Well sadly that was disappointing.
Reviews have been very mixed so far. I haven't read much about them other than people's general feelings. Theres an early showing tonight I plant to attend. Hoping for the best! Loved the first one not being a major horror fan in general so I think I'll enjoy this.
A lot of Australian cinemas on Wednesday night played a double feature of Part one , followed by a preview screening of Part two. Watching them back to back, Part One was a superior movie. Part two sadly just left you wanting more scares and a better final showdown ( yes I know the ending of the book was a huge WTF moment ( which I liked ) but I’m not sure what they have come up with works either )
Disappointing indeed. I found that it couldn’t really establish a proper rhythm with the back and forth. But my biggest problem was with that awful opening sequence.
That gay bashing opening sequence was incredibly unnecessary... there’s not even a resolution or follow up, it’s just there... and then later on they hint at Richie being gay, but never actually say it... just made the whole thing worse somehow...Some people on Twitter are mentioning the letters at the end as well, saying how it’s normalizing suicide and how it was ok for Stanley to kill himself because it helped the group... which if you really think about, is highly problematic...
rosscoe(au) said: "That opening moments was lifted straight from the book, but it’s been a while since I read the book, but I thought Pennywise had a run in with a couple of those people and in a way justice was served. But memory is an interesting thing. "It is from the book, but there were a lot of things from the book they didn’t use.. that should have been one of them... imo. edit: my problem was that because there was no follow up or anything like that, it kinda normalizes the behavior... it gives an “yeah, this happens” vibe and there are no consequences for acts like that.
I saw it this morning and really liked it. There were a few subtle touches that I thought were pretty masterful, though I'll admit that there were a few small moments, mostly around design decisions, that pulled me slightly out of the story, but not for very long. Very few of the changes or deletions from the book bothered me and I thought most worked amazingly well. The casting was pretty much spot on, and the de-aging of the child actors for the flashbacks was done well for the most part (the only one I really noticed it on was Jack Dylan Grazer/Eddie, and that was more due to them not being quite able to match his voice from where it was in the first film).It's definitely a film that I would go see again in the theaters with any friends who haven't seen it yet. And I had the added side bonus of seeing the ad/trailer for Cinepolis's "Handpicked" series, so now I know I can go see a screening of the director's cut of Little Shop of Horrors on October 1st!Slight spoiler: I got a good chuckle out of the running joke of Bill not knowing how to write a good ending for his books and movies (and the novel of It suffers from that just as much as a lot of King's other works).
In the novel, that scene functions as the first definitive evidence of Pennywise's return to Derry. The teens that commit the murder are sentenced to prison. I agree that the lack of that second detail the trial and sentencing of the murderers) gives that scene a jarring lack of closure, but that's pretty much how all the deaths in this film are: both the lonely little girl and the little boy on the skateboard are devoured by Pennywise with no follow-up. Heck, Bill would probably be a prime suspect for the murder of that boy because he was seen following the kid into the funhouse where the child died. But this is never addressed. Neither is the fact that the little girl's mother seems to be completely oblivious when her daughter wanders off from the bleachers in the night. I just figure that the entire town is under IT's spell, and there's a more cavalier attitude toward the missing children/victims. We also never get to know who tells Eddie's wife he's dead (and how he died). King based the opening murder scene on an actual murder -- that of Charlie Howard in 1984: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Charlie_Howard
I didn’t really care for it.The scene with the gay bashing and the scene with the little girl under the bleachers felt the most effective in the whole movie. A problem, since they are essentially totally unrelated to the plot. Lots of wham-bang set pieces and not a lot of actual suspense.I thought Bill Hader and James Ransone were excellent and James McAvoy was very good. Everyone else felt mostly wasted, even Jessica Chastain, who I usually love. Even Bill Skarsgård felt simultaneously over- and underused. Yeah, Pennywise is scary, but once you’ve seen him lurk behind someone and move all jerky toward them, you’ve seen it. And yet we get the same scare over and over.Super disappointing. They could have really gone for broke with this, and they did in a sense, just in all the wrong ways.
rosscoe(au) said: "That opening moments was lifted straight from the book, but it’s been a while since I read the book, but I thought Pennywise had a run in with a couple of those people and in a way justice was served. But memory is an interesting thing."In the books Pennywise gets mentioned by a couple of the bashers during their interrogations and the cops insist to each other (and maybe the DA?) that they can't acknowledge or bring it up because the defense lawyers will use that to say the bashers are not guilty of murder, that it was this "guy dressed up as a clown" under the bridge who actually killed Adrian Mellon. It sets up the idea that gets explored later of how Pennywise has always been a part of Derry and in order to maintain the symbiotic relationship between It and Derry that It has to be ignored to a certain extent. I didn't mind the lack of any sort of resolution or justice in the film for this scene that someone else mentioned above. In the book King does mention the trials and verdicts, but this event was also the kick-start to the new cycle in the book, and Mike didn't make the calls to the rest of the Losers until the following spring. In the film they used this event as the catalyst to drive Mike to make the calls, and the rest of the film plays out within days of it happening, so it makes sense that the aftermath and what happens to the guys who beat Adrian is not explored.
SouthernCakes said: "So I hate clowns. But I’m finally ready to watch IT. Should I start with the modern adaption or the older movie? Which is closer to the book?"You'll find purists who still say the 1990 mini-series is the better of the two, but the reality is that it was made for network television in 1990 so it's very tamed down. The acting overall is what you would expect from a bunch of sitcom stars (John Ritter and Harry Anderson played two of the adult characters) and untested child actors, and it had an even harder time making sense of the whacko ending of the book with those limitations and very dated special effects. Tim Curry's performance is pretty much the only thing worth revisiting that version for.The new movies do take more liberties with the story, especially with the shifting of the time periods, moving the young years from the late 50s to the late 80s and the adult years from the mid 80s to present day. That being said, having rewatched the 1990 version not too long ago on Hulu I have no desire to ever watch that one again, whereas I do rewatch the first movie on a fairly regular basis and will most certainly do the same once Chapter 2 is released on Blu Ray.
SouthernCakes said: "So I hate clowns. But I’m finally ready to watch IT. Should I start with the modern adaption or the older movie? Which is closer to the book?"The original is an unwatchable mess without the benefit of nostalgia on your side so go for the new ones.
© 2019 Wisdom Digital Media