IT (2017) – a review

Here it is, finally, after a year of waiting and four articles leading up to it I finally got to see IT. And ‘golly molly’ I had a good time. But there are some little critiques.

Seven children notice that there is something amiss in their hometown of Derry. A lot of young children are disappearing. The adults don’t seem to care and then there is this strange clown roaming around whose only wish is scaring them. As the summer goes on the children realize that they have to face their fears and confront the sewer dwelling IT.

What to make of this first proper Hollywood version of Stephen King’s IT? It depends on your expectations as you enter the cinema.

For those of you like me -traumatised by seeing the 90s mini-series aged eleven- it is a feast for the eyes. For the fans of the books, it’s a well crafted ride that expertly takes out all the meanderings of the massive novel and brings forth a thrilling (albeit abridged) version of the tale. But for those expecting a scary Saw-like bloodbath IT might be a disappointment. IT is rather more the Goonies trapped in the overlook hotel.

I was at the cinema with a lot of sixteen-year-olds and each and every one of them commented
to each other that it didn’t impress them as much as they hoped.

This, I think, also has a lot to do with the hype surrounding

this movie. A hype will always cause some people to be let down.

To be honest the movie doesn’t earn his R-rating on its blood and gore. I think a PG-13 would have fitted nicely as well with only a minimal of cuts. It’s mostly the USA’s constant fear of bad language that rewards this movie with the R.

This is the biggest issue I have with the movie. It’s not a full blown horror movie. In fact it is an interesting coming of age story with some horror elements thrown into the mix. (like Del Toro’s Crimson Peak being a love story with ghosts in it.). This is Stephen King’s Stand by me in which the body is moving on its own accord.

In this sense IT-the movie is like the titular clown, a movie with multiple forms wherein the coming-of-age bit works better than the scares.

I don’t consider this a bad thing. I’ve grown tired of the slasher tropes in which character meet their butcher with only the minimal of character-development to make it interesting. But it does make me wonder why IT didn’t do both?

IT has a great story and characters at its basis an yet it often opts for quick jump-scares and the minimal of gruesomeness. Every bit of true horror is in single-second-shots before cutting away to the reaction shot.

To me, one of the reasons why The Thing was both scary and gruesome was because you got to know the characters AND the camera lingered on the mayhem. Just an extreme close-up or two of some tearing veins and tissue to get the audience involved in the pain and malice the characters they love endure.

There is also a debate going on about CGI versus practical effects. I think IT would definitely

have benefitted from the latter. Why, for instance, did this movie decide to put a CGI-mask over

Georgie’s head when he did the ‘you’ll float too’-speech. Like the kid wasn’t scary enough on his own.

The danger is real and I –as an audience member- wishes to believe this but I need to see some real upfront pain to fully let it get under my skin.

But, then again, I’ve seen my share of horrors. Maybe I’m a bit numb.

I think that’s at the core of the current division between audiences. One group loved the coming of ages story whilst the other preferred a bit more horror. I fall in-between, with me wanting both.

THE STORY

If the horror-element doesn’t truly pay off then what does? The story; most definitely!

IT set itself to the massive task of juggling seven main characters at once. This didn’t work perfectly in the book nor does it here. But ‘darn it’ if it doesn’t get close.

Overall the movie spends the first hour introducing and pushing scares on each of the seven characters, yet the flow this movie uses makes it feel natural.

Crunching the numbers it would statistically break down to: ‘scare 1: Bill’, ‘scare 2: Ben’

- ‘Don’t worry we’ll get to Bev in due course’.

With very little padding IT moves from start to finish in a (highly) satisfactory manner.

And the changes this movie makes from the book to the screen are, in fact, rather logical. Ben, for instance, is the archetype scholar of the group (with some weird taste in music). It’s only logical that Mike will take over that role when Ben has to move house again.

IT, is one of those few movies that fixes a lot of the little bits of the original story and makes them better (though, again, it’s lacking in the scares).

I liked the two kissing scenes. They were to be expected –especially if you accepted the 80’s-vibe of this movie.
But, I also liked them because they were so logical when you think about it from a construct perspective.

In the end, like the book, it are the ‘losers’ Stanley and Mike who get the short end of the stick here. But still they have more screen time and involvement in the plot that they ever did in the mini-series (and remember their importance in the sequel –if you read the book/seen the mini-series at least).

The Henry Bowers-character, then, for a while, seems a little one dimensional. But due to a smartly written scene near the end he quickly becomes understandable (even though he’s still underwritten).

With a movie clocking well over two hours I wonder what we could get in a three hour directors cut.

At least in the short amount of screen time he gets the character manages to move the plot forwards.

This has everything to do with the skill of the actors.

ACTING

In a world of thirty-year-old superstars it is a breath of fresh air to see a bunch of kids break the box office. And I believe they earned it (I don’t know who the casting director was but he/she deserves a pay-rise.)

Lieberher plays the grief ridden Bill to a key. Wolfhard gives Adam Sandler a marvellous lesson in: ‘telling d*ck-jokes right’. Taylor is, as Ben, the sweetest boy to ever line the silver screen. And Beth (Lillis) is truly the glue that keeps the boys together –as she is in the book. With one shake of her head, a glint in her eyes –she moves their world. Her inclusion in the ‘Losers club’ makes the whole more grounded as a group of people willing to face death for each other.

Then there’s Grazer as Eddie -who swears his heart out because his mother can’t hear- who plays wonderfully off of Wolfhard’s Richie.

I always loved the bond between the two characters in the mini-series (the adult chapter) and here we finally see the beginning that was lacking in that television outing.

Each child-actor plays his or her part to perfection. They may be a bit one dimensional at times but when they interact with each other (like a military platoon) they each get to showcase their weaknesses and strengths. Especially when they finally take on the powerhouse performance of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise.

PENNYWISE THE DANCING CLOWN

One can’t help but compare.

Tim Curry’s Pennywise was eternal. Only in the end did we learn that he was nothing but a pathetic speck of dust on the cosmic scale of things.

Skarsgard’s version, however, is quite open about this all. From the first moment you see him he’s like an escaped panther hunting children: an animal; more afraid of his prey than he’s willing to let on.

He uses every trick in (his) the book to lure them. But at the same time he is terrified if people stand up to him. The fear he induces (and his madness) is also his own downfall. That makes him a great literary character and Skarsgard understands that completely by constantly downplaying him.

Skarsgard, in this sense, is a completely different Pennywise than Tim Curry’s version and that is admirable for such a young actor. He carved his name in the stone of cinema-history.

And let it be said that his enjoyment of playing the character oozes through the screen.

DIRECTING

Directing then is solid, with a singular goal at the core: letting the actors shine.

There are so many (80s) in-jokes in this movie that you’ll have to watch it again. Also: the set and clothing design: flawless!

But also by using trick-photography and several nicely framed shots (like any movie-buff I loved the long take scene through the school hallway) Musschietti put his own personal stamp on this movie.

The only fault I can think of is –again- the use of CGI when practical effects would have been more effective. Something to keep in mind for the sequel.

Wouldn’t it be fun if –in contrast to the mini-series- that the adult chapter is going to be even better than the teenaged chapter?

SUMMARY

Overall IT is the movie I have been waiting for. There are some mistakes (the CGI, pressed for time for some characters and the way the movie tries to be accessible to all of the audience) but any movie has mistakes. For a mainstream horror-movie this is the best one out there. My four articles weren’t for nothing – I loved IT.