Batman-Online.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh8FLnFQj3o

Solid teaser even though I can't say I'm exactly stoked about the way Pennywise the Clown is coming across. Which is to be intentionally evil right from his mere appearance. Outside of that, the portrayal/voice with this new Pennywise will definitely be a huge factor in judging how this measures up with Tim Curry's version. Which I liked, as he visually looked just like any other clown, only until he started to display the evil within.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 30 Mar  2017, 01:12
Which I liked, as he visually looked just like any other clown, only until he started to display the evil within.

This. The new film might be ok, but I'm really sick of the whole 'creepy clown' thing. What made Tim Curry's Pennywise so effective was that he initially looked like a traditional friendly clown, not one of the lame over-the-top horror clowns that have flooded pop culture in recent years. Curry's Pennywise was a monster masquerading as something outwardly innocent.


He only discarded the friendly veneer when he'd lured his victim close enough for the kill.


By contrast, the new Pennywise looks like he's trying way too hard to be creepy. The dirty makeup, the downturned gaze glaring up through his eyebrows... there's no subtlety to any of it. No subversion of childhood innocence. He just looks like a straight up psycho trying to be scary.


But I'll reserve judgement for the time being. I generally avoid horror movie remakes, but since the first It adaptation was a television miniseries and not a feature film, I'm willing to give this one a shot.

I'm not necessarily opposed to remakes. What bugs me is when stuff that was already awesome gets remade. Why not remake Ishtar or Gigli or something? Try getting it right this time. But remaking stuff that was fine to begin with is just lame.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  1 Apr  2017, 17:00
I'm not necessarily opposed to remakes. What bugs me is when stuff that was already awesome gets remade. Why not remake Ishtar or Gigli or something? Try getting it right this time. But remaking stuff that was fine to begin with is just lame.

Gigli was a bad idea from the start, and the same arguably applies to Ishtar.  But I do concur with your overall point.  Hollywood should be remaking bad or mediocre films, not good films.

Still, it should be a case of remaking films that had potential that was somehow squandered during production (for instance the film adaptations of Bonfire of the Vanities and American Pastoral, although they wouldn't strictly lead to remakes so much as re-adaptations).  Halloween 3 is, for me, a good example of a film that had a great idea (evil toy manufacturer plans to kill child population with Halloween masks) that fell short in its execution.  Unfortunately, Hollywood, in its flawed wisdom, decided instead to unnecessarily remake the good Halloween (i.e. the 1978 original).

As for IT, I still find any still of Tim Curry's Pennywise incredibly creepy.  There's something about Curry's dead-eyed stare that gives me the chills, especially when he's layered in makeup, as per Pennywise and Darkness in the fantasy film 'Legend', and that applies even whilst Pennywise is pretending to be a benign clown.  I still can't help but imagine how amazing Curry might have been as The Joker.

But admittedly, my response to the 1990 miniseries is significantly influenced by the fact I saw it as a little kid.  Modern horror films don't have such an intense affect on me simply because I'm now older and thus no longer susceptible to that primal fear one has as a kid.

I also have to say that apart from Curry's Pennywise, and one creepy scene in which one of Pennywise's victim's severed head is discovered in the fridge by his now-adult childhood friends, I don't think the 1990 miniseries is that brilliant, at least on an objective basis.  Some of the acting was pretty good, both by the child and adult cast, but the effects, apart from Pennywise, and overall production, now feels dated and less than polished.  So I do think the time is right for a new cinematic take on the Stephen King book, and I must say, I am reasonably impressed by what I've seen from the trailer so far.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  1 Apr  2017, 17:00
I'm not necessarily opposed to remakes. What bugs me is when stuff that was already awesome gets remade. Why not remake Ishtar or Gigli or something? Try getting it right this time. But remaking stuff that was fine to begin with is just lame.

No arguments here. But fixing something flawed requires talent and creativity. And that's something that's sadly lacking from most big Hollywood studios these days.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  1 Apr  2017, 18:15Still, it should be a case of remaking films that had potential that was somehow squandered during production (for instance the film adaptations of Bonfire of the Vanities and American Pastoral, although they wouldn't strictly lead to remakes so much as re-adaptations).

My dad gave me a copy of The Bonfire of the Vanities after we visited New York almost a decade ago. I'm a fan of Tom Wolfe's writing in general (The Right Stuff is brilliant), but Bonfire in particular is, in my opinion, one of the finest pieces of American literature ever produced. It captures the character of New York in the same way as Dickens captured the character of London.

