There is quite a bit of CG in this film, but it really helps it, making Pennywise the perfect combination of practical makeup and digital. Some could say some of the digital effects look a bit ridiculous, but again, it's Pennywise.
Since so much of the story involves the notion of people seeing things that they cannot believe are actually real, the computer-generated effects work quite well for the purposes of this movie.
The characters cannot believe their eyes when they see Pennywise or the other forms that IT takes, and the computer effects add to this aesthetic.
Since so much of the story involves the notion of people seeing things that they cannot believe are actually real, the computer-generated effects work quite well for the purposes of this movie.
The characters cannot believe their eyes when they see Pennywise or the other forms that IT takes, and the computer effects add to this aesthetic.
I haven't seen this film yet, but I must say that is a terrible excuse if the CGI is handled poorly.
I haven't seen this film yet, but I must say that is a terrible excuse if the CGI is handled poorly.
The CGI is handled well.
I've been reading reviews all week talking about how bad the CGI is, but, when I watched IT last night, I was pleasantly surprised to find that it's actually well done.
I mean, you can tell that many of the scenes are computer effects, but these scenes do not have a shoddy lazy look to them that most CGI scenes in cinema tend to have. This movie will probably not look outdated in the slightest 10 years from now.
None of the special effects took my mind out of the movie. The look of the Pennywise scenes have an oddball Jack-in-the-box vibe to them that suits the movie wonderfully well, but it's not bad CGI.
I've been reading reviews all week talking about how bad the CGI is, but, when I watched IT last night, I was pleasantly surprised to find that it's actually well done.
I mean, you can tell that many of the scenes are computer effects, but these scenes do not have a shoddy lazy look to them that most CGI scenes in cinema tend to have. This movie will probably not look outdated in the slightest 10 years from now.
None of the special effects took my mind out of the movie. The look of the Pennywise scenes have an oddball Jack-in-the-box vibe to them that suits the movie wonderfully well, but it's not bad CGI.
Gotcha. I had interpreted it that the CGI was poorly done in some scenes and that was the complaint.
I'm in the camp that thinks the CGI-ness of the movie added to the effect of everything being really weird and screwed up. I liked the tone it gave some scenes, like
[Show spoiler]Pennywise coming out of the fridge or inflating himself in his lair, and when he's dancing for Bev.
I thought the movie was amazing. A fair amount was changed from the book, but in my opinion none of it detracted; it all still retained the essence of the story and characters (though I'm not sure why they made Ben relay the history of the town rather than Mike).
I don't typically enjoy many horror movies because generally they don't deliver for me in terms of story/character/both, but this had a ton of heart and an interesting storyline and was surprisingly very funny.
As a fan of the book, I think this was a great adaptation and it's one of my favorite movies of the year. Can't wait to own this one on bluray.
I just got back from seeing it tonight. Up until a few hours ago, my interest in this movie was nothing more than mild curiosity, but I had a free night and a day off tomorrow so I caved. I'll be the first one to admit when I'm wrong and unfairly misjudge something, and to be honest this movie blew my expectations. I still don't like the original mini-series; it's overrated as hell, and I will never get the fascination/attachment to it. However, I quite liked this new film and look forward to the sequel/Part 2. It handled the story a lot better and was what the mini-series should have been more like. A few nitpicks, though...
1. The sound design. Jeez, was this thing loud. I had a blaring legit migraine by the end of the movie. It could have just been the theater, or the way the movie was mixed, but yeah.. obnoxiously, uncomfortably loud. I still have a headache from it.
2. Jump scares- Seriously??? I get that this is 2017 and it seems like every single horror movie nowadays needs to have them, but give it a rest. I say it all the time, and I'll say it again; JUMP SCARES DO NOT MAKE A HORROR FILM. They're cheap and tacky, and frankly it is disappointing when a director will slip them in. I applaud this film for avoiding a lot of the horror tropes and trappings, but jump scares were not needed here. The movie was chilling on it's own, and it cheapened it a little bit for me.
3. Some of the CGI was unneeded. When he'd open his mouth and show the rows of razor sharp teeth, while his mouth and jaw are unhinged and dislocated, it looked cartoony. Reminded me way too much of the Fright Night remake.
