It 2017

Technically, IT was a good movie. The effects, the cinematography, actors, pretty much everything was objectively good. But as a horror film, it doesn't have an impact on me.

The film was definitely designed for the kind of people that go into horror movies WANTING to be afraid. It is filled with clichés and typical stupid behaviour from characters, such as choosing to slowly walk into a trap just so the audience can say "DON'T GO IN THERE!". And most of the "scary" things that happen in this movie, aren't really scary because they aren't REAL. Which is what bugged me most about the movie.

Most of the horror scenes are nothing more than a figment of the character's imagination. Why should i be afraid when a zombie spawns out of nowhere in the middle of the street in broad daylight when i know that it isn't actually happening and no one other than the kids can see it. Pennywise does prove to be a physical monster when we see him kill people, but it isn't clear what the writers of the movie were thinking when they created him. How am i supposed to believe that he can casually teleport around public spaces without anyone noticing, or that he can somehow make himself appear in old photographs and pre-recorded television shows. His capabilities aren't consistent and it just feels like a compilation of cheap scares. Like the writers used a slot machine of horror tropes to create his character.

Still, i am looking forward to the sequel just so i can see how adults would deal with Pennywise. Maybe they will be a lot smarter and spend less time running from things that aren't real. But who knows, IT is a pretty basic horror flick.

The long-awaited adaptation of Stephen King's novel "It" has finally hit the big screen, directed by Andy Muschietti and starring Bill Skarsgård as the iconic villain Pennywise. The film follows a group of friends, known as The Losers Club, as they band together to confront their fears and the supernatural entity that has been terrorizing their small town of Derry, Maine. The pacing of the film is well-done, allowing for each character to have their own development and for the story to unfold at a steady pace. The scares are plentiful and utilize a mix of jump scares, creepy imagery, and psychological horror. The coming-of-age aspect of the novel is also prominent, making the film a mix of horror and coming-of-age genres. The visuals are great and the score by Benjamin Wallfisch is noteworthy. The child actors all deliver strong performances, and their chemistry is genuine. Overall, "It" manages to stay true to the novel while also making it its own film and is sure to haunt audiences' dreams.

La tan esperada adaptación de la novela de Stephen King "It" finalmente llegó a la gran pantalla, dirigida por Andy Muschietti y protagonizada por Bill Skarsgård como el icónico villano Pennywise. La película sigue a un grupo de amigos, conocido como The Losers Club, que se unen para enfrentar sus miedos y la entidad sobrenatural que ha estado aterrorizando a su pequeño pueblo de Derry, Maine. El ritmo de la película está bien hecho, lo que permite que cada personaje tenga su propio desarrollo y que la historia se desarrolle a un ritmo constante. Los sustos son abundantes y utilizan una combinación de sobresaltos, imágenes espeluznantes y terror psicológico. El aspecto de la mayoría de edad de la novela también es prominente, lo que hace que la película sea una mezcla de géneros de terror y de la mayoría de edad. Las imágenes son geniales y la partitura de Benjamin Wallfisch es digna de mención. Todos los niños actores ofrecen actuaciones sólidas y su química es genuina. En general, "It" se las arregla para mantenerse fiel a la novela al mismo tiempo que la convierte en su propia película y seguramente perseguirá los sueños de la audiencia.

"It" didn't scare me and I wanted it to. I probably watch too much Horror and with the creepy clown craze winding down (hopefully along with zombies), the impact just wasn't there. The kids in "The Losers Club" were entertaining and the camaraderie was sweet, especially given the parental problems many of them had. The opening scene with Pennywise in the storm drain was gold. Very creepy and suspenseful. A few other scenes like the slide show and the bloody bathroom were effective and probably scared the Hell out of some viewers.

There were a few too many "coming of age" and "standing up to the bullies" scenes for me. Cutting Ben's belly and the rock fight were silly. Maybe these events occur in the book (which I've only read the first couple hundred pages of), but they're a little too on the nose. Yeah, bullies are jerks. Point made.