I intentionally avoided researching De Palma's film adaptation until I'd finished reading it. Once I'd done so, I looked up the movie cast to see who was in it... and I saw Bruce Willis listed as Peter Fallow. After that, I just couldn't bring myself to watch it. I'm not sure it would ever have worked as a feature film anyway, but certainly not with terrible casting decisions like that. The novel is so dense, it would be better suited to a miniseries on Netflix or Amazon. Just don't let De Palma or Willis anywhere near it.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  1 Apr  2017, 18:15Halloween 3 is, for me, a good example of a film that had a great idea (evil toy manufacturer plans to kill child population with Halloween masks) that fell short in its execution.  Unfortunately, Hollywood, in its flawed wisdom, decided instead to unnecessarily remake the good Halloween (i.e. the 1978 original).

Halloween III is a guilty pleasure of mine. It's a deeply, deeply flawed movie, but I appreciate the fact it wasn't simply a retread of the Michael Myers story. It tried to do something different, and it's the only entry in the franchise to really be about Halloween. It has an autumnal ambience most of the other Halloween films lack. They should have just called it 'Season of the Witch' and downplayed the Halloween connection.

But I agree that it's a much better candidate for a remake than the 1978 original. Zombie was never going to top Carpenter's movie, but someone could potentially improve on Halloween III. Retain the elements that worked – the storyline, atmosphere, etc – and fix the elements that didn't. That's one remake I'd consider watching.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  1 Apr  2017, 18:15I still can't help but imagine how amazing Curry might have been as The Joker.

I often forget Curry was the original voice of the Joker in B:TAS until Hamill replaced him. Presumably he was cast based on his performance as Pennywise. Maybe WB will one day release some of the audio so we can hear what he would have sounded like.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  1 Apr  2017, 18:15I also have to say that apart from Curry's Pennywise, and one creepy scene in which one of Pennywise's victim's severed head is discovered in the fridge by his now-adult childhood friends, I don't think the 1990 miniseries is that brilliant, at least on an objective basis.  Some of the acting was pretty good, both by the child and adult cast, but the effects, apart from Pennywise, and overall production, now feels dated and less than polished.

I watched the miniseries last year for the first time in ages, and I had a similar reaction. Aspects of it hold up really well. Particularly Curry's performance. But some of the dialogue is a little awkward ("Why is it so MEAN?!") and there are a few too many group hug moments. I get that the friendship between the main characters is the heart of the story, but I felt their dependency on one another was at times overstated to the point of schmaltz (constantly patting each other on the shoulder, hugging, holding hands, sharing an inhaler and so forth). But it's still a solid miniseries. I suppose this new version being a theatrical movie will allow them to delve into content that couldn't have been depicted on television.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  1 Apr  2017, 19:15My dad gave me a copy of The Bonfire of the Vanities after we visited New York almost a decade ago. I'm a fan of Tom Wolfe's writing in general (The Right Stuff is brilliant), but Bonfire in particular is, in my opinion, one of the finest pieces of American literature ever produced. It captures the character of New York in the same way as Dickens captured the character of London.

I intentionally avoided researching De Palma's film adaptation until I'd finished reading it. Once I'd done so, I looked up the movie cast to see who was in it... and I saw Bruce Willis listed as Peter Fallow. After that, I just couldn't bring myself to watch it. I'm not sure it would ever have worked as a feature film anyway, but certainly not with terrible casting decisions like that. The novel is so dense, it would be better suited to a miniseries on Netflix or Amazon. Just don't let De Palma or Willis anywhere near it.

I'm a huge Tom Wolfe fan too, Bonfire... being my favourite (it's one of those rare novels that are just as rewarding the second and third time you read it, as the first).  Whatever one thinks of Wolfe's political perspective (and unlike Wolfe, I am a liberal), his writing is so detailed and descriptive that it cannot help but resonate as a perfect encapsulation of the period and community in question, in this case 1980s New York.

As for the film, I don't think it's bad as its reputation suggests, but clearly Bruce Willis and Tom Hanks were wildly miscast in their respective parts, and it goes without saying that it falls far, far short of the novel (apparently a TV miniseries is in pre-production, and I'd agree that this is ideally the perfect format for such an involved and often episodic novel, although I am somewhat concerned by the involvement of Chuck Lorre, the sitcom guy behind "Two and a Half Men").

However, a decent piece of work did result from the film adaptation.  I'd urge you to check out Julie Salamon's 'The Devil's Candy', which details the doomed production behind the movie.  Although it couldn't possibly touch Tom Wolfe's prose, it almost reads like a West Coast version of The Bonfire of the Vanities, with a similar cast of flawed and idiosyncratic characters (particularly Bruce Willis and Melanie Griffith, eternal nice-guy Tom Hanks coming off relatively well by contrast).  Even Brian De Palma apparently rates it as a fair and well-written account of the journey from acclaimed book to infamous flop movie.

