CINEMA

IT - Loads of Fun!

POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Thursday, October 5, 2017 12:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 514
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, September 21, 2017 9:48 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Let me start out by saying "I'm not into Horror flicks" - it's just not my cup o' tea. But I went with a group of friends and bit the bullet to see the remake of "IT."

I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. IT was loads of fun. Yeah, it had your creepy clown, obligatory jump-out-of-the-dark and from behind the door moments. IT had your slimy bathroom scene, creepy dungeons and haunted houses, but the one thing I literally wasn't expecting was the great tension breaker - HUMOR!

Let me tell you something, Pennywise (the creepy clown) was played excellently by one of the Skarsgard brothers - Zeppo, Harpo, Groucho....I can't really remember.

Okay, I looked IT up and he was played by Bill Skarsgard, brilliantly so. He was truly creepy and scary. He was so good that he really scared the child actors hired to play the kids in the movie (at least so the on set story goes). It was both entertaining and scary, but the movie was stolen by a young actor named Finn Wolfhard, who played Richie Tolzier in the movie. He kept IT light throughout the movie with his wisecracks and taunts.

A word of caution, DON'T take the kiddies, this movie is very tense and filled with profanity. I would suggest that middle-schoolers would be fine to take to this movie, but definitely no toddlers - this is strictly for the 12 and up crowd.

I give this movie 4 out of 5 stars.

"Have fun storming the castle" - Miracle Max, Princess Bride


SGG


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 21, 2017 9:59 PM

6STRINGJOKER


That's pretty high praise.

I remember the TV movie scaring the crap out of me and my bros when we were kids. I look at clips from that on youtube now though and it seems so silly.

I'm assuming they left out the gangbang scene from this version as well?

King is a creepy dude.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 22, 2017 7:16 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
That's pretty high praise.

I remember the TV movie scaring the crap out of me and my bros when we were kids. I look at clips from that on youtube now though and it seems so silly.

I'm assuming they left out the gangbang scene from this version as well?

King is a creepy dude.

Who gets gangbanged? That in the book? Was it consensual?

Always found King the lesser of Koontz.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 22, 2017 10:23 PM

6STRINGJOKER


It was actually just something I've heard about before. I've never read the book. In trying to answer your question I've probably learned more about it than I ever knew before. There's different viewpoints on it by different writers online, so I don't feel that I should post any of them since they're all subjective reviews of it.

Trying to strip the essence of that part of the story from the things I've read by people online, the definition Gang Bang is sound, but only if you take it by the non-rapey 2nd definition:

Quote:

gang·bang or gang-bang (gang'bang')
n. Vulgar Slang
1. Sexual intercourse forced upon one person by several others in rapid succession.
2. Sexual intercourse involving several people who select and change partners.



It was actually Bev's idea. They were lost in the tunnels after defeating Pennywise and this would "bring them together" and they would become strong enough to emerge from the sewers. It was also supposed to be some way of Bev taking control of her life from her domineering father and lousy life at home.

I guess it would explain why when they were adults in the TV movie why they all seemed to be really touchy feely with Bev, as if they were all dating her. That always struck me as weird, but makes a bit more sense knowing there was something behind the scenes that explained it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 22, 2017 11:14 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
It was actually just something I've heard about before. I've never read the book. In trying to answer your question I've probably learned more about it than I ever knew before. There's different viewpoints on it by different writers online, so I don't feel that I should post any of them since they're all subjective reviews of it.

Trying to strip the essence of that part of the story from the things I've read by people online, the definition Gang Bang is sound, but only if you take it by the non-rapey 2nd definition:

Quote:

gang·bang or gang-bang (gang'bang')
n. Vulgar Slang
1. Sexual intercourse forced upon one person by several others in rapid succession.
2. Sexual intercourse involving several people who select and change partners.



It was actually Bev's idea. They were lost in the tunnels after defeating Pennywise and this would "bring them together" and they would become strong enough to emerge from the sewers. It was also supposed to be some way of Bev taking control of her life from her domineering father and lousy life at home.

