TheKingOfSheep
Member
This is a long read, with a bunch a spoilers. So be warned. Again. This read contains spoilers!
I'm going to ignore the novel – I've read it several times during my life, most recently a couple a months ago, and it's very dear to me – as well as the 90's mini-series. The novel in particular I'll ignore, because it's such a massive beast, containing a lot of Derry lore, and so much character background, which would be impossible to translate into one or two films (maybe HBO or AMC... one day, maybe). I wanted to experience IT as a film that stands on its own. And it does, that's the good news - so go see it. The bad news is, problems actually arise when IT tries to get too close to the source material.
The plot is messy. The film begins with Bill in his pj's folding a paper boat for his little brother Georgie. We are to assume Bill is ill – but this isn't obvious, mind you – it wasn't to me at least. And it should be, because that's the reason he can't accompany his little brother chasing the paper boat down the rain flooded streets. But before Georgie can go outside and play, Bill sends him for an errand. To get paraffin. In order to waterproof the boat. Now the writers, for whatever reason, have equipped Georgie with a walkie-talkie (which'll become relevant when 'dead Georgie' is near; but that's not obvious, as Bill doesn't always have the walkie-talkie on him for us viewers to see when Georgie is near; but I think it was supposed to be a plot device – the walkie-talkie creaking when Georgie is near – and it just ended up being poorly implemented: maybe inspired by something Stranger Things did?). And while in the cellar, Bill calls out to Georgie over the walkie-talkie. And yes, several scenes later Georgie is outside, in the rain, while his brother warns him over the walkie-talkie, to be careful – they could've kept talking... A moment later the paper boat dives in a storm drain. And that's when Pennywise first appears. What comes next, is pretty much the only scene in which Bill Skarsgård gets to ‘act' as Pennywise. Because every other scene, with Pennywise in it, from thereon on, you'll only get the bloodthirsty, insane, ravenous half of the character, who rarely utters more than a few words.
The storm drain scene is my favorite scene with Pennywise in the whole movie. Pennywise introduces himself to Georgie and tries to be friendly. And the way Skarsgård plays this side of Pennywise, however short it is, makes the character come off a little (just a little) less threatening at first, just enough so, that it is believable that Georgie has a chat with him, even shares a laugh, instead of running home frightened out of his mind. But, and that's the best part in this scene, you really see that Pennywise has a hard time keeping his composure. You're also convinced ‘IT' is reading Georgie's mind. Several times Georgie seems suspicious of the clowns intentions. The clown manages to keep Georgie from leaving, by addressing the kids fear of disappointing his brother by having to go home and tell him, he lost the boat. But, either because Georgie's mind blocks him out out of raised suspicion, or because IT is done ‘playing' with its food, at one moment he just blankly stares passed Georgie. And Georgie picks up on this. It's seriously well done, and uncanny. But I'll say no more about this scene, the acting by the kid, though, and Skarsgård is really convincing. And I hope, in Part II – which is announced when the end credits roll – Skarsgård is allowed to do more ‘acting'. Instead of just standing there a few seconds, looking insane, and then running towards the camera – which pretty much sums up what he does the rest of the film.
From then on it all goes pretty fast. We get to meet the kids at school. Apparently Georgie is considered missing, not killed (we don't experience what the Denbrough family goes through; there is a small scene between Bill and his dad, but that's all). Bill, Eds, Stan and Ritchie already know each other, and, although this (again) isn't obvious, one can assume they already formed the Losers-Club. I deduce this from several scenes later on, when one of them mentions it in passing: that they're The Losers.
This movie runs for about 135 minutes – give or take – but somehow the filmmakers weren't able to provide any of the characters with half descent backgrounds. I won't discuss all of them here, just hint at some issues I had with certain specific characters.
