It (2017)

[MazeRunner]

Went to the 7pm showing. All I have to say is poor Georgie. Eddie was definitely my favourite character though.

[doctor_who]

Originally Posted by TakeApartYourHead

Went to the 7pm showing. All I have to say is poor Georgie. Eddie was definitely my favourite character though.

Smh

[MazeRunner]

Also as we were leaving the theatre two guys behind us were complaining about too much CGI.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

In all fairness, many folks in this thread have read and reread the Stephen King novel several times over. They already know how things play out, or how they should play out, so it's all over but the fun of watching the film on a big screen.

I wasn't referring only to IT, I was speaking about movies in general.

[MazeRunner]

My theatre has been playing a trailer for a horror movie titled The 6th Friend which looks low budget a'f. There's not even a green MPAA thing before the trailer or any studio logos. I saw it before Annabelle and again tonight before It.

[Dubstar]

Just got back from seeing this, and holy shit does it have a wild Dolby Atmos mix

[gates70]

Glad this is doing well and is supposed to be good. Just blind PO'd the UHD.

[Hellraiserfan]

Loved it! Only real complaints I have are that I wish a few things from the book weren't taken out and some scenes should have lasted longer, give them room to breathe a bit more. I wish the movie was a little longer to give us more scenes with the kids. They all did a great job.

I didn't have a problem with the CGI to be honest. Some people may call bullshit on this but I'm starting to think it was an artistic choice to give it this ever so slightly cartoonish look/vibe to it. I don't think it was a, sketchy CGI due to budget kind of issue. I think in this film it was intentional and it actually worked for me.

I can't wait for Chapter 2.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by TakeApartYourHead

Also as we were leaving the theatre two guys behind us were complaining about too much CGI.

Sound like they belong to this forum.

[McCrutchy]

I enjoyed the film quite a bit. More than I was expecting, perhaps. In particular, I got used to most of the Pennywise makeup, thanks largely to Bill Skarsgård's excellent performance.

I did feel like certain scenes in the film were more effective than their miniseries counterparts, like

[Show spoiler]the sewer scenes, the scene with the blood in the sink at Beverly's house, and Ben being bullied

. However, while I didn't mind the update to the 80s, some of the music felt inappropriate. Specifically, the song used during the scene where

[Show spoiler]the kids clean up the blood

, and some instances of the score seeming like that of an action film. I suppose that, at times, the music did not seem to carry the proper emotional weight for the plot of the film.

And, while I wasn't overly bothered by most of the CGI, I was bothered by the

[Show spoiler]cheap illuminating effect on Pennywise's eyes

. This was really unnecessary, and at times (especially the scene with

[Show spoiler]Georgie

), it looked like a television-series-quality effect, and almost took me out of the film completely. And the film does look fairly flat and digital (I saw it in IMAX DMR) which made me wonder why it wasn't shot on celluloid. In fact, I think the biggest negative about the film is its digital aesthetic, which is just too clean and sterile, especially considering that it's supposed to be a horror film.

But, overall, it's a pretty good film, definitely on par with, and in many ways superior to, the miniseries, and I'll hopefully be adding it to my UHD/BD combo pack collection as soon as possible. Bring on the second chapter.

[MikeScott]

Originally Posted by Pounder

Don't know, I thought it was very well made but they were probably expecting nothing but jumpscares.

I didn't sense that my audience hated it. They're insane if they did. BUT the guy next to me did complain to the girl he was with about it not being scary because there weren't any jump scares. I hate how people think that makes a movie legitimately scary.

Anyway, I loved it! Already one of the best horror movies I've seen. I'd give it an A.

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by MikeScott

I didn't sense that my audience hated it. They're insane if they did. BUT the guy next to me did complain to the girl he was with about it not being scary because there weren't any jump scares. I hate how people think that makes a movie legitimately scary.

Anyway, I loved it! Already one of the best horror movies I've seen. I'd give it an A.

The masses want their horror films to be like haunted houses, only like haunted houses. It is a little sad.

[Sith4Brains]

Originally Posted by WhiteTim

Stay safe

l agree. Don't worry about contributing to the "IT" opening weekend gross. Stay safe and see it when it is safe to do so.

[trombone dixie]

My only real complaint is the original score. Felt like the ambient tracks delved too deep into the ambient world and didn't mesh well with the rest.

Was super curious how the

[Show spoiler]deadlights

were going to be handled and I loved, loved, loved them. Plus the kids were all stellar!

