Stephen King's IT

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. 

Get Out

Year: 2017

Genre : Social Thriller

I first heard about 'Get Out' on IHorror.com a couple of months back when there were some very loud noises coming out of the States on it's release regarding how good it was. It seem's to have had a very limited release over here the UK, and as it wasn't showing at our regular haunt the Light Cinema, we headed over to nineties haunt Showcase Walsall to see if it actually lived up to the hype. 

'Get Out' opens with black actor Keith Stanfield being followed by a car in a middle class American suburb late at night. As the car slows down, Flanagan and Allen's 'Run Rabbit Run' can be heard coming from inside, and the audience almost instantaneously know that race relations are going to play a big part in the film. Shortly thereafter, the film moves onto introducing the films protagonist Chris Washington, and his 'butter wouldn't melt in her mouth' girlfriend played by Allison Williams. Chris and his other half pay a visit to her parents house during the annual family gathering, but Chris can't help but notice that black people working for her parents, they are unusually submissive in nature and almost robotic in the way they conduct themselves on a day to day basis... 

I honestly can't write anything else about the plot without giving away an absolute bucket load of spoilers. Sorry...

Make no mistake, newcomer to the director's chair Jordan Peel has really pulled out all the stops with 'Get Out' and for a first effort, this is an outstanding piece of cinema. It's not a horror film in the traditional sense of the word, even though it produced by the same guy that was behind 'Insidious' and 'Ouija'. There are no haunted houses here, and I think I counted but one single jump scare. Also, unlike what I call 'made for the masses' horror films, 'Get Out' is broken up with some very funny comedic moments that are a welcome break from the underlying sinister tone of the rest of the film. In terms of structure, this film ticks all the boxes.

At it's core 'Get Out' is a social commentary about the post Obama covert racism of middle class America. Director Peel is fully aware that as well as the 'out and out proud to be white' Deep South Trump voters, there are swathes of middle classes who although do not openly profess to being racist, still strongly believe that black people are inferior to white, and to this day, belong on a plantation or serving dinner to the liberally racist middle class Trump voter of the Mid West. 

I really enjoyed this film. Its ideas were original, it was unsettling but not a traditional way, and it serves as food for thought for the rest of the world looking in on modern America. An easy five stars, and my favourite film of the year so far. 

Logan

Year: 2017

Genre: Comic Book

There's large contingent who honestly feel that 2016's 'Deadpool' was the Marvel's Studios answer to the hoards of fans growing tired of films aimed at the younger generation. In the media, 'Deadpool' is widely regarded as Marvel's attempt to appeal to the older members of the audience, those tired of the endless CGI skyscraper smashing squeaky clean superheroes that serve no other purpose other than to fill the already bulging bank account coffers of studio executives and alike. Granted, the character of Deadpool swears a lot, but Marvel still played it safe and CGI was still a big part of the third act of the film. Before Logan, and when compared to Christopher Nolan's vision in 'The Dark Knight' trilogy, Marvel had yet to release a film that wasn't a generic crowd pleasing fairground ride, and do something a little different.

Then along came Logan.

It's been seventeen years since Bryan Singer's original 'X-Men' graced our screens, a film that is generally accepted as the seed that planted the tree which became the Marvel Studios behemoth of modern cinema. As time has passed, pretty much all the actors from the original trilogy have been replaced with the exception of one - Hugh Jackman's incarnation of Wolverine. In very much the same way Christopher Reeve was born to play the lead role in Donner's original 'Superman', Jackman has made the character of Wolverine his own. Forever the anti hero, Jackman's Wolverine shuns the conventional stereotype and is perhaps the only Marvel character of recent times to have any sort of depth of personality. The fact he hasn't been asked to play the role head to toe in lycra gives the character an element of humanity that isn't seen in any characters Marvel have churned out in recent years.

'Logan' is set several years after the most recent 'X Men Apocalypse' against a backdrop filmed in the American Deep South. The only surviving members of Xavier's school for gifted youngsters are Xavier himself, and Wolverine. They are holed up in a remote area of Nevada, hidden away from authorities who believe that Xavier, now showing signs of suffering from Alzheimer's, is a weapon of mass destruction and must be brought into custody. Patrick Stewart returns to the role, and his Shakespearean roots really begin to flower with a convincing performance of someone suffering from dementia. Once their hideout is discovered, a chase ensues across several states right up to Canadian Border in North Dakota where the final epic battle between Wolverine and the authorities takes place.

Right from the outset, the first thing that strikes you about 'Logan', is the sheer brutality of the fight scenes. Make no mistake, this is in no way targeted at a younger audience and if anything, should be kept away from one. Claws impale skulls, enemies are beheaded, limbs are severed, and all within ten minutes of the opening scene. The violence has been ramped up several notches, feels bone crunchingly real, and is on a level never seen seen in any Marvel film since the studios inception in the late 1990's. This is Marvel listening to it's critics, and this is Marvel stepping outside of it's comfort zone. Somewhat ironically, it's main critics were the fans of DC Comics who said Marvel didn't know how to do melancholy and always played it safe. 'Logan', is exactly what older comic book fans have been asking for, it's hit the bulls eye, and gives a huge sucker punch to an already out for the count DC Comics following their 2016 critical mauling by cinema audiences.

Is there anything to find fault with it? Well if I'm being brutally honest, I felt the middle section of the film quietened things down for a tiny bit longer than they needed to be, and could have done with being a bit shorter. Initially, I felt Stephen Merchant was an odd choice, but he turned out to be a likable character. My main gripe was with Marco Beltrami's score, which I personally felt was very weak and didn't benefit the film in any way whatsoever. It's an area Marvel need to improve on going forward and really look at how Hans Zimmer's scoring of Nolan's 'Dark Knight' trilogy and perhaps go back to Danny Elfmans 'Batman' aswell. I know Marvel Studios aren't really famous for their choice of composer, but they need to appreciate that a good score can elevate the audience's emotional investment in a film tenfold. Food for thought.

Overall, I give 'Logan' four and half stars. Hugh Jackman gives the performance of his career, and it's a more than sufficient send off for a character audiences have grown up with and will miss dearly.