Just saw IT! SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

Dana Jean said:

I don't even REMEMBER an Audra.

Click to expand...

When I read the book for the first time and was reading about Audra and how she was a movie star, the rest of the book I had Audra Lindley pictured:

Dana Jean said:

I just got back from seeing IT. I have to say, between The Dark Tower (which I enjoyed) and IT-- the differences in how each was adapted is a gapping chasm. Just the quality between the two is very different.

I thought this adaptation was by far superior to the miniseries. Usually kid actors are a tough sell for me. They are either really good or just soooo mediocre. Every single child in this movie was a testament to what child actors are capable of when given good material and have that talent.

I will always have a soft spot for Tim Curry, but this Pennywise was by far much more threatening and frightening.

I have made my feelings very clear on the Loser's Sex Scene from the book -- I bow to Stephen's vision and I also have great respect for those who champion that scene in the source material. But, back in August of 2016 in the thread where Stephen explains his reasons for that scene, I say that they could have accomplished the same thing by being blood brothers. Which is exactly what they did in the movie. And I am thrilled with that. It made more sense to me. It kept me in the moment and in the story. There was still the attraction between the boys and Bev, it was still palpable in their interactions, quite humorously at times, but as I've said, just my opinion, the sex scene was totally unnecessary to accomplish exactly what they did in the movie.

One of the most horrifying scenes in the movie was:

Spoiler

When Eddie's mother drove away in a Pacer!! Ralph Nader would be spewing chunks!

Okay, just kidding. The movie was so atmospheric, I was not taken out of the story at all that it was set in the 80s. Not one bit. I do have to say, I read IT years ago and have never revisited the story, so that might have something to do with my acceptance of the fictional world on screen.

This was an absolute loving tribute to our beloved IT.

Click to expand...

Loving tribute is what it's all about! So glad you enjoyed it And the blood brothers thing, I gotta admit, is cool. We did that as kids, too!

Dana Jean said:

Wow. I still don't remember her. I'm old. Oh well.

Click to expand...

Sing with me now! "Leeet's aaall riiiide a biiiike..."

....crap. Wrong Disney lyrics.

Dana Jean said:

Wow. I still don't remember her. I'm old. Oh well.

Click to expand...

Bill rode her on Silver at the end and she came to.

Annoying to me both in book and miniseries.

Just came back from seeing IT and after thinking about it for a bit I must say that I loved it! I was sceptical at first because some of the changes that they made, but thinking back it makes sense, like Mike's whole backstory and his fear of fire because of the way his parents died, I thought it made him a more compelling character (wish he was used more though).

One thing that I absolutely loved was the little nods to the books (or maybe it was clever foreshadowing for the second movie), like the two times they referenced the turtle, and at the end when Bill was talking to "Georgie" about "IT being a she," when they were talking about the boat. I thought it was a clever reference to the fact that pennywise is actually female.

And I was so impressed with the acting, the girl who plays Bev was amazing in the bathroom scenes, and Richie was phenomenal and I even liked Bill (which is saying something since I wasn't a fan of his in the book), and my boy Ben was done justice, he was so sweet, him and Bev will always be my favourite couple (loved the new kids on the block joke between them).

Overall, it was great, and I can list a thousand more things I loved about it but I'm going to stop here for now before I write an essay.

DiO'Bolic said:

I was talking to my youngest about the movie ‘It’ and she suggested we go see it at the drive in located about three miles from us when her boyfriend comes to visit this weekend. I checked and 'It' is playing. (The drive-in actually came in at 5th place in USA Today's 10 Best Drive-In Theaters in 2016).

Dunno, seeing ‘It’ at a drive-in theater might be rather fun, and it’s been what seems like forever since I been to one. The last time I was at a drive-in theater they still had these...

But it's $10 admission per person. That seems a bit much for the 'ambience.' On the plus side they do offer hot bologna, homemade pierogies and turkey BBQ.

If I go I think I'll hang a red balloon out the window, and let a few go flying during the flick.

Click to expand...

That is cute. I am thinking of getting a red ballon and putting it on my locker at work

O.kl I hate clowns, have not read it, havenot seen the first it with Tim curry? Will I dislike this one. The second part looks good

Read the book.

I saw IT! Not bad, not bad at all.

I'll say more.

Pros - Great kid actors, great set pieces, great condensed version of the story - almost like more violent shorter Stranger Things. Of course, ST is inspired by IT but you get my meaning. The horror was good. I wasn't scared at any point but I liked what they did. All the kids talked exactly as I expected kids to talk and most of their development was solid. Richie was funnier here than he was in the book imo. A bold claim? Probably but he was. I'm not saying he was bad in the book - he wasn't. He and Mike are my fav Losers but here he felt a bit more Trashmouty so to speak. Of course - book Richie had more time to develop and grow.

Cons - several characters were dreadfully underserved. I understand why and have no issue. I just hope this puts a needle in the argument about why the movie has two parts. The movie was very long and still couldn't cram in enough time for Mike, Stanley, Henry, and Patrick.

This will probably be the definitive IT adaptation going forward ...maybe. I highly doubt IT will be adapted a third time nor would I want it to, but I think these GIANT SK novels are best for miniseries. I know - that's very ironic.

Think about it, though. This is the golden age of television. I believe if IT, The Stand, and several others were made as six-ten part mini series in present time they'd knock everything out of the park.

It is just so hard to condense such a dense novel without wanting to cut characters and all.

Oh, right.

The new Pennywise was wonderful as well. I liked how he was trying to copy human behavior, almost.

....Hi to our two new folks!.....

In case you guys heard that this woman died while watching IT.
UPDATE - Report That Louisiana Woman Died In The Theater While Watching 'IT' Untrue

Mel217 said:

Interesting takes.

