Discussion in 'Misc. Films' started by Thread Manager, Jan 30, 2018.
I think the resemblance is adequate.
If Wil Wheaton could grow up to be Richard Dreyfuss, then Lillis growing into Jessica Chastain is no problem.
Chastain looks like a very plausible older version of Lillis. Heck Lillis herself has Chastain as her top choice to play her in the sequel.
I honestly think some of you guys need glasses.
I agree she looks like it enough, I am just saying even if she didn't, does that really matter? No one is going to think about that when watching the movie.
Seriously. What the?
If Amy Adams had never been a factor in this, both with fancasts and with Adams/Lillis playing the same character on that HBO show, I don't think anyone would take issue with Chastain. But when you have one actress that legitimately looks like a blood relation to Lillis, the one that doesn't have as strong of a resemblance is going to be seen by some as a lesser choice.
Am I wrong? Most of the Derry scenes take place when it's sunny. I remember when it was filming that the summer had been particularly hot and sunny, and Port Hope just looks too pleasant a place to stand in for Derry. The mini series, on the other hand, was shot in Vancouver, which often can look quite gloomy and wet. The Barrens scenes were shot in the woods, which looked dark and lush. In the movie, the Barrens are pretty much an afterthought, seemingly consisting of a cliff and a riverbed.
Again, the mini series wasn't good, but I think it did just as much right things as the movie did.
Well, they both have red hair, but that's it as far as resemblance goes. The only reason Lillis and others have wanted her is because she's a well known redhead. If she wasn't a readhead, would she even be considered?
I don't think Lillis and Chastain look alike other than having red hair. Like not really at all.
That being said. it's rare that you get a kid actor that actually looks like they're gonna grow up to be the adult actor. I don't mind much.
After watching Dark on Netflix, I can't lie that it raised the bar in terms of how good a job you can do casting across generations. So I don't feel like it's that rare, but maybe the show is an outlier in that respect. At any rate, I like Chastain and she's a damn fine actress. So I'm happy either way.
There is enough of a resemblance for me between Lillian and Chastain for this casting to make sense.
I disagree with you. The mini-series has very little atmosphere. A lot of stark, obvious onset lighting. Standard television cinematography. The opening scene of the film has more atmosphere then the entirety of the min-series imo.
Basically the mini-series looks and feels like a standard late 80s/early 90s mini-series. The look, the music, the editing. Nothing leaves an impression in terms of atmosphere. I feel like the film itself does quite a bit. They accomplishes setting a mood with the combinations of the far superior music and visuals.
The opening scene of the movie also has some really dodgy CGI. And that's the only scene in the movie that has a sense of atmosphere. Maybe I just expected more considering this was a major movie, and not a made for television mini series. The movie might have superior visuals, but they're undone by either poor effects, or a jarring contrast (since literally every scene but the opening is in broad daylight.)
I think the only thing the movie has over the mini series is slightly better production values, and it's cast. Maybe it's music.
You seem to associate atmosphere with dark and dank. I don't. The scene where they are all swimming to me has a ton of atmosphere. Its sets a ton and mood.
Also, what dodgy CGI is there in the opening and how does that compare to the dodgy effects in the mini-series? And I completely disagree on only slightly better production values and I do think the cast being significantly better matters a lot.
Who thinks Amy Adams will play adult Beverly for the second part?
........... no one at the moment, I imagine?
1. For a horror movie, yes.
2. I have higher standards given the movie almost certainly had a bigger budget. The effects for Pennywise when he chops on Georgie's arm is shockingly bad
It looks like it came from someone's Deviantart page.
Good thing its not just a horror flick. It's also a coming of age film. Actually more coming of age then horror flick. Though using the logic, the look of Kubrick's The Shining precludes it from being a good horror flick. Too much light.
You couldn't find an actual still from the film as opposed to a leak? That is so low res and is thus no indication of the quality. I have seen the movie 5 times, never had any problem with the CGI in motion there.
The movie has CG issues at times, but the movie is very good otherwise. It doesn't bother me. The sewer scene had no CG I thought was atrocious. Few points in the finale, yeah I'd agree. That scene, it was fine.
The only CGI that bothers me is the balloon when he kills the long haired kid. That was bad.
There's bits of bad CGI here and there but not to the point where it really sticks out glaringly.
Sometimes the CGI is overused though.
In the finale when It keeps transforming into other things, the CG got very dodgy, especially when it got the crab hands. But again, doesn't really bother me cause the story works well, and I recognize this didn't have a 200mil budget, LOL
The kid who was with the bullies? Kept lighting that spray he had?