Take Henry Bowers. He's seriously bonkers. The problem is: why? His dad is a cop. We find this out in the second scene that we see this guy. And from that scene you can deduce that he might be abusive – but that's not at all obvious (he might be similar to the cop father character in 13 Reasons Why). In the scene I'm referring to, he catches his son getting ready to fire a pistol at a cat, held out by Belch. The father takes away the gun before he gets to shoot the cat. Then fires a couple of rounds right before Henry's feet, in anger - and says some things to humiliate his son. But all this, is later on in the movie. The first scene with Henry in action, he just starts cutting up Ben. But, he does this out of the blue. He doesn't have to chase Ben or anything – for all we know he doesn't even know Ben (Ben is the new kid on the block). He just appears on the sidewalk with his buddies, and starts carving his name in the poor boy's belly. This is pretty early on in the film. Why he feels this much hate, isn't clear at all. And that makes the scene feel abrupt, out of the blue – like so much in this movie feels out of the blue, and abrupt.
Then there's Patrick Hockstetter – probably misspelled his name. One moment he's part of Henry's group, and then (what ten minutes in?), he gets killed. Later on we see a missing persons pamphlet of him, but that's it. Henry or his crew never mention him again. Nor is ever brought up again in the story. Why have him in there at all?
Another gripe I have is with the production design. This movie is supposed to play in the 80's. The movie tells us, it's 1989 – if I recall correctly. Now, Bill's room has a poster of the movies Gremlins and Beetlejuice. At one moment Ben wears an Airwolf t-shirt (he also wears a t-shirt that stems from the 2010s, while he's in the library. The T-shirt features a double exposure illustration by Andreas Lie, I think, of a fox). And in the background, while the kids are standing around someplace in the middle of Derry, we notice the cinema is showing Lethal Weapon II and Batman – the first Tim Burton one. Later on we see another shot of the theater marquee. This time the movie A Nightmare on Elmstreet V is playing. Oh, and Ben has a thing for the New Kids on the Block. But that's pretty much it.
Now, I'm from the eighties. And my room, and my friends bedrooms where riddled with He-Man, Transformers, M.A.S.K., StarCom, G.I.Joe, and so on. (Ritchie does play Streetfighter in an Arcade a bit, though, but no Atari or NES at home, nor VCR) Also, we spoke about movies, music, candy, tv-shows, Nike trainers, etc all the time. Nothing of that is in this movie. The whole movie, for the most part, could just as well have been set in the 50's – like originally in the novel. It's totally not anchored in the eighties. And that's where my gripe with the Ritchie character comes in.
Ritchie is played by our favorite star from Stranger Things. Ritchie is supposed to be the character that vents 80's pop culture (as he does 50's in the novel) through wisecracks and impressions – but there is none of that. In the film they have the character ramble in the background while other characters are talking, so that most of the time, you can barely hear his jokes. They really gutted this character. And this was one the characters that could've helped anchor this film in the eighties. It's such a missed opportunity.
The kids worst fears could've been connected with 80's pop culture – as the novel does with 50's pop culture. But it doesn't. And that brings us to manifestation of the kids fears through Pennywise. They're utter crap. For instance Stan's, is a manifestation of a character that resembles an Edvard Munch type painting – albeit in a more realistic style – of a woman with a deformed head; don't know if it's an actual artwork or just a painting specifically for this film, I suspect the latter though. Beverly's consists of her father – although there is a blood-from-the-drain-scene as well, following close or right after she bought Tampax: which is btw the moment she befriends The Losers - trying, what might be construed, as abusing her sexually.
You can spot a Pennywise doll that looks like the Tim Curry version – not going to tell you where, but it'll be pretty obvious.
I love the kid actors. They did a great job, all of them. Derry though, is not really developed at all – the few adults we encounter are small town odd, but they have no background. There is no mythos in the movie either, not really, and locations don't matter and, except maybe for the house on Neibolt St. and the Barrens nothing is really named by the kids. Yes, Ben does library research (the easter egg hunt drama, with the factory explosion; a body with a missing head from a historic picture of this tragedy is what haunts Ben btw...) – Mike apparently knows nothing at all – he mentions something about Derry that his grandfather told him, but that's it.
