Stephen King's It

Tony EH · 15-09-2017 09:18PM

Skarsgard's is like 2nd prize in a "Draw a scary clown" competition.

Curry's is just creepy and unnerving in that esoteric way that people find clowns creepy.

Also, Pennywise wasn't meant to be scary. He's supposed to just look like a "common or garden" clown. That's how he draws kids in.

No child on the planet would approach Skarsgard's Pennywise.

weadick · 15-09-2017 09:34PM

I remember the IT tv movie being a big deal back in the early 90's, something we were allowed to stay up to watch. I watched some clips of it online (doesnt seem to be possible to get the full movie) and was surprised at how bad it looked. Tim Curry really did carry that whole production with his performance but aside from him the acting was terrible as was everything else about it. So as a whole I 'd say the new one is far better even if it still amounts to an average enough film.

TerrorFirmer · 16-09-2017 11:29AM

I think nostalgia is a strong factor in how people remember the 1990 movie. I'm not saying it's a bad production - it's aged quite badly however, but it's still watchable and Curry is good - but having watched the original for the very first time a year or two ago, I find the 2017 movie far superior.

I thought Pennywise was done well, but perhaps a little overdone as Tony EH is suggesting above. The simplicity, plainness and innocence of Curry's Pennywise is somewhat more credible in understanding how he does what he does.

Skarsgard's Pennywise is far more sinister and unsettling from the very get go, which makes for perhaps better viewing at times but undermines the point of 'it' assuming the form of a clown somewhat.

Still though. Much prefer the 2017 version of the film. People who are complaining that it wasn't scary enough are somewhat missing the point of the production - the original isn't that scary either but both are about far more than just plain horror.

And let's be honest here, too many people are mis-remembering the original as being scarier simply because they were young when they saw it - imagine watching the 2017 film as a child, either? I know I would have been scared out of my pants.

Tony EH · 16-09-2017 12:25PM

The TV movie is pretty bad, but in line with nearly every TV movie of the period. No doubt the cinema version will have a number of improvements over it. I won't know til I see it in a couple of months. No doubt there's some element of nostalgia at play, but I think most people just remember Tim Curry's Pennywise as the enduring image.

However, right off the bat, the cinema version has a few advantages. It's a feature film, with a grossly superior budget to anything anyone had to work with on a 90's TV film. It has access to better actors, though I enjoyed the kids in the TV version. It can also make a play for more hard hitting scares than a 90's TV film (although I believe it actually doesn't) and it can employ better special effects (although I keep hearing that they're actually pretty bad and overdone).

So, I am expecting that it will be better than 'It' from 1990, which I wasn't even that fond of when I saw it first.

The book, though, had a big impact on kid me. I know this will be nothing like that (or 'It').

Billy86 · 16-09-2017 02:24PM

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I think nostalgia is a strong factor in how people remember the 1990 movie. I'm not saying it's a bad production - it's aged quite badly however, but it's still watchable and Curry is good - but having watched the original for the very first time a year or two ago, I find the 2017 movie far superior.

It is woeful. Watched it again about two years ago and it is an utterly terrible three hour long punishment of a movie. You're right about people remembering it as being scarier than it was too, the four of us watching it were in stitches throughout - and not just through the Pennywise scenes. Most of all, and I'm guessing it's a nod to the ending in the book, but the amount of creeping all of the lads do with the female character is unintentionally hilarious.

But anyone who tried to deny that Tim Curry was anything stupendous in it needs their head examined, he is the only reason that movie is still well known today outside of Stephen King fans, otherwise it would have gone the same way as the Rob Lowe version of The Stand and The Langoliers in terms of public awareness. One of the best examples of amazing performances hidden in a bad movie that I can think of.

Lorelli! · 16-09-2017 03:00PM

Watched it last night and enjoyed it. I agree that the older one is dated. I got it on DVD a few years ago but would still need to watch it again to give a proper comparison.

From memory, I think that Tim Curry's Pennywise had more personality and got into the group's head more. I found that the new one relied more on a monstrous Pennywise but lacked the mystery and intrigue of Curry's version. Still I enjoyed the film. All I could think at the end was "is Beverly going back home to her dad now after that?"

Also had very fond memories of The Stand as mentioned and watched it again recently and thought it was very 90's looking, acting wasnt great and went off a lot at the end.

Edit; also found that the little quirks and personalities of the kids in the group were more stand out and memorable in the original.

kerplun k · 16-09-2017 03:22PM

It's not fair to Judge something made 27 years ago by today's standards, especially a TV movie.

Ash.J.Williams · 16-09-2017 03:28PM

The people here saying it wasn't scarey enough? Do you get scared often? Do you bring spare underpants to the cinema generally?

Billy86 · 16-09-2017 03:50PM

kerplun k wrote: »

It's not fair to Judge something made 27 years ago by today's standards, especially a TV movie.

