What's new
By:

What's The Last Movie You’ve Seen?

fishonjazz said:
Ya it kinda was. Turns out I like hamburger ice cream.

Different strokes for different folks though ya know. I got no problem with one love not liking it or his reasons for not liking it. It worked wonderfully for myself but not for one love, and that's ok.
Click to expand...

Thanks man, really appreciate it. The very first scene with Georgie for me was VERY scary, the rest wasn't as scary. I've probably seen too many REALLY scary movies and I love them intensely scary.


I loved the jokes too as I had said, would probably end up watching it again just for the jokes alone.


What was the atmosphere like with the audience when you watched? Were they as into it as the ones I was with, i.e., breaking out into applauses, etc?
 
I saw "It" also.... and I thought it was great (pun intended). I didn't have really any expectations going into it other than the 2 reviews that I read but I must say, it was well done.

Child actors are usually really hit or miss. Either their acting is so bad it's unwatchable or they're actually good at it. I felt, for the most part, it was well done by the kids. I guess there was some scary bits in it but I didn't feel it was that scary personally. There really wasn't any gore unless
you consider blood shooting out of a sink (which really did not look gorey or gross at all IMO)
.

I don't consider this as scary or even intense as the conjuring. I'd still highly recommend it. If it wasn't for the swearing (mutiple F-words) or crude jokes, it'd easily be PG-13.
 
Shad said:
I saw "It" also.... and I thought it was great (pun intended). I didn't have really any expectations going into it other than the 2 reviews that I read but I must say, it was well done.

Child actors are usually really hit or miss. Either their acting is so bad it's unwatchable or they're actually good at it. I felt, for the most part, it was well done by the kids. I guess there was some scary bits in it but I didn't feel it was that scary personally. There really wasn't any gore unless
you consider blood shooting out of a sink (which really did not look gorey or gross at all IMO)
.

I don't consider this as scary or even intense as the conjuring. I'd still highly recommend it. If it wasn't for the swearing (mutiple F-words) or crude jokes, it'd easily be PG-13.
Click to expand...

Yeah didn't think it was all that scary neither, ... still scratching my head why it was rated R16 too.


I'm guessing it's the scene between Beverley and 'you know who' (starts with f, rhymes with 'other'), that pushed it to R16 status?
 
https://www.ksl.com/?nid=1070&sid=4...way-with-record-breaking-1172-million-weekend

The Stephen King adaptation from New Line and Warner Bros. shattered records over the weekend earning $117.2 million
Not only is "It" now the largest ever opening for a horror movie and the largest September opening of all time, the film more than doubled the earnings of the previous record holders. Before this weekend "Paranormal Activity 3" had the biggest horror opening with $52.6 million from 2011, and the highest September debut was "Hotel Transylvania 2's" $48.5 million in 2015.

It cost only 35 million to produce.

Critics and audiences were on the same page, too. The film has a fresh 86-percent Rotten Tomatoes score, and audiences, who were 65 percent over age 25, gave "It" a B+ CinemaScore.

Starring Bill Skarsgard as the homicidal clown Pennywise, "It" is the first of a planned two-part series. The second is slated to come out in the third quarter of 2019.
 
fishonjazz said:
https://www.ksl.com/?nid=1070&sid=4...way-with-record-breaking-1172-million-weekend

The Stephen King adaptation from New Line and Warner Bros. shattered records over the weekend earning $117.2 million
Not only is "It" now the largest ever opening for a horror movie and the largest September opening of all time, the film more than doubled the earnings of the previous record holders. Before this weekend "Paranormal Activity 3" had the biggest horror opening with $52.6 million from 2011, and the highest September debut was "Hotel Transylvania 2's" $48.5 million in 2015.

It cost only 35 million to produce.

Critics and audiences were on the same page, too. The film has a fresh 86-percent Rotten Tomatoes score, and audiences, who were 65 percent over age 25, gave "It" a B+ CinemaScore.

Starring Bill Skarsgard as the homicidal clown Pennywise, "It" is the first of a planned two-part series. The second is slated to come out in the third quarter of 2019.
Click to expand...

There is hope for humanity now that Paranormal Activity 3 has been overthrown for having a record.
 
ONE LOVE said:
Yeah didn't think it was all that scary neither, ... still scratching my head why it was rated R16 too.


I'm guessing it's the scene between Beverley and 'you know who' (starts with f, rhymes with 'other'), that pushed it to R16 status?
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah. I guess the part with the father too. Didn't show anything really but implied.
 
As long as they ditched the giant spider it has a chance. I thought that was lame in the book and in the mini-series it really tanked the project. King makes some great engrossing stories but generally sucks at endings.

Also will they ever portray the "bonding moment" those boys had with that girl from the book? Tough to pass off group sex among pre-teens in a movie I guess.
 
Shad said:
Oh, yeah. I guess the part with the father too. Didn't show anything really but implied.
Click to expand...

And 10 minutes in when the little boy gets his arm bit off. And when MulletDork is carving his name into fatty's stomach...and a couple other scenes. This definitely warranted an R rating. I didn't however find it scary and thought the movie as a whole was solid and nothing more.

Pennywise felt, I don't know, shallow, a little forced, and just not all that scary. The boys didn't have roles/characters that were very distinguishable in any way. The script attempted to provide us with backstory on them but most of it was just a thin glazing and superficial. And I think it perhaps suffered from having too many kids. In a 1,000 page novel, where an author can develop the characters, it works. Hell, it even works in Goonies because each character and actor is distinct. Their look, their voice, their character. In this though, yeah, not so much. The black kid felt like a throw in (I'm sorry, he did--I think a better actor wouldn't have made me feel this way--he was pretty flat as an actor and I didn't care about him) and the one dork who went off on Bill after exiting the house barely spoke and when he did, sucked as an actor, especially in this scene. Essentially, he felt completely unnecessary. Bill was very good. The girl was great. The pillpopper was pretty darn good (I lol'ed at him when they wanted to re-set his fracture) and so was the fat kid. But there were a couple other kids too and it felt watered down for me. I think the movie would have benefitted from another 10-12 minutes of character development. All this said though, I think the real problem is the subject of the movie itself. Fear. To me, the movie did not truly capture this element in any tremendous way, like great movies do. Like I imagine the novel likely did. That's not easy to pull off in film but a great director could do it. I'm curious if Fukunaga was offered to direct since he co-wrote the screenplay. I would've loved to see what he could've done with it. But the film I watched was just quite solid and nothing more. I'd give it somewhere between a 7.3-7.9.
 
Last edited:
nocturnal-featured-750x380.jpg


the first 1/3 of the novel portion of the movie is sooooo good. i was on the edge of my seat. funny thing was on my first viewing i thought the novel part of it was real through most of it maybe because the real life characters felt fake and why i thought it was the weaker part of the movie. i had to watch it again because it stuck with me and i enjoyed the real life story of it a little more although some of it still felt a little flat. the novel part sticks out because the performances here are so good. michael shannon felt born to play this role, all he has to do is give a don't f with me glare and he commands the scene with his presence. Aaron Taylor-Johnson who I thought at first would be over matched actually does a fantastic job here. gyllenhall and adams are excellent. the novel and real life scenes are tied in pretty well and i'm glad i watched it, i enjoyed it a lot.

nothing could have prepared me for the opening credit scene, i kind of wish i had a warning, i'll just leave it as some things you can't unsee i can't blame you for fast forwarding through it. you've been warned lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top