QuoteHalloween III is a guilty pleasure of mine. It's a deeply, deeply flawed movie, but I appreciate the fact it wasn't simply a retread of the Michael Myers story. It tried to do something different, and it's the only entry in the franchise to really be about Halloween. It has an autumnal ambience most of the other Halloween films lack. They should have just called it 'Season of the Witch' and downplayed the Halloween connection.

But I agree that it's a much better candidate for a remake than the 1978 original. Zombie was never going to top Carpenter's movie, but someone could potentially improve on Halloween III. Retain the elements that worked – the storyline, atmosphere, etc – and fix the elements that didn't. That's one remake I'd consider watching.

I pretty much concur with everything you say here.  I think Halloween III is enjoyable as it is, but there's no doubt in my mind that it's a concept that, produced with a decent budget and on and off-screen personnel, has the potential to be a horror classic rather than a cult or guilty pleasure.

And for what it's worth, I can't stand the Rob Zombie remake of Halloween.  Not only was it unnecessary, it's a rather grotesque and lurid horror update.

QuoteI watched the miniseries last year for the first time in ages, and I had a similar reaction. Aspects of it hold up really well. Particularly Curry's performance. But some of the dialogue is a little awkward ("Why is it so MEAN?!") and there are a few too many group hug moments. I get that the friendship between the main characters is the heart of the story, but I felt their dependency on one another was at times overstated to the point of schmaltz (constantly patting each other on the shoulder, hugging, holding hands, sharing an inhaler and so forth). But it's still a solid miniseries. I suppose this new version being a theatrical movie will allow them to delve into content that couldn't have been depicted on television.

It's a decent miniseries, as you say, but I look forward to seeing what can be achieved on a higher budget.  Hopefully, if the film is successful, we'll get a follow-up dealing with the Losers' Club in adulthood.

For those interested, I found this interview/retrospective about the original 1990 ABC mini series of IT to be a good read.

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/back-to-derry-an-oral-history-of-stephen-kings-153351801.html

To be perfectly honest, I would say 1990's IT is decidedly my favorite out of all the Stephen King adaptations that originally aired as a TV mini series, or TV movie. Course some of that has to do with Tim Curry, & nostalgia, but overall I believe that the story was translated reasonably well and still works to some degree. Especially considering the budget limitations of the time, as well as the material itself being obviously constrained for what was deemed suitable for 1990 television standards. Still, IT did the job in creeping people the F out and Curry's performance being very memorable.

With the remake, there's alot that can be done, as there is quite a bit from the book that did not make it into the 1990 tele films.

For instance, there are alot of scenes in the book that include the gay-bashing scene at the start of the book, the Chud ritual (which *I believe* had a Indian legend behind it that revealed IT's weakness being silver...., a lot of history/disasters/murders where IT had terrorized Derry in the past. The clubhouse, Beverley's dad going, um, batsh*t crazy, Hockstetter, Mike battling the giant bird ect. There's also stuff like Ben for example is a loner outside of Lincoln Nebraska, while Ben in the TV mini series is a lush living in New York City where Richie is in the book. Richie being in Beverly Hills where Bill and his wife are in the book. There's probably more examples, but those stick out the most.

One common complaint about the 1990 TV movie that often gets brought up ad nauseum, is the whole deal with IT being "revealed" as a Giant Spider at the end. Personally, I never had a big issue with it. Then, or now. I know there's alot of people that have no interest in reading the book, and will believe that IT's true form is that of a Giant Spider, but it's pretty straightforward in that the Giant Spider is intended to convey that humans cannot fully comprehend IT's "true" shape, only that a spider was as close as the human mind could get to It. As many people have a fear of spiders already, it makes sense.

One thing that appears to be the case, is that the 1990 TV movie remains true to the book in atleast as far as in a narrative sense. As both the book and TV movie jump between the childhood of The Losers Group and their current day lives. This doesn't appear to be what's going on with the 2017 film. Not sure if that will have any major effect, but of course, we will see.

Oh yeah, some fun facts about IT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK7VHSHT9ks&t=2s

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  1 Apr  2017, 20:30However, a decent piece of work did result from the film adaptation.  I'd urge you to check out Julie Salamon's 'The Devil's Candy', which details the doomed production behind the movie.  Although it couldn't possibly touch Tom Wolfe's prose, it almost reads like a West Coast version of The Bonfire of the Vanities, with a similar cast of flawed and idiosyncratic characters (particularly Bruce Willis and Melanie Griffith, eternal nice-guy Tom Hanks coming off relatively well by contrast).  Even Brian De Palma apparently rates it as a fair and well-written account of the journey from acclaimed book to infamous flop movie.

