Es

This 2017 production of Stephen King's book is a well-crafted, decently acted imagining of the story. I really enjoyed it but did speak to some people who were disappointed that it had diverged from the book too much.

In brief, the children of Derry are going missing at an alarming rate. Something evil lurks in the town and it's up to the Loser's Club to overcome their fear and unite to confront IT ...

I found the old TV movie somewhat dull in the second half. The first half, which this movie is concerned with, was always the stronger half and I think this version is probably just as good, if not better than the original TV movie. It's certainly more gruesome and scary.

I'm not sure Tim Curry's Pennywise has been upstaged though. Bill Skarsgard has done a good job but I think Curry's is hard to beat.

IT 2017 is refreshingly old-school, in that it focuses on character and story, unlike too many recent "horror" movies. It is beautifully shot and superbly acted but perhaps could move at a slightly better pace.

IT will divide opinions due to story vs screenplay issues but it's definitely not a bad remake.

It's 1988, and a group of young teens in the town of Derry, Maine are terrorized by an otherworldly clown named Pennywise (Bill Skarsgard), who can make them see their worst fears. They must band together to stop the fiend before it kills them all.

King's novel succeeded in large part due to the nostalgic immersion into Baby Boomer cultural touchstones. The filmmakers decision to update the setting to the late 1980's is understandable in the sense that the follow-up, featuring the adult versions of the characters, will now chronologically fit with modern times. The filmmakers also decide to forgo any excessive wallowing in 1980's pop iconography, with a movie poster here and a song there the only references. That boils the story down to the horror film essentials, and while there's nothing original in the mix, it is well presented, and features a handful of memorable scare moments. The special effects are also largely successful, and Skarsgard is good as the monstrous clown. The filmmakers also made the interesting decision to not explain Pennywise, perhaps leaving that for the sequel. I'd be curious what a first time viewer, with no knowledge of the source novel or the previous 1990 TV mini-series version, thought of the story.

I recently caught up with the first season of the TV series Stranger Things, which almost certainly had some impact on this film version of It, even going so far as to cast one of the show's leads in this as well. That's not a problem, though, as that kid (Wolfhard) is good in both, and the rest of the cast in this is also terrific, with Lillis, as the sole girl in the group, and the aforementioned Wolfhard, as the foul-mouthed jokester, the stand-outs.

So I went and saw IT, and came back unimpressed. I mean it was a good movie, no doubt about that. A bunch of kids, outcasts in their own right, being terrorized by an ancient demon that plays upon the fears of its victims is pretty much the standard in Hollywood horror movie territory. All the kids are well cast, the script is funny and tight, and there are plenty of monster shots. The cinematography is great, the pace is even and the CGI is flawless. But is more funny than terrifying- it's R rating more a justification of teenage slang in the script, rather than for true scares.

But that is what typically Stephen King is all about. His stories are studies on relationships rather than all out horror. In IT, King reversed Spielberg's E.T, and explored everyday monsters of childhood- abuse, violence and neglect. Juxtapose that with an eternal evil shape-shifting entity who wakes up every 27 years to prey, and you have a shawarma of a plot. The book is scary, the movie isn't. Probably so because today, we are used to Stranger Things.

We are used to kids doing stupendous stuff these days- whether running billion dollar companies, or bringing back lost souls from other dimensions. It all seems very easy for today's generation to figure things out- most of IT establishes this narrative. A wonderful group of actors face off against Bill Skarsgard's Pennywise the Dancing Clown, and they all nail their parts. The movie takes place in a town where all the adults are essentially villains- so its not just the kids versus the clowns everyone else. But for sheer impact, IT never reaches the highs it achieves in its first sequence.

It is a great example of how strong marketing can make mediocre movies look a billion bucks. Other reviewers are putting IT right up there with other Stephen King adaptions such as The Shining and The Thing. Oh please, that would be laying it too thick. Director Andy Muschietti's earlier take on the genre- Mama, is a far better contender.

No good horror movie can get away by being light on scares, however good the characters and the script are. So look at IT as an extension of Goonies or Stranger Things, a PG-13 romp, not an iconic horror movie. 7/10

It (2017) was a pretty good movie overall, most of it was entertaining and well made. I will say that it wasn't as good as I expected, there were parts that could have been better. Well first the positives. One of the positives is the acting, great performances were given by all, I was impressed by the child actors, clearly very talented. I think the child actors really committed and showed the level of talent that you'd usually see in an adult actor. The special effects were also very well done. Pennywise's look was well put together and all the wild effects with him looked good. The beginning sequence was very well done, I loved the exchange between Pennywise and Georgie. The middle part of the film was alright, it had good acting and it set up everything for the finale, but to be honest, the beginning and the end were great, very well done, and I felt like the middle portion was alright, but my mind wondered some and I just felt like there wasn't enough substance to the middle part of the movie. Yes, the characters were good and the acting was still good in the middle, but I feel like the story needed more support in that section. I haven't seen the original Tim Curry It miniseries yet, so I cannot compare the two, all I know is that the original is basically like two films in one. I am excited for an It 2, which I feel is on its way since the original had two parts to it. All in all, a 7/10. Overall enjoyable, and I was entertained by the end of it, even though there were places in the movie that could've been better.

For a younger audience, unjaded by so many horror and suspense flicks, this movie will probably be creepier. This version of the story is somewhat a victim of itself. So many derivatives have occurred over the years, many from King novels, including this one, that this remake suffers as somewhat less of the same. At my 55 years of age, it just never hit a fear climax. Sure, some great scenes, just not enough impact. For the younger audience, I expect it would be great. Also, perhaps by the edit- down for the screen play, the story seemed to leave a lot of plot holes uncompleted, and seemed to violate its own plane of existence. Appropriate for Netflix, or a young couple on a date.