japie
Sophomore
@japie
Posts: 252
Likes: 69
|
Post by japie on Sept 15, 2019 16:48:02 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2019 18:37:38 GMT
I liked it.
|
|
|
|
Post by HumanFundRecipient on Sept 16, 2019 1:08:58 GMT
Future failed Oscar bait, only going by the trailer.
As for another movie on that list, I loved A Cure for Wellness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Sept 16, 2019 3:21:18 GMT
Too smug for it's own good
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 16, 2019 13:23:51 GMT
Tartt's novel was over-rated garbage (she's always been hugely over-rated as a writer, IMO), so I'm not surprised the film was a bust. Good films have been made from crap novels, but there was never anything in this book that would have made for a decent script without virtually rewriting the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 16, 2019 13:59:38 GMT
Tartt's novel was over-rated garbage (she's always been hugely over-rated as a writer, IMO), so I'm not surprised the film was a bust. Good films have been made from crap novels, but there was never anything in this book that would have made for a decent script without virtually rewriting the whole thing. I was quite intrigued by the trailer. What is the theme or main point of her story? It shares Tartt's preoccupation with the notions of 'coming-of-age' that most of her work seems to embody. That's certainly a valid enough theme, it's served countless writers of both greater and lesser ability than Tartt well; my problem with her resides in her prose style, which I think employs highflown language to dress up cliches, and I honestly have to agree with the LRB review that essentially called the novel children's literature gussied up in adult guise. I haven't seen the film, but I can't imagine that the screenwriters could have gotten around that aspect of her writing any too successfully--in fact, I'd imagine that one of the appeals of transferring the book to Hollywood film resided in the fact that they felt it could be turned into another of those Dan Brown sort of adventures-in-art, with a veneer of 'literary' merit tossed in to appeal to a more sophisticated film-going market, based on Tartt's authorial status.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 16, 2019 14:22:50 GMT
It shares Tartt's preoccupation with the notions of 'coming-of-age' that most of her work seems to embody. That's certainly a valid enough theme, it's served countless writers of both greater and lesser ability than Tartt well; my problem with her resides in her prose style, which I think employs highflown language to dress up cliches, and I honestly have to agree with the LRB review that essentially called the novel children's literature gussied up in adult guise. I haven't seen the film, but I can't imagine that the screenwriters could have gotten around that aspect of her writing any too successfully--in fact, I'd imagine that one of the appeals of transferring the book to Hollywood film resided in the fact that they felt it could be turned into another of those Dan Brown sort of adventures-in-art, with a veneer of 'literary' merit tossed in to appeal to a more sophisticated film-going market, based on Tartt's authorial status. So in other words, her story is actually quite a simple tale, but is pretentious in presentation, so as to appear to be more than what it really is. The film is 2.5hrs long and I would expect a slow burn but with a strong pay off, something like Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, Midsommar and Hereditary. If this isn't going to be the case, I don't think I will bother. IT Chapter 2 has an extensive runtime and I just know it is going to flat and predictable, so am avoiding it. That pretty much nails it. The novel's ending certainly held no strong payoff, and although it may have been 'Tartt-ed' up (forgive me, I couldn't resist an atrocious pun there) for filmic purposes, I somehow don't see it being much more than the rather dully predictable, fading-away finale that the book sported. I agree with you on IT 2. In fact, much as I like the novel, I felt its ending was a bit of a letdown, and it's highly doubtful that the film is gong to remain true to the more controversial portions of it anyway, so I don't really see it as being worth the bother of going to the theater for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Sept 16, 2019 15:13:06 GMT
Tartt's novel was over-rated garbage (she's always been hugely over-rated as a writer, IMO), so I'm not surprised the film was a bust. Good films have been made from crap novels, but there was never anything in this book that would have made for a decent script without virtually rewriting the whole thing.
I haven't read the book but I was interested in it after reading reviews and seeing the awards it received. I did watch the movie, which I liked well enough, but I have to admit that I was left wondering what the point of it was.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 17, 2019 2:19:44 GMT
That pretty much nails it. The novel's ending certainly held no strong payoff, and although it may have been 'Tartt-ed' up (forgive me, I couldn't resist an atrocious pun there) for filmic purposes, I somehow don't see it being much more than the rather dully predictable, fading-away finale that the book sported.
I agree with you on IT 2. In fact, much as I like the novel, I felt its ending was a bit of a letdown, and it's highly doubtful that the film is gong to remain true to the more controversial portions of it anyway, so I don't really see it as being worth the bother of going to the theater for. Love the pun! 
I ripped through IT in the mid 80's, but by the time King got to his ending, I just felt like he had written himself into a corner and wasn't sure how to end it himself. I felt very disappointed, as it was the largest novel I had read at the time and I wasn't scared by the climax, as I was with the atmosphere and illusions of fear that preceded it.
King nailed most of his endings in his earlier books and I was usually left looking at the blank back cover page contemplating and reflecting on what I had just read. With IT, it was like, is that it, a big spider creature???!!! I believe the film has eliminated the sexuality aspect of the story regarding the kids getting it on with Beverly. I can't recall the reason now in the novel why this was necessary though.
"Big spider creature?!" was essentially my same reaction. WTF? it came off sounding like something out of a bad 50's horror film (Teenage Spider Monsters from Mars, anyone?), and after the atmospheric chills that preceded it, it was a shocking letdown. I agree, I felt that King had built himself up to a point that no conclusion could have been fully satisfactory, and he went--for whatever reason--with the weakest of the possible choices. The sexual business was, well as I can recall, intended as the kids idea that somehow, using Beverly as a sort of locus they believed they could concentrate their bonds with one another and that this would be the only way they could defeat It. Lord knows, that authorial decision gained King enough outraged notoriety and one can only imagine the mail he probably got in regard to it. The thing was, the scene is not salacious, and even taking into account that you're reading about a group of twelve-year-olds, the content and the idea behind it are not especially shocking, actually in some ways, rather touching and poignant.
|
|