Click to expand...

Mel217 said:

I really like Doug and Rob and can understand where they're coming from. While I find the novel pretty fascinating, I understand it's not everyone's cup of tea; there are great literary works I wanted to pull a shotgun on (didn't we have a thread about that? )
But even so I'm anxious for the NC review. Even if he hates something, the reviews are usually pretty entertaining.
I still re-watch his miniseries It review and I think, as much as he loathes the mini series Shining, he was fair enough to point out that the miniseries followed the book very closely compared to Kubrick's version.

Click to expand...

i made it 3 minutes in where the guy says he doesn't get the novel. and it was a painful 3 minutes of overly negative crap, all while one of them is wearing, if i'm not mistaken, a tshirt with the miniseries kids that says "legends never die" . . . so yeah, sure, he's not trying to just not give the new movie a chance. i've seen a couple things by the nostalgia critic, and i'll be honest, he works my nerves pretty hard.

Woland said:

I just saw the movie and here are my thoughts. And let me state that I thought all the performances were great and I did enjoy the movie. So I hope I don't sound too critical. Why did they turn Bev into a damsel in distress, which she never was in the books? I get that in the movie they had to bring the Losers back together. Which leads me to my next question, why have the Losers break apart. There was enough material to play with in the book without injecting more drama into the plot. If they had to have a character kidnapped by Pennywise why not one of the boys, like Stan, which would explain his decisions as an adult, or Eddie. Also, did Mike seem to have less dialogue than the other kids? And why make Ben the group historian and take that role from Mike? Given Ben's dialogue that he wants to get out of this town will he be taking over Mike's role as the librarian and the one who stays behind in Derry because as it stands that would make the most sense. What was the purpose of making Henry's dad a cop and not doing anything with it, either have him covering for his son's delinquency or show him being a racist and that was where Henry learned it from. Because he has three scenes and he doesn't talk in two of them. I would've liked to see more scenes with him, just one or two to get a better understanding of the character. And did some parts of this movie feel rushed to anyone? Admittedly this could come from being familiar with the book. I guess some things ended up on the cutting room floor.

Click to expand...

i've been discussing this movie a lot with some folks on facebook (while waiting for filks to chime in here), so here's some of my thoughts, and what i've seen others propose.

starting simple, regarding henry's dad: i think making him an authority figure (cop), was possibly to put more emphasis on one of the themes of the story, that adults are not only useless, but downright dangerous and untrustworthy in some cases as well. this is a pretty prevalent theme in the novel, and while they did demonstrate it with the few adult appearances, i just think the choice of making butch a cop was another way to showcase. i thought henry got short shrift as well, but from what i understand, there's a ton of footage that was cut that may be available later via deleted scenes or otherwise, as indicated by one of the producers. we did at least get a brief glance at butch's torment of his son, and we got the scene where henry kills him from the book.

a lot of the changes that were made can be attributed to time constraints. they had to take a bit more than half of an 1100 page novel (because the kids part is the bulkier part) and do all the setup for it, provide all the info in the story, and then resolve it. that's a tall order for 2 hours and 15 minutes. so i think a lot of decisions were made to streamline it. take ben as the historian for example. mike was the last to join the losers club, both in the novel and in the movie. considering how late he hooks up with them, from the movie's perspective, it makes sense to have the losers getting their info a bit sooner than that, rather than waiting until mike comes along. so therefore, we get ben the historian. doesn't mean mike isn't going to stay behind. the time constraints also can cover why we didn't get more dialogue or back story on some characters. i also thought mike was a bit underdeveloped, but once he joined and started interacting with the others, it sort of made up for it. regarding the thought that ben would stay instead of mike, mike was given home town roots, the farm, which he was being trained in the running of. home schooling, etc. with ben, the impression was given that his family moves around a lot - "derry isn't like any other town i've been in" says ben, as if he's been in a lot of them. so the thought of him moving on isn't a wild one.

regarding the losers breaking up and bevs kidnapping. my initial thoughts are simply this - most movies have that third act protagonists fighting, music montage, catalyst brings them back together for the finale thing going on. bev being the catalyst. even so, bev never came off as damsel in distress. she was still badass bev all the way. i dismissed it as an inevitable hollywood trope kind of stuck in, because no matter what, it's hard to avoid such things, and there's a reason they tend to get used, because they can propel the plot along. however, i did see an interesting thought put forward regarding this from someone else. they proposed that this breakup of the losers, and the later re-gathering, centering around the rescue of bev, was actually a form of representation for their losing their way in the sewers and then the subsequent famous scene where bev finds a way to re-connect them (you know that which i speak of). i don't know if i totally subscribe to this theory, but it is a rather intriguing take on it, that certainly can fit the facts at hand.

Dana Jean said:

I say that they could have accomplished the same thing by being blood brothers.

Click to expand...

they actually did both in the novel. they did the whole cutting palms and swearing they'd come back

Dana Jean said:

I do have to say, I read IT years ago and have never revisited the story, so that might have something to do with my acceptance of the fictional world on screen.

Click to expand...

don't sell yourself short, i've read it about every year for the last 20 or so, and i'm thrilled with the movie

recitador said:

i made it 3 minutes in where the guy says he doesn't get the novel. and it was a painful 3 minutes of overly negative crap, all while one of them is wearing, if i'm not mistaken, a tshirt with the miniseries kids that says "legends never die" . . . so yeah, sure, he's not trying to just not give the new movie a chance. i've seen a couple things by the nostalgia critic, and i'll be honest, he works my nerves pretty hard.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm sure their opinions were colored as all opinions are. The shirt may have just been to set the theme of the video, and I can't say I disagree with the one's opinion of the book.

They haven't exactly been kind to SK works, though in their previous reviews. I do like NC's editorials, though.