Year: 2017
Genre: Horror
The original adaption of King's 1986 novel was released in 1990 as a two part television series and eventually became a huge sleeper success on VHS as a three hour movie. The biggest reason behind it's huge cult following was Tim Curry's portrayal of Pennywise the dancing clown. Were you to strip away Curry's charisma and charm from the film, it would probably have never been the run away success that it was back then, and never achieved it's high placing in the annals of horror movie mythos.
Having been in development since 2009 it makes sense that the producers held back on Pennywise's return for twenty seven years because it ties in with his return in the novel. The trailer was released back in March of this year, and many fans on social media (myself included) took to their comment boxes to vent their anger about Skarsgard's Pennywise . This is not unusual, as it's human nature to resist change. I for one, instantly took a dislike to the character's redesign, but were willing to throw caution to the wind until I had seen the film at the cinema. Have I changed my mind now I've seen it? Well yes, and also no.
The film opens with an almost scene for scene identical recreation of Georgie's boat going down the storm drain and Pennywise offering to give it him back. This was good, because the audience gets to see the character they've paid money to see very early on in the film. First impressions? Make up looks good, CGI is adequate, and then Skarsgard gives you his interpretation on how Pennywise should sound...
It was at that point the film lost me. What comes out is Skarsgard doing an impression of Yoda, interlaced with mannerisms VERY reminiscent of Heath Ledger's Joker from the Dark Knight. Gone was Curry's charisma and wit, and you're given a out of the box character that is unoriginal, and has none of the traits that made Curry's interpretation so iconic amongst horror fans and alike. It's not that I found his character dislikable, I just found him uninspiring and bland. I was dissapointed early on in the film, and this wasn't a good sign.
Second to Curry's portrayal of Pennywise, the coming of age theme that was core to the first half of the novel and 1990 original was another reason I enjoyed the film first time around. Very much a fan of Rob Reiner's 'Stand by Me', taken from King's 82 novel 'The Body', I knew the film could still partially win me over if that part of it worked. Thankfully, the chemistry between the child actors was perfect, and in particular the final act reminded me of Speilberg's 'The Goonies' and more recently the Duffer Brother's 'Stranger Things'. The child actors are the films strongest asset, and the bring it up from what without them, would be a very generic, scare free, made for the masses horror.
This was my other gripe with Muschietti's interpretation of the first half of King's novel. It just isn't scary. It has intentionally been given a considerably darker tone than the 1990 version, but it just throws generic scares at the audience. There's nothing in here that the audiences haven't seen a million times before (including a haunted house and a soaked in blood shower scene). Granted, this is lifted directly from the novel, but the way they are filmed is made for the masses, and will disappoint horror fans who are looking for a little bit more than run of the mill scares.
Taken as a coming of age film, the 2017 interpretation of 'IT' is a success. It benefits from extra scenes that weren't in the 1990 iteration, that explain plot holes to people who have never read the book will be glad to see. It's scored excellently, and the performances from all of the child actors really do shine.
It just isn't scary. It's supposed to be Stephen King, it's supposed to be scary. It just really, really isn't.
I'm gonna give it three stars. I wish I could give it more.
