It
- Thread starter Interslicery
- Start date
- AKA
- X
I loved how that scene conveyed the sense that Pennywise is injured and stretched thin, and he's trying to get some strength back by preying on their fears largely with that really unnatural pause in the conversation, and the gradual transition in conversation's subject matter.
X
X
I loved how that scene conveyed the sense that Pennywise is injured and stretched thin, and he's trying to get some strength back by preying on their fears largely with that really unnatural pause in the conversation, and the gradual transition in conversation's subject matter.
X
I'm not sure I follow what you mean by him being stretched thin. Explain?
- AKA
- X
Pennywise essentially has an effect over all of Derry, but it feels like it's something that's difficult for him now compared to before. The pause feels like it's a moment of his focus on the conversation there shifting for a moment but almost unintentionally. To put it like Bilbo – like butter scraped over too much bread.
X
X
Pennywise essentially has an effect over all of Derry, but it feels like it's something that's difficult for him now compared to before. The pause feels like it's a moment of his focus on the conversation there shifting for a moment but almost unintentionally. To put it like Bilbo – like butter scraped over too much bread.
X
Eh, this seems like something that the director just liked doing with Pennywise. It happens at least two times in the first movie. My impression is that all of IT's forms are like puppets, rather than direct forced physical manifestations. So every time IT takes a form, it has to make adjustments, and doesn't entirely know how to act. Like IT has to reboot, and occasionally just doesn't know how to function in a humanoid form because well, IT is about the furthest thing from human that you can get.
Clement Rage
Pro Adventurer
That's how he was in the book, anyway. He'd have a pretty good disguise but forget some detail like balloons are supposed to move with the wind.
I like the additional stakes here. Part two's events in the book had the characters very much isolated and it seemed like Pennywise took a break from eating children to focus entirely on hunting the Lucky 7.
That grin reminds me vividly of Killer Klowns from Outer Space. Homage maybe?
"You lied, and I died!" has a number of intriguing meanings.
That grin reminds me vividly of Killer Klowns from Outer Space. Homage maybe?
"You lied, and I died!" has a number of intriguing meanings.
Lulcielid
Eyes of the Lord
- AKA
- Lulcy
Old news but not posted: According to director the movie will be 2 hours and 45 minutes long.
I'm still freaking out about that. Nobody makes three hour horror movies anymore. The only horror movie I can think of at that time is The Shining, which surpasses it at by one minute in the premier cut.
- AKA
- X
I'm really glad that it's gonna be long, because I feel like there's plenty of room to explore and REALLY let the atmosphere sink in. Especially with the way that the featurette framed things, while it is a horror movie, it's also a deeply human coming-of-age story as well. While two hours and 45 mins SOUNDS like a really long time, it's really not that long when you break it down and compare it to other films that really give you a long time to get immersed in the environment they created. IT Chapter Two is 165 minutes, and compared to the Lord of the Rings films:
X
- The Fellowship of the Ring: 178 minutes theatrical, 208 minutes extended (228 with additional credits)
- The Two Towers: 179 minutes theatrical, 223 minutes extended (235 with additional credits)
- The Return of the King: 200 minutes theatrical, 251 minutes (263 with additional credits)
X
- AKA
- X
A supercut of both films is a possibility: https://www.gamesradar.com/it-chapter-2-directors-cut-interview-sfx/
X
X
Lulcielid
Eyes of the Lord
- AKA
- Lulcy
Non spoiler thoughts: Fantastic! 8.75 vs the 8 I gave the first part!
And now spoiler thoughts
And now spoiler thoughts
Pros:
1. Crazier energy: The first part felt like it dragged just a bit. This is far more energetic. It didn't feel like the near three hours it actually is. It's also a LOT funnier than I expected, even more so than the first movie. Bill Hader hits it out of the fucking part.
2. It fixes a TON of problems with the second half the book, and actually restructures the Ritual of Chud in a way that outsider-audiences will be able to digest, but still feels like it nods to the original intentions.
3. Amazing King cameo.
4. Some actual REALLY violent scenes compared to last time. TWO kids die, and both in really highly tense scenes.
Cons
1. Jessica Chastain being Jessica Chastain .
2. While I appreciate the bigger budget and that it has it's own art style, the CGI still feels a little hit/and miss.
3. Not entirely sure how I feel about the final climax's resolution. It feels more satisfying than the mini-series, but its very...odd.
1. Crazier energy: The first part felt like it dragged just a bit. This is far more energetic. It didn't feel like the near three hours it actually is. It's also a LOT funnier than I expected, even more so than the first movie. Bill Hader hits it out of the fucking part.
2. It fixes a TON of problems with the second half the book, and actually restructures the Ritual of Chud in a way that outsider-audiences will be able to digest, but still feels like it nods to the original intentions.
3. Amazing King cameo.
4. Some actual REALLY violent scenes compared to last time. TWO kids die, and both in really highly tense scenes.
Cons
1. Jessica Chastain being Jessica Chastain .
2. While I appreciate the bigger budget and that it has it's own art style, the CGI still feels a little hit/and miss.
3. Not entirely sure how I feel about the final climax's resolution. It feels more satisfying than the mini-series, but its very...odd.
Lulcielid
Eyes of the Lord
- AKA
- Lulcy
Chapter Two opening weekend box office.
It openned with $91M in the domestic market, less than its predecesor ($123.4M) but still setting record for second best opening for a horro movie, just behind 2017's It. The film also openned with $94M in the foreign market, similar performance to the last film.