Speaking of the book, what I have read of it indicates to me that this movie version is really toned down. There is no way that the novel would ever be faithfully reproduced by a modern movie. Culturally, our sensitivities have changed and even the first 100 pages are so politically incorrect that people would explode in the theater with all of the slurs and unacceptable name-calling I read. It certainly would make for a controversial movie, though.

"It" is a good movie with a few jump scares and some likable characters, but it lacks sustained scares and its conclusion is just another over-edited fight scene.

[8.8/10] One of the laziest critiques of a horror movie is that “it’s not really scary.” There’s plenty of ways horror films can be great without actually frightening you, whether it’s a film like Rosemary’s Baby where the horror is more atmospheric, to a film like It Follows which is as much about tension and mood as it is about solid scares. There’s tons of different flavors of horror, and restricting “good” horror movies to the ones that you might deem “scary” is unduly limiting to the genre.

But holy hell, IT will scare you. For all the great horror films that have come out in the last decade, I’m not sure there’s one that’s packed in a better frights-per-minute ratio than the 2017 release from director Andy Muschietti. The film tells the story of a group of kids confronting their town’s ancient evil, an entity embodied in the form of “Pennywise the Dancing Clown”, who comes to torment them through the movie in endlessly terrifying ways.

Pennywise doesn't move right. He doesn't sound right. When he’s on the screen, the camera doesn't move right. Everything about his taunts and hauntings, from the slithering, stop and start motions of the malevolent clown, to the music box tinks and winks that melt into auditory mush, to the way the frame goes jittery and the movements turn sudden, are calculated to instill the FDA maximum level of fears in both the film’s pre-teen characters and its audience.

Those scares are a treat worth the price of admission alone. There is expert cinematography, editing, lighting, sound design, and performances all carefully constructed and calculated to extract as much terror as possible in a beautiful, horrific symphony of skin-crawling craft. Choices in the film like the design of Pennywise’s various forms, how he responds when attacked, the aural and visual approach adopted when he seems to possess or consume some innocent soul, offer pound-for-pound the most creative collection of cinematic scares in years.

But beyond just the artistic and creative choices Muschietti and his team put together, IT is a film centered on childhood fears, and it does a good job of capturing the specific feeling of those childhood terrors, beyond just constructing impressively frightful sequences that could unnerve even out of context. There’s a specific sort of chill you get as a child, when you’re sent to grab something out of the basement, told to venture into a darkened room with strange pictures on the wall, forced to explore those little corners of everyday life that seem different and strange.

IT makes those child-like fears of the unknown real and justified. The film does a nice job of escalation. Most of the film’s characters have some initial run-in with Pennywise, where he preys on their deepest fears, but which initially result only in close calls and near misses, that underscore the “it could all just be in my head” sense of youthful doubt. But from there, the encounters become serious and more threatening, as our kid heroes slip deeper and deeper into Pennywise’s disturbing grasp and those childhood fears become realized.

But beyond the scares, IT also does an able job of capturing the more mundane, if no less relatable parts of young adulthood. While the film’s bully antagonists are more than a little extreme, it captures how young kids are with one another better than most films set around this stage of life, horror or otherwise. The central “Losers Club” of local misfits hang amiably with one another, they throw curse words at one other, nurse crushes on one another, get into lanky nerd scuffles and parent-concerning escapades and joust and jaw with one another. There’s some stylized hyperrealism to it all, but there’s also a sense of truth to the dynamic within the Losers Club, of kids who are perhaps a little more adventurous and brave than the average preteens, but otherwise behave and interact like real kids, that makes the movie more relatable, livens the moments when they’re just bonding, and heightens the moments when the film turns to horror.

That turn is just as aided by the film’s visual creativity. The film uses aesthetics to contrast the heavy slice of Americana that is Derry, the town where IT is set, with the cesspools that Pennywise inhabits and lures his prey to. The scenes above ground are filled with warm and bright primary colors: impossibly green grass, gleaming sunshine, and costuming that fits into that world. But when our heroes descend into Pennywise’s domain, or he takes over some corner of their world, the frame becomes literally darker, muddier, immediately cutting a distinction between the nominally cheery world the characters normally occupy and the inky, disquieting evil that lurks just around the edges of it.

