HorrorMovieFans.com

Reign in Blood wrote:That bathroom with Jason's dick in it is getting ready to burst.

Quit fatshaming the peeps that like 97 Shining

Jason wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:That bathroom with Jason's dick in it is getting ready to burst.

Quit fatshaming the peeps that like 97 Shining

Maybe he's simply saying, in a round-about way, that you're quite well-endowed.

Havok wrote:

Jason wrote:I thought remake Pennywise was OK. The look was solid. His voice was digitally altered a few times which bummed me out. But it's not like the movie really needed a Curry-esque performance or anything. I'm gonna end up seeing it again at some point, definitely.

Both Pennywise performances work on their own merits. 90's Pennywise has that slapstick campy tone, while having a tiny mean streak. New Pennywise plays it like a clown, innocent looking character with a soft spoken voice and when it comes down to "Lunch" he can change his attitude on a whim and become a vicious child eating entity. The drooling of the new Pennywise just adds more to that when he's talking with Georgie and the scene with Bev in the sewers.

Yep. That's why I said before that the remake didn't need another Tim Curry to be good. So much of the film works without the clown.

Jigsaw wrote:

Jason wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:That bathroom with Jason's dick in it is getting ready to burst.

Quit fatshaming the peeps that like 97 Shining

Maybe he's simply saying, in a round-about way, that you're quite well-endowed.

Guess what he keeps hauling to Big Bear.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

Havok wrote:D,

I also wanted to bring up the Mike and Ben character switch. I didn't care that much for it either. Ben already has the love story going on with Bev, he didn't need to be the history buff as well. It just left Mike with nothing to do but the rock fight scene really. I do think Mike will still be the one who calls everybody back, because he'll be taking over the cattle/meat business for his uncle.

One can hope. I mean, he'll probably be a history buff too, with the mention that his uncle claims the town is cursed n shit so with that kind of comment if I were in his place my curiosity would rise, yeah I still agree.

Apparently Muschietti wants to turn Mike into a junkie.

Reign in Blood wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

Havok wrote:D,

I also wanted to bring up the Mike and Ben character switch. I didn't care that much for it either. Ben already has the love story going on with Bev, he didn't need to be the history buff as well. It just left Mike with nothing to do but the rock fight scene really. I do think Mike will still be the one who calls everybody back, because he'll be taking over the cattle/meat business for his uncle.

One can hope. I mean, he'll probably be a history buff too, with the mention that his uncle claims the town is cursed n shit so with that kind of comment if I were in his place my curiosity would rise, yeah I still agree.

Apparently Muschietti wants to turn Mike into a junkie.

If I remember right, Mike was in the book. I'd have to double check to be sure.

And Ritchie was a coke-head. I often joke when he arrives at the Chinese restaurant, he powdered his nose off camera before saying "hi" to the rest of the losers, because he basically does in the book, lol

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

Havok wrote:D,

I also wanted to bring up the Mike and Ben character switch. I didn't care that much for it either. Ben already has the love story going on with Bev, he didn't need to be the history buff as well. It just left Mike with nothing to do but the rock fight scene really. I do think Mike will still be the one who calls everybody back, because he'll be taking over the cattle/meat business for his uncle.

One can hope. I mean, he'll probably be a history buff too, with the mention that his uncle claims the town is cursed n shit so with that kind of comment if I were in his place my curiosity would rise, yeah I still agree.

Apparently Muschietti wants to turn Mike into a junkie.

If I remember right, Mike was in the book. I'd have to double check to be sure.

And Ritchie was a coke-head. I often joke when he arrives at the Chinese restaurant, he powdered his nose off camera before saying "hi" to the rest of the loosers, because he basically does in the book, lol

Mike wasn't at all a junkie in the books, though I'm curious why you remember his character that way.

Jigsaw wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

Havok wrote:D,

I also wanted to bring up the Mike and Ben character switch. I didn't care that much for it either. Ben already has the love story going on with Bev, he didn't need to be the history buff as well. It just left Mike with nothing to do but the rock fight scene really. I do think Mike will still be the one who calls everybody back, because he'll be taking over the cattle/meat business for his uncle.

One can hope. I mean, he'll probably be a history buff too, with the mention that his uncle claims the town is cursed n shit so with that kind of comment if I were in his place my curiosity would rise, yeah I still agree.

Apparently Muschietti wants to turn Mike into a junkie.

If I remember right, Mike was in the book. I'd have to double check to be sure.

And Ritchie was a coke-head. I often joke when he arrives at the Chinese restaurant, he powdered his nose off camera before saying "hi" to the rest of the loosers, because he basically does in the book, lol

Mike wasn't at all a junkie in the books, though I'm curious why you remember his character that way.

