I know this movie because a classmate said in the circle of friends that "this movie is really good". But I didn't have any interest at first. Because I thought it was the Batman's something special...
I just watched this movie just because there is a member of a certain video site. When I saw that the title page was a group of living children, I felt that the level of horror should be limited. If it was a group of dead children, it would generally be more...
But what I want to complain about is not that the visual effects are not horrible, but that I didn't understand what the movie wanted to do, or what the script/fiction originally wanted to do. I think that drama should have a core idea, which is what message you want to convey and what reason you want to say-this is the value of the existence of drama, otherwise fictional literature has no meaning. Only the real thing is meaningful to people. Although the content of the plot and the characters in fictional literature is fictional or adapted, the spirit that it wants to express and convey is not fictional. That is the author's recognition of the world and life. Knowing is what he/she gains on the way to the truth. If what a fictional work conveys is not the author's exploration of truth, then it has no value.
What confuses me in this work of IT is that it seems to express what the author thinks, but it doesn't seem to be. Below are some of the stubborns I have seen, and I will complain about them one by one.
The clown is very evil, this stalk is used a lot, and it's not new. The first people to use this idea are actually thinking-people base their happiness on others' bitterness, or self-righteously mocking others, will incur resentment and revenge. But why does the clown in this movie come? Doesn't seem to say? Is there any meaning other than the clown’s appearance that is more in line with the "childlike" of the protagonist group? Of course, there is only part one at the moment, and I may talk about it later, but I think I probably won't watch it again.
Luther group, this setting seems very social and profound at first glance-a group of passionate and innocent teenagers, but they are defined as Luther by others and themselves. But after I watched the movie, I felt that this setting was not profound at all, nor was it ironic, nor... insinuating anything. Because this group of people is actually just a relatively low level of force in the school, there is no real Luthor—at least they never think of themselves as Luthor. If you want to be more social and profound, then the protagonist shouldn't be someone else saying "Ah you Luther", but the protagonist should feel that they are Luther-because they know that they have moral stains. But IT did not. The protagonists are basically innocent and good teenagers, but they can't play well. This kind of plot design is a level lower than the setting of "the evil heart still has good intentions, and the white lotus appears in the quagmire". The two slogans "the poor must have something to hate" and "the hateful people still have something to be pitiful" are immortal even though they are played for a long time. But IT is far away.
Another problem is that Bendo uses a lot of material to show the social problems of child abuse. It seems that he wants to express something, but he doesn't know what he wants to express. Do you want to condemn the abuser? So does this clown have anything to do with abuse? Maybe not. Do you want to advocate the awakening of social conscience, and everyone will care for children and children? It doesn't seem to be either. I think of "The Ring of Midnight" more than 20 years ago. In terms of telling social issues, it is much more advanced than IT. Even the later "The Grudge" is better than IT-but the Grudge incorporates too many psychotic elements, which is a bit worse than the midnight bell...
The character's emotion is also a point of complaint, and there is basically no moving point in this drama. For example, "Travel to Busan", although the format is very old (the biochemical zombies are simply a mess of play), the routines are also very old (standard Hollywood-style high-rich and handsome male protagonists, representatives of women, representatives of children, and other societies) Representatives of all living beings from all walks of life...There are selfishness, self-sacrifice, unswerving love until death, affection for life and death, hope of survival from the Jedi... etc.), but it has one advantage-you know Next, the director wants to shout "123 cry!", but you still shed a few tears willingly in response-this is the cleverness of sensationalism. It's like flattering. Although Ma knows that he was filmed but still feels "comfortable, please continue", then at least the director is successful (but I don't necessarily think that the screenwriter is successful). But IT has no such tears.
As for the special effects, that's okay, but to me, there is no value in promoting horror. If you just want to scare people, then this is a kind of malice and it is not worth advocating at all.
So what I think about IT is that the screenwriter and director may have caught a lot of slurs, but they don't know what they want to say with one mouth.
View more about It reviews
