Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Texastoyz, May 6, 2015.
And “Misery” is excellent.
Saw “it.” I thought it was a nice telling of the story. A little heavy on the modern gore, but otherwise I liked it. I still sort of admire the mini series and the way they interwove the adult characters with the childen characters. I kind of feel like the mini series was more ambitious and more “literary” and this was more just like a linear movie. In that sense it feels a little thin but as it’s only the part one, you have to give it a pass — although part two is basically the same exact story and the climax isn’t really that great in “it.“. In fact that’s probably a good reason to intertwine the adult and children stories because on both counts it ends with a slay-the-beast finish which is really about is simplistic as you can get, if you think about it . I did like the way they tarted up the story with more of the clown popping up now and then to keep up the fright level. What else can you do with today’s audiences who expect to jump every five minutes? level. I kind of thought the extended haunted house sequence was a little gratuitous, however. But it was fun. . But overall this is a pretty rich production, and the visuals were very nice. I think it’s a well directed film. The kids were good and I like the update of Henry Bowers. The kid who played him in the miniseries was horrible with that fake Fonzie haircut. I didn’t feel the kids characters were quite as cartoony as the miniseries, but then I also felt they weren’t as well defined.
As far as the character of Pennywise, you can’t really rate Scargard’s performance as it’s not a performance — it’s a cliché. I’m getting a little tired of 20-year-old neurotic snarling Joker wannabes. In fact the trailer for Blade Runner before the film was a disappointment because the guy playing the new baddie in that movie ( I forget his name but I’ve seen him before) is another one of these cute pretty boy guys acting like a mix of a soul-searching Marlon Brando and an anorexic high on bath salts. It’s getting to be an annoying cliché In fact, I think blade runner looks kind of crappy. Robin Wright’s character looks like a complete misfire. I can see why Matthew McConaughey caught some heat for playing such a low key villain in “the dark tower.” He’s probably watched all the modern day villains in the last decade and said I’m not doing the manic thing like the rest of them.
But overall I thought “it” was a good little horror movie. Maybe not great or terribly deep, but certainly good as a creepshow. I’m sure Stephen king likes this adaptation because it seems right in keeping with his tastes And “It” was certainly better than “Stranger things “ as far as overall treatment of the Stephen King universe. ”it” being classier and actually quite empathetic to its characters at times. “Stranger things“ was like Walt Disney presents meets Goosebumps. But I recommend “it“ if you’re in the mood for a fun little scary gorefest Even if it’s hung on the shoulders of a pretty well-tread Stephen King story by now. Then again some of us grew up with this stuff and it’s completely fresh to a new generation.
The guy in the Blade Runner trailer is Jared Leto-who, ironically, played the Joker in Suicide Squad (and was terrible).
That’s right, thanks. This time instead of the rough and tumble looking replicant, Roy, Who looks like he might survive work on a hostile planet has been replaced with yet another pensive, whining fashion model villain.
Yep. That's my only real fear about BR; Jared Leto!
'1408' based on a King Short Story was also a very good movie.
I just got ahold of "The Mist" and watched it. Frankly, I found it kind of painful. The dialog is horrifically bad, that's my main complaint. It was also disconcerting watching the cast, because I felt like I had accidently purchased "The Walking Dead!" Maybe it's cool when directors have favorite actors, but some of Darabont's I just don't like. The combination of Francis Sternhagen (She makes me think of Hugh Cronyn in drag) and the ever-dreadful, over-the-top Jeffery Demunn turned "The Mist" into a windy serving of Yankee bean soup. There was maybe a half hour when things started to get cooking, but the overly predictable descent into apocalyptic fervor was just a bore. God bless Toby Jones for a well-placed bullet. It came about an hour too late for my taste.
"The Mist" Save one of them bullets for me, Thomas.
Oh, yeah, and Thomas Jane. He's like the Robert Goulet of the cinema, in my opinion. Wow.
You might want to stay away from Mr. Mercedes then, cause I think that's a good one as well.
Sorry, nothing personal, I just thought it was a stinker. I couldn't believe it was directed by Frank Darabont. I found it very amateurish, especially the dialog and lousy acting. I actually laughed out loud at a couple lines because they were so cringeworthy. Really on-the-nose dialog, as they call it in Hollywood. And just bad choices in storytelling, things like Thomas Jane saying (paraphrased) "Do you want to wait here until tomorrow when everyone buys into her story of the end of the world and she demands a sacrifice like you me, or my boy?" I mean, let's stupidly telegraph what's going to happen -- even though it was so predictable it really wasn't a surprise. All Darabont's b-movie character actors were doing their b-movie worst performance wise (Toby Jones, however, was good). And then even the "good parts" like the spiders just had me sitting there thinking: "Borrowed from Alien...."
