It (2017)

[MrsR]

Saw it with a crowded audience and they really enjoyed it and made the experience better.  

 

I really liked it. I went to see it with a friend who is an IT groupie just to please him. When the book came out I was riding the subway and doing my reading there so I HATED the book. It was too HEAVY!

LOVED Bill Skarsgard as I wasn't as much of a fan of Curry's Brooklynese take on Pennywise. Loved that Skarsgard used his own Swedish lilt and sing song quality. 

 

And I adored Eddie.

Edited September 12, 2017 by MrsR

[vavera4ka]

On ‎9‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 2:45 AM, Robert Lynch said:

 

Speaking of the 80s, didn't Bev look like a young Robyn Lively or what! I thought it was a twin or something. Uncanny..

Actually Bev looked like I did at 13-14 lol that added to the experience for me.

[Robert Lynch]

Didn't Eddie looked exactly like Fred Savage?

[thuganomics85]

Haven't read the book or saw the past series, and I'm really not a huge fan of horror films (probably can only name three or five I watch more then once), so it's high praise for me to say that I enjoyed it quite a bit.  I had a few issues like the typical "characters making questionable decisions" and I wish a few of the characters had more time (really was disappointed Mike got pushed into the background after having the best introduction and most intriguing backstory), but I loved that it was basically a coming of age story; more similar to Stand By Me then your average slasher flick; that was about growing up, friendship, young love, and the trials that come with.  It just happened to all be over them banding together to take on an evil, scary, clown!

While I won't say it was the scariest movie I've ever seen, I did think it did a good job at being suspenseful and never letting up, because the threat was always there.  It wasn't one of those films where the horrors happen at a certain place or house, or even regulated to the night.  Pennywise and the rest of "It" really could happen anywhere at anytime, and there really was the sense that there was no place safe for the Loser's Club.  And I like that while there were jump scares, nine times out of ten, they weren't fake-outs like a cat popping out of nowhere or a light bulb randomly exploding: almost all of them were either from Pennywise or something he was doing.  And the build-up and atmosphere was great that even when I knew something was coming, it still made me jump and react (see: the projector scene.)

Great casting as well.  Out of the Loser's Club, the only actor I really know Finn Wolfhard/Richie, since he's also Mike on Stranger Things, but the entire cast was spectacular and all had great moments to shine.  Jaeden Lieberher was a good lead, but I think the standouts where Sophia Lillis, who definitely had some intense material to work with (her dad might have been even creepier then Pennywise) and Wolfhard, who was having blast with all the one-liners and remarks, but had the right balance of being obnoxious, but still fun and entertaining to root for.

Bill Skarsgård was perfect as Pennywise.  Scary and creepy, but also darkly funny.  One of my issues with the horror films is that I usually find the killers to be dull and one-dimensional, but Pennywise was way more interesting then your average Jason or Michael Myers-type serial killers.

Safe to say that a sequel will no doubt be happening thanks to that record breaking opening at the box office (say what you will about some of the their actual films, Warner Brothers is probably right behind Disney/Marvel when it comes to marketing and trailers).  Curious to see where this goes next and who they will cast as the adult versions.  Will they try to go with A-listers (I know the director, Andy Muschietti, made some remark about how he'd love Jessica Chastain as Bev, which would make sense since he directed her in Mama), or will they end up going more towards newcomers/television actors?  Either way, I hope the wait isn't too long!

[Proclone]

I remember finding the book IT to be truly both terrifying and a really poignant coming of age tale when I read it as a teen.  I was never overly enamored with the miniseries, despite thinking that Tim Curry was good as Pennywise.  I just got back from seeing the film and I think this adaptation does the book justice in many ways the miniseries didn't. The child actors are really excellent in this.  It's been years since I've seen the miniseries, but I don't remember being overly impressed by the performances of either the child or adult actors. I really liked that it was also a pragmatic adaptation and I agreed with most of what was changed.  The filmmakers did a good job in moving the time period from the fifties to the eighties without really loosing anything that important to the story.  I think it worked better to excise the weird trippy explanation for Pennywise's origins and his defeat and have the kids working together be the thing that allows them to overcome him.  Though I did like the subtle hints to the origins like there being a lego turtle in Georgie's room, that wouldn't really mean anything unless you read the book.  I also think it was smart to age the kids up a couple years (they were 11 in the books), as it's easier to find better older actors and it takes away some of the ickiness that surrounds various interactions with Bev's character.  Not that it's not creepy to constantly have a 13 year girl called a slut, but not quite as creepy as an 11 year old girl.   And I have to say both the actress that played Bev, and the character herself were standouts of the movie for me.  

