Misterspock movie review... It, Chapter One and Two

I'll do both of them in one go, all 4 plus hours, because frankly there isn't much here and not worth writing individuals.

So, right off the bat, it's current year and of course the cgi is "Amazballs...errmygerrddd".

That said, way to long and just way to much wasted time(literally like 2 hours of screen time) to get ANYTHING done.

I won't blame the movie on that, it's the typical king trope of long movies. King isn't all that good, I don't know how most of his stuff is "legendary" he had like 2 or 3 good books(out of what, like 40) and a decent film or two.

It's otherwise just been a big waste of my time and as for the movie itself(It) I'd rather watch the original. Not because it was a pivotal piece of cinema, just because you can't EVER replace Tim Curry, no matter how many millions you throw at a cgi budget.

I'd say it's worth a(cheap) rental or watching on a streaming service, but that would be if it was distilled into a single 2 hour movie. As a 2 part, 4 hour total, film it's something you could probably pass on.

a reply to: MisterSpock

Have you seen "Source Code"?

I'd love your input on that one!


Friend

originally posted by: Sabrechucker
a reply to: MisterSpock

Have you seen "Source Code"?

I'd love your input on that one!


Friend

I did, a long time ago(when it came out). Don't remember most of it. Seems like a random suggestion let alone why you'd care what I think on it.

Maybe I'll watch it again. I don't remember it being too bad(or good). But the movie scape sure has changed the last 10 years(for the worse).

a reply to: MisterSpock

It has hints of remote viewing and subjects that are IMO currently relevant.

I like your insight, so I figured I'd throw a Movie out there that I never fully understood..see what you think.

The minute I see CGI, I turn off (mentally) and go wash the dishes, so thank you for that. Our entire society is living in fantasy land, and I see no need to perpetuate it further. CGI is an excuse to go over the top with something, anything...everything.

I was never a fan of King books; way too long without enough meat. A Stephen King novel is like reading some drunk guy's ramblings after the family went to bed over the course of four years. Hopeless amounts of detail, without any particular point.

Some people love the guy's works, and that's okay. However, to me his entire body of work can be summed up with one book/movie...Misery. Read / Watch that, and you will see every single angle of Stephen King. You'll see every book, every adaptation...everything. (Cujo, Christine, Children of the Corn..and so many others). The characters change, and the setting changes, but the theme is always the same...Misery.

'Misery' is a view into King's mind, and it was his ultimate revelation...someone is trapped, and can't get away...and now there will be 500 hundred more pages of misery related to the situation...and then...The End. 'Misery' is what every single King work is about...just pure misery.

Thanks for the head's up!

I think I'll pass.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
The minute I see CGI, I turn off (mentally) and go wash the dishes, so thank you for that. Our entire society is living in fantasy land, and I see no need to perpetuate it further. CGI is an excuse to go over the top with something, anything...everything.

I was never a fan of King books; way too long without enough meat. A Stephen King novel is like reading some drunk guy's ramblings after the family went to bed over the course of four years. Hopeless amounts of detail, without any particular point.

Some people love the guy's works, and that's okay. However, to me his entire body of work can be summed up with one book/movie...Misery. Read / Watch that, and you will see every single angle of Stephen King. You'll see every book, every adaptation...everything. (Cujo, Christine, Children of the Corn..and so many others). The characters change, and the setting changes, but the theme is always the same...Misery.

Thanks for the head's up!

I think I'll pass.

Yup, You'd literally be better off watching paint dry(with a few glasses of bourbon).

You won't miss much.

As for the CGI, I'm literally convinced at this point that most films are written AFTER a few CGI scenes are whipped up. They are just writing some filler(you know, the "unimportant" parts, like characters and story) after seeing a few "err OMG" bangin CGI scenes.

It's absolute lazy half assed garbage, but twitter approves, so it's ok.

a reply to: MisterSpock

I read the book a month before the film came out because I knew most of the time books are always better (not every time but most of the time) and even though I think it was a little padded the book was really enjoyable. I read it within about two and a half weeks, I know others could probably scream through it in a couple of days but for me I like to read a book slowly, I only ever do a set number of chapters or pages and yes I even read aloud no matter where I am, work, library, walking through the street, I always read aloud because I can absorb more of the book. I liked the films and yes the CGI was great but it wasn't scary to me and that's annoying.

