Could be one of the biggest horror movies of all time.

[Religiously_Unkind]

I was able to see the movie, because of access from a friend who manages a more independent theater. They have trade screenings, where movie companies go, weeks in advance, to see movies and decide if they're gonna carry them. Lots of independent, or smaller "chain" theaters have tougher decisions to make regarding releases, because of their limited theater seating, less "bells and whistles," a typical appeal to a more "indie"'crowd, etc. So, there's a usual crowd that goes, and, as I was off that morning, was fortunate to get an extra seat. I say this to legitimize what I'm saying about "It..."

I don't know ANYONE that's seen "It" that didn't like it. Theaters around the area, including some of the independent ones I spoke of, are picking it up. Looking at a $60 million opening weekend, which is FANTASTIC. It's even more impressive considering the "R" rating, horror movie genre, and that "It" heavily features child actors. The movie makes significant deviations from the novel, but the heart of the story is there. The terror is DEFINITELY there. It's gonna give people nightmares, I promise you.

Don't underestimate "It."

That leaked scene I posted a link to on here yesterday has been haunting me, my post got deleted but you still might be able to find it on YouTube if it hasn't been taken down. Bill Skarsgard blows Tim Curry out of the water, the performance is just so subtle and scary, there's so much going on in the looks and movements Pennywise makes.

 

[swiftdog2.0]

My SwiftDog BS meter is tingling in regards to these advance screening reviews.

Don't get me wrong, I want the movie to be good but based on the trailer and changes from the source material, I am underwhelmed. Looks like a bunch of jump scares with an overdose of J-horror asthetics. Of course this just my opinion and I could be wrong.....

 

[bhill]

NOTHING has that "killer" suspense like the book does. what your mind visualizes is wAAAAy better than cinema.

 

[Zone D Dad]

I'm planning on opening week and will probably bring my 14-year old son with me (remember: good parent, not great parent). I know the film won't be as good as the novel, I can count on one hand how many are, and I'm ok with changes if it allows for surprises while still keeping the spirit of the book intact. I'm also ok if they decide to drop in some jump scares, provided they're organic to the plot and not of the screeching cat/fluttering crow variety. If I go see a horror film, I expect a visceral reaction on some level.

I'm also encouraged by the running time. That tells me that the filmmakers and studio are taking this project seriously and (hopefully) treating the material respectfully. I can't wait!

 

[sircrow426]

My SwiftDog BS meter is tingling in regards to these advance screening reviews.

Don't get me wrong, I want the movie to be good but based on the trailer and changes from the source material, I am underwhelmed. Looks like a bunch of jump scares with an overdose of J-horror asthetics. Of course this just my opinion and I could be wrong.....

What changes to the source material do you not like? I don't wanna talk spoilers on here, but while we may disagree on the quality of the movie (I can't wait to see it, again), I am interested in what changes you're not feeling. Just curious. Feel free to message me.

 

[recitador]

What changes to the source material do you not like? I don't wanna talk spoilers on here, but while we may disagree on the quality of the movie (I can't wait to see it, again), I am interested in what changes you're not feeling. Just curious. Feel free to message me.

i don't know that it would technically be spoilers, as there are a lot of changes evident just from the trailers. from what i've seen of the changes they're still capturing the spirit of the book, so i'm personally comfortable with them.

 

[Religiously_Unkind]

i don't know that it would technically be spoilers, as there are a lot of changes evident just from the trailers. from what i've seen of the changes they're still capturing the spirit of the book, so i'm personally comfortable with them.

That's all that matters to me, that they capture the spirit of the book. I'm glad there is stuff that will be different so i'll be surprised, and I don't mind them scaling back the stuff about Maturin the Turtle. Some things work in a book that don't work in a movie and vice versa. There's something I noticed in a leaked clip yesterday that could be a plot point and connect some things in the story a little better but I don't know if it's a spoiler so I won't mention it. Things in a movie have to connect, which is one of the reasons they had The Joker kill Batman/Bruce Wayne's parents in Batman 89'.

 

[swiftdog2.0]

What changes to the source material do you not like? I don't wanna talk spoilers on here, but while we may disagree on the quality of the movie (I can't wait to see it, again), I am interested in what changes you're not feeling. Just curious. Feel free to message me.

The change in time periods is the main one that turns me off. Absolutely no need to shift the kids timeline to the 80's. That's a pandering to the demographic move.

