It (2017)

[Gamma_Winstead]

Got back from this a bit ago. Once again had a pretty abysmal theater experience, but I still enjoyed it!

[Show spoiler]There were some changes and additions I wasn't to fond of personally. Certain scenes just felt like they didn't really need to be there. Ben is barely recognizable as the Ben from the book, instead basically giving him Mikes storyline, making Mike have absolutley nothing to do. Honestly he joins at the rock fight, and is instantly a loser, despite the fact that he's barely shown talking to anyone the rest of the film.

I was really surprised how quick they offed Patrick too. That, and Bowers and his gang just don't mention his abscense at all. In fact, most of Bowers scenes I wasn't a fan of. When he goes to get the knife from the mail box, he walks like he has a stick up his ass. It was really weird looking. Then he kills his dad, and nothing comes of it. Like Belch and Vic don't react or anything. They aren't even seen. He's with them, and sees the balloon. Goes to the balloon, gets the knife. Goes inside, kills his dad. Where the hell did they go? And why the hell did they kill Bowers in the film?

There were some small bits like that all through out the film, where their changes and omissions were just kind of strange. More so given we're still getting the second part, and a lot of the meat for the second part won't be laid out because they ommited it, or completely changed it.

Still, I really dug it. A 4/5 or so from me. Hope to see it again soon, this time with a crowd that doesn't talk the entire film. That'd be nice.

[kidglov3s]

Originally Posted by trans8010

Warner Bros. owns the rights, for IT, the film was set in 1989, and yet none of the characters were wearing Batman T-shirts. For real? Talk about a missed opportunity. I remember everyone was wearing black shirts with the emblem blazoned on them. You couldn't go anywhere without seeing something Batman that summer. The main antagonist was a killer clown for crying out loud. Think of the parallels!

Other than that misstep, I have no real complaints about this film.

Not having them see Batman and Richie subsequently haunted by an 89 Joker turned Pennywise, in lieu of them seeing Teenage Werewolf and him being haunted by Michael Landon does seem like a missed opportunity but the movie was certainly long already and I only felt that way because I know that the movie theater/movie monster is an element of the story.

It feels like it took a lot more time to tell the kids' story as a linear narrative than as incidents peppered between adult scenes as in the book/miniseries, although to be fair in time used vs the miniseries they did do Neibolt house here (which narratively plays similar in terms of putting the group through a crisis).

Speaking of Batman and WB, it's kind of unfortunate that the theater marquee seemed beholden to corporate synergy. Lethal Weapon 2 and Batman for 3 months with no Ghostbusters 2, Last Crusade, Final Frontier, Karate Kid III, etc. Then toward the end they have Dream Warriors up, which wasn't even the right Freddy movie for 89. (EDIT: I'm wrong, they did get the right Freddy movie, good for them).

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Just got back and overall I thought it was great. I love both versions. The kids really did have great chemistry. Quite a few moments where the hair on my neck stood up. Frankly I didn't want it to end. I have a huge criticism though.

[Show spoiler]Henry Bowers and his gang were severely underused and under developed. It was a major disappointment. I was always fascinated by Henry's character which made it a major let down. I have to agree it made him seem pointless. Did he die at the end? I also had a hard time understanding anything he said. It's like he was talking way too fast.

[Show spoiler]I also thought the heavy metal music during the rock fight was jarring and really out of place.

I also agree that there's too much CGI but it didn't ruin anything for me.

A solid 4.5/5. Besides my major complaint I thought the film was fantastic. I hope there's a longer cut for the blu ray to help with my criticism

[JackForrester]

Originally Posted by kidglov3s

Then toward the end they have Dream Warriors up, which wasn't even the right Freddy movie for 89.

That was Dream Child, not Dream Warriors

[kidglov3s]

Originally Posted by JackForrester

That was Dream Child, not Dream Warriors

Ha ha you're right, I saw the claw and thought it was DW, didn't look back to see that DC also had the claw.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by brettxwt

I completely agree with you, except for the part about Ledger's portrayal being awesome, but I too love the Nicholson version of the character. It's the comic book come to life, literally off the pages in terms of character origin and appearance. Say what you want about him and how he is "just playing himself", but that's why he's better suited to the role because he steals the show. He's hilarious and makes you laugh along with him, but at the same time he gives a chilling portrayal of the character.