That brings me to something that I'm of two minds about in the movie-Bev being taken by it and being the impetus for the losers going down into the well.  That's not the case in the book where the kids decide to go down there because they feel they are the only one who can do anything to stop Pennywise, none of them are captured.  I'm not crazy about the only female character being made into a damsel that needed to be rescued by the boys, so much so that a kiss from a boy that has a crush on her is the only thing to bring her back to her senses.  On the other hand (spoilers for the book)...

Spoiler

If Bev needs to be the thing that brings the boys to work together, then I would rather have them come together to save her than to have an orgy with her.  But I'm not sure either really needs to happen.  Couldn't it have been one of the boys taken, Stan would work well and would give him the even greater motive to kill himself rather than face IT again as an adult.  Or simply have the kids do as they do in the book and make the decision to go and kill IT without any of them being captured and simply excise the creepy underage sex scene altogether.  The group hug already in the movie could have been used to have the kids reconnect with each other.

1

 

There's also a few nitpicky problems I had.  I thought some of the editing was a little choppy towards the end, it wasn't always clear to me where the various characters were in relationship to one another.  I also thought they should have been a little more subtle when they showed Pennywise in various pictures or drawings.  It would make more interesting to notice it and would actually making re-watching more interesting.  I didn't need the zoom and enhance that they did for a lot of them.  I also didn't understand why there suddenly used the "Beep, Beep, Ritchie," reference.  It's from the book, but unlike the turtle, which was a subtle nod to the book that you either get or it's means nothing, "Beep, Beep," doesn't make any sense without the context.

But like I said those are nitpicky things.  I really enjoyed the movie overall.  I'm interested to see what they do with the next one.  The most interesting part of the book to me was also the story of the characters as children, so, on the one hand, I think this movie was very compelling, but I'm concerned that a movie focusing on the characters as adults won't be as compelling to me.  That being said, I like what the filmmakers did with "Chapter 1" so I'm interested to see what they do with Chapter 2.

[raven]

6 minutes ago, Proclone said:

That's not the case in the book where the kids decide to go down there because they feel they are the only one who can do anything to stop Pennywise, none of them are captured.  I'm not crazy about the only female character being made into a damsel that needed to be rescued by the boys, so much so that a kiss from a boy that has a crush on her is the only thing to bring her back to her senses.

Watching it, it didn't seem to me that Bev was damseled (though I can see how others would feel that way) because she was the only kid to face Pennywise alone and survive and that's because she wasn't scared.  I think the movie was trying to say she wasn't scared because she was angry and had faced so much awfulness from her father.   She's also brave throughout the film, being the one to insist they help Mike, etc.   Contrast with Stan, who, when attacked, would have died if not for his friends.

I agree with what you said about her coming out of the deadlights (though they didn't call them that) because of a kiss; I didn't like that.

Personally I would have preferred they all go down together because they know they need to kill It and I would have skipped having one of them in mortal peril alone.

[Proclone]

12 hours ago, raven said:

Watching it, it didn't seem to me that Bev was damseled (though I can see how others would feel that way) because she was the only kid to face Pennywise alone and survive and that's because she wasn't scared.  I think the movie was trying to say she wasn't scared because she was angry and had faced so much awfulness from her father.   She's also brave throughout the film, being the one to insist they help Mike, etc.   Contrast with Stan, who, when attacked, would have died if not for his friends.

I agree with what you said about her coming out of the deadlights (though they didn't call them that) because of a kiss; I didn't like that.

Personally I would have preferred they all go down together because they know they need to kill It and I would have skipped having one of them in mortal peril alone.

