It (Andy Muschietti)

[Henry Gale]

IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1396484/) / Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_(2017_film))

https://i0.wp.com/teaser-trailer.com/wp-content/uploads/It-movie-poster.jpg?ssl=1

[Scar]

It took a few liberties from the book, but still decent. I'll give it a yay when I log on from my computer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dead & Messed Up]

Good movie.

Not a great one.

But good.

Maybe even damn good.

Amazing child performances. You will fall in love with some of these kids. Not just the creative swearing (which is wonderful), but the plausibility of their familiarity with each other, the way they overlap; running jokes between them that feel well-worn (one boy's mother is a constant target). [I imagine most will fall in love with Richie Tozier and Eddie Kaspbrak - Richie's motormouth swearing is perfectly matched to Finn Wolfhard.]

Never as dreadful and truly frightening as you'd hope, playing instead with the spook-a-blast creativity of "Drag Me to Hell" or (at its best) "Poltergeist." There's a blood flood here worthy of "Evil Dead II" and a throwdown in a haunted house that provides the film's peak; Muschetti doesn't like to simmer the violence when he can crank the stovetop to boil in an instant.

It takes some time for the flick's story to ramp up, as the kids initially seem weirdly disinterested in discussing their experiences with Pennywise (the film has trouble establishing that the experiences even linger with them). That hurts the film, as you could re-arrange the first five or six Big Scares without changing the drama surrounding them. (One scare sequence resolves with an uptempo montage of bathroom cleanup.)

And there are too many times where Pennywise leans on familiar CG twitchery from lesser horror films. I got used to that style and even came to like a few of his more outlandish iterations, but the decision yanks the film back down to Earth and forces you to remember that Muschetti's "Mama" was best when it withheld its monster and, I dunno, tolerable (?) when Mama showed up.

But the film ultimately works on that backbone of empathetic child performances, the (slow) accretion of their shared experiences with It, and the hints that Derry's rotten to its core. I wish they explored that element more, since King wrote Derry as the Hill House of small towns, locked in mutual corrosion with Pennywise, but the hints of that decay do lurk at the edges, most notably when a pharmacist plays friendly with the underage Bev. Eww.

If you're expecting something with the calm follow-through of Reiner's "Misery" or the atmospheric discomforts of "The Shining," you won't be thrilled by "IT," and on that level you can not-unfairly call the flick a missed opportunity. But what you've got is a solid spookhouse film with an endearing emotional core.

[Morris Schæffer]

Looks on course to open big with 65-80 million.

[Dead & Messed Up]

But seriously, Richie's response to learning about early Derry beaver trappers brought the house down.

[Scar]

But seriously, Richie's response to learning about early Derry beaver trappers brought the house down.

Very true!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mal]

hmmph. If this had been made by a more seasoned, dramatic director... I think this would have had the results I wanted. Instead the directing from Muschietti at times feels too modern, expected, even disappointing.

But the child actors and their chemistry is really lovely and fantastic- and I'm very much considering seeing this again in the theater because the result of the picture is so satisfying thanks to the scripting.

[Ezee E]

There's potential here, but the first half never really establishes the true fears of each kid. It speeds through it.

As mentioned above, the scares for half the movie rely on the CGI- fast forward/headshaking/screaming from Pennywise, which is more funny after a while then scary. It really never ramps up until it finally gets inside the house, with tactics of separating everyone. It's pretty fun for a bit, but some of the secondary antagonists rub off as over the top-ridiculous.

Eh..........

[D_Davis]

Is the film only the kid half of the book?

[Dukefrukem]

Looks on course to open big with 65-80 million.

Now they're saying $100+

[Skitch]

Is the film only the kid half of the book?

Yes.

[Ezee E]

Yes.

Ends with...
It: Chapter 1

[Ezee E]

People were freaking out in the clown room scene in my full theater, but outside of that, not too many screams.

[Morris Schæffer]

Good movie. Opts a little too much for brazen "BOO!" scenes and all too often it has characters, kids who should be scared, running right into terror although it's somewhat justified here.

[Ivan Drago]

This felt more like an adventure with elements of horror rather than a straight-up horror film to me. the only problems I had with it occurred when humorous dialogue killed the suspense of terrifying scenes in the first half. Other than that, the characters are well-written and acted, Bill Skarsgard was great as Pennywise, and there's a thematic depth to it that's absent from most contemporary horror films. Overall, I enjoyed it.

[Pop Trash]

As mentioned above, the scares for half the movie rely on the CGI- fast forward/headshaking/screaming from Pennywise, which is more funny after a while then scary.

What started this trope? I feel like I've seen it in many 21st Century horror films (or at least their trailers since I rarely watch them) but I watched a lot of 80s/90s horror back in the day and don't remember that being a thing at all back then. It's like the horror movie version of the speed ramp.