It openned with $91M in the domestic market, less than its predecesor ($123.4M) but still setting record for second best opening for a horro movie, just behind 2017's It. The film also openned with $94M in the foreign market, similar performance to the last film.
Clean Cut Chaos
Pro Adventurer
- AKA
- Cub Chaos
Not bad, but I liked the first one a bit better. Think I have a flipped view from ChipNoir I think. But these were both reboots worth seeing and I am one who is getting really tired of constant hollywood reboots.
- AKA
- TresDias
Finally saw "Chapter Two" today. I'm probably going to be on a lonely island on this one, but I actually think the 1990 TV mini-series is overall better than this newer two-part adaptation.
I'm not even going to get into comparing the two adaptations' versions of Pennywise on qualitative grounds, as they were clearly going for something different with each. It's going to largely be a matter of personal preference as to which is better on that count. Though I will acknowledge appreciating how much more personal in its motivations and savviness to human social interaction the new Pennywise becomes from the 2017 movie to this one. Whereas the former portrayed the creature as something much closer to a predator of the animal kingdom, "Chapter Two" sees it come into its own as a truly malevolent supernatural entity still
Though the demonic clown seen here still never quite comes across as the ageless evil -- cunning and thoroughly wicked from the start -- depicted in the 1990 telling, that again is a matter of personal preference where assessing quality is concerned. It is, however, on numerous (at least somewhat) more objective counts that the Tim Curry film positions itself as better.
This one is good, don't get me wrong. "Chapter Two," though, is overly long by at least 15 minutes, possibly 20. Possibly more. Even more to the point, it doesn't always make good use of its extra time.
At least two significant subplots from the book and mini-series (i.e. the roles of
) are dropped in favor of newly invented scenes and/or lore, as well as repeated long scare sequences -- some of which don't really serve the movie. Sometimes it could even be said they simply don't work at all. Examples of this include
The old mini-series felt tighter, more cohesive, and more efficient in use of every minute of its runtime. For example, it was much more cost-effective with its scenes of Derry's resident bogeyman terrorizing The Losers -- by the time the third iteration of this in just "Chapter Two" rolled around for each of the individual Losers, I really just wanted an option to skip past it to the finale. By that point, those sequences had wore out their welcome to the extent of the Kraken attacks in "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest."
For another example of the old mini-series's efficiency, so much more was conveyed through Beverly's decision to leave her abusive partner there -- and by the overall presentation of that relationship -- than was the case in his more limited use here. We're not even talking about significant differences in the amount of time allotted to the situation. Meanwhile, we also are talking about upwards of 20 or more minutes of runtime that would have been better allocated to added layers of text and subtext rather than repetition of "frightening imagery," or whatever description the MPAA included in the R rating it gave the film.
On a different tack, the adult cast from the TV adaptation also had better chemistry. The kids were equally miscible in either, but not all of the adult cast here quite feel like they gel.
Still, there's a few genuine improvements here and there from 1990 to now, and Stephen King's cameo is fucking brilliant. Overall, this is good. The other one, though, is great.
I'm not even going to get into comparing the two adaptations' versions of Pennywise on qualitative grounds, as they were clearly going for something different with each. It's going to largely be a matter of personal preference as to which is better on that count. Though I will acknowledge appreciating how much more personal in its motivations and savviness to human social interaction the new Pennywise becomes from the 2017 movie to this one. Whereas the former portrayed the creature as something much closer to a predator of the animal kingdom, "Chapter Two" sees it come into its own as a truly malevolent supernatural entity still
embracing its human-like identity even when ostensibly assuming its true form.
Though the demonic clown seen here still never quite comes across as the ageless evil -- cunning and thoroughly wicked from the start -- depicted in the 1990 telling, that again is a matter of personal preference where assessing quality is concerned. It is, however, on numerous (at least somewhat) more objective counts that the Tim Curry film positions itself as better.
This one is good, don't get me wrong. "Chapter Two," though, is overly long by at least 15 minutes, possibly 20. Possibly more. Even more to the point, it doesn't always make good use of its extra time.
At least two significant subplots from the book and mini-series (i.e. the roles of
Bill's bicycle and wife
the metaphysical "cancer" supposedly killing The Losers, and Stanley's "logical suicide."
The old mini-series felt tighter, more cohesive, and more efficient in use of every minute of its runtime. For example, it was much more cost-effective with its scenes of Derry's resident bogeyman terrorizing The Losers -- by the time the third iteration of this in just "Chapter Two" rolled around for each of the individual Losers, I really just wanted an option to skip past it to the finale. By that point, those sequences had wore out their welcome to the extent of the Kraken attacks in "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest."
For another example of the old mini-series's efficiency, so much more was conveyed through Beverly's decision to leave her abusive partner there -- and by the overall presentation of that relationship -- than was the case in his more limited use here. We're not even talking about significant differences in the amount of time allotted to the situation. Meanwhile, we also are talking about upwards of 20 or more minutes of runtime that would have been better allocated to added layers of text and subtext rather than repetition of "frightening imagery," or whatever description the MPAA included in the R rating it gave the film.
On a different tack, the adult cast from the TV adaptation also had better chemistry. The kids were equally miscible in either, but not all of the adult cast here quite feel like they gel.
Still, there's a few genuine improvements here and there from 1990 to now, and Stephen King's cameo is fucking brilliant. Overall, this is good. The other one, though, is great.