[Britbuffguy]

Originally Posted by Abby is Q

[Show spoiler]That's because in the book Beverly isn't kidnapped by Pennywise.
Henry and the other bullies chase the Losers down there with the intention of killing them (which is basically Pennywise using Henry to lure the Losers to the sewers). Before Henry set out to actually murder them, the kids were [somewhat] convinced that Pennywise was defeated at Neibolt Street. But you are right, there was no need for Henry because his role became completely useless when Beverly was kidnapped. He was a pretty pointless character outside of being a catalyst for the Losers to meet up.

I get why the didn't use him as much in the movie, but he could have added a real threat to the group that was much more immediate and wasn't supernatural.

I think he was still usefull, as Pennywise saw what the Losers could do when they stuck together at the house, so I think he was using Henry to maybe pick off a few of them and damper their bond. That's how I saw it anyways.

[Britbuffguy]

Ben's favorite band made the switch to the 80's decade totally worth it.

[Batman90]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

I enjoyed the film quite a bit. More than I was expecting, perhaps. In particular, I got used to most of the Pennywise makeup, thanks largely to Bill Skarsgård's excellent performance.

I did feel like certain scenes in the film were more effective than their miniseries counterparts, like

[Show spoiler]the sewer scenes, the scene with the blood in the sink at Beverly's house, and Ben being bullied

. However, while I didn't mind the update to the 80s, some of the music felt inappropriate. Specifically, the song used during the scene where

[Show spoiler]the kids clean up the blood

, and some instances of the score seeming like that of an action film. I suppose that, at times, the music did not seem to carry the proper emotional weight for the plot of the film.

And, while I wasn't overly bothered by most of the CGI, I was bothered by the

[Show spoiler]cheap illuminating effect on Pennywise's eyes

. This was really unnecessary, and at times (especially the scene with

[Show spoiler]Georgie

), it looked like a television-series-quality effect, and almost took me out of the film completely. And the film does look fairly flat and digital (I saw it in IMAX DMR) which made me wonder why it wasn't shot on celluloid. In fact, I think the biggest negative about the film is its digital aesthetic, which is just too clean and sterile, especially considering that it's supposed to be a horror film.

But, overall, it's a pretty good film, definitely on par with, and in many ways superior to, the miniseries, and I'll hopefully be adding it to my UHD/BD combo pack collection as soon as possible. Bring on the second chapter.

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.

[thecooldud]

Originally Posted by MikeScott

I didn't sense that my audience hated it. They're insane if they did. BUT the guy next to me did complain to the girl he was with about it not being scary because there weren't any jump scares. I hate how people think that makes a movie legitimately scary.

Anyway, I loved it! Already one of the best horror movies I've seen. I'd give it an A.

I don't know how many there were, but that bit in Bev's bathroom nearly made me and everyone else in the cinema jump out of our seats.

[tenia]

Originally Posted by slimdude

It really surprises me how people deliberately ruin the movies for themselves by, watching all the trailers they can get (which practically show every scene in the movie from the beginning to the end), reading and listening to every video review on the internet and forum discussions. Why even bother to go see the movie at all, the suspense is gone.

I'm very good at forgetting what I read about a movie while watching it, but still vaguely unconsciously remembering how things I know will happen, and see how the movie gets us there.

I'm technical minded, and analysing a movie that way can sometimes be quite interesting too.

On a similar matter, I knew who Keyser Sose was before seeing Usual Suspects for the first time, and still was able to enjoy it.

Of course, here, on top of that, It being the adaptation of a novel, I'm quite sure lots of viewers will already know most of what unfolds.

Originally Posted by MikeScott

I hate how people think that makes a movie legitimately scary.

As a general point, jump scares is the laziest way to artificially make a movie "scary" (I personally find them boring because they're usually edited in a way that makes them easy to guess in advance, thus rendering them totally ineffective), but I guess people like the guy you're describing is precisely the kind of reason the industry keep on being lazy with them : because seemingly, some people like that laziness.

Originally Posted by Batman90

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.

It's not always a question of technology like you seem to talk about, but a question of photography. You can have a clean and sharp movie but still has a photography (even a digital one) allowing for some grittiness. I suppose that grittiness was what McCrutchy was looking for, which is totally different to what you're talking about.

[Steedeel]

isn't it (jump scare) seen as a good way to get closer to your date/girlfriend when watching the film?

Seriously, some work, some don't. The best film I have seen for utilising jump scares is the Conjuring. The pay off worked for me with that one.