I think it's a YMMV sort of thing.  I think it actually bothered me more that Bev was the one taken because she was written as such a strong character prior to that.  I too really rather would have had the kids decided to go down into the sewers without any of them being taken, especially since one of the recurring themes of the book is that only the kids are capable of destroying Pennywise because they are the only ones who can see what is really going on.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Proclone

[methodwriter85]

On 9/12/2017 at 7:34 PM, Robert Lynch said:

Didn't Eddie looked exactly like Fred Savage?

Who is acting again and the right age for a modern-day Eddie, by the way.

A lot of people are pushing Jessica Chastain for Bev, but I don't think they're going to use actors that are A/B-list. My guess would be working actors who are known but not really movie headliners.

[raven]

36 minutes ago, Proclone said:

I think it's a YMMV sort of thing.  I think it actually bothered me more that Bev was the one taken because she was written as such a strong character prior to that.

Oh definitely.  Maybe they were trying to balance because they were totally going with "Bev is badass".  I also would have liked to see that as well as the kids' belief in each other, it was the magic of childhood type of beliefs that got them through it. 

[Robert Lynch]

While Part 2 is happening, the director is going the use the flashbacks. I wondered how will that work out....

[Silver Raven]

On 9/9/2017 at 2:44 PM, rachel is awesome said:

I was annoyed at the oversexualization of Beverly.

Have you read the book?

On 9/10/2017 at 6:06 PM, kiddo82 said:

The other thought I couldn't shake was how did they direct the little boy who played Georgie? (who was cute as hell by the way.) "Okay, son, this is the part where the mean clown bites your arm off and you have to crawl through the street on your belly."  I hope that kid is well adjusted.

He was in "Fear the Walking Dead", so ...

[Silver Raven]

21 hours ago, Proclone said:

 I thought some of the editing was a little choppy towards the end, it wasn't always clear to me where the various characters were in relationship to one another.

I got confused as to how Stanley got separated from the rest of the kids there at the end.

[johntfs]

22 hours ago, Proclone said:

I think it's a YMMV sort of thing.  I think it actually bothered me more that Bev was the one taken because she was written as such a strong character prior to that.  I too really rather would have had the kids decided to go down into the sewers without any of them being taken, especially since one of the recurring themes of the book is that only the kids are capable of destroying Pennywise because they are the only ones who can see what is really going on.

I think the reason Pennywise took Beverly is because she was such a strong character.  Up to that point, she was the only one to attack Pennywise physically, showing that it could be done.  I think by taking Beverly, Pennywise hoped to fragment and demoralize the other Losers so that he (and his "pet human," Henry Bowers) could hunt them down.  Also, Pennywise probably expected that by taking and isolating Beverly IT would be able to eventually break down her resistance and instill enough fear in her that she would finally qualify as a victim to be slain.  I don't think Pennywise can otherwise harm or kill someone who isn't sufficiently afraid of IT.  That's likely one reason IT recruited Henry Bowers to help do ITs dirty work.

[Proclone]

9 minutes ago, johntfs said:

I think the reason Pennywise took Beverly is because she was such a strong character.  Up to that point, she was the only one to attack Pennywise physically, showing that it could be done.  I think by taking Beverly, Pennywise hoped to fragment and demoralize the other Losers so that he (and his "pet human," Henry Bowers) could hunt them down.  Also, Pennywise probably expected that by taking and isolating Beverly IT would be able to eventually break down her resistance and instill enough fear in her that she would finally qualify as a victim to be slain.  I don't think Pennywise can otherwise harm or kill someone who isn't sufficiently afraid of IT.  That's likely one reason IT recruited Henry Bowers to help do ITs dirty work.

I can buy that to a certain extent, but I'm not really a fan of the idea of Bev having no fear of IT in the first place.  The kids in the book weren't brave because they didn't fear IT they were brave because they did and they still took it on when no one else would or could.  That's real bravery in my book.  

In any case, if I have to choose between with what the movie does with Bev's character (having her being abducted and rescued) and what the book does with her character, I'll take the movie any day of the week.  I also hope the movies continue to make Bev a strong character as an adult and (once again book spoilers)

Spoiler

doesn't have her wind up in an abusive marriage to a man not that dissimilar to her father.  It actually didn't bother me in the book because it's not unusual for cycles of abuse to perpetuate themselves, but the Bev we're introduced to in this film seems like the kind of person who would grow up to see those patterns of abuse and go out of her way to break them.

