Yeah. I'd say Pennywise was his best performance of all time, but Clue is my favorite role. I just love the hell out of that movie.DancesWithWerewolves wrote:What's your first? I know Clue is your favorite movie, but is the role #1 too?Jason wrote:Wish I could meet him one day. It bugs me that I never got to meet Bill Paxton. And Pennywise is my #2 favorite role from Curry.
It (2017)
Re: It (2017)
- Reign in Blood
- Administrator
- Posts: 10044
- Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 11:29 am
- Slaughterhouserock
- Administrator
- Posts: 2263
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 3:57 pm
- Contact:
Re: It (2017)
You need to see Legend.Jason wrote:Yeah. I'd say Pennywise was his best performance of all time, but Clue is my favorite role. I just love the hell out of that movie.
- showa58taro
- Administrator
- Posts: 8746
- Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:29 pm
- Location: London, England
Re: It (2017)
I'm saying, preferring Bill over Curry isn't impossible. I think I like this one better, and I'm not alone in this thread.Reign in Blood wrote:What is this, I don't even...showa58taro wrote:I think you can make the case that Bill is better than Tim. I don't think anyone could sayTim Curry was the worst one ever.
But to go from that to Curry being the worst of all time is straight up trolling
Re: It (2017)
I almost did the other day but just ended up crashing because I had work early.Slaughterhouserock wrote:You need to see Legend.Jason wrote:Yeah. I'd say Pennywise was his best performance of all time, but Clue is my favorite role. I just love the hell out of that movie.
Re: It (2017)
This one as in this movie, or this Pennywise?showa58taro wrote:I'm saying, preferring Bill over Curry isn't impossible. I think I like this one better, and I'm not alone in this thread.Reign in Blood wrote:What is this, I don't even...showa58taro wrote:I think you can make the case that Bill is better than Tim. I don't think anyone could sayTim Curry was the worst one ever.
But to go from that to Curry being the worst of all time is straight up trolling
- showa58taro
- Administrator
- Posts: 8746
- Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:29 pm
- Location: London, England
Re: It (2017)
I prefer this rendition of penny wise.Jason wrote:This one as in this movie, or this Pennywise?showa58taro wrote:I'm saying, preferring Bill over Curry isn't impossible. I think I like this one better, and I'm not alone in this thread.Reign in Blood wrote:What is this, I don't even...showa58taro wrote:I think you can make the case that Bill is better than Tim. I don't think anyone could sayTim Curry was the worst one ever.
But to go from that to Curry being the worst of all time is straight up trolling
The best I can come to explain it is that Curry felt like a creepy clown pretending to be a Monster. Skarsgård felt like a Monster pretending to be a creepy clown. And I liked that better somehow.
- showa58taro
- Administrator
- Posts: 8746
- Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:29 pm
- Location: London, England
Re: It (2017)
Probably.Jason wrote:You know you just like him better because he's Swedish.
Re: It (2017)
Went and saw IT again tonight. My niece is a pretty big horror fan, so I took her and her boyfriend to see it. What the fuck? I enjoyed it WAY more this time around. It's weird. I just absorbed it all and got completely locked in this time. I appreciated everything a little more. A lot of the CGI didn't bother me as much as last time, I appreciated the brutality a little more and even the new Pennywise scored more points. The way Pennywise behaved in the opening scene still bugs me, but I was still feeling that shit for some reason. I was locked in pretty good until it cut away from Georgie and Pennywise's conversation to show the lady walking outside.
Overall, I'm changing my grade a whole point from 7/10 to 8/10, That video that Reign posted of Pennywise dancing to random shit ruined that scene for me forever, though. :p
Overall, I'm changing my grade a whole point from 7/10 to 8/10, That video that Reign posted of Pennywise dancing to random shit ruined that scene for me forever, though. :p
- showa58taro
- Administrator
- Posts: 8746
- Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:29 pm
- Location: London, England
Re: It (2017)
I might go see it a second time if nothing else works out tomorrow.