The film has sort of its own look, and feel. It's not Spielbergian or anything like that - it just doesn't capture the spirit of childhood to achieve a Spielbergian feeling. I don't think it tries to be, either. Maybe more Richard Donner Goonies-like (but again, the spirit is missing).
Also, I think in contemporary Hollywood movies, this has become uncommon (for obvious reasons): when two of the kids are in a dialogue on the foreground, the others are talking in the background, but nearby enough so that it all gets mixed up – it's also where Ritchie does a lot of his talking, in the background. I recall this from The Goonies, where it worked, but it doesn't here – it comes off as chaotic and you can't properly hear what the kids are saying sometimes.
Another point of critique, is how the passing of time is handled in the movie. You can't really say whether a day, or a month, or a week has gone by. Only at the end we're told it's September, and that's when the group parts way. We don't know if this final scene takes place right after their confrontation with IT, or if time has passed in between; and if so, what did they do in the mean time, is this final scene the first time they discuss that confrontation?
Maybe in Part 2 they zoom in more on that summer, and show us some specific days were the kids had other encounters with Pennywise?
Now, I did enjoy the movie. Mainly because we haven't had something like this for a while – J.J.'s Super 8 comes to mind; and Stranger Things. But as an adaptation of one the greatest and most beloved Stephen King novels, it's disappointing. The writers should've just cut a couple of the characters from the novel, for their adaptation. That way they could've focused on developing the characters they would've kept, and given them a solid background and real drives and motivations (because that's what's lacking in all of them, even in Bill, because we really never see him grief his brother) – the source material would've easily made this possible.
Also, Pennywise should've turned into Jason Voorhees, or Freddy Krueger or hell, a bunch of Gremlins even – why show us a poster of that movie, or name drop A Nightmare on Elmstreet V, but having none of the children go watch that film, or talk about films even? Again the actors, these kids, are really talented. But they didn't play kids, like say those childactors in Stranger Things played their characters (I blame the writing). These kids behaved just too rational, too mature and too gloomy most of the time. Kids in the eighties, they behaved differently. I know, because I'm from the eighties.
I'm going to ignore the novel – I've read it several times during my life, most recently a couple a months ago, and it's very dear to me – as well as the 90's mini-series. The novel in particular I'll ignore, because it's such a massive beast, containing a lot of Derry lore, and so much character background, which would be impossible to translate into one or two films (maybe HBO or AMC... one day, maybe). I wanted to experience IT as a film that stands on its own. And it does, that's the good news - so go see it. The bad news is, problems actually arise when IT tries to get too close to the source material.
The plot is messy. The film begins with Bill in his pj's folding a paper boat for his little brother Georgie. We are to assume Bill is ill – but this isn't obvious, mind you – it wasn't to me at least. And it should be, because that's the reason he can't accompany his little brother chasing the paper boat down the rain flooded streets. But before Georgie can go outside and play, Bill sends him for an errand. To get paraffin. In order to waterproof the boat. Now the writers, for whatever reason, have equipped Georgie with a walkie-talkie (which'll become relevant when 'dead Georgie' is near; but that's not obvious, as Bill doesn't always have the walkie-talkie on him for us viewers to see when Georgie is near; but I think it was supposed to be a plot device – the walkie-talkie creaking when Georgie is near – and it just ended up being poorly implemented: maybe inspired by something Stranger Things did?). And while in the cellar, Bill calls out to Georgie over the walkie-talkie. And yes, several scenes later Georgie is outside, in the rain, while his brother warns him over the walkie-talkie, to be careful – they could've kept talking... A moment later the paper boat dives in a storm drain. And that's when Pennywise first appears. What comes next, is pretty much the only scene in which Bill Skarsgård gets to ‘act' as Pennywise. Because every other scene, with Pennywise in it, from thereon on, you'll only get the bloodthirsty, insane, ravenous half of the character, who rarely utters more than a few words.
