Stephen King's IT (2017)

[luciusfunk]

The kids picked who they want to play the adults. A lot of people are suggesting Bill Hader for Richie and I've seen a few suggestions for Chris Pratt as Ben. 

 

The kids' picks...

Jake Gyllenhall as Eddie

Christian Bale as Bill

Chris Pratt as Ben

Jospeh Gordon-Levitt as Stan

Chadwick Boseman as Mike

Jessica Chastain as Beverly

Bill Hader as Richie

 

Of course these are just suggestions by the kids. 

 

I'm pretty sure they were planning on making a second film unless this one bombed. The end shows the title as It: Chapter One and also has

Pennywise laughing at the end of the credits

. 

Edited September 10, 2017 by luciusfunk

[appetite4illusions]

I think all those choices suck, but obviously each of those kids thinks they deserve to be played by a marquee name.

I would prefer if they stuck to unknowns, just like they did with the kids. I don't want to see the Losers club become the Avengers and everyone is played by a star who looks nothing like their younger counterpart. 

Jessica Chastin is obviously going to get the Beverly role, whether she deserves it is irrelevant. She's friends with the director and producer and has acted for them before, so they probably wont even look at anyone else. 

The only actor in my mind who I feel needs to be an adult in part 2 is Giovanni Ribisi. I've always thought he had that great neurotic edge that just screams Eddie Kasprak. He looks an awful lot like the actor Jack Grazier, too. 

[luciusfunk]

Bill Hader and Chris Pratt are the only ones from the list I wouldn't mind. Not a big Bale or Gyllenhall fan. I don't think Gordon-Levitt would be a good fit for Stan, and I'm not too familiar with the others. 

[arnold layne]

I thought it was good, but the first adaption was better for two main reasons; the first one follows the original story more closely and the child actors were far superior.

I keep hearing people praise the Finn kid for his performance as Richie Tozier, but Seth Green was far, far better. Unpopular opinion, but Finn didn't mesh well as Richie because his lines seem forced. He kind of came across as an obnoxious brat. Seth Green's jokester version aligns with the original Richie, a prankster, loveable clown. I guess I must be missing something though. The general consensus is he did well, but I would give him a C.

Literally everyone else (with the exception of the girl who played Beverley Marsh) was worse as well. A fucking piece of cardboard is a better actor than the kid who played Ben. The kid who played Mike Hanlon had potential, but his storyline (along with Stan's) was criminally altered in the movie.

As for the storyline, the old tv miniseries was superior as well. What happened to the dam scene? This was important. Very important! The dam scene brings Ben together with Eddie and Bill in a genuine powerful way. Bill and Eddie shelter Ben from a fucked up crazy Bowers and in turn, Ben helps them build a dam. A bond of trust is born. The movie haphazardly glossed over this relationship. 

One thing they did do right however was Henry's patricide. This was a great part of the movie. The tv scene was brilliantly dark and twisted. Pennywise's crackling 'Kill them all' on a tv program was sadistically awesome. Most of Pennywise's scenes were great actually. I even loved that stupid dance he did in the cave. Loved every second of it.

Despite my gripes it is one of my favorite, if not my favorite, movie of 2017. I liked it overall. The performance of Pennywise the Dancing Clown and the overall tone of the movie meshed well together. 

4/5.

[appetite4illusions]

I think the character of Henry was pretty underdeveloped. He wasn't nearly as sadistic and motivated as in in the book. Even the mini-series Henry seemed much crazier and unpredictable. He didn't even use the N-Word, not even once!

I was pleased to see him kill his father, this time around, but the ultimate payoff of seeing it didn't really mean much, since there was just one scene of his dad shouting at him.

How about Henry's fate? It's debatable whether his character was killed off or is going to return in the sequel, but they definitely didn't set up Loony Bin Bowers. Belch and Vic never went into the sewers. In fact, why is Henry driving Belch's car alone after he kills his dad? Where are the rest of his pals and why didn't that play a part of the final act?

Henry was supposed to live so he could take the fall. Did that happen? They didn't develop that and it's hard to believe he could be anything but a paraplegic after falling down that well.

Also, Patrick Hocksetter was wasted. He never had a fridge of animals or played doctor with Henry, in what I wholly consider the most uncomfortable scene of the novel, followed by the best kill of the novel. Wasted opportunity. Tisk-tisk.

[luciusfunk]

If a character's dead body isn't seen, do they really die?