Thanks for the recommendation. I've not heard of that book before now, but it sounds like an interesting read. I've always enjoyed books and documentaries about unproduced or disastrous films. And it wouldn't be the first behind-the-scenes book I've read to paint a negative picture of Bruce Willis. I'm glad Hanks comes across well though. It's interesting that he was cast in such a dramatic part in 1990, back when he was still largely considered a comedic actor. I don't think the industry truly recognised what a talented serious actor Hanks was until he starred in films like Philadelphia, Forrest Gump and Apollo 13. Perhaps his work on De Palma's picture helped pave the way for those meatier roles?

As a matter of interest, who would you have cast as Fallow back in 1990? I'm trying to think of an actor from that era who could have played an intemperate British journalist in the spirit of the book. Perhaps someone like Jonathan Pryce, Anthony Andrews or Christopher Guest?

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  1 Apr  2017, 20:30I am somewhat concerned by the involvement of Chuck Lorre, the sitcom guy behind "Two and a Half Men").

The novel contains some hilarious satire – particularly in its depiction of the eighties New York bourgeoisie and the macho Wall Street 'sharks' – but it also contains intense drama and serious social and racial themes. Striking the correct tonal balance is one of the biggest challenges facing anyone intending to adapt it, and I hope they don't try to circumvent the issue by reducing the material to a situational comedy. There were a handful of films in the eighties that managed to effectively mix similar satirical themes with drama (I'm thinking specifically of Wall Street and RoboCop), so it definitely can be done. But a Two and a Half Men connection doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  1 Apr  2017, 20:30And for what it's worth, I can't stand the Rob Zombie remake of Halloween.  Not only was it unnecessary, it's a rather grotesque and lurid horror update.

I'll credit Zombie with a certain flair for visuals, but his particular brand of hillbilly horror has never appealed to me either. I thought his demystified and explicit approach to the Halloween remake betrayed a fundamental lack of understanding about what made the original so effective to begin with. Trading subtlety and suspense for graphic violence seldom pays off, and it certainly didn't in this case.

Quote from: The Joker on Sun,  2 Apr  2017, 01:26For instance, there are alot of scenes in the book that include the gay-bashing scene at the start of the book, the Chud ritual (which *I believe* had a Indian legend behind it that revealed IT's weakness being silver...., a lot of history/disasters/murders where IT had terrorized Derry in the past. The clubhouse, Beverley's dad going, um, batsh*t crazy, Hockstetter, Mike battling the giant bird ect. There's also stuff like Ben for example is a loner outside of Lincoln Nebraska, while Ben in the TV mini series is a lush living in New York City where Richie is in the book. Richie being in Beverly Hills where Bill and his wife are in the book. There's probably more examples, but those stick out the most.

I've read about half a dozen Stephen King novels, but It isn't one of them. So this is all new to me. It does seem like there's a lot of material missing from the TV version. In an age when film studios are needlessly adapting 200 page novels into 9-hour movie trilogies, this could be a rare instance where a multi-film treatment is actually called for.

Quote from: The Joker on Sun,  2 Apr  2017, 01:26One thing that appears to be the case, is that the 1990 TV movie remains true to the book in atleast as far as in a narrative sense. As both the book and TV movie jump between the childhood of The Losers Group and their current day lives. This doesn't appear to be what's going on with the 2017 film. Not sure if that will have any major effect, but of course, we will see.

Has it been confirmed if they're definitely making a second film featuring the adult versions of the characters? I liked the way the TV version cut back and forth between the two time periods. Seeing the adult characters reacting to their childhood traumas was a great way of building suspense prior to Pennywise's appearance. It showed us the effect before showing us the cause, and that made anticipation of the cause all the more frightening.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun,  2 Apr  2017, 17:31In an age when film studios are needlessly adapting 200 page novels into 9-hour movie trilogies, this could be a rare instance where a multi-film treatment is actually called for.

In today's market, I think a lot of book adaptations can be done well in the form of a Netflix series.

The Man in the High Castle is a good example of what can be done... even though it's released by Amazon rather than Netflix. But you get the idea.

Anyway, my guess is it's more of an ongoing show inspired by Dick's novel as opposed to an "adaptation" of the novel. But it comes to the same. The Netflix format allows a deeper exploration of the material or perhaps an alternative look at the material which isn't necessarily beholden to delivering a beginning, middle and ending.

It would be frustrating as hell to do something like that in broadcast television but streaming seems to have a lot more flexibility and offers a chance to luxuriate in the material a bit more or maybe indulge more creative impulses.