 

[recitador]

The change in time periods is the main one that turns me off. Absolutely no need to shift the kids timeline to the 80's. That's a pandering to the demographic move.

there's plenty of other signs that they're trying to be as closer to the novel this time. i don't mind them trading in on 80's hype, because i want it to be successful as well as good, and people love the 80's. but they've put a lot of small touches into it just in the trailers that seem to demonstrate a grasp of what they're adapting.

 

[sircrow426]

Told ya not to worry. I said it'd be big. "Don't underestimate It."

Purists complain about the decade change. I get it. There's something very nostalgic about the '50s. Something innocent. Some of us care enough that it's gonna *seemingly* spoil the movie, but I don't think it detracts from the movie. In the 1980s, King was trying to reach an audience that knew what it was like to be kids, afraid of the dark and falling in love, during the 1950s. The book even speaks to how adult "horrors" change into things like debt and cholesterol, when they get older. They lose touch of the basic childhood fear of monsters.

The writers of this movie decided to reach that same audience. People in their early to mid-adulthood, like King's adult characters. Thus, the 80s. Growing up with Sock hops and greasers and The Creature from the Black Lagoon only creates a nostalgic POV for a small percentage of the audience. To everyone else, I think it'd come off as less identifiable and less real.

Really, the pay off for a majority of the paying audience, will be when Pennywise terrorizes our contemporaries, during the age of cell phones and social media. Then, think about that trip into the cellar, when the lights aren't on.

 

[Tery]

The writers of this movie decided to reach that same audience. People in their early to mid-adulthood, like King's adult characters. Thus, the 80s. Growing up with Sock hops and greasers and The Creature from the Black Lagoon only creates a nostalgic POV for a small percentage of the audience. To everyone else, I think it'd come off as less identifiable and less real.

That makes a lot of sense. It didn't really bother me in the first place...

 

[GNTLGNT]

...all the guessing in the world doesn't matter until the ducats start pouring into the cinema coffers...

 

[Mr Nobody]

I want it to be good, but given the way other recent adaptations have gone "I got a bad feelin' 'bout this drop".
And if they get even one thing about the 80s wrong, I will know. I remember the 80s like they were...well, not yesterday, but maybe about a month or two ago. (Hell, I have clear memories of my pram, my first cup (complete with the lid with the raised bit with the holes in so you can drink), and getting frustrated with my mom because I was telling her what I wanted, but she just wasn't getting it, and all of that was back in about 1974 or '75. Yep, I sometimes feel about 1,000 years old. )

 

[Steffen]

I'm rooting for Andy Muschietti - I loved Mama. It demonstrated his skill at creating atmosphere, tension, a talent for casting children (something James Wan excels at), and a love of practical effects with just the right touch of CGI. I've read a lot of his interviews (together with his sister), and they are genuinely attempting to stay as true to the book as possible. This is something I can't say with Cary Fukunaga. I read an early draft of his script. Trust me, that movie would have been good, but the King fans would have hated it. CF was more concerned with putting his own personal signature on the film, rather than staying true to King's work.

As for the change to the 80s setting: I like it. Any film set before the dawn of the digital era (with all the cell-phones and snarky dialogue and crappy mood music) is ripe for "nostalgia." The clips we've seen have reinforced this. King's generation may have been scared by the Universal monsters; this generation would not. And as far as film rights go, it'll probably be a tricky thing to licence those creatures for use in a film, which is why we won't see this iteration of the Losers Club being terrorised by Jason Vorhees, Freddy Krueger, The Predator, Alien xenormorph, or the Hell Priest.

I think we're in for a real treat.

 

[mal]

I think it'll be so popular, and make so much money, that they'll make it a trilogy.

 

[GNTLGNT]

I think it'll be so popular, and make so much money, that they'll make it a trilogy.

...."IT tu Brute?".....

 

[Tery]

Yep, I sometimes feel about 1,000 years old.

Then what the heck does that make me? I was in High School in '74 and '75!

 

[swiftdog2.0]

Then what the heck does that make me? I was in High School in '74 and '75!

In as one in '74

 

[swiftdog2.0]

Told ya not to worry. I said it'd be big. "Don't underestimate It."

Purists complain about the decade change. I

In as one in '74

Should be "I was one in '74"

Stupid autocorrect!

 

[Tery]

Should be "I was one in '74"

Stupid autocorrect!

S'ok. I read typo