I didn't expect nor did I want a jump scare littered film. I wanted the film to be haunting a little, terrifying a little too but it just felt like it was made by two different people one who wanted more comedy and the other who wanted more horror and came together and made neither. IT just came off as more of a comedy character than a horror character which annoyed me somewhat.


I feel the same with most King books though. He tends to stuff them with things that just don't need to be in there. Shining being one of the dullest books I have ever read. I know others think it is his most important book but for me it was very dull which was the opposite to IT: the Book.

a reply to: MisterSpock

A few years ago someone did a review on Youtube and I can't remember the name of the channel but something they said stuck with me and it was along the same lines as your comment. It went something like this:

"...Modern films seem like they have big moments planned and sketched out with stories written around those moments. Its like a script is written after the explosions and major moments of the story have been thought up".

Midway through the sentence I can remember that it was a review for one of Michael Bays Transformers films but was talking about most modern films.

If you think about it, the only "Good" stephen king movies have more to do with the actual stars and less about the story.

Misery was good, who starred in that by the way, great actors, coincidence.

Shining, Jack's a hack, ohh wait, he made the film....etc etc.

Hollywood's over embrace of cgi and just plain crap writing may put butts in seats(and bucks in the banks) for awhile, but in the end people arent that dumb(I meant they are dumb, but oddly smarter than the hollywood dumbies).

Look no further than major franchises falling into the abyss and MAJOR IP's being withered away into direct to video dumpsters.

News flash, it takes TALENT on more than one end(and CGI isn't a talent, writing and acting is) to bring in the money, long term.

At this point, I'm fine with the whole think collapsing, simply because so many have shown such a complete disregard for anything that you can't blame the consumer for running away from an industry that seems wholly complacent on delivering anything even remotely resembling an actual product of value(time or money).

a reply to: Dwoodward85

I feel the same with most King books though. He tends to stuff them with things that just don't need to be in there. Shining being one of the dullest books I have ever read. I know others think it is his most important book but for me it was very dull ...

Reading King is like reading a drunken Boris Karloff trying to emulate Ernest Hemingway writing about Descarte as a producer for the movie Halloween. It's like...Huh??? M'kay.

a reply to: MisterSpock

I agree..to much CGI.

One movie that "felt real' in a sense was " Our Idiot Brother " with Paul Rudd..

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Dwoodward85

I feel the same with most King books though. He tends to stuff them with things that just don't need to be in there. Shining being one of the dullest books I have ever read. I know others think it is his most important book but for me it was very dull ...

Reading King is like reading a drunken Boris Karloff trying to emulate Ernest Hemingway writing about Descarte as a producer for the movie Halloween. It's like...Huh??? M'kay.

Reading King is likes politics.

You fall for stupid # when you are younger because "everyone says it's great".

Then you get a job, experience reality and realize it's just a bunch of worthless crap that's, at best, kindling(king/socialism).

a reply to: MisterSpock

King tries to create symbolism where there isn't any!

It's like "Kingbolism"

He tries to create these poignant moments out of otherwise WTF situations.

It's like...DUDE!, jump out of bed, hit the bitch in the face with a rake and use her corpse as a doormat so you don't get your socks muddy!!! C'mon, man! WTF???

ETA - But instead there's 847 more pages of Descarte on the movie 'Halloween'.

I’ll go against the board here and say I really liked Kings early work. His books are the only reason I ever really started reading. The Stand is still my all time favorite book. My other top King books are Salem’s Lot, The Shining, The Tommyknockers, Skeleton Crew had some good ones including The Mist. Cujo and Carrie made pretty decent movies, but don’t forget The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mike are both King.
I even read the whole Gunslinger/Dark Tower series which is about 7,000 pages. He’s not a very likable guy and extremely egotistical, but he’s got a decent batting average.
I still think his wife or kid wrote some of those crap books, then they slapped his name on them to sell.

originally posted by: MisterSpock
I'll do both of them in one go, all 4 plus hours, because frankly there isn't much here and not worth writing individuals.

So, right off the bat, it's current year and of course the cgi is "Amazballs...errmygerrddd".