The film doesn't necessarily have much on its mind beyond that elemental theme, but does a solid job of motivating each of its characters through those frightening adventures. While some members of the Losers Club can start to blend together, especially in the beginning, rationales like a desire to find a missing sibling, escape from abuse at home, and the misfit acceptance and camaraderie offered by the group all do well to distinguish the main characters and account for why this pack of kids would charge headlong into Pennywise’s anatomically impossible, razor-toothed maw.

There is a recurring motif, albeit one mostly reduced to subtext, of parental figures (almost exclusively men) shaming, rebuking, or outright abusing their children. That lends itself to the film’s conceit of a hidden evil within the seemingly idyllic town, one that children in particular are sensitive to, because they haven’t been socialized into their community’s blind spots and tacit acceptance of such things. And it adds to the terror of the mix of the adult and childlike represented by Pennywise -- a grown man in a playful guise, that adds a psychological undergirding to the horror.

At base, though, IT is just terrifying. Pennywise is terrifying. His pretzel logic assaults are terrifying. Our heroes’ efforts to face him are terrifying. Those frightening moments are balanced by the warmth of the camaraderie among the protagonists, the lived-in feel of their friendships. But that just adds stakes and motivation to those times when they descend into Pennywise’s realm, fight back against his horrifying broadsides, and confront, along with the audience, an avatar of fear worthy of the chills he inflicts on his victims on the screen and in front of it.

After the disappointment of The Dark Tower, we finally have a screen adaptation that does a Stephen King novel justice. IT is one of his best works, and is a novel that I am eager to read again after seeing the movie. The film was excellent, and while not perfect, I felt it did a wonderful job in capturing the tone of the novel. Some of the weirder aspects of the book were missing from the film, but that is understandable in maintaining coherency for audience's new to the story. The director managed to cram as much of the novel's content in as possible, while adding flourishes of his own. I didn't find the film scary, but it was disturbing in its use of imagery and nightmarish illusions. The kids were brilliant, and nailed the characters. Its a pity they will be absent in the sequel (I assume), so I hope their adult counterparts do an equally fine job in bringing The Losers to life.

As I said, the film isn't perfect, but it deserves a 9 for bringing to life one of my favourite books in such a brilliant way.

'Your hair is winter fire January embers, my heart burns there too.' With you till the end Losers, looking forward to seeing you again.

A year after the disappearance of his brother Georgie, Bill (Jaeden Lieberher) is obsessed with finding him. Due to being the only one in his family who believes Georgie is alive. During his search for Georgie he and his friends start encountering an evil clown named Pennywise (Bill Skarsgard).
As well as having home issues to get through and a horrible bully named Henry Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton) to deal with every day. Being a teenager is hard enough without an shape shifting clown trying to eat you and your friends.
I expected the movie to scar me for life, since the original did. A lot of the movie is quite touching, funny and even fun. Yes, there's some terribly frightening moments but the coming of age sentimental stuff is what I mostly left with. I felt kind of good after the movie rather than losing sleep.
The casting is perfect as is every performance in the movie. Bill Skarsgard is a amazing as Pennywise. He's scary as hell, throughout. Probably the best villain performance since Heath Ledger's Joker. What mostly makes the movie fun though is Finn Wolfhard's performance as Richie Tozier, the smart-ass of the Losers Club. He gets all the best lines and is hilarious throughout.
IT is what you get when the director and studio actually care about the source material and want to do it justice. I wish I could say the same for the adaption of Stephen King's Dark Tower, since I read every book. So much more love and thought was obviously put into making this movie good. Which makes IT one of the best Horror and coming of age stories in years. As well as one of the year's best.

Do you need to be a virgin to see this fucking clown?
-Richie Tozier

Ladies and gentlemen I give you the new measuring stick that all modern Stephen King adaptations should be held to. Is this a masterpiece worthy of acclaim akin to The Shining? Hell no. Does this feel like a "Stephen King Movie"? Oh hell yes. We can always hope for more masterpieces, but going forward when it comes to adapting King's work anything less than this shouldn't be acceptable.

After the stripped down and simplified version of The Dark Tower followed by the atrocious Mist TV Series (seriously it's garbage), 2017 was not looking good for Stephen King adaptations. Enter director Andy Muschietti who thankfully took over a project that was stuck in developmental hell and fought not only to get rid of elements that were never in the novel (no one wanted to see Henry Bowers fuck a sheep), but fought to add MORE material from the actual novel. We thank you Andy Muschietti.

It's not to say that nothing was changed from the book, but to my eyes most of the changes have logic behind it. First the moment they decided that the story was taking place in 1988/1989 instead of 1958/1959 some fundamental changes had to be made. While having The Werewolf, The Mummy and Frankenstein's Monster show up in the movie would have looked cool, it would no longer make any sense in the context of the film's new time period. To the film maker's credit though, they use the novel's established logic on why those monsters appear to create new threats for the kids while keeping the ones that would still make sense in the film's context.

Other changes were simply made to save time because even at 135 minutes the film still can't cover everything in the book (just the kids section that is). Unlike the 1990 mini-series though, instead of creating new locations like the sewer building pump house, the film combines locations from the book like the house on Neibolt Street.

Of all the changes from the book though, the one I wished had been handled differently was the character of Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs). In the novel he's an integral part of the story, but the changes made to his backstory and actions here completely diminish how important he is. I do understand the changes though. In the novel, just like the film, he only joins the "Loser's Club" later on in the story with most of his character development happening before he even meets them. That of course causes major problems for a film if one character out of the group spends most of the story away from them. This is something the 1990 mini-series struggled with as well. While I don't like the changes made for that particular character, I understand why it was done.

How did I like the film on it's own merits though? I loved it! The horror. The humor. The story. That cast! I loved these kids! I ended up seeing this at the drive-in as a double bill with Annabelle Creation and was surprised by how good the kids were in both these movies. Here the "Losers' Club" has come to life. Bill, Ben, Richie, Stan, Eddie, Bev and Mike are right there on the screen! Bill struggling to be brave and nobble beyond his years. Richie being just as god damn annoying as I imagined. Eddie trying not to turn into a hypochondriac. Ect, ect... It's going to be a lot of fun to see who gets cast in the sequel as the adult versions of these characters.

There's another slightly important cast member of course, Bill Skarsgård as the iconic Pennywise. Now remember when the first pic of him as Pennywise was released? While I didn't exactly shit all over it like a very vocal set of fans, I'll admit I didn't know what to make of it. I tried to stay positive telling myself that who knows how it would come off in the movie, but the pic looked silly. Turns out it was a great example not to judge something, even a picture of a character, when it's out of context from the movie. In the movie everything about Pennywise is spot on, from Skarsgård's portrayal to his entire look. It's one of the few instances where an iconic character is revisited by a different actor and it actually fucking works. Loved him in this. He might be the biggest highlight of a film that his loaded with highlights.

"Beep Beep Richie!"

I'm not much of reader when it comes to books. The reason why I couldn't care less when a book gets adapted into film, because not every word is gonna translate well on screen. However, I do remember at a young age watching the 1990 adaptation starring the amazing Tim Curry. While I was never scared, due to it's goofy and sloppy scenes, but Curry performance left a last long impression on me and other people. Re-watching the TV movie didn't help to painfully realize how out dated it is. I wouldn't even call it good, just bad. If a reboot was ever needed, this was it. Now here we are today.

"It" (2017) is a massive improvement and avoids watering it down like other terrible TV movie adaptations. While not on the same level of greatness like "The Shining", "Stand By Me" or "The Green Mile" in terms of quality, but compare to "The Dark Tower" that came out last month, this is pretty strong.

It's not the scariest movie I've seen this year, as the biggest problem is the loud jump scars that feels repetitive and destroys any unsettling moments. Not to say there isn't any, just wish it stayed away from being too mainstream horror.

I like how brutal and violet this got. Especially the beginning which took me off guard of how much it went that far. With no age rating holding it back, kids are acting like kids. Swearing and them physically getting hurt. There was even an attempt rape with one of the kids. As I said, it doesn't hold back on anything.

