MovieChat Forums > Wint3rFir3 > Replies
Wint3rFir3's Replies
I think it would because the Barrens really set the tone of the mini-series. They provided a claustrophobic atmosphere that in itself was almost like a character, because it told you a lot about IT without having to spell things out; and also about the kind of freedom kids had to roam in dangerous places without parental supervision, despite the fact kids were dying and going missing.
Also, I think it added to the mystique of IT. Kids often have their own secret places that they retreat to, away from adults, and violating that by making it a monster's lair really kind of upped the fear factor.
I tend to disagree. Whether or not you like the mini-series original or novel, on it's own I don't think the movie is amazingly written.
It lacks a lot of depth and character development and there's never a moment where you really feel they can't escape IT. As for nostalgia goggles, this movie relies very heavily on the nostalgia of the mini-series (hello, the line we all float down here) without actually paying off the moments it steals - and that includes the moments you think are going to be scary that just aren't.
As for the love triangle...Just no. They didn't develop the characters enough for me to invest in a love story between any of the characters. I would've been more excited if Mike ran away with the sheep from the slaughterhouse because he loved his pet Lambchop.
You're not wrong. But also, neither are the feminists complaining.
She is both of these things. She is both the damsel who everyone wants to bang [spoiler](even the local chemist and, oh yeah, her dad)[/spoiler] AND she is the Strong Female Character Sophia McDougall complains about in her article [url]https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/08/i-hate-strong-female-characters[/url].
When her hand gets cut at the end, she is the only one to barely feel it. She is the only one who wants to help Mike against Henry and bullies - yes, if you've forgotten there was a character named Mike lol. She is the lone character not scared of IT or anyone else AND she is also the only one to be kidnapped by the clown and needs to be rescued by True Love's Kiss, but isn't a slut, but also kisses two boys, but also...
You see what I mean? She's a problematic character because she's basically the only developed character in the entire movie, yet a lot of that development centres around how much every male wants to sleep with her and her combatance of that.
BTW, look at how most of Hollywood's feminism comes from clueless fking dudes. Read the book, The Duff, then watch the movie. You'll see what I mean. It's mens' perspectives of what feminism is without ever cracking a book or reading a paragraph on the topic. It's a veil, a thin, pathetic veil.
I think that about sums it up. I give props to any movie that can go for almost 3 hours and not totally bore me, but that was largely due to the nostalgia factor and waiting for it to get good. It was just okay.
No. They just wanted the nostalgia of the famous 'we all float down here' quote without doing the work of having it payoff well at the end.
It really makes me laugh. IT isn't actually a clown, but a manifestation of fears. I wonder if werewolves complained about their livelihood being in jeopardy when the mini-series came out. Oh, wait, no coz they're not real, and neither is this supernatural fictional monster.
Because Stranger Things, which is set in the early 1980s, is what renewed a lot of people's love of everything 80s and Stephen King as a pair, rather than as two separate things - and probably contributed to this re-adaptation getting the go ahead to be made. I can even see it being pitched to studio execs like so 'look, Stranger Things is popular, we'll just do that with IT, everyone will eat it up!' - and that's pretty much the truth.
Yeah this is called an inconsistency. The movie tried to say that IT couldn't hurt you if you weren't scared, yet [spoiler]Beverly Marsh still got kidnapped and eye-zapped and Georgie killed[/spoiler]. So is it able to hurt you or not? Who knows lol.
Damn, my answer for this is long...Oh well. Main thoughts - movie = just okay, miniseries = great and holds up, book = not relevant here.
The mini-series is made up of a great balance of small intimate moments that either highlight the characters’ personal and very real issues and/or their inner fears, and scary moments. It does so much with so little and that's what made it scary. With just sheets on a clothesline and a fallen tricycle, you get such a strong impression of how terrifying IT is and can be – and you see nothing. A balloon in the back of a car or a deck of cards holds so much meaning.
The film didn't have those kinds of moments. The kids are barely friends and are really underdeveloped as characters - except for Beverly. It could have been renamed Beverly Marsh and the Creeps of Derry and that would have been a fitting title. It was bleak, moody and atmospheric with some interesting effects, but not scary. The kids not being scared really killed any stakes, which killed any hope of payoff.
It follows the coming-of-age summer movie formula, where friends sit by a lake for a bit, meet a 'hot' girl, have a fight, and make up at the end for no real reason and are somehow "changed". But there also was a killer clown no one cared about and loads of crass jokes that were funny, but out of place. Usually the kids in movies like this are teens - these kids seem kinda young.
The miniseries was all about what drives our fears, and how friendship helps us overcome them. The movie was about how kids need to grow up fast to survive the lack of humanity in the world - which, however true, is impossible given that most kids aren't even allowed to go outside on their own for a majority of their childhood.
I tend to wonder if I would have cared if any or all of the kids had died at the end of the movie. The answer is, scarily, no.
It was distracting to me because it felt like the humour and the bad language in the film was snatched from Stranger Things - and while it suits Stranger Things, it feels out of place in IT. It was like they thought, 'hey, we got Mike, now let's make this movie Stranger Things because he's already used these lines'.
And since all Richie did was crack jokes, it was distracting in every scene he was in.
None. All the references in the film stood out as references - the music stood apart from the scenes without adding to or being part of them, the NKOTB poster was unnecessary, and so on. There are almost no references in the original miniseries and you can still tell it's not of this time - and that's something you can do more by leaving things out rather than adding specific reference points.
Yeah the CGI was overkill and the silly Scooby voice truly ruined any chance of anyone being scared - including the kids in the movie.
I didn't totally hate the film, but it definitely wasn't scary past the first, maybe, the first minute - because you're kind of anticipating that it's gonna be scary. But then the clown talks and ruins that.
Was Bill the dumbest? I don't know because we don't really know anything about any of the characters except that all the adult men are creepy and that Beverly Marsh is who everyone wants to bang for some reason even though the town is full of children and thus presumably some attractive women.
As for their supposed friendship and sticking together - why would they stick together? Does Mike even hang out with them? Does Ben? They all hung out maybe twice, so I guess...friendship forever?
The kids swearing was funny but definitely out of place and felt a lot more like the director/writer was copying lines out of Stranger Things rather than an actual Stephen King property.
I actually thought the V was a hint at him possibly hooking up with the girl bully later on - perhaps as an adult in the second film?
I found the new Pennywise...not great. Some of his silent moments are a bit creepy, but when he talks he sounds like Scooby Doo and just kills any fear factor once he starts monologuing. Tim Curry as a normal-seeming man in a clown suit was actually scary when he spoke, Also, the supernatural elements added to the new PW are overkill.
I love the 90s version - it made people I know scared to hang up their washing outside. It has a lot of moments like that. But I don't think remakes are pointless - I just think this particular one was. It didn't have the balance of intimate, personal moments and deep-delving fear moments that the original had, and it felt more like it was paying homage to a Stephen King homage, like Stranger Things - something that borrowed from King's work, but veered off and did its own thing.
I feel like most of the characters had little to no backstory or development, except maybe Beverly Marsh. This movie was very Beverly Marsh-heavy - but even then, a lot of her scenes were the boys/men ogling her rather than her actually being a character.
Oh, so true. Not gonna cry...not gonna cry...
I'd have to say reunions, done emotionally, are very heart-wrenching. Sadly, most reunion movies/moments go for the comedy more than anything.