It (Stephen King 2017)

[Mal12345]

Children in a small northeastern town (whodathunk?) battle an evil supernatural clown.

I was forced to go see this movie.

I'm told that, like The Dark Tower (2017), It is nothing like the original move and certainly not like the book by Stephen King. Like The Dark Tower movie, It was not an adaption of the novel but a movie that stands alone in its own right.

Yet I was struck by how similar this movie is to the Stephen King genre in general: abusive adults against helpless children. I pondered the abuse Stephen King must have endured as a nerdy child, to affect him in such a way to write basically the same novel over and over again, and mentally debated whether or not he should attend some psychotherapy for his obvious psychological issues. On the one hand, I don't believe in allowing mentally ill people (such as Stephen King) to go untreated; on the other hand, curing it might ruin his career as an established author. Stephen King is a great example of someone who has channeled his psychological issues into something productive.

My second thought was that all of his helpless characters are, like King himself, 6w7s and phobic, except for the occasional 6w5 character.

Thinking to myself kept me occupied during a movie that was a very well done parade of talk/scream/cry moments. The original it movie, although truer to the novel, was lame. I have only watched parts of it before, and could not bring myself to watch the entire thing.

I was accompanied by a few others at the movie, and none of us professed to being scared - because it didn't scare us.

I was interested to see the teenage heroes solve the mystery of the scary clown. But I go to movies to be affected, because it takes a lot to affect me. And there was only one piece from this movie that affected me, maybe two. I was displeased with what happened to Georgie in the beginning. But then, at the end, there was the impressive scene where all the teens reacted at once in a medium angle shot that I felt was extremely well done spontaneity. If I watch this movie again, it will be that scene that attracts me back. Apart from that, I was unimpressed with the bland horror movie elements that have been done so many times before and probably better.

 

[Mal12345]

I almost forgot to add, It was not as enjoyable a movie as Dreamcatcher, but far better than Stephen King's Red Rose, a haunted house movie that lasted a long 4 hours and 14 minutes.

 

[Mal12345]

As some of you know, I love to bash on critics. But I promise to "bash" (critique) only this tiny review made at IMDb.com (that has the only metacritic score worth considering):

"I had the pleasure of seeing an advanced screening of IT in Brisbane. The film is absolutely brilliant. Bill Skarsgård has taken Pennywise and made the role his own. Creepy, disturbing, humorous, IT really possess the creep factor, giving audiences a new reason to fear clowns."

It was well-made; but brilliant? No.

"The entire casting choices were sensational. All actors really held their own, creating a sense of comradery [sic] between the characters."

Not really, compared to Dreamcatcher from which I felt a much stronger sense of camaraderie between the characters.

"Like most people, I do hold the miniseries with Tim Curry close to my heart, but after seeing this adaptation, I was beyond pleasantly surprised. So much so that upon IT being released into cinemas, I'll be back in line to see it again."

Ah ok, so this critic was already a Pennywise fan. No wonder she gave it 10/10 stars, far more than It deserves.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I almost forgot to add, It was not as enjoyable a movie as Dreamcatcher, but far better than Stephen King's Red Rose, a haunted house movie that lasted a long 4 hours and 14 minutes.

Lol, Dreamcatcher was a joke. How am I supposed to take shitweasels seriously?

As for It, I found it entertaining and not excessively stupid, but I didn't find it scary, either. Then again, I'm not likely to be scared by films.

 

[Totenkindly]

glad to see you needed to create your own special thread again. awww.

You know, a ton of your commentary about movies seems to be more complaining about other commentators rather than the movie. Like you have something to justify or prove all the time. Or like here -- it scans as you NEEDING to dislike/criticize IT because other commentators liked it in general and disliked "The Dark Tower," a movie for which you seem to have become an erstwhile apologist for some inescapable reason.

Like, why not give the movie a fair appraisal? I'm a fan of the book "IT" but the movie adaptation was decent in most respects, it just wasn't "great." I could only give it 4/5 stars at best (and I debated 3.5 stars), but it did do a great bit right. It just didn't go all the way it needed to go, unfortunately. I don't understand folks who'd give it a 10/10, which seems crazy to me, but I certainly wouldn't give it a low score either.

