The miniseries doesn't hold up under any objective scrutiny. That's why I think chapter 1 is better as a piece of horror and entertainment. It's like they used the actual book's pages as a script verbatim, not realizing a book doesn't translate directly to screen. And people might complain about the pacing of part 2, (which is fair, that's my main complaint of that movie) but the pacing of the miniseries is atrocious. Aside from Tim Curry, pretty much everyone's acting is objectively sub par at best, but mostly just bad. Not just financially, but as far as broadcast regulations (which, at the time, were way stricter than movie ratings boards).īesides, it not being scary isn't really my main issue. Watching it as an adult with no prior trauma related to it, it's a mostly uneventful slog that's hindered by its nature as a made-for-TV show, which hindered what it was even able to show in the first place. Of course it's still going to affect you if that's the case. I mean, you flat out admit it traumatized you because you were a kid. Don’t go disrespecting other people’s opinions because you don’t agree with them. Btw Bill Skarsgard was a lot more accurately portrayed as Pennywise exactly like how Pennywise is portrayed in the book, compared to the 1990s version.Įdit: Everyone isn’t going to have the same opinions as you. Overall I’m just relieved that the remake wasn’t a fucked up. I also think people might like each versions for different reasons. They played pennywise so damn well, and each bought something different to the table while playing Pennywise. I think both Bill Skarsgard and Tim Curry did an fantastic job at their roles. I think that was the way the director wanted Pennywise to be instead of how he was in the the 1990 version. Meanwhile the Pennywise in the 2017 version seems more demonic and very aggressive in a way instead of being like a killer clown. And I know everyone who were kids back in the 90s had seen or heard about IT when it came out and it had a whole lot of us scared shitless lol. Especially since a lot of shit like that actually happened back then. And I think for some people back in the 90s when the movie came out that’s what really terrified them the most as kids. One thing that really stood out to me about the 90s version is that Pennywise seems more like a serial killer clown that would actually terrorize kids and kill them. But I guess that’s kind of the whole point. Now don’t get me wrong the 90s version is great and all but I rewatched it after seeing the 2017 version and it’s low key cringe and comical in a way. Muschietti’s vision of King’s popular novel seems to be coming along quite horrifically, to many fans’ delight.I prefer the 2017 version, it was a lot more terrifying and emotional to me personally. From the looks of the trailer and casting it does not seem like this film will go back and forth to different points in the characters’ lives, which is something the miniseries was able to do with its two parts. Not only does the remake have the opportunity to build upon what its predecessor did, but it will probably be more cohesive. Skarsgård’s Pennywise seems to be moving toward a more imminent type of danger, as opposed to the subtle scares that Curry brought to screen. In the original, Curry’s performance was more about expressions and the set-pieces where he showed up because the emphasis was on the kid’s being weakest when they were alone. One striking difference that is already noticeable between Skarsgård’s rendition of Pennywise is his aggression. “I’m playing just one of the beings It creates.” It’s beyond even a sociopath, because he’s not even human.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |