It (2017)

[Phyrebrat]

I am wondering what my fellow chrons think about this film.

I enjoyed it immensely although there were a number of things that 'bothered' me. I felt very nostalgic; I bought the book when it came out in the 80s and read it, then immediately reread it on finishing it. My biggest disappointment with the TV minseries was addressed in the movie; the absence of the house on Neibolt Street in the 1990 version bothered me, as I think it was one of the most scary and uncomfortable of Pennywise's manifestations, so to see it featured so heavily in this made me happy.

Didn't think anyone could ever match Tim Curry's Pennywise, either, but Bill Skarsgård does an awesome job. Special mention also to the children; providing much needed belly laughs in the face of such tension was wonderful.

As a horror fan, I might be inured to things, but I wasn't scared at all. I can't think of many movies since Paranormal Activity (1 & 3) that actually chilled me, and The Blair Witch Project of 1999 was the only film to ever make me feel scared before it started, so perhaps something about found footage brings an immediacy that scares me. The more recent Creep with the formidable Mark Duplassis unsettled me, but that wasn't supernatural horror.

I'm altogether too fond of monsters so Pennywise and Mr Babadook were more 'cool' than scary.

Has anyone seen it?

pH

 

[Rodders]

I haven't seen it yet, but it's on my list.

I read IT in the ninties and it remains one of my top ten reads.

I agree with the mini series. It was a good effort, but ultimately a poor one.

 

[BAYLOR]

The film was quite good.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I too felt myself thinking, 'I must have watched too many horror films, I'm just not getting that scared/fright feeling' There were people in the cinema who did make a noise or two, but I did kinda guess most of the scares. However I get you about Pennywise, Tim Curry was just so brilliant but Bill actually did a great job - such a difficult thing to try and compete against Frankenfurter himself and, actually, I think he succeeds in a new interpretation.

But I had no idea that there was going to be another film.

I know that it would have been impossible to film a whole complete film in the structure of the book in a reasonable time for a movie, but just focusing on the kids meant this just felt like The Goonies on acid. I liked the book structure.

So I actually felt mildly disappointed.

I think the problem is that a proper Stephen king novel is a massive (long, long) beast and even if just focused on the kid end of the story, the film felt a tad...rushed.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Nice review @Venusian Broon

It did feel very speedy, didn't it.

pH

 

[ratsy]

Okay, I haven't read It. I have a used copy, and started it... (dont throw it at me) and just had a hard time getting through the slog. I do want to read it still, but...

I did love the original miniseries, and I own the DVD.

This movie did a lot of great things. But I couldnt help but miss the dichotomy of the adults and children back and forth. The kids fell a little flat to me, and that may be because there seemed to be too many of them, not doing anything. I get it, if the book had them, we need them on screen, but maybe that is part of what VB meant, with rushed. I honestly feel like it could have been another hour. The stranger thing kid's lines were a little forced, but I liked the new kid, and the girl's story was crushing. The best part of the movie was her revenge (no spoilers)

I agree Phyre, there was nothing that scared me in It. I, like you, have probably watched far too many horror movies for my own good.

The film was great quality. The opening scene was wonderfully horrible, and the bond between Georgie and Whatshisface was sweet.

Also loved how they made all the adults just the worst. The kids parents were almost like caricatures of real adults, and that sold it to me. It was about the kids only. Great job there.

Looking forward to the next one.

 

[Judderman]

Except for the opening I was a bit disappointed in the first half an hour that it wasn't a true horror film. Also I expected it to be adjusted to modern day. It was more of an 80s kids adventure film with some horror thrown in. There were too many jolly gaps between the dark parts. Quite a bit about bullying and parent issues rather than IT. But it was fun and I think it improved as the movie went along. My wife loved it. I agree with the comparison to The Goonies. I also found it very much like a Stranger Things long episode, especially with them using one of the same actors.

In the second half of the movie there were twice moments that made me jump so they did some of the sudden appearances well.

The sequel novel to IT is meant to be poor isn't it? The basis for the film sequel?

 

[Phyrebrat]

Hi, Judderman, let me do these point by point (ish).

SPOILERS BELOW

Except for the opening I was a bit disappointed in the first half an hour that it wasn't a true horror film.

I remember thinking the first half was very fragmented; the first time the kids meet the various manifestations of Pennywise seemed very quick and episodic. The biggest problem I had with the various monsters was Stan's strange painting woman. It had little bearing on his damage whereas the others at least had some relevance: Mike's parent's were killed in a racist arson attack because that was his biggest fear; Beverley's blood linked to her period, and the signals that would send ot her sexually abusive father, Ben and his research, Eddie and his fear of sickness etc etc etc. It wasn't played on the nose though, and I liked it for that.