I guess it would explain why when they were adults in the TV movie why they all seemed to be really touchy feely with Bev, as if they were all dating her. That always struck me as weird, but makes a bit more sense knowing there was something behind the scenes that explained it.

#2 is just an Orgy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 23, 2017 11:35 AM

6STRINGJOKER


Nah... I don't think so. Orgy is everybody doing each other. They were all taking turns having sex with Bev.

Maybe "running a train" would be more descriptive.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:44 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Nah... I don't think so. Orgy is everybody doing each other. They were all taking turns having sex with Bev.

Maybe "running a train" would be more descriptive.

#2 says "several people changing sexual partners" not "one person rotating through several sexual partners" like you are now describing.

So this would be Bev Pulling a Train, or the guys gangbanging Bev, which is normally the consensual term.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 23, 2017 2:07 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Looks like Emily Perkins (Bev) went on to work with Jewel in DaVinci's Inquest.

And I hadn't noticed that Pennywise also played, in the same release year, his role in Hunt For Red October - which for me was his greater role.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 23, 2017 4:12 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Nah... I don't think so. Orgy is everybody doing each other. They were all taking turns having sex with Bev.

Maybe "running a train" would be more descriptive.

#2 says "several people changing sexual partners" not "one person rotating through several sexual partners" like you are now describing.

So this would be Bev Pulling a Train, or the guys gangbanging Bev, which is normally the consensual term.

Bev being played by 12 or 13 year old actresses, would imply she wasn't a virgin, to Pull a Train.
So, none of the boys was as experienced as her, then?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:19 PM

6STRINGJOKER


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Nah... I don't think so. Orgy is everybody doing each other. They were all taking turns having sex with Bev.

Maybe "running a train" would be more descriptive.

#2 says "several people changing sexual partners" not "one person rotating through several sexual partners" like you are now describing.

So this would be Bev Pulling a Train, or the guys gangbanging Bev, which is normally the consensual term.

Bev being played by 12 or 13 year old actresses, would imply she wasn't a virgin, to Pull a Train.
So, none of the boys was as experienced as her, then?




I don't know. I only ever saw the TV movie and some recent comparisons of the movies.

I think you have to take into account the time the book was written, the time the original TV movie was made and also the time the new movie was made. (Not only being made today, but having the kid's arc take place in the late 80's or early 90's compared to the orignal which took place in either the 50's or 60's.)

I know that by the time I was in High School I knew a hell of a lot more about stuff than my parents generation did, and I was only a few years younger than the kids portrayed in the new movie. I could only assume, especially with the internet that this is even more advanced today and what I did and didn't know back then would seem downright stupid to kids today.

From what I read of it yesterday, it didn't seem like any of them had any sexual experience before this incident in the book. Are you saying that Bev did? I read that she had a "bad" life at home, but I don't know if that includes a rapey relative.



I think that leaving out the scene in 2017 is even more predictable than it would have been to leave in out in the TV movie. I do wonder if they are going to make any references to it in the 2nd movie though. The way they behaved with Bev in the TV movie made a lot more sense when you knew this was in the book even though it was never referenced in the movie.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:03 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Nah... I don't think so. Orgy is everybody doing each other. They were all taking turns having sex with Bev.

Maybe "running a train" would be more descriptive.

#2 says "several people changing sexual partners" not "one person rotating through several sexual partners" like you are now describing.

So this would be Bev Pulling a Train, or the guys gangbanging Bev, which is normally the consensual term.

Bev being played by 12 or 13 year old actresses, would imply she wasn't a virgin, to Pull a Train.
So, none of the boys was as experienced as her, then?

I don't know. I only ever saw the TV movie and some recent comparisons of the movies.

I think you have to take into account the time the book was written, the time the original TV movie was made and also the time the new movie was made. (Not only being made today, but having the kid's arc take place in the late 80's or early 90's compared to the orignal which took place in either the 50's or 60's.)