Perhaps IT might be better served as a Netflix/Amazon show?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun,  2 Apr  2017, 17:31Thanks for the recommendation. I've not heard of that book before now, but it sounds like an interesting read. I've always enjoyed books and documentaries about unproduced or disastrous films. And it wouldn't be the first behind-the-scenes book I've read to paint a negative picture of Bruce Willis. I'm glad Hanks comes across well though. It's interesting that he was cast in such a dramatic part in 1990, back when he was still largely considered a comedic actor. I don't think the industry truly recognised what a talented serious actor Hanks was until he starred in films like Philadelphia, Forrest Gump and Apollo 13. Perhaps his work on De Palma's picture helped pave the way for those meatier roles?

As a matter of interest, who would you have cast as Fallow back in 1990? I'm trying to think of an actor from that era who could have played an intemperate British journalist in the spirit of the book. Perhaps someone like Jonathan Pryce, Anthony Andrews or Christopher Guest?

Definitely Jonathan Pryce (one of my favourite actors).  He played a similarly floundering character in Brazil, which came out a few years earlier to Bonfire, and I can see him circa 1990 as a washed-up reporter.  Plus, although he wasn't a big star, he was still pretty well-known and regarded by that stage.

Had he been much better-known I think Roger Allam, who is now an established name in stuff like "Game of Thrones", "The Thick of It", Speed Racer, and a few other films, would have been a good choice.  I vaguely remember that Peter Fallow was described as being quite pudgy, but I could be wrong about that.  He's certainly described as a borderline alcoholic, like I suspect many British journalists are.

Hanks wasn't terrible in Bonfire, but he was miscast.  De Palma has said that in retrospect he would have cast someone less likeable and more supercilious-seeming for the part, like John Lithgow, who he's worked with a few times.  I think Lithgow would have worked, although I always liked the idea of William Hurt as Sherman McCoy.  Hurt can do unlikeable and haughty, but he's also got the looks to go with the self-proclaimed 'Master of the Universe'.

The problem with casting Hanks is that it totally undermines the essence of the novel, which fundamentally asks its readers to perform the counterintuitive task of rooting for an incredibly unlikable man of immense privilege.  Basically Wolfe is saying "don't judge McCoy on the basis of our prejudices and preconceptions of a wealthy adulterous stockbroker, but judge him on the basis of the crime he's been (wrongfully) accused of", contrary to the supporting cast who are all too eager to throw McCoy to the lions (mostly out of self-interest).  Suffice to say, Hanks' presence stacks the cards in McCoy's favour from the get-go, since the actor is so innately likeable and easy-to-root for.

But it is interesting to note, as you do, that despite the failure of Bonfire, one of Hanks' first big meaty dramatic roles (Big is a great piece of acting, but it's still seen as a semi-comic part, as is the underrated Punchline, which cast Hanks as a stand-up comedian with a dark side), he went on, within the space of two or three years, to become the preeminent American dramatic actor of his generation.

QuoteThe novel contains some hilarious satire – particularly in its depiction of the eighties New York bourgeoisie and the macho Wall Street 'sharks' – but it also contains intense drama and serious social and racial themes. Striking the correct tonal balance is one of the biggest challenges facing anyone intending to adapt it, and I hope they don't try to circumvent the issue by reducing the material to a situational comedy. There were a handful of films in the eighties that managed to effectively mix similar satirical themes with drama (I'm thinking specifically of Wall Street and RoboCop), so it definitely can be done. But a Two and a Half Men connection doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

I think Martin Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street provides a great template as to how that type of balance and tone might be achieved.

QuoteI'll credit Zombie with a certain flair for visuals, but his particular brand of hillbilly horror has never appealed to me either. I thought his demystified and explicit approach to the Halloween remake betrayed a fundamental lack of understanding about what made the original so effective to begin with. Trading subtlety and suspense for graphic violence seldom pays off, and it certainly didn't in this case.

Agreed.  I just felt that the remake came across as rather grotty and sordid, which works if you're remaking say, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but is totally unnecessary in the case of Halloween, the original of which is still relatively subtle and chilling, rather than filled with excess splatter and gore.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun,  2 Apr  2017, 17:31
I've read about half a dozen Stephen King novels, but It isn't one of them. So this is all new to me. It does seem like there's a lot of material missing from the TV version. In an age when film studios are needlessly adapting 200 page novels into 9-hour movie trilogies, this could be a rare instance where a multi-film treatment is actually called for.

That true. IT is one of those King novels that would, if the goal is to adapt it as closely to the book as possible and not streamline, benefit from having a actual series that begins and ends during one season. Especially if entities like The Other, and The Turtle are to ever be fully acknowledged.   