I don't get this "Nicholson's playing himself" criticism. Are you telling me that Jackie's a psycho who goes around and kills people with a laugh and smile?

[Zero_Cool]

Originally Posted by trans8010

Warner Bros. owns the rights, for IT, the film was set in 1989, and yet none of the characters were wearing Batman T-shirts. For real? Talk about a missed opportunity. I remember everyone was wearing black shirts with the emblem blazoned on them. You couldn't go anywhere without seeing something Batman that summer. The main antagonist was a killer clown for crying out loud. Think of the parallels!

Other than that misstep, I have no real complaints about this film.

They had batman on the marquee of the theater if that helps. I think it also had lethal weapon 2.

[Troll2fan]

The movie was sold out at my 6:00 showing and they said it was sold out for the remainder of the night!!

I'm an ardent fan of the novel, have some nostalgic like for the miniseries, and this movie exceeded all of the hype and my expectations. It wasn't without flaws, but my gripes came from my reading of the novel. It would be a solid 5/5 for me had I not had issues with some things they altered or left out of the movie.

With that said, I'll get into the many positives of the movie. Skarsgard was absolutely creepy and terrifying as Pennywise. I'm not the type to get creeped out in movies, but there were a couple of scenes where I found myself thinking that I was happy that he wasn't real. He is how I envisioned Pennywise to act like in the book. Sorry Tim, but your version was a little too cheesy and campy in comparison with this. The adults were equally as creepy as Pennywise and deserve some credit as well.

The kids were fabulous as a whole, with the exception of Stan and Mike. They were definitely the weak links, but I expected as much. Richie, Eddie and Bev knocked it out of the park and Amy Adams better play Bev in part 2. Bill and Ben were good, but I felt they were outshone by the other three.

I loved the way Derry looked and how many of the scenes were shot. The director did a great job of capturing the eeriness of the town. I've read where many people complained of the CGI, but I didn't see it as being overdone and I thought it was used effectively. This is a fantastical story about kids fighting an evil and fears that can only be seen and understood by them, and the CGI was used appropriately in that regard. It never took me out of the movie or had me rolling my eyes.

Now on to my gripes.

[Show spoiler]
1. Ben being the "historian" of the group rather than Mike.
2. Ben showing them how to build a dam should not have been omitted!
3. Bev didn't mention the blood to her dad, she said a spider was in the sink.
4. NO WEREWOLF CHASING BILL AND RICHIE WHILE THEY RODE TO BEAT THE DEVIL!
5. No slingshot and silver slug used.
6. No deaths shown for Victor Criss or Belch Huggins.
7. Not seeing Bowers traumatized by the sewers/IT, and framed for the murders of all the children.

Yeah, some of those are minor, but most should have been included in the movie. That's the only thing that keeps me from giving this a 5/5.

4/5

[Poya]

This isn't WB's; it's New Line's baby. WB is just the distributor. Same with the Conjuring franchise.

[brooks101189]

Originally Posted by kidglov3s

Then toward the end they have Dream Warriors up, which wasn't even the right Freddy movie for 89. (EDIT: I'm wrong, they did get the right Freddy movie, good for them).

Yeah, that would have been amusing if New Line got the year to one of their own Nightmare films wrong.

[SarahS]

Originally Posted by Troll2fan

The movie was sold out at my 6:00 showing and they said it was sold out for the remainder of the night!!

I'm an ardent fan of the novel, have some nostalgic like for the miniseries, and this movie exceeded all of the hype and my expectations. It wasn't without flaws, but my gripes came from my reading of the novel. It would be a solid 5/5 for me had I not had issues with some things they altered or left out of the movie.

With that said, I'll get into the many positives of the movie. Skarsgard was absolutely creepy and terrifying as Pennywise. I'm not the type to get creeped out in movies, but there were a couple of scenes where I found myself thinking that I was happy that he wasn't real. He is how I envisioned Pennywise to act like in the book. Sorry Tim, but your version was a little too cheesy and campy in comparison with this. The adults were equally as creepy as Pennywise and deserve some credit as well.

The kids were fabulous as a whole, with the exception of Stan and Mike. They were definitely the weak links, but I expected as much. Richie, Eddie and Bev knocked it out of the park and Amy Adams better play Bev in part 2. Bill and Ben were good, but I felt they were outshone by the other three.