I know that by the time I was in High School I knew a hell of a lot more about stuff than my parents generation did, and I was only a few years younger than the kids portrayed in the new movie. I could only assume, especially with the internet that this is even more advanced today and what I did and didn't know back then would seem downright stupid to kids today.

From what I read of it yesterday, it didn't seem like any of them had any sexual experience before this incident in the book. Are you saying that Bev did? I read that she had a "bad" life at home, but I don't know if that includes a rapey relative.



I think that leaving out the scene in 2017 is even more predictable than it would have been to leave in out in the TV movie. I do wonder if they are going to make any references to it in the 2nd movie though. The way they behaved with Bev in the TV movie made a lot more sense when you knew this was in the book even though it was never referenced in the movie.

The adults in the 90s were the sex kids in the 60s. With the book in 1986, 30 years prior was sex kids in the 50s.

I am not female, but I've heard that defowering is painful for girls, and so for a 12 year old to invite a train of penises would suggest she is not a virgin. Maybe there was gobs of third base action in the 50s, 60s, 90s, but gangbangs and Pulling Trains just seems unusual for 12 year old girls. I may have been 12 my first time, but I don't know if any girls in my class were ahead of me, let alone Pulling Trains. Gangbang was a term hoodrats came up with over a decade later, for that action.
Such girls would have been with much older boys.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:46 PM

6STRINGJOKER


I'm going to go with, we're putting far too much thought into this than I'm comfortable with at this point.

I'm just wondering what King was thinking when he wrote this part of the book, and how come I never heard about it until the early previews for the new movie were coming out.

Obviously, somebody who has all of the ideas he's put to paper has lived a rather interesting life. There aren't any truly good artists out there in any medium that hasn't. I'm just wondering what happened to him when he was young that an idea like that would have been put in the book. It wouldn't be so strange to hear somebody wrote about it today because of the massive amounts of information that is out there, but to write that book in the 80's and have that scene in there.... I can't believe it was something that his agents or publishers didn't fight against fiercely or that it wasn't a huge scandal after it was published.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 24, 2017 12:16 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Let me start out by saying "I'm not into Horror flicks" - it's just not my cup o' tea. But I went with a group of friends and bit the bullet to see the remake of "IT."

I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. IT was loads of fun. Yeah, it had your creepy clown, obligatory jump-out-of-the-dark and from behind the door moments. IT had your slimy bathroom scene, creepy dungeons and haunted houses, but the one thing I literally wasn't expecting was the great tension breaker - HUMOR!

Let me tell you something, Pennywise (the creepy clown) was played excellently by one of the Skarsgard brothers - Zeppo, Harpo, Groucho....I can't really remember.

Okay, I looked IT up and he was played by Bill Skarsgard, brilliantly so. He was truly creepy and scary. He was so good that he really scared the child actors hired to play the kids in the movie (at least so the on set story goes). It was both entertaining and scary, but the movie was stolen by a young actor named Finn Wolfhard, who played Richie Tolzier in the movie. He kept IT light throughout the movie with his wisecracks and taunts.

A word of caution, DON'T take the kiddies, this movie is very tense and filled with profanity. I would suggest that middle-schoolers would be fine to take to this movie, but definitely no toddlers - this is strictly for the 12 and up crowd.

I give this movie 4 out of 5 stars.

"Have fun storming the castle" - Miracle Max, Princess Bride

SGG

I just read that Finn was the only actor kept by the last director, all the rest of the original cast was let go when the directors changed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 25, 2017 3:14 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I shit you not. IT was totally unexpected fun and creepiness, very tense and thoroughly entertaining. IT kind of reminded me of Freddy Krueger of 'Nightmare' fame, and IT also had a "Goonies" vibe to IT as well.

The story revolves around the kids with like two or three adults thrown in for some variety. But, no, no gangbang scene (no spoilers). But this was a well done remake of a creepy classic. IT is 5th overall in Box Office success, with $266.4 million, for this year 2017 (domestic), but 14th overall worldwide with $478M and climbing. And it's only been out 3 weeks and...