The storm drain scene is my favorite scene with Pennywise in the whole movie. Pennywise introduces himself to Georgie and tries to be friendly. And the way Skarsgård plays this side of Pennywise, however short it is, makes the character come off a little (just a little) less threatening at first, just enough so, that it is believable that Georgie has a chat with him, even shares a laugh, instead of running home frightened out of his mind. But, and that's the best part in this scene, you really see that Pennywise has a hard time keeping his composure. You're also convinced ‘IT' is reading Georgie's mind. Several times Georgie seems suspicious of the clowns intentions. The clown manages to keep Georgie from leaving, by addressing the kids fear of disappointing his brother by having to go home and tell him, he lost the boat. But, either because Georgie's mind blocks him out out of raised suspicion, or because IT is done ‘playing' with its food, at one moment he just blankly stares passed Georgie. And Georgie picks up on this. It's seriously well done, and uncanny. But I'll say no more about this scene, the acting by the kid, though, and Skarsgård is really convincing. And I hope, in Part II – which is announced when the end credits roll – Skarsgård is allowed to do more ‘acting'. Instead of just standing there a few seconds, looking insane, and then running towards the camera – which pretty much sums up what he does the rest of the film.
From then on it all goes pretty fast. We get to meet the kids at school. Apparently Georgie is considered missing, not killed (we don't experience what the Denbrough family goes through; there is a small scene between Bill and his dad, but that's all). Bill, Eds, Stan and Ritchie already know each other, and, although this (again) isn't obvious, one can assume they already formed the Losers-Club. I deduce this from several scenes later on, when one of them mentions it in passing: that they're The Losers.
This movie runs for about 135 minutes – give or take – but somehow the filmmakers weren't able to provide any of the characters with half descent backgrounds. I won't discuss all of them here, just hint at some issues I had with certain specific characters.
Take Henry Bowers. He's seriously bonkers. The problem is: why? His dad is a cop. We find this out in the second scene that we see this guy. And from that scene you can deduce that he might be abusive – but that's not at all obvious (he might be similar to the cop father character in 13 Reasons Why). In the scene I'm referring to, he catches his son getting ready to fire a pistol at a cat, held out by Belch. The father takes away the gun before he gets to shoot the cat. Then fires a couple of rounds right before Henry's feet, in anger - and says some things to humiliate his son. But all this, is later on in the movie. The first scene with Henry in action, he just starts cutting up Ben. But, he does this out of the blue. He doesn't have to chase Ben or anything – for all we know he doesn't even know Ben (Ben is the new kid on the block). He just appears on the sidewalk with his buddies, and starts carving his name in the poor boy's belly. This is pretty early on in the film. Why he feels this much hate, isn't clear at all. And that makes the scene feel abrupt, out of the blue – like so much in this movie feels out of the blue, and abrupt.
Then there's Patrick Hockstetter – probably misspelled his name. One moment he's part of Henry's group, and then (what ten minutes in?), he gets killed. Later on we see a missing persons pamphlet of him, but that's it. Henry or his crew never mention him again. Nor is ever brought up again in the story. Why have him in there at all?
Another gripe I have is with the production design. This movie is supposed to play in the 80's. The movie tells us, it's 1989 – if I recall correctly. Now, Bill's room has a poster of the movies Gremlins and Beetlejuice. At one moment Ben wears an Airwolf t-shirt (he also wears a t-shirt that stems from the 2010s, while he's in the library. The T-shirt features a double exposure illustration by Andreas Lie, I think, of a fox). And in the background, while the kids are standing around someplace in the middle of Derry, we notice the cinema is showing Lethal Weapon II and Batman – the first Tim Burton one. Later on we see another shot of the theater marquee. This time the movie A Nightmare on Elmstreet V is playing. Oh, and Ben has a thing for the New Kids on the Block. But that's pretty much it.
Now, I'm from the eighties. And my room, and my friends bedrooms where riddled with He-Man, Transformers, M.A.S.K., StarCom, G.I.Joe, and so on. (Ritchie does play Streetfighter in an Arcade a bit, though, but no Atari or NES at home, nor VCR) Also, we spoke about movies, music, candy, tv-shows, Nike trainers, etc all the time. Nothing of that is in this movie. The whole movie, for the most part, could just as well have been set in the 50's – like originally in the novel. It's totally not anchored in the eighties. And that's where my gripe with the Ritchie character comes in.