I am too. I legitimately thought he was, as a way of coping. It's been almost 10 years since I last read It. So I remembered wrong *shrug*

All told, there's a lot to like for me. There was still
Touches of the modern assfuckery they call horror. But it was balanced out by having a few things. A legitimate clown performance by Skarsgård, a genuinely great cast of kids, and some discernable plot and point. I really liked the clown bits. I can live with the other random bits of horror they threw in. I can't for the life of me work out why they thought we need loud crashing noises and high speed movements from some of the scares. But luckily it wasn't all like that.

The most disturbing things really were the fucking adults in this film. We only really meet 5 of them, and 4 of those 5 are fucking psychotic. The cop dad, the Munchausen mom, the Pedo pops, and the pederast pharmacist. In many ways that above all else plays on the film. An abject lack of grown ups acting as grown ups gives it this helpless vibe where there's no bailout coming, and the kids really do have to do something themselves to make it all come together. Loved those ancillary moments which underscored the tone it felt like it was going for.

I think it's fair to say the film has set up for a sequel, and I can only hope it goes down better than the old TV movie garbage does for the adult portion.

The bits some of you were arguing about earlier with the opening scene is an argument I don't understand st all. It seems like nostalgic nonsense to me. The scene worked well in this context. And there is an odd charm about the boat scene that is hard to put together. I certainly liked the way it played out.

The biggest surprise for me was that the audience couldn't predict half the scares. Made them all jump, often. Whereas I seemed to know what was looming large 9/10 scares. The only one that I was a bit surprised by was the head in the tree in the history book. The only one I found upsetting was the decomposing Georgie. That's some fuckrd up shit basically.

All told I liked it far more than I thought I would, and it's definitely an interesting film. Significantly better than the TV movie.

did you not like the decomposing Georgie bit because you're a parent, or because the back of your head was saying it would've looked better with practical makeup like me

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:did you not like the decomposing Georgie bit because you're a parent, or because the back of your head was saying it would've looked better with practical makeup like me

More the former, although the CGI there did t do itself that many favors. But I don't like the idea of your decomposing family member before your eyes. But you're right, practical would've gone a long way b

I have a feeling it was a last minute decision to change it up from the trailer, so they couldn't actually do practical fx on it.

The leper's makeup was on fucking point though. And i forgot they got that skinny contortionist guy to play him too.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:I have a feeling it was a last minute decision to change it up from the trailer, so they couldn't actually do practical fx on it.

The leper's makeup was on fucking point though. And i forgot they got that skinny contortionist guy to play him too.

Agreed. Of the kids fears, the leper was excellent as was the set-up for the clown room. The initial set up for the painting lady with her flute was great. But then she appeared and there was a loud clang noise and CGI. I get it, but I find that the look was not fantastic.

https://instagram.com/p/BYx9RMxlPNe/

Cool thing from Swedish Radio

Don't watch Death Sentence, Seb. :p

Infinitely better experience the second time around. And can comment now that I've seen it properly. I may take some heat for this but I prefer this version of Pennywise. I was never all that enthralled with the Tim Curry version. He was certainly good and easily the best thing about the miniseries but I wasn't blown away by the performance. this newer version seemed less human to me. More like the disguise that it really was and I like that. That moment when he and Georgie are laughing and then he suddenly stops and just stares at the kid was a nice creepy touch. I loved that. my biggest issue was, as Havok pointed out, Mike's role being given to Ben. Made Mike all but irrelevant. Hope he has a better role in part 2. Anyway, best movie of the year for me after Dunkirk.

Just got back from watching It a 3rd time with my usual group. Surprised the theatre was pretty packed on a Tuesday night.

I concur with this being my 2nd favorite of the year, after Dunkirk. Yeah, I have some nitpicks, but they're easily over-lookable for me as I go. Glad I'm not alone on them taking the history buffness out of Mike though, which I was sure I mentioned first then Havok followed up .

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Just got back from watching It a 3rd time with my usual group. Surprised the theatre was pretty packed on a Tuesday night.

I concur with this being my 2nd favorite of the year, after Dunkirk. Yeah, I have some nitpicks, but they're easily over-lookable for me as I go. Glad I'm not alone on them taking the history buffness out of Mike though, which I was sure I mentioned first then Havok followed up .

My apologies

I have never read the book (apparently it is pretty long and all over the shop) so I presume I have less "nostalgia" over the roles of the kids, but I thought the fat kid as a loner outsider made sense as the kid in the library. Mike seemed to be the kind of guy, given the farming background and having to constantly work for his sheep-killing grandpa and delivering meat for him all the time. He seems to have had multiple "plot reasons" for existing in this iteration without having the History side of things.

I know RLM argued that it makes Mike wholly superfluous to the proceedings, but given that he then it seems like he had plenty of "things" he did. Ultimately you could chop and change all the kids in most of their bits I'm sure, but I felt like he still was essential to the film as scripted, and I don't mind the fat kid becoming the history buff while the farmer's kid becomes a more physical force in the film. He's still got plenty of good lines and a clear role to play.