|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Sept 9, 2017 19:00:49 GMT
As of this writing (early on the Saturday after it began playing in theatres) IT has only been out for one day and maybe one showing, so I assume some people have already seen it and can say whether or not it was a good movie.
But this movie was getting a ton of love before hand. Weeks ago there were folks talking about how much they wanted to see it and how much they're looking forward to it.
Why?
It has no known stars, its based on Stephen King which are usually (NOT ALWAYS, BUT USUALLY) sucky, and its an R rated horror flick which again don't usually do huge money at the box office (I know there have been some successes but usually an R rated horror flick does OK business at best).
It might be a good movie (I haven't seen it yet, so I don't know), but this was getting love before anyone even saw it. If anything I would have thought that Dark Tower would have gotten that love what with its following, but NOPE.
So what's so different/attractive about this one? Because the book itself has a special place in A LOT of people's hearts and the trailers have gone out of their way to show the world that this is a faithful adaptation. The Dark Tower film trailers never looked this good. That's a surprisingly on point answer. You're right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2017 21:10:06 GMT
Because the book itself has a special place in A LOT of people's hearts and the trailers have gone out of their way to show the world that this is a faithful adaptation. The Dark Tower film trailers never looked this good. That's a surprisingly on point answer. You're right. Thanks. Um, before you go, I'm won't spoil, but there are a few important places where It does diverge from the book in a big ways. It doesn't quite live up to what the trailers hyped it as. So you might just want to go in judging this as a movie, instead of an adaptation. Its still a GOOD adaptation, but not the GREAT adaptation it was setting itself up as.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Sept 9, 2017 22:31:06 GMT
Over $100 million in the opening weekend.
Wow!
|
|
|
Post by merh on Sept 10, 2017 23:40:03 GMT
It was good, but I found it slow in a couple spots which killed some of the suspense.
|
|
|
Post by longtimefilmfan on Sept 13, 2017 16:24:25 GMT
As a real fan of the 1980's epic novel and of the Tim Curry 1990 version (which was rather cheesy in the 2nd "adult" half, although Curry was consistently effective), I thought that the child actors, Bill Skaarsgard (from a great acting family), the cinematography, special effects and screenplay were excellent. It really captured the spirit of the King novel.
SK is unrivalled in completely immersing the reader in a long gone small town America from the childrens' perspective in "It" and his ability to create real horror, invisible to adults, is enthralling in this iconic novel. I think the 2017 film captures that (is it just me or almost all the adults portrayed creepy too??) and I, for one, cant wait for Part 2. Just hope that the adult cast members are as good as these child actors...
|
|
northernlad
Sophomore
@northernlad
Posts: 898
Likes: 620
|
Post by northernlad on Sept 16, 2017 23:57:43 GMT
Just saw it...liked it. It's definitely better than the made for TV adaptation from years ago. People keep bringing that one up and talking about how good the first half of that was...sorry folks...I've watched that adaptation many times and it's nothing but cheese all the way...beginning to end.
This theatrical release didn't come off as cheesy. There were a few parts where it made me feel a little uneasy...and hey...that's what a horror movie is supposed to do. Over all it's a good flick to see.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Sept 18, 2017 18:44:07 GMT
As a real fan of the 1980's epic novel and of the Tim Curry 1990 version (which was rather cheesy in the 2nd "adult" half, although Curry was consistently effective), I thought that the child actors, Bill Skaarsgard (from a great acting family), the cinematography, special effects and screenplay were excellent. It really captured the spirit of the King novel. SK is unrivalled in completely immersing the reader in a long gone small town America from the childrens' perspective in "It" and his ability to create real horror, invisible to adults, is enthralling in this iconic novel. I think the 2017 film captures that (is it just me or almost all the adults portrayed creepy too??) and I, for one, cant wait for Part 2. Just hope that the adult cast members are as good as these child actors... I thought it was very well acted. The banter between the kids was brilliant and the coming-of-age aspect of the story was really well done too. I mean, Christ I am a 37-year-old man and was rooting for Bill and Beverly. Bill was the heart and soul and Beverly had this charming and wise beyond her years aspect to her personality. She was also kind of a bad ass.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Sept 21, 2017 11:44:35 GMT
Didn't really like it. Felt it was a mix of horror/comedy/coming of age/tragedy/thriller in a too uneven scale. Only 2 genuine scary moments I can remember. The camerawork on It was poor. Didn't really feel suspenseful. 20 minutes too long with needless backstory for some characters. 5/10
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Sept 21, 2017 12:03:44 GMT
I liked all the parts with the children, those were really good. Not a fan of Pennywise tho, he wasn't even remotely scary. or interesting. or memorable. overall it's good, but a tad overrated if you ask me
|
|