[Anela]

I'm not sure what to think. I don't hate it (like Alien: Covenant), but I'm not raving about it, either. Pennywise never really impressed me when I was a kid, and after reading about how great this actor was, I was expecting something different. He was more unsettling in places - I will give him that. There were a lot of laughs from one corner of the theatre, and I laughed quite a bit, too. I had to reserve seats for a slightly later showing, because it's still selling out here. 

I loved Eddie, and Ben was adorable. Georgie was, too. I wasn't expecting him to get his arm bitten off. :( and that arm coming out of the sewer was creepy.

It's been so long since I saw the first one, that I'd forgotten a couple of names, and didn't know who they were. there was too little Mike in this one. It took them long enough to get him into the group. I have the mini series recorded, so will watch that another time. I thought Ben was already a part of the group, not new. Mike was the new kid, right? Speaking of new kids: I loved that little line, "don't go away girl", and then that little bit of Hangin' Tough, when Bev sees the poster on the back of the door. I felt slightly nostalgic, since I was their age in 1988.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Anela

[Anela]

I forgot to add that dad said the reviewers he'd heard on the radio, were right about the actress playing Beverly: she was really good. He went in with me, but had said he had no interest in the movie, and would probably go to sleep. He stayed awake through the whole thing. He laughed when they all put their hands up, when Bill asked for a volunteer. 

I thought someone mentioned one of the kids looking like Fred Savage, but I can't find it now. Eddie looked like someone else to me - a face you'd probably recognize, but I don't know his name. Now that's bugging me. I can't even remember what I've seen him in. 

Pennywise would scare the crap out of me if he really existed, but the only clown to bother me in a movie, was the one in Poltergeist (the original movie). 

Edited September 17, 2017 by Anela

[johntfs]

2 hours ago, Anela said:

Pennywise would scare the crap out of me if he really existed, but the only clown to bother me in a movie, was the one in Poltergeist (the original movie).

The creepiest, most disturbing clown to me is still Heath Ledger's Joker from The Dark Knight.

[Anela]

12 minutes ago, johntfs said:

The creepiest, most disturbing clown to me is still Heath Ledger's Joker from The Dark Knight.

I haven't seen that. I need to watch it before I lose my free month of HBO, next week. 

[Robert Lynch]

Now with Part 2, how would they deal with the deaths of two major characters from It? I know it is in the works now..but it is now going back and forth in flashback sequences. How would that work?

[Silver Raven]

Quote

I thought someone mentioned one of the kids looking like Fred Savage, but I can't find it now. Eddie looked like someone else to me - a face you'd probably recognize, but I don't know his name. Now that's bugging me. I can't even remember what I've seen him in. 

 

His uncle is Brian Grazer, I don't know if that's who you're thinking of.

[Eyes High]

I'm not the first to express this opinion, but I have to say that Beverly's abusive father was way more frightening than Pennywise. 

I laughed when Bill chastised the others about needing to stick together, and then almost immediately proceeded to wander off on his own.

While I was glad for the brisk pace, it felt as if many scenes had been cut.

It was fun seeing Port Hope double for Derry.

The young cast was very strong.

Favourite line? "These pills are GAZEBOS!"

[Anela]

41 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

 

His uncle is Brian Grazer, I don't know if that's who you're thinking of.

It's not him, but thank you! He was a tall, nerdy, dark-haired guy. I really wish I could remember what he was in. Not a main character. 

He also looks like he could be Emma Watson's little brother. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by Anela

[kiddo82]

On September 16, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Silver Raven said:

He was in "Fear the Walking Dead", so ...

Ha.  Fair enough.  Plus, kids are always more resilient than we give them credit for.  Looking back, we used to play all kinds of macabre make believe when we were little.  The little guy in IT probably thought it was cool.  

1 hour ago, Anela said:

It's not him, but thank you! He was a tall, nerdy, dark-haired guy. 

Which also could describe Brian Grazer.  Heh.  Maybe not the "tall" part.

