19,793 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 19, 2019 6:31:42 GMT
I’ve only just recovered from the first one.
This looks positively traumatic 🤡👿🤡🤡👿🤡👿
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Jul 19, 2019 8:25:22 GMT
I’ve only just recovered from the first one. This looks positively traumatic 🤡👿🤡🤡👿🤡👿 Can’t deal with wrists...won’t manage this half. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2019 8:57:10 GMT
And yet somehow this isn't the most terrifying trailer I've seen in the last 12 hours...
|
|
513 posts
|
Post by Deal J on Jul 19, 2019 11:17:17 GMT
Yes @theatremonkey - they split the original story into two separate films.
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Jul 19, 2019 18:53:25 GMT
Have kept away from it as I remembered the suicide scene from the original mini-series, but they showed a clip from the first one on Gogglebox the other day and it really was terrifying. This trailer leads me to believe that the second part will continue that tradition. 😱
|
|
19,793 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 9, 2019 22:03:04 GMT
What is it with these self indulgent directors who think it’s ok to sit an audience down for TWO HOURS 50 MINUTES? Seriously, this really winds me up. This could have been a really effective follow up if it wasn’t for the unnecessary filler, there are plenty of jump scares (that bloody granny 👵🏻💩) but as we all know, over exposure to horror results in the audience becoming accustomed and eventually immune to the shocks.
By the end it’s just more of the same really. The final “we’re going to the monster’s lair to kill it” scene takes a whole hour. I cant comment on comparisons to the novel or mini series as I don’t know them. I enjoyed this but it’s nowhere near as good as the first one.
⭐️⭐️⭐️
|
|
1,133 posts
|
Post by Stephen on Sept 10, 2019 2:07:23 GMT
I enjoyed this but certainly not as much as the first. The middle hour dragged and the final hour felt like I'd seen it all before many times. The first part is good though with some good introductions to where the losers are now and a great scene at a chinese restaurant.
The jump scares were frequent and most of them startled me. The horror isn't particularly strong though so after the initial fright it can seem a bit comical.
There is one excellent cameo in the second hand shop scene but no spoliers from me!
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 10, 2019 8:10:55 GMT
Where have editors gone? There is no excuse for a three hour film, well, ever really. It's the reason I've never sat down to Gone With the Wind or Laurence of Arabia. It's not an attention span thing, it's just that if a film expects me to sit there for that long the story had better be a bit special! Especially horror. And especially when essentially all it's doing is trotting out the scares from the first again.
|
|
19,793 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 10, 2019 8:49:25 GMT
Exactly. As I said it’s pure self indulgence by the Director. I don’t think there’s a story in the world that can’t be adequately told in 90 minutes, or exceptionally 120 minutes. A picture paints a thousand words supposedly, so what the hell is going on? Same goes for theatre. Max one hour for the first half, interval (if we must) then a snappy 45 mins for the second bit. Even better, 90 minutes straight through. No interval. Bliss.
People have things to do!
|
|
|
|
Post by asfound on Sept 10, 2019 9:50:06 GMT
I saw this back to back with the Midsommar director's cut which was also three hours, and the comparison did not do It Chapter Two any favours at all.
When I go and see a horror flick, I actually want to be horrified, or scared, or disturbed. I actually felt anxious watching Midsommar, it really crescendoed from unease to dread to pure terror. It Chapter Two was the opposite - sanitised, tame and lightweight, horror for the Marvel audience. The book had silly moments sure, but it also had this kind of real despair and misery to it at times. I won't compare the film to the series as I watched the latter by myself in the dark late at night as a kid and it was a defining point which made me a horror fan so would be impossible to be objective about it. But It Chapter Two really felt focus group designed to appeal to a mass audience and in the process lost what made the book great. Chapter One also had this problem but it at least had the Losers' camaraderie and childhood nostalgia.
The jolty jump scares were more annoying than scary and the film packed no emotional punch. Very disappointing and especially so when they originally had Cary Fukunaga to direct this rather than some yes man jumping on the Stranger Things bandwagon.
|
|
19,793 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 10, 2019 10:19:12 GMT
I absolutely hated Midsommar.
|
|
513 posts
|
Post by Deal J on Sept 10, 2019 11:41:49 GMT
Well I thoroughly enjoyed IT! I don't share the opinion that it's self-indulgently long, I think the Director has made what they consider to be their faithful adaptation, especially given the source material is well over 1,000 pages. Even then he's dispensed with some of the more unusual aspects of the novel - the macroverse element and the horrible 'bonding' moment all of the boys have with Beverly. I'm pleased they added the homophobic attack back in to the beginning as well, it's a horrible scene and makes me wonder whether IT is returning to Derry, or if Derry's residents are welcoming IT back through their despicable behaviour. Personally I didn't find it overly long, I think each character needed their moment as with most of King's work it's about the rite of passage as opposed to pure horror. Excellent casting and acting, the adult characters were very like their younger selves. I think they did a really good job of the ending too - the novel and the TV miniseries felt very rushed and a bit underwhelming after having invested so much as a reader, whereas I think this version is suitably bigger and far more rewarding. I do love how there are a few references to {Spoiler - click to view}how Bill's career as an author is marred by his inability to write good endings. A nice meta-joke, especially when delivered by THAT cameo! Beep Beep, Richie. |
|
1,046 posts
|
Post by jgblunners on Sept 11, 2019 22:59:28 GMT
Saw it tonight and enjoyed it just as much as the first - didn't feel that it was overly long. I'm quite tempted to go back and read the book now as while this part of the story retained some standard horror clichés (the jump scares do get a little predictable after a while) it also managed a depth that few horror or thriller stories have these days. I agree with the universal praise for Bill Hader, he was particularly excellent among a very good ensemble cast.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2019 23:30:12 GMT
There is no excuse for a three hour film, well, ever really. It's the reason I've never sat down to Gone With the Wind. GWTW justifies every one of its 238 minutes. If they made it today, they’d release it like IT in 2 parts, but really, as there’s an actual intermission in the movie itself they basically did make two movies (and the end of the first half is just as iconic as the end of the second half too). Have yourself a treat this winter when we get snowed in and split it across a weekend with a big bag of popcorn. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2019 22:56:15 GMT
I saw this tonight and did not really like it. It’s not really a horror movie - where the first one genuinely explored their fears, the fears of an adult are somehow much more comical here in their execution. The scariest part was in the trailer and even then, it quickly became comical on screen.
The movie was overlong and I blame the script - it tried far too much on giving each character solo moments that could have easily been shared episodes. But generally speaking it didn’t feel like it was almost 3 hours of my life.
|
|