QuoteHas it been confirmed if they're definitely making a second film featuring the adult versions of the characters? I liked the way the TV version cut back and forth between the two time periods. Seeing the adult characters reacting to their childhood traumas was a great way of building suspense prior to Pennywise's appearance. It showed us the effect before showing us the cause, and that made anticipation of the cause all the more frightening.

I think that that is the hope. For this to be successful, and which would conclude with a follow-up. I agree that if it's just strictly the child cast, with no fast forwards back and forth between the Loser Club as kids and adults, there is something that's going to be lost there in the narrative storytelling sense. Since the back and forth was indeed the case within the novel and the 1990 tele films.


On the topic of Rob Zombie and Halloween, yeah, he was an odd choice for director on something like a remake/reboot of Halloween. Speaking of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", I remember Zombie enjoyed alot of goodwill following "The Devils Rejects" which came across as basically Rob Zombie doing his version of "The Texas Chainsaw Masscare Part 2". i.E. Alot more comedic dialogue. Focusing more on the family of killers, a unstable Sheriff out for vengeance due to a relative getting killed by the family, ect.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun,  2 Apr  2017, 19:44Had he been much better-known I think Roger Allam, who is now an established name in stuff like "Game of Thrones", "The Thick of It", Speed Racer, and a few other films, would have been a good choice.  I vaguely remember that Peter Fallow was described as being quite pudgy, but I could be wrong about that.  He's certainly described as a borderline alcoholic, like I suspect many British journalists are.

I mostly know Allam from Endeavour. I hadn't considered him for the part of Fallow, but now that you raise the idea, I think he'd have been better than any of the actors I suggested. He even looks a bit like Christopher Hitchens, one of the alleged real life influences behind the character. It's been a few years since I read the book, but I also recall him being described as overweight.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun,  2 Apr  2017, 19:44I think Martin Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street provides a great template as to how that type of balance and tone might be achieved.

It was amusing to hear DiCaprio's character describe himself and his friends as 'Masters of the Universe' in Scorsese's movie. I wasn't sure if that line was an allusion to Wolfe's novel, or if Wolfe was referencing something Jordan Belfort had said in real life. Either way, it just goes to show how prevalent such hubris was amongst the materialistic Wall Street elite.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun,  2 Apr  2017, 17:31On the topic of Rob Zombie and Halloween, yeah, he was an odd choice for director on something like a remake/reboot of Halloween. Speaking of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", I remember Zombie enjoyed alot of goodwill following "The Devils Rejects" which came across as basically Rob Zombie doing his version of "The Texas Chainsaw Masscare Part 2". i.E. Alot more comedic dialogue. Focusing more on the family of killers, a unstable Sheriff out for vengeance due to a relative getting killed by the family, ect.

I mostly remember The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 for Hopper's wonderfully OTT performance ("I am the Lord of the Harvest!!!!") and for introducing me to the music of Oingo Boingo. The choice of 'No One Lives Forever' to score the first murder scene was inspired. But I've never gotten around to watching The Devil's Rejects. I did see House of 1,000 Corpses, but I didn't rate it very highly. Is The Devil's Rejects better?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon,  3 Apr  2017, 22:14I mostly know Allam from Endeavour. I hadn't considered him for the part of Fallow, but now that you raise the idea, I think he'd have been better than any of the actors I suggested. He even looks a bit like Christopher Hitchens, one of the alleged real life influences behind the character. It's been a few years since I read the book, but I also recall him being described as overweight.

I think you've nailed the primary reason I'd thought of Allam; that he somewhat resembles Christopher Hitchens, who, as you say, seems to be one of the primary inspirations for 'Peter Fallow'.

QuoteIt was amusing to hear DiCaprio's character describe himself and his friends as 'Masters of the Universe' in Scorsese's movie. I wasn't sure if that line was an allusion to Wolfe's novel, or if Wolfe was referencing something Jordan Belfort had said in real life. Either way, it just goes to show how prevalent such hubris was amongst the materialistic Wall Street elite.

Didn't Belfort make his fortune in the 1990s?  In that case it would appear he was referencing the Wolfe novel, or maybe he was going right to the original source of that 'Masters of the Universe' reference (i.e. He-Man ;) ).

It's like the yuppies who went around quoting Wall Street and the "greed is good" speech in the late 80s without an ounce of irony.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon,  3 Apr  2017, 22:14
I mostly remember The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 for Hopper's wonderfully OTT performance ("I am the Lord of the Harvest!!!!") and for introducing me to the music of Oingo Boingo. The choice of 'No One Lives Forever' to score the first murder scene was inspired. But I've never gotten around to watching The Devil's Rejects. I did see House of 1,000 Corpses, but I didn't rate it very highly. Is The Devil's Rejects better?

