hferdon

I just watched the original It from 1990, and that was pretty good, considering some parts were a little hokey, but all in all a pretty good film I might buy later. This remake... I don't think I can say the same. I only watched the first 45 minutes, and then turned it off because I immediately felt uncomfortable and sick to my stomach. I understand that Pennywise is an alien that comes every 30 years to feed on the children to survive, but from what I saw of the first 45 minutes, they made It too graphic and gory. It's one thing to know that Georgie gets killed by It, but it's traumatizing to see Georgie try to crawl away from the storm drain on a knub of an arm... That gave me the complete sick feeling and uncomfortableness. The whole thing with Beverly getting picked on by a girl at school, in my opinion, was not needed and completely annoying, and the whole Michael having to kill lambs for his uncle's meat shop was COMPLETELY uncalled for. We all know that us humans eat animals, but we don't want to see animals get shot and killed, which made me feel completely uncomfortable and sick again!! AND, last but not least, I know that the guys encountered the bullies, which is expected, but I didn't think that Henry would go as far as ACTUALLY carving into the kid's stomach, I thought it would be the same as the original in the sense of he kicked Henry and then fell back before actually being touched by the blade, which made me also feel uncomfortable and sick. Do you guys see a pattern!?!?!?!? I don't like these certain parts because they made me feel very uncomfortable and sick, and that's not something I want from a movie. So, if I had to choose between It 1990 and It 2017, I would definitely choose the 1990 version hands down!

Like many women, I've read all 3 books about 20-30x over, enjoying the story. I fell in love with the books because Christian's character is so raw and beautiful because of his tragic upbringing, and then turning his life around and becoming a confident and successful man. The scenes in each book when he tells Ana that he loves her profusely and is vulnerable, I connected with Christian and made me want to be with a man like Christian. And so far, for the first movie, the script was pretty much on point with what happened in the book, which I can absolutely accept as a good sign. One of the biggest thumbs up I can give for Fifty Shades of Grey is the first red room scene Ana did with the crop: that was better, in my opinion, then how it was written in the book so, that was perfect! I understand that they wanted to present the beginning of Mrs.Robbinson into the story, but the whole walking on the trail to the pond part was a little boring and could've been done a little differently. I would've wanted a little more dialogue to have been put in for the movie, but I understand that they have a time limit. For Fifty Shades Darker, I liked the way, in the book, that Christian and Ana meet up again. The movie version was ok, but it was more raw and more of a emotional and connecting reunion in the book. I liked the sex scene in Christian's old bedroom. It was good in the book, but I also like it in the movie, so I'll accept both versions. I'm a little disappointed that they didn't put the dance auction in the movie, because part of me feels that that scene was what would help the audience see a side of Christian Grey that loved Ana with a passion and would've been fun to see Christian bid on Ana for the dance. I'm also upset that they never mentioned Dr. Flynn because the scene in the book where Ana and Christian go to see him at Flynn's office to discuss the idea of Ana marrying Christian would've been perfect for the movie because it would've explained more about Christian and how he is and how Ana felt about their relationship. Lastly, the scene where Ana comes home to Christian's apartment after Leila almost attacked Ana was almost too short. There wasn't much of Christian looking very vulnerable and trying to fight for Ana. In the book, I loved at how vulnerable and open Ana and Christian both were when they were telling each other their fears about Ana not being good enough for Christian, Christian being afraid that he might;ve been the reason that Leila had a mental break down. What annoyed me almost the most was the fact that Ana arrived at the answer that Christian punished brunette women because they all looked like his mother: in the book, she was shocked to figure out that information, so for her to say it like she already knew was almost annoying because if you want the movie to match the book pretty well, then you need to keep it pretty consistent. Again, they could've put a little more dialogue into the movie to understand more of the story, but I understand that they have a time limit. Fifty Shades Freed, um... I felt it kind of slipped through the cracks... I don't know about everyone else, but the movie in my opinion had WAY too many jump cuts!! It's like: in one scene, if someone is supposed to say: "Thanks for having us over today," the scene in the movie sounded like "Thanks for having...," like it wasn't overly finished. I think they cut out WAY too many scenes and expected the released version to be $1M product. If people have looked at how long the movie is: it's under 2 hours, like 1 hr 45 minutes! The other 2 movies were 2 hours - 2 hrs 15 minutes! The movie was WAY too short! They could've put SOOO much more in the movie! I understand that the director wants to put their own spin on the movie, so they'll add scenes or change up the scene to experiment with it, but changing it is not always a good idea. When Ana comes home and is attacked by Jack - that was an ok idea, but to me, that was a little expected, and I liked the book version better. Along with what I mentioned about jump cutting: In the first 2 movies, you don't know about the importance of Christian using condoms when they have sex, so that Ana doesn't get pregnant. The fact that they randomly put in a scene when she goes to see Dr. Greene, when she was never mentioned in the other movies. Yes, Christian mentions her name once in the first movie, but that was such a short part to where her magically appearing to let Ana know that she's pregnant was cheap and wouldn't make sense to the audience unless you read the books to understand the story. They didn't even show the scene where Leila came to see Ana to talk to her before she found out she was pregnant, which would've been good footage to put in the movie, but they decided to cut that out too, which I think was a poor decision. They didn't even put in the movie where Ray gets into that car accident, and then Ana goes to see him in the hospital, which would've also been good footage, which was a poor decision to take out. The hospital scene with Ana was too short, which could've been a few minutes longer. They didn't even give Ana and Christian any dialogue at the end with their son at their new house, which would've been nice to see them talk with their son a little, to have something other then 2 seconds to see them, and then end the movie. Also, the fact that they took out the scene where Christian and Ana go to Christian's parents house to see the family was taken out of the movie, so that was annoying, and I was almost more annoyed that they put Christian singing and playing the piano in the scene where they go to Aspen instead of at the parents house. I just don't like the fact that they were switching up the events that happened in the book and putting them in different parts of the story. Even when they go to the nightclub, I hate the fact that they took out Christian hitting the guy in the club. To me, that shows his devotion to Ana and the fact that they took it out was really upsetting, and they should've known how taking that out was going to make the fans feel. That's something that someone who has the books would review because if you don't read the books, how do you know what you missed in the movie? I want to clarify: I AM NOT prejudice in any way, I do not have any issues about it, but the character change was a little baffling for me. In the books, they don't describe the looks of Ana's assistant Hannah, but from what I know, Hannah is not an African American name, so that had me almost rolling my eyes. Ros, Christian's coworker, assistant, whatever she was, was describes in the book as a red headed women, but then turned to an African American woman, so that was a little bit of an eye roller. They described Detective Clark as a blue eyed man, but had an Asian-American man play the role... These little things may not mean much to the audience because it means that these actors get jobs and get paid, but it's almost annoying when they change the characters up that much to where someone like me has to point out the differences and ask why, that's saying something. One slightly good thing I can say about Fifty Shades Freed: I wasn't overly in love with it, but I liked the scene where Christian takes his revenge on Ana for changing her mind. The book still had a good scene within itself, but I feel like the movie gave me a clear image that matched the book at how angry he was and I could hear and feel his anger, his fear for Ana's safety, and his enjoyment of settling the scores. I just wanted to point out one last thing: As I mentioned before, I've read the books from cover to cover 20-30 times, and I felt all the emotions of the characters down to my soul because the characters are alive with emotions that you feel what they feel. In the movies, I felt like the characters were barely scratching the surface. Example: Christian (book) is a controlling man that has a quick temper, but loves with a passion and is raw. Christian (movie) is a controlling man, but is very chill about almost everything, doesn't get angry quickly, and silently shows how much he loves Ana. I wasn't overly feeling the Christian Grey that was in the book, I felt like I was watching someone that wasn't Christian Grey, but someone else. There's a reason that I like the books more, not just because that the entire story is here in the book, but because I feel the true emotion and the rawness of the characters in the book. I'm happy that I've seen the movies, because they've given me an idea of the visual story line of books. I can admit that, in my opinion, I think that if Jamie Dornan was closer to the Christian Grey character in any of the 3 movies, I feel like it was the first movie. Watching Fifty Shades of Grey, I felt like Jamie was closer to the Christian Grey in the books, but then melted away by the Fifty Shades Darker, and then changed completely by Fifty Shades Freed. The question of will I ever buy the movies, more then likely, I won't because I had so many issues with almost all movies to where I'll either find the movies for free on some random website, or I'll just watch clips of the movies because none of the movies were anywhere near perfect. There were some good points in each movie, but not enough to make it into the history books as one of the best romance saga's ever in the history of movies.

