Since this review is being published well after It has completed its theatrical run, I am including slight spoilers to accentuate my arguments. There will be clear spoiler warnings to warn those who've yet to watch It.
[This review was originally written in September 2017 and is now being published to coincide with the digital home media release. For an explanation of this, visit my Fall 2017 Important Update post.]
It floats audiences into the small town of Derry, Maine, circa 1989. Children have begun to mysteriously go missing and a group of adolescent outcasts, dubbed "The Losers Club," soon discover the culprit responsible is a force of ancient evil with an unquenchable thirst for violence and the ability to manifest itself as one's worst fear. It appears in Derry every 27 years intent on causing maximum mayhem and favors the guise of the sadistic, dancing clown Pennywise. With merely their wits and determination, "The Losers Club" band together to find the kidnapped children and defeat the killer clown, putting an end to the kidnappings once-and-for-all.
It adapts approximately half of Stephen King's beloved best-selling novel, focusing on the portion of the story set in the past (relocating the past time period from the '50s to the '80s so the modern day portion can take place closer to the present day). While I haven't actually read the novel, and am not aware exactly what was changed in translation, I can attest director Andy Muschietti convincingly captured the aesthetic and tone often associated with King's work. The screenplay and the actors flourish with the portrayal of "The Losers Club" as a convincing crew of '80s kids similar to those found in Stranger Things, E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial, or even another King adaptation Stand By Me.
Typically, I agree with general audiences regarding the vast majority of wide releases. Everyone seemed to love the heck out of It opening weekend, but I found myself disappointed leaving the theater. It is not bad by any stretch of the imagination, but the film didn't quite meet my expectations considering I'd seen it heralded as "this generation's Jaws." I also felt many of It's shortcomings were being completely overlooked as the bandwagon went rolling on.
For one, the script written by Chase Palmer, Cary Fukunaga, and Gary Dauberman seemed to give way to tired horror clichés. For example, most horror flicks have absurdly idiotic protagonists whose choices rarely follow a logical train of thought. While I wouldn't go as far to calling "The Losers Club" stupid, I'd stand by the fact they made some dumb decisions in dealing with Pennywise.
**Spoiler Warning**
The first time the kids confront Pennywise and enter the abandoned house, they go in completely unarmed. I understand these are children and weapons aren't readily available to them, but they couldn't have at least snuck some garden tools or a stick or SOMETHING? I mean ANYTHING would be better than nothing.
To me, entering an abandoned house where you suspect a supernatural entity resides with nothing but your bare hands to fight him off seemed really ridiculous. At this point in the film, pretty much the entire group had experienced Pennywise's machinations in some shape-or-form. Yet, they still entered the house unarmed? I understand that probably seems like a minuscule nitpick, but it legitimately bothered me that the kids didn't think to arm themselves at all. At least they had the common sense to do so the next time they confronted Pennywise.
Again, I haven't read the novel so I'm not sure if this was merely a precise reflection of King's work or an inaccurate interpretation of that story point. Either way though, that's something that could have easily been tweaked. I highly doubt hardcore Stephen King fans would take up arms for a detail so razor-thin, especially since it's a logical alteration to the story. I understand the characters are children, so obviously they won't have the best judgement, but I don't think that excuses a sloppy story point like this.
**End of spoilers**
Another problem I found with the screenplay was that certain members of "The Losers Club," such as Mike and Stanley, received surface level development since there were so many characters the script had to balance. I'm not sure how much these characters figured into the novel, but I wish I would have gotten more out of them than the thin sketches offered. In addition, I thought there was some unnecessary ambiguity and the film was tonally inconsistent.
**Spoiler Warning**
I understood Pennywise relied on fear as a source of power, hence why he kept the kids floating. However, I didn't really understand why he ate/killed Georgie. Wouldn't keeping more children alive be ideal to strengthening his power? It seemed contradictory in my opinion. On top of that, it was rather vague if the characters you knew were kidnapped earlier in the movie survived or not.
**End of spoilers**
Even if you've only watched one of the trailers for It, you'll have noticed the trend I'm about to point out. Pennywise has a habit of running chaotically towards the children when he's trying to seize them (as shown in the gif above). When this happens, the score is subito fortissimo (For those unfamiliar with music terminology; this means the music's dynamic level is suddenly very loud). Naturally, this sudden change in volume paired with a shaky-cam shot of a deranged clown can be deemed quite alarming. Is it effective? Yes. Is it a cheap thrill? Also yes. While the technique is certifiably creepy, it's not exactly terrifying in its own right. A sudden loud noise will startle just about anyone, while Pennywise just looked sort of ridiculous in these moments.
It was rarely "scary" at all for that matter. There was one jump scare that got me, but that was about it. Pennywise came across as creepy and unsettling, but he never fully frightened me. One contributing aspect to this was some wonky visual effects work utilized to distort Pennywise anytime he changed form. I really don't think these effects will stand the test of time, because I already view them as faulty. Either the technology just wasn't quite where it needed to be to convincingly create this or It's budget constraints handicapped the vfx team.
Now that I've picked over all my problems, I'll briefly move onto the things you've probably heard a million times in just about every other It review out there. Firstly, Andy Muschietti offers a steady hand to guide his technical crew in delivering in all departments. The cinematography and editing fit together extraordinarily, the sound design is chilling, and Benjamin Wallfisch's score strikes a swell balance between delivering uplifting melodies and downtrodden, scary sounds. Merely listening to the score while writing this review was enough to get my heart racing! If there's one element to this movie that blew me away though, it would certainly be the up-and-coming cast members.
Jaeden Lieberher, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Sophia Lillis, Finn Wolfhard, Chosen Jacobs, Jack Dylan Grazer, and Wyatt Oleff each deliver the breakout performance of their careers thus far, injecting the adequate intricacies to the varied personalities of the reluctant leader Bill, benevolent new-kid-on-the block Ben, misconstrued missy Beverly, unchecked wise-cracker Richie, the lionhearted Mike, germaphobic Eddie, and squeamish Stanley. The young cast members make the most of the material given to them and step up to the plate with a camaraderie reminiscent of the crew from Stranger Things (Something that's made even more clear by Wolfhard's dual-involvement as Mike in Stranger Things & Richie in It, despite the fact his characters are completely unlike one-another).
In spite of the strong showing from his young costars, Bill Skarsgård holds his ground as Pennywise. Skarsgård really found a sweet spot in providing a petrifying physical performance (enhanced by his menacing makeup and creepy costume) and daunting dialogue delivery. Skarsgård restrains himself from going too over-the-top, but at the same time gives just enough to bestow a villainous horror antagonist like no other.
Another shining star I failed to mention earlier was Jackson Robert Scott, who imbues Georgie with a youthful innocence that later completely contrasts the perturbing personality presented when the character starts spouting the disturbing dialogue "You'll float too!" over and over again. Scott's acting range is utilized to the fullest in a manner that's rarely seen of actors his age, yet that point seems to be evident among the entire young ensemble.
It remains buoyant on the merits of a gifted director and its capable cast and crew, but loses a little air thanks to some slight slack in the script. It floats alright, but the film doesn't soar as high as the masses would have you believe.
No comments:
Post a Comment