The fabled downer ending didn't have the slight affect on me. I mean, I would have had to have cared about the characters for that to work, wouldn't I? But as the film failed to develop any of them as really believable or smart. (I particularly loved the fact that whenever they went out into the fog, one of them had to immediately start shouting at the top of their lungs or blowing a car horn -- I mean, really?), I didn't really care. Of course, the kid didn't do anything wrong -- I guess I should have felt bad about him, but he was under-developed. But all the adults were annoyingly cliched and oh-so-stupid I just kind of impassively watched Thomas Jane wail away as the not-so surprise ending unfolded . I think Darabont just figured he really needed to knock one out of the park and bring genuine emotion to the otherwise clunky affair and how better to do that by injecting a little "real" tragedy (how tragic is getting noshed on by a giant crab?) I was actually more moved by the downer ending of "Storm of the Century." Now that was a clever and really downer ending!
Once again, I'll put forth my theory that the reason 90 percent of Steven King movies suck is because what works on the page doesn't always work on film -- like the monsters in "The Mist." Your mind's eye might have painted them as horrifying and grotesque, but on film they looked like Terry the pteradactyl from Pee Wee's Playhouse. A little story like "The Mist" was probably very cool on the page, but brought forth under the spotlight of the movies, most of King's movies tank.
In keeping with this thread, I'm going to shoot the new "It" right near the top of Stephen King movie ladder. I thought the director showed incredible restraint with King's always badly overwritten characters ("Beep Beep, Ritchie" I noticed got toned away down, thank God. They only mention it once in the movie) And maybe the reason why "It" works well as a film (I liked the miniseries, too) is because the kids' part are well-written and pretty down to earth. Many of King's character like Moon Mullens or Trashcan man , with their quirky weirdness that Kings alway pounds into the ground with repetition, are just ridiculous when brought to life on the screen.
I don't take it personally at all. You made some well thought out, articulate points. It's like going to Rotten Tomatoes & reading reviews. It's a rare movie that everyone agrees on. This movie got 72%/65% at RT so I think both of our opinions would fit in there.
And I am going to check out "Mr. Mercedes!"
I agree with @Ghostworld: I thought The Mist was awful, almost unwatchable. Everything I hated about Under the Dome was there, times ten.
It I enjoyed for the most part. I think the biggest single thing they got right about the film was the casting, which was phenomenal. Those kids were the kids from the book: clumsy, awkward, (mostly) unattractive misfits. I also liked the setting and I think the late 1980s works fine for a modern audience -- just close enough to be memorable, just far away enough to be nostalgic.
There were quite a few things left out of the book (including a few that would go beyond an X rating), but I think for the most part they captured the flavor and the style and the emotion of the story very well. Some of the changes bothered me (like kidnapping a major character towards the end, and changing the lead villain kid's fate), but I think it worked well for the most part. It definitely had some major scares that caused me to jump in my seat, and you can't ask for anything more from a modern horror film. And I've read the book three times, so I know the story very well.
The changes between the book and the film are interesting, and I think most of them work and are understandable:
It: All The Differences Between Stephen King's Book & Film
Note also that It has become the most commercially-successful horror film in history:
And the sequel will be out in 2 years, dealing with what happens 27 years later when all the main characters are adults and the demon returns to Derry to terrorize a new generation of victims.
Is it set in the very same Derry that is in King's Kennedy 11/23/63 book?
Yes. In that book the main character even meets two of the kids from IT when he's passing through.
Saw IT last night. It's ok, but it's no horror movie - merely an adventure movie with horror sequences.
I thought this was a hilarious joke...
I read the book 25 years ago and if I remember rightly this film doesn't do it justice in fact it was awful. Kids you didn't get to know and it just didn't covey the feel of being 13, Stranger Things Season one beats it hands down. Endless horror tropes, none of them scary, I presumed the director had done some typical Hollywood trash but was amazed when I saw his previous work, they should have given IT to Del Toro now he would have been up to the task, although given the script he would have torn it up.
Well, I finally saw 'it'. I blind bought the blu-ray because I'm a Stephen King fan and I have heard good things about the film. I liked it, however not quite as much as I thought I would. It all felt a little rushed to me.
I realize the book is crazy long but even with the story being halved and some of the more esoteric aspects of the book being removed (smoke-house vision quest, turtle stuff, sewer orgy) it still felt like everything was wizzing past me at breakneck speed. I wanted things to slow down a little so I could stop and look around.
Some more character development scenes would have been nice. If there is a director's cut that adds another hour to the film I'd be all for it. But as it is, I thought it was just ok. The film only succeeds because the young actors are so great (especially the gutsy kid who played Ben Hogan. I wore husky pants too when I was a boy and would have never even considered taking my shirt off in public for all the money in the world).
The clown guy was good enough, but I found myself constantly thinking about Tim Curry often during the film. Say what you want about that TV movie but you never forget Curry's performance.
Anyway, I don't regret buying the blu-ray. I'll watch it again. It was ok, but could have been better. Maybe making it a full fledged season of television would have been a better way to go. We needed more time.
The story isn't done, though, right? There's another installment of the movie due, I believe, to finish it.
That’s not what he was talking about, though. His issue was one of pacing.
Separate names with a comma.