 

[Mal12345]

Lol, Dreamcatcher was a joke. How am I supposed to take shitweasels seriously?

As for It, I found it entertaining and not excessively stupid, but I didn't find it scary, either. Then again, I'm not likely to be scared by films.

There was more to Dreamcatcher than that. The toilet scene in particular, with the shitweasel trying to escape from the toilet, was a better scene than almost anything in It, except for the one I mentioned toward the end. If it requires a shitweasel concept to make the toilet scene work, then I'm all for it. I don't know if you actually watched Dreamcatcher or not. As usual, King stole the concept of how shitweasels are born from another story, in this case, Alien I'm sure (aliens emerging from a host body, in case my reference was lost on you). King steals most of his concepts, if not all.

 

[Mal12345]

glad to see you needed to create your own special thread again. awww.

You know, a ton of your commentary about movies seems to be more complaining about other commentators rather than the movie. Like you have something to justify or prove all the time. Or like here -- it scans as you NEEDING to dislike/criticize IT because other commentators liked it in general and disliked "The Dark Tower," a movie for which you seem to have become an erstwhile apologist for some inescapable reason.

Like, why not give the movie a fair appraisal? I'm a fan of the book "IT" but the movie adaptation was decent in most respects, it just wasn't "great." I could only give it 4/5 stars at best (and I debated 3.5 stars), but it did do a great bit right. It just didn't go all the way it needed to go, unfortunately. I don't understand folks who'd give it a 10/10, which seems crazy to me, but I certainly wouldn't give it a low score either.

I hereby request that you not discuss me in your posts, but the subject under discussion which in this case is a movie.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

There was more to Dreamcatcher than that. The toilet scene in particular, with the shitweasel trying to escape from the toilet, was a better scene than almost anything in It, except for the one I mentioned toward the end. If it requires a shitweasel concept to make the toilet scene work, then I'm all for it. I don't know if you actually watched Dreamcatcher or not. As usual, King stole the concept of how shitweasels are born from another story, in this case, Alien I'm sure (aliens emerging from a host body, in case my reference was lost on you). King steals most of his concepts, if not all.

I did see Dreamcatcher.

 

[Mal12345]

Here is part of a review that I can't bash:

"IT starts off very well with a genuinely good opening scene. Great cinematography, atmosphere, lighting, a likable child whom you connect with easily, and an interesting encounter takes place between this kid and a very creepy clown. The dialogue is good, there is an eerie sense of dread, and a moment where IT aka Pennywise goes from being a friendly-ish clown to a terrifying villain in an instant through a very well placed awkward stare. It was a moment I wasn't expecting and gave me hope for the rest of the film, then... It's all downhill from there, after an almost laughable use of CG.

This movie has big issues. IT isn't scary. IT's story is weak, if you can even call it a story. IT has too many underdeveloped characters. And IT is a counterproductive villain with no concrete rules for what IT can or can not do."

I agree with most of that. I disagree that it was all downhill. But I told my wife (who almost fell asleep at one point in the movie) that the plot was weak while we were still watching It because It was just teenagers trying to solve a scary mystery. There is something also to be said for facing down fear, but I understand that in the original tome the teens had to face their own actual fears, or something along those lines, and not just fear in general.

I would also like to add that there was no reason given for any of Pennywise's evilness. He (it) seems to simply feed off of fear, an old trope that goes way back:
Emotion Eater - TV Tropes

There are also people who believe such beings actually exist:
Exposing the Archons on Earth

 

[Mal12345]

This video has shed a lot of light on a very dark movie - SPOILERS!!!!!:

 

[Mal12345]

"...It was just teenagers trying to solve a scary mystery."

FALSE.

I was definitely aware that the teenagers needed to learn to coordinate and act together to face their own fears. So there was more to It than just some kind of weak-plotted Scooby Doo episode. I think what got to me were the constant talk/scream/cry events that were battering me into a state of semi-consciousness, and particularly given the fact that I was seated in the loudest part of the cinema. And so I missed the fact that the teenagers were facing down their own individual fears taking the form of Pennywise. But this could also have been a problem with the production, because facing down their phobias (not just fears) was not explicitly stated in the movie, and is something more evident to those who are already aware of the story's plot, for example, Reggie dealing with his fear of germs.

