|
I watched IT part 2, and aside from the grown ups being perfect casting for the kids (was there some prosthetic/cgi work to make them look so spot on?), it felt remarkably weak compared to 1.
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:13 |
|
|
The_Doctor posted:I watched IT part 2, and aside from the grown ups being perfect casting for the kids (was there some prosthetic/cgi work to make them look so spot on?), it felt remarkably weak compared to 1. The grown up parts are just the weaker parts of that story - you really need to change it entirely to be anywhere near as good as the kid parts. It just wasn't changed enough, really.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
Yeah, the grownup stuff was always the weaker part of the story so it was always a bit of a question of splitting them. I just made the choice to commit and watch them both back to back and eat up a day and I really enjoyed it as a complete package. I don't think I would have enjoyed Part 2 as much if I watched it alone. I'm waiting to get ahold of some kind of fan supercut of the two of them. I'm sure they exist.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
Part 1 was doing all sorts of fun stuff in the background, indicating Pennywise’s constant presence, but part 2 didn’t seem interested.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
I think Part 2 did stuff. But a lot of it like the gay couple, the Chinese restaurant, or Mrs. Kersh are classic scenes from the book and/or mini-series and then the whole odd "artifact" section feels a little forced.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:The Gate, The Ring, Critters 1 & 2, Tremors, Arachnophobia. You only need one "gently caress you" if it's Kevin Bacon yelling it for 5 seconds.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 21:52
|
|
|
Kvlt! posted:There are good PG horror movies and good R movies but there are very, VERY, few good PG-13 movies. Not just horror movies. Movies. it's probably worth noting that this is basically a post-Columbine thing, and especially a post-The Dark Knight thing; you'll find, if you look, that pre-2000 PG-13 movies are a whole loving lot edgier than you remember and they're generally in territory that would be a light R in 2020 PG-13 is just kind of a broken rating at this current moment because it's such a strictly and clearly defined box that doesn't really organically fit anything, meaning you end up with movies that "should" be PG but get edged up a bit to get the teen rating, and movies that "should" be R and get hacked down, but almost nothing that just straight-up fits the rating without being pretty much made by committee to do so.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
Today is Peter Cushing's birthday! Tomorrow, weirdly enough, is Christopher Lee's and Vincent Price's birthdays as well. While I consider Twins of Evil to be his most entertaining role, I'm giving Hounds of Baskervilles a spin tonight!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 21:56
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:The Gate, The Ring, Critters 1 & 2, Tremors, Arachnophobia. This person knows what's up
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
TheOmegaWalrus posted:Today is Peter Cushing's birthday! Obligatory Cushing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve7KEwq8isU (Although Fry’s story about acting with Lee has to be apocryphal because the first thing they were in together was Gormenghast from 2000, 6 years after Cushing’s death.)
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 22:11
|
|
|
Killer Klowns from Outer Space is a great PG13 horror
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 23:13
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:Obligatory Cushing I don’t know, I think it kinda lines up: quote:At the time of its broadcast, Gormenghast was among the most ambitious serials ever undertaken by the BBC. The series required a combined five years of production and pre-production and utilized over 120 sets.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
Just a little something I discovered, from this shot in Harley Quinn and the Birds of Prey. That card she's using belongs to an actual lawyer, and more importantly, he played Shelly in Friday the 13th Part 3.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Killer Klowns from Outer Space is a great PG13 horror Through the years the MPAA has proven itself to be a wildly inconsistent joke that actively tries to censor art. That said, you are clowning yourself if you think that movie wouldn't get anything besides a hard R if released nowadays. The shower/popcorn scene was...formative to the younger Walrus.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 23:55
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:Just a little something I discovered, from this shot in Harley Quinn and the Birds of Prey. That card she's using belongs to an actual lawyer, and more importantly, he played Shelly in Friday the 13th Part 3. That's really loving cool
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 23:56
|
|
|
Burkion posted:That's really loving cool It's the banner on his Twitter account https://twitter.com/Zernerlaw
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
TheOmegaWalrus posted:Through the years the MPAA has proven itself to be a wildly inconsistent joke that actively tries to censor art. What? That movie is tame as hell lmfao. The only scene with blood is when the klown pulls his hand out of the chud cop.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 01:27
|
|
|
