It

[playtime]

3 outa 5 stars. not as good as i thought it was gonna be. hopefully chapter 2 will be better.

 

[Peach]

I liked the book, will wait for the movie to view at home.

 

[playtime]

I liked the book, will wait for the movie to view at home.

did you ever see the original made for TV movie?

 

[Peach]

I liked the book, will wait for the movie to view at home.

did you ever see the original made for TV movie?

The mini series, but an infant was in the room, took my attention away.

 

[playtime]

I liked the book, will wait for the movie to view at home.

did you ever see the original made for TV movie?

The mini series, but an infant was in the room, took my attention away.

yep...that would present a problem; but it's available on youtube, vimeo & netflix if you ever wanted to see it again..

 

[Peach]

I liked the book, will wait for the movie to view at home.

did you ever see the original made for TV movie?

The mini series, but an infant was in the room, took my attention away.

yep...that would present a problem; but it's available on youtube, vimeo & netflix if you ever wanted to see it again..

I might if the remake is any good; I enjoyed The Stand.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I liked the book, will wait for the movie to view at home.

did you ever see the original made for TV movie?

I did not like the TV miniseries adaptation. Tim Curry was the high point, but I don't consider him to have the monopoly on Pennywise.

I plan to see the new one Wednesday.

 

[Montrovant]

I liked the book, will wait for the movie to view at home.

did you ever see the original made for TV movie?

I did not like the TV miniseries adaptation. Tim Curry was the high point, but I don't consider him to have the monopoly on Pennywise.

I plan to see the new one Wednesday.

I've never watched the whole mini-series. I started it, but didn't think it was good enough to watch it all.

 

[featherlite]

3 outa 5 stars. not as good as i thought it was gonna be. hopefully chapter 2 will be better.

Sometimes they build new movies up too much beforehand...then it falls flat. I still want to see it but will probably wait for it on Amazon or something.

 

[rightwinger]

3 outa 5 stars. not as good as i thought it was gonna be. hopefully chapter 2 will be better.

Sometimes they build new movies up too much beforehand...then it falls flat. I still want to see it but will probably wait for it on Amazon or something.

You probably won't be hurt to wait for it to show up on Netflix

Pennywise was scary looking but he was not as good an actor as Tim Curry
Many of the scenes are well filmed....especially the opening scene with Georgie and the boat at the sewer

The movie is somewhat different than the TV movie but not spectacular
I'd go three out of five stars

 

[Montrovant]

3 outa 5 stars. not as good as i thought it was gonna be. hopefully chapter 2 will be better.

Sometimes they build new movies up too much beforehand...then it falls flat. I still want to see it but will probably wait for it on Amazon or something.

You probably won't be hurt to wait for it to show up on Netflix

Pennywise was scary looking but he was not as good an actor as Tim Curry
Many of the scenes are well filmed....especially the opening scene with Georgie and the boat at the sewer

The movie is somewhat different than the TV movie but not spectacular
I'd go three out of five stars

I hated Bill Skarsgard in Hemlock Grove. I thought his acting was terrible.

 

[playtime]

I liked the book, will wait for the movie to view at home.

did you ever see the original made for TV movie?

I did not like the TV miniseries adaptation. Tim Curry was the high point, but I don't consider him to have the monopoly on Pennywise.

I plan to see the new one Wednesday.

i thought the tv version was closer to the book than many others that were made into film.

 

[Montrovant]

I liked the book, will wait for the movie to view at home.

did you ever see the original made for TV movie?

I did not like the TV miniseries adaptation. Tim Curry was the high point, but I don't consider him to have the monopoly on Pennywise.

I plan to see the new one Wednesday.

i thought the tv version was closer to the book than many others that were made into film.

Do you mean closer than many other King adaptations? There have only been 2 versions of It that I know of.

 

[playtime]

I liked the book, will wait for the movie to view at home.

did you ever see the original made for TV movie?

I did not like the TV miniseries adaptation. Tim Curry was the high point, but I don't consider him to have the monopoly on Pennywise.

I plan to see the new one Wednesday.

i thought the tv version was closer to the book than many others that were made into film.

Do you mean closer than many other King adaptations? There have only been 2 versions of It that I know of.

ya- i meant other books that were turned into movies. too many deviations. alot of his books were so good, they should have stayed more true to what he wrote- the first 'shining' strayed from the book too much & the ending sucked.

 

[Montrovant]

I liked the book, will wait for the movie to view at home.

did you ever see the original made for TV movie?

I did not like the TV miniseries adaptation. Tim Curry was the high point, but I don't consider him to have the monopoly on Pennywise.

I plan to see the new one Wednesday.

i thought the tv version was closer to the book than many others that were made into film.

Do you mean closer than many other King adaptations? There have only been 2 versions of It that I know of.

ya- i meant other books that were turned into movies. too many deviations. alot of his books were so good, they should have stayed more true to what he wrote- the first 'shining' strayed from the book too much & the ending sucked.