Edited September 18, 2017 by kiddo82

[Robert Lynch]

Jack Grazer has a new sitcom with Bobby Moynihan, correct? Sort of Wonder Year-ish theme...I am surprised no one thought to cast Fred in Bobby's role. That would have been epic. And they are so much alike, in terms of mannerism and interviews. Remember when Fred was doing Live with Kelly on the subject of Pokémon? Very uncanny...I bet if Fred was born in the same year as the Eddie, they would have instantly bonded together like bffs.

[Bruinsfan]

The Eddie actor looked to me like Matt Bush from Glory Daze and that series of AT&T commercials.

 

On 9/16/2017 at 8:15 PM, johntfs said:

I think the reason Pennywise took Beverly is because she was such a strong character.  Up to that point, she was the only one to attack Pennywise physically, showing that it could be done.  I think by taking Beverly, Pennywise hoped to fragment and demoralize the other Losers so that he (and his "pet human," Henry Bowers) could hunt them down.  Also, Pennywise probably expected that by taking and isolating Beverly IT would be able to eventually break down her resistance and instill enough fear in her that she would finally qualify as a victim to be slain.  I don't think Pennywise can otherwise harm or kill someone who isn't sufficiently afraid of IT.  That's likely one reason IT recruited Henry Bowers to help do ITs dirty work.

That was my take as well. In a meta sense Beverly may have served as the damsel, but to Pennywise she was its most dangerous opponent, perhaps the first person who had ever really hurt it. It attacked her strategically when she was at her most vulnerable thanks to the confrontation with her father, and took her away to remove her from the support of her friends, not necessarily because of the effect her kidnapping would have on them.

 

On 9/17/2017 at 8:54 PM, Eyes High said:

I'm not the first to express this opinion, but I have to say that Beverly's abusive father was way more frightening than Pennywise.

Oh yeah. Monstrous supernatural clowns don't actually exist, but people like Mr. Marsh are all too real.

[Anela]

I think that's my problem with movies not scaring me, anymore. real life can be terrifying. They also added a lot of humour here, which takes the edge off. Her dad was the scariest thing in the movie. 

Edited September 20, 2017 by Anela

[Robert Lynch]

The thing is that my own mother has a big fear of clowns. She had it since she was a little girl. When she first went to Freedomland in the Bronx, she would turn ashen grey when a clown came to town. My mom was the type of person that would not let you mentioned clowns. 

I remember on Halloween when a scary costumed clown rang our door. I can remember my mom's fear escalating and her pale face turning ashen grey. She just reached the candies she would give to children and close the door. I was eight years old then. I remember when her expression remained like that. I don't think my mom ever got over her fear of clowns. They just remained with her since she was a little girl. You know, mom is like that.  That's why I think It would be one she will avoid in theaters. She did the same with Killer Klowns in Outer Space. But that's another story... 

Edited September 20, 2017 by Robert Lynch

[Schweedie]

I liked it a whole when I first came out, but the more I think about it, the less I do, kind of. The kids were all great, and I found it scary as hell, but I felt like some of the heart was missing. And maybe it's just that It requires more time with the characters for that to really be there - I think think it'd be awesome as a TV series - because the kids did well with what there was time for. But I never really felt that connection that they all have, because there wasn't enough time with them as a group outside of actually facing It. There was only really that scene where they were swimming, and Mike hadn't even joined the group then.

And them getting into a fight and only going back to face It together because It took Beverly misses the point, as other have said, that they were all terrified but felt/knew they were the only ones who could stop it, together.

It was a great cinema experience and a good horror movie, but for me I think it didn't quite capture the essence of the book on the whole.

I did really like how it was clear that It affected the adults as well, though, with that awful television show constantly in the background when any of them had the TV on. Beverly's father was super creepy. And I was unsure about the change that all the kids were going missing instead of being found dead, but it did work as being Bill's driving force, wanting to find Georgie.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Schweedie

[Robert Lynch]

James Corden spoofs It.

 

[sweetcookieface]

I saw this yesterday and thought it was pretty well done. I never read the book (although I was a Stephen King fan back in the day), but I did see the TV miniseries as a kid. In fact, I just started rewatching the miniseries because I'm curious to see how they compare. (So far, I prefer the children in the feature film version - for the most part, the characters had more depth and the actors were stronger. My personal favorites were Eddie and Ben, and I thought Bev had a ton of charisma.)

