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

[Schlosser85]

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.

It’s not being generally panned.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I'm speaking about movies in general here, guys, not specifically about this one. I'm just not seeing any glowing reviews for this.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Reviews are not glowing, but it isn't panned by any means

 

[KillerMcQueen]

Gotta love how if something isn't at least in the 80's on RT people will claim it's being "panned" or that a majority is being "less than positive", that is not how percentages work.

 

[Finarfiniel]

Laughing at this movie apparently being 'panned', why do some people insist on seeing everything in such black and white terms? Movie doesn't get wall to wall glowing reviews =/= Movie is being panned.

I can't wait, my tickets for Friday evening are booked and I re-watched the first movie last night in preparation.

48 hours to go. Bring. It. On.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Oh my God...

I'm not saying the movie is being panned. I simple was addressing a broader point regarding being influenced by critics.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Gotta love how if something isn't at least in the 80's on RT people will claim it's being "panned" or that a majority is being "less than positive", that is not how percentages work.

Who said anything about RT? I'm talking about actual reviews I've read/seen. I get that you guys want to the movie to be good, and any negative opinions are frowned upon, but it might not hurt to read other people's opinions on the movie.

 

[The Joker]

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.

Hellboy and X-Men Apocalypse got panned. When the majority of reviews are poor like those two movies were, then you don't need a crystal ball for surmising a movie is likely is bad, or being severely put off seeing it in theaters. Is that your basis for comparison to this movie?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Hellboy and X-Men Apocalypse got panned. When the majority of reviews are poor like those two movies were, then you don't deserve a pat on the back for surmising a movie likely is bad. Is that your basis for comparison to this movie?

My point is this. If one reads reviews and they don't feel encouraged to go see a movie in theaters, that is not them allowing others to judge the movie for them. It is making the decision on whether to spend their time and money to go and see a movie at a theater. You can't make that decision by seeing the movie. At that point, it's kind of late.

Also on Apocalypse. It has a 47% on RT. That's a small majority, showing a division over recommendation of the film. Not that it matters, because that was not my point. But what you just did is kind of what you were saying Art said. Deciding the movie isn't good based on reviews. Allowing others to decide for you whether it is good or not.

 

[DarkKnight88]

I base it on who’s making it and if I’ve enjoyed what they made in the past, regardless of reviews.

So in this case, I loved Chapter One. So seeing Chapter Two is a no brainer regardless if it has a RT score of 90% or 30%. It’s that easy.

 

[The Joker]

My point is this. If one reads reviews and they don't feel encouraged to go see a movie in theaters, that is not them allowing others to judge the movie for them. It is making the decision on whether to spend their time and money to go and see a movie at a theater. You can't make that decision by seeing the movie. At that point, it's kind of late.

Also on Apocalypse. It has a 47% on RT. That's a small majority, showing a division over recommendation of the film. Not that it matters, because that was not my point. But what you just did is kind of what you were saying Art said. Deciding the movie isn't good based on reviews. Allowing others to decide for you whether it is good or not.

That is being influenced by the opinions of others if their words discourage you from seeing it. I would never let other people's opinions discourage me from seeing a movie. If I have a legit interest in seeing something, I'll see it regardless of what other people say. I saw Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix despite the bad reviews and word of mouth they were getting. I didn't sit back and see all the negative talk and be influenced or discouraged because I like to see for myself. I don't always agree with a consensus. If others decide to be influenced by other people's reviews and opinions then that's their choice, but I think its foolish. Especially when its not even overwhelming negativity like in this movie's case.

What I did is nothing like what Art said. I just addressed your comment about you not needing to know Apocalypse and Hellboy were bad without needing to see them in theaters. You chose two movies that got a TON of negativity surrounding them. Critically panned. Fans hating on them. Not even a remotely appropriate analogy to this movie's situation.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I don't think there's anything wrong with reading reviews and making a call to not see a movie in theaters. Tickets are pricey af these days. Plus you're not just paying in cash, but in time. At this stage in my life, that's a pretty damn valuable commodity.

Just because you skip seeing a movie doesn't mean you have to think it's trash. For me at least, it just means I'm reserving judgment until it's convenient for me to invest in it. It's just not feasible to see every single flick that interests me at the movies these days.

 

[Marvolo]

Hellboy and X-Men Apocalypse got panned. When the majority of reviews are poor like those two movies were, then you don't need a crystal ball for surmising a movie is likely is bad, or being severely put off seeing it in theaters. Is that your basis for comparison to this movie?

That is being influenced by the opinions of others if their words discourage you from seeing it. I would never let other people's opinions discourage me from seeing a movie. If I have a legit interest in seeing something, I'll see it regardless of what other people say. I saw Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix despite the bad reviews and word of mouth they were getting. I didn't sit back and see all the negative talk and be influenced or discouraged because I like to see for myself. I don't always agree with a consensus. If others decide to be influenced by other people's reviews and opinions then that's their choice, but I think its foolish. Especially when its not even overwhelming negativity like in this movie's case.