Here's the thing: I've been watching all of the Halloween movies back to back and I've enjoyed each one for different reasons, but the one that kind of pulled me off of the kick was this movie, the 2007 make of Halloween. I'm the kind of person that feels if there is going to be a sequel to any movie, you need to continue the story with the same actors and the same type of storyline. This version kind of diminished my excitement for several reasons. 1: I've ignored the fact that in every movie, there's a slight sex scene which is tacky for every kind of movie, especially for horror/ thriller movies because the eyes should be on the killer hunting down the victims, not woman's boobs and a man's butt. It's just very trashy. 2: I understand that Rob Zombie wanted to tell his version of Halloween because it's a refreshing and different look at the infamous story of Michael Myers, but I felt the movie to be too raunchy with not just the boobs and butt, but also that grotesque sex scene in Michael's cell. It was absolutely stomach wrenching and was definitely throwing me off from watching the movie. 3: The actor who played Michael Myers looked to be 35 and Laurie to be like 15, when in reality, it should've been different because in the original movie, Laurie was born 2 years after Michael was admitted to the hospital, making them 8 or so years apart, so they got it a little different. 4: One thing I can give to Rob is that he gave the audience a good idea of how Michael could've turned evil because he had a horrible home life, which can turn anyone into a psycho, but even giving us that idea was a little too risque and flamboyant.5: I'll also give him points that Rob tried to stay pretty much true to the original with the fact that, like the original, Michael escaped after years of therapy, goes back to his old house, and starts planning on how to start making his killings, even having the original music when Michael was around was a great idea. 6: I understand that even with a continuation of a saga like this that you don't have to go exactly to the word with the original story, but it would definitely help because when you have different actors, it doesn't feel like the same story, and should be considered to be called something else. 7: The fact that Laurie was so wimpy when Scout portrayed her, she was a brave woman taking on Michael; it's just sad.

The reason I gave this movie a 4 is becasue:

Pros:

• Stayed pretty true to the original story with the characters and the location.
• Gave the audience an interesting look on how Michael turned evil
• Gave the audience a look into how Michael spent some of his time in the hospital.
• Gave the audience an interesting idea on why Michael liked masks and seeing his cell covered with masks of different colors.
• The way the movie ended was similar to the first movie in the sense that Michael was shot at the end of the first movie, and he was shot in this version.

Cons:

• Different actors
• Bad actor portrayal of Michael looking 35 and Laurie looking 15.
• Didn't make sense on how Michael found the iconic mask in the floorboards of his family home when there was no mention of that mask in the beginning of the movie.
• Scout's portrayal of Laurie was too wimpy.
• Too much nudity to even fathom watching this movie again!
• Too much dirty cussing to make someone never wanna watch this movie again!