Comics Creators

What Are You Watching? Infinite Season


Oh don’t get me started on Henry.
He doesn’t add anything to the movie after writing the H on Ben’s belly and could have been cut from it without losing anything either.

Again, what’s the point of using him and showcasing that Pennywise is aiding him if he just falls down a hole? It all happens in a few minutes and comes off as a waste of time. Since they get to where they’re going anyway. It’s just a lot of fat without any satisfying conclusions.


Henry was there to give Mike something to do. Isn’t that what you wanted?

Mike was much more important to the story in the film than Stan or Eddie and we honesty know more about his past than most of them.

But you’re right that Mike and Ben could’ve been condensed. Eddie and Stan or Richie and Stan could’ve been one character too. It doesn’t look good that Pennywise can’t kill even one of them when there are so many. I imagine the Losers Club characters were something the writers had to keep intact because it would’ve made more sense to have fewer.


No, I wanted Mike to do something that meant something to his character. Something that made him memorable as a tangible character. As it stands…he’s really pointless and the one thing he does is get rid of something else that is pointless.

Again, there’s stuff like Bev seeing the deadlights - Does that have a point? Nope. And the two-three close-ups of “Silver” - any payoff? Nope. Them overcoming their fear through Pennywise - anything clever? Just hit it with these iron pipes.

It’s a lazy movie but also one that puts in the effort in the needless things.


I happened to binge the first five episodes of Get Shorty earlier in the week by mistake. I literally only went to check if Chris O’Dowd kept his Irish accent (he does) and went through them like a pack of Pringles.

It doesn’t have the depth of Breaking Bad, BCS or Ray Donovan, despite trying, but it is a lot of fun and everyone is pretty watchable. It’s very loosely based on the novel and very different from the film, but does retain a diluted Elmore Leonard-ness (though I suppose you could say that about every one of his adaptions). O’Dowd’s character is very likeable, and while him and his partner are pretty smart and experienced customers in their line of work, they’re also monumentally stupid, as are nearly all the characters here; so like Ray Donovan, things unravel, but unlike Ray Donovan, they aren’t good at fixing things in Hollywood, the characters just dig deeper holes for themselves doing things the ‘old fashioned’ way.

It’s a lot of fun, and has some great moments. It’s a very tasty snack in between the more hearty crime dramas you’d usually be filling up on.


Time to binge. Been waiting to hear some reviews on it.


If I watch IT will I be the only one here who has never read the book or seen the Tim Curry TV series?

I actually know nothing about it at all other than Pennywise is a scary clown.

It may be an interesting perspective to see how it works as its own entity.


I enjoyed IT a lot. I’ve read the book, but it was ages ago, and I didn’t remember that much.

It worked well as a coming-of-age/teenage friends have an adventure movie, more than an outright horror movie.

I’m not sure how Part Two will work; a story about a bunch of 40-year-olds just doesn’t seem as appealing as one about a gang of kids. It could work though, if they focus on the trauma caused by the events of this movie.


I doubt it will work because I don’t think they spent the time on these characters necessary to pull it off well. Especially with Stan. You’d think that since they knew they’d do the second half he’d be more than window dressing, but _nope_


I’ll see if I have time next week and tell you what I think.


I went to see IT today and I was pretty disappointed

I enjoyed all the stuff with the kids and it was enjoyable enough romp, given that I know what to expect having watched the last adaptation and read the book.

However the CGI was utter horseshit and it completely removed me from the movie every single time.

There was zero scares, mostly because the CGI is so obvious.

The guys that plays Pennywise isn’t a scratch on TIm Curry either.

My overwhelming feeling is I’m that left wondering what Cary Fukunaga’s IT would have been like.


I left the theater wondering that too.


Fukunaga could have done something great with the two-film premise. The article Johnny posted about his script is fascinating.


Yeah, I followed the news about his departure when it first happened and his ideas sounded so cool.

And then we get this…shlock.


That’s been my worry since he left the project. I was so excited when I heard he was going to remake IT. Still going to give this one a shot, because the trailers looked solid, but I won’t be surprised if I walk out wondering “what if”.


Hope the CGI doesn’t bother you as it didn’t bother me either. For all of my gripes about how badly constructed the characters are and how they are used…it has some real scares.


I saw ‘IT’ today, to me it’s an example of how one filmmaker can change a genre. In this case it’s James Wan, who’s films have become best known for their set piece spooky scares.

So ‘IT’ is all about the set pieces, in fact that’s pretty much all their is. You’ve not sooner got through one when there’s another one coming along, with barely two mins of plot or character to bridge the gap.

It leaves the film feeling quite light and empty, we never get into the deeper history of the town or the personal history of any of the characters. The kids (the main characters) feel lightly sketched and the adults are defined by one characteristic at most.

Now, this is a long time genre fan talking, and I was aware that the mainstream audience around me had a fine time. They were reacting vocally with gasps and and tension-relieved laughs in all the right places.

But there’s a better film in here (potentially), one with less in-your-face make-up and VFX (a lot of which is too blatant) and story.

As a Friday night movie it’s fine, but Wan still does this sort of thing better, and it’s largely because he does take the time to develop plot and character. His films aren’t super deep, but he knows that we want to care about what’s happening, as well as jump out of our seats.

And he also knows that he can spend most of the film not showing us things in detail, and letting our imagination make it even worse in our own heads.

Not a failure, but not what IT could be.


Probably going to wait until next week to see IT. Today I watched two other movies.

Passengers - It’s not great, but the buzz around it led me to believe it’s terrible. It wasn’t. I think it had pacing issues. Probably should have been 15 minutes shorter and the climax felt kind of overdone. I also don’t think the plot needed the whole thing where Pratt woke Lawrence up. I know that’s a big part of the plot, but to me the whole thing would have worked better just having them both wake up and have it be a proper love story instead of adding the forced drama in there that really amounted to nothing. So it was alright, but nothing special.

Baby Driver - Didn’t really know anything about it going in. It was probably the least Edgar Wright movie that he’s done. Which isn’t a bad thing, just a thing. I liked a lot of it, but I think it dragged a bit here and there. Good cast, entertaining, but I wouldn’t put it up there with some of the Wright/Pegg collaborations.


That’s the part a lot of people took issue with.


Count me in the “shame about It” club. It wasn’t a “bad” movie, and looked and felt the part (the town was perfect, the casting was great) but it felt strangely empty. The book is weird—it’s thematically quite rich and has a lot to say, but it’s also basically a conveyor belt for random scares. They both work well together, but the film was a bit too much of the latter.

I think splitting it into a kid film and an adult film takes away a lot of what makes the story interesting, which has a lot to with nostalgia, the nature of memory, what we repress, how kids and adults perceive the world in different ways, and so on. It gives me high hopes for the “adult” portion.

Bits of it were a little too j-horror too. I love me some j-horror but keep that shit out of my Stephen King. (and having more than 1-2 jump scares in a movie is a little hacky)


I think taking out the focus on their own fears and how tackling them through Pennywise is this intense cathartic thing took out what was interesting about the story. I mean…Pennywise just shifts its head a few times while they beat it with blunt objects. That’s a lame climax.

You can work with the kid’s only thing, especially in a two film structure, to really have them connect and engage. And the movie not only doesn’t reach that - it misses what it could be within itself. I am really unhopeful for the adult portion because I didn’t care about these kids.