prove me wrong,
Protip: you can't
IT (2017) is pure kino tho
prove me wrong,
Protip: you can't
IT (2017) is pure kino tho
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtu.be
twitter.com
You are correct
tim curry
spooky clown in a sewer
could actually suspend disbelief because there wasn't CGI and BRMMMMM noises every 2 minutes
Tim Curry is a meme actor.
they're both shit
bad movie, but contains some genuinely terrifying images
at least they built a dam
>>suspend disbelief
being as retarded as you are I have no doubts you could
(1990)
>contains some genuinely terrifying images
>Closely follows the books order of things.
>Only movie you'll get to see that jumps back and forth from adult to children just like the book
>Contains excellent child actors for Beverly, Richie, and Bill
>Henry hates Mike because he's black. They didn't take the safe route like they did in the R rated 2017 version
>Pays homage to the adults much better than any other IT movie has (so far)
>Tim Curry as IT is very memorable and frightening
>The atmosphere is sad akin to the book. New 17 IT doesn't have the sad feels in it.
dumb squirtleposter
How many hours a day are you on Sup Forums, uridon? I genuinely want to know.
name a scene in the 2017 flick that can top this
protip: you can't
The swimming scene
>Tim Curry as IT is very memorable and frightening
you mean campy and unwillingly funny
It was much more scary.
It's kino up until the end when they use the spider. Ech.
I post in short bursts
LOL
No
DO YA HAVE PRINCE ALBERT IN A CAN?
No one cares shill
Saged
Name a scene from the 2017 It more creepier than this
literally any
I still don't understand what happened to Henry there. Why did It leave Henry alive? Why did his hair turn white?
lmao how in the fuck is this scary
Based Uridon, your reviews are the best.
well, he's a clown
Ur last point is good, and one I felt but hadn't identified.
The new movie lacked the really disturbing quality the old one, and the book, had. Kings works aren't necessarily scary, more unsettling. I think the dude himself is a bit sick and this is channelled nicely in his work. Kubrick actually caught that sense in the shining despite kings assertions to the contrary.
This new it seemed too kitschy for the subject matter. Where was the grief? In the first version and book there's a lethal sense of threat and evil to the town that unsettles, like something horrible and ugly is going down . The new one is body horror but you're not as battered by it. Would be a potentially brave move to start the second movie with the gay guys getting killed as it watches. Would add a bit more real threat or something to the film, desanitise it
>I still don't understand what happened to Henry there. Why did It leave Henry alive? Why did his hair turn white?
Well it just fed, didn't need to eat him. You also shouldn't look directly at the deadlights as they're uknowable.
So basically the Ark of the Covenant levels of we don't have to explain shit.