Ça : Chapitre 1

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.

It is a new adaptation of Stephen King's novel of the same name about a mysterious entity that shows up every 27 years to feed on children. Sometimes in the form of something they are most afraid off and sometimes just in the form of the clown and then this group of kids tries to put an end to the whole thing.

I had extremely high expectations that only increased when I heard about all the great reviews. And it's by no means a bad movie, but it certainly is a bit of a disappointment. The story isn't very faithful to the book, but it mostly keeps to the spirit of the novel and contains the essential elements. Adapting that book onto the screen is no easy job, so I'm gonna be a bit forgiving. One thing this movie nailed though is the characters. That's the best thing about this movie. The characters and the performances. Every member of The Losers Club has their own personality and everyone stands out. But still, not entirely (Mike was very underdeveloped). Still, everyone shines in their roles. And Bill Skarsgård is incredible as Pennywise. He's not always terrifying, but he did a fantastic job. I thought both him and Tim Curry in the 1990 TV miniseries were great in their own ways. And they both fit their versions perfectly. Since 1990 version is more of a fun Halloween movie, Curry is a lighter and sillier spin on the character. But this version is darker and creepier, and so is Skarsgård's Pennywise. The characters are a joy to watch, they absolutely nailed that aspect of adapting. And, as I said, it's not easy to adapt this book. But I think they were playing a bit too safe here.

The cosmic horror aspect of the book was one of the most fascinating and terrifying to me, so I was really wondering how they would translate that to a movie. The problem is, they didn't even try. And that's why it feels a bit too ordinary and conventional. If that part was done right, it would have been amazing. Maybe they are saving that for the second part of the story, who knows? In case you didn't know this was only half of the story and the book has a part when they are kids and when they are all grown up, 27 years later. I hope they are saving more mature and creepy parts for the sequel. Also, I was very disappointed by the horror aspect as a whole. The opening scene was very disturbing and creepy, but the movie just doesn't retain that atmosphere. I wanted this movie to get under my skin and give me shivers, but you just don't really feel that sense of dread. You've got some fun scenes with jump-scares, but it's never really as terrifying as I expected it to be. And something the director doesn't realize (same mistake can also be seen in his previous film, Mama) is that the more you show the monster, less scary it becomes. And Pennywise is shown way too much. He's creepy at the beginning, but eventually becomes just fun to watch. And that's not really a good thing for a horror movie.

But nevertheless, this is still a fun and enjoyable movie that I will definitely be coming back to. They got most of the characters, themes and story on point, but the scares are where this movie really disappoints. What was supposes to be a unique, refreshing and terrifying experience turns into a fun (at times laugh-out-loud funny), but too ordinary and conventional experience. Still, I had a good time and will be coming back to it. It just wasn't what I expected.

It (2017)

*** (out of 4)

A small town has a strange history with various disasters that strike every twenty-seven years and more times than not it's children that are harmed. One summer a group of friends realize that they are all being stalked by the vision of a sinister clown known as Pennywise. They soon realize that if they don't try to kill it then he will kill them one by one.

Stephen King's IT was originally made for television in 1990 and it was a hugely successful film that scared the crap out of people. The film had all sorts of hype going into it and it actually lived up to it. The film carried on a cult following for years and then news broke that a new adaptation was coming. This film really try to create the same type of hype and it ended up being a massive box office hit. People were eating it up and it's easy to see why. With that said, as much as I loved certain parts of it there's no question that there are some major flaws as well.

The great stuff includes the drama aspect of the story. The real terror comes from the bullying, the girl's sexual abuse by her father, the blame you place on yourself for your brother's death and of course there's the building of friendships that kids do during the summer. All of this is perfectly done and director Andy Muschietti does a wonderful job with the development of the characters. He also does a terrific job at capturing the mood and setting of a small town. The 1988/89 settings were perfectly captured and you can sit there and feel that you're in a real town with real characters.

All of the performances by the kids are simply wonderful with Sophia Lillis and Jeremy Ray Taylor really standing out. The adult performances are just as great even though they're all basically small supporting roles. Tehn there's Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise. I thought the actor was terrific in the park and I enjoyed how much more sinister this clown was. I also loved the line delivery and thought the actor was terrific at bringing this character to the screen.

With that said, there are some major, major flaws that pretty much kill the horror elements of the film and that's the CGI. The CGI effects are so fake looking that I couldn't help but be taken out of the drama that was going on. This isn't a Marvel movie or some sort of fantasy. Why build up the setting so much just to throw it all away with cheap effects? And I ask you this.... Was this CGI, fake looking clown that rushes towards the camera or floats around really as creepy as the actor and his make-up? Why they had to throw these cheap, fake looking effects is anyone's guess but it really hurts the film.

Overall, I'd say that the original was better but there's still a lot of great stuff here. It's really too bad that there really aren't any scares due to the fake looking effects and it's even worse that everything was there for a much better movie. As it stands, IT is good but not a classic.

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.