Re: It (2017)
That was exactly the feeling I and the friend I watched IT with had. I kept an open mind but didn't expect to be blown away by the new movie. I plan to see it again soon to really take it in.showa58taro wrote:The best I can come to explain it is that Curry felt like a creepy clown pretending to be a Monster. Skarsgård felt like a Monster pretending to be a creepy clown. And I liked that better somehow.
The very first horror movie I ever saw was IT. I was 9 and staying over at the 2 neighbor boys place up the street. After IT was over I wound up outside my parents house (of course its locked) crying in the dark scared to death. My crying eventually woke mom and she came and let me in. As bad as that sounds that was still one of the most awesome horror movie viewings I've ever fucking had.
I wasn't blown away by the new one but I thoroughly enjoyed it. I think if my 9 year old self saw this I'd have gone into catatonic shock.
Re: It (2017)
Why did they make it a point to tie into the original with the "27 years" thing, Skarsgard being born in 1990 etc, but the movie taking place in 1989. Why not make it 1990?
- showa58taro
- Administrator
- Posts: 8746
- Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:29 pm
- Location: London, England
Re: It (2017)
We were kids in the 80s. We definitely said rude things.
- Reign in Blood
- Administrator
- Posts: 10044
- Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 11:29 am
Re: It (2017)
80's has nostalgia, so saying set in the 80's means something. Nobody gives a fuck about 1990.Jason wrote:Why did they make it a point to tie into the original with the "27 years" thing, Skarsgard being born in 1990 etc, but the movie taking place in 1989. Why not make it 1990?
2025 Is The Vibe!
- showa58taro
- Administrator
- Posts: 8746
- Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:29 pm
- Location: London, England
Re: It (2017)
Pretty much this.Reign in Blood wrote:80's has nostalgia, so saying set in the 80's means something. Nobody gives a fuck about 1990.Jason wrote:Why did they make it a point to tie into the original with the "27 years" thing, Skarsgard being born in 1990 etc, but the movie taking place in 1989. Why not make it 1990?
Re: It (2017)
according to boxoffice mojo, it is #68 of rated r movies, adjusted.Foo wrote:I think to move into the first tier you would need to be at least in the neighborhood of top 100 adjusted. The Exorcist and Jaws and 7 and 9 respectively. Top tier is tentpole type of business.zombie wrote:what do you consider first tier and second tier, in terms of actual numbers?
Tier 2 I would look around the $200 million adjusted mark. This would be the area where studios would bring it up in investor conference calls, still actively similar properties to develop, etc.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/do ... 017&p=.htm
so that would be tier 1? i haven't found a list for just horror though.
- DancesWithWerewolves
- Administrator
- Posts: 11041
- Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 7:14 pm
- Contact:
Re: It (2017)
Unless the Kingsman movie does really well this weekend, It can keep up it's pace and wind up in the top 20 (I'm guessing low end near Deadpool).zombie wrote:according to boxoffice mojo, it is #68 of rated r movies, adjusted.Foo wrote:I think to move into the first tier you would need to be at least in the neighborhood of top 100 adjusted. The Exorcist and Jaws and 7 and 9 respectively. Top tier is tentpole type of business.zombie wrote:what do you consider first tier and second tier, in terms of actual numbers?
Tier 2 I would look around the $200 million adjusted mark. This would be the area where studios would bring it up in investor conference calls, still actively similar properties to develop, etc.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/do ... 017&p=.htm
so that would be tier 1? i haven't found a list for just horror though.
Re: It (2017)
I officially award IT status as "Tier 1 Industry Influencer".zombie wrote:according to boxoffice mojo, it is #68 of rated r movies, adjusted.Foo wrote:I think to move into the first tier you would need to be at least in the neighborhood of top 100 adjusted. The Exorcist and Jaws and 7 and 9 respectively. Top tier is tentpole type of business.zombie wrote:what do you consider first tier and second tier, in terms of actual numbers?
Tier 2 I would look around the $200 million adjusted mark. This would be the area where studios would bring it up in investor conference calls, still actively similar properties to develop, etc.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/do ... 017&p=.htm
so that would be tier 1? i haven't found a list for just horror though.
Hundreds of scripts were reviewed and re-evaluated immediately after the huge opening, I am sure.