[appetite4illusions]

No, of course not. I just can't believe they intend to tell us anything otherwise. That tunnel he fell down was as deep as anything and completely jagged. We saw him hit three corners of it and that was only the beginning of his fall.

More to the point, I wasn't questioning whether he was dead or not, but if they intended to keep him alive, they set up none of the future events that would be necessary to carry on his character and the trajectory of the novel.

[arnold layne]

14 hours ago, appetite4illusions said:

I wholly consider the most uncomfortable scene of the novel.

The kids running train on Beverley wasn't?

[appetite4illusions]

Nah. I consider animal torture the hardest thing to see in a movie or read in a book. Follow animal torture with a boy stroking another boy and you've got something that's so skin crawling that you're begging for it to be over.

The group orgy is shocking but I don't think it's as offensive, because as misguided it is, it was done as an act of love.

[luciusfunk]

The part where Patrick killed his baby brother was the most disturbing scene in the book for me. 

 

I think the second movie will show Henry crawling out of the sewers and being arrested by the police. 

[Black Sabbath]

On 9/9/2017 at 8:10 PM, luciusfunk said:

The kids picked who they want to play the adults. A lot of people are suggesting Bill Hader for Richie and I've seen a few suggestions for Chris Pratt as Ben. 

 

The kids' picks...

Jake Gyllenhall as Eddie

Christian Bale as Bill

Chris Pratt as Ben

Jospeh Gordon-Levitt as Stan

Chadwick Boseman as Mike

Jessica Chastain as Beverly

Bill Hader as Richie
 

Of course these are just suggestions by the kids. 

I'd be OK with Gyllenhall, Bale, JGL, Boseman, and Chastain (but I'd also be OK with Amy Adams), honestly. They are all great, A-List actors, who normally do amazing jobs in the roles they're given.

I like Pratt and Hader, both great actors who have done fine in more serious roles, but something about them wouldn't fit or sit right with me for the next film.

 

Of course, anything can happen and after this one, I'd be inclined to say the sequel will be just as good. People can argue for the miniserieis all they want, but the second half of it sucks; Chapter II of the reboot can't be any worse.

[F*ck Fear]

I just hope that Chapter 2 is at least as good as the first. I'm not liking what I've read so far with Hanlon being a junkie.

[appetite4illusions]

Honestly, that is the kind of idea that gives me hope for the sequel.

Part 2 of IT was always going to be an uphill battle. The story is weak and reactionary. It's the reason the novel unfolded in a non-linear way and it's the reason now why the director wants the kids to switch back and forth between the adults. 

Adding something modern like opiate addiction into the fold is pretty inspired. Up here in the north-east (I'm from New Hampshire) we have a serious, serious epidemic of oxy and heroin abuse. Entire communities have been devastated by it and it is something that lives in our homes in the way Pennywise would live in the back of your mind. To me, something insidious and destructive like heroin is a perfect vehicle for Pennywise to corrode souls with. 

As far as telling a modern tale, that is something New Englander's live with every moment of the day and if you apply it to a story like IT, another dimension of reality is added. I don't know if I like the idea of Heroin helping Mike free-associate visions, but it would surely give him a depth he didn't have in Part 1.

[Bansidhe]

Saw this yesterday. Saw the original film 15 + years back when I was at high school and sure I read the book around the same time so it's not really fresh as a reference to compare.

 

The film was better than I expected but I think that Pennywise got less scary the more you saw him. Sometimes less is more with a heel character like that. The mystique can sometimes disappear with overexposure. Also, as I expected a lot of it relied on predictable jump scares and I don't think it had nearly the same suspense and menace as the original film.

 

That said, the prospect of a follow up is interesting. 

[arnold layne]

On 9/18/2017 at 9:23 PM, appetite4illusions said:

Honestly, that is the kind of idea that gives me hope for the sequel.

Part 2 of IT was always going to be an uphill battle. The story is weak and reactionary. It's the reason the novel unfolded in a non-linear way and it's the reason now why the director wants the kids to switch back and forth between the adults. 

Adding something modern like opiate addiction into the fold is pretty inspired. Up here in the north-east (I'm from New Hampshire) we have a serious, serious epidemic of oxy and heroin abuse. Entire communities have been devastated by it and it is something that lives in our homes in the way Pennywise would live in the back of your mind. To me, something insidious and destructive like heroin is a perfect vehicle for Pennywise to corrode souls with. 