TheOmegaWalrus posted:Through the years the MPAA has proven itself to be a wildly inconsistent joke that actively tries to censor art. nah, your hunch that it would be R is correct but it wouldn't be a very hard R, and it would need a grand total of one "gently caress" muted (there's two in the movie) and two kills trimmed (the cop dummy scene and the biker kill) to meet current standards for the PG-13 rating. you can go further with the PG-13 than a lot of people think, despite it being a pretty limiting box, because the rules for it are really strange. you can have violent acts on screen, and you can have blood that results from violent acts, but you can't have both, for example; either the violent act has to be bloodless, or the blood has to result from violence that isn't directly shown. you can't show a person firing a gun and a person being hit by it in the same shot, or it's an auto-R. you can't have someone clearly get shot in the head, or it's an auto-R. bone breaks are acceptable, but the audio can't be too loud and scary-sounding, you can't have compound fractures, and you can't linger too hard on the pain from it, or... you get the picture. as long as you don't step on any of the particular weird landmines that the MPAA lays out, you can basically do whatever the hell, which is how some movies are able to push the rating pretty hard; however, it's very genre-dependent, because a lot of what the MPAA is trying to enforce is tone, and while action movies can get around it by just being kind of light-hearted and not too hosed up, doing that to horror movies is like cutting someone's achilles tendon before they run a marathon and still expecting them to pull a decent time.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 02:17
|
|
|
Killer Klowns would not be R today. Y’all should rewatch it.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 03:25
|
|
|
Also people get shot in the head clearly in PG13 all the drat time lol. Pirates 3 had a woman get shot right in the face and it didn’t cut away and she had a hole right up in there.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 03:28
|
|
|
ghoulies 2, gremlins 2 and critters are pg-13 and those are some of the best movies of all time so clearly you are wrong
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 03:43
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:Just a little something I discovered, from this shot in Harley Quinn and the Birds of Prey. That card she's using belongs to an actual lawyer, and more importantly, he played Shelly in Friday the 13th Part 3. That loving rules. I like that movie 10 percent more now, so like 55 percent.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 04:17
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:I watched IT part 2, and aside from the grown ups being perfect casting for the kids (was there some prosthetic/cgi work to make them look so spot on?), it felt remarkably weak compared to 1. I think Hader and Ransome were really good, Chastain was pretty good, Ben was blah and McAvoy was badly miscast (and isn't helped any by poor writing). He doesn't act like young Bill in any way, he's goofy and manic and doesn't seem like an inspiring leader in any way. They did Mike dirty with the way he's written as well. I thought IT2 was pretty good the first time I watched it but a 2nd viewing brought it down to like a 5/10. Part of what makes IT a good story is the child and grownup stories happening side-by-side - the grownup stuff on its own isn't nearly as interesting, which is why they shoehorned in an hour of flashbacks. I also think the massive success of IT1 was problematic as it seems like after that they let Muschietti do whatever he wanted to do with the sequel, which is how you end up with an indulgent 3 hour movie with huge pacing issues.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 04:54
|
|
|
el oso posted:I think Hader and Ransome were really good, Chastain was pretty good, Ben was blah and McAvoy was badly miscast (and isn't helped any by poor writing). He doesn't act like young Bill in any way, he's goofy and manic and doesn't seem like an inspiring leader in any way. They did Mike dirty with the way he's written as well. IT was really bizarre because it was a very well acted, finely produced, emotionally resonant film that was probably the best adaptation of the story you could do but the scares followed the same exact pattern to the point that I don’t understand how anyone wasn’t completely bored by them in Part II. They actively made almost every scary part less effective with boring repetition, misplaced humor, bad pacing, and needlessly bad CGI. Some scares were great and make it kinda worthwhile but as a horror movie it really wasn’t very good. Bloated but buoyed by great performances, everything with Pennywise was great but then every time he just turned into some Baghool poo poo it lost me.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 05:35
|
|
|
BisonDollah posted:Watching all the Critters sequels followed by the Ghoulies sequels the next night may have snapped my brain a little but I thought Ghoulies 4 was a riot (despite not featuring the drat GHOULIES). It's more like a Samurai Cop than a Gremlins riff but it has so many silly little ideas that are pulled off well and laughs that hit - I just can't hate it. Closest I've been able to find is mention of a companion book. https://www.joblo.com/horror-movies/news/the-ghoulies-companion-book-will-dig-into-all-4-ghoulies-movies If there's an actual novelization, I've never heard of it, but then I found out there's a novelization of Fulci's Zombi out there that I've yet to find under a $200+ price tag. TheOmegaWalrus posted:
PG-13 Horror's always been an odd duck. There's the shifting scale of what constitutes the rating i.e. ripping out a beating heart in a '84 Indiana Jones movie's PG-13, but would be R rated now. There's also some sub-genres of horror work better with the rating's restrictions. Ghosts/Hauntings work really well, but for others more suited for an R like slashers have to bring their A game across the board and play to the other strengths of the subgenre rather than rely on the standard gore scale. Case in point, Happy Death Day worked, but Black Christmas sucked.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 06:13
|
|
|
Ratings are arbitrary bullshit and horror movies always get the most uncharitable possible rating because the MPAA hates that the genre even exists.