Yeah, I would say The Devil's Rejects is the best film Rob Zombie has made thus far. House of a 1,000 Corpses is alright, but Rejects is a much more polished sequel. If/when you ever watch it, I'm sure you will quickly spot the similarities between Rejects and TCM Part 2. I thought William Forsythe did a pretty good job in channeling his inner Dennis Hopper throughout the film, and giving Sid Haig more screen time definitely didn't hurt either.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon,  3 Apr  2017, 22:50Didn't Belfort make his fortune in the 1990s?

You're right. It's been so long since I saw that movie, for some reason I had it in my head as taking place in the late seventies and early eighties.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon,  3 Apr  2017, 22:50In that case it would appear he was referencing the Wolfe novel, or maybe he was going right to the original source of that 'Masters of the Universe' reference (i.e. He-Man  ).

Scorsese's film begins in 1987. The Bonfire of the Vanities was first published in 1987. Dolph Lundgren's Masters of the Universe movie came out in 1987. 1987 was the year of He-Man, both on Eternia and Wall Street.

Quote from: The Joker on Mon,  3 Apr  2017, 23:13Yeah, I would say The Devil's Rejects is the best film Rob Zombie has made thus far. House of a 1,000 Corpses is alright, but Rejects is a much more polished sequel. If/when you ever watch it, I'm sure you will quickly spot the similarities between Rejects and TCM Part 2. I thought William Forsythe did a pretty good job in channeling his inner Dennis Hopper throughout the film, and giving Sid Haig more screen time definitely didn't hurt either.

Although I'm not a fan of Zombie in general, I am intrigued to see this particular film. Wasn't there an online campaign to get Bill Moseley an Academy Award nomination when it first came out? I suppose his appearance in both films is another TCM2 connection. I might check it out after all.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon,  3 Apr  2017, 23:21
Although I'm not a fan of Zombie in general, I am intrigued to see this particular film. Wasn't there an online campaign to get Bill Moseley an Academy Award nomination when it first came out? I suppose his appearance in both films is another TCM2 connection. I might check it out after all.

I am not a big Zombie guy either, and the last film I watched of his was "Lords of Salem" which I didn't particularly care for, but yeah if you have already seen House of a 1,000 Corpses, then you may as well check out Devils Rejects. I don't recall anything with fans wanting to nominate Bill Moseley for an Academy Award lol, but it may just be true.  ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WDnTSRft8w&t=5s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skf5JL4vSbc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81D59hQdPnw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaMvfmoDQK0&t=49s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av0FGjXSOr4

Some new TV spots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHNxWrJaGjs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZcn47iygOs

I thought Stephen King was dead?

He is to me, anyway.

Quote from: The Joker on Sun,  2 Apr  2017, 20:48
On the topic of Rob Zombie and Halloween, yeah, he was an odd choice for director on something like a remake/reboot of Halloween. Speaking of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", I remember Zombie enjoyed alot of goodwill following "The Devils Rejects" which came across as basically Rob Zombie doing his version of "The Texas Chainsaw Masscare Part 2". i.E. Alot more comedic dialogue. Focusing more on the family of killers, a unstable Sheriff out for vengeance due to a relative getting killed by the family, ect.

I saw The Devil's Rejects for the first time a couple of weeks ago, and you weren't kidding about the TCM2 similarities. Zombie even referenced the scene where Leatherface skins the guy's face and makes the woman wear it. Still, I prefer filmmakers who reference earlier works in their own original IPs to filmmakers who flat out remake older films without adding anything original or inventive to the mix. Another good example would be Insidious, which is a far better homage to Poltergeist (1982) than the 2015 remake was.

Here's a fun tie-in game for anyone who's interested. Let's see who can get the highest score.

http://game.itthemovie.com/#_=_

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 28 Aug  2017, 22:27
Here's a fun tie-in game for anyone who's interested. Let's see who can get the highest score.

http://game.itthemovie.com/#_=_

7900 on my one and only try.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 28 Aug  2017, 22:27
Here's a fun tie-in game for anyone who's interested. Let's see who can get the highest score.

http://game.itthemovie.com/#_=_

Haha. Thanks for posting that.  ;D

--


Looks like the Alamo Drafthouse is really clowning around now.

Coulrophobes steer clear: Alamo Drafthouse is hosting a clown-only screening of Stephen King's 'It'

http://mashable.com/2017/08/24/stephen-king-clown-only-it-screening/#JrZWrl_hpSqL

QuoteWho's afraid of clowns? Not the Alamo Drafthouse, apparently.

Following the massive success of their women-only screenings of Wonder Woman, the theater has announced a special clown-only screening of Stephen King's It.

