Doesn't hold up to repeated viewing

[M_O_O_N]

Having seen it at the theater, and now at home, "It" crumbles under it's own pressure.

"It" fails to emotionally invest the viewer in much beyond Georgie's death. Bill Denbrough is miscast or is not written as the strong thread of the group the way he should be. Mike Hanlon is reduced to token black; Stan Uris token Jew. There is no sense of alchemy in Ben and Mike joining the Losers club...just moving from scene to scene like a power-point presentation. Beverly Marsh's love triangle is featured and resolved without any weight or investment. "It" becomes a series of under-drawn vignettes loosely tied together by Excellent portrayal of Pennywise by what's-his-face.

80's nostalgia is tired and rings false here, seemingly an attempt to grab some fire from "Stranger Things" phenomenon without really investing in the time period in any meaningful way.

It's easy to mistake this for an excellent adaptation as certain features really do capture the source material. "Derry" is perfect, the Barrens...perfect...the color palette, perfect. Beverly Marsh...perfect or close enough. The score is great and fits the mood. When all is said and done, however, "It" is smoke and mirrors, and repeated viewing proves this out.

5 out of 10.

 

[GeorgieFan2003]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

[GNTLGNT]

Having seen it at the theater, and now at home, "It" crumbles under it's own pressure.

"It" fails to emotionally invest the viewer in much beyond Georgie's death. Bill Denbrough is miscast or is not written as the strong thread of the group the way he should be. Mike Hanlon is reduced to token black; Stan Uris token Jew. There is no sense of alchemy in Ben and Mike joining the Losers club...just moving from scene to scene like a power-point presentation. Beverly Marsh's love triangle is featured and resolved without any weight or investment. "It" becomes a series of under-drawn vignettes loosely tied together by Excellent portrayal of Pennywise by what's-his-face.

80's nostalgia is tired and rings false here, seemingly an attempt to grab some fire from "Stranger Things" phenomenon without really investing in the time period in any meaningful way.

It's easy to mistake this for an excellent adaptation as certain features really do capture the source material. "Derry" is perfect, the Barrens...perfect...the color palette, perfect. Beverly Marsh...perfect or close enough. The score is great and fits the mood. When all is said and done, however, "It" is smoke and mirrors, and repeated viewing proves this out.

5 out of 10.

 

[Paddy C]

Having seen it at the theater, and now at home, "It" crumbles under it's own pressure.

"It" fails to emotionally invest the viewer in much beyond Georgie's death. Bill Denbrough is miscast or is not written as the strong thread of the group the way he should be. Mike Hanlon is reduced to token black; Stan Uris token Jew. There is no sense of alchemy in Ben and Mike joining the Losers club...just moving from scene to scene like a power-point presentation. Beverly Marsh's love triangle is featured and resolved without any weight or investment. "It" becomes a series of under-drawn vignettes loosely tied together by Excellent portrayal of Pennywise by what's-his-face.

80's nostalgia is tired and rings false here, seemingly an attempt to grab some fire from "Stranger Things" phenomenon without really investing in the time period in any meaningful way.

It's easy to mistake this for an excellent adaptation as certain features really do capture the source material. "Derry" is perfect, the Barrens...perfect...the color palette, perfect. Beverly Marsh...perfect or close enough. The score is great and fits the mood. When all is said and done, however, "It" is smoke and mirrors, and repeated viewing proves this out.

5 out of 10.

First off, Welcome to the SKMB

I have only seen the movie at the cinema so far but looking forward to getting to see it on dvd as I loved it back in September and think I'll still enjoy it when I watch it again.
I honestly believe that, having really liked it three months ago, I'll still like it now.
Not being a critic and just being a mere fan I tend not to analyse too deeply and that has sat well with me over the years and I'm sure I'll be the same now.

I definitely respect your opinion btw and hope you stick around and enjoy the SKMB

 

[Neesy]

Having seen it at the theater, and now at home, "It" crumbles under it's own pressure.