Perfectly fair to compare acting, scripts, pacing, editing and such to be honest. A whole lot of recent remakes have been deemed as inferior to their 20+ year old originals also. I'm not doing a comparison personally because I've yet to see the new one, but the original was an objectively bad movie from a technical standpoint. Tim Curry though, was out of this world and pretty much the embodiment of 'chewing the scenery' in it.

Decuc500 · 16-09-2017 03:53PM

I saw it last night and enjoyed it. It's a good film to watch on a Friday night in a busy cinema. It was more of a crowd pleasing horror film. There was nothing particularly original about how the scares were delivered and it never made me feel uneasy.

It worked very well as a coming of age film. It held a certain charm and the young cast were mostly very good. Also I like a good montage scene and I have that Cure song going through my head today.

I saw it in the Lighthouse and one guy arrived in full clown makeup. He caused a bit of a stir going to the toilet at one stage, walking down the cinema steps, red balloon floating above his head...

HandsomeBob · 16-09-2017 04:35PM

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.

Yeah agreed. Look Curry's performance is the only reason that the tv movie is looked upon fondly and was simply awesome.

But watching Bill's performance as you said absolutely sucked you in like it sucked in Georgie. Affable and child like, no wonder poor Georgie was lured in.

ancapailldorcha · 16-09-2017 10:15PM

Saw this earlier this week. I haven't seen the mini-series nor have I read the novel though I plan to read it.

Overall, it's quite good. The tone is set properly with the humour kept to a minimum though the jokes tended to land more often than not. The child actors all do an excellent job and work well together. I read a comment on Goodreads that the novel is much more than a simple horror story. Much of this seems to have been omitted in the transition to the big screen. I didn't feel that the main characters were quite fully developed. Much of it seemed too predisposed towards loud noises and cheap jump scares which was a bit of a letdown. Bill Skarsgård isn't given much to work with beyond odd poses and weird walks with a minimum of dialogue.

I'm a tad annoyed at the way IT was released. Given that the latter half of the story takes place 27 years after the first half, it makes little sense that it's going to take so long to see the latter chapter of the story though it is nice that the first half is given so much time instead of being crammed into half a feature.

Overall, it's a functional horror film buoyed by good set pieces and strong performances from the cast.

jones · 16-09-2017 10:37PM

Saw this last night and really enjoyed it. Funny, jumpy and some great scenes 8/10

Mantis Toboggan · 16-09-2017 11:10PM

Saw it tonight, very good film, really well put together, as horror films go this is definitely one of the better ones.

Bacchus · 17-09-2017 09:37AM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm a tad annoyed at the way IT was released. Given that the latter half of the story takes place 27 years after the first half, it makes little sense that it's going to take so long to see the latter chapter of the story though it is nice that the first half is given so much time instead of being crammed into half a feature.

What do you mean by this? A sequel should be out by 2019. Are you suggesting they should have been filmed back to back and released closer together?

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I thought Pennywise was done well, but perhaps a little overdone as Tony EH is suggesting above. The simplicity, plainness and innocence of Curry's Pennywise is somewhat more credible in understanding how he does what he does.

Skarsgard's Pennywise is far more sinister and unsettling from the very get go, which makes for perhaps better viewing at times but undermines the point of 'it' assuming the form of a clown somewhat.

I've not seen IT (yet) but big fan of book. It sounds like 2017 IT is closer to what IT should be. In the book, even in clown form IT (as Pennywise) was sinister, initially at a distance looking like regular clown (albeit in an unusual surrounding - e.g. under a bridge) but on closer viewing had decaying flesh and long claw like hands. IT was sinister and unsettling, so to me it sounds like they totally 'got the point of IT'. IT's ability to lure in children was not about handing out balloons or looking friendly. IT sort of hypnotised it's target while scaring the sh*t out of the child (for added flavour :P).

ancapailldorcha · 17-09-2017 09:54AM

Bacchus wrote: »

What do you mean by this? A sequel should be out by 2019. Are you suggesting they should have been filmed back to back and released closer together?

Ideally, especially given that the cast will be almost entirely different.

Bacchus · 17-09-2017 10:15AM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Ideally, especially given that the cast will be almost entirely different.

I guess it was too much of a risk to film back to back. King adaptions are more miss than hit. It'd have been very unusual to do it that way anyway... particularly for a horror movie.

MrStuffins · 17-09-2017 04:35PM

Watched this last night and loved it. I was afraid it would just be a generic jump-scare fest but it was so much more than that.

People giving out about the jump-scares are being overly critical IMO. If they're saying the movie "relied" on these, they must not have been paying attention to the other elements of "horror" haunting the kids, like Bev's father for example.

It was very very well acted I thought and Skarsgard did a great job of "Michael Scott"ing this, in putting his own stamp on a character while staying completely away from an original pair of shoes that were (literally in this case) way too big to fill!

About 30 mins from the end, a patron from the row directly in front of mine left briefly and returned in a full creepy clown costume. Some thought it was funny, some didn't. A girl in my row literally left in terror and never returned :pac:

Very good movie and highly recommended.

