Thought the ending had some problems, and that scene at the restraunt was weird, lol. Still enjoyed it, even though the ending was weird. They defeat Pennywise through name calling? Dont think so, love Kings ending.
IT Chapter Two
- Thread starter it benchwatcher
- Start date
-
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
I did think the cameo was brillaint, most people didnt know who he was, lol
I knew i was forgetting something. the cameo was pretty good, and the self deprecating joke about not being able to write endings was a nice cap off to the running references.
I liked it. I thought the beginning sequences seemed a little too close to the miniseries. I began to wonder if it was homage or something less. Stan on the phone looked similar, the layout of The Jade Of The Orient looked similar. The way the director chose to create vehicles to establish details that didn't make it into the miniseries seemed unnecessary but it was satisfying to see those details get included. Yet some of those "vehicles" were kinda cringey and seemed more at place in plot writing for children's cartoons such as the original Ducktales (dating myself.) I thought of A Nightmare On Elm Street as soon as I saw the movie was from New Line Cinema in the opening credits, and at certain points throughout the movie I kept feeling like I was watching a Freddy Krueger film. In fact, one shot in particular looked like it was taken straight out of the first Nightmare.
But I felt Derry looked beautiful, especially the Canal Days Festival. I also liked the approach the movie took to the adult story as it played out in the book. I felt like it hit more true to the experience of the adults in the book when they all came together again after having forgotten each other and everything. The adult portion of miniseries was more like a homecoming party for the audience's pleasure. The first 3/4 of the movie are great, the last 1/4 was iffy in my experience. I hope everyone loves it, though.
But I felt Derry looked beautiful, especially the Canal Days Festival. I also liked the approach the movie took to the adult story as it played out in the book. I felt like it hit more true to the experience of the adults in the book when they all came together again after having forgotten each other and everything. The adult portion of miniseries was more like a homecoming party for the audience's pleasure. The first 3/4 of the movie are great, the last 1/4 was iffy in my experience. I hope everyone loves it, though.
Yeah, that was cheap and derivative.
Haven't seen it yet, but did see the preview with the Ms. Kersh apartment scene, thought it was pretty well done.
I think they chose Ritchie because he used hummor and his joking around as a way to hid his sexuality.. I also understand it that Richie as a child in the first movie did really not know much about sexuality or anything and he just felt a connection to Eddie. But he did not know or understand what being gay was.... ..
Exactley we got the same at our theatre the ones who where laughing the most knew who he was. I wish they could have dint what the director whanted to do I hope he can do it still
I did not like the gay bashing. I am not sure why it was needed but I guess so. I watched it wiht my shirt over my head. I got to the part with the inhaler and then I had to cover my eyes. I opeaned them up right before the red ballon drop
Bill Hader was so awsome
I loved the movie I whant to see it again I could not watch some parts. I loved the statue part. That was scary
To be fair, part 1 took place during the 80's when the AIDs scare was at its highest, so that combined with the usual religious values of small-town America would have been an all time high for fear and miseducation on homosexuality. Eddie, in the book at least, seemed to me like a character that was gay but either didn't know it or couldn't come to terms with it for many reasons such as the overbearing religious mother who was paranoid of disease (and when moved to the 80s, Im sure AIDs was the biggest problem on her mind), his toxic marriage to a manipulative wife he obviously doesn't love, and the impressions this left on him. Not today that these things explicitly means he's gay, but if any of the losers were, I think he would make the most sense.
I'm fine with gay characters, but I hate it when it's just slapped onto random characters for no reason other than to obviously generate attention, like a lot of them nowadays are, of course I have not seen the movie yet so I have no idea how it handles it. For example, how JK Rowling handled Dumbledore, it's not that Dumbledore being gay is the problem, it even makes sense in the context of the books, it's just that instead of either exploring this in the, you know, actual book, or letting the reader interpret his relationship with Grindewald on their own, she just spoon-feeds it to fans on her twitter, JK Rowling is a great writer and the Harry Potter books are great although somewhat overrated imo, so I don't know why she would do something so amateurish like that.
Saw it on Sunday, and I thought it was really well done overall. I'll write a full review when I've had a second viewing.
That scene at the end with the adults looking in the store window and seeing their younger selves made me tear up, just like when I read it in the book. I don't think I love any of King's characters as much as I do The Losers.
That scene at the end with the adults looking in the store window and seeing their younger selves made me tear up, just like when I read it in the book. I don't think I love any of King's characters as much as I do The Losers.
Yeh you have a great point. The Ritchie and die thing was subtle and not a huge focus until the last 40 min.... it’s more sweet then anything... the director decided to go with the gay thing and was not from king’s novel. But 8 have yet to read it.
I believe it's the new token in film. There used to be the so-called "token black character". South Park even took the joke so far as to name one of their characters Token. Now it's the token homosexual character being inserted into everything. It happened in The Mist tv series, too. Hard to talk about, though, with everyone getting upset so easily out there.
That is so true. I did not get very far with the mist tv show.. did you enjoy it
agreed, its become a cardboard cutout of a trait that has become an attention harboring crowd pleaser. an embodiment of a stereotype ironically to please the people claiming to be against stereotypes. I don't know how people give in to an obvious attempt to capitalize off the attention given from spotlighting a minority group only after the majority of society is for them. Why didn't they support them back before it was legalized and much more controversial? No more questions, just buy the product.
or, and hang with me here, it could be they include characters of these stripes because thanks to the diverse nature of society, especially these days, having the whole bunch of characters be white and straight doesn't really reflect reality that much. i like how people love focusing on these characters as if it's somehow a bad thing for them to exist, given the glut of entertainment media that showcases white and straight. which is not an attack on white straight people before someone gets their knickers twisted. as for why not in the past, well, we can't exactly go back and change it, can we? the entertainment industry couldn't just overcome the attitudes in america regarding homosexuality overnight. they were operating in the same atmosphere that forced the majority of gay people to be in the closet for fear of retribution. you can choose to be cynical about it, and you can choose to view the very existence of a homosexual character as a negative (despite the look it presents), personally, i'll just be grateful that we've made enough progress that gay characters can just be in a movie/tv show without much fanfare outside of certain troglodyte hangouts on the internet.