Skip to main content

Does It Float?


          After the disappointment of The Dark Tower, there was a lot of pressure on It, directed by Andy Muschietti to be good. It is one of Stephen King’s best-known books, which is saying something considering his body of work. And considering the only time the story been adapted before was a rather lame miniseries in 1990, this film has been long overdue.
          Set in the fictional town of Derry, Maine during the summer of 1989, a number of children have been going missing. After experiencing a series of waking nightmares, a group of outcast pre-teens calling themselves the “Loser’s Club”, led by Billy (whose brother is one of the missing kids), determine that these incidents are part of pattern taking place every twenty-seven years. Each of their worst fears is being exploited by a supernatural being commonly in the guise of a clown called Pennywise (Bill SkarsgÃ¥rd) who wants to capture them and feed off their fears. Learning this, they have to muster their courage and face terrors in the hopes of defeating this monster they merely refer to as “It”.
          This movie isn’t a complete adaptation, as it only covers the first-half of the book -the second taking place when they’re adults. Nonetheless this could be a complete story on its own. And just as a story, it’s very good. Unlike The Dark Tower, this feels like Stephen King. This also means It goes to dark and gritty places despite the young cast. Though certainly not gory, there is some grisly and disturbing imagery. And the abusive father of the sole girl in the group, Beverly, is easily one of the creepiest parts of the movie. However a problem with the film is the conflict of tone. Half the time this is a horror movie, but the other half it appears to be a coming-of-age indie drama. Sometimes the dual tones don’t affect each other, but there are a few moments where the contrast is terribly stark. Like there’s one moment where the gang is looking at a horrifying sight, and it immediately transitions into a clean-up montage set to upbeat 80s music. There’s another scene where they’re facing off against some bullies, that’s played as if they’re having a food fight, only they’re actually trying to stone each other! It’s really bizarre! 
          But one thing It does really well is the kids. King knows how to write kids well and realistically; and the Loser Club definitely feels reminiscent of the boys from Stand By Me for instance, or indeed the heavily-inspired-by-King Stranger Things. Billy, Beverly, Richie, Ben, Eddie, Stan, and Mike aren’t all well-defined, but each of them has enough of an established personality (as well as their individual fears) that they are likeable. And all of them are played by decent actors. Jaeden Lieberher and Sophia Lillis stand out as Billy and Beverly. But the one who sometimes doesn’t work is Finn Wolfhard as Richie. He’s not bad, but he’s supposed to be the jerk of the group, and Wolfhard is just too likeable (also, I hope he doesn’t just get typecast as ‘80s kids). They’re often tormented by teenage bullies though, who are really over-the-top. Just like Kiefer Sutherland in Stand By Me -what is it with Stephen King bullies that makes them all murderous psychopaths?
          But arguably the most important part of It is Pennywise, and while SkarsgÃ¥rd is definitely an improvement over Tim Curry from the miniseries (though Curry is by far more memorable), there are definite problems with the character. The biggest one being he’s not all that scary. When he’s just the clown, he’s only mildly intimidating, and when he’s trying to scare the kids, some of the time it works, but his frequent spasmodic charges are really cheap attempts at jump scares. Once in a while he has a funny moment to remind us he’s supposed to be a clown, but there’s never that John Wayne Gacy predator vibe about him that would substantially add to his creepiness. He’s really nothing more than a killer clown. If you have coulrophobia, he’ll terrify you, but otherwise the scares will mostly come from other places. And while there aren’t a ton of really scary moments, there are some that are very good; such as a great sequence in a library, in a synagogue, and in a probably too obvious haunted house. Also, the famous opening scene at the sewer grate is done really well, with one shot in particular being especially terrifying.
          My understanding is a sequel is being made by the same people that will cover the second-half of the book. And I am actually looking forward to It -part two. Despite the tonal inconsistency, and disappointment of Pennywise, it was a very well-written story, and kept you invested. There’s great atmosphere and a fitting sense of dread as well, and the characters are a likeable bunch. The only thing is, It had the makings of a great movie, and instead is just pretty good -something that will sufficiently hold us over until Stranger Things season two.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...