"It" (2017)

It was shit, the mini series was also shit but tim curry is a much superior actor than lazy eyed bill.

I loved it but I'm a horror movie addict. The original was lame at the end with that big cockroach but it wasn't too bad overall . I think the remake is way better and scarier . The audience screamed a few times .

I also loved 47 Meters Down , Wish Upon , and Annabelle: Creation .

I thought it was disappointing. I really liked the soundtrack.

R2 I thought I was the only who liked Wish Upon. It felt like an R rated Goosebumps episode, which I loved.

Great poster for the new It remake. Is that real? I enjoyed most of the movie but the ending felt lazy with too many things unexplained and the adults overacted to a ridiculous degree, but for the most part, I think it's a success due to the acting from the kids, Bill Skarsgard, and the cinematography/music. The projection scene is also outstanding. Best jump scare I've seen in awhile.

Wish Upon was awful!

Anyway, I loved It. I'm actually looking forward to the sequel, which never happens. The kids were really great and engaging and hopefully they'll be as smart about casting them as adults.

Terrible. The ending was so Sunday after school special.

There was nothing horror about this movie, honestly I don't know how to feel about it.

Sucked. Wait for the video if you're still that curious.

Or don't if you're that masochistic. Doesn't matter.

Pennywise was horribly miscast. I don't get all the praise for this film.

I'll never trust film critics when it comes to horror movies again - they went crazy over The Conjuring, The Babadook, Get Out, Mother and the new It but all of them were just cliche-ridden bores. I guess the movies are so bad nowadays that mediocrity has become the new excellent. The last critical horror darling I actually liked was The House of the Devil, which actually was brilliant.

The biggest problem with the new It are the lousy special effects. The moment I saw that cheesy CGI shot of Pennywise's face during the opening scene I knew the movie was gonna suck. Why is it that the more advanced the computer technology is, the louiser are the special effects?

R10 I agree. The poor special effects made the film look so cheap. This would've been better as a miniseries.

Pennywise sounded like scooby doo btw, awful.

R8, I haven't seen it, but there's a range of opinions here. Can you say what was lacking in the movie?

Here's that awful CGI shot from the opening scene. I've seen video games that looked more realistic.

And another problem I had with the new version was Pennywise's appearance - what made Tim Curry so scary is that he actually looked just like your average circus clown. But they tried waaay too hard to make the new Pennywise look sinister, with the creepy costume and make-up and all. Clowns are creepy enough as it is.

R14 I think Pennywise looks scary there but that image only appears on screen for less than half a second.

R15 Half a second of crap CGI is more than enough to ruin a scene. Filmmakers have just become so lazy - why couldn't they just put Bill Skarsgard into a monster make-up to film that shot? Not only would that method be much cheaper for them but it would also look a whole lot scarier onscreen. Lots of people (well, at least those who have taste) complain about how unnecessary all the CGI in this movie felt. Practical effects FTW!

Pennywise in this film was made to look just like the book's version. Tim Curry's Pennywise just looked like a regular clown.

Saw it tonight. Really liked it. Scary/creepy as hell.

It was really good. Very good.

I thought the horror was very campy.

Can't really compare the movie to the mini-series. It's just the kid parts, so maybe half the book. It's "Chapter 1"... the sequel will be the adult parts, 27 years later than the events in this first movie. That's actually the much harder part to make work, so we'll see how it goes, but they really did a good job at translating the events of the book into a 2 hour movie.

I enjoyed the callbacks to the book that a fan would recognize. Like the kids wearing t-shirts that say Tracker Bros. and Freese's department store. Also the mural of the gangland murders which is a story Mike hears in the book.

They took out the sex and the gay stuff.

Definitely for the best.

What was the gay stuff, R22? Been awhile since I read the book

The bully with the knife is apparently gay and rapes another boy in the book, in the quarry.

Well he doesn't exactly rape him. Patrick jerks Henry off but when he offers to blow him Henry punches him and calls him a queer.

There's also a gay bashing which is based on a true crime.

I saw IT a few weeks ago and was disappointed. I know there's a lot in the book they can't put in a movie...and I realise that the book is too epic to condense into a few hours but sorry it didn't work for me. First off I didn't feelike they fully made use if the books scares. What the duck was the lady in the painting all about? In the book standard is locked in that Waterhouse with the ghosts of drowned kids coming down the stairs. That is much scarier. Also why was the leper scene so lame? In the book Eddie goes under the porch and sees the lepers face at the window to the cellar. .much scarier than this film where he just chased him across the garden. Finally sorry, but pennywise just was too young. Bill skasgarrd is too young and pretty to be scary and he didn't creep me out at all. It just made me want to read the book again. Epic fail.

They also left out the leper offering to blow Eddie for a dime.

Oh and way too much CGI. It felt like a run of the mill jumpscare horror when it should have been so much more. This director really wasted a great opportunity. I guess I'm in the minority in feeling that way though.

Also Patricks death by flying leeches in the dump frudge is creepier by far than the crappy death in this movie. Also he died in the movie too early.

Well, I'm pretty sure they will never include the scene where Beverly gets gang-banged by the other Losers in the Barrens or the "Deadlights" or wherever..

It's one of the rare movies I fell asleep in at the theater. I just couldn't warm to the concept. Beautifully shot though and wonderful locations.

It was a joke. The kids were great and Skaarsgard wasn't awful, it just wasn't frightening. All of the frights were given away in the trailer. I liked the 80's references. Forgettable.

To add, the sound effects were just too much. Anytime something ominous was about to happen there were these loud booms and piercing sounds leading up to it. It took away any shock. I like eerily quiet. It was just too heavy handed.

Well done. Really good child actors, especially the actress who played Bev. Thought many of the actors were talented.

Hard to compare the original, which I also really liked. Make up effects were very good in both, but this was theatrical, so I'd give the film the nod hre. Pennywise was better in the miniseries. In the film, he just seemed to move really fast towards the screen (characters) as a jump scare.

Glad they didn't 'go there' and have the awful book conclusion to the kid storyline

Looking forward to the sequel with the adult characters 27 years later.

Film made me want to re-read the book.

Someone on some other DL thread mentioned that Pennywise in this film looks a lot like Nicole Kidman and now I can't unsee it. I guess it's that large wrinkle-free forehead that makes them so similar.

I told them I'd do it for scale.

R36 Omg now i can't unsee it either lol

Save your money, this movie is absolute shit.

What was with the unanimous critical praise? Purchased reviews? Or, have the standards lowered that much?

What's with all the haters in this thread?

I don't understand why people keep saying this was "closer to the book" there are some very obvious and unessecary changes.

It was better than any other Stephen King horror movie. Oddly, almost all his other hits have been non-horror.

I am a little salty that I went to the nicer theater and had to pay 14.44 plus $8 on a fountain drink with no refills.

[quote] It was better than any other Stephen King horror movie.

Brian De Palma and Stanley Kubrick beg to differ.

And Frank Darabont, also.

And Rob Reiner

[quote] What was with the unanimous critical praise? Purchased reviews? Or, have the standards lowered that much?

Standards have definitely lowered, which is what makes me laugh when I hear people complaining about how Rotten Tomatoes is killing the movie business because of negative reviews. Reviews are written on a huge curve these days and every fan boy with a decent internet hookup in his mom's basement can dub themselves a film reviewer and actually get published by RT.

Tim Curry played horror and camp with finesse.

Skaarsgard just seemed like a deranged kid who tortures cats.

What's with the bashing of this excellent movie on here? This is the only place I've seen people hate on it. Is this just typical Datalounger bitterness and bitchery?

Because I cannot fathom how you can hate on this movie. It was really good.

R50 Excellent movie?! Oh dear, you certainly prove that gays having great taste is just a myth. I really hope you're under 30, otherwise there's really no excuse for you thinking this movie is a masterpiece.

Did I say it was a masterpiece? Stop being an arrogant dumbass and arguing against things I didn't say. I had a lot of fun, it was effectively scary, it was well done, it was entertaining. IT was a GOOD MOVIE.

Nobody's saying it's Citizen Kane. Stop being a dick.

The only scare scene I enjoyed was when Bev was being strangled and smothered in bloody hair and clots at the bathroom sink. It reminded me of great scenes from Poltergeist (braces) and Nightmare on Elm St.

R52 Stans for mediocrity.

It is on the same level as that shitty remake of Carrie a few years back. Strangely enough, Carrie was savaged by critics.

"Because I cannot fathom ..."

Doubtlessly, there are many things R50/R52 cannot fathom.

"Stop being an arrogant dumbass and arguing against things I didn't say. "

(translation:) Stop disagreeing with me! Everybody else is WRONG, WRONG!

"What's with the bashing of this excellent movie on here?"

They're called opinions other than your own; a new concept to you, obviously.

" This is the only place I've seen people hate on it."

Because your life experience online and offline, is so sadly limited and myopic.

" Is this just typical Datalounger bitterness and bitchery? "

Yes, tender thing. Grow a pair.

The bev actress looks and sounds exactly like a young amy adams.

The 2017 version is much better and well-produced than the 1990 TV mini series.

The production values are top-notch, scarier and richer with visuals.

The acting is more natural. The characters are cooler -- less mushy and pathetic than the 1990 characters.

Part of what makes 2017 scarier and better is that it has more graphic violence.

The 1990 version had to tone down and imply the violence, but the 2017 version shows Pennywise biting the little kid's arm off, who then crawls away bleeding and maimed -- stuff that you could never show on broadcast television. That's just one example.

There are more action scenes that are more thrilling.

I've heard a couple people on Xbox Live argue that Tim Curry's performance is better. And while I love Tim Curry, his performance in the 1990 It was pretty melodramatic, one-note scenery chewing -- hostility you've seen a million times.

Bill Skarsgard's performance is actually pathetic and tender at first -- which endears Pennywise to the children and makes him seem harmless to lure them in.

But then the CGI performance is reptilian and ravenous -- a much scarier, crafty and interesting performance.

Oh please bill played pennywise like a cartoon character, tim can out-act him even with half his face frozen.

I loved this version. I like Tim Curry but the 1990 miniseries sucked. The effects in this are fun and gross and it definitely felt like a deserved R rating which is enjoyable after so many shitty pg 13 horror movies. I'm glad It is such a massive success,hopefully that means more big budget R rated horrors.

Tim Curry was the cartoon Pennywise.

Bill Skarsgard was very human and touching -- until the CGI kicks in!

R58 Nice astroturfing.

R56 has been triggered, everyone. Back away slowly.

All he has is insults. He'll run out soon enough.

It's a good movie, but it's no Mamma Mia!

[Quote] I'm glad It is such a massive success,hopefully that means more big budget R rated horrors.

Does the new Saw movie count?

A bunch of cheap jump scares and a clown that sounded like scooby doo.

It was a good coming of age movie, but an awful horror film. I agree about the not scary at all clown's Scooby Doo voice and Beverly being the Mini Me of Amy Adams.

[quote] Bill Skarsgard's performance is actually pathetic and tender at first -- which endears Pennywise to the children and makes him seem harmless to lure them in.

Wow, that's a stretch.

Tim Curry was a great Pennywise, but that TV version was terrible. It looked cheap plus had bad Lifetime-TV acting, except for Curry and maybe John Ritter (although I might be biased from remembering him so fondly).

I wish this movie had been done without CGI, but I almost always hate CGI effects anyway. Movies look way too much like video games now.

R50, R52, R63 has been thoroughly schooled. Back away quickly.

All he has is petulant outrage. He'll run out in traffic while walkxting soon enough.

The psychos on tumblr want bill to get an oscar nom for his performance, lmao.

I'm watching it right now [torrenting is the best internet invention EVAR OMG].

The scene with the kids swimming at the quarry is FUCKED THE HELL UP. Why the fuck are the boys all wearing their gitch? They knew they were going to the quarry, why wouldn't they wear bathing suits under their shorts? And the girl is wearing her little training bra and pretty panties, too.

Pederast's dream, that sequence. Really disgusting, imo.

I'm really surprised the Stephen King likes this movie as it changed a lot of the book. The death of Patrick was changed, Beverly was never kidnapped by pennywuse in the book, and I thought it was a dumb idea. The woman in the painting was not a good substitute for the dead kids in the Waterhouse. Also the leper was under the porch in the book which is more scary and claustrophobic. The end fight was a poor substitute for the ritual of Chud. They could have done something really different with that. But what we got was conventional horror crap. It wasn't the movie I was hoping for.

I really liked it - reminded me of the old monster movies. i always thought the miniseries was super shit, so this film was great.

R72 here: ok, finished watching it.

The girl who plays Beverly is absolutely gorgeous. She should be a breakout star. I wonder if they'll get Isla Fischer for her adult character [Amy Adams is too big a star, imo].

The kid who plays Ben [the fat kid] is adorable. Is his character supposed to be gay?

The casting of Eddie's Munchausen-by-proxy mother was shitty. I refuse to believe that they couldn't find a single overweight actress to play her; instead, her padding looks fake as fuck.

Pennywise spoke like he was retarded. Some very weird choices in his character, including the ridiculous buck teeth.

Overall, it's not a *terrible* movie... but like others here have said, it's just common and unoriginal and meh. It's the same as any other horror movie from the last decade or so, with all the jump scares and lame cgi.

I'd give it... 7/10. Which is the equivalent of 9.9/10, considering it's a Stephen King horror movie!

I see that a Pet Semetary remake is on the books. Can't wait.

Just rewatching the mini-series. God it's TERRIBLE!!!! The idea the the kids killed Pennywise by throwing a couple of rocks and spraying an inhaler in his face is just ludicrous.

Well the silver rocks thing was in the book, so blame coked up steven king for that. But they hurt pennywise because they believed or something. King is awesome but he's not a great writer.

[Quote] The kid who plays Ben [the fat kid] is adorable. Is his character supposed to be gay?

I love that he had a poster of NKOTB on his bedroom door.

[Quote] I see that a Pet Semetary remake is on the books. Can't wait.

Hope the lead is as hot as Dale Midkiff. I wonder who they'll get to play Zelda?

I think whenever something becomes too popular, more people start turning on it as evidenced by this thread. I had problems with the last act, but it was a fun and well made horror film.

R80 It was an awful horror movie but a decent coming of age movie. Give me an example of good horror in this movie?

r81, the slide projector scene.

R81 The majority of the movie features haunted house scares but there are moments of tension throughout and lots of atmosphere. The early scenes with Mike, Ben, and Beverly being haunted by Pennywise were some of my favorites and the scene with the projector was well done.

That's what you all call horror?

R81 the bathroom scene.

One person's horror is another person's laugh. Like fear of clowns.

To hell with getting the Kindle version of IT ..........what the fuck. It is $ 13. Why are e-books still so expensive ?? I'll track down my old paperback version (increased Kindle font size, be damned !!)

I thought Mike was the gay character (but I don't think King identified any of them as gay).

Did you know that the Ben bridge scene was supposedly based on a real life 1984 gay guy/bullies incident where the victim drowned and the guys pretty much got away with it ?? The case always made me sad because the terrified victim was begging and screaming that he couldn't swim and they still threw him over the bridge.

People suck now and they sucked over thirty years ago too.

Horror movies never scare me and even I thought the projector scene was really well done. I guess it was supposed to replace the photo album in the book, and it was much better both conceptually and in execution.

Another good moment was when Pennywise grabs Beverly in her bathroom (just after she's knocked out her father). Every other time you see Pennywise, it was telegraphed, but that time it was a total surprise.

book was better, sorry not sorry

They were both good.

R90 I actually found the movie to be very cookie cutter bland horror. Didn't really have the spark that made the book so unique in its day

The book was too incredibly long. I don't mind long books - but King has a habit of writing way more than he needs to. His storytelling is very good, though.

It was long but filled with rich details and anecdotes that made even minor characters feel real

Also, this film version of "It" was released at the perfect time, sort of capitalizing on the pop culture popularity of "Stranger Things," of which many fans are eagerly awaiting a Season 2.

This is not unfair though, considering how much "Stranger Things" borrowed from "It" and "Stand By Me."

I've never read Pet Sematary. Is it one of King's better books?

I agree that the book was too long, but the overall story was great. It definitely could have been edited down. It's very obvious, when you read certain parts of "It," that King wrote it drunk and coked out of his mind at 3am. The Tommyknockers, which I believe he wrote at about the same time, was also a "drunk and coked at 3am" kind of book.

R95 Not one of my favorites. The Stand is good but PLEASE don't get the unabridged version. His original editor was right to cut all that extra shit out lol The Long walk is great. Misery, Dolores Clairborne, and Carrie also!

Yea King actually did his best work by far when he was on a lot of drugs. His family eventually staged an intervention. I'm so happy he's healthy and happy but his writing definitely changed a lot.

It wasn't really until close to the end of "It" that I started getting a "WTF was he on" moment with the book. I still don't quite understand the "deadlights" part of it.

I do believe that King is at his best when he is writing through the perspective of kids (and on drugs, lol).

King is great at details that make you care about the characters and makes them feel real. It often makes up for and gets you through some of the crazy/silly/over-the-top elements of the stories. The best movies of his books focus on the characters and maintain that realness (e.g. Stand by Me, Shawshank Redemption), while the bad ones focus too heavily on the horror and let the characters fall by the wayside (e.g. Pet Sematary, Thinner).

Dolores Claiborne is my favorite King adaptation, what a movie! Kathy Bates and Judy Parfitt should've been handed Oscars for their performances.

I've never understood the love for Dolores Claiborne.

But maybe I'm biased, cuz I had a severely abusive father and I empathized far too well with Dolores and her actions.

Pet Semetary is one of the best

[quote]Pet Semetary is one of the best

Agreed.

Especially the two pages when [spoiler alert] Gage runs down the hill and gets run over. The tension, the desperation in his father's mind [paraphrasing here: "please let him trip, oh god why isn't he tripping oh god oh no oh god"], it was masterful.

The Eyes of the Dragon is freaking amazing.

It's not really horror so much as fantasy, but it's spellbinding [tee hee].

If you like Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire, you should definitely check it out.

R103, if you're talking about the book, I agree. At it's core it's a great novel about grief and how it can drive one mad.

"The soil of a man's heart is stonier,Louis. A man grows what he can and tends it."

I liked this movie. Saw it a few weeks ago with my sister and she was terrified . It has some flaws but I found it scary and thought all the kids were endearing , adorable and effective . I especially loved little Eddie.

The 1990 version has a nostalgic factor for me. I was a freshmen in high school when it came out and I remember everyone talking about it at school. I had a big crush on the guy who played Stanley . It was very scary then but it looks a little cheesey to me now . Tim Curry was amazing .

Pet Semetary is terrifying imo. Both the book and movie. A very terrifying look at grief. That story doesn't end happily for anyone. But let's be honest , who wouldn't do absolutely anything to bring a loved one back??

R101 I still can't believe Katy turned in TWO world class performances in King adaptations. She was born to be Dolores Clairborne

So, the 17-y.o. hottie who plays lead bully Henry Bowers is named Nicholas Hamilton... and he appears to be gay:

He was strangely hot in the mullet.

[quote]He was strangely hot in the mullet.

He was, he's a good looking kid.

It was kinda ridiculous when the loudmouth character insulted him for having a mullet, when mullets were cool at the time! Business in the front, party in the back, hey-o!

He reminded me of Kevin Bacon.....but young and hot.

Yes, hot teen psycho hood, and good acting.

I just saw this today. I really liked it. I prefer the original Pennywise played by Curry, but otherwise this version is a LOT better than the original. I was surprised by how good the acting was by the children, particularly with the banter of Eddie/Ritchie and little Georgie. It was certainly scarier than the first version. I'm glad they didn't have any cheesy werewolves, that was by far the most stupid part of the original (may have been due to shit 1990s costuming).

I actually really like clowns, so I wasn't afraid by that. I was, however, shocked at how afraid I was during some of the other scenes (the blood, the woman from the painting).

People criticise the bad CGI for when Pennywise bites off Georgie's arm, but it's a hell of a lot better than the cheesy makeup fake teeth in the original. I feel like this would classify as a horror or thriller, but the first would classify as a comedy or parody horror.

I give it a 9/10 - point deducted for Pennywise drooling when he speaks.

R155 has no taste.

R116 can see into the future.

[Quote] Pet Semetary is terrifying imo. Both the book and movie. A very terrifying look at grief. That story doesn't end happily for anyone. But let's be honest , who wouldn't do absolutely anything to bring a loved one back??

After everything that happened with Gage?! Louis was a fucking idiot. I wanted to vomit when he kisses his wife after she comes back 😫

Yeah, but it's pretty clear he's broke from reality at that point. If I remember right, he convinces himself that the son comes back a monster because it took so long to bury him in the pet sematary. But he will bury his wife immediately so of course she'll be fine. Clearly he's gone completely insane.

[Quote] Clearly he's gone completely insane

Completely insane. Not even Victor could convince him that it's a terrible idea.

I give this movie 9/10 dog turds.

....

........

For those who like Nicholas Hamilton:

Twink hotness.

Oh, I forgot; he was in 'Captain Fantastic,' too:

The haters on here are just weird. There is literally nothing worth hating in this movie.

I did not " hate" it r127 I found it mediocre is all . I will not call you weird for having such mediocre taste.

The woman from the painting was fucking scary.

This is interesting

R128 what is a non-mediocre horror film? The only ones that are award winning, are not horror (with arms being bitten off, blood pouring out of sinks and a ghost/painting woman biting a child in the face). I can think of the Silence of the Lambs and Psycho. Silence of the Lambs is an excellent movie, but it's not scary or horror - it's a thriller/drama. Psycho is a well made film, but it's not even remotely scary by today's standards - so again, closer to a thriller/drama.

i felt bad being thirsty for that Henry Bowers actor. Glad he is 17 so almost legal at least. There was a random and interesting gay scene in the book between him and patrick hocksetter

R124: ewww, he has an outtie!

Awesome link, R130.

Those paintings that inspired/horrified him are terrible! My dog could paint better than those, wtf!

It has grossed $266.3M domestic,beating The Exorcist ($232.9M) as the highest grossing R-rated horror film ever.

The movie is crossing 500 million by friday and finishing off with 600 million ww, this is huge for a rated r horror flim, not since exorcist has a horror film done this crazy buisness. To bad it's shit.

IT is shIT.

I don't see the point of setting the movie in the 80s either.

[quote]I don't see the point of setting the movie in the 80s either.

....So the sequel can be set in the present day? Duhhhhrrrrrrr....

Could've easily set it in the 90's.

The movie was greenlit in 2015 and part 1 takes place in 1988 which is 27 years before 2015.

R139 I don't see the point of setting the sequel in the modern day. The story was fine as is.

I think they didn't set it in the 50s because that time period would look too archaic to the Millennials who are the target audience for a big-budget horror movie.

R142 = IDIOT, VOTED FOR TRUMP

My only complaint about "It" was that the late 80s setting they were going for didn't look like the late 80s. I was 12/13 in 1988/89 - exactly the same age as the kids in the movie during that time - and the look of the period was not really authentic.

R145 What about all the horrible New kids on the block jokes? Wasn't 80s enough still?

Is R142 supremely stupid?

Part two is when all the kids are adults, 27 years after the events of the first movie. THAT'S THE STORY.

R138 = equally stupid. Seriously, what the fuck?

Hate to gang up on you r148 but you really are a dimwit.

Ladies, ladies, you're both mentally impaired trollinas who deserve to be eaten by Pennywise!

R147 that literally has nothing to do with setting it in the modern day. It's fiction the same effect would be had if the movie stuck to the original dates.

Idiot.

I assume you mean R138.

Don't assume.

R148 eats turds.

I love the movie even more now!!! 10/10

IT: Chapter 2 will be hitting theaters September 6, 2019!

I have a crush on the creepy dad. He oozes sex.appeal.

Another stupid thing, why do they insist on calling these "chapters" they sure as hell aren't making 20+ of these films.

The bully kid is australian, I had no idea australia had the imbred looking guy's.

I can understand people not liking this version, but I sure as hell don't get all of the gushing over the cheesy 1990 made-for-TV miniseries.. it was total crap!

Even if they reset it in the present day (which is completely stupid; what, make the adult scenes in 2044? absurd), if they had kids today facing Pennywise:

They'd Snapchat their own dismemberment, laugh about it, and become YouTube sensations.

Kids today all already have deadlights; their cell phone addiction.

All I know is that my cock belongs up Jaeden Wesley Lieberher's tight boicunt. I literally got chubbed every time he walked on the screen. I really want to suck his toes, eat his ass, and bust a nut up his colon.

R162 Fucking sicko pedo f&f this isn't reddit.

R12, I liked it. The score, the sets, the design, the dialogue, the acting, the imagery all outclassed most recent horrors. But, yeah, Scooby voice.

Babadook and It Follows rank among the best in the genre, as far as I'm concerned.

Why anybody would put that in the same category as The Conjuring...smh.

Aside from the fact that the second half would have to be 27yrs in the future, if they set the first part in modern times then there is no way those kids would be exploring in sewers and doing anything outdoors. It would have to be a bunch of kids paying playstation or instagraming the whole thing.

[quote]It has grossed $266.3M domestic,beating The Exorcist ($232.9M) as the highest grossing R-rated horror film ever.

With all due respect, comparing 2017 dollar amounts dollar amounts from 1973/1974 makes absolutely no sense.

Adjusted for ticket price inflation, the gross for The Exorcist is $917,524,100.

Add the adjusted amount for the director's cut release in 2000 and you've got another $65,431,100.

Bottom line: It is [bold]nowhere[/bold] near as successful as The Exorcist.

Eeeww, I know what you mean R72. I felt like I was watching a Victor Salva movie for a moment.

R72, that was true to the time. I know you're probably too young to have been around back then, but while it's uncomfortable to view today, it is exactly like it would have happened back then.

This was pretty mediocre - could have been done for Netflix or Syfy. I did get a little creeped by the first appearance of Pennywise in the sewer and the cute little boy being killed, but I was pretty bored during the rest of it. Those kids were annoying; their R-rated banter and cursing got tired after a short while. The girl was OK, but it got creepy how she was getting unwanted attention from her dad, then they show her batting her eyes at the pharmacist, stripping to her underwear in a group of boys, and the boys are undressing her with their eyes. I know no girl wants her dad perving on her but then the movie uses this weird sexual tone... you know what I'm saying.

Someone on this thread said that it turned into an after-school special at the end - so right. I will NOT be anticipating the sequel.

Remake [italic]Cujo[/italic] next. God knows they fucked that up enough already.

It was not scary in the least bit to me, but I’m tough to scare. It was a very funny comedy imo. Beverly was beautiful and heartbreaking, but the camera lingers too much on her ass. I also felt that she was too sexualized and idk how old she is, but she looked 11.

I saw the original tv mini series, which was lame. I went to see this new version out of curiosity. Of course, it's better made than the tv movie. But it's still not very interesting.

I LIKE the new version of Pennywise. He looks so much creepier than the Bozo the Clown tv version. And Tim Curry wasn't better actingwise, either. He was just more over the top, with his portrayal of Pennywise as some blowhard clown.

The person I went to see the movie with said the kids talked like 30 year olds. They did. They seemed more like adults than children.

There will be inevitable sequel. And people will come out in droves to see that one, too.

So they're remaking "Cujo?" Does EVERYTHING Stephen King does have to be remade a million fucking times, especially since the remakes tend to be shit?

I liked it, thought it was pretty faithful to the book. But as a child of the 80s, it didn't really look "80s" to me at all.

I just watched it, and thought it was honestly kinda stupid. I don't get the hype.

And yes, that scene creeped me out r72. The camera was doing too much lingering over the bodies of these young boys (and girl) in their underwear.

The library scene was one of the scariest scenes I've seen in a movie in a long time, but the rest of the film was incredibly forgettable except for the beautiful set design for the girl character's creepy apartment suite.

I thought the room full of old clown dolls was scary. But this movie, although obviously made on a big budget, was mediocre.

The “horror” part was lame as fuck. As usual, it belabored the point and there were endless scenes where they battle evil. The threat wasn’t even scary after a point. Don’t get me started. As usual, the bad PEOPLE were the scary part; not the supernatural garbage.

The “coming of age” part was great. Loved that part. The kids were so good.

I never really cared about any of the kids, despite their desperate attempts to get the audience to feel bad for them by giving them over the top psycho bullies and parents.

Also the girl just murders her Dad and no one cares, everything just goes on life as normal.

I found that creepy flute lady and the headless kid in the library scary, but apart from that it was really the homicidal bullies that were the only other scary part.

They will be releasing a Director's Cut soon. There was talk of having the actors who played the kids in the original 90's miniseries playing the characters as adults in the sequel.

FY- a lot of period films from the 60's to 90's will invoke the "essence" of the period without being a slave to it, because studios are afraid of it looking like a costume contest.

[bold]Jessica Chastain in Talks to Star in ‘It’ Sequel[/bold]

[quote][DL fave] Jessica Chastain is in negotiations to star in New Line’s “It” sequel as the adult version of Beverly, sources tell Variety.

[quote]Director Andy Muschietti is back to direct. Gary Dauberman will pen the script. Beverly was played by Sophia Lillis in the 2017 horror hit.

[quote]Sources stress that negotiations are early and that the script is still being worked on, but both sides have officially begun discussing her coming on to the project. Bill Skarsgard is also expected to return as Pennywise. The sequel will bow on Sept. 6, 2019, with production expected to start this summer.

[quote]Another layer to the rumors: Chastain has worked with Muschietti before, having starred in his first studio hit, “Mama.”

R167 read my mind. That scene in "It" was creepier than any of the creepy stuff, knew I was watching something pedos would be masturbating to.

[bold]James McAvoy, Bill Hader in Talks for ‘It’ Sequel[/bold]

[quote]With Jessica Chastain officially on board “It: Chapter 2,” New Line has now begun to zero in on who will play the rest of the Losers Club with James McAvoy and Bill Hader in talks to join the next installment.

[quote]Sources tell Variety that McAvoy is in talks for the role of Bill, who was played by Jaeden Lieberher in the first pic, while Hader is in talks for the role of Richie, which was played by Finn Wolfhard in the last film. As previously announced, Chastain will play Beverly.

[quote]Sources stress that negotiations are early and that the script is still being worked on, but both sides have officially begun discussing her coming on to the project. Bill Skarsgard is also expected to return as Pennywise. The sequel will bow on Sept. 6, 2019, with production expected to start this summer.