Bill Skarsgård absolutely kills it as Pennywise. His appearance is both intriguing and terrifying that it can give a grown man nightmares. The smartest thing Skarsgård did was not copy Curry's performance and instead do a different take. Everything from the devilish smile, twisted sense of humor, and the demonic Scooby-Doo voice added lays to the character, giving it life. Who knows, he might be this generations Freddy Krueger. Even in the scene when Pennywise started dancing was funny, but with his head not moving with the rest of the body and eyes locked onto you, it's pretty scary.

All the child actors were pretty great as well. Showing a positive future ahead of them. Finn Wolfhard, Jaeden Lieberher, Sofia Lillis, Jeremy Ray Taylor, and Jack Dylan Grazer are ones to keep your eye on for whatever they do next. The losers club are pretty much The Goonies, but better.

The pacing could've been a lot more sharper, as the 2nd act really did drag. There were a few unintentionally hilarious moments that wasn't meant to be taken that way.

Overall rating: You'll float too.

I'm tired, so I'm not going to write all my thoughts, but I'll share the big ones. It's not scary. There you go. There's a few creepy moments here and there, but surprisingly didn't jump once while watching nor am I scared by Pennywise. Depending on your fear of clowns or amaze of Skasgard's acting job, the results may vary. But that said, the movie is badass. I view this as more like an Evil Dead or Drag Me To Hell type movie. Where, like there are creepy and disturbing shit happening, but you more react like, "Ooo, that's cool. That was awesome." Whenever Pennywise was on-screen, I was just fucking entertained, so that's how I view it. When he started dancing, I was on the verge of laughing. My dad also compared the movie to Beetlejuice, which is a perfect comparison. IT (2017) is basically an R-rated The Goonies with Beetlejuice thrown in, and it is awesome.

What elevates this movie up even further is that it has lovable characters you actually want to see come out on top, something I can't say for other horror installments lately. Bill and Georgie's relationship was actually heartbreaking, when I didn't expect it to be. Overall, just a lovable gang of outsiders who have to take on a killer clown. Great stuff here and so many good quotes from each the kids. But yeah, it's not scary, but it's slick, stylish, fucking hilarious at times, has a couple creepy moments, and Pennywise is the demonic Beetlejuice of modern movies. I'm actually looking forward to Chapter Two.

A fresh-faced adaptation of Stephen King's horror classic that's staunchly loyal at times, decidedly less so at others. Some removals make sense, like the tremendously cringy sex stuff that King likes to pepper among his novels, but others are a detriment. The production regularly goes to great lengths for a knowing wink - repeated close-ups of a silver bicycle, for instance - but then often fails to follow through with appropriate explanation to make less-familiar viewers do more than furrow their brow and move on.

That's a disease that plagues much of the picture: it's in such a rush to touch all the right scenes that it forgets to make them mean anything. King's book can be grotesque and macabre, but it's also very human and patient enough to let its characters establish themselves. On film, there's the hint of a rapport among our child protagonists, but they fall together so quickly that it can be difficult to tell them apart, let alone empathize beyond a base human compassion.

Everything looks great, and a legitimately terrifying performance from Bill Skarsgård does well to distinguish itself from Tim Curry's earlier take on Pennywise the Clown. But with so much budget to swing around, glossy special effects and a creepy villain aren't quite enough for me. Negative points for jamming the screen with every trick in the modern horror playbook, too, trying way too hard to fit camera judder and triple-speed jump scares into a story that already had more than enough going on.

Based on the highly successful It novel by Stephen King and following on some twenty years after a successful TV adaptation of said novel with a memorable turn by Tim Curry as Pennywise the Clown this new movie version was up against it before the outset. Did it succeed, I would say in some cases yes and others no.

Skarsgard, with the hardest job to do, has to wipe away older viewers memory of Curry’s performance, I’d say he just about does with his Pennywise being more alien, more a version where something is trying to be a vision or version of a clown but not doing such a great job. Curry’s version was more like a clown that hid the evil, this version cannot quite do it. So both are good and different in their own sense.

The casting of the kids is great and generally their acting is believable and of the highest standard, only when they are asked to push the emotional envelope do they stumble a bit but that is too be expected, they are children. It has to be said Sophia Lillis seems too pretty, to sharp, to bright, to be bullied or even in the Losers Club.

The opening scene-