Take my money

Mixed reviews at best, seems like.

Really hoping this one is scary. That was my biggest letdown of Chapter 1.

Two things:

- I didn't want to say anything, but now that they cat's out of the bag, a buddy of mine saw a four-hour+ cut of this a few months ago and said it was pretty bad. Granted, nearly every assembly cut of *any* movie that long is bad, but he echoed a lot of what is being said above. I was hoping they'd fix some of the issues, and it looks like they did, but the length and repetitiveness seem to have been unavoidable. I'll still see it, but this is definitely somewhat of a let down.

- I actually ran into the director a few weeks back at Formosa Cafe. I was with a couple friends there on a Friday night, I spotted the director by the bar and said, "That's Andy Muschietti, the director of It." Their response: "How the *****do you know what the director of It looks like?" Ha, my friends always joke that I have "facial recognition software," but it's something I can't help. I just always remember/notice faces. Anyway, one of my buddies who's also in the industry started talking to him, as he had an in with him, and we all chatted for five minutes or so. Really nice guy.

So the gist I'm getting is that if I liked Chapter 1, I'll like this one?

Personally I loved chapter 1 and can't wait to see this.

If peri Nemiroff is mostly on board with minor quibbles about it not being as tight, then I think this will be good

That is how i am reading it... Good production value, good acting, competent story, not very scary and too long.

Which still puts it Top 5 SK adaptations.

To the guy saying he'd take the original Part 2 over this one, yeah right.

I really don't get the point of these I can't talk about anything but here's my review Tweets that movie people put out. They all come across sounding like corporate shills or self-important D'bags.

When studios screen big movies like this they more often than not allow Twitter reactions first (usually immediately following the screening), but won't allow actual, formal reviews for a given amount of time. This has been standard practice for years now and is because of the studios, not the critics. In order for a critic or outlet to be invited to future screenings they have to play by the studio's rules.

FTACO97 said:

---

So the gist I'm getting is that if I liked Chapter 1, I'll like this one?

Personally I loved chapter 1 and can't wait to see this.

---

That's kind of what I was gathering.

Weird thing is I neither liked or disliked the first one. It was entertaining enough but I think it could have been so much more.

Carrying that thought process into the second one m, along with a nearly 3 hour run time, all but guarantees that I'll be waiting for this one on PPV or Netflix or something like that.

If the reviews on here are good enough I may change that. Basically all my entertainment choices are made by this board. With two small kids and almost 0 chances to see a grownup movie I can't afford to get them wrong

TCTTS said:

---

When studios screen big movies like this they more often than not allow Twitter reactions first (usually immediately following the screening), but won't allow actual, formal reviews for a given amount of time. This has been standard practice for years now and is because of the studios, not the critics. In order for a critic or outlet to be invited to future screenings they have to play by the studio's rules.

---

I understand that I just don't understand why everyone has to crawl over each other with their "OMG it's amazing" or "I thought it wasn't that good, but of course it will make a lot of money" reviews. Not sure what the point is. Why not just wait until you can actually report something of substance?

MuckRaker96 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

When studios screen big movies like this they more often than not allow Twitter reactions first (usually immediately following the screening), but won't allow actual, formal reviews for a given amount of time. This has been standard practice for years now and is because of the studios, not the critics. In order for a critic or outlet to be invited to future screenings they have to play by the studio's rules.

---

I understand that I just don't understand why everyone has to crawl over each other with their "OMG it's amazing" or "I thought it wasn't that good, but of course it will make a lot of money" reviews. Not sure what the point is. Why not just wait until you can actually report something of substance?

---

I think the point can be seen in this very thread. It gets them seen.