What I did is nothing like what Art said. I just addressed your comment about you not needing to know Apocalypse and Hellboy were bad without needing to see them in theaters. You chose two movies that got a TON of negativity surrounding them. Critically panned. Fans hating on them. Not even a remotely appropriate analogy to this movie's situation.

Darth isn't comparing those films quality to this one. Hes using them as examples that he can watch and judge films at home just as well as at the theater.

 

[The Joker]

Darth isn't comparing those films quality to this one. Hes using them as examples that he can watch and judge films at home just as well as at the theater.

Which was an irrelevant point to make. Nobody made any comment about the theater being the only place where you can judge a movie's quality.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That is being influenced by the opinions of others if their words discourage you from seeing it. I would never let other people's opinions discourage me from seeing a movie. If I have a legit interest in seeing something, I'll see it regardless of what other people say. I saw Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix despite the bad reviews and word of mouth they were getting. I didn't sit back and see all the negative talk and be influenced or discouraged because I like to see for myself. I don't always agree with a consensus. If others decide to be influenced by other people's reviews and opinions then that's their choice, but I think its foolish. Especially when its not even overwhelming negativity like in this movie's case.

What I did is nothing like what Art said. I just addressed your comment about you not needing to know Apocalypse and Hellboy were bad without needing to see them in theaters. You chose two movies that got a TON of negativity surrounding them. Critically panned. Fans hating on them. Not even a remotely appropriate analogy to this movie's situation.

In theaters. I brought up Hellboy and X-Men because I did eventually see them. At home. Where I made my opinion on their quality myself. I didn't see the first John Wick in theaters. I saw it first at home. Love it. You bring up having a legit interest. Just because you may have a legit interest in seeing something, doesn't mean others do. If one is wavering and looking at reviews, that kind of shows they are looking for opinions to help make the decision. Not everyone is made of money, and everyone has their reasons for why they may or may not go see a movie in the theater. Time, money, effort, etc.

I never said that. I said I didn't need to see them in theaters to decide their quality. I did that at home, when I watched them there. Not in the theater. If you don't see a movie in the theater, it doesn't mean you will never watch it. You are focused on the critical consensus. I am not sure why. It is a question of whether one decides to go see them in theaters or not based on what they get from the reviews. The reviews helped me decide that.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Which was an irrelevant point to make. Nobody made any comment about the theater being the only place where you can judge a movie's quality.

This is what Art wrote:

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

This is your reply:

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

All he said was the reviews make it sound mediocre to him, and thus he is thinking about skipping it in theaters. At no point did Art actually pass judgement on the quality of the movie. But that is exactly what you jumped to.

As to the reviews, they aren't the most encouraging. To me what is more worrying on the positive ones being a bit, "It's good enough", as opposed to the love we got with the first film's reviews. If I wasn't so deadset on seeing this, I might pass. Especially for a 170 min movie. But my brother and I really want to see it, so we are going.

 

[Hollis Mason]

Watching this one tonight with sone friends. Looks so good.

 

[The Joker]

In theaters. I brought up Hellboy and X-Men because I did eventually see them. At home. Where I made my opinion on their quality myself. I didn't see the first John Wick in theaters. I saw it first at home. Love it. You bring up having a legit interest. Just because you may have a legit interest in seeing something, doesn't mean others do. If one is wavering and looking at reviews, that kind of shows they are looking for opinions to help make the decision. Not everyone is made of money, and everyone has their reasons for why they may or may not go see a movie in the theater. Time, money, effort, etc.

I never said that. I said I didn't need to see them in theaters to decide their quality. I did that at home, when I watched them there. Not in the theater. If you don't see a movie in the theater, it doesn't mean you will never watch it. You are focused on the critical consensus. I am not sure why. It is a question of whether one decides to go see them in theaters or not based on what they get from the reviews. The reviews helped me decide that.

Apples and Oranges. You're talking about ticket prices, time, effort now. Since when did they come into this equation?

I am fully aware not everyone has a legit interest in seeing a particular movie. I was not making that generalization to everyone. I know Art does since he has been one of the most interested and vocal people about this movie (he even has the second highest number of posts in this thread alone), so I know he has a legit interest. Unless of course I am misreading him and he just enjoys constantly discussing movies he has no real interest in. That is why I made the comment I made to him regarding the reviews swaying him from opting to see it in theaters. I'm not generalizing everyone here.

Regarding your point on your X-Men and Hellboy examples. Taking into account they were surrounded by immense negativity, why did you opt to watch them at home and not in theaters? Was it the negative reviews and general bad word of mouth, or did you simply decide for yourself looking at the trailers and hearing about the plots that they were not worth going to see? Or did you just have no real urge to see them in the first place?