As far as telling a modern tale, that is something New Englander's live with every moment of the day and if you apply it to a story like IT, another dimension of reality is added. I don't know if I like the idea of Heroin helping Mike free-associate visions, but it would surely give him a depth he didn't have in Part 1.

I say they should try it. 

Worst case scenario, Hanlon's angle doesn't work out and the movie sucks. Best case scenario, it adds a new modern spin to a character that was underutilized in Chapter 1.

Hanlon's adult version is pretty important as the mediator between the losers in the book and old movie but the new audience cannot appreciate this role with the way he was written in this new adaption. 

What I like about Chapter 1 is that it stands alone pretty well. It won't be too risky if they go this route.

[Dan H.]

The new movie was much much better than the original, which was only saved by the first half and the kids performances, along with Tim Curry. God that miniseries is unbearably bad in many parts. The limitations in budget did the absurdly long source material no benefit.

I would say the new film is okay. Skarsgard is amazing, and the kids were pretty good too. Sadly it felt excessive and over the top too often, and I was disappointed that a lot of otherwise good scenes were ruined with jump scares and obnoxious loud noises.

To be honest the book wasn't really all that great for me. There's no reason it needed to be so long, and too often King throws way too much shit at the reader, half of which is excellent writing, and half of which is inexplicable garbage. He is rarely cohesive or efficient with his writing, and oftentimes is saved by brilliant movie adaptations that cut a lot of the nonsense.

I'll go see the sequel, and I hope its decent. I'd like to see a little more plot and a little less clown popping up out of every object on screen. 

[Gackt]

Just got back from seeing it, honestly I'd give it a 5/10.  The cinematics were entertaining, but it got pretty boring with no sense of suspense to be had outside of some predictable jumpscares.  The whole "he comes back every 27 years" thing just seems really forced, and I'd have been happier if the movie ended where it did instead of knowing there's a Chapter Two coming.

King is a weird cat.

[Bono]

I saw it last night and was completely underwhelmed by it. I found myself bored half the time. I did really like the chemistry between all the kids and I felt their banter was pretty natural and humorous but aside from that the movie was meh. I'd have liked it better if it was more of an adventure type movies like The Goonies or Stand By Me given the cast of kids was really great but it was like........ it was like The Goonies with a shitty side horror story. I wasn't into this movie at all. 5/10

[appetite4illusions]

I don't mean to impune something that people dug about this film, but I'm glad it wasn't any more "Amblin," then it already was.

As a hangout film like The Goonies, it had to hit those friendship strides, but this is ultimately a horror film about kids confronting an ancient evil. I felt it didn't need more of that feel-good stuff but more of a nightmarish vibe. 

This material is tricky because it has to make you feel joy and fear, one after the other, but I think the people clamoring for more of the kids riding around on bikes listening to Young MC, wanted a film that wasn't meant to be Stephen King's IT.

[Bono]

11 hours ago, appetite4illusions said:

I don't mean to impune something that people dug about this film, but I'm glad it wasn't any more "Amblin," then it already was.

As a hangout film like The Goonies, it had to hit those friendship strides, but this is ultimately a horror film about kids confronting an ancient evil. I felt it didn't need more of that feel-good stuff but more of a nightmarish vibe. 

This material is tricky because it has to make you feel joy and fear, one after the other, but I think the people clamoring for more of the kids riding around on bikes listening to Young MC, wanted a film that wasn't meant to be Stephen King's IT.

That or it simply failed on the horror side of things so when the movie flipped from scenes of the feel good "Goonies" vibe to scenes of the nightmarish vibe it became boring and plodding. Probably a big reason why I wanted a different type of movie because as you said it's  ultimately this is a horror film and in that aspect it failed horribly in my opinion. 

[F*ck Fear]

I've been thinking of seeing it again, and I never go see a movie twice.

September 2019 release date announced for Chapter 2!

[luciusfunk]

I saw it a second time, this time in a theater. I enjoyed it more than at the drive in. The people in the theater were scared too easily. They got scared by Pennywise appearing in the storm drain. It’s like nobody saw the trailer. When they were in the house on Neibolt everyone was scared, I was sitting on the edge of my seat with a huge grin on my face. 

