I liked Baby Driver a LOT more than I thought I would. Very stylish. There's this scene where he walks (after a heist) to get coffee for the team and it's all set to music that is punctuated by things happening along his walk. Very, very stylish and cool. I have some minor nitpicks, but they are really nothing much.
There's this scene where he walks (after a heist) to get coffee for the team and it's all set to music that is punctuated by things happening along his walk. Very, very stylish and cool.
I would say that's a signature of Edgar Wright's films. He does have a great sense of style, and a great ear for music to match, even when it's unexpected. Still one of my favorite scenes:
I liked Baby Driver a LOT more than I thought I would. Very stylish. There's this scene where he walks (after a heist) to get coffee for the team and it's all set to music that is punctuated by things happening along his walk. Very, very stylish and cool. I have some minor nitpicks, but they are really nothing much.
I think it's shortly after they threaten Debora and he goes to grab the coffee again, he's a few seconds off sync and keeps stumbling into things, at one point, shortly after bumping into someone the song says "go left" Baby would have been on time and would have side stepped the guy based off the song.
Is it wrong that I liked everything but most of the tropey horror stuff? Also, it's hard to take the horror stuff seriously when Bev's home issues are a billion times scarier. Oh, and the final thing that brings everyone together is terrible. Trash.
The damselling of Bev was fucking shitty, especially happening right after her dealing with her father. Really boring tropey shit.
That aside, I liked it. Was just hoping it would be above shit like Annabelle when it comes to it's horror elements. But mainstream horror gonna mainstream horror.
Is it wrong that I liked everything but most of the tropey horror stuff? Also, it's hard to take the horror stuff seriously when Bev's home issues are a billion times scarier. Oh, and the final thing that brings everyone together is terrible. Trash.
The damselling of Bev was fucking shitty, especially happening right after her dealing with her father. Really boring tropey shit.
That aside, I liked it. Was just hoping it would be above shit like Annabelle when it comes to it's horror elements. But mainstream horror gonna mainstream horror.
I wouldn't say wrong at all. Particularly because the behavior of the adults of Derry is affected heavily by the influence of It. So I'd still count it. I do 100% agree with the handling of that with Bev in in that scene. Such a poor choice. I assume it's to mirror it to
Audra
in the second chapter but it's unnecessary and trite.
I honestly think this story is better on its own and really doesn't need a sequel, especially since my brother and the usher point out to me Stephen King can't HELP but bog down his stories with explanations.
I honestly think this story is better on its own and really doesn't need a sequel, especially since my brother and the usher point out to me Stephen King can't HELP but bog down his stories with explanations.
It's a sequel in the sense that it's a second movie, but it's really just one story split into two parts for length. On the other hand, the kid part has always been stronger than the adult part.
It's a sequel in the sense that it's a second movie, but it's really just one story split into two parts for length. On the other hand, the kid part has always been stronger than the adult part.
Which is why the adult part of the book is mostly them remembering the kid part. Splitting it up is a necessity of adaptation, but it also means destroying the parallel narrative the book is founded on.
Which means that to do the adult side and not make it boring as hell, they're going to need to branch away from the 1990 mini-series, and further depart from the book. Instead of treating the sequel like part of a single story, they're going to have to treat it like a sequel, with a beginning, middle, and end of its own, rather than as if it keeps going from where the first left off. It needs to have its own story, as if we are just coming to these characters all these years later, with the phone calls interrupting their otherwise busy lives to call them back to Derry. Not as an extension of the past, but as its own thing.
We'll see what happens. It's going to be a little while before they get it going.[DOUBLEPOST=1505518296,1505517857][/DOUBLEPOST]
I wouldn't say wrong at all. Particularly because the behavior of the adults of Derry is affected heavily by the influence of It. So I'd still count it. I do 100% agree with the handling of that with Bev in in that scene. Such a poor choice. I assume it's to mirror it to
Audra
in the second chapter but it's unnecessary and trite.
Considering the original idea for these new movies was to focus on Bev as the protagonist, I expect we're going to see more of Bev's husband than of Bill's wife.
Considering the original idea for these new movies was to focus on Bev as the protagonist, I expect we're going to see more of Bev's husband than of Bill's wife.
Ugh, god, I hope not. I love Bev, but one of the crappiest things the book did (second to the orgy), was focusing her adult introduction through Tom's eyes rather than the introspection every other Loser* got. In fact, a lot of Bev's adult story focuses on Tom, which sucks, because Bev as a kid was one of the most fleshed-out Losers. It kinda sucks even more that during the adult half
when they face It again, all she gets to do is hold a dying Eddie. Such a let-down since she has such an important role when they were kids.
