In 1991 in Madrid the police responded to a 911 call in an apartment complex. What they found frightened and baffled them. This case is listed officially listed by the police as "unexplained". Then the film backtracks to a few days before the opening sequence. During an eclipse three teenage girls including one named Veronica (played by Sandra Escacena) sneak away from their classmates and play with a Ouija board to contact their respective dead loved ones. Something strange happens while they play with the Ouija board although Veronica doesn't seem to remember. Over the course of the next few days paranormal events start happening at Veronica's house although only the children see or experience anything.
Like many other people I got sucked into the hype of "this is the scariest film on Netflix" and how only "1 in 10 people have been able to watch it all the way through". Just like the others I'm sure, I recognized hype but I decided to watch it anyway with low expectations. I wasn't disappointed but I know it was because I went in with low expectations.
The acting was very good especially by the lead actress Sandra Escacena. I was impressed to learn that this was her first film. She certainly didn't give any indication that this was her first film.
Overall the horror had some similarities to other demonic films. There were a few jump scares but I thought that they were appropriate considering. I personally enjoyed the film more than I anticipated and I do recommend it to those who are curious.
Regarding the "based on true events" aspect I did research the real story as best as I could. Of course everything that I found was articles that were biased one way or the other. They all claimed to have real photos and real statements from the incident and media outlets that covered it. I personally believe in paranormal things particularly involving demons so I found the real story very frightening. I liked how the movie incorporated aspects of the the real story although there was some understandable condensing and slight creative license taken.
It's nice to have a film based on true events actually present the true events to a larger degree than Hollywood tends to. Future Hollywood productions based on true events should borrow a page from this film's filmmakers. They would have better films based on true events.
A word of caution regarding watching this film. There are two Spanish films on Netflix called Veronica, both are horror movies, and both were released in 2017. Look for the one involving teenage girls playing with a Ouija board.
Tuesday, July 7, 2020
Monday, July 6, 2020
Hell House LLC Not rated there is some violence, language, and disturbing/frightening imagery
A documentary crew is investigating the mysterious events that resulted in the deaths of tourgoers and staff at a haunted house attaction called Hell House. One lone witness who was a staff member named Sarah (played by Ryan Jennifer Jones) comes forward with new evidence including video recordings leading up to that final tragic tour.
This is a newer found footage film movie so if you don't like found footage films then this movie isn't for you. I personally don't have issue with found footage films so I thought that this film was surprisingly good. I say surprisingly good because there have been so many found footage films and some are so similar that they feel like the same movie.
When I first started watching the film I was skeptical and put off by one of the main characters Alex (played by Danny Bellini). I felt that the actor was trying too hard to be a douchey tool so I stopped watching it. A friend who is a huge fan of found footage films, strongly urged me to give the film a second try. I did with some reluctance, fully prepared to be disappointed. I was pleasantly surprised by the film. I thoroughly enjoyed it and continue to watch it often lately.
The story was interesting and part of its appeal for me is what the filmmakers left out for the audience to piece together/imagine. I personally love it when filmmakers grant audiences the chance to make films scarier/more interesting by leaving stuff to the imagination as long as it is done well.
I was also pleasantly surprised by the lack of reliance on excessive anything whether it was violence, sexuality, gore etc. Unfortunately many horror movies especially modern ones seem to rely heavily on either sexuality and/or gore. There also wasn't a lot of jump scares which can get tiring after awhile.
Alex grew on me and the rest of the characters made sense. Very good job of presenting a "believable" horror story. The visuals were also good considering this is a found footage film.
This is a newer found footage film movie so if you don't like found footage films then this movie isn't for you. I personally don't have issue with found footage films so I thought that this film was surprisingly good. I say surprisingly good because there have been so many found footage films and some are so similar that they feel like the same movie.
When I first started watching the film I was skeptical and put off by one of the main characters Alex (played by Danny Bellini). I felt that the actor was trying too hard to be a douchey tool so I stopped watching it. A friend who is a huge fan of found footage films, strongly urged me to give the film a second try. I did with some reluctance, fully prepared to be disappointed. I was pleasantly surprised by the film. I thoroughly enjoyed it and continue to watch it often lately.
The story was interesting and part of its appeal for me is what the filmmakers left out for the audience to piece together/imagine. I personally love it when filmmakers grant audiences the chance to make films scarier/more interesting by leaving stuff to the imagination as long as it is done well.