Lastly, I am never going to see a night before screening for a movie ever again, and my experience in this theater completely ruined it. People were being loud and just would not shut up. During the trailers and before the lights go out, I understand, but when it goes dark and the movie starts you be courteous.
In regards to the sound how did you hear it 5.1, 7.1, Atmos? I heard the latter and while yes it was loud but I'm gathering your theater might have upped the volume too much. I thought the overall sound design was one of the best aspects of the movie as well as one of the best Atmos mixes of the year - it's literally a funhouse of sound - that goes from quiet to BAM! full throttle in an instance
Since so much of the story involves the notion of people seeing things that they cannot believe are actually real, the computer-generated effects work quite well for the purposes of this movie.
The characters cannot believe their eyes when they see Pennywise or the other forms that IT takes, and the computer effects add to this aesthetic.
Also, did anyone else notice a bit of blur, like a heat shimmer, during some of Pennywise's scenes? Very brief, only lasts a second, but I noticed it multiple times during the movie. Really subtle.
What's wrong with a movie being clean? We are 2017 not 1980 if I'm going to see a new movie i want to see it as clean and sharp as possible. If i want to see a movie full of grain then I'll pop in an older movie.
Because digital aesthetics look cheap and television-like, and not just because the imagery seems shallow, and without any texture. It's bad enough that the digital projectors at my AMC have forced me into the IMAX DMR theater when possible (as with this film) just to be assured of an immersive experience. I swear that half of the over 20 screens probably have the 3D filters stuck on their projectors, so dull and smeary are some of the presentations. I can now understand perfectly the argument for skipping the cinema and waiting for Blu-ray, because the quality of the experience is dangerously close to what I can achieve at home with my 1080p (!) screen and 7.1 setup. Mercifully, the theater is still capable of celluloid, and the best presentations I have seen there in the past couple of years have been the 70mm presentations of The Hateful Eight and Dunkirk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstar
In regards to the sound how did you hear it 5.1, 7.1, Atmos? I heard the latter and while yes it was loud but I'm gathering your theater might have upped the volume too much. I thought the overall sound design was one of the best aspects of the movie as well as one of the best Atmos mixes of the year - it's literally a funhouse of sound - that goes from quiet to BAM! full throttle in an instance
Is there really an Atmos mix? I know the film is listed on Dolby's site as having Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision, but (at least in the version I saw in IMAX DMR) there is only a Dolby Digital logo on the film. Was it a last minute enhancement? The film does seem like an obvious candidate.
I've always been a fan of the original but after seeing it recently after several years, I recognized it's flaws now more than before, and I can agree perhaps a re-make IS necessary for this generation, even though the original will always hold a special place in my heart, I think I can now appreciate a new perspective on an old favorite. With that in mind, I went to see the new IT last night with eager anticipation.
Now that it's over, I sit back and reflect on my experience and I am having a bit of mixed feelings. I'm TRYING to make sure my confusion isn't caused by my devotion to the miniseries, and trying to see this new one with a fresh and open mind, but there are still some doubts...so here goes.
Let's start with the number one subject: Pennywise the Dancing Clown. Let's face it, Tim Currey stole the original with his menacing performance as Pennywise. His appearance seemed innocent and childlike at first but when he was ready to attack, his whole appearance changed into a horrifying monster that haunted our dreams for the last several decades. The miniseries might not have been as successful as it was without Tim Currey.
Selecting a new actor to fill Tim's big clown shoes was not an easy task. I am not that familiar with Bill Skarsgård, but based on the trailer and promotion images I saw of teh all-new Pennywise, I had trust in their selection.
But then I saw the opening scene with little Georgie and Pennywise in the storm drain. His first reveal was creepy enough with his glowing eyes coming alive in the darkness of that drain, but the moment he opened his mouth to talk in his normal, clown-like character, I cringed. I was expecting a deeper more menacing sound as he attempted to lure Georgie closer to him. Instead, he sounded more like Shaggy from Scooby Doo, and to me, it really took the mystery away from his character. It was almost like a poor man's garage style haunted house trying to sound creepy to scare the kids, but coming across more like a grown up nerd.