I thought the Nicholson Shining was an excellent adaptation.

 

[playtime]

did you ever see the original made for TV movie?

I did not like the TV miniseries adaptation. Tim Curry was the high point, but I don't consider him to have the monopoly on Pennywise.

I plan to see the new one Wednesday.

i thought the tv version was closer to the book than many others that were made into film.

Do you mean closer than many other King adaptations? There have only been 2 versions of It that I know of.

ya- i meant other books that were turned into movies. too many deviations. alot of his books were so good, they should have stayed more true to what he wrote- the first 'shining' strayed from the book too much & the ending sucked.

I thought the Nicholson Shining was an excellent adaptation.

to each his own- but imo, the ending fell real short.... steven king remade the shining himself & put it on TV because hef didn't like the original.

 

[Montrovant]

I did not like the TV miniseries adaptation. Tim Curry was the high point, but I don't consider him to have the monopoly on Pennywise.

I plan to see the new one Wednesday.

i thought the tv version was closer to the book than many others that were made into film.

Do you mean closer than many other King adaptations? There have only been 2 versions of It that I know of.

ya- i meant other books that were turned into movies. too many deviations. alot of his books were so good, they should have stayed more true to what he wrote- the first 'shining' strayed from the book too much & the ending sucked.

I thought the Nicholson Shining was an excellent adaptation.

to each his own- but imo, the ending fell real short.... steven king remade the shining himself & put it on TV because hef didn't like the original.

As I understand it, King didn't like the diversion the movie took from the book. The movie was great, though, so changing the story worked. Many of the adaptations of King's horror have been fairly crappy, so I'll take a divergent good film over a bad one that sticks to the novel.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

i thought the tv version was closer to the book than many others that were made into film.

Do you mean closer than many other King adaptations? There have only been 2 versions of It that I know of.

ya- i meant other books that were turned into movies. too many deviations. alot of his books were so good, they should have stayed more true to what he wrote- the first 'shining' strayed from the book too much & the ending sucked.

I thought the Nicholson Shining was an excellent adaptation.

to each his own- but imo, the ending fell real short.... steven king remade the shining himself & put it on TV because hef didn't like the original.

As I understand it, King didn't like the diversion the movie took from the book. The movie was great, though, so changing the story worked. Many of the adaptations of King's horror have been fairly crappy, so I'll take a divergent good film over a bad one that sticks to the novel.

I had serious problems with the climax, and with Shelly Duvall as Wendy. Nicholson was perfect, as was Scatman Crothers. The adaptation worked up to the point Scatman returned to the hotel, then it completely collapsed.

That said, Kubrick was a bonafide genius. He's entitled to a screw-up or two.

 

[Montrovant]

Do you mean closer than many other King adaptations? There have only been 2 versions of It that I know of.

ya- i meant other books that were turned into movies. too many deviations. alot of his books were so good, they should have stayed more true to what he wrote- the first 'shining' strayed from the book too much & the ending sucked.

I thought the Nicholson Shining was an excellent adaptation.

to each his own- but imo, the ending fell real short.... steven king remade the shining himself & put it on TV because hef didn't like the original.

As I understand it, King didn't like the diversion the movie took from the book. The movie was great, though, so changing the story worked. Many of the adaptations of King's horror have been fairly crappy, so I'll take a divergent good film over a bad one that sticks to the novel.

I had serious problems with the climax, and with Shelly Duvall as Wendy. Nicholson was perfect, as was Scatman Crothers. The adaptation worked up to the point Scatman returned to the hotel, then it completely collapsed.

That said, Kubrick was a bonafide genius. He's entitled to a screw-up or two.

I thought Duvall added to the creepiness of the movie. Those wide, bugged-out eyes just made things that much scarier.

 

[playtime]

ya- i meant other books that were turned into movies. too many deviations. alot of his books were so good, they should have stayed more true to what he wrote- the first 'shining' strayed from the book too much & the ending sucked.

I thought the Nicholson Shining was an excellent adaptation.

to each his own- but imo, the ending fell real short.... steven king remade the shining himself & put it on TV because hef didn't like the original.

As I understand it, King didn't like the diversion the movie took from the book. The movie was great, though, so changing the story worked. Many of the adaptations of King's horror have been fairly crappy, so I'll take a divergent good film over a bad one that sticks to the novel.

I had serious problems with the climax, and with Shelly Duvall as Wendy. Nicholson was perfect, as was Scatman Crothers. The adaptation worked up to the point Scatman returned to the hotel, then it completely collapsed.

That said, Kubrick was a bonafide genius. He's entitled to a screw-up or two.

I thought Duvall added to the creepiness of the movie. Those wide, bugged-out eyes just made things that much scarier.

did you know that the scene when he was axing the door & said 'here's johnny' was ad libbed?