I was also pleasantly surprised by the lack of reliance on excessive anything whether it was violence, sexuality, gore etc. Unfortunately many horror movies especially modern ones seem to rely heavily on either sexuality and/or gore. There also wasn't a lot of jump scares which can get tiring after awhile.
Alex grew on me and the rest of the characters made sense. Very good job of presenting a "believable" horror story. The visuals were also good considering this is a found footage film.
Thursday, July 2, 2020
What We Do in the Shadows (2014) rated R for bloody violent content, some sexual material, and language
This film (which led to the show of the same title) is a "documentary" on a group of vampires living in modern times in Wellington New Zealand. Viago (played by Taika Waititi), Deacon (played by Jonathan Brugh), Vladislav (played by Jemaine Clement) and Petyr (played by Ben Fransham) are all sharing a flat together and have allowed access to a private world. A film crew follows these flatmates as they go about their daily lives, including following a chore wheel, hunting, and meeting/interacting with new people while dealing with the challenges that being undead can bring. All throughout the film comedic hijinks ensue.
I first became aware of this film when I saw a preview for the show of the same name. Afterwords I learned of the movie. I personally find that so far I've liked what little I've seen of Taika Waititi's work so I was sold as soon as I heard about his involvement. I wasn't disappointed at all.
I loved the dynamic between the cast. Viago is a sweet earnest nice guy who obviously wants to live but seems genuinely concerned about everyone around him whether it is his flatmates or his victims. Deacon is great fun as a this bombastic party guy who is selfish and self-centered but he's really not a bad guy and he does care about his friends. Vladislav is probably the most "familiar" in that he is a "traditional almost old-school" type vampire. He's been around for awhile, he's seen and done some things and he's not ashamed but he's also more refined than perhaps the younger "generation". Finally we have Petyr. He is the silent stoic type probably because he's a Nosferatu and he's the oldest of them all. We see the least of him but the film did a good job of keeping him in the present despite his being in the background. The characters are well rounded off by the side characters who do a great job of holding their own. I also loved how all of the actors were so wonderfully generous. You never really forgot about any one of the side characters while keeping your focus on the main three.
The comedy was great for me. I was laughing the whole time. I'm very happy that I was able to procure a dvd copy of this film because I love it and apparently it was at one time hard to find. If you're looking for a great original comedy this is one to watch.
I first became aware of this film when I saw a preview for the show of the same name. Afterwords I learned of the movie. I personally find that so far I've liked what little I've seen of Taika Waititi's work so I was sold as soon as I heard about his involvement. I wasn't disappointed at all.
I loved the dynamic between the cast. Viago is a sweet earnest nice guy who obviously wants to live but seems genuinely concerned about everyone around him whether it is his flatmates or his victims. Deacon is great fun as a this bombastic party guy who is selfish and self-centered but he's really not a bad guy and he does care about his friends. Vladislav is probably the most "familiar" in that he is a "traditional almost old-school" type vampire. He's been around for awhile, he's seen and done some things and he's not ashamed but he's also more refined than perhaps the younger "generation". Finally we have Petyr. He is the silent stoic type probably because he's a Nosferatu and he's the oldest of them all. We see the least of him but the film did a good job of keeping him in the present despite his being in the background. The characters are well rounded off by the side characters who do a great job of holding their own. I also loved how all of the actors were so wonderfully generous. You never really forgot about any one of the side characters while keeping your focus on the main three.
The comedy was great for me. I was laughing the whole time. I'm very happy that I was able to procure a dvd copy of this film because I love it and apparently it was at one time hard to find. If you're looking for a great original comedy this is one to watch.
Wednesday, March 11, 2020
Jojo Rabbit rated PG-13 for thematic content, violence, language, and some disturbing imagery
Johannes "Jojo" (played by Roman Griffin Davis) is a 10 year old German boy growing up in Nazi Germany. He desperately wants to be a Nazi, so much so that his imaginary friend is Hitler (played by Taika Waititi). He lives with his mother Rosie (played by Scarlett Johansson) while his father is off fighting in the war. While working hard to do his part to be a "good Nazi" he finds out that his mother is hiding a Jewish girl named Elsa (played by Thomasin McKenzie) in the attic. This puts him in a conundrum of being torn between being a "good Nazi" or trying to protect himself and his mother.