The other thing it's hard to say is how we respond to Pennywise; like Freddy Krueger, he is an antihero and has a cool factor that just diminishes his scariness to me. I love my horror and am inured to it anyway, but I was always looking forward to seeing Pennywise rather than dreading it. I think him waggling Georgie's arm at Mike when Mike was being beaten up by Henry and his gang was true horror though the horror in this movie is meant to be the home life of the kids and the community of Derry that turns a blind eye to their children's plight. That's the nightmare for them, and penywise is representative of those horrors.

Also I expected it to be adjusted to modern day.

It was, funnily enough. The book came out in 1986 and the two strands are set in 1957+ and 1984+. The 1957 era is when they are kids and is staggered thoughout the 1200 pages with the 1986 era. The wonderful thing about the 1957 era being used was that the monsters were the Universal creatures: Wolfman, The Mummy, Dracula, The Giant Eye, Creature from the Black Lagoon and so on. However those monsters are not scary to us in 2017, and the only reason they really work in the book is because Stephen King is allowed to write them doing their thing with such eerie creepiness. The scene when Ben first sees pennywise manifest as The Mummy is truly chilling and otherworldy, and there is a horribly unsettling murder when he manifests as the Creature from the Black Lagoon.

t was more of an 80s kids adventure film with some horror thrown in. There were too many jolly gaps between the dark parts.

Well, horror and comedy are inextricably linked. If you read a horror that had no humour, there would be very little release for the tension and it would just seem unenjoyable and thankless to my mind. I'm not a fan of comedy-horror as a genre although there are some I love, but horror kind of demands a bit of humour, I believe.

Quite a bit about bullying and parent issues rather than IT.

But the monster reflects off the kids fears which is the adults and bullying element. The two are inextricably linked.

I also found it very much like a Stranger Things long episode, especially with them using one of the same actors.

Stranger Things was inspired by Stephen King's novels.

The sequel novel to IT is meant to be poor isn't it? The basis for the film sequel?

There's no real sequel to It. Derry as a town features in subsequent King novels; perhaps Insomnia is the nearest to a sequel you could say. The book has been divided into two chapters for the film, whereas in print they are staggered,

[along with interludes that Mike who grows up to be Derry's Head Librarian writes; essays about the history of Derry's tragedies: The Fire at the Black Spot (Ku Klux Klan attack on a black nighspot) 1930, The Bradley Gang (gangster shoot-out in Derry High Street in the 1929 -30 where they are gunned down by Derry's residents), The Kitchener Ironworks explosion (the easter egg hunt of 1904), Claude Theroux's serial killing spree and (at the Sleepy Silver Dollar in 1905 where he hacked several patrons up). There's a final interlude but that is just Mike outlining events after they all go their separate ways.]

so what the filmmakers have done is separate the past and present. The next chapter will be set in the present day, and deal with the pact they made at the end of Chapter 1 to come back if Pennywise returns. This is also from the book.

pH

 

[allmywires]

I loved, loved, loved the novel (apart from the mental ending to the adult's story, but we'll get there later) and I was pretty pleased with the film, although as mentioned above I did think it ticked along at a fair pace. It was almost like checking things off a list with all the kids meeting Pennywise in his different guises. I think it was a bit of a strange move to give Mike's storyline (the town historian) mainly to Ben, essentially robbing him of his role in the 2nd film, but I guess that was done in the interests of time? Who knows.

I thought the kid actors were brilliant, especially Beverly and Eddie - in the book Eddie is an irritating whingebag but Jack Grazer really brought the role to life. I like Finn Wolfhard and he did a decent Richie but I almost think they could have switched roles.

It scared me, but then again I'm awful with horror movies, so it's not a surprise I watched most of it from behind my hands... However saying that, it was still pretty pedestrian horror. There is so much more in the book that's so much scarier, and the film focussed far too much on the jump-scares rather than creepy scares, in my opinion.

Nevertheless, I think it sets up for the sequel well. I'm re-reading the book now and I'd forgotten most of the adult strand, which is pretty uneventful when you think of it compared to the kid's story. I think there's lots of room for them to flesh it out, which could be interesting (or a disaster...)

Also I'm glad that they cut (spoiler)

Spoiler

the creepy kid orgy from the end. Now THAT was disturbing.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Also I'm glad that they cut (spoiler)

Spoiler

the creepy kid orgy from the end. Now THAT was disturbing.

You know, I had in some sort of Pennywise memory trick completely forgotten about that. Yeah. That was disturbing.

 

[clovis-man]

I think Mr. Bean is a Tim Curry Fan.