 

[Lexicon]

Just saw this at the cinema 3 days ago.

I'll start by saying the novel is actually my all-time favorite. I first read it when I was about 8 years old (hooray for limited supervision). I've re-read it countless times since. Always absorbing something new.

I think some of King's best stories will never translate well to film. Perhaps to a very well-produced television series, but even then, there are always limitations. I try to calibrate my expectations for that, whenever I see movies based on his works. Most of them are so atrocious, they're just plain funny, which I can still derive plenty of enjoyment from.

I was overall unimpressed by the new IT. Honestly, it felt like, "Stranger Things Presents IT." Not just because they used the same actor. General vibe, the alteration of the timeline. Look, I grew up in the 80s, too. I love that ridiculous, tacky decade. There's so much nostalgia for it in TV & film lately, though. It's oversaturated to the point of distraction. Given that generation are adults now, it feels almost mastubatory, in a way. Which is fine, in moderation.

Pennywise was not remotely menacing. I appreciate the direction the actor took, but the CGI effects really detracted from the performance, for me. Also, the voice reminded me too much of Hoggle from Labyrinth. Just didn't do it for me.

I feel like the creators tried too hard to inject their own voices into the storyline, pander to a specific audience.. so much that the depth of the themes, the multidimensionality of the characters was lost. It felt diluted, mixed all wrong. Unpleasant aftertaste. At times it felt like whoever made this film had merely read the jacket summary. Like someone made a cocktail they've never even tasted before. Just plucked ingredients from one page in a cookbook, & made weird substitutions, before ever sampling the real thing first.

Some specific gripes:

When I saw a casting call/breakdown for this film a couple yrs ago, I was ecstatic to see PATRICK HOCKSETTER listed as a character. I was so excited to know that this disturbing as hell (albeit short-lived) character would be getting some screen time. Needless to say, it was a pretty big letdown when he turned out to be just some cardboard supporting stock sidekick to the primary school bully in this production.

Also, I dislike how they purposely avoided referring to Mike as "the black kid." It felt like PC nonsense. Racism and all the ugliness that comes with it was a big deal for that character. Now he's just "the homeschooled kid?" People were racist jackasses in the 80s. They were in the 50s. They are even now. There was no need to dance around that. I get that there's more to Mike than the color of his skin. The bigotry in the story emphasizes that, actually. Much of the novel highlights the evil within humanity. I found it patronizing that it was glossed over in the film. Like perhaps it was rewritten because people are too easily offended by it. But child sexual assault (in Bev's situation) is something we can all get behind as "evil." No room for controversy or debate among viewers, there. It just rubbed me the wrong way.

The kids' personal/psychological talismans were almost entirely overlooked. The power of magical thinking in childhood. The ordinary objects, mantras or ideas that fragile, growing minds shield &/or empower themselves with to survive. The beauty of contrast is all over that book. The movie mostly focused on the power of their fears, the darkness of their imagination, less so the light. Eddie's inhaler. Stan's bird book. Richie's Voices come to life. Bill's speech exercises. Perhaps Ben's simple and pure love for Beverly. The list goes on. The most significant belief is of their power as a group, their love for one another. Even that felt only lightly touched upon, somehow.


The whole showdown at 29 Neibolt Street was really disappointing. I balked at the addition of a stupid well in the basement. Where the fuck is the Derry Standpipe in this version? They messed with two major landmarks in King's universe. That irked the hell out of me. I can't help it.

I'll probably come back to this and say more, once I've reflected a bit. I'm still kind of digesting it.

It's not a horrible film, but it was totally unremarkable for me, and didn't come close to doing the novel justice.

I am admittedly biased. Nothing will probably ever do it justice, in my mind. And certainly not this.



Also, cinemas are freaking LOUD, now. I have to wear earplugs whenever I've gone, in recent years. Otherwise my ears are ringing for a few hours afterward.