Sounds like they missed the point of the book. There are different kinds of fear, and not everyone understands the differences between them. At least not with the sort of master's touch that Stephen King does. Too many "Horror" movies are actually "Terror" movies. The fear that we feel when we are physically in danger, and our instincts to survive kick in. Terror is our reaction to an imminent physical threat. Slasher movies are the classic "terror" movie. Horror is more psychological. Horror has a component of "wrongness" to it. "IT" is supposed to be story of the horror of being stalked by someone or someTHING that you can't quite wrap your hands around or your mind around. Something so WRONG according to our understanding of the world that it wears the face of Innocence, and preys upon children. Compounding the wrongness is that (in the book) this is going on in a community in complete denial of the reality of what's happening to it. So its children are left to face the horror alone. The original "Alien" move (1979) was a similar kind of horror story. That you're alone, trapped on a space ship with this predator. You can't escape it....but more over you eventually realize that you can't trust the people you're trapped with either. But what Ridley Scott understood, is that the MIND is the most potent force in maintaining that kind of grinding, anxiety. So you never actually see what the Xenomorph actually looks like in its full predator form until the very end of the movie when Sigourney Weaver blasts it out into space. All you see are bits and pieces...and its form shrouded in darkness. Sounds to me like they tried to turn "IT" from a genuine Horror movie, into a "Terror" movie...and the story doesn't work that way.

Was it just as funny as the first one?

When I saw Pennywise running towards you like a FnaF jumpscare at the end of the first trailer I knew it was gonna be quality. I give it a 6/10, would've been a seven if they included the orgy scene with Bev.

When people say "it was (insert comment)" are they referring to the name of the movie as the pronoun "it," or are they referring to the movie's actual name, which is "It"? This confuses me on an unusual level.

With a name like that, I kind of expected satire.

When you in the middle of paper boat and chill and he gives you this look

I read the book, watched the original, then saw the new movie. [spoiler]i haven't slept in 48 hours do you think the is a -blam!-ing joke?[/spoiler]

Very vulgar as well.

I would have enjoyed it so much more if it tried just a tiny bit less to be a horror movie. It needed to have that same level of horror as Stranger Things and stop there. The opening scene was my favourite, with the back of the slaughterhouse as a close second. After that, everything just felt like the library scene all over again. Other than that and almost every scene being insanely predictable from a mile away, I thought it was okay. Oh! And the typical horror tropes such as no mental scaring and a group of kids beating something that could easily rek them. Honestly, though, I could watch it again.

I haven't seen it yet but I read the brothers that made Stranger Things tried to direct it but the studio turned them down for lack of experience. And so they made Stranger Things instead.