One thing that I found a bit confusing/frustrating was Pennywise's reasons for killing certain kids, but not others. We constantly see Pennywise in situations where he's haunting/taunting a kid (e.g., a member of the Loser Club), but declines to kill when he could very easily do so.  I assumed it was just the same lack of internal consistency/rationality that plagues most horror films, but there's a line at the end of the film where they explain that Pennywise didn't kill Bev because she wasn't scared of him. That just seemed... lame. First of all, I don't think it's accurate to say she wasn't scared. And second, we see other scenes where kids aren't as terrified as members of the Losers Club, but get killed by It anyway - e.g., Georgie (who seemed more intrigued/slightly unsettled) and that member of the bully group (who didn't really have sufficient time to fully react).  Also, I was a bit confused about what the deal was with the kids who started floating down after It was seemingly vanquished - were they still alive? If so, how does It distinguish between kids it kills and those it keeps in suspended animation?

Also, Henry Bowers died in the film, right? (If so, that's a departure from the miniseries - and, I'm guessing, the book?)

I'll also admit I was very conscious of - and annoyed by - how the Mike character was marginalized. I had read the article and comments above about how aspects of Mike's character/plot were given to Ben before seeing the film. Even without that background, though, I think I would have come away feeling that Mike's character had the least depth/personality of the core group, and that he never quite felt integrated. I really hope they remedy this in Part II.  I noticed that the kid version of Mike doesn't have much to do in the miniseries either, but it's less glaring since none of the kids are that well developed - and adult Mike (the wonderful Tim Reid) has a prominent role as the one who stayed behind and brings them back together.

[Anela]

I watched the mini series again, and I actually preferred that, in a way. Just because the kids got more build-up, and Mike was in it from the beginning, as an adult. I liked the kids in both, though. The movie felt a bit rushed to me. 

[johntfs]

13 hours ago, sweetcookieface said:

One thing that I found a bit confusing/frustrating was Pennywise's reasons for killing certain kids, but not others. We constantly see Pennywise in situations where he's haunting/taunting a kid (e.g., a member of the Loser Club), but declines to kill when he could very easily do so.  I assumed it was just the same lack of internal consistency/rationality that plagues most horror films, but there's a line at the end of the film where they explain that Pennywise didn't kill Bev because she wasn't scared of him. That just seemed... lame. First of all, I don't think it's accurate to say she wasn't scared. And second, we see other scenes where kids aren't as terrified as members of the Losers Club, but get killed by It anyway - e.g., Georgie (who seemed more intrigued/slightly unsettled) and that member of the bully group (who didn't really have sufficient time to fully react).  Also, I was a bit confused about what the deal was with the kids who started floating down after It was seemingly vanquished - were they still alive? If so, how does It distinguish between kids it kills and those it keeps in suspended animation?

Yeah, I liked the movie overall, but there was some fairly blatant "script immunity" being applied.  That said, one possible "in-movie" explanation is that IT could harm anyone who was sufficiently afraid of IT.  However, IT also primarily feeds on fear (and perhaps grief).  Think of the various kids a bit like chickens.  The one who are somewhat poor fear/egg layers get eaten.  The ones who produce good eggs/fear get scared but spared.  When Beverly mastered her fear enough to physically attack and hurt IT, she threatened to spoil the feast IT was getting from the other Losers, so IT took her to scare her enough to eat/kill her and to demoralize/frighten the rest back into being good fear producers again.  Unfortunately for IT, the tactic backfired and managed to unite the Losers and give them the courage to defeat IT.  For a time.

I'm pretty sure the floating kids were corpses.  Presumably IT lets them float until the sufficiently rot and then replaces them with fresh corpses as time goes on.  Or maybe those actually were all the dead kids killed by IT.  IT's usually only active for a few months once every 27 years, so maybe the floating kids we see are all there were.

Edited September 25, 2017 by johntfs

[jadecorleone]

Speaking as someone who has never seen the mini-series, has never read the book and 9/10 avoids horror films, I enjoyed it immensely. When I first heard it was coming out, I was like "nope" but mr jadecorleone is a horror fanatic and I figured he would want to see it so I suggested going to an early showing. I figured if I got to scared I could always shut my eyes.