[Amir]

On 27/09/2017 at 4:09 PM, Bono said:

I saw it last night and was completely underwhelmed by it. I found myself bored half the time. I did really like the chemistry between all the kids and I felt their banter was pretty natural and humorous but aside from that the movie was meh. I'd have liked it better if it was more of an adventure type movies like The Goonies or Stand By Me given the cast of kids was really great but it was like........ it was like The Goonies with a shitty side horror story. I wasn't into this movie at all. 5/10

Had a couple of free tickets so I saw it tonight and this was my exact feeling. I think RedLetterMedia got it right in saying that it falls back on jump scares accompanied by dramatic music over, and over, and over again:

I liked the “Stand By Me” stuff, and the kid from Stranger Things was great, more than making up for the unlikeable lead kid. He’d normally be the kind of overly wisecracking character who I’d find incredibly annoying, but lines like:

Ben Hanscom: Derry started as a beaver trapping camp.

Richie Tozier: Still is! Am I right, boys?

had me laughing out loud in the cinema. Fat kid and ginger girl were noteworthy, too.

Im trying to think of the last good horror film I saw in the cinema. I remember being pleasantly surprised by the 2013 Evil Dead remake, and i liked Raimi’s Drag Me To Hell in 2007. My favourites will likely always be The Thing and The Shining, but I do need to check out It Follows at some point.

[appetite4illusions]

 

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/james-mcavoy-and-bill-hader-in-talks-to-join-the-cast-of-it-chapter-two-332

Well, they're off to a great start as far as casting!

James McAvoy wasn't a name anyone floated around as a contender for the lead, but I'm sure glad their looking at someone like him.  A Christian Bale or Jake Gyllenhall was pretty much out of the question and I don't think those guys would have done their best work, anyway. McAvoy is just the right combination of talent and mid-sized star power. He should do nicely. 

Bill Hader had it in the bag, ditto for Jessica Chastain. Now, they just have to get Giovanni Ribisi to play Eddie Kasprak.

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 9:40 AM, arnold layne said:

I thought it was good, but the first adaption was better for two main reasons; the first one follows the original story more closely and the child actors were far superior.

I keep hearing people praise the Finn kid for his performance as Richie Tozier, but Seth Green was far, far better. Unpopular opinion, but Finn didn't mesh well as Richie because his lines seem forced. He kind of came across as an obnoxious brat. Seth Green's jokester version aligns with the original Richie, a prankster, loveable clown. I guess I must be missing something though. The general consensus is he did well, but I would give him a C.

Literally everyone else (with the exception of the girl who played Beverley Marsh) was worse as well. A fucking piece of cardboard is a better actor than the kid who played Ben. The kid who played Mike Hanlon had potential, but his storyline (along with Stan's) was criminally altered in the movie.

As for the storyline, the old tv miniseries was superior as well. What happened to the dam scene? This was important. Very important! The dam scene brings Ben together with Eddie and Bill in a genuine powerful way. Bill and Eddie shelter Ben from a fucked up crazy Bowers and in turn, Ben helps them build a dam. A bond of trust is born. The movie haphazardly glossed over this relationship. 

One thing they did do right however was Henry's patricide. This was a great part of the movie. The tv scene was brilliantly dark and twisted. Pennywise's crackling 'Kill them all' on a tv program was sadistically awesome. Most of Pennywise's scenes were great actually. I even loved that stupid dance he did in the cave. Loved every second of it.

Despite my gripes it is one of my favorite, if not my favorite, movie of 2017. I liked it overall. The performance of Pennywise the Dancing Clown and the overall tone of the movie meshed well together. 

4/5.

I love the original tv version of IT, but seeing the new version gave a whole new meaning to "We all float down here". I honestly never understood why the clown would say that. in the new version you actually see the kids floating. That was eery to me.

At the end of the new movie you hear the clown laugh and then it states that Part 2 will be coming, so they knew all along there would be a second part with the adults. Not sure who they had in mind, but I guess we'll find out once they begin filming.

44 minutes ago, appetite4illusions said:

 

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/james-mcavoy-and-bill-hader-in-talks-to-join-the-cast-of-it-chapter-two-332

Well, they're off to a great start as far as casting!

James McAvoy wasn't a name anyone floated around as a contender for the lead, but I'm sure glad their looking at someone like him.  A Christian Bale or Jake Gyllenhall was pretty much out of the question and I don't think those guys would have done their best work, anyway. McAvoy is just the right combination of talent and mid-sized star power. He should do nicely. 

Bill Hader had it in the bag, ditto for Jessica Chastain. Now, they just have to get Giovanni Ribisi to play Eddie Kasprak.

I don't like Giovanni Ribisi. He annoys me.

Jessica is in everything! I remember seeing her in Mama, which I loved, and she wasn't heard of back then. Guess as long as you are in your 30's Hollywood will hire you.