Straight Female / 42
I complained about the new movie IT. I don't like clowns anyway, but I think its en-sighting deviant violence towards children and fear in children. I am offended about what the advertising are implying to the spectator of the ad let alone the movie itself which quite frankly I find all Stephan King's Films mentally disturbing and a danger to children or even people with mental illness that the character of IT being that of a clown with metal teeth and harming children offensive.
I have never liked clowns myself but the whole cogitation is creepy. the spectator using textual analysis takes home a message of threat and fear mongering and as the write up says "and he's being used by IT to taunt his brother." as one article claimed
or any spectator who may fall upon the ad in horror of drowning at sea or in a pool or other implied messages of a character of a clown that is killing children in the rain at street drains is offensive.
to be honest i saw some of the film years ago as a teen as was haunted for ages by it to this day. its just plain over graffic and I think say film noir Hollywood would have used more implied but unseen interpretive film scenes which few directors have the talent of doing. I am a fan of film noir anyway and not much of modern film by comparison.I don't like the ad and what its implying or the images and why the need for the spectator too, to be taunted by the whole image and story sequel is unnecessary and offensive. it could promote violence to children also.
why should the public or anyone be subjected to this fear and violence? some books and films shouldn't be published and made.
a child in a raincoat with back turned to the spectator and like a red blood streak to the sky like a balloon, with words "YOU WILL FLOAT TOO!" or he will be blown away into space? the paper boat in the original floated and sank when the kid was killed by IT.
nope, its sicko stuff.
its the cat and mouse taunting of it I find offensive. why do the public have to be inflicted with this shit when there are real murderers out there that do this shit.
its mental brain twisting.
I had screaming crying nightmares of the original and turned it off.
I have never liked clowns myself but the whole cogitation is creepy. the spectator using textual analysis takes home a message of threat and fear mongering and as the write up says "and he's being used by IT to taunt his brother." as one article claimed
or any spectator who may fall upon the ad in horror of drowning at sea or in a pool or other implied messages of a character of a clown that is killing children in the rain at street drains is offensive.
to be honest i saw some of the film years ago as a teen as was haunted for ages by it to this day. its just plain over graffic and I think say film noir Hollywood would have used more implied but unseen interpretive film scenes which few directors have the talent of doing. I am a fan of film noir anyway and not much of modern film by comparison.I don't like the ad and what its implying or the images and why the need for the spectator too, to be taunted by the whole image and story sequel is unnecessary and offensive. it could promote violence to children also.
why should the public or anyone be subjected to this fear and violence? some books and films shouldn't be published and made.
a child in a raincoat with back turned to the spectator and like a red blood streak to the sky like a balloon, with words "YOU WILL FLOAT TOO!" or he will be blown away into space? the paper boat in the original floated and sank when the kid was killed by IT.
nope, its sicko stuff.
its the cat and mouse taunting of it I find offensive. why do the public have to be inflicted with this shit when there are real murderers out there that do this shit.
its mental brain twisting.
I had screaming crying nightmares of the original and turned it off.
