It (Muschietti, 2017) Movie • Page 22

I don't have much of an issue with Mike really. Because that is basically how it goes in the book in the sense that he is separate from the Losers for most of the beginning.
In the film, they tried to give him some foundation with that first scene. And they also established one of the themes, which is basically "be proactive." Something Bill is always pressing.

Mike the kid was always the least involved character with the Losers, in the book. He is on his own, and has these solo IT experiences. Mike the adult is more interesting and integral.

I do think that they missed an opportunity with the Bowers' family / Hanlen family dynamic. That was always the one feature that really shaped Mike. You always got the sense that he was the one in the most danger from Bowers. And I am disappointed that it was only touched on. If I would have done it, Mike's fear would have been the story of the Black Spot. That's what I thought they were implying in that first scene.

 

It was in the book. That was supposed to be one of the things that really united the group. The director just didn't do a good job of driving that point home.

 

I thought the same thing about the Black Spot. My gf was confused about that scene so I told her about the black spot quickly. I felt like an idiot when we found out what that actually represented but I guarantee that's where the idea came from

 

That's why I don't really consider this a horror movie, or thought it was scary. It has highs on other things that aren't scares.

 

Idk that I really had an opinion about the bathroom scene but I agree with a lot of your previous points. The random events in the book work because they keep bouncing back between them being kids and adults. As a movie, it just came off as a highlight reel. Like what was the point of showing Patrick Hockstetter if they weren't going to give you any backstory on him? This movie was made for general audiences but still wanted to throw in some stuff for the people that read the book but being someone who read the book, it wasn't satisfying at all. I just don't think people realize how much more terrifying this movie could've been. In the book, Derry is home to some of the most deranged people you could imagine, which really adds an unsettling feeling through the whole book. Like the kids really couldn't trust anyone besides their little group which is what drives them together as friends.

 

Okay, but this isn't the book. Try and separate all you know about the book and just view this as its own entity. It's poor screen writing. He says, "my family was right, I'm supposed to be an outsider" or something like that. Then Bev goes missing and he's just there. Like, yeah, Bev was missing but they show why Mike should really care or how he was convinced to come back and risk his life for her.

This is a separate point, but I didn't really go into this movie expecting it to bo that scary. However, I didn't think the attempts at horror that would be in there would be so stupid. My problem isn't necessarily that is isn't scary and more that it completely falls flat when it tries to be.

 

The only thing that has me liking this movie as much as I did is b/c of the book. It was neat to see some things come to life on the big screen. I feel bad bc some people really liked this movie but the cgi was bad, the character's weren't developed regardless if you read the book or not, and it felt like stand by me then some killer clown shows up who isn't very scary. Like I know you said you didn't expect it to be scary but then what was the whole point of the movie? Oh yeah, to cash in.

 

Look, I'm not arguing that Mike is the most fleshed out of the Losers, but I also don't think he is a shell.

I would have liked one or two more scenes with Mike to really bring him up to par with the others. I think what was especially missing was a scene with Mike and the Losers doing something fun. I think it would have been beneficial to see him acting off of the others and establishing his role within the group. I agree that the film needed that. It was a shortcoming for sure.

But I also think What they did do with him is being overlooked a bit. Because he wasn't as developed as the others doesn't mean he was necessarily a shell.

As for why he comes, I think that is pretty easily inferred from what we are given. Bev is the one that rescues him from Henry. She is the first to arrive and she is the one that throws the initial rock. She is also the first one to say "we need to help him," which obviously Mike doesn't know, but the audience is shown that for a reason. It seems fairly straightforward that the person who comes to your rescue, just as a psycho racist was about to hit you with a rock, is someone you would do the same for.

 

I don't know about you slowpokes, but the last time I cleaned a blood covered bathroom it took like 45 mins tops

 

Lol yeah the argument about how long it would take is a bit silly. In the book, it's a clear bonding moment for the kids and takes on the symbolic role as one of the first steps they take to combat their fear: by cleaning up the blood, they are cleaning away all the shit and baggage that has been terrorizing them.

The film over did the scene with the blood and, as much as I love the song, "Six Different Ways" was an odd choice to capture the tone of what was happening IMO.

Mike was absolutely a shell, as was Stan. Could've been combined into one character in the film, even. What does Mike add to this film? The plot point of the sheep gun?

I would've enjoyed the film delving more in to how truly evil and fucked up the town of Derry is. How historic it is, how engrained in the culture and adults this evil and fear has become. Strengthening the character of Mike as well as becoming more explicit in terms of the racial undertones of his attacks would complete that. They tried to make the fire more significant by having his parents die; however, the book did a tremendous job at making the Black Spot carry way more emotional weight while leaving his father alive to speak with him about the events.

