Movie Thread

[blackjack68]

34 for me

[DigitalGypsy66]

23. Huh.

[the wicked child]

8. Which is actually higher than I was expecting because I don't see movies in the theater too often.

[tifosi77]

The only ones I have not seen at all are Avatar, The Avengers, Transformers, and Captain America.

To that add Jaws, Rocky, and Frozen to complete the list of films I did not see theatrically.

[Gaucho]

9, though only two since 1988: Star Wars and Star Wars.

[AuthorTony]

Only 8 for me.

[nocera]

19 total for theatrical run. Though to be fair I'm counting the Special Editons.

[dodint]

Bummer, because most of those movies are dreck.

[Gaucho]

Oh yes.

[shafnutz05]

I have to say, I really wasn't expecting this:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/%E ... ar-AArClEL

Warner Bros./New Line's "It" has performed beyond box office analysts' wildest dreams -- or nightmares -- posting an opening weekend of $117.1 million from 4,103 screens. That gives it the third-highest opening weekend of 2017 behind only "Beauty and the Beast" and "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" and puts it just above the $117 million opening made by "Spider-Man: Homecoming."

Andy Muschietti's adaptation of Stephen King's famous novel will easily become the biggest opening for a film released in September or October and more than double the record set by "Hannibal" in 2001 for biggest horror movie opening."It" has become so big, it has come close to the record for the biggest opening for any R-Rated film, which is currently held by "Deadpool" with $132.4 million.

87% on Rotten Tomatoes too. Sounds like they turned out a fantastic adaptation (even if it can't cover all the source material).

[Why Not Us]

I have to say, I really wasn't expecting this:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/%E ... ar-AArClEL

Warner Bros./New Line's "It" has performed beyond box office analysts' wildest dreams -- or nightmares -- posting an opening weekend of $117.1 million from 4,103 screens. That gives it the third-highest opening weekend of 2017 behind only "Beauty and the Beast" and "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" and puts it just above the $117 million opening made by "Spider-Man: Homecoming."

Andy Muschietti's adaptation of Stephen King's famous novel will easily become the biggest opening for a film released in September or October and more than double the record set by "Hannibal" in 2001 for biggest horror movie opening."It" has become so big, it has come close to the record for the biggest opening for any R-Rated film, which is currently held by "Deadpool" with $132.4 million.

87% on Rotten Tomatoes too. Sounds like they turned out a fantastic adaptation (even if it can't cover all the source material).

It was certainly well made but other than the characters having the same names as in the book, not much followed the script Stephen King wrote. Muschietti changed up way more than I expected.

[dodint]

I have to say, I really wasn't expecting this:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/%E ... ar-AArClEL

Warner Bros./New Line's "It" has performed beyond box office analysts' wildest dreams -- or nightmares -- posting an opening weekend of $117.1 million from 4,103 screens. That gives it the third-highest opening weekend of 2017 behind only "Beauty and the Beast" and "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" and puts it just above the $117 million opening made by "Spider-Man: Homecoming."

Andy Muschietti's adaptation of Stephen King's famous novel will easily become the biggest opening for a film released in September or October and more than double the record set by "Hannibal" in 2001 for biggest horror movie opening."It" has become so big, it has come close to the record for the biggest opening for any R-Rated film, which is currently held by "Deadpool" with $132.4 million.

87% on Rotten Tomatoes too. Sounds like they turned out a fantastic adaptation (even if it can't cover all the source material).

Consistent with my original observations of the trailer; they didn't make a better adaptation of the book or movie. They did a reboot and dumbed it down for today's audience and people ate it up in droves.

[AuthorTony]

As I mentioned last week, I rewatched the original and found it pretty darn boring. It also felt extremely dated with hokey dialogue, tons of "so cheesy you groan" moments and absolutely zero tension or suspense. I'm not saying the new movie was fantastic, just that the original definitely isn't as good as I thought it was.

In some ways I wish the new movie had stayed closer to the book, but realistically, I knew that wasn't going to happen. It might be for the best too because I don't know how you could ever portray things like the ritual of Chud, Maturin the turtle, etc. on screen and not have it come off as ridiculous. Like so much of King's writing, vast parts of it are better left in your imagination than on a screen.

I think the new adaptation was very successful for what it set out to be - a 2 hour adaptation of a book that featured a scary clown, nothing more, nothing less.

[nocera]

The original It is garbage and only thought of fondly due to nostalgia. If that exact movie came out today it would be mocked for a few days then immediately forgotten.