Ritchie is played by our favorite star from Stranger Things. Ritchie is supposed to be the character that vents 80's pop culture (as he does 50's in the novel) through wisecracks and impressions – but there is none of that. In the film they have the character ramble in the background while other characters are talking, so that most of the time, you can barely hear his jokes. They really gutted this character. And this was one the characters that could've helped anchor this film in the eighties. It's such a missed opportunity.
The kids worst fears could've been connected with 80's pop culture – as the novel does with 50's pop culture. But it doesn't. And that brings us to manifestation of the kids fears through Pennywise. They're utter crap. For instance Stan's, is a manifestation of a character that resembles an Edvard Munch type painting – albeit in a more realistic style – of a woman with a deformed head; don't know if it's an actual artwork or just a painting specifically for this film, I suspect the latter though. Beverly's consists of her father – although there is a blood-from-the-drain-scene as well, following close or right after she bought Tampax: which is btw the moment she befriends The Losers - trying, what might be construed, as abusing her sexually.
You can spot a Pennywise doll that looks like the Tim Curry version – not going to tell you where, but it'll be pretty obvious.
I love the kid actors. They did a great job, all of them. Derry though, is not really developed at all – the few adults we encounter are small town odd, but they have no background. There is no mythos in the movie either, not really, and locations don't matter and, except maybe for the house on Neibolt St. and the Barrens nothing is really named by the kids. Yes, Ben does library research (the easter egg hunt drama, with the factory explosion; a body with a missing head from a historic picture of this tragedy is what haunts Ben btw...) – Mike apparently knows nothing at all – he mentions something about Derry that his grandfather told him, but that's it.
The film has sort of its own look, and feel. It's not Spielbergian or anything like that - it just doesn't capture the spirit of childhood to achieve a Spielbergian feeling. I don't think it tries to be, either. Maybe more Richard Donner Goonies-like (but again, the spirit is missing).
Also, I think in contemporary Hollywood movies, this has become uncommon (for obvious reasons): when two of the kids are in a dialogue on the foreground, the others are talking in the background, but nearby enough so that it all gets mixed up – it's also where Ritchie does a lot of his talking, in the background. I recall this from The Goonies, where it worked, but it doesn't here – it comes off as chaotic and you can't properly hear what the kids are saying sometimes.
Another point of critique, is how the passing of time is handled in the movie. You can't really say whether a day, or a month, or a week has gone by. Only at the end we're told it's September, and that's when the group parts way. We don't know if this final scene takes place right after their confrontation with IT, or if time has passed in between; and if so, what did they do in the mean time, is this final scene the first time they discuss that confrontation?
Maybe in Part 2 they zoom in more on that summer, and show us some specific days were the kids had other encounters with Pennywise?
Now, I did enjoy the movie. Mainly because we haven't had something like this for a while – J.J.'s Super 8 comes to mind; and Stranger Things. But as an adaptation of one the greatest and most beloved Stephen King novels, it's disappointing. The writers should've just cut a couple of the characters from the novel, for their adaptation. That way they could've focused on developing the characters they would've kept, and given them a solid background and real drives and motivations (because that's what's lacking in all of them, even in Bill, because we really never see him grief his brother) – the source material would've easily made this possible.
Also, Pennywise should've turned into Jason Voorhees, or Freddy Krueger or hell, a bunch of Gremlins even – why show us a poster of that movie, or name drop A Nightmare on Elmstreet V, but having none of the children go watch that film, or talk about films even? Again the actors, these kids, are really talented. But they didn't play kids, like say those childactors in Stranger Things played their characters (I blame the writing). These kids behaved just too rational, too mature and too gloomy most of the time. Kids in the eighties, they behaved differently. I know, because I'm from the eighties.