This all sounds very dramatic and it is. But there's a wonderful mix of surprising humor woven throughout this satire that I would also consider a bit of a coming of age story. It's Nazi Germany so there is going to be so sad and harsh things that happen in this movie so be prepared.
This is a wonderful wonderful movie that I think everyone should watch.
I had heard that this movie was not promoted as well as it should have been due to studios being afraid of upsetting people with a "Nazi" movie. I don't know if this is true or not. If it is true, the studios missed the point of this film.
If you are at all curious don't miss this gem of a movie.
This all sounds very dramatic and it is. But there's a wonderful mix of surprising humor woven throughout this satire that I would also consider a bit of a coming of age story. It's Nazi Germany so there is going to be so sad and harsh things that happen in this movie so be prepared.
This is a wonderful wonderful movie that I think everyone should watch.
I had heard that this movie was not promoted as well as it should have been due to studios being afraid of upsetting people with a "Nazi" movie. I don't know if this is true or not. If it is true, the studios missed the point of this film.
If you are at all curious don't miss this gem of a movie.
Friday, October 18, 2019
Cooties (2014) rated R for horror violence and gore, language including sexual references, and some drug use
A small group of teachers and students struggle to survive against other students when a mysterious illness aka "Cooties" breaks out and seems to rapidly infect every child that comes in contact with it. It's a horror comedy zombie movie. This film stars Elijah Wood, Rainn Wilson (Dwight from the American version of The Office), Alison Pill, and others. It is a cute and slightly gross movie that will make you think twice about chicken nuggets. The opening sequence is gross but once you get to Elijah Wood, you're pretty much in the clear.
Monday, September 9, 2019
It (1990) rated PG for mild language, mild violence, and some scary/frightening images *spoilers*
In part one of this miniseries a group of seven 12 year old children are brought together to fight an ancient evil in the form of a clown called Pennywise (played by Tim Curry) who murders children in their hometown of Derry Maine.
In part two the adults who were the children who fought Pennywise the clown return to Derry to fight him again and hopefully defeat him after another series of child murders begins in Derry.
The cast in both of these parts are great. They all fairly accurately portray the characters as they were written in the novel. This miniseries is a great example of how the filmmakers of the newer It films could have tried following the novel while making slight cosmetic changes and still staying true to the story. You care about these characters and you can probably relate to some of them (apart from the scary clown and living in a haunted town of course). They cut out a lot of details but the story is still well done. I don't think that they had the budget to bring the novel more fully to the screen but still it's a great movie. The special effects haven't necessarily stood the test of time (particularly the spider) but it's pretty good all things considered.
Tim Curry is amazing as Pennywise. He is the reason that I was and still am scared of clowns. He was so convincing that even as an adult I can't fully reconcile him as the same person who plays Pennywise versus other beloved characters (for me) that he's played over the years. His portrayal is more like the novel in that Pennywise is supposed to be a clown so that children feel safe to approach him so that he can get them. In the newer versions they tried too hard to make Pennywise scary. No child in their right mind would approach the newer Pennywise. He even looks like he is possibly crying tears of blood from a distance. Tim Curry's is warm and cuddly. He's friendly. He would never hurt you. As I said in another post I'm very glad that no one has tried to replicate Tim Curry's performance. It simply can't be done and no one should ever try.
Everyone gets caught up in how fake looking the spider is and how stupid the spider is. While the special effects aren't great, imagine for just a moment that you are being faced with a giant spider like that. Until the spider kills you, you would be scared too I don't care who you are.
I'm going to give a bit of spoiler from the novel that might help you better appreciate the spider. Quite a few people are like "It is a spider?!" and immediately think how stupid that is. I myself was one of those people when I first read the novel. Silly me. The novel explains, from It's perspective no less, that It is a spider because It is trapped in that form. It isn't really a spider, that is simply the closest thing that the children can reconcile what they are seeing with. That's part of It's problem It is bound by whatever images that It's victims come up with, It transforms into whatever It's victim is scared of and It can even simlutaneously be two different things when two different people see It (there's a few scenes in the novel where this happens). Unfortunately for It, It has become trapped in spider form because of the Loser's Club. It's pissed off because of this. As an added frustration for It, It is bound by that form to have the same weaknesses and vulnerabilities. For example, because It is a spider, It can be injured and/or killed as a spider. So don't get caught up in the spider. It actually makes a lot more sense if you give it some thought.