[DigitalGypsy66]

Another good film I'd never heard of came up in my Netflix queue this weekend: Max Manus: Man of Action. I almost skipped it because it sounded like a cheesy 80s action film, but it was based on the true story of a Norwegian saboteur during WWII. High production values and a good story.

[shmenguin]

The original It is garbage and only thought of fondly due to nostalgia. If that exact movie came out today it would be mocked for a few days then immediately forgotten.

don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, though. the original was a victim of its time, and some bad decisions were made, but it resonated because of 2 big things:

1) Tim Curry's Pennywise. Evil and silly all at once.
2) The fact that so much of the horror appeared in broad daylight in familiar (and sometimes public) settings for the characters

I don't know how this version handles each, but the trailers weren't encouraging. But a couple gifs and stray reddit posts i've seen have given me some hope.

I think this smells like a movie that people want to be good, so they say it's good. And my gut guess is that it's a cut above the modern day successful horror movies like Sinister and Insidious but still worse than what it could have been. Still makes it worth a watch if that's where it lands, though.

[NTP66]

Source of the post 1) Tim Curry's Pennywise. Evil and silly all at once.
2) The fact that so much of the horror appeared in broad daylight in familiar (and sometimes public) settings for the characters

Easily my favorite things about the original.

[nocera]

Yeah, I'll give you Tim Curry. The horror happening in broad daylight in familiar settings is fun as well, though definitely wasn't new, even at the time of its release.

[shmenguin]

Source of the post 1) Tim Curry's Pennywise. Evil and silly all at once.
2) The fact that so much of the horror appeared in broad daylight in familiar (and sometimes public) settings for the characters

Easily my favorite things about the original.

yeah, you HAVE to convey that these kids feel like the town itself is complicit. there's no reason a high school shower, or a pharmacy or a reservoir should be consumed by monster-y things on a wednesday at 11am or whatever. but in this world, nowhere is safe. and the kids need to feel like there is no protection. no sanctuary. that's a giant part of the story. don't know if some of you early viewers can confirm that's still a major element or not.

[shmenguin]

Yeah, I'll give you Tim Curry. The horror happening in broad daylight in familiar settings is fun as well, though definitely wasn't new, even at the time of its release.

wasn't new? that was the tail end of the freddy/jason/hellraiser era of horror. i think it was fairly new territory.

[nocera]

Yeah, I'll give you Tim Curry. The horror happening in broad daylight in familiar settings is fun as well, though definitely wasn't new, even at the time of its release.

wasn't new? that was the tail end of the freddy/jason/hellraiser era of horror. i think it was fairly new territory.

Michael Myers was walking around in the broad daylight back in 1978.

[shmenguin]

Yeah, I'll give you Tim Curry. The horror happening in broad daylight in familiar settings is fun as well, though definitely wasn't new, even at the time of its release.

wasn't new? that was the tail end of the freddy/jason/hellraiser era of horror. i think it was fairly new territory.

Michael Myers was walking around in the broad daylight back in 1978.

i don't think you're picking up what i'm putting down, but that's fine.

[nocera]

Yeah, I'll give you Tim Curry. The horror happening in broad daylight in familiar settings is fun as well, though definitely wasn't new, even at the time of its release.

wasn't new? that was the tail end of the freddy/jason/hellraiser era of horror. i think it was fairly new territory.

Michael Myers was walking around in the broad daylight back in 1978.

i don't think you're picking up what i'm putting down, but that's fine.

No, I get it. It's horror done in a setting that should feel safe. I'm just arguing that Halloween did it first.

I didn't see It until much later in life, which is probably why I have zero sentimental attachment to it. It's much funnier than it is scary and I have a hard time understanding the love for it other than nostalgia from when it scared them as a child.

[shmenguin]

Yeah, I'll give you Tim Curry. The horror happening in broad daylight in familiar settings is fun as well, though definitely wasn't new, even at the time of its release.

wasn't new? that was the tail end of the freddy/jason/hellraiser era of horror. i think it was fairly new territory.

Michael Myers was walking around in the broad daylight back in 1978.

i don't think you're picking up what i'm putting down, but that's fine.

No, I get it. It's horror done in a setting that should feel safe. I'm just arguing that Halloween did it first.

I didn't see It until much later in life, which is probably why I have zero sentimental attachment to it. It's much funnier than it is scary and I have a hard time understanding the love for it other than nostalgia from when it scared them as a child.

i think the parts where they're kids hold up ok-ish. the grown up stuff though...woof

[eddy]

http://collider.com/it-movie-book-diffe ... hia-lillis

‘IT’: Here’s Everything the Hit Horror Movie Changed from Stephen King’s Classic Novel