8/10

razorblunt · 17-09-2017 07:35PM

Really liked this, currently reading the book.
I thought the jump scares weren't needed as the film itself was quite unsettling in its own right.

The adults were more monsters at time than IT! Loved the fact it was shot from the kids point of view and gradually raised while their confidence grew. The actors playing the kids were fantastic.

the purple tin · 21-09-2017 04:09PM

Would recommend after seeing it last night.
Has some good laughs some good scares and a dollop of childhood angst.
The new Pennywise actor has gone his own way rather than trying to copy Tim Curry and he turns in a great performance, super creepy.
The kids in the film are excellent and hopefully they will get more work through this in future. The adult actors in part 2 will have a hard act to follow.
Apart from the 80's setting this version stuck more closely to the book than the old tv movie, for instance, the bathroom cleanup and the well house on neibolt street didn't feature in the tv one. This film also tried briefly to address the idea that It had some sort of control over the adults of Derry that made them so unhelpful or hostile to the kids. More backstory on Pennywise (flashback to the slaughter of the gangster couple for instance) would have been nice, but they might do that in the second part.

Some parts really put the wind up me, The scene where Bill follows Georgie down into the basement, that Scene where the Aerosol and zippo bully chases Ben into the storm drains and the creepy projector in the garage scene.
The town of Derry looks perfect, just like in King's books. Overall a great film that drags a little at one point but lets rip again toward the end. I can't wait to see the second chapter.

q2xv9rjei4awgb · 21-09-2017 04:31PM

I think a lot of people are missing the point of the Stan scene, where he's been eating.

That is a vital scene for the next film

Loughc · 21-09-2017 04:34PM

Alondra Savory Stew wrote: »

I think a lot of people are missing the point of the Stan scene, where he's been eating.

That is a vital scene for the next film

How so?

q2xv9rjei4awgb · 21-09-2017 04:58PM

Loughc wrote: »

How so?

While he was been eating, think about why his body was so calm and what he was looking at/saw.

kerplun k · 21-09-2017 05:08PM

Alondra Savory Stew wrote: »

While he was been eating, think about why his body was so calm and what he was looking at/saw.

Go on?

21-09-2017 05:10PM

Alondra Savory Stew wrote: »

While he was been eating, think about why his body was so calm and what he was looking at/saw.

I'm confused. I've read the book and seen the film. I'm on my phone so can't use spoilers. Are you talking about the scene towards the end that takes place in the house? What was it he was supposed to be looking at?

21-09-2017 05:27PM

I think I know what you are referring to. In the book we find out a lot more about IT and where he comes from. We also are introduced to the children as adults.

q2xv9rjei4awgb · 22-09-2017 01:12AM

I can;t use spoilers so block if needs be...

Basically, Stan's body was still and calm...All It's victims are like that.
Why?
In Stan's case, he saw the Deadlights and it has an affect on him for the rest of his life and the character's role in the 2nd movie

Before you ask, I've no clue why Bev was cured

22-09-2017 08:28AM

Alondra Savory Stew wrote: »

I can;t use spoilers so block if needs be...

Basically, Stan's body was still and calm...All It's victims are like that.
Why?
In Stan's case, he saw the Deadlights and it has an affect on him for the rest of his life and the character's role in the 2nd movie

Before you ask, I've no clue why Bev was cured

The Deadlights are what I thought you meant alright. I think Stan was more susceptible to the power of Pennywise whereas Beverely was stronger. He preyed on fear. Stan could never get over the trauma of what happened. As for Bev being "cured" well there was the kiss. There is something special about the kids when they are together and Bev being female seems to have something to do with it. I need to read the book again.

beans · 22-09-2017 08:43AM

razorblunt wrote: »

Really liked this, currently reading the book.

The adults were more monsters at time than IT!

Yeah, that's part of the essence of the story for me. Most of the kids' characters are shaped by the negative home-life they experience. Every 27 years is about as long as it takes for one generation to inflict pain on the next. I see IT as being a synonym for the darkness that inevitably surfaces as children grow and become aware of the world around them, begin to lose innocence etc.

As for the film, loved it BUT I disliked the choice of

making Beverly a damsel in distress,

given how kick-ass her character is. No need for that. There were a few set-pieces from the book I'd have like to have seen too, but you can't have everything. What we got was pitch-perfect.

DrPhilG · 22-09-2017 08:44AM

In the book Stan didn't see the deadlights as far as I recall. Although I agree that the manner in which

the twisted woman was feeding on him could well indicate that they will have him flashing back to that in the second film. Doesn't explain why he got straight up after they chased her away whereas Bev was in a trance. Stan should have been the same if he had indeed been throat deep in the deadlights.

Stan just couldn't handle Pennywise in general because he was a logical thinker and the existence of Pennywise messed with his entire outlook on life.

He just about managed to get through the episode as a child but:

the thought of it all happening again and him having to face that turmoil again was too much so he killed himself.

Stephen King's It

Comments