Don't get caught up in the weak special effects. They did the best that they could considering their budgetary and time constraints and their presentation of It is better and more accurate than the two newer films.
If you haven't seen this miniseries, give it at least one full watch. You might not like it for whatever reason but give it a shot. It's worth the four hours (four hours!? Yes, four hours. Each part is two hours long and there are two parts. The newer film versions are longer so don't sweat it.)
Hopefully whenever It is remade again (and it will be I hope) the filmmakers of that future version will refer to this miniseries and the actual novel when it comes to making their vision. If they consider the newer versions at all it is hopefully to learn from the mistakes and not repeat them and/or make worse mistakes.
In part two the adults who were the children who fought Pennywise the clown return to Derry to fight him again and hopefully defeat him after another series of child murders begins in Derry.
The cast in both of these parts are great. They all fairly accurately portray the characters as they were written in the novel. This miniseries is a great example of how the filmmakers of the newer It films could have tried following the novel while making slight cosmetic changes and still staying true to the story. You care about these characters and you can probably relate to some of them (apart from the scary clown and living in a haunted town of course). They cut out a lot of details but the story is still well done. I don't think that they had the budget to bring the novel more fully to the screen but still it's a great movie. The special effects haven't necessarily stood the test of time (particularly the spider) but it's pretty good all things considered.
Tim Curry is amazing as Pennywise. He is the reason that I was and still am scared of clowns. He was so convincing that even as an adult I can't fully reconcile him as the same person who plays Pennywise versus other beloved characters (for me) that he's played over the years. His portrayal is more like the novel in that Pennywise is supposed to be a clown so that children feel safe to approach him so that he can get them. In the newer versions they tried too hard to make Pennywise scary. No child in their right mind would approach the newer Pennywise. He even looks like he is possibly crying tears of blood from a distance. Tim Curry's is warm and cuddly. He's friendly. He would never hurt you. As I said in another post I'm very glad that no one has tried to replicate Tim Curry's performance. It simply can't be done and no one should ever try.
Everyone gets caught up in how fake looking the spider is and how stupid the spider is. While the special effects aren't great, imagine for just a moment that you are being faced with a giant spider like that. Until the spider kills you, you would be scared too I don't care who you are.
I'm going to give a bit of spoiler from the novel that might help you better appreciate the spider. Quite a few people are like "It is a spider?!" and immediately think how stupid that is. I myself was one of those people when I first read the novel. Silly me. The novel explains, from It's perspective no less, that It is a spider because It is trapped in that form. It isn't really a spider, that is simply the closest thing that the children can reconcile what they are seeing with. That's part of It's problem It is bound by whatever images that It's victims come up with, It transforms into whatever It's victim is scared of and It can even simlutaneously be two different things when two different people see It (there's a few scenes in the novel where this happens). Unfortunately for It, It has become trapped in spider form because of the Loser's Club. It's pissed off because of this. As an added frustration for It, It is bound by that form to have the same weaknesses and vulnerabilities. For example, because It is a spider, It can be injured and/or killed as a spider. So don't get caught up in the spider. It actually makes a lot more sense if you give it some thought.
Don't get caught up in the weak special effects. They did the best that they could considering their budgetary and time constraints and their presentation of It is better and more accurate than the two newer films.
If you haven't seen this miniseries, give it at least one full watch. You might not like it for whatever reason but give it a shot. It's worth the four hours (four hours!? Yes, four hours. Each part is two hours long and there are two parts. The newer film versions are longer so don't sweat it.)
Hopefully whenever It is remade again (and it will be I hope) the filmmakers of that future version will refer to this miniseries and the actual novel when it comes to making their vision. If they consider the newer versions at all it is hopefully to learn from the mistakes and not repeat them and/or make worse mistakes.
It Chapter 2 rated R for disturbing violent content and bloody images throughout,
As before, if you haven't read the novel and/or watched the original miniseries and/or It part 1, there are spoilers in this post.
Also I'm including some of my personal opinions/interpretations in this post. They are simply my opinions and I don't mean any offense by them. My opinions and thoughts are not representative of anyone attached to this film in any way, shape, form or fashion. If you choose to be offended, no offense is intended.
27 years after the events of the first movie, the adults who dared to try to face down It as children are called back to their hometown to finish It or die trying.
