9 Oct
2017

IT (2017)

SPOILERS!

I walked into work around 8:45 a.m.  I said out loud, to nobody in particular, "Hey! I saw the new IT!"  My coworkers gave me a strange look.  Adam, my manager, said, "Okay...how was it?"

"It was...good!"  There's a long pause after this.  My coworkers know me well enough to know that I'm not going to leave it at that.  Adam asks, "Is there any reason it wasn't great?"  And, in fact, there is a reason.  But the reason has less to do with the movie and more to do with the genre it occupies.

Let me get the short, fair review out of the way right now.  The 2017 movie is really good.  Bill Skarsgård delivers a much better rendition of Pennywise than Tim Curry.  The kids are hilarious and have great chemistry. The movie itself does a great job creating an incredibly tense and creepy atmosphere, and delivers plenty of jump-in-your-seat scares and gross-out scenes.  My experience was more than satisfactory.  There were a couple of moments where I was legitimately scared.  The scene with the film projector, in particular, had me grabbing my head with my mouth agape, letting out small whimpers.  Short answer: Go see this movie; you will not be disappointed.

I should probably get this out of the way, as well.  I'm not going to talk about the book.  The book is better than the swing-and-a-miss 1990 miniseries AND the new movie.  The general rule of film adaptations of iconic books still applies here.  If you are sitting in line at the DMV, or have a lengthy prison sentence coming up, I would recommend reading it (assuming the guards don't confiscate it.  The 1,000+ page novel is definitely big enough to be considered a weapon, even the soft cover).

This was the version my brother owned. I used to stare at it and wonder what it was about. Memories...

So I'm just going to compare the miniseries and the movie.  And, really, the deck is stacked against the miniseries.  IT (the monster) is a shape-shifting reality-bender who manifests itself as your greatest fears.  IT is a great antagonist.  But in 1990, the technology simply wasn't available to make IT look believable yet.  The miniseries relied heavily on practical effects, which is fine, but if you are going to have a character that can transform into your greatest fears, leaning heavily on digital effects isn't the worst idea.  The 2017 movie had decades of technological breakthroughs on its side, and used them to great effect.

The following clip puts scenes from each of the video versions side by side:

The creators of the movie also had the miniseries itself on their side.  A filmed adaptation of the novel acted as a guide for what to do and, more importantly, what not to do. The miniseries had the daunting task of turning a huge novel into a two-part television series without any visual aids other than storyboards and illustrations.

That's another thing to keep in mind.  2017's IT was given an R-rating and a theatrical release.  The miniseries was broadcast on ABC.  Looking at those facts alone as a consumer, which one would you like to see?

If there is one good thing to say about the miniseries, it's Tim Curry's performance.  A perfect blend of funny and disturbing, Tim Curry's rendition of Pennywise was almost universally praised by critics.  This can't be overstated. Any time he is on screen, it's hard to look away.  Director Tommy Lee Wallace said his job, basically, "was to give Tim the stage and not get in his way too much. He was like Robin Williams in the way he brought a spontaneous improvisation to the part."

So how does Bill Skarsgård's performance square up with the original?  Quite well, actually.  For one, he doesn't try to rip off Curry.  He interprets Pennywise in a much darker way. He's more menacing and less funny.  He's still goofy, but instead of relying on shtick and vaudeville comedy, he's more predatory.  And to be honest, I think it makes way more sense, considering that IT isn't a clown, but a timeless entity that poses as a clown in order to lure in its prey of choice, children.  Skarsgård's Pennywise just makes more sense, in general, even if he's a less-entertaining character than Curry.

The miniseries had one advantage, however, and I'd like to talk about it.  The miniseries didn't really feel like a horror movie.  The content was horrific, no doubt, but it caught you off guard.  The movie, on the other hand, felt like a standard horror film.  Even if you had no expectations walking into the theater, you knew within the first five minutes that frightening stuff was going to happen.  Everything indicates this.  The music, the lighting, the camera direction.  It all follows the conventions of modern-day horror movies.  The miniseries seemed more like an after-school special that was infected by some nefarious entity.  It may have been corny, but it had the element of surprise on its side.

I knew going in to the movie that it wasn't going to be a game changer.  It's a horror flick, and it has to answer to the people who funded it.  This means it's not going to be experimental.  It has to follow the conventions laid down by previous successful horror films so that it can make money.  If not, we may not get to see the sequel that the film sets up at the end.  Oh well, guess I'll keep waiting for the next Shining.

But even though it's pretty much a standard horror film, it does an exceptional job.  The horror content is visceral and plentiful.  Solid acting, good story, good pacing, really good camera direction.  Well worth the money.  I'll probably see it again.

 

So, what do you think?