In any case, if they're going to give us more Bev, PLEASE focus on Bev and not just how all the men around her feel about her.
*Okay, Stan's is mostly through his wife's eyes, but given how it ends, there's a reason for it.
Ugh, god, I hope not. I love Bev, but one of the crappiest things the book did (second to the orgy), was focusing her adult introduction through Tom's eyes rather than the introspection ever other Loser* got. In fact, a lot of Bev's adult story focuses on Tom, which sucks, because Bev as a kid was one of the most fleshed-out Losers. It kinda suck even more that during the adult half
when they face It again, all she gets to do is hold a dying Eddie. Such a let-down since she has such an important role when they were kids.
In any case, if they're going to give us more Bev, PLEASE focus on Bev and not just how all the men around her feel about her.
*Okay, Stan's is mostly through his wife's eyes, but given how it ends, there's a reason for it.
I'm still re-reading the book, and I totally forgot about the drama over the smoke hole and the matches. It was from Richie's point of view, but it was an amazing Bev scene.
It is a shame how her role as an adult is played down, but all the more reason the adult side of the movies should have its own story.
I knew before I started watching that this movie had gotten some rather mixed reviews, and now that I've seen it I suppose I understand why. It's really crass and dumb, going for the lowest of lowest common denominators. The religious metaphor was also rather heavy handed. On the other hand, though, there were some very funny moments, some rather interesting ideas, and I even found some of the food porn to be rather sexy. In the end, I suppose I have to say I did like this film well enough. There are enough bad aspects to ensure that it's not a good movie, but there are also enough good parts to make it not a bad one.
I'm surprised you haven't seen it yet, considering.
It's one of my favorite movies, though mostly because of the story, characters, the acting, and my own headcanon. The armadillo is cute, but he's not a prybar Altivo.
I got to see It tonight at the last minute. I'm still digesting how I feel about it.
Here be praise, nitpicks, and comparisons:
I'm going to say this right off the bat: I didn't get scared once during the movie. I can't really blame this on the movie because 1)I'm extremely familiar with the source material, and b)a lifetime of watching scary movies has almost desensitized me to jump-scares. I will say that even though I knew it was coming, the Pennywise/Georgie scene was very hard to watch (probably because I saw so much of Li'l Z in Georgie), but I was really impressed by the garage scene. I don't think moving the kids parts from the late 50's into the 80's took away anything important. I thought that the town they picked (or designed?) made a great Derry. Even the Barrens was pretty good, and I wish they had spent more time there. I feel like the child actors they got were pretty strong in their roles. Over-all, I feel like I would have enjoyed this movie more if I were less familiar with the source material.
Having said that, I wish I went into the movie thinking it was "based on the novel" rather than a straight adaptation. There are things they changed to obviously not bog down the pace of the movie or its sequel, but there are certain things they left out that I feel really take away from the uniqueness and appeal of It. For one thing, I really wished they had given a little more time to the Losers and they're individual relationships with their parents. They briefly touched on it with Bill and Eddie, but so much of what brought the Losers together in the book to form such a tight bond was that the adults in their lives were so unreliable. Even though Richie and Mike had good relationships with their parents, the strain of not being able to share their fears with them was a part of the Losers' glue. Even Mr. Marsh was pretty tame compared to the books, though those parts were hard to read, but they skipped so much of it and went straight on to the possible sexual abuse, but more on that in a moment. There was a lack of development for Henry Bowers, which left my friend, who has never read the book, wondering was his deal was, outside of being a bully. Cutting out so much of Henry's interactions with the Losers (like why he was pissed at Ben), made him seem like a sociopath for no reason and his actions extreme with almost no motivation. He never came off as a true threat to the Losers, just an occasional inconvenience. It didn't help that Victor Criss and Belch Huggins looked like Draco Malfoy and Goyle. And even though Patrick Hocksetter looked exactly opposite of how he was described in the book, I'm kinda glad they changed his story. His whole chapter is always one of the hardest for me to stomach. As far as the changes to the Losers, while I'm glad Stan's Judaism was more than a punchline for Richie, I wish they hadn't given his personality away to Eddie. Eddie was always supposed to surprise with his confidence and courage being so opposite of his sickly appearance. Giving him Stan's nebbishness left Eddie with no contrast and Stan with nothing to do. Mike was pretty much the same, although they gave him even less to do, who knew that was possible? Richie came off as more "hurtful asshole" instead of "socially awkward", and I really missed Seth Green's performance, who could make Richie annoying but still warm and faithful. It seemed like they really wanted to dial up the conflict within the group, but in the book, there was so much conflict around them that the bond they formed was almost unbreakable. Bill was close to the same, but he barely stuttered. They left in Ben's love of books and reading, but forgot all about his creativity or ability to build things. Which brings me to Beverly.
