Movies IT Movie v.2 (Dragonlord's Review)

If you have seen IT (2017), how would you rate it?


  • Total voters
    160
So this week. I rewetted the wretched 1990 It with Tim Curry.

Last night I went to a showing of the new one.

It's obviously a massive improvement on the TV Movie, but it also felt kinda disjointed.

As a pretty knowledgable guy on the novel (have read it a few times and dissected it in parts to get a better understanding of the overall world)... I think it's impossible to adapt if it isn't going to be an 8-10 hour miniseries.

Too much to cover, and if you leave certain things out, it kinda loses a lot of it's punch.

That aside...

Great acting/chemistry.
Great cinematography
Some of the creative changes worked. Ben/Beverly's banter about new kids on the block, for example.
The first 70 minutes or so had me. I was on board...

Then it just goes off the rails at the end.

Belch and Victor's deaths getting omitted was a weird choice.

Once again a total neglect of Silver outrunning Pennywise the Werewolf. One of the absolute best sequences in the novel.

IT taking Beverly (The absolute worst creative change from the book. She would be DOA based on the Pennywise that King wrote.) Seemed like a Hollywood "save the girl" sequence.

It also relied too heavily on Jump scares and CGI that looked cheesy.

People in the theatre were scared, but I guess I knew what to expect so it didn't really do much for me.

Overall I'd say it's a solid 5.5/10, but it was a solid 7 or better before that.

I don't think part 2 is going to work very well, they will leave out too many good Interludes like "The Bradley Gang".


I agree that it's far too massive a novel to adapt "properly" in any cinematic form. A long TV mini series on an appropriate outlet like HBO would have been a dream come true, but thats not what we got so I have to judge it on the merits of the film. We can go through and point to all sorts of good scenes from the novel that werent the film, but thats not a criticism of the film since by design it has to exclude so much. We have judge it based on what it chose to do, and not something that it could have done unless theres an obvious improvement. Selected scenes are cool, but they arent necessary to make a proper adaptation.

While I will always lament that Bowers and the gang will never get their due in any cinematic adaptation, I also realize that in a proper page to screen process means that is going to be one of the first things to hit the cutting room floor. They're secondary characters and, as such, cant be given an equal amount of screen time as the protagonists and the antagonist. It sucks because in the novel, you could literally just take the story of the losers club and the Bowers gang and make a fantastic book. But its not possible in a movie.

Theres 3 ways to judge it. As an adaptation, as a horror movie, and as a film. It works as all 3, but in varying degrees. First and foremost, it succeeds as a horror movie. We can sit here and dissect the minutia of what we personally like or dont like all day long, but at that point you're having a completely subjective argument and its rather meaningless. But think of it this way, if we didn't have the novel to color our expectations and this was an original creation, would the film be better or worse? I think most people would agree it would be far better, because we arent missing the depth and layers that the novel so willingly offers. But there comes a point where something is successful enough and people are enjoying it enough that its obviously working for most of them. IT sailed past that marker when it absolutely crushed its second weekend box office, thoroughly clobbering the comparatively star studded Mother from Aaronovsky.

On it's own, without expectations and eventual disappointments because of them, it's one of the best horror movies in years. Certainly the best one put out as any major release in likely over a decade. I cant even think of the last big budget, studio horror movie that works as well as this one. Even on triple the budget and all the A list talent, Alien:Covenant doesnt even come close to working as effectively as a horror film despite its desire to "return to its horror roots".

As a film, by virtue of it succeeding so well as a horror movie, it also earns praise. Even if you dissect the craftsmanship of the film, it's pretty inspiring work. Not just in Muschiettis impressive control of the style and tone, but in just how amazingly they managed stretch a relatively minuscule budget. For the sake of comparison, realize that the aforementioned Mother actually had practically the same budget. If someone had told viewers of the movie that it had a 100 million dollar budget, there would be very few doubters imo. It's nothing short of amazing what was done with the money that was spent, and the creators and team behind the miserable adaptation of The Dark Tower should be hanging their heads in shame.

Finally how do you judge it as an adaptation? Thats most subjective avenue and the hardest to judge. If judging an adaptation relies merely on how successfully it transfers the page to the screen as accurately as possible, IT fails miserably. However, as Stephen Spielberg has proven time and time again with adaptations like Jaws, Jurassic Park, and what Kubrick showed with what many believe is the best King horror adaptation of all time with The Shining, is that a literal page to screen adaptation isnt necessary not only to succeed, but to become a classic. Only time will tell if thats in store for IT, but thats certainly not an impossibility. This is going to be the movie that all sorts of teenagers think is the scariest shit ever, and then their old fart Dad is gonna say "Oh, you think THAT was scary..." and then put in a 1991 mini series from ABC , thinking the kids are going to get their minds blown while they sit through the first scene wondering what the hell their insane father is taking about. Nostalgia is a killer.