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 06:20
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Ratings are arbitrary bullshit and horror movies always get the most uncharitable possible rating because the MPAA hates that the genre even exists. Hollywood in general's always had issues with horror. The studios love the money the genre brings in, but it's always been considered lowbrow entertainment for the plebs. Any time a horror film does well/is popular, Hollywood and the critics'll scramble to call it anything other than horror. The latest label of "Elevated Horror" is possibly the most insulting and condescending one yet. I also highly HIGHLY recommend the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated to see exactly how bullshit the MPAA and the rating system is.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 06:37
|
|
|
Darko posted:The grown up parts are just the weaker parts of that story - you really need to change it entirely to be anywhere near as good as the kid parts. It just wasn't changed enough, really. They always were, and it was inevitable. The events of 1958 take place over ten weeks excluding the prologue; excluding the epilogue, the events of 1985 take place over 48 hours and half of that is the Losers travelling to Derry. There's a bit of an irony in that one of the characters thinks at one point that they didn't do much except talk until Henry Bowers chases them into the sewers, but in 1985 that really is all they do: they talk at the restaurant about 1958, they talk some more at the library and then they flee into the sewers. Compare that to 1958, where the threat is established, the group draws together, there's the bathroom cleaning, the photo album, the trip to Neibolt Street, the smokehole vision and the Apocalyptic Rockfight before you get to the end. IT Chapter 2 doesn't work because like the third Hobbit film, it's the climax of the story extended to an entire movie.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 09:35
|
|
|
M_Sinistrari posted:Hollywood in general's always had issues with horror. The studios love the money the genre brings in, but it's always been considered lowbrow entertainment for the plebs. Any time a horror film does well/is popular, Hollywood and the critics'll scramble to call it anything other than horror. The latest label of "Elevated Horror" is possibly the most insulting and condescending one yet. I think it was an early episode of The Evolution of Horror podcast that mentions that horror is the only genre that was named by it's opponents. Horror is a very mutable genre too. There's a big box of elements that can make something horror, but also end up in plenty of other movies that aren't horror. I don't think you can really make a case that any single element in that box can make a movie a horror movie, yet there's still a difference between a movie about some cops tracking a serial killer, and a final girl defeating a slasher.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 13:26
|
|
|
As time moves forward it becomes more apparent how sorely disappointed by IT 2 I was. I really like It Chapter One but was a little frustrated that after the opening sequence the horror elements got considerably less effective. I was hoping that in Part II they'd attempt to redress that and layer on some of the harshness of the novel, but instead they toned it all down further still.
Karloff fucked around with this message at 16:14 on May 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
The first movie completely and utterly failed at making the second movie feel necessary. I get that the book is about how deep-seated prejudice is and how it can't be solved by beating up a clown-spider or whatever, and that does sound interesting, but absolutely no threads felt like they were still hanging after the first movie. If you're going to be making a two-parter, don't wrap everything up in the first one. It makes you feel like you're grasping for straws in the next one. I skipped the second and by all accounts I'm better off for it. My policy of ditching jumping ship as soon as I get emotional catharsis has thus far paid off very well. Though I'm sure it means I'm missing out on some great stuff here and there.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 15:16
|
|
|
Any good IT movie would have to retain the structure of the book in some way. If you already know everything that happened when they were kids, it kills the mystery of what they're trying to remember as adults.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 15:32
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:Any good IT movie would have to retain the structure of the book in some way. If you already know everything that happened when they were kids, it kills the mystery of what they're trying to remember as adults. I've been bitching about that since even before Part 1 came out. It just neuters the whole story to tell it linearly like that, and the adult portion isn't meant to carry that much water. It's meant as a wraparound story for what happened 27 years ago, stretching it out as a feature length film and asking it to act as a satisfying climax all on it's own was never going to work.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 15:38
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I've been bitching about that since even before Part 1 came out. It just neuters the whole story to tell it linearly like that, and the adult portion isn't meant to carry that much water. It's meant as a wraparound story for what happened 27 years ago, stretching it out as a feature length film and asking it to act as a satisfying climax all on it's own was never going to work. I'm still hotter on it than most, but it's such a strange adaptation. Like the fact that the skateboard kid is so prominent and the amazing line of the book "You can't be careful on a skateboard" is really confounding.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 15:51
|
|
|
Now more than ever, I'm impressed with what Tommy Lee Wallace was able to do with so little money and time for the TV version.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
Kvlt! posted:i dont wear my skin when i have sex Uncle Frank? So... I haven't seen anyone talk about Blood Machines yet. It's such an odd thing... Like, SO much effort went into making it look cool, but the two guys who are "Seth Ickerman" are clearly not writers. And can we stop with the film grain filter, please?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 16:10
|
|
|
The film grain filter is the best thing to happen to horror movies. I want every movie to look like that Elisha Cuthbert Captivity movie.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
Kvlt! rejects reality unless it looks specifically like a Rob Zombie music video.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
loving love fake grain and ironic bad quality in my movies, it keeps me from having to sincerely engage with a movie, and from feeling emotions other that rotten or fresh. edit: Also Blood Machines was so boring to me I stopped after the first episode.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 16:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:13 |
|
|
I think the reason artificial grain doesn't do it for me is because the rest of the film isn't authentically period piece. I'm aware that the DNR process in restoration actually removes grain, and that it's digitally added back in, but it's also done in a manner that makes it authentic. There's nothing authentic about a 2018 film, taking place in 2018 with fake grain.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2020 16:51
|
|