[quote]Muschietti told Variety last fall that he hoped to bring all of the original actors back for flashback sequences in the sequel but sources say that is still being worked out.

Nicholas Hamilton is gay, right?

[bold]‘It: Chapter 2’ Taps Andy Bean to Play Stanley[/bold]

[quote]Earlier on Wednesday, James Ransone announced in a since-deleted tweet that he would be playing adult Eddie in the pic.

[quote]Bean was most recently seen in the HBO series “Here and Now” and the Starz series “Power.”

Is it just me or is Bean kinda dreamy?

Ransone is cute is well.

[bold]‘It: Chapter Two’ Cast Grows: Jay Ryan To Play Adult Ben Hanscom[/bold]

[quote]Jay Ryan has been cast as the adult version of Ben Hanscom in New Line Cinema’s It: Chapter 2. The younger version of this character was played by actor Jeremy Ray Taylor in It.

Another cutie. When does this end?!

I've always been convinced that McAvoy and Chastain banged when they were doing that awful indie movie together a few years ago.

Now, perhaps, they can go for round two.

The Old Spice guy is adult Mike!

Isn't Chastain rumored to be a lesbian?

To me the scariest scene was the one in the garage with the picture slides.

The final battle was underwhelming. It felt like a ridiculous spell redux from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Facing your biggest fear and conquering it.

[bold]‘IT Chapter Two’: Xavier Dolan & Will Beinbrink Cast In New Line Sequel[/bold]

[quote]Dolan will be playing the role of Adrian Mellon. In the Stephen King novel, Mellon was a gay man living in Derry who was attacked by bullies. Beinbrink will play Tom Rogan who was Beverly’s abusive lover in the book and the 1990s miniseries.

[quote]Contrary to speculation that the film had begun production — based on an image McAvoy posted on his Instagram account — filming on IT Chapter Two is slated to begin next month. Warner Bros will release the film in theaters on September 6, 2019.

Representation!!

I'm watching it for the first time right now. SHIT.

The kid playing "Eddie" is like one of those obnoxious theater kids. Terrible.

I want to fuck the guy that played IT. Clowns have never been sexier

Last year's It took some inspiration from Stranger Things.

Which in turn took "some" inspiration from most cult classics of that time.

What are the "cult classic" 80's horror movies with gang of misfit children? This isn't like Friday the 13th.

What made the book so memorable was it's darkness and the uneasy air of perversion that haunted it. This is what can never be filmed without being an R rating so this movie failed. You either go all out with a tale like this or not at all. I expect the second installment to be similar watered down junk. You see in the book there's a real threat of sexual abuse amongst the grand gignol.

Hmm. 27 years between the TV series and the film. Coincidence?

[quote]Bill Skarsgard is also expected to return as Pennywise.

How about a Spoiler Alert?

You're surprised that the title character is still going to be in the film, r201?

r201 You don't get to write those words in that order unless you're fifteen or younger. In which case you shouldn't be on DL in the first place.

Uh, r201, whom else would be playing Pennywise? Or is it a spoiler that Pennywise is in the sequel?

And for those saying it was a "big budget" horror film, it wasn't. $20 million is considered low budget, and it was made for $35 million, which is low mid-range. A very good looking cast for the adults.

*adult versions of the characters*

It will be crap like the first film.

Jeez you guys are thick.

I just couldn't deal with John Boy in the ponytail married to Olivia Hussey. And Venus Flytrap works in the library = wrong!

I thought the 2017 movie was good; the kids were very likable and didn't seem to have those annoying kid-actor mannerism, though one of the things I liked about the book was the sense of the inner lives of the kids and how sad they were in their own way. That didn't come across well in the movie - it was more like Stand By Me + Creepy, Annoying Clown

[quote]Jeez you guys are thick.

It does seem people are losing their ability to pick up on sarcasm. Not even just here, I've seen the same thing in other places online. Hell reddit has to use the "/s" system to indicate obvious sarcasm.

R208 the fuck you smoking whore?

Pure filth, truly one of the worst films in years.

Brilliant marketing though. Remember all those "clown sightings" a few years back on sites like Huff Post and Buzzfeed? Funny how all those stopped after the release.

ending was horrible.

Why wasn't Jaeden nominated for an OSCAR® for his performance?

The ending was really bad I agree. So much CGI they may as well have just animated it.

r213 = Xavier Dolan

I still haven't watched it because I want to read the book first. Should I skip the book if I don't have time?

r215 His interest in these boys (the White thin ones only by his picture choice) is purely paternal.

r217 don't worry, Monsieur Jaeden is legal in Quebec!

Overrated. I don't think this version or the original is scary.

If I were Finn I'd be embarrassed by all the social media attention Xavier pays to him. Xavier comes off like some 12 year old fangirl.

OK- first off I NEVER knew in the book Bev FUCKS all the boys. They are ELEVEN! WTF?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!?!? Holy SHIT! A seven person ELEVEN year old gangbang? WHAT????? *faints*

Second- the scene at the quarry where they are swimming in their underwear, the camera stays on them in their underwear for a long time and the boys leer at Bev in her bra and panties was too much. *pearls clutched*

r220 He's probably used to it. All the Stranger Things kids have a frankly terrifying older fanbase.