For me personally, the best way to judge an adaptation is how well it captures the spirit and feel of its source material for people unfamiliar with it. How is the movie resonating with people that don't have the novel to compare it to? For the most part, its overwhelming praise.

It certainly isnt a perfect movie, or a perfect adaptation. But I think it would be hard to argue that Muschietti and the studio havent done on incredible job at a task that many thought impossible.
 
Last edited:
what are some of your guys fav scenes from the move mine would have to be this or the projector scene



Sewer scene by a country mile (Up until the CGI bite). For some reason Skarsgard's voice worked really well there and in other parts of the movie it was just plain bad.
 
Got around to this one this afternoon.

The trailers made it look incredible, but the film ended up being just pretty good.

It takes a while to get going. For the first 30 minutes I was like, "So what exactly is the PLOT of this film?" It was just creepy stuff happens . . . kids get bullied . . . creepy stuff happens . . . kids get bullied. . . Then around the 30 minute mark the story finally starts to come into focus. And then around the one hour mark, everything is finally in full swing.

My major complaint is that we never really understand the rules or mechanics by which It/Pennywise operates. There are certainly questions about this that the film doesn't answer.

On the plus side though, the performances are all good, the kids are mostly likable, the movie has a great look to it, and it also has something close to a Spielbergian feel to it.

All in all, 7/10.

For those who have seen it:

So what the fuck is Pennywise actually trying to do? At the beginning of the film he lures Georgie in and, first opportunity, kills him. And apparently he also killed many other kids throughout the years.

But with our main characters, he seems to have so many opportunities to kill them but he doesn't. I kept being like, "Okay, right then, you could've killed that kid. Why didn't you?" I know that he mentioned that he "feeds on fear" but is that really a satisfying explanation? It seems to me to be a much better explanation that he didn't kill them all immediately because if he did we just wouldn't have a movie. It really bothered me because with these thoughts running through my head I could never full engage with the film. I was too busy analyzing it to just go with the story.
 
like none of the scares felt earned or unsettling, it was just shit you would expect from any horror movie

Not even the bathroom scene?

Like the audience should've been shitting bricks at the prospect of them going into Pennywise' lair, but they were all so gun-ho on killing Pennywise that there was just legitimately no tension or fear about what they will find.

Huh? Only the main kid was gung ho, the rest were like hell naw, fuck that.

It was only when it became clear that they were gonna get picked off one by one if they didn't go confront him that they found their balls.

I never saw the books but...Bev getting "woken" with a kiss? Being made to float? for what reason? for Pennywise to feast later? like....just fuckin eat her dude? you know the others are coming regardless.. if she's not scared of him can he not eat her?

Yes, apparently Pennywise's ability to hurt anyone is entirely dependent upon their fear of him. If there is no fear, he has no power.
 
Got around to this one this afternoon.

The trailers made it look incredible, but the film ended up being just pretty good.

It takes a while to get going. For the first 30 minutes I was like, "So what exactly is the PLOT of this film?" It was just creepy stuff happens . . . kids get bullied . . . creepy stuff happens . . . kids get bullied. . . Then around the 30 minute mark the story finally starts to come into focus. And then around the one hour mark, everything is finally in full swing.

My major complaint is that we never really understand the rules or mechanics by which It/Pennywise operates. There are certainly questions about this that the film doesn't answer.

On the plus side though, the performances are all good, the kids are mostly likable, the movie has a great look to it, and it also has something close to a Spielbergian feel to it.

All in all, 7/10.

For those who have seen it:

So what the fuck is Pennywise actually trying to do? At the beginning of the film he lures Georgie in and, first opportunity, kills him. And apparently he also killed many other kids throughout the years.

But with our main characters, he seems to have so many opportunities to kill them but he doesn't. I kept being like, "Okay, right then, you could've killed that kid. Why didn't you?" I know that he mentioned that he "feeds on fear" but is that really a satisfying explanation? It seems to me to be a much better explanation that he didn't kill them all immediately because if he did we just wouldn't have a movie. It really bothered me because with these thoughts running through my head I could never full engage with the film. I was too busy analyzing it to just go with the story.