That said, way to long and just way to much wasted time(literally like 2 hours of screen time) to get ANYTHING done.

I won't blame the movie on that, it's the typical king trope of long movies. King isn't all that good, I don't know how most of his stuff is "legendary" he had like 2 or 3 good books(out of what, like 40) and a decent film or two.

It's otherwise just been a big waste of my time and as for the movie itself(It) I'd rather watch the original. Not because it was a pivotal piece of cinema, just because you can't EVER replace Tim Curry, no matter how many millions you throw at a cgi budget.

I'd say it's worth a(cheap) rental or watching on a streaming service, but that would be if it was distilled into a single 2 hour movie. As a 2 part, 4 hour total, film it's something you could probably pass on.

Not because it was a pivotal piece of cinema, just because you can't EVER replace Tim Curry, no matter how many millions you throw at a cgi budget.

That’s all you had to say I’m in 100% agreement with you. IT with Tim had another layer of true horror and took a different direction than this new pennywise. Tim played up the character like a kidnapper/serial killer he played on the kids weaknesses like a kidnapper would ie opening scene with Georgey! Tim was more comical and whimsical but when he snapped it freaks you out! This new penny wise is good but he plays more of a mystical monster than a truely horrific play on actual kidnappers and serial killers.

Kings endings usually are horrible and IT turns into a giant spider? Really?

Keeping him a clown was good enough. Funny enough I found my love for horror with king but have moved on the HP love craft and horror comedy like “John does at the end”.

originally posted by: Dwoodward85
a reply to: MisterSpock

I read the book a month before the film came out because I knew most of the time books are always better (not every time but most of the time) and even though I think it was a little padded the book was really enjoyable. I read it within about two and a half weeks, I know others could probably scream through it in a couple of days but for me I like to read a book slowly, I only ever do a set number of chapters or pages and yes I even read aloud no matter where I am, work, library, walking through the street, I always read aloud because I can absorb more of the book. I liked the films and yes the CGI was great but it wasn't scary to me and that's annoying.

I didn't expect nor did I want a jump scare littered film. I wanted the film to be haunting a little, terrifying a little too but it just felt like it was made by two different people one who wanted more comedy and the other who wanted more horror and came together and made neither. IT just came off as more of a comedy character than a horror character which annoyed me somewhat.


I feel the same with most King books though. He tends to stuff them with things that just don't need to be in there. Shining being one of the dullest books I have ever read. I know others think it is his most important book but for me it was very dull which was the opposite to IT: the Book.

The book is 1200 pages long I know I spent time reading it in the 5th grade and it took me all summer to grind through it. It’s not lite reading over the course of two weeks unless you read 85 pages a day

a reply to: MisterSpock

Kings books never transition well to movies. King is an absolute master of character development. It's not his fault that no actor is capable of fleshing out those characters. It's a shame because if any actor was able to take on his characters they would probably win an Oscar. The guy is a treasure we don't deserve. Absolute master of the art of writing. This movie is a pale comparison of the book. In a hundred years people will still be talking about him.

The first reboot of the “It” franchise wasn’t terrible. It was entertaining, but definitely was slow and plodding. The second “It” or “It 2” was awful. It was a movie no one asked for like many movies that are made these days (Solo comes to mind). It was excruciating and painful to watch. The actors and characters didn’t want to be there and neither did I. They had their virtue signaling moment in the second chapter right at the beginning which turned me off right away. Just a horrible film.

TLDR - The first one was okay and the second one was horrible.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: MisterSpock

Kings books never transition well to movies. King is an absolute master of character development. It's not his fault that no actor is capable of fleshing out those characters. It's a shame because if any actor was able to take on his characters they would probably win an Oscar. The guy is a treasure we don't deserve. Absolute master of the art of writing. This movie is a pale comparison of the book. In a hundred years people will still be talking about him.

Agree 100% even King admits sometimes its better for the constant reader to imagine the character than find an actor to play the character in a movie. King's books got me hooked on reading around 11 years old, The original Stand, Night Shift, Carrie after all these years only a handful I haven't read and even less I didn't like. Anybody reading IT knew that the story would be difficult to adapt to a movie. I, however, enjoyed the TV adaptation and the movies as well, were they perfect no, but they had enough to keep me interested which is more than I can say about most movies