I assume the second movie will flesh out his character, but that's no excuse for how poorly he was portrayed here.

 

I don't know, both this and Mama had amazing camera work and style/tone to them. Those comments are not correct. You seem passionate about hating this movie though so maybe it was just venting.

 

Yeah Mike was a ghost and his line about being "an outsider" was just terrible. But wtf with Stan? Isn't there a scene in the book/miniseries where he freaks out about finally seeing the clown and breaks down because he didn't want to believe it was real? And wasn't he supposed to be the one with the broken glass at the end where they all make the promise to come back?

 

Literally never thought it was a long movie.

 

The only reason I bring Mike up is because you cause the only issue you found with the film was that they used Bev as bait, and I wanted to pry a little and see if that was actually the case.

I'm not passionate about hating this movie. There were parts that I found enjoyable, as I mentioned. I am passionate however about the stuff that didn't work for me. Maybe you are correct, maybe Andre does have vision, but I don't find it to be a good one. The camera work being one of the more distracting things imo. Not that it was all bad, but there were some very questionable choices.

Look, I don't think this is the worst thing I've ever seen, I just think it's very forgettable.

 

I think it probably is the case, frankly.

What I mean by that is that, whiles there were definitely things that I would have done differently, the vast majority didn't detract from my enjoyment of the movie in any meaningful way. The Bev thing was something that actively held the movie back for me. And it was the only thing that I really wish they had changed.

 

Also, I thought they handled Stan fine. They were clearly setting up what happens to him as an adult. And so I enjoyed that he was the only one who left this whole encounter not feeling empowered.

 

While they didn't leave me super scared or anything, I thought the setups and scare set pieces in this were a lot of fun. The movie throws a lot of variety at you, which I usually like. The loud noises are a bit manipulative and lazy though, as RLM pointed out, and sometimes the use of CGI took me out of it a little bit.

Plus, it's always great to get a horror movie where we actually like and care about the characters. A horror movie that can make an audience laugh and scream taps into something really enjoyable. Get Out did the same thing.

 

Saw it again. Liked it much more than the first time.

 

I saw this twice, once opening night Thursday and again Saturday afternoon. I loved it. I'm about halfway through the book for the first time, but I've been a massive Stephen King fan since I was 12. This is the first time I've watched an adaptation of his work that got the most important part right- the feeling. What I like about Stephen King is that he is a master of writing characters that feel like real people. So many adaptations of his work miss the point of his stories, which is not necessarily to be "scary," but to have heart. Having read most of the kid scenes at this point, watching this felt so great. The scene where they play in the river and the vow to come back at the end filled me with such an overwhelming emotion- a mix of love, nostalgia, and understanding. To me, that is far more important to get right than a Pennywise joke or a scare. It's what keeps King's work grounded even when it becomes long and the plot sounds silly when you read it aloud.

I'm really hoping that Muschietti can keep the momentum going to part two, because while I really like the kid sections of the 90's mini-series, the adult sections are comically bad. Also, I would love to see Amy Adams play adult Bev. That is all.

edit: (avoiding a double post)

I will say though that my main 2 criticism's are taking Mike's role and giving it to Ben. Just dumb and profoundly insensitive considering he's the only black character. And making Bev the damsel for even a little bit is kind of a disservice to her character. Considering my astronomically high expectations, I'm okay with only have a couple things that felt off to me.

 

...........is this you?

This honestly is too much overthought for a horror movie. Yikes.

 

Haha, no. I do like her though. Regardless of whether or not I agree with her, she often thinks of things that I didn't notice. She's mostly satirical, like it's not meant to be taken 100% seriously.

 

This was hilarious and audacious. Loved it, great time. (Haven't read the book, don't know if it was a good adaptation or not.) I will say that it wasn't scary at any point... my friend and I were laughing throughout.

 

Reading through the thread now. Honestly? Did not go into this movie looking for complex character arcs. There were like 7 main characters, each of which had memorable traits pretty quick.

Not one for picking apart plots either, but the ONE thing that bothered me was how none of these kids are talking to each other after their initial encounters with It. There's a half dozen kids missing from town, they're seeing RIDICULOUSLY FRIGHTENING THINGS THAT CHASE THEM AROUND, and it takes 2/3 of the movie for them to mention "oh yeah, I was cornered by a killer clown too."

Also, ROCK WAR came totally out of nowhere. I laughed and enjoyed the lunacy, but so weird tonally.

 

You think a movie is only horror if it's scary?