Pennywise is kinda like Freddy Kreuger in that his power thrives off of kids believing in him and being afraid of him. It turns out that he didn't kill Beverly towards the end because as Bill explains, she was no longer afraid of him (which they do sort of set up by having those scenes with the kids starting to overcome the fears of their home lives, like with Bev dealing with her father and Eddie telling his mom how much gazebos are bullshit. Part of it can also be chalked up to him just being a cruel piece of shit, but yeah, the more cynical viewer could just call it movie supervillain logic.

Honestly, the miniseries was pretty bad with this, too, where scenes like Richie encountering the werewolf just kind of petered out.
 
Pennywise is kinda like Freddy Kreuger in that his power thrives off of kids believing in him and being afraid of him. It turns out that he didn't kill Beverly towards the end because as Bill explains, she was no longer afraid of him (which they do sort of set up by having those scenes with the kids starting to overcome the fears of their home lives, like with Bev dealing with her father and Eddie telling his mom how much gazebos are bullshit. Part of it can also be chalked up to him just being a cruel piece of shit, but yeah, the more cynical viewer could just call it movie supervillain logic.

Honestly, the miniseries was pretty bad with this, too, where scenes like Richie encountering the werewolf just kind of petered out.

Yeah, I get why he couldn't kill them at the end. But it makes no sense why he didn't/couldn't kill them early in the story. Because they clearly were scared as shit.

I considered the whole "he's just an asshole and is having fun terrifying them over and over" angle, but, eh, that's just not really satisfying to me.
 
Not even the bathroom scene?

which?

the one where Bev turns around and Pennywise is standing right there? or the one where she gets pulled into the drain by the hair

either way, neither scared me. The one was given away by the trailers so it didn't get anything out of me, and the second one took something genuinely creepy (the voices) and then made it just outrageously over the top with the blood etc.




Yes, apparently Pennywise's ability to hurt anyone is entirely dependent upon their fear of him. If there is no fear, he has no power.

I got that...but like the problem you had...it made no sense why Pennywise didn't just kill them one by one when he had them isolated? Like he had the fat kid alone in the library? just fuckin get him there? or Eddie after he's been conk'd the fuck out? surely he was easy pickin's...
 
which?

the one where Bev turns around and Pennywise is standing right there? or the one where she gets pulled into the drain by the hair

either way, neither scared me. The one was given away by the trailers so it didn't get anything out of me, and the second one took something genuinely creepy (the voices) and then made it just outrageously over the top with the blood etc.

The latter. I found that probably the most unsettling scene of the movie. It had a real Nightmare on Elm Street vibe to it.

I got that...but like the problem you had...it made no sense why Pennywise didn't just kill them one by one when he had them isolated? Like he had the fat kid alone in the library? just fuckin get him there? or Eddie after he's been conk'd the fuck out? surely he was easy pickin's...

Well you were specifically asking why he didn't just kill Bev at the end.

As for why he didn't kill everyone early on I can't come up with any satisfying explanation beyond if he did it would be:

OKAY, EVERYONE'S DEAD!

22 MINUTES!

MOVIE OVER!
 
Got around to this one this afternoon.

The trailers made it look incredible, but the film ended up being just pretty good.

It takes a while to get going. For the first 30 minutes I was like, "So what exactly is the PLOT of this film?" It was just creepy stuff happens . . . kids get bullied . . . creepy stuff happens . . . kids get bullied. . . Then around the 30 minute mark the story finally starts to come into focus. And then around the one hour mark, everything is finally in full swing.

My major complaint is that we never really understand the rules or mechanics by which It/Pennywise operates. There are certainly questions about this that the film doesn't answer.

On the plus side though, the performances are all good, the kids are mostly likable, the movie has a great look to it, and it also has something close to a Spielbergian feel to it.

All in all, 7/10.

For those who have seen it:

So what the fuck is Pennywise actually trying to do? At the beginning of the film he lures Georgie in and, first opportunity, kills him. And apparently he also killed many other kids throughout the years.

But with our main characters, he seems to have so many opportunities to kill them but he doesn't. I kept being like, "Okay, right then, you could've killed that kid. Why didn't you?" I know that he mentioned that he "feeds on fear" but is that really a satisfying explanation? It seems to me to be a much better explanation that he didn't kill them all immediately because if he did we just wouldn't have a movie. It really bothered me because with these thoughts running through my head I could never full engage with the film. I was too busy analyzing it to just go with the story.

I assumed he was just planting seeds with each kid. Maybe thinking that each encounter would intensify their fear and he could get them all at the right time for a buffet of sorts, then go into his hibernation. I guess Georgie just satiated his hunger for the time being.
 
The latter. I found that probably the most unsettling scene of the movie. It had a real Nightmare on Elm Street vibe to it.



Well you were specifically asking why he didn't just kill Bev at the end.