Honestly, I don't think there's a perfect depiction of Bev, but so much of this movie got important parts wrong. I think the actress they hired was very good, but she always looked and seemed so much older than everyone, she seemed like their babysitter instead of their peer (especially whenever she was next to Ben, who looked several years younger). It was like seeing Andy along with the Goonies, but without Bran or Stef around, she seems out-of-place. And oh my god, did they have to take out all of Bev's characteristics to make everything about her sex? What the hell was going on with starting her off as "having a reputation"? Are they not supposed to be 12 anymore? In the book, she was ostracized for being the daughter of a janitor, poor and from the wrong side of town. At age 12, that's all you really need to be bully fodder. Even the abuse her father put her through just skipped over all the control issues and went straight to the creepy, boardering on sexual abuse that didn't even come into play (at least pronounced) in the book until Mr. Marsh found out she was hanging out with the other Losers. What was with that stupid underwear swimming scene? The boys were supposed to notice her through her bravado and self-consciousness of her body, not lying her out in a ham-fisted way. And the damseling at the end was just plain stupid. But it wasn't just Bev that got the short straw in that final battle (though she may have gotten the worst of it). I miss them using their faith and imaginations as weapons against Pennywise, although if their avoiding the mythology of the book, I can kinda see why.
But you can't talk about It without talking about Pennywise. On one hand, I applaud Bill Skarsgard for creating his own unique take on Pennywise. It was very different from Tim Curry's, almost to the point of seeming like an entirely different character, even when he spoke some of the same lines. But after watching Bill tonight, I realized something about Tim Curry's performance and why it's still so iconic: it's not just that Curry's was first. When you watch the tv series like I did a few months ago, and it's such a 1990 production, hamstrung by broadcast tv violence standards, low budget, uneven acting, cheesy special effects and poor direction, it sets the bar low. But so much of what Tim's Pennywise had to do was built on atmosphere. Pennywise would come off as friendly and almost comical, but you knew he was going to turn on you, you just didn't know when. Tim's Pennywise, and the novel's, seem to delight in the psychological torture; twisting the knife to get the maximum reaction out of his victims. Bill's Pennywise never gets that chance to breathe. He's always got the scare-factor dialed up to 11, but it doesn't leave him anywhere to go with it. The final battle felt a little under-whelming because of it.
Anyway, that's my two cents. I'm glad I saw It, although I could have waited to watch it at home. I'm curious what they do with Chapter 2.
I got to see It tonight at the last minute. I'm still digesting how I feel about it.
Here be praise, nitpicks, and comparisons:
I'm going to say this right off the bat: I didn't get scared once during the movie. I can't really blame this on the movie because 1)I'm extremely familiar with the source material, and b)a lifetime of watching scary movies has almost desensitized me to jump-scares. I will say that even though I knew it was coming, the Pennywise/Georgie scene was very hard to watch (probably because I saw so much of Li'l Z in Georgie), but I was really impressed by the garage scene. I don't think moving the kids parts from the late 50's into the 80's took away anything important. I thought that the town they picked (or designed?) made a great Derry. Even the Barrens was pretty good, and I wish they had spent more time there. I feel like the child actors they got were pretty strong in their roles. Over-all, I feel like I would have enjoyed this movie more if I were less familiar with the source material.
Having said that, I wish I went into the movie thinking it was "based on the novel" rather than a straight adaptation. There are things they changed to obviously not bog down the pace of the movie or its sequel, but there are certain things they left out that I feel really take away from the uniqueness and appeal of It. For one thing, I really wished they had given a little more time to the Losers and they're individual relationships with their parents. They briefly touched on it with Bill and Eddie, but so much of what brought the Losers together in the book to form such a tight bond was that the adults in their lives were so unreliable. Even though Richie and Mike had good relationships with their parents, the strain of not being able to share their fears with them was a part of the Losers' glue. Even Mr. Marsh was pretty tame compared to the books, though those parts were hard to read, but they skipped so much of it and went straight on to the possible sexual abuse, but more on that in a moment. There was a lack of development for Henry Bowers, which left my friend, who has never read the book, wondering was his deal was, outside of being a bully. Cutting out so much of Henry's interactions with the Losers (like why he was pissed at Ben), made him seem like a sociopath for no reason and his actions extreme with almost no motivation. He never came off as a true threat to the Losers, just an occasional inconvenience. It didn't help that Victor Criss and Belch Huggins looked like Draco Malfoy and Goyle. And even though Patrick Hocksetter looked exactly opposite of how he was described in the book, I'm kinda glad they changed his story. His whole chapter is always one of the hardest for me to stomach. As far as the changes to the Losers, while I'm glad Stan's Judaism was more than a punchline for Richie, I wish they hadn't given his personality away to Eddie. Eddie was always supposed to surprise with his confidence and courage being so opposite of his sickly appearance. Giving him Stan's nebbishness left Eddie with no contrast and Stan with nothing to do. Mike was pretty much the same, although they gave him even less to do, who knew that was possible? Richie came off as more "hurtful asshole" instead of "socially awkward", and I really missed Seth Green's performance, who could make Richie annoying but still warm and faithful. It seemed like they really wanted to dial up the conflict within the group, but in the book, there was so much conflict around them that the bond they formed was almost unbreakable. Bill was close to the same, but he barely stuttered. They left in Ben's love of books and reading, but forgot all about his creativity or ability to build things. Which brings me to Beverly.