I loved the way Derry looked and how many of the scenes were shot. The director did a great job of capturing the eeriness of the town. I've read where many people complained of the CGI, but I didn't see it as being overdone and I thought it was used effectively. This is a fantastical story about kids fighting an evil and fears that can only be seen and understood by them, and the CGI was used appropriately in that regard. It never took me out of the movie or had me rolling my eyes.

Now on to my gripes.

[Show spoiler]
1. Ben being the "historian" of the group rather than Mike.
2. Ben showing them how to build a dam should not have been omitted!
3. Bev didn't mention the blood to her dad, she said a spider was in the sink.
4. NO WEREWOLF CHASING BILL AND RICHIE WHILE THEY RODE TO BEAT THE DEVIL!
5. No slingshot and silver slug used.
6. No deaths shown for Victor Criss or Belch Huggins.
7. Not seeing Bowers traumatized by the sewers/IT, and framed for the murders of all the children.

Yeah, some of those are minor, but most should have been included in the movie. That's the only thing that keeps me from giving this a 5/5.

4/5

[SarahS]

Originally Posted by javy

Ledger is awesome, but nobody anywhere will ever beat Nicholson's Joker. And that's just really all there is to it.

Stop please...that's insane. Jack was just playing Jack.....that same character started with One Flew and morphed into the Shining and then Batman. Ledgers performance was one of the greatest of all time. Any other opinion on that subject is just idiotic. Jacks does the same crap in every film. Even found a way to do the same stuff in Terms of Endearment.

[Troll2fan]

Originally Posted by SarahS

Sorry, I forgot that you and the Coon were the authoritative, be all end all authority on that matter. I should've had one of you vet my post before I proceeded in posting my opinion.

[Count Orlok]

Anyone else think that Amy Adams should play the adult Beverly in the sequel? The scene with Beverly talking to the pharmacist about Superman/Lois Lane instantly made Amy Adams pop up in my head.

Sophia Lillis


Amy Adams


No matter, I hope Sophia goes far with her career. She was a great actress and delivered some nice feels in her scenes. The other kids shouldn't be glanced over either. I was sold by every one of them.

[Underworld54]

Another record for IT, it just took down Deadpool's R rated opening day record with $49.6M. Wow!

[kidglov3s]

I think part of what is helping It's appeal is that in addition to being a beloved book and the legacy of the miniseries it's also a YA movie in how they did this adaptation (how many people read or saw IT in their teenage years and identified with the kids and their experiences? has to be millions and millions over the course of three decades). This is probably the biggest YA success story since the first Maze Runner, MJ 1 and 2 made money but less than expectations. I kind of wish that it was being seen that way, because I love terrible YA movies and that well has run dry.

[Count Orlok]

Originally Posted by Underworld54

Another record for IT, it just took down Deadpool's R rated opening day record with $49.6M. Wow!

I wonder if Warner has anymore plans to adapt other Stephen King horror novels. Some have been great, others not. Salem's Lot would be nice to see on the big screen. It's already been adapted for TV twice, so why not give it another go theatrically?

[Underworld54]

Originally Posted by Count Orlok

I wonder if Warner has anymore plans to adapt other Stephen King horror novels. Some have been great, others not. Salem's Lot would be nice to see on the big screen. It's already been adapted for TV twice, so why not give it another go theatrically?

Isn't Pet Cemetery next?

[sandman slim]

I think the reason they didn't use the werewolf & mummy is pretty simple. Those characters immediately call to mind the classic Universal versions, especially seeing them together in the same movie. WB/New Line wouldn't want their big movie to look like a crossover with another studio, so they went with something else.

[kidglov3s]

Originally Posted by sandman slim

I think the reason they didn't use the werewolf & mummy is pretty simple. Those characters immediately call to mind the classic Universal versions, especially seeing them together in the same movie. WB/New Line wouldn't want their big movie to look like a crossover with another studio, so they went with something else.

I was thinking they'd see a movie from the 80s and then Richie would be attacked by a figure from what they saw (which could work great for WB/NL bc they could do Freddy or Critters or 89 Joker or any number of other IPs they own). I was surprised they dropped the movie theater but what they did worked as a narrative and the movie is already very long. That they could use a movie monster from the 80s was what made me most interested in the time change, the losers club going to see Batman or Freddy seemed like a really natural fit for the story (moreso than changing the adult stuff to current day, where everybody sans Mike becoming 80s yuppies was a huge part of their adult characters).