"It" fails to emotionally invest the viewer in much beyond Georgie's death. Bill Denbrough is miscast or is not written as the strong thread of the group the way he should be. Mike Hanlon is reduced to token black; Stan Uris token Jew. There is no sense of alchemy in Ben and Mike joining the Losers club...just moving from scene to scene like a power-point presentation. Beverly Marsh's love triangle is featured and resolved without any weight or investment. "It" becomes a series of under-drawn vignettes loosely tied together by Excellent portrayal of Pennywise by what's-his-face.

80's nostalgia is tired and rings false here, seemingly an attempt to grab some fire from "Stranger Things" phenomenon without really investing in the time period in any meaningful way.

It's easy to mistake this for an excellent adaptation as certain features really do capture the source material. "Derry" is perfect, the Barrens...perfect...the color palette, perfect. Beverly Marsh...perfect or close enough. The score is great and fits the mood. When all is said and done, however, "It" is smoke and mirrors, and repeated viewing proves this out.

5 out of 10.

Well, at least you liked Pennywise!

Welcome to SKMB

 

[Steffen]

Welcome to the Board. I respect your opinion, but man, you must have seen a different version to the one I did. IT is my favourite film of 2017.

 

[Neesy]

Welcome to the Board. I respect your opinion, but man, you must have seen a different version to the one I did. IT is my favourite film of 2017.

I've seen it twice so far and I enjoyed it even more on the second viewing.

 

[Steffen]

I've seen it twice so far and I enjoyed it even more on the second viewing.

I went to cinema FOUR times to watch IT. I haven't done that since Return of the King (also 4 times). I can't recall the last time I saw a film that deviated so widely from the source material yet, ironically, was incredibly faithful to the heart, soul and spirit of the story. I would have happily sat through a three-hour version.

 

[Tery]

Welcome to the SKMB. I was not able to go to the theater to see It so can't weigh in at present.

 

[KittensScareMe]

I respect your opinion even through it's wrong..

 

[grin willard]

Hi M_O_O_N.! If that's a college nickname, for shame! IT sure put a lot of butts in seats. I doubt it was due to throngs of people showing up again & again to try and uncover flaws in the film like you yourself did. Anyway. It's done. It was popular, received largely positive critical reviews, and your only recourse now to be proven right or wrong is to wait around & see how history treats it. Like I did with Tim Burton's Batman (1989)! I was eventually proven right -- it was crap! But I liked IT. I thought it was even better than the original miniseries. Because of John Boy Walton in the ponytail? Probably. Anyway, welcome to the board! You got thru the incredibly stringent signup process, so you must be quite the impressive specimen. Wander around, this place is filled with interesting nooks & crannies. Damn I like crannies! And now let's enjoy Conway Twitty.

 

[AchtungBaby]

IT is a good movie, though probably not amongst my favorite King adaptations. Your criticisms are valid. Welcome.

 

[GeorgieFan2003]

There is nothing wrong with constructive critiques of anything. Grant it, I prefer Tim Curry's Pennywise, mainly cause he did most of the stuff in the mini-series. I don't dislike Skarsgard, but for me he was most effective when the CGI was minimal, or not used. Grant it, I think a good chunk of the CGI was pretty good, and blended well. The worst offenders to me are the CGI slobber in the "You'll Float too" scene. I've mellowed a bit about the skin CGI on Georgie, but still prefer the trailers/tv spot versions of the scene. I still think he looks creepy smiling in the corner, I wonder how Jackson did that. Especially the audio effects done to the voice weren't scary in my opinion. I thought he sounded more drunk than anything. I also think the CGI work done to Pennywise the first time he got stabbed in the face needed a bit more polish.

But overall I still prefer the new movie to the mini-series. I thought the kids were all amazing in their parts(especially Jackson, his portrayal of both Georgie, and IT's apparation of Georgie amazes me still above the others in my humble opinion). I like the child and adult portions being seperate. I look forward to Chapter 2.

 

[M_O_O_N]

Hi all, thanks for the warm welcome and kind words re:my review. M_O_O_N is for Tom Cullen, of course! "It" is my favorite SK novel, and I've read it, I suppose, four times...maybe more...over the years (Tied with "The Stand")

Separating the Child/Adult portions, I believe, takes away from the Talismanic properties of their childhood memories. The gravity of their magic and what they accomplished and the resulting mental trauma is portrayed fairly well in the mini-series as they flashback to their indiviudal incidents. Ramming all the kids' stuff together really strips it down and says "Here's some stuff that happened."