At first I thought the un-scary voice was deliberate, since he was trying to seduce Georgie, but later in the film, during it's crucial scary moments, that same voice came out of him and I realized this was not on purpose, this was just the actor doing a poor job. I thought his performance as Pennywise really was lacking the WOW factor that is SO necessary to make him the subject of nightmares. The only time he was successfully creepy was with the help of CGI effects and film being sped up to quicken his lunge towards the children.
There was about 2 or 3 good moments for me where it actually hit a CREEPY level, but it never hit the true fear button for me. I was very disappointed.
As for the children, I thought overall, the kids and their acting was spot on, but the writing and directing in the original was much more successful. One of the things about the original was the charm and tender care put into building those characters for us to actually care about, and once they were put into danger, then we actually felt fear for them. The first part of the miniseries actually felt like Stand By Me to me, charming, but mysterious at the same time. The scares were perfectly timed and developed nicely. In this new one, it all seemed too rushed and felt too forced. There was no real backstory or reason presented as to WHY Henry Bowers was SO full of hate for the losers, his part in this whole film seemed so out of place and unnecessary. It almost felt like a filler subplot just to bring the losers together, but it went on too long.
Also, I felt like they tried too hard to create more action and scares, they forgot to give us some explanation to the actual STORY. I had to lean on my previous knowledge of the story to help me follow certain points, I never felt like they gave explanations to WHAT Pennywise is, or WHY he's there, or HOW they discovered what defeats them. It all just seemed odd.
But then again, I DID appreciate the bigger budget and better special effects used to create some of the scenes. I thought the overhead slide show and Pennywise's sudden appearance was effective, even if it DID remind me a bit of Poltergeist and the huge head beast that came out of the closet.
I would like to read a review from someone who never saw the original to see how this effected them, knowing their opinion would be fresh and not suffer from comparison.
Over all, I thought it had some good moments, but by the end, I was disappointed. I might be in the minority here with this opinion.
Is there really an Atmos mix? I know the film is listed on Dolby's site as having Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision, but (at least in the version I saw in IMAX DMR) there is only a Dolby Digital logo on the film. Was it a last minute enhancement? The film does seem like an obvious candidate.
oh indeed there is! In the 'well house' the use of the ceiling speakers is used to place a 'voice' literally speaking above you - the use of those speakers get's a serious work out also during the bathroom sink scene where the sound cues originate from the screen and then, well, hits the ceiling literally.
Lastly, I am never going to see a night before screening for a movie ever again, and my experience in this theater completely ruined it. People were being loud and just would not shut up. During the trailers and before the lights go out, I understand, but when it goes dark and the movie starts you be courteous.
Weird. It really does depend on the area, but I vastly prefer going to movies on Thursday preview nights because they always result in the best movie-going experiences. The people are usually the ones most excited for the movie, and I've never had any issues. If someone towards the front has a cell phone screen shining, people in the upper seating (including myself) usually yell at them to put it away. It's typically a respectful atmosphere. The general admission $5 Tuesdays, however, are what start yielding the obnoxious ones. That sucks that you had a bad experience.
oh indeed there is! In the 'well house' the use of the ceiling speakers is used to place a 'voice' literally speaking above you - the use of those speakers get's a serious work out also during the bathroom sink scene where the sound cues originate from the screen and then, well, hits the ceiling literally.
Good, just one more reason for Warner Bros. to release the film on UHD Blu-ray.
I was discussing this today with friends, is anyone else amazed at Warner Bros' recent horror output?
Since 2013, they've had The Conjuring 1 & 2, Annabelle & Annabelle: Creation, Light's Out and now It. Only the original Annabelle was a disappointment (although I mildly enjoyed it).
I was discussing this today with friends, is anyone else amazed at Warner Bros' recent horror output?
Since 2013, they've had The Conjuring 1 & 2, Annabelle & Annabelle: Creation, Light's Out and now It. Only the original Annabelle was a disappointment (although I mildly enjoyed it).
And huge hits
Conjuring 1, 2, Annabelle Creation and now IT will make over $100M domestic.
Planning to see it next week but debating whether to see it in a regular theater with ATMOS or IMAX. I've never experienced ATMOS before and the movie wasn't filmed nor formatted for IMAX.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Linear Mode