[quote]The original was lame at the end with that big cockroach but it wasn't too bad overall .

What big cockroach? I'm phobic of those huge cockroaches, was it human size? If so, what a nightmare! I can't even look at those huge ones. I'd rather be in a room with a crocodile or a gorilla than a large roach. Just thinking about them gets me nauseous and shivery.

R223 Pretty sure it was a spider. But a giant cockroach would be equally terrifying.

Bev was sexually abused by her father and became ‘promiscuous’ as a result.

As mentioned upthread, the original story drips with what could be described as ‘pervy tension’

Damn but getting gangbanged at 11 by other six other 11 year olds is nuts. I still can't believe I just now heard about that.

Stephen King was in the depths of his long-running cocaine addiction and went totally balls to the wall with IT... which is no doubt partially responsible for why it is (rightly) considered his most unsettling and unhinged novel (and that is really saying something). It's a massive door-stopper (1000+ pages) but every page drips with evil. Truly a masterful achievement and an unforgettable central concept that strikes fear into people like few (if any) other subjects (a killer clown, but also sexual abuse in a small town). It also will be very interesting to see how they tackle the gay character in the second part (to be played by Xavier Dolan, no less).

I read IT when I was 11-going-on-12, right before realizing I was gay, and remember finding the Adrian Mellon character quite offputting. In fact, I remember thinking "good thing [italic]I'm[/italic] not gay" while reading the first chapter of the book. (Funnily enough, just a few months later I was quite content with being gay, and ordering "Christopher and His Kind" at the bookshop.) Is he as much of a stereotype/caricature as I remember, or was that my own homophobic projection?

Finn is a famewhore.

It's still a mystery to me how Stephen King survived the drug fuled writing process of his novels like IT. Imagine you write horror novels for a livng and in your drug induced visions they, and even more scarier shit, come to life. There is no way I wouldn't kill myself at one point while being on one of these drug induced trips or scaring myself to death. I guess the sordid sex stuff was a way to get away from the scary stuff.

I think it's more that he's hyperactive, r229.

I saw this last night, the film gave me vertigo. I wasn't scared at all.

Sometimes all the CGI can actually ruin a film. Many years ago, I saw the Tim Curry TV version, I barely remember it, but I do remember Tim was great in it. His natural deep voice is amazing, very sinister. Bill Skarsgard's voice seems as if it was processed. I have no idea what Bill's natural voice sounds like, I've never seen him act before. I'm more familiar with his father and brother Alexander's acting.

This film it sure wasn't scary. I laughed through most of it.

Nic Hamilton's twitter has (basically) confirmed he's gay at this point.

That cute ginger girl is morphing into hardfaced, masculine Jessica Chastain?

Um, no.

Did boys that age really say FUCK that much? Watching it now on HBO. Are they not going to show them as adults like the tv movie?

Are they making a second movie where the kids are now adults? WTF?!

Ritchie ruined it

Haha! The young Bev actress does play the young Amy Adams character, Camille, on Sharper Objects.

aha r238 that's where I knew her from

Since Mike Hanlon was so totally invisible in the film, and all his storyline was given to Ben, and since they used the end of the book for the end of part 1, will be interesting to see how they rewrite those parts, I mean if Mike isn't the historian and the witness, what purpose does he serve the story?

[quote]Haha! The young Bev actress does play the young Amy Adams character, Camille, on Sharper Objects.

Lulu Wilson was also in "Annabelle: Creation" was also in "Ouija: Origin of Evil ". I also thought she was in the film about the haunting of a British family, forgot the name of that film.

[quote]Twink hotness.

WTFH? Creepy old fucks

R241 The Conjuring 2.

Lulu Wilson did not play young Bev, that was Sophia Lillis. She also was not in Conjuring 2, that was Madison Wolfe.

I just watched it -- til I fell asleep after the umpteenth hallucinatory clown with teeth scene.

The very opening scene was majorly tard. What kid would engage that scary white-eyed, black faced clown in the sewer? Tim Curry's clown looked and sounded like a regular person dressed as a clown and had colorful balloons. Also, the original was set in the 60s or 70s when little kids were more trusting and clowns were on TV shows and TV ads and were happy go lucky. The clown in this looked and sounded like a homicidal maniac. Any kid seeing that in a sewer would run home screaming.

IT 2 trailer is now out. Thoughts? It's practically the whole scenes of Bev meeting Mrs Kersch in her old house.

Who cares? It's all make-believe.

It?

Is this another trans film?

R246 i'm looking forward to it.

In the book Beverly slowly realises that Mrs Kersch is changing into the thing. In the new trailer she's sneaking around behind Beverly's back, signalling to the audience that a jump scare is coming ...and it does. So lame. Just think what William Friedkin could have done with this material.

Also in the book her old house turns into the candy house from Hansel and Gretel. And she's drinking shit. Yuk

Loved it. The kids were terrific. Natural actors.

IT Chapter 2 (2019) - Official Teaser Trailer | Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy, Bill Hader

IT: CHAPTER 2 Writer Teases Sequel Will Be Bloodier and Scarier Than the First

r253 This seems to be the official thread for Chapter 2.

R255 Thanks.