I had no problems at all with CGI Pennywise but was unimpressed by the rewriting of the kids' individual terrors into generic, random stuff. Though,I did kind of like Stan's creepy painting lady.

 

[GeorgieFan2003]

Hi all, thanks for the warm welcome and kind words re:my review. M_O_O_N is for Tom Cullen, of course! "It" is my favorite SK novel, and I've read it, I suppose, four times...maybe more...over the years (Tied with "The Stand")

Separating the Child/Adult portions, I believe, takes away from the Talismanic properties of their childhood memories. The gravity of their magic and what they accomplished and the resulting mental trauma is portrayed fairly well in the mini-series as they flashback to their indiviudal incidents. Ramming all the kids' stuff together really strips it down and says "Here's some stuff that happened."

I had no problems at all with CGI Pennywise but was unimpressed by the rewriting of the kids' individual terrors into generic, random stuff. Though,I did kind of like Stan's creepy painting lady.

I hope my opinion didn't offend ya.

 

[Zone D Dad]

So I watched for the first time last night (I never made it to the theater back in September). I ended up purchasing IT, banking on the fact that I would really like it. And I did, quite a bit. Do I have some issues with it? Absolutely I do. Frankly, this is one of those rare occasions where I wish the film had been about 30 minutes longer, mainly to establish some of those character relationships described in the earlier posts. But, I think in terms of an adaptation, the film did a pretty good job. The look of Derry onscreen literally gave me goosebumps. I would've liked to have seen more of the Barrens; I felt like the film didn't quite capture the significance of the place, as it's such a major setting in the book. That's a small gripe. I love the casting of Richie, Eddie, and Bev. The others were serviceable, but not stand-outs.

Loved Pennywise and would've liked to see more of his personality. After awhile, he becomes less of a character and more of a jack-in-the-box. I really missed one of my favorite scenes in the novel, Stan's encounter at the Derry stand-pipe. It's teased a bit and never followed up on.

Overall I felt like the film was made by folks that understood the novel and what made it so great. God bless 'em for that, especially after the disappointing Dark Tower film.

 

[M_O_O_N]

It's funny, I keep *thinking back* on the movie and it registers as "pretty good" even though while I watched it, I was noting all the areas that lack and are disappointing. I wonder which is more important, how you recall a film or how it makes you feel while you're watching it? Hmmm....

 

[Steffen]

There is nothing wrong with constructive critiques of anything. Grant it, I prefer Tim Curry's Pennywise, mainly cause he did most of the stuff in the mini-series. I don't dislike Skarsgard, but for me he was most effective when the CGI was minimal, or not used. Grant it, I think a good chunk of the CGI was pretty good, and blended well. The worst offenders to me are the CGI slobber in the "You'll Float too" scene. I've mellowed a bit about the skin CGI on Georgie, but still prefer the trailers/tv spot versions of the scene. I still think he looks creepy smiling in the corner, I wonder how Jackson did that. Especially the audio effects done to the voice weren't scary in my opinion. I thought he sounded more drunk than anything. I also think the CGI work done to Pennywise the first time he got stabbed in the face needed a bit more polish.

But overall I still prefer the new movie to the mini-series. I thought the kids were all amazing in their parts(especially Jackson, his portrayal of both Georgie, and IT's apparation of Georgie amazes me still above the others in my humble opinion). I like the child and adult portions being seperate. I look forward to Chapter 2.

Fun fact: that drool isn't CGI. It's a side-effect of the make-up that Bill Skaarsgard incorporated into his performance.

 

[GeorgieFan2003]

Fun fact: that drool isn't CGI. It's a side-effect of the make-up that Bill Skaarsgard incorporated into his performance.

I wasn't critiquing Skarsgard's drool, I was critquing Georgie's CGI drool. That made no sense to me, why they did that.

 

[Steffen]

And I was just sharing a fun fact. I didn't even notice Georgie's drool.