[Morris Schæffer]

What started this trope? I feel like I've seen it in many 21st Century horror films (or at least their trailers since I rarely watch them) but I watched a lot of 80s/90s horror back in the day and don't remember that being a thing at all back then. It's like the horror movie version of the speed ramp.

I remember the saw movies had some scenes which were played at faster than normal speed, but nothing like the puppet on a bicycle igniting its turbo and charging at its target.

But yeah speaking of trailers, horror trailers seem to frequently end with one surprise jolt before it's fade to black, or fade to credits.

[Dead & Messed Up]

What started this trope? I feel like I've seen it in many 21st Century horror films (or at least their trailers since I rarely watch them) but I watched a lot of 80s/90s horror back in the day and don't remember that being a thing at all back then. It's like the horror movie version of the speed ramp.

You can trace it back to Jacob's Ladder, but I'm not sure where it crossed into mainstream technique.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Also, $117 million opening. Bully for the WB marketers.

[Morris Schæffer]

That's colossal!

[Pop Trash]

Casting and cinematography are MVP.

[Wryan]

Surprisingly tame in places, but overall it's good fun. A little disappointed that the speech from the trailer about adults failing the children under their charge was absent, but perhaps it would have been too on the nose here. When Skarsgard is allowed to be physically present, he's wonderful; there should have been more of that. The kids were a total success, from the coarse language to the close bond to the way the boys stare agape at Beverly to how quietly strong Ben is. And Sophia Lillis is a hell of a find. Suffers some obvious thinness from compressing down even half of such a giant story, but I think it works fairly well.

[Ivan Drago]

Also, $117 million opening. Bully for the WB marketers.

....C'MON, KINGSMAN....

[transmogrifier]

Gets a bit samey after a while as we dutifully lurch from one kid's run in with It to another's, and I think it leans too hard into the awful adults trope (seriously, everything with Bev's father is ridiculously over-the-top in its presentation, and the second weakest aspect of the film behind the acting of the kid playing Henry Bowers, a character who is poorly utilized in the movie). That aside though, it has atmosphere to burn, and it runs like clockwork on the technical side of things.

[dreamdead]

It's a positive experience for me, though reservations abound. I'm happy that I remember so little beyond the outline of the arc from when I was the book about 20 years ago: it creates moments that I expected, but the details were less obvious than they''d have been if memory was any stronger. Not the biggest fan of Muschietti's structure of going to eleven at all moments; the old "woman" in the library as Ben is reading the history book isn't necessarily subtle, but I loved how I expected "her" to appear anywhere in the frame. And, naturally, Richie in the clown-room.

As D&MU astutely notes, the time-frame that the film works to condense makes it so that there's much less in the way of lingering terrors or trepidation. Instead, several parts feel like a one-off for each character without any successive collateral to make more of a payoff occur. Further, Mike needed one more scene to better acclimate him to the rest of the cast--the incorporation of his character feels very dependent on plot as opposed to feeling truly a part of experiences.

I'll be curious if the second part actually casts 40-year-old actors or whether they go younger.

[Wryan]

Also, props to the Pennywise makeup when it wasn't rubberized by cgi.

[Dukefrukem]

Is the film only the kid half of the book?

Sequel planned with the adult side!

[D_Davis]

Sequel planned with the adult side!

Excellent!

[Dead & Messed Up]

Odds on them stretching the next film into two films after seeing this weekend's grosses?

And then a prequel about Pennywise in early Derry (which I would secretly be very interested in watching)?

[Wryan]

As long as they adopt era-appropriate dress and Puritan Pennywise starts throwing scarlet-letter town slatterns at old white men, I'm down.

[Ezee E]

Was there any doubt about Chapter 2?

I'm curious how they'll cast people more than anything. Slightly interested.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Was there any doubt about Chapter 2?

I'm curious how they'll cast people more than anything. Slightly interested.

The online hopes right now are Bill Hader for Richie Tozier and Jessica Chastain for Beverly, and I'm just fine with both of those.

[Ezee E]

The online hopes right now are Bill Hader for Richie Tozier and Jessica Chastain for Beverly, and I'm just fine with both of those.

Would they go for big names at this point?

Although Bill isn't too big... I don't see someone like Chastain taking on the role though.

[D_Davis]

I hope Liev Schreiber gets a part.

And Barry Pepper.

[Ezee E]

I hope Liev Schreiber gets a part.

And Barry Pepper.

Technically, both are ten years too old.

[D_Davis]

Yeah. I just always wish these two guys were in more movies I want to see.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Would they go for big names at this point?

Although Bill isn't too big... I don't see someone like Chastain taking on the role though.