"it's the biggest Stephen King movie ever, R-rated or otherwise, ever in North America and global box office even when accounting for inflation."

According to Scott Mendelson of Forbes.com of the Media and Entertainment section. Go, enjoy and be prepared to be "creeped out."


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
That's pretty high praise.

I remember the TV movie scaring the crap out of me and my bros when we were kids. I look at clips from that on youtube now though and it seems so silly.

I'm assuming they left out the gangbang scene from this version as well?

King is a creepy dude.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 25, 2017 3:19 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


This is weird, even for you two guys. There is plenty of creepiness in the movie, including the sexual type - that's all I'm saying!


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Nah... I don't think so. Orgy is everybody doing each other. They were all taking turns having sex with Bev.

Maybe "running a train" would be more descriptive.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 25, 2017 3:24 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Hunt for Red October - one of my all-time favs. He was also excellent in Oscar, a Sly Stallone 1991 comedy. Tim Curry is a character actor treasure.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Looks like Emily Perkins (Bev) went on to work with Jewel in DaVinci's Inquest.

And I hadn't noticed that Pennywise also played, in the same release year, his role in Hunt For Red October - which for me was his greater role.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 25, 2017 3:37 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I think, not having read the book, that King explores the "horror" of rape and sex for a young girl. Being forced is not exactly something a pre-teen, or even young teenaged girl looks forward too.

Perhaps by exploring this King touches upon the brutality of forced sex as opposed to consensual sex, even for a young teen-aged girl. If she gives herself willingly to her "Goonie" buddies does that make the act any less
frightening? Would she be considered a young woman instead of a little girl? Or is this a perverted approach of a twisted mind like King's?

Okay! Now you got me doing it.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
I'm going to go with, we're putting far too much thought into this than I'm comfortable with at this point.

I'm just wondering what King was thinking when he wrote this part of the book, and how come I never heard about it until the early previews for the new movie were coming out.

Obviously, somebody who has all of the ideas he's put to paper has lived a rather interesting life. There aren't any truly good artists out there in any medium that hasn't. I'm just wondering what happened to him when he was young that an idea like that would have been put in the book. It wouldn't be so strange to hear somebody wrote about it today because of the massive amounts of information that is out there, but to write that book in the 80's and have that scene in there.... I can't believe it was something that his agents or publishers didn't fight against fiercely or that it wasn't a huge scandal after it was published.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 25, 2017 11:06 AM

MOOSE


Geez, I come in here wanting to find out about a cool looking horror movie and you all are talking about running a train on a 12 year old girl. I'm going to the Kingsmen thread so we can talk about over the top violence without all this icky sex stuff...




We're going to be watch It this weekend at our drive in.
It's paired up with The Ninjango Lego movie as a double feature.
Huh. Go figure.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 25, 2017 6:13 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I think, not having read the book, that King explores the "horror" of rape and sex for a young girl. Being forced is not exactly something a pre-teen, or even young teenaged girl looks forward too.

Perhaps by exploring this King touches upon the brutality of forced sex as opposed to consensual sex, even for a young teen-aged girl. If she gives herself willingly to her "Goonie" buddies does that make the act any less
frightening? Would she be considered a young woman instead of a little girl? Or is this a perverted approach of a twisted mind like King's?

Okay! Now you got me doing it.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
I'm going to go with, we're putting far too much thought into this than I'm comfortable with at this point.

I'm just wondering what King was thinking when he wrote this part of the book, and how come I never heard about it until the early previews for the new movie were coming out.