I could tell it would be a different experience when the lady at the ticket counter and several others told us it was more funny than scary. Id have to agree that it was.  The folks in charge of casting did a phenomenal job, especially with Bill Skarsgard. Reading online about how much he got into the role (ie working with contortionists) and how he made sure to check on his young costars after each scene to make sure he wasnt scaring them too badly was very sweet of him. One got the impression that everyone involved with the project was bound and determined to do things well and I would say they succeeded. I look forward to part 2. 

[Bean421]

On 9/11/2017 at 6:00 PM, magpye29 said:

I enjoyed it, but the costumes really bugged me.  A lot of the stuff the kids wore looked like early 70s to me, not the 80s at all, especially those pulled up to the knees athletic socks.  Also, it was weird how the whole town looked like something from the 30s that got stuck in the 50s.  

Beverly to me looked like the love child of Amy Adams and Zooey Deschanel.  Stan looked like a very young Victor Garber circa Godspell.

I, too, did not like Beverly having to be rescued, and they effectively marginalized Mike by giving all his stuff to Ben.

Beverly's bathroom scene looked like Carrie taken to extremes.

Re: Mike

EW had an article on what to expect from the sequel and I'm not pleased at all. 

Spoiler

Instead of a librarian Mike is going to be the town junkie. The reasoning given seemed like BS to me. That Mike would need the drugs to cope with being stuck in an evil, racist town. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 9/25/2017 at 9:33 AM, johntfs said:

Yeah, I liked the movie overall, but there was some fairly blatant "script immunity" being applied.  That said, one possible "in-movie" explanation is that IT could harm anyone who was sufficiently afraid of IT.  However, IT also primarily feeds on fear (and perhaps grief).  Think of the various kids a bit like chickens. 

In the book, IT thinks pretty much exactly that, that fear "salts the meat" and makes it taste better, and IT was unused to have victims fight back. IT had been around for hundreds of years, and in that time there were few if any who managed to survive once targeted.

[Robert Lynch]

I remember reading It a long time ago. It was back in high school and I just completed that over 1,000 page book. It just made me shivered reading about it. While I knew the changes from book to film is very apparent, I knew it was bound to happen. But I admired the changes from the 50s to the 80s timeline much better while still retaining the spirit of the book. That was well-done. And Bill Skarsgard deserves kudos. I was very iffy on Bill, but he won me on his portrayal of Pennywise. It kind of makes Tim Curry's version seem amateurish. I loved Tim Curry, but the mini-series didn't age well at all. Whether it was the fault of Tim or the adult actors, it was just not incredibly memorable at all. That is why this version did a great job with the kids and Bill Skarsgard. I might see this movie again.

[johntfs]

On 10/5/2017 at 5:46 PM, Robert Lynch said:

It kind of makes Tim Curry's version seem amateurish. I loved Tim Curry, but the mini-series didn't age well at all. Whether it was the fault of Tim or the adult actors, it was just not incredibly memorable at all. That is why this version did a great job with the kids and Bill Skarsgard. I might see this movie again.

The biggest thing with the TV miniseries is that you had all these TV people in it.  "Hey, there's Harry from Night Court and John Boy from The Waltons and Jack Tripper from Three's Company."  Granted that actors do different parts, but seeing all those familiar faces helped yank me out of suspending my disbelief.  One of the best things for me about this movie is that I didn't recognize any of the kids from anywhere.  I know one was in Fear the Walking Dead and another was is in Stranger Things, but I haven't seen either of those programs.  I know Bill Skarsgård was in Atomic Blonde, which I saw, but can't recall his character.  Basically my lack of exposure to the actors helped me buy into the story more deeply because there wasn't any of that "Hey, it's that guy/girl!" to distract me.

Edited October 8, 2017 by johntfs

[Bruinsfan]

It's not as if being familiar with Skarsgård would have made much difference, it's not as if anyone would be having a "hey, that's the guy from..." moment of recognition with him under all the makeup, prosthetics, and fake hair.

[Robert Lynch]

That's true. 

By the way, did anybody think the balloon intro with the children singing/laughing is reminiscent of the Lost Boys intro? Just a coincidence. Nice homage.