How big is Chastain? (Legitimate question.) I think people are chucking her name around because she was already in Muschietti's Mama.

[And was sporting a killer black hairdo.]

http://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/La_madre_2_jessica_chastain.jp g

[transmogrifier]

They should get the biggest name to play Stan.

[Dead & Messed Up]

They should get the biggest name to play Stan.

Someone online mentioned Jesse Eisenberg,

but I worry that would make his big scene result in an applause break instead of gasps.

[Ezee E]

Ah, the Chastain connection makes sense then.

I wanted to say that I thought she was one to not go with franchise movies, but she'll be in the X-Men: Dark Phoenix movie, so never mind. I'm guessing as White Queen?

[Peng]

Maybe too much to expect that a feature-length adaptation feels like the definitive take on this Stephen King story, even one that covers only half of his 1000-page book, so the slight disappointment might be on me. But, if nothing else, at least this feels like the definitive casting, right down to even small roles like Georgie, and already-previously-iconic Pennywise, in which Bill Skarsgård's more unhinged turn really suits the much rawer atmosphere. The seven members of The Losers Club are what powerfully holds this adapation together, as their camaraderie among the summer interludes, and their mutual coming-of-age realization in the horror of both messy grown-up world and sinister cosmic force, reflect some of the book's most potent parts brilliantly. The film's horror can be inconsistent, varying from intensely creepy to overdone CGI-fest, but these young, talented cast manage to sell it in relation to their characters all the way through. 7/10

[Henry Gale]

Oh, right. I saw this, made the thread, but then got too caught up to actually write about it. [FAKE EDIT: I've also been so busy since that I left this tab open since the weekend(?) and then posted this until right now. Anyway, here it is at last..]

I really did enjoy it, though like DaMU and Efron, there's still a hanging cloud of reservation, and one does still wonder what the film would've been as a fully followed-through Cary Fukunaga piece of work, instead of something he set up and left to be largely continued with, but ultimately changed to what the studio and Muschietti desired. Fukunaga also interestingly had Will Poulter (who eventually moved on to play an even creepier evil sadist in Katheryn Bigelow's Detroit) cast as Pennywise instead of Bill Skarsgard, who here I think is a welcome revelation. His drooling, creakily-voiced shit-disturber version of the clown is exactly the sort of anchor the character needs to be unsettlingly placed in your brain for when the film sadly has put him put aside as and actor for wilder-looking FX versions of him. The uneasy dread of his work lingers even when the rest of the film's scares and atmospherics don't.

It really does need to be commended for just how funny it is. I've seen some critics mention how they wish it was scarier, and I do agree, but in the end I think the stronger and more formidable side of the movie's dynamics is the kids and how believable and radiant their collective presence is. I could point out any one of them or even a bunch of them as standouts, but the fact that so many of them make their own distinct impression says enough on its own.

Another point I've seen made and then subsequently chewed out by others is that some wish this movie was less jump-scare heavy, despite some of those same people having been fine with Annabelle: Creation's arguable more frequent utilization of them. But I gotta say that I'm on the side that thinks the cinematic stakes of quality for this as a film are higher (if only for it being the adaptation of the source it has) and it's more well-rounded and substantial in its overall quality, which makes it use of the easier jump scares feel somewhat below it, but honestly since my expectations for the new Annabelle were closer to the basement, the fact that it delivered so thrillingly with more moderate ambitions makes its "cheaper" horror gags feel more in line with its overall style, with considerable visual inventiveness to go along with them. I'd even argue it's a more successful film than Muschietti's It for it. It should be pointed out that Gary Dauberman wrote the final draft of both, but that he entirely wrote Annabelle: Creation, and was only brought in to rewrite this after Fukunaga left, working from his and Palmer's script. So you have to wonder if the more routine horror elements were only conceived of with his hiring.

In the end I definitely recommend it even if I don't think it quite reaches its full potential, and despite not outright loving I also just might be compelled to go see it again (especially with a big audience), and really look forward to Chapter Two in the meantime, secretly hoping that as an ending it manages make the the quality groundwork here become more well-realized, and subsequently elevate. Float, even!

[Winston*]

Huh. I thought the film was pretty scary (probably partly because it was kids in danger). Maybe I'm a wimp.

[TGM]

This is a really good childhood drama mixed in with a real bad horror movie, which wasn't the least bit scary at any point in time. I keep hearing people say how this movie has so many jump scares, and I'm usually able to telegraph jump scares fairly easily. Here though, even the jump scares were so ineffective that I didn't even notice the movie had any until I saw people complaining about them online after the fact. Oops. But even beyond that, I honestly found most of the horror aspect of this movie to be pretty boring, particularly so as it continued on. It peaks way too early in it's second act, so the entire third act is a total drag for this.

