He wasI know why he was doing it, but it was tiresome
The one that was executed the best later in the movies was whenthe jewish kid was about to have his face chewed off in the sewer
We at least got the feeling of him being done for at that moment
Hey. It wasn't scary, man.Then "does it scare me?" isn't the yardstick you measure horror by. I'm not talking about people like you....I'm talking about people that watched "IT" in 1990 when they were 8 years old or some shyt....and were terrified, because they were kids....then watched the 2017 version as a grown man/woman like "this shyt ain't even scary, the original is better". If you re-watch the original as an adult it's fukking awful, outside of Tim Curry's performance....which wasn't even close to the book version of Pennywise.
Fred.
Hey. It wasn't scary, man.
I like that it makes you care about the characters tho. And it was gritty. Very old school
I said that in my first post after I seen it. I'm not sure why you think I'm disagreeing with you.
Fred.
This movie is absolute ass cheeks. Remember, IT was originally an adult movie made to scare kids, not a kids movie made to scare adults. And that's exactly what wr have here. What was even the purpose of changing the time period to the 80s? It's the same exact fukking story. The child acting was abysmal, period. The IT actor wasn't all that memorable for me. The pacing was terrible. shyt, the pacing is what really turned me off. The original movie IT character felt more.menacing than this new one. This new one was just trolling the protagonists, whereas the original felt like a menace to the entire town, shyt almost like a ghost. Looking back on it, the original movie is iconic BC of Tim Curry's portrayal of IT and that's really it. Yes the story was good, but Tim Curry's was so horrifying in it that his acting defined that movie. None of these new actors did that for me. God this movie was terrible.
Really, how so? I didnt get that sense at all. She was fearless and cunning in some ways like jumping off the cliff and flirting w the pharmacist, but she also had a real sense of vulnerability. The whole plot arc of IT kidnapping her and the boys having to rescue her, complete with the cheesy kiss to reawaken her, was actually all added to this version, which is surprising given its pure classic male-female adventure story dynamic. It was one of the weaker changes IMO, though its corniness is kind of softened by the fact that it fits in so well w the time period and type of films this one is reminiscent of. But yeah so they definitely werent trying too hard to make her some op Mary Sue character.They did fall viticm to the current cliche of powering up female leads to unnatural levels of "strong fearless leader", but it was also interesting to see how well adjusted Bev was given her circumstances
Lastly, I didn't like the heavy handed elusion to the sequel - I mean we know it's going to happen, no need for bother bev's vision and the drawn out pact, but it's a minor complaint
that's annoying...they already abandoned an important arc for the only black character, left out the details of the racism he faced, now they will weaken him both physically and mentally and make him an addict
Lol nah breh. No one caught that cause it didnt happen.For everyone saying they didnt do the orgy, on the cast you could see "Losers" was changed to "Lovers". They just didnt show the orgy but that big ass red "V" was intended to let you know it went down, I can't believe nobody in here caught that.
The first left more of an impression BC I was a kid when I saw it. It was Tim Curry who scared me, not the clown itself. This new movie is not scary, point blank. The CGI ruined it for me.