[Helena Dax]

Wow, that was bad. Some of the kids were great; others, not so much, but the real problem I saw was that the fight is boring and has been turned into something we've seen millions of times. I mean, one thing I loved about the book is that the kids are able to fight against It because they're still kids and full of imagination. Their main weapon is their belief in magical shields -battery acid, "he beats his fists...", the book about birds, Richie's voices-. But here is just about not being afraid of It (which is ludicrous) and in the "final" battle, all they have to do is beat the crap out of It. 

Also, I didn't have the feeling that the kids were so close or that they all had a crush on Bill, and I didn't like what the writers did to Mike. And saving Bev by kissing her? What's this, Once upon a time? 

Some scenes worked and were scary, but all in all, I'm disappointed.

[MarkHB]

I still haven't seen it, but I just saw a promo on instagram and I LOVE that they were able to get the 80's "Dead Lobster" Maine license plates. Those were Maine's first attempt at a graphical plate and they were controversial at the time.

[Robert Lynch]

That deleted scene with Henry Bowers added a whole new level of creepiness. That should have been kept in.

[Spartan Girl]

Bit the bullet and watched it tonight. So much more scary than the miniseries. I love Tim Curry, but Bill has him beat as Pennywise. The voice used reminded me of Chucky. And that scene with Georgie -- so horrible.

I screamed when Pennywise popped out of the projector. Ritchie and Eddie both screaming "What the fuck?" over and over were speaking for us all.

Quuestion: were the floating kids already dead, or were they just catatonic like Beverly? Wish they made that clearer at the end.

Poor Stan, almost getting his face eaten alive like that.

Cant really blame him for killing himself in the sequel than go back and face It

[BetterButter]

 

[Spartan Girl]

That deleted/joke scene is awesome.  Poor Georgie, if only he'd been quicker...

[TheGreenKnight]

On ‎12‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 2:51 PM, Helena Dax said:

Wow, that was bad. Some of the kids were great; others, not so much, but the real problem I saw was that the fight is boring and has been turned into something we've seen millions of times. I mean, one thing I loved about the book is that the kids are able to fight against It because they're still kids and full of imagination. Their main weapon is their belief in magical shields -battery acid, "he beats his fists...", the book about birds, Richie's voices-. But here is just about not being afraid of It (which is ludicrous) and in the "final" battle, all they have to do is beat the crap out of It. 

I don't know, there was a part of the final battle where Michael keeps shouting "It's not loaded!" before Bill shoots Pennywise the last time. I think the shot was what did It in because Bill believed the gun was loaded even though it wasn't? I'm wondering if it might be brought up in Chapter II, since it wasn't brought up at the end of this one.

I didn't mind this. Nothing here matches Tim Curry, but I did prefer the child actors in this one to the mini-series. And then there were the mini-series' limitations from having been made in the '90s. The clown's eyes drifting off to the sides or when it pulls open its face to show Beverly the dead lights were well-done, imo. My favorite scene is probably the first time they go to the house, particularly the part where It is thrown by Bill and Richie being able to leave the upstairs room. The film kind of made It seem like a boggart out of Harry Potter though.

[thuganomics85]

Let the sequel casting speculation commence!  Jessica Chastain is officially "in talks" to star as Older Bev.  I kind of figured that was going to be a possibility since she worked with the director in the past (Mama), but then again, assuming they want a "name" cast, the only main ginger actresses in this age group are pretty much her, Amy Adams, Isla Fisher, and Bryce Dallas Howard, I guess (I'm guessing Karen Gillan is too young.)

Overall, curious to see who they get since the casting in this film was so spot-on.

[methodwriter85]

Maybe they could cast Emma Stone and just have somebody comment on how she looks ten years older than her age. It does seem like it's Jessica Chastain's part to lose at this point.

Someone mentioned Lee Pace for Bill and I can't unsee that.

[thuganomics85]

More speculation: Bill Hader and James McAvoy are "in talks" to play Older Richie and Older Bill, respectfully.

Edited April 12, 2018 by thuganomics85

[Eyes High]

McAvoy as Bill must be all but confirmed, because Jessica Chastain (Adult Bev) posted this on her Twitter today. Cheeky!

Young Richie's actor wanted Bill Hader to play Adult Richie. Should be great!