Thread: Last movie you saw - and rate it

Originally Posted by weazel

I've never thought about IT as a creepy movie, I see it as a Stand By Me type of movie but instead of a gun toting Kiefer Sutherland as the antagonist, it's a shape shifter. It's more about the kid's stories than the "monster"

Interesting, the kids always took second stage to the creature for me especially in the book. Other than there being kids in "It" it couldnt be more different from SBM for me personally. The shape shifter as you call it plays a integral part in story for me.

It is a shape shifter, that's why it can take the place of what ever the kids are scared of (clown, woman, burned people...), that's why it's called IT, and not Clown. It's a show about kids facing their fears, ala Stand By Me. That's always been my take, anyway.

I didn't expect weazel to go all Ezra Pound on us...

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

I didn't expect weazel to go all Ezra Pound on us...

NO shit right? Holy ****. lol

Originally Posted by weazel

It is a shape shifter, that's why it can take the place of what ever the kids are scared of (clown, woman, burned people...), that's why it's called IT, and not Clown. It's a show about kids facing their fears, ala Stand By Me. That's always been my take, anyway.

You've got it 100 percent. And that's the theme of about 90 percent of Stephen King's work.

Originally Posted by Northman

Interesting, the kids always took second stage to the creature for me especially in the book. Other than there being kids in "It" it couldnt be more different from SBM for me personally. The shape shifter as you call it plays a integral part in story for me.

Maybe the monster is serving the same role for you as it does for the kids.

#pyschoanalysis

It's duality is that it also showcases the horrors that we as society will blindfully ignore. Whether it was the townspeople knowing that something truly was wrong, or them ignoring the run of the mil abuses in the town, that was a large portion of the fear and draw to the book/movie. At least to me.

The fact that the shapeshifting IT had a 'true form' in the literal sense is besides the point (to me) because she was nothing more or less than fear itself. Made to produce, consume, and promulgate fear. That ties in with my first sentiment in a nice dovetail because the only thing you have to fear is fear itself if you are an adult. Furthermore, the children were targeted because they were easier to scare and make more fear. IT serves as a perfect mechanism for a perpetuation of nightmarish totality, which informs me of how fragile our psyches really are. Even when they thought that IT was dead, the fact of the existence of IT was enough to still scar them.

Hawg hates this saying, but the midnight of the mind is truly horrifying. The fact that we can observe fear means that even if we, as individuals, are not scared, we're still impacted by the fears of others and live in a world that accounts for it.

Wonderful creation.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

It's duality is that it also showcases the horrors that we as society will blindfully ignore. Whether it was the townspeople knowing that something truly was wrong, or them ignoring the run of the mil abuses in the town, that was a large portion of the fear and draw to the book/movie. At least to me.

The fact that the shapeshifting IT had a 'true form' in the literal sense is besides the point (to me) because she was nothing more or less than fear itself. Made to produce, consume, and promulgate fear. That ties in with my first sentiment in a nice dovetail because the only thing you have to fear is fear itself if you are an adult. Furthermore, the children were targeted because they were easier to scare and make more fear. IT serves as a perfect mechanism for a perpetuation of nightmarish totality, which informs me of how fragile our psyches really are. Even when they thought that IT was dead, the fact of the existence of IT was enough to still scar them.

Hawg hates this saying, but the midnight of the mind is truly horrifying. The fact that we can observe fear means that even if we, as individuals, are not scared, we're still impacted by the fears of others and live in a world that accounts for it.

Wonderful creation.

Also, cocaine is one helluva drug.

Did King do cocaine?

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

Did King do cocaine?

King did a lot of shit. In On Writing he said he doesn't remember writing Cujo (I think).

He hates adverbs; I think they're useful in small doses.

Good ******* grief, what the **** did i open up here? Lol

90% of King's work is horror related, its what drew me to the book in the first place. And thus, when i want to see it on the silver screen i expect that much to be represented in that manner. The book was flat out amazing, i really dont care what anyone else considered it to be. I saw it as a horror and when i went to see the film last week it didnt hit me like the book did. It was a pretty big disappointment considering all the hype. Fact is, i spend a LOT of time watching/reading about horror so im pretty confident in my own analysis of said movies/books. Bottom line, the new movie simply didnt do anything for me like the book did and wasnt what i was expecting based off my reading of the book. At this point they still have yet to make it translate well to the movie screen. I didnt realize that giving the movie a low score would turn into a huge debate about the merits of a horror novel. lmao

Favorite Stephen King movie? Mine is Maximum Overdrive. What is yours?

The movie isn’t even absurd enough to have fun with this lunatic premise, and King has zero skills as a director — visually, narratively, or in any other sense. King has called it the worst adaptation of any of his works, and we are not about to disagree. Though, according to King: “I was coked out of my mind all through its production, and I really didn’t know what I was doing.”

Originally Posted by Northman

Good ******* grief, what the **** did i open up here? Lol

90% of King's work is horror related, its what drew me to the book in the first place. And thus, when i want to see it on the silver screen i expect that much to be represented in that manner. The book was flat out amazing, i really dont care what anyone else considered it to be. I saw it as a horror and when i went to see the film last week it didnt hit me like the book did. It was a pretty big disappointment considering all the hype. Fact is, i spend a LOT of time watching/reading about horror so im pretty confident in my own analysis of said movies/books. Bottom line, the new movie simply didnt do anything for me like the book did and wasnt what i was expecting based off my reading of the book. At this point they still have yet to make it translate well to the movie screen. I didnt realize that giving the movie a low score would turn into a huge debate about the merits of a horror novel. lmao

I didn't post anything I said because of your low score of the movie. Nor is your view of the movie wrong. We were just discussing the underlying themes that Stephen King was portraying in the book. It really is a modern classic and his genius was that underlying theme of facing our fears and how he portrays those fears. I, personally, didn't mean anything personal and my above comment anoint psychoanalysis was a joke. You can still view the book/movie as just a fun horror movie too, there's nothing wrong with that. I absolutely love Salem's Lot just for what it is, but there are deeper themes, such as the fear of newcomers in a small town and in a way monsters in the closet.

Actually mine is The Dead Zone.