IT

[chizhead]

[Kaos]

Fuck the bama fan who made that in his hairy goat ass. 

[The Six]

This movie sucked too, by the way. Totally ruined what little was good about the story.

[Kaos]

This movie sucked too, by the way. Totally ruined what little was good about the story.

[The Six]

[Kaos]

Here.  Have a balloon.

[The Six]

Here.  Have a balloon.

No thanks. I'm going helium free these days.

[AUChizad]

Saw it last night.

Personally, I thought it was fantastic. I had relatively high expectations, and it exceded them.

It was very true to the "kids" part of the book (minus the 50s Universal Movie Monsters and the kiddie orgy).

They made the loudmouth kid afraid of clowns instead of the movie monsters, which seemed kinda redundant. Obviously the original "kids part" took place in the 50s, and this in the 80s (which I think is necessary for an adaptation of the book 30 years later), so I read they were going to switch out the Wolfman/Frankenstein/Dracula/The Mummy with Freddy/Jason/Pinhead/Chucky, but ultimately decided that would have been too campy and cheesy. I think it might've worked though. Georgie's ghost, the gushing blood & hair, the dismembered Easter Egg hunt kid corpses, and the leper (although, they could have laid off the CGI on that one) are still there though. They added the lady in the painting, which I guess was pretty good if you're gonna change shit up.

The biggest knock I heard on the movie was that it wasn't scary. IT was more a story ABOUT fear than scary in and of itself. I wouldn't expect the movie to be scary (and what movies truly are terrifying to an adult anyway?), and actually if it were just wall-to-wall cheap jump scares, I would have been disappointed. I was actually pleasantly surprised at how creepy Pennywise was. That projector scene and some of the scenes in the abandoned house were damn freaky.

The one positive I heard was how well acted it was by the kids. I had heard the girl and the kid from Stranger Things were the most remarkable, but the asthmatic nervous kid with the overbearing mom I thought was by far the most impressive. He's got a career ahead of him.

I thought it was great and look forward to the second half.

[Kaos]

Saw it last night.

Personally, I thought it was fantastic. I had relatively high expectations, and it exceded them.

It was very true to the "kids" part of the book (minus the 50s Universal Movie Monsters and the kiddie orgy).

They made the loudmouth kid afraid of clowns instead of the movie monsters, which seemed kinda redundant. Obviously the original "kids part" took place in the 50s, and this in the 80s (which I think is necessary for an adaptation of the book 30 years later), so I read they were going to switch out the Wolfman/Frankenstein/Dracula/The Mummy with Freddy/Jason/Pinhead/Chucky, but ultimately decided that would have been too campy and cheesy. I think it might've worked though. Georgie's ghost, the gushing blood & hair, the dismembered Easter Egg hunt kid corpses, and the leper (although, they could have laid off the CGI on that one) are still there though. They added the lady in the painting, which I guess was pretty good if you're gonna change shit up.

The biggest knock I heard on the movie was that it wasn't scary. IT was more a story ABOUT fear than scary in and of itself. I wouldn't expect the movie to be scary (and what movies truly are terrifying to an adult anyway?), and actually if it were just wall-to-wall cheap jump scares, I would have been disappointed. I was actually pleasantly surprised at how creepy Pennywise was. That projector scene and some of the scenes in the abandoned house were damn freaky.

The one positive I heard was how well acted it was by the kids. I had heard the girl and the kid from Stranger Things were the most remarkable, but the asthmatic nervous kid with the overbearing mom I thought was by far the most impressive. He's got a career ahead of him.

I thought it was great and look forward to the second half.

I think you're right here. 

Of all the King "horror" books, IT is probably the least scary.  I've always said it's more about the internal fears and personal demons than it is the external.  Pennywise is a metaphor.  Doesn't even exist. 

FWIW, Universal is or was trying to resurrect the movie monster franchise that was a staple in the 50s.  BUT, they crapped the bed so freaking hard with the terrible decision to kick it off with a Tom Cruise Mummy vehicle that it may be stalled forever.  At one point Depp was signed to play the Invisible Man, Javier Bardem as the Frankenstein monster and Russell Crowe as Jeckyll.

I'd personally like to see a new Frankenstein/Mummy/Wolfman/Dracula universe brought to life but not with idiotic Tom Cruise leading the Mummy, the played out and tired Johnny Depp or the overused Bardem.  I hope they scrap this entire concept and start over having learned from the debacle that was The Mummy. 

[AUJarhead]

I think my two biggest issues with IT, and don't get me wrong, I loved it, were that they made Beverly a damsel in distress at the end, and that simply was very different from her character in book.  My other issue isn't so much about what they changed, because I'm sure the answer is out in a deleted scene somewhere, but what happened to Henry Bowers?

[Godfather]

I think my two biggest issues with IT, and don't get me wrong, I loved it, were that they made Beverly a damsel in distress at the end, and that simply was very different from her character in book.  My other issue isn't so much about what they changed, because I'm sure the answer is out in a deleted scene somewhere, but what happened to Henry Bowers?

Don't lie you wanted the kiddie porn scene, now go see your pastor and confess.

[AUJarhead]

Don't lie you wanted the kiddie porn scene, now go see your pastor and confess.

He wasn’t at the truck stop.

[AUChizad]

I think my two biggest issues with IT, and don't get me wrong, I loved it, were that they made Beverly a damsel in distress at the end, and that simply was very different from her character in book.  My other issue isn't so much about what they changed, because I'm sure the answer is out in a deleted scene somewhere, but what happened to Henry Bowers?

Remember, this is a two-parter. In the books, as you probably know, he got locked up for murdering his dad, as well as getting pinned for IT's other kills shortly after the timeframe of this movie, and then when IT returns 27 years later, he gets him to escape and hunt down the Losers. I suspect we'll see that in the sequel.

[CCTAU]

Remember, this is a two-parter. In the books, as you probably know, he got locked up for murdering his dad, as well as getting pinned for IT's other kills shortly after the timeframe of this movie, and then when IT returns 27 years later, he gets him to escape and hunt down the Losers. I suspect we'll see that in the sequel.

Oh thanks. Now you just ruined IT for me!

[AUJarhead]

Remember, this is a two-parter. In the books, as you probably know, he got locked up for murdering his dad, as well as getting pinned for IT's other kills shortly after the timeframe of this movie, and then when IT returns 27 years later, he gets him to escape and hunt down the Losers. I suspect we'll see that in the sequel.

Yep, the scene in the book with him and the guard is pretty good.  But in the movie, he just falls down the well (if I remember correctly).  I'm guessing most people who haven't read the book will just assume he's dead.  Maybe having the Losers talk about him getting arrested and going into the insane asylum would have done it for me.

[AUChizad]

Yep, the scene in the book with him and the guard is pretty good.  But in the movie, he just falls down the well (if I remember correctly).  I'm guessing most people who haven't read the book will just assume he's dead.  Maybe having the Losers talk about him getting arrested and going into the insane asylum would have done it for me.

Yeah, I just don't think you can judge a two part movie for not closing all of the story lines when there's definitely a part 2 in the works. It'll be addressed.