Honestly, I don't think there's a perfect depiction of Bev, but so much of this movie got important parts wrong. I think the actress they hired was very good, but she always looked and seemed so much older than everyone, she seemed like their babysitter instead of their peer (especially whenever she was next to Ben, who looked several years younger). It was like seeing Andy along with the Goonies, but without Bran or Stef around, she seems out-of-place. And oh my god, did they have to take out all of Bev's characteristics to make everything about her sex? What the hell was going on with starting her off as "having a reputation"? Are they not supposed to be 12 anymore? In the book, she was ostracized for being the daughter of a janitor, poor and from the wrong side of town. At age 12, that's all you really need to be bully fodder. Even the abuse her father put her through just skipped over all the control issues and went straight to the creepy, boardering on sexual abuse that didn't even come into play (at least pronounced) in the book until Mr. Marsh found out she was hanging out with the other Losers. What was with that stupid underwear swimming scene? The boys were supposed to notice her through her bravado and self-consciousness of her body, not lying her out in a ham-fisted way. And the damseling at the end was just plain stupid. But it wasn't just Bev that got the short straw in that final battle (though she may have gotten the worst of it). I miss them using their faith and imaginations as weapons against Pennywise, although if their avoiding the mythology of the book, I can kinda see why.
But you can't talk about It without talking about Pennywise. On one hand, I applaud Bill Skarsgard for creating his own unique take on Pennywise. It was very different from Tim Curry's, almost to the point of seeming like an entirely different character, even when he spoke some of the same lines. But after watching Bill tonight, I realized something about Tim Curry's performance and why it's still so iconic: it's not just that Curry's was first. When you watch the tv series like I did a few months ago, and it's such a 1990 production, hamstrung by broadcast tv violence standards, low budget, uneven acting, cheesy special effects and poor direction, it sets the bar low. But so much of what Tim's Pennywise had to do was built on atmosphere. Pennywise would come off as friendly and almost comical, but you knew he was going to turn on you, you just didn't know when. Tim's Pennywise, and the novel's, seem to delight in the psychological torture; twisting the knife to get the maximum reaction out of his victims. Bill's Pennywise never gets that chance to breathe. He's always got the scare-factor dialed up to 11, but it doesn't leave him anywhere to go with it. The final battle felt a little under-whelming because of it.
Anyway, that's my two cents. I'm glad I saw It, although I could have waited to watch it at home. I'm curious what they do with Chapter 2.
I feel like you had the book at the front of your thoughts through the movie, and while it would have been nice to include more, the movie was already 2 hours and 15 minutes long.
For me, the last thing I wanted was another try like the miniseries, where they tried to copy-paste as many rushed scenes from the book as they could. This really needed to be its own thing as much as possible, and I feel they succeeded for the most part.
There are movie rules and book rules, and while it was nice they included Patrick Hocksetter, the whole point of him in the book is lost, probably because the mythos won't be part of this.
One change I liked was that Pennywise took George completely. Before, his body sans arm was left behind, but his being missing gave the film a lot more ammo for Bill's pain and for Pennywise to fuck with him.
Another change I really liked was that Pennywise couldn't kill them unless they were afraid. The book has a lot of fuzzy rules about belief that works fine in a book, but a movie needs firmer rules. Making it not so Pennywise couldn't just not feed, but also not kill, was a good narrative tool.
One thing that gives me hope for the adult version is that they already used some of the few scenes that happen in the adult side--Henry Bowers is dead and Bev being taken was like Audrey being taken. So they're really going to have to come up with a new story for the adults. Good.
While I'd like to grope that Stan is the one to cut everyone's hands with the Coke bottle shard because he was the orderly one who valued seeing things completely, since they pretty much wiped out his personality in this, it made sense to just go with Bill.