 

[The Joker]

All he said was the reviews make it sound mediocre to him, and thus he is thinking about skipping it in theaters. At no point did Art actually pass judgement on the quality of the movie. But that is exactly what you jumped to.

As to the reviews, they aren't the most encouraging. To me what is more worrying on the positive ones being a bit, "It's good enough", as opposed to the love we got with the first film's reviews. If I wasn't so deadset on seeing this, I might pass. Especially for a 170 min movie. But my brother and I really want to see it, so we are going.

How on earth is the reviews making it sound mediocre and therefore not worth seeing in theaters not making a judgement in quality? That is saying the movie sounds average and therefore not worth seeing in the theater. That is 100% making a judgement on quality.

You really want to see the movie so you're going. Good for you. That's my entire point. If people really want to see a movie they'll see it regardless of what others say.

 

[redishere]

I know the discussion is not about RottenTomatoes anymore, but I'm seeing a lot of people online worried about their score. And sure, "Chapter One" ended up with 86%, but it's just a number, and it sure had its share of bad reviews, with the same complains we're reading now about "Chapter Two": pacing, runtime, CGI, jumpscares, and so on.

Look at these. Who would watch this?




From now on, every time I'll open RottenTomatoes, I'm gonna force myself to remember Eyes Wide Shut has a 75% score and Sharknado 78%.

 

[Hollis Mason]

I honestly never saw IT as a totally horror novel/film but more as a sci-fi creepy story about friendship and love, so not being scary enough isn't a problem for me. I just want to see what happens with the characters i love. And i LOVE long movies, so it looks like i will love this.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I don't think there's anything wrong with reading reviews and making a call to not see a movie in theaters. Tickets are pricey af these days. Plus you're not just paying in cash, but in time. At this stage in my life, that's a pretty damn valuable commodity.

Just because you skip seeing a movie doesn't mean you have to think it's trash. For me at least, it just means I'm reserving judgment until it's convenient for me to invest in it. It's just not feasible to see every single flick that interests me at the movies these days.

This guy gets it. (Darth Skywalker too).

My initial comment wasn't made to try to convince others not to see it, just where my head is at the moment. I'll still probably see the movie, just it will likely be in the comfort of my own home, where I won't have to spend any money, and feel as tied to sitting through the movie as I might if I were paying for it.

That last point is the main sticking point for me, though. It's the amount of time required to watch the movie (the run time itself, and travel time), and the price of the ticket/extras. And lukewarm reviews aren't enough to get me to the theatre.

And, keep in mind, I was lukewarm on the first movie, so there's that.

Also, it's not just reviews from critics, it's people who have seen the film, and discussed elements of the movie that give me pause about going out of my way to watch it. I may very well end up loving the movie. No reviews can guarantee a good time. But they can steer you in the right direction for one, particularly if they come from people whose opinion you trust, and tastes align with yours. It's no different from getting an opinion from your friends.

As for me being in these threads, honestly I think a big part of my interest is because this thread gives me the excuse to talk about my favorite Stephen King book. Even if I don't always agree with others opinions, I still enjoy talking about It.

 

[Marvolo]

I know the discussion is not about RottenTomatoes anymore, but I'm seeing a lot of people online worried about their score. And sure, "Chapter One" ended up with 86%, but it's just a number, and it sure had its share of bad reviews, with the same complains we're reading now about "Chapter Two": pacing, runtime, CGI, jumpscares, and so on.

Look at these. Who would watch this?

View attachment 28292 View attachment 28293 View attachment 28295 View attachment 28296 View attachment 28297 View attachment 28299 View attachment 28300


From now on, every time I'll open RottenTomatoes, I'm gonna force myself to remember Eyes Wide Shut has a 75% score and Sharknado 78%.

View attachment 28291

RT.com is an aggregate. Meaning it gathers critics reviews. The critics decide whether their review is listed as fresh or rotten. Then RT.com divides the number of fresh reviews by the total number of reviews. That gives them a percentage of how many of the reviews are positive. The tomato meter is nothing more than a quick way of seeing how many reviews are positive without having to count or read a bunch of reviews. It's not chosen by RT.com the way a critic chooses a */10 rating.

Sharknado has 78% because 78% of its 18 reviews were rated fresh by the critics that submitted those reviews.

Eyes Wide Shut has 75% because 75% of its 155 reviews are positive.

This needs to be stickied at the top of every movie forum, because way too many people dont know how RT.com works.

 

[The Guard]

How many of the reviews have issues with the fact that suddenly some of the kids are played by well known stars?

 

[Nardz937]

None that I've seen. All the reviews seem to say the best thing is the cast and chemistry from both the kids and adults.