Obviously, somebody who has all of the ideas he's put to paper has lived a rather interesting life. There aren't any truly good artists out there in any medium that hasn't. I'm just wondering what happened to him when he was young that an idea like that would have been put in the book. It wouldn't be so strange to hear somebody wrote about it today because of the massive amounts of information that is out there, but to write that book in the 80's and have that scene in there.... I can't believe it was something that his agents or publishers didn't fight against fiercely or that it wasn't a huge scandal after it was published.


ummm. 12 years old does not a teen make. Was this set in AL, MS, LA?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 26, 2017 1:20 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


IT Sequel given green light for 2019...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/it-sequel-gets-2019-release-date/
ar-AAssxon?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=wispr



SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I shit you not. IT was totally unexpected fun and creepiness, very tense and thoroughly entertaining. IT kind of reminded me of Freddy Krueger of 'Nightmare' fame, and IT also had a "Goonies" vibe to IT as well.

The story revolves around the kids with like two or three adults thrown in for some variety. But, no, no gangbang scene (no spoilers). But this was a well done remake of a creepy classic. IT is 5th overall in Box Office success, with $266.4 million, for this year 2017 (domestic), but 14th overall worldwide with $478M and climbing. And it's only been out 3 weeks and...

"it's the biggest Stephen King movie ever, R-rated or otherwise, ever in North America and global box office even when accounting for inflation."

According to Scott Mendelson of Forbes.com of the Media and Entertainment section. Go, enjoy and be prepared to be "creeped out."


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
That's pretty high praise.

I remember the TV movie scaring the crap out of me and my bros when we were kids. I look at clips from that on youtube now though and it seems so silly.

I'm assuming they left out the gangbang scene from this version as well?

King is a creepy dude.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 26, 2017 3:01 AM

6STRINGJOKER


I heard somewhere that IT was the largest September opening in history.

The funny thing was, the previous largest September opening in history was Crocodile Dundee. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 27, 2017 1:49 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Quote:

ummm. 12 years old does not a teen make. Was this set in AL, MS, LA?


It was set in a Northeastern town, I believe in Pennsylvania (but don't quote me on that)....lol


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 27, 2017 7:31 AM

MOOSE


It's Stephen King, so of course it's set in Maine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 27, 2017 4:40 PM

6STRINGJOKER


I kind of feel bad for the people of Maine.

If your only exposure to Maine is through Steven King TV movies, it seems like everybody who lives there is just absolutely horrible.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 28, 2017 3:57 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Naw, mainly just the one, who's initials are SK.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
I kind of feel bad for the people of Maine.

If your only exposure to Maine is through Steven King TV movies, it seems like everybody who lives there is just absolutely horrible.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 5, 2017 4:58 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Here's a shocker....in a little over a month IT has taken in more than $500M.

Quote:

By the end of the week, Stephen King‘s “It” is estimated to become only the fifth movie of 2017 to cross the $300 million mark domestically.

Source:GoldDerby.com


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 5, 2017 12:16 PM

6STRINGJOKER


Maybe they'll finally get around to remaking The Stand.

Out of all of SK's made for TV junk, it was my favorite by far. I'd rather see Netflix handle it and turn it into a one season series though. I don't think anybody would pay 4 times over the course of 5 years to see the whole thing in theaters.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
What Are Your Must-See Films - 2017?
Thu, October 19, 2017 20:24 - 62 posts
Mindhunter
Tue, October 17, 2017 12:42 - 1 posts
Blade Runner 2049
Tue, October 17, 2017 02:03 - 15 posts
Kingsman T.eww
Sun, October 8, 2017 18:33 - 54 posts
Brade Runner II
Fri, October 6, 2017 22:39 - 15 posts
Wind River
Fri, October 6, 2017 22:30 - 20 posts
What Are Your Best Films of 2017 So Far?
Fri, October 6, 2017 22:19 - 40 posts
IT - Loads of Fun!
Thu, October 5, 2017 12:16 - 27 posts
I Don't Feel At Home In The World Anymore
Tue, September 19, 2017 12:09 - 3 posts
Dark Tower
Fri, September 15, 2017 18:00 - 3 posts
American Assassin
Fri, September 15, 2017 02:04 - 1 posts
Q about 12 Monkeys
Wed, September 13, 2017 08:17 - 3 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL