Edward M
Strata Poster
Then we have IT. Where to start on this.
It's probably the one book I've re-read the most in my life. It's not my favourite book, but I find it really easy and enjoyable to just drop back into and to read again and again. So I know the source material really well. There was very little chance that the film could ever meet the full potential of the book, and I'm kind of okay with that. There's a lot of stuff King writes which is brilliant on the page, but utterly laughable on screen (I'll circle back round to this in a bit).
The basic story is simple though. Group of kids discover that an evil monster is in town killing kids. They band together and defeat it. So far, so Goonies. The film captures that basic story very well. It helps that (for the most part) the face of the monster is a terrifying clown. The acting is excellent and it's great to see some really good filmwork happening in a Stephen King adaptation. Hurrah for modern filmmaking by numbers.
However, it kind of all falls apart somewhere. I think the issue is that the focus on the heart of the story was lost and instead the focus fell on "The Clown". As good an antagonist as Pennywise (and as well presented in the film), you never felt like anyone was ever in any danger. There wasn't enough peril because all the time Pennywise was backing off or taking it too slowly. I know this is to produce suspense (and part of the idea of the whole idea of Pennywise), but it didn't work. It just felt a bit cheap.
So reasons it missed? Mostly it's the bond between the kids. The story revolves around their friendship. They're thrown together (much as they are in the film), but there's a special connection that they grow between them (not just the underage sex thing at the end). It's built on the growing paranoia that Derry has hanging over them and the town. The place is constantly ominous, with the kid's trust in the adult world slowly eroded away that makes them cling together. Each has a near fatal meeting with Pennywise that helps them then adhere in a force against IT. Their experiences are all potentially deadly. It's never Pennywise in their first encounters either.
So that brings us back round to the point earlier. Some of the things they experience in the book would be stupid. Even the house which appears to become a clown and be ready to eat them (which could have been done in a decent enough way I guess if subtle) is thankfully missing. However, Eddie's leper isn't. Even worse, it looks like a reject CGI model from Scooby-Doo. But... I kind of think that's how it should be. In the book, what the kids see is something "cartoonish", the things they encounter are terrifying to them, but clearly unreal. However, it just didn't work in the context of THIS film as it looked stupid.
So the film is missing the heart of the book. It doesn't touch on the latent skills each child possesses that makes them - as a group - a formidable enemy to IT. Without that side of things, you feel it's just a run of the mill horror - which it pretty much is - only you know the main characters won't die like they do in grown up horrors.
It's just another Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday 13th - introducing a new evil character for the film industry to abuse for years to come. Don't get me wrong, Pennywise is great at times, it's just that he seems toothless (haha) and a bit incompetent. IT in the book is arrogant, but never stupid. Never ridiculous...
Point proven.
Anyway, I detached myself from the source (I really did) and watched it as a film in itself, on its own merits. It's a mediocre horror. Clowns are scary. Kids getting attacked by clowns is scary. IT made damn sure it got the mileage out of those two things. Great acting, some good visuals and directions. Tension here and there (but mostly a damp squib). 6/10
I'll go and see the second part, but I'm not excited to go and see it.
This. This is exactly what I felt. It just felt like the studio wanted another Freddy Kreuger or Jason (like you said). They wanted a film where on Twitter people say "IT was sooo scary! Oh my god that clown wtf." It worked. It's likely going to be the biggest horror film ever and is making the money that superhero blockbusters make. The marketing was brilliant, and it was the kind of film that people would say "You have to see. That clown was sooo scary." It was also a film that was good enough. No one is going to leave IT offended; it's serviceable. However, I think that the current curse of Hollywood films is not the bad movie but the mediocre movie. Marvel films are mainly mediocre, serviceable fun that make $1 billion. This makes more creative decisions harder to greenlight for a studio. Serviceable fun is unoffensive and easy to swallow; it's what a studio wants. In the end, film is not an art form to a studio. It's a money making machine. Universal didn't like Get Out more than Jurassic World. They are going to make a Jurassic World cinematic universe because it is going to make insane amounts of money. I have no issue with studios making films for money; it is a business after all. It's just sad to see film after film be servicable, mediocre, and ultimately forgettable. In the end, we will get 52 Jurassic Worlds for every Mad Max: Fury Road. Also this:
