readyletsgo · 15-09-2017 03:52PM

El Duda wrote: »

Given the fact that I enjoyed the films I listed and didn't enjoy IT. Yes, I am for real.

Some scores to help:

Guardians 2 - 7/10
Spiderman - 9/10
Baby Driver - 8/10
Dunkirk - 10/10
Wonder Woman - 7.5/10
IT - 5/10

IT just descended into noisy, jump scare awfulness. It has no lasting affects whatsoever. It will date horribly, just like all the Insidious & Conjuring films. It's horror for people who don't know what real horror is. LOUD NOISES = SCARY? I don't think so.

I watched 'Goodnight Mother' the night before I went to see IT.

Both far superior films than all the film's above, except Baby driver (although on a second watch, the soundtrack is the star of the film), Dunkirk I haven't seen yet, but heard mixed things from people who had seen it, not the millions of great reviews about it in papers and online, but I'll watch it at some point.

Wonder Woman, ugh, I found it incredibly needlessly long, and kinda boring, but then, it's kinda overkill with all the super hero movies now. Guardians 2, was the first movie all over again, so I kinda checked out through a lot of it.

But review scores are just a person's opinion. They may love a movie, where as you might hate it. And vise versa

PhiloCypher · 15-09-2017 08:58PM

I must be the only one who prefers Bill Skarsgards Pennywise over Tim Curry's . Tims sounds like a creepy old uncle who smokes and drinks too much , Bills with his cherubic face and childlike manner is creepier, at least to me. You can actually imagine "Georgiiiieee" being drawn to his death despite himself by Bills childlike Pennywise far more then Tims creepy pedo clown.

How recently have people watched the old mini series, (I watched a loads of pennywise best bits after watching the new one for comparison) just wondering is it a sacred cow situation where because you were terrified of Tims pennywise as a kid anything else pales in comparison?

The one thing I would say tho is I far prefer Tims fanged teeth then the cgi fangs of Bills pennywise.

readyletsgo · 15-09-2017 09:06PM

PhiloCypher wrote: »

I must be the only one who prefers Bill Skarsgards Pennywise over Tim Curry's . Tims sounds like a creepy old uncle who smokes and drinks too much , Bills with his cherubic face and childlike manner is creepier, at least to me. You can actually imagine "Georgiiiieee" being drawn to his death despite himself by Bills childlike Pennywise far more then Tims creepy pedo clown.

How recently have people watched the old mini series, (I watched a loads of pennywise best bits after watching the new one for comparison) just wondering is it a sacred cow situation where because you were terrified of Tims pennywise as a kid anything else pales in comparison?

The one thing I would say tho is I far prefer Tims fanged teeth then the cgi fangs of Bills pennywise.

I love both version but in fairness they are so different from eachother.

I love the new one, but I also have fond memories of Tims version. He's more colourful, were as bills version is more black and white? if that makes sense?

Stephen King's It

Comments