But the horror stuff aside, there's actually a decent movie here, and the cast of kids are outstanding. Loved following this group. But all in all, It was not great, not terrible, just very much OK.

[Grouchy]

The best things about it, like you guys already mentioned, are the child performances and the cinematography which is stunning.

The adaptation more or less works. There's no room to breathe in the film, which cheapens the scary moments since they seem to happen all the time and have little to no effect on the kids lives. In fact, the only one who decides to share that impossible and fantastical things have happened to her is Beverly. That made the characters a little implausible from a dramatic standpoint. I read in the film's Wikipedia page that WB stipulated that the running time couldn't be over 120 minutes. I think this story needed more than that.

Still, pretty fun to see in theaters. My crowd seemed pretty disturbed by it.

[DavidSeven]

Others have already nailed it. They did wonderful job of casting the film with talented and unique child actors. It's superficially well done from a technical standpoint and avoids any major missteps. However, there is something missing. Maybe it's just that the direction seems to lack a real point-of-view or objective beyond delivering something polished. For a true "four-quadrant" horror movie, perhaps this is the best we can hope for, but it just never feels like essential cinema.

[D_Davis]

Loved every second of it. The cast was perfect.

I got home today and immediately started re-reading the book.

Cant wait for the next chapter.

[Dukefrukem]

Loved every second of it. The cast was perfect.

I got home today and immediately started re-reading the book.

Cant wait for the next chapter.

I had the same reaction.

Though I do agree they go a little bit overboard with some of the scare imaginary. After a while it becomes less scary.

For me, the two things that really got to me, were the "you'll float too" scene in the basement. And the weird lady from the painting at the temple.

But yes, acting was suburb. And it follows my "journey" outline perfectly.

Did they not tell anyone they murdered a bully?

[Dukefrukem]

holy.....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w2HXAlwGds

[Ezee E]

No thanks.

[Neclord]

I didn't really buy this. It was well cast and had some good sequences but mostly I wasn't scared, and I don't think there was really much meat to the movie.

[Milky Joe]

I didn't post about this. It really sucked. Baffled by the praise.

[Grouchy]

I wouldn't go so far as saying it sucked, but it's a movie that's more perfunctory than good, really.

It does have great visuals.

[Mysterious Dude]

I'm annoyed they changed the setting from the 50's to the 80's. What's wrong with the 50's?

[TGM]

I'm annoyed they changed the setting from the 50's to the 80's. What's wrong with the 50's?

I think the idea was to modernize it, so now when we return in part 2, we'll be closer to the present day.

[Dead & Messed Up]

This didn't sit quite as well with me on a second viewing. The scares felt a touch hackier, and while some kids' arcs are fairly clear and well-communicated (Bill fares best, with Bev and Eddie up next), Mike and Stan aren't allowed the space to really be who they are. Hell, Mike's storyline feels downright butchered. His development seems to focus on his issues with hesitation, difficulty in making the tough calls (tied to his anxiety over not being able to help his parents during the fire). But there seems to me a huge (inverse) difference between the hesitation to kill a sheep for a meat company and the hesitation to save loved ones. And when he briefly splits from the group, he says his grandpa says "You're an outsider." Which... huh?

[Curiously, the film also zips past the late-summer reunion. Bill and Richie reunite, Eddie confronts his mother and leaves, and then... they're all biking? I would've liked to see Bill ask for Stan's help. To see what brought Mike back. He knew Beverly for, like, a day. To see Ben's reaction when Bill has to tell him that Bev's missing.]

[I mean, the Bev getting damseled thing is some bullshit, but if you're gonna do it, actually do it and pay it off with impact on the other characters.]

There are also weird moments that suggest some desperate choices in the edit bay. Example: Eddie's biking with everybody in the scene where they visit Ben's Exposition Room, and in the very next scene, he's walking. What happened to his bike? Did we trim something in between the two scenes?

In general, I have to think that they were fucking around with the first half's sequencing right until release. That would explain why - per my initial reaction - the kids were curiously un-traumatized by their initial traumas with Pennywise. It may be the case that it was intentionally written as disconnected/episodic. That way, they could lift and reshuffle the scenes without fear of losing the overall story shape. You can be charitable and say that Mike / Stan / Ben would be the least likely to tell others (Mike and Ben are relatively new to the group, Stan's a skeptic), but it doesn't seem to even break their stride. I'm not sure how this could be communicated, but maybe some more distraction to their acting. Maybe they're checking over their shoulders. Maybe while Stan's in Ben's house, he briefly sees the woman in the corner, but it's his imagination. That may sound hacky, but it does feel like something's missing.

I also wish we got a sense of Richie and Ben's home life.

In general, I think the film could've really sturdied up its storytelling foundations with another 10-15 minutes.