As for why he didn't kill everyone early on I can't come up with any satisfying explanation beyond if he did it would be:

OKAY, EVERYONE'S DEAD!

22 MINUTES!

MOVIE OVER!
probably was my rushed phrasing but my gripe was that

it took a kiss to bring back Bev...which just felt sooooo cheesy

her not getting killed was fine and makes sense....just the whole "she floats but the kiss from her one true love will wake her" felt sooo...sooo stupid
 
I assumed he was just planting seeds with each kid. Maybe thinking that each encounter would intensify their fear and he could get them all at the right time for a buffet of sorts, then go into his hibernation. I guess Georgie just satiated his hunger for the time being.

Yeah. . . Eh. . .

Just didn't really work for me.
 
Got around to this one this afternoon.

The trailers made it look incredible, but the film ended up being just pretty good.

It takes a while to get going. For the first 30 minutes I was like, "So what exactly is the PLOT of this film?" It was just creepy stuff happens . . . kids get bullied . . . creepy stuff happens . . . kids get bullied. . . Then around the 30 minute mark the story finally starts to come into focus. And then around the one hour mark, everything is finally in full swing.

My major complaint is that we never really understand the rules or mechanics by which It/Pennywise operates. There are certainly questions about this that the film doesn't answer.

On the plus side though, the performances are all good, the kids are mostly likable, the movie has a great look to it, and it also has something close to a Spielbergian feel to it.

All in all, 7/10.

For those who have seen it:

So what the fuck is Pennywise actually trying to do? At the beginning of the film he lures Georgie in and, first opportunity, kills him. And apparently he also killed many other kids throughout the years.

But with our main characters, he seems to have so many opportunities to kill them but he doesn't. I kept being like, "Okay, right then, you could've killed that kid. Why didn't you?" I know that he mentioned that he "feeds on fear" but is that really a satisfying explanation? It seems to me to be a much better explanation that he didn't kill them all immediately because if he did we just wouldn't have a movie. It really bothered me because with these thoughts running through my head I could never full engage with the film. I was too busy analyzing it to just go with the story.

It was a problem that a little thoughtful direction could have fixed.
 
probably was my rushed phrasing but my gripe was that

it took a kiss to bring back Bev...which just felt sooooo cheesy

her not getting killed was fine and makes sense....just the whole "she floats but the kiss from her one true love will wake her" felt sooo...sooo stupid

LOL

I can't say I had any strong feelings about it, but I thought it was kind of sweet.

Besides, they had to wake her SOMEHOW. Can you propose a better idea?

I suppose they could've made it a situation where they kill It and then that breaks the spell and she wakes up, but then she couldn't be part of the final battle and so much of the movie is about how they are strong as long as they are all working together.
 
I just watched the original for the first time in 20 years this weekend. The remake has a lot to live up to. I bet they fucked it up.

Really? Hmm. . .

I was listening to a review of It earlier today and the reviewer said he rewatched the miniseries to prepare and found the miniseries to be nearly unwatchable.
 
Yeah. . . Eh. . .

Just didn't really work for me.

You're right.. But I'll say this, everybody he got was alone. He had the one kid by the house alone.

Also, In the beginning, when Georgie started laughing, and PW stopped laughing and was still, I think it's because Georgie wasn't scared at that moment and it bothered PW.

Overall though, the inconsistent ability takes the movie down at least a point or two.
 
Autopsy of Jane Doe is a GREAT addition to the horror genre. Almost no jump scares and Brian Cox was wow.. It seems not many people know about the film though.

How did I not know about this film.

giphy.gif
 
Got around to this one this afternoon.

The trailers made it look incredible, but the film ended up being just pretty good.

It takes a while to get going. For the first 30 minutes I was like, "So what exactly is the PLOT of this film?" It was just creepy stuff happens . . . kids get bullied . . . creepy stuff happens . . . kids get bullied. . . Then around the 30 minute mark the story finally starts to come into focus. And then around the one hour mark, everything is finally in full swing.

My major complaint is that we never really understand the rules or mechanics by which It/Pennywise operates. There are certainly questions about this that the film doesn't answer.

On the plus side though, the performances are all good, the kids are mostly likable, the movie has a great look to it, and it also has something close to a Spielbergian feel to it.

All in all, 7/10.

For those who have seen it:

So what the fuck is Pennywise actually trying to do? At the beginning of the film he lures Georgie in and, first opportunity, kills him. And apparently he also killed many other kids throughout the years.