The event will be preceded by a pre-party at the Barrel O' Fun – Alamo Drafthouse Austin's carnival-themed bar – that includes face-painting, a photo booth, a raffle, and other cool, fun, definitely not at all terrifying activities.

As of now, the clown-only It screening is only planned for the chain's Austin location.

But hey, those all-female Wonder Woman screenings started with plans for a single showing in Austin, before widespread demand convinced the company to roll them out with other locations.

I saw this yesterday and was quite impressed. The child actors are enjoyable to watch, they don't come across as annoying and each of them give their characters some depth. There's definitely a vibe of Goonies meeting Stranger Things meeting A Nightmare on Elm Street. The actor playing Ritchie especially is quite fun and I liked how the chubby kid was made into a likeable character instead of another stereotype. The atmosphere and visuals are very impressive and the biggest improvement from the miniseries. The premise and overall plot is quite frightening, especially if you like psychological horror. There's enough changes to keep you on your toes if you've read the book but yet it still remains faithful.

My only complaint is Pennywise himself. I don't think he was poorly portrayed and I'm glad Bill Saasgard didn't attempt to emulate Tim Curry but ultimately this portrayal didn't have quite as much range as Curry's version. They pulled off the scary clown with aplomb but the part of the character that felt missing was the more fun, humourous aspect of the character which is what allows him to be so evil and lure children. I think the final act would have been better had they let the clown be more humorous in the earlier scenes before showing true evil in the final act. At the end of the day it felt like the original explored the mysterious clown more than this one did, this one I felt the kids stealing the scenes from the clown.

I certainly would go see a sequel but I'm skeptical whether it can be as good. The second part of the miniseries wasn't as good because of the Adult actors not coming across as strong as the children and with the bar set here, I do think we'll miss the kids in part II. I'm not saying it can't be done but the sense of childlike wonder will be a tougher presence to emulate with adult actors.

First things, first. I'll say that the film is well directed, and provides good atmosphere. To me, it's good to be just familiar enough with the original story to have a sense of what might have been changed, and it was a fair bit. Not just in modifications due to the timeline change, but in a few necessary changes to story and character to help it serve as a single, self-contained story; the narrative has its escalating structure, the characters have arcs, it all works within itself. I walked out of the theater interested in "Chapter 2" featuring the adult versions of the Loser's Club, but overall, I think this alone did a great job of making IT stand alone. Having said that, this film features alot of differences from the book as well. It's something the original 1990 mini series did, and that's also carried over to this adaptation as well.

There are a number of directorial flourishes that I thought worked very well, but one that stood out to me early on was the way that it ratcheted up tension by sudden reveals that creepy music was diegetic. With the Losers, I felt their introductions were fairly good, and each played their role well. With Pennywise, I felt he was decent, but no Tim Curry. Who still reigns supreme as Pennywise the Dancing Clown in my mind. For me, the problem was the overuse of jump scares and the overabundance usage of CGI whenever he appeared on screen. Sure, you get the point of why it's being done, but unfortunately makes his performance feel somewhat flat due to all the jump scares/CGI constantly being distracting. Decent, not amazing. But I'll give him props for not trying to go Curry-lite. That was smart.

As far as Easter Eggs go, I did like how they had a specific clown doll, amongst many other dolls, that bore more than a passing resemblence to Tim Curry's Pennywise. That was cool. I liked the comment about a "turtle" during the Loser's swimming scene. The Paul Bunyan statue in the backgroud. All good stuff. There probably was more, but these come to mind first. Getting back to differences from the source material, I felt that there was something missing in not having IT taking the shape of famous movie monsters as he did in the book, and kinda did in the 1990 mini-series (Teenage Werewolf). Sure, the use of having IT take the shape of The Creature from the Black Lagoon, or The Frankenstein Monster, might seem a bit out of place in a 1989 setting, but personally, I think having IT take the shape of maybe a swarm of Critters, similar to how he took the form of a swarm of leeches in the book, or perhaps a Freddy Krueger/Pennywise hybrid would have been a cool visual, and would have just added to the overall period piece asthetic. This being completely excluded, the cutting the movie monsters, I think, essentially hurts the cohesion of the kids' investigation that we get from the book itself.

Overall, good. Not spectacular. IT is not without problems and flaws, but I liked it well enough to probably buy it on Blu Ray when it comes out.

Chapter 2 Teaser:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqUopiAYdRg&t=3s

Trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhJ5P7Up3jA&list=FL2E_KOhE1_wJT8fltjHkXsA&index=2&t=8s

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon,  7 Aug  2017, 03:44
I thought Stephen King was dead?

He is to me, anyway.

Let me guess...he badmouthed Trump?  ::)