The cast was pretty good in my opinion. Obviously Bill Skarsgard is once again doing a great job of playing Pennywise and putting his own spin on it. I was excited at the prospect of seeing some of the cast members most notably Bill Hader and James McAvoy. James McAvoy is usually a treat to watch as he is so talented in my opinion. Bill Hader is underrated regarding his more dramatic roles and he didn't disappoint me in this movie either.
Once again the filmmakers were handed gold to work with in the form of the novel. Once again they started to make me happy with some of the special touches from the original novel that weren't included in the original miniseries. Once again they let me down.
The changes that were made to this film were so fundamental that essentially this movie was inspired by the novel rather than based off of the novel. As such the story was changed too much to where it doesn't even make sense. One of the biggest changes that is really the whole problem of this film is using Mike as the "leader" rather than Bill. Bill is the leader in the novel because he is the one who inspires the others. He is also the leader because of his brother Georgie being murdered by It. Of all of the characters, none are as affected as him. Even in the novel it says [and I'm paraphrasing] that It might never have been challenged much less stopped if Georgie hadn't been killed by It. That is why Georgie dies. It is through this that Bill finds the strength and determination to try to kill It. It is through Bill's strength and determination that the others are pushed beyond their limits to rise above with Bill to fight and defeat It. Alone they can't do it. However, as strong as Bill is, he does need their help and support. He needs them at his side. Each of them feels even as children that they would gladly die for him. It even knows that he is the head and that if he were killed the others would easily be stopped. Or so It thinks and It is probably right.
Mike as the leader doesn't make any sense at all. He is the "lighthouse keeper". He is also the keeper of the history. He is really the only person who has any idea of the true scope of It and It's reign of terror. That doesn't make him a weak character by any means. If anything it could be argued that he is one of the strongest characters because he knows the full extent of everything and still stays in Derry.
I didn't like that Mike is not only portrayed as the leader, he's a weak leader. He sputters when he talks. He is demanding rather than even trying to be understanding. He doesn't seem to take responsibility for the fact that his call brought them back. He seems to have absolutely no consideration for the danger that he is putting all of his friends through much less the emotions and feelings that they are feeling. He doesn't seem to care at all for them only that his agenda is accomplished. It could be that the reason(s) for this is entirely due to bad directing, bad writing, or simply excessive/bad editing. Whatever the reason, it suck and does a serious disservice to the original novel/character.
In the book and the original miniseries, Mike knows full well what he is asking (not demanding) of his friends. He takes responsibility for calling them back as well he should. Sure they made a promise but he struggles at first with calling them back knowing that he is yanking them out of the relative safety and comfort of their current lives and possibly bringing them back to die. He is so aware that he waits to call them until he has overwhelming proof that there is a problem and that It is back.
In every story, there is always at least one "strong" character and one "weak" character. In the novel Bev is the "weak" character. She is very reactive and seems to generally need protecting or saving. However she is also the heart of the group. She is an inspiration in that the guys are able to take their minds off of their fears out of love for her to protect her and to save her. Also she's their "archer"/"artillery". If they can keep It away from her, she can shoot it and save them all. She has an empowering moment that actually translates ok from the novel to this movie when she stands up to her abusive husband despite her fear of him and bravely leaves him to join her old friends. In this film the filmmakers chose to make her stronger when it comes to facing It. This sounds good on paper but it fundamentally takes away from a major aspect of the story in the form of Bill being the leader. He was the one who rallied the group repeatedly both as a child and an adult. Sometimes he got caught up in emotions and each of the other kids took turns helping to rally Bill from whatever emotions he was caught up in. It never fell exclusively to Bev and it shouldn't have.
Both of those changes felt nothing but political in nature and it's sorely disappointing. It's all well and good to have strong female characters in movies and/or to have strong non-whites in movies. However I don't feel that there was ever any kind of negative intention for Bill to be the leader and/or Bev to be weak. Everybody can't be strong. Everybody can't be the leader. They were written that way because that's the way that they are. It's disappointing that the filmmakers of this movie chose to interpret the original novel in a negative way rather than just presenting the story more straightforward.
This movie only half-assed the "smokehole scene" and they badly executed that. In the original novel Mike and Richie are the only two who successfully share the vision during the "smokehole scene".