But with our main characters, he seems to have so many opportunities to kill them but he doesn't. I kept being like, "Okay, right then, you could've killed that kid. Why didn't you?" I know that he mentioned that he "feeds on fear" but is that really a satisfying explanation? It seems to me to be a much better explanation that he didn't kill them all immediately because if he did we just wouldn't have a movie. It really bothered me because with these thoughts running through my head I could never full engage with the film. I was too busy analyzing it to just go with the story.

that was actually my complaint of the movie as well. it was a bit jumbled in its purpose. i think they were trying to turn this into a goonies meets horror movie genre, and it just didn't really end up working. too many things going on and nothing really connected to one another.

the bullying for example. what did that really accomplish? and the movie spent a lot of time on it, in particular with the chubby boy. and honestly, it was all really unnecessary.

then the fear component. IT targets your deepest fears - that should've been the primary theme of the film. and all the fears they went with were extremely lame and contrived. i mean, these are middle school kids - one was afraid of a painting. really? another was afraid of germs. i mean, these aren't things people are generally afraid of.

and i disagree on the kids. they were pretty horrible actors to be quite honest. especially the one w/ the glasses always cracking jokes. i mean embarrassingly bad. the film survived though on decent directing, a great actor playing IT, and the brothers at the start were very good. so despite the bad acting the film manages to still come off as pretty entertaining. and the girl was ok, she had her big scene and it was actually pretty scary.

overall the film could've been much, much better. it needed to have it's scripts and concepts more streamlined, which is often a problem in a lot of scary pictures trying to do too much.
 
Really? Hmm. . .

I was listening to a review of It earlier today and the reviewer said he rewatched the miniseries to prepare and found the miniseries to be nearly unwatchable.

I'm not surprised. And I won't be surprised if the new movie is excellent and there are a bunch of hipsters claiming it's not as good as the original. People love to be experts on things like movies because there is no quantifiable measure of expertise and therefore they can never be wrong. I hope the new one is good. I'm excited for it. But IMO the original was very good and the new one has a lot to live up to in order to capture the feel of it, which to me was what made it good.
 
that was actually my complaint of the movie as well. it was a bit jumbled in its purpose. i think they were trying to turn this into a goonies meets horror movie genre, and it just didn't really end up working. too many things going on and nothing really connected to one another.

the bullying for example. what did that really accomplish? and the movie spent a lot of time on it, in particular with the chubby boy. and honestly, it was all really unnecessary.

then the fear component. IT targets your deepest fears - that should've been the primary theme of the film. and all the fears they went with were extremely lame and contrived. i mean, these are middle school kids - one was afraid of a painting. really? another was afraid of germs. i mean, these aren't things people are generally afraid of.

and i disagree on the kids. they were pretty horrible actors to be quite honest. especially the one w/ the glasses always cracking jokes. i mean embarrassingly bad. the film survived though on decent directing, a great actor playing IT, and the brothers at the start were very good. so despite the bad acting the film manages to still come off as pretty entertaining. and the girl was ok, she had her big scene and it was actually pretty scary.

overall the film could've been much, much better. it needed to have it's scripts and concepts more streamlined, which is often a problem in a lot of scary pictures trying to do too much.

The bullying was just another hardship for the losers to deal with. I felt that it was necessary that Pennywise isn't the only thing they have to worry about.

I think it's pretty plausible, that with how Eddie was raised that he would be afraid of a Leper. His mom was over protective which I'm sure caused him to fear those types of things more than any other kid would. Bill was sick at the beginning and it was a normal thing, if Eddie was sick it would be a huge deal to his mother, so he would think it's a huge deal too.

I thought the kids were good, especially Beverly and Bill. Overall a fantastic job by them IMO.

And I think Pennywise just toying with the kids to increase their fear is a fine way to explain him not killing them when he had the chance. He was basically mocking them at certain points. Terrifying them individually, coaxing them into the house on Neibolt street but then failing to kill them. He did attempt to kill Richie in the clown room but when Bill got the door open he went to Eddie. He toyed with him for a bit and then tried to eat him but Bill and Richie got there in time. Then he attempted to kill Bill and RIchie but Beverly impaled him. I don't have an issue with him not killing them. Obviously they need to make it to the sequel but it's easy for me to say that he was toying with them, like fattening up a pig before slaughtering it, then tried to kill them but failed.
 
As far as a horror movie I think it was good. Visually great, Pennywise creepy as fuck. Some good performances. Beverly was great, Pennywise was great. Richie was great. Some lousy ones too. Bill was terrible. Eddie was meh. Mike was not featured enough and Ben looked like a 7 year old. I gave it a 6.

As far as the movie based on the book that I enjoyed so much it's a 1.5 at best.

Compared to the miniseries it lacked the sense of oneness that those kids had.
 
Back
Top