Aging up the kids was an interesting choice. I like that they showed Bev was also bullied, though I have a hard time seeing this version of her end up with Tom Rogan, so hopefully that wont even be a thing.
Overall I felt the connection between characters even if some of their individual stories were truncated or ignored. I would've liked Mike to join up earlier if they were going to give his historian element to Ben. But the scenes were handled well and I never felt like the movie was in a hurry.
It was not scary, but I didn't expect it to be. Im just glad there were fewer jump scares than I'd been led to believe.
Also watched Krampus, and I have no idea why that movie got so much praise. It felt like a lot of narrative misteps hobbled what could've been an interesting movie, and while I did enjoy bits and pieces of it, as a whole it was kinda mediocre.
The Lloyd Garmadon movi-I MEAN-Lego Ninjago movie.
This wasn't a bad film mind you, but its CLEARLY the weakest of the three Lego films, and the fact that Lloyd's family hogged all the character arcs is a part of that. It also has QUITE a few injokes, even more than Lego Batman.
I feel like you had the book at the front of your thoughts through the movie, and while it would have been nice to include more, the movie was already 2 hours and 15 minutes long.
For me, the last thing I wanted was another try like the miniseries, where they tried to copy-paste as many rushed scenes from the book as they could. This really needed to be its own thing as much as possible, and I feel they succeeded for the most part.
There are movie rules and book rules, and while it was nice they included Patrick Hocksetter, the whole point of him in the book is lost, probably because the mythos won't be part of this.
One change I liked was that Pennywise took George completely. Before, his body sans arm was left behind, but his being missing gave the film a lot more ammo for Bill's pain and for Pennywise to fuck with him.
Another change I really liked was that Pennywise couldn't kill them unless they were afraid. The book has a lot of fuzzy rules about belief that works fine in a book, but a movie needs firmer rules. Making it not so Pennywise couldn't just not feed, but also not kill, was a good narrative tool.
One thing that gives me hope for the adult version is that they already used some of the few scenes that happen in the adult side--Henry Bowers is dead and Bev being taken was like Audrey being taken. So they're really going to have to come up with a new story for the adults. Good.
While I'd like to grope that Stan is the one to cut everyone's hands with the Coke bottle shard because he was the orderly one who valued seeing things completely, since they pretty much wiped out his personality in this, it made sense to just go with Bill.
Aging up the kids was an interesting choice. I like that they showed Bev was also bullied, though I have a hard time seeing this version of her end up with Tom Rogan, so hopefully that wont even be a thing.
Overall I felt the connection between characters even if some of their individual stories were truncated or ignored. I would've liked Mike to join up earlier if they were going to give his historian element to Ben. But the scenes were handled well and I never felt like the movie was in a hurry.
It was not scary, but I didn't expect it to be. Im just glad there were fewer jump scares than I'd been led to believe.
Also watched Krampus, and I have no idea why that movie got so much praise. It felt like a lot of narrative misteps hobbled what could've been an interesting movie, and while I did enjoy bits and pieces of it, as a whole it was kinda mediocre.
I wanted to respond to this sooner, but I've been stupid-busy this week. I think, over-all, this showed It could be a good movie, and streets ahead of the original mini-series, but a GREAT adaptation would probably be a mini-series in the style of HBO, or maybe Netflix or Hulu. I'm still glad they removed some of the clunkier parts of the book (the orgy, the Ritual of Chud*, the Lovecraftian elements), but they took out so much of the characterization that makes the story so appealing. I really wanted Mike and Stan to have personalities instead of fading into the background. I'm disappointed Ben was whittled down to a shadow of himself, and Bev became "the girl" rather than a full-fledged Loser like the rest. But I really miss them bonding over the outside forces that were just as threatening to them as It. In the book, Henry was a psychotic and serious threat to the kids, maybe even as much as It, and the movie didn't have the time to build that up . I miss how they formed a family because their own were, more or less, poisoned by a combination of It's influence and Derry's indifference. It made the adult half so much more compelling, which is something I'm really iffy about at this point.
But I really wish It could be adapted in a way to really show how twisted and ferocious Pennywise could truly be. The miniseries couldn't do it, being network tv, and the movie didn't have that kind of time to devote to it. To say he's a scary clown isn't enough. I'd really like to see it in a way that builds atmosphere around his scenes, building on the deepest fears of his victims and crawling back into the sewers. This is one King book where I think the devils in the details need to be explored, even if other parts get trimmed.
(*What does it say about this stupid ritual that after reading the book 4 times, I always forget about it until someone else mentions it? It's like, "Oh yeah, the tongue thing... I don't get it.")
