Horror Stephen King's "IT" Part I and Part II

[Da-Scribe]

I have an easier time watching 3+ hour flicks in the theater than I do at home. Too many distractions at home and too easy to pause. And I can't like, tell my girl to shut the **** up when we're watching a movie at the crib the way I can to strangers in a dark theater.

 

[Prettyricky]

I have zero issues with long movies as long as there engaging and interesting. Gods and generals hell no but hateful eight? My god yes. Even peter Jacksons king kong was way too long for such a simple story. I had to sit through jack black trying to be dramatic with Adrien Brody before they even get to the island which is almost an hour into a 3 hour snoozer.

 

[Sawyer]

I don't know why James Ransone breaking the ice with Jack Dylan Grazer by immediately trashing The Rolling Stones makes me laugh so much, but I am cackling.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I know some people think if a movie is good, it shouldn't matter how long it is, but that has never been my experience. Like, I don't think there would be a movie good enough to justify a 4 hour runtime, for example. I think anything longer than 2.5 hours, it really depends on the pacing. Usually, anything longer than that moves into the "this feels like it's going on for too long" territory.

As much as I love the Godfather, for example, I feel there is a noticeable dip in momentum, and I start becoming less involved. I'm still into the movie, but I become more conscious of the runtime.

One particularly bad experience I had in this regard in a theatre was watching Apocalypse Now, Redux. At 3 hours and 26 minutes, I found I couldn't wait for it to be over, and yet I had mostly been enjoying the movie up until the first hour and a half or so.

Sometimes more is too much.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I have an easier time watching 3+ hour flicks in the theater than I do at home. Too many distractions at home and too easy to pause. And I can't like, tell my girl to shut the **** up when we're watching a movie at the crib the way I can to strangers in a dark theater.

The first time around, definitely. When it is all shiny and new, I prefer it in the theater. But after that, I like the idea of pausing it or getting up and grabbing something during to the slower part of a film.

 

[Lasirius]

I personally look forward to the 6 hour, way too long cut that the director seems to totally want to make. But that doesn't necessarily mean that will result in the best film. The length of the material is kind of irrelevant to an adaptation. It is a question of whether it works.

Given that Muschietti has been attempting to be faithful to the book; with liberties of course, it doesn't surprise me how long it is. It's not mandatory to be as long due to the source material but it's appropriate.

 

[Sithborg]

Look, I just saw the extended cut for Fellowship of the Ring in theaters. I am prepared.

 

[Marvolo]

The book is 1153 pages long; that alone justifies the length of the second film.

If you're looking for self-indulgence you should first look at the source material. The novel itself is an epic tale, just a horror one.

The book desperately needed a less indulgent editor. And the theatrical release of Part 2 probably could have been 150 minutes without harming the film.

What's a difference what genre it is? Story and characters matter,not genre

I think the horror genre might be a special case. A 3 hour drama is tiring enough. When it's a 3 horror film its downright exhausting, because the audience is being scared repeatedly for 3 hours. At that runtime there is a real risk of the audience becoming numb to the scares or apathetic. There is also the potential opposite issue of a 3 hour horror film spreading its scares out too much so the film struggles to maintain constant tension.

What I'm hearing about this film is that it's not as scary and Pennywise is absent for large portions of the film. I think both of those complaints are a direct result of the indulgent runtime.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I just find it really odd to label a runtime indulgent for a film you haven’t actually seen simply because it falls into a particular genre.

 

[redishere]

When it's a 3 horror film its downright exhausting, because the audience is being scared repeatedly for 3 hours.

Then again, IT is not really a horror story.
To me, it makes sense for the two movies to take their time, especially when you look at the source material.

 

[Prettyricky]

Then again, IT is not really a horror story.
To me, it makes sense for the two movies to take their time, especially when you look at the source material.

Nah but theres no denying that is the type of film the studio is pushing from tv spots and trailers. I was never scared of many king movies, more physiological if anything. Then again Im also not scared of clowns so I don't really understand that fear element.

 

[Arachnerd]

The horror element, even if you don't find it scary, is not exactly the one thing that'll keep people coming back. It's the characters' journeys and the issues they have to overcome.

I didn't find the first IT scary. Didn't stop me from enjoying it though.

 

[Prettyricky]

The horror element, even if you don't find it scary, is not exactly the one thing that'll keep people coming back. It's the characters' journeys and the issues they have to overcome.

I didn't find the first IT scary. Didn't stop me from enjoying it though.

Yeah I equate it to the shining and pet semetary, not scary but interesting enough concept to hold my attention.


Having said that I do feel the look and scary nature of pennywise is the selling feature for both of these films. I know alot of people who saw the last one and said things like the stranger things kids ripoffs were ok but pennywise pennywise etc.

 

[theMagic]

 

[Arachnerd]

Does she rant about Jessica Chastain in that vid?

 

[MOVIELORD101]

WHY are we giving Grace Randolph any attention at all? She's a jerk who hates Jessica Chastain for no reason!

 

[DarkKnight88]

I know alot of people who saw the last one and said things like the stranger things kids ripoffs were ok but pennywise pennywise etc.

People are stupid.

 

[Schlosser85]

Especially considering the IT characters existed before the Stranger Things characters.

 

[Prettyricky]

Especially considering the IT characters existed before the Stranger Things characters.

Yea I just round it up to people mostly do that based on what is popular at the time or what they saw first thematically. Same thing with shazam and people saying it was a big ripoff. Happens all the time, I just shrug it off as there poorly informed.

 

[Art Vandelay]

The reviews are making it sound mediocre. I'm thinking I might skip seeing this in a theatre.

 

[The Joker]

The reviews are making it sound mediocre. I'm thinking I might skip seeing this in a theatre.

You do that. Its always best to listen to others rather than judge something for yourself.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I wasn't particularly excited to see this anyway, but when the majority of reviewers are being less than positive about the movie, I'd say it's reasonable to expect to feel the same way, since it's extremely rare that a movie that is generally panned turns out to be something I'll enjoy. Yes, I could judge for myself, but I'd likely just be confirming what I was already told. And there hasn't been a single time where I went and saw a panned movie, only to think the critics were wrong. And reading some of the specific things that critics have addressed, makes me think, yeah, I probably won't enjoy this.

Still, given how much I love the book, I'll still probably check it out. I'm just not in a hurry to see the movie.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Panned?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You do that. Its always best to listen to others rather than judge something for yourself.

Come on. This is disingenuous. The reviews for this weren't going to keep many from seeing it, but that doesn't mean others are nearly as invested. Reviews aren't for those that already made up their mind on seeing something. They are for those looking for advice on whether they should spend the extra cash seeing a movie in theaters.

Also does one need to go see a movie in theaters to judge it? I was more then able to judge the crapiness of Hellboy and X-Men Apocalypse when I saw them at home for the first time.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Panned?

It's not getting panned, but there is a general lack of enthusiasm in the reviews that like the movie.