In the original novel Mike doesn't find out about the ritual of Chud, Bill does. And the ritual of Chud is nothing like the one portrayed in the film so once again you have a fundamental change to where the scene is inspired rather than based off of the novel
This movie felt so cut from the original novel that they cut to the bone. As good as the cast was I didn't really care if they lived or died. I wasn't necessarily relieved when the end comes. I didn't feel emotionally connected to anyone. Most of these character were way too selfish and concerned about trying to avoid their fate. Almost none of them seemed to give a crap about the fact that if they didn't fight it, there would probably be no one else and It would continue its reign of terror forever and ever. They shouldn't have needed the threat of a terrible death if they avoided facing It. The thought that they could stop It and refused to stop It should have been more than enough to rally them. They should have been scared but the thought of all of the innocent victims that had been and those that would be should have been the thought and focus just as it is in the novel.
Very disappointed. On the one hand I'm a little sad for those who haven't seen the original miniseries and/or read the novel. On the other hand I'm more glad for them because they don't know what they are missing. If you choose to read the novel, don't be discouraged by the size of it. It is a larger novel but it is so well written and interesting that it doesn't feel long.
It is my hope that someday in the future (hopefully sooner than later) that someone will have the courage and take the time to take this wonderful novel and turn it into two, three maybe even four wonderful movies that actually follow the novel. If ever there was novel that warranted four parts this one is it.
Nothing will replace the original miniseries for me as I'm sure that nothing will replace these movies for whomever loves them. Still it would be so excellent if only someone and some studio would take a chance and make it happen somehow some way. The story is already written. It's simply a matter of generally following the novel. No modernizing. No fundamental character changes. No creepy sex scenes involving children (I heard that there was, at one time, talk of including said sex scenes in either this film or the previous It. I'm sure that everyone is glad that that didn't happen.) People like nostalgia. Follow the novel for heaven's sake. It is considered a great novel because it is great just as it is. It didn't become a best seller due to modernizing or making fundamental changes. To the person/people who choose to take on this project in the future, please please please actually base it off of the novel.
Also I'm including some of my personal opinions/interpretations in this post. They are simply my opinions and I don't mean any offense by them. My opinions and thoughts are not representative of anyone attached to this film in any way, shape, form or fashion. If you choose to be offended, no offense is intended.
27 years after the events of the first movie, the adults who dared to try to face down It as children are called back to their hometown to finish It or die trying.
The cast was pretty good in my opinion. Obviously Bill Skarsgard is once again doing a great job of playing Pennywise and putting his own spin on it. I was excited at the prospect of seeing some of the cast members most notably Bill Hader and James McAvoy. James McAvoy is usually a treat to watch as he is so talented in my opinion. Bill Hader is underrated regarding his more dramatic roles and he didn't disappoint me in this movie either.
Once again the filmmakers were handed gold to work with in the form of the novel. Once again they started to make me happy with some of the special touches from the original novel that weren't included in the original miniseries. Once again they let me down.
The changes that were made to this film were so fundamental that essentially this movie was inspired by the novel rather than based off of the novel. As such the story was changed too much to where it doesn't even make sense. One of the biggest changes that is really the whole problem of this film is using Mike as the "leader" rather than Bill. Bill is the leader in the novel because he is the one who inspires the others. He is also the leader because of his brother Georgie being murdered by It. Of all of the characters, none are as affected as him. Even in the novel it says [and I'm paraphrasing] that It might never have been challenged much less stopped if Georgie hadn't been killed by It. That is why Georgie dies. It is through this that Bill finds the strength and determination to try to kill It. It is through Bill's strength and determination that the others are pushed beyond their limits to rise above with Bill to fight and defeat It. Alone they can't do it. However, as strong as Bill is, he does need their help and support. He needs them at his side. Each of them feels even as children that they would gladly die for him. It even knows that he is the head and that if he were killed the others would easily be stopped. Or so It thinks and It is probably right.
Mike as the leader doesn't make any sense at all. He is the "lighthouse keeper". He is also the keeper of the history. He is really the only person who has any idea of the true scope of It and It's reign of terror. That doesn't make him a weak character by any means. If anything it could be argued that he is one of the strongest characters because he knows the full extent of everything and still stays in Derry.
I didn't like that Mike is not only portrayed as the leader, he's a weak leader. He sputters when he talks. He is demanding rather than even trying to be understanding. He doesn't seem to take responsibility for the fact that his call brought them back. He seems to have absolutely no consideration for the danger that he is putting all of his friends through much less the emotions and feelings that they are feeling. He doesn't seem to care at all for them only that his agenda is accomplished. It could be that the reason(s) for this is entirely due to bad directing, bad writing, or simply excessive/bad editing. Whatever the reason, it suck and does a serious disservice to the original novel/character.
In the book and the original miniseries, Mike knows full well what he is asking (not demanding) of his friends. He takes responsibility for calling them back as well he should. Sure they made a promise but he struggles at first with calling them back knowing that he is yanking them out of the relative safety and comfort of their current lives and possibly bringing them back to die. He is so aware that he waits to call them until he has overwhelming proof that there is a problem and that It is back.
In every story, there is always at least one "strong" character and one "weak" character. In the novel Bev is the "weak" character. She is very reactive and seems to generally need protecting or saving. However she is also the heart of the group. She is an inspiration in that the guys are able to take their minds off of their fears out of love for her to protect her and to save her. Also she's their "archer"/"artillery". If they can keep It away from her, she can shoot it and save them all. She has an empowering moment that actually translates ok from the novel to this movie when she stands up to her abusive husband despite her fear of him and bravely leaves him to join her old friends. In this film the filmmakers chose to make her stronger when it comes to facing It. This sounds good on paper but it fundamentally takes away from a major aspect of the story in the form of Bill being the leader. He was the one who rallied the group repeatedly both as a child and an adult. Sometimes he got caught up in emotions and each of the other kids took turns helping to rally Bill from whatever emotions he was caught up in. It never fell exclusively to Bev and it shouldn't have.
Both of those changes felt nothing but political in nature and it's sorely disappointing. It's all well and good to have strong female characters in movies and/or to have strong non-whites in movies. However I don't feel that there was ever any kind of negative intention for Bill to be the leader and/or Bev to be weak. Everybody can't be strong. Everybody can't be the leader. They were written that way because that's the way that they are. It's disappointing that the filmmakers of this movie chose to interpret the original novel in a negative way rather than just presenting the story more straightforward.
This movie only half-assed the "smokehole scene" and they badly executed that. In the original novel Mike and Richie are the only two who successfully share the vision during the "smokehole scene".
In the original novel Mike doesn't find out about the ritual of Chud, Bill does. And the ritual of Chud is nothing like the one portrayed in the film so once again you have a fundamental change to where the scene is inspired rather than based off of the novel
This movie felt so cut from the original novel that they cut to the bone. As good as the cast was I didn't really care if they lived or died. I wasn't necessarily relieved when the end comes. I didn't feel emotionally connected to anyone. Most of these character were way too selfish and concerned about trying to avoid their fate. Almost none of them seemed to give a crap about the fact that if they didn't fight it, there would probably be no one else and It would continue its reign of terror forever and ever. They shouldn't have needed the threat of a terrible death if they avoided facing It. The thought that they could stop It and refused to stop It should have been more than enough to rally them. They should have been scared but the thought of all of the innocent victims that had been and those that would be should have been the thought and focus just as it is in the novel.
Very disappointed. On the one hand I'm a little sad for those who haven't seen the original miniseries and/or read the novel. On the other hand I'm more glad for them because they don't know what they are missing. If you choose to read the novel, don't be discouraged by the size of it. It is a larger novel but it is so well written and interesting that it doesn't feel long.
It is my hope that someday in the future (hopefully sooner than later) that someone will have the courage and take the time to take this wonderful novel and turn it into two, three maybe even four wonderful movies that actually follow the novel. If ever there was novel that warranted four parts this one is it.
Nothing will replace the original miniseries for me as I'm sure that nothing will replace these movies for whomever loves them. Still it would be so excellent if only someone and some studio would take a chance and make it happen somehow some way. The story is already written. It's simply a matter of generally following the novel. No modernizing. No fundamental character changes. No creepy sex scenes involving children (I heard that there was, at one time, talk of including said sex scenes in either this film or the previous It. I'm sure that everyone is glad that that didn't happen.) People like nostalgia. Follow the novel for heaven's sake. It is considered a great novel because it is great just as it is. It didn't become a best seller due to modernizing or making fundamental changes. To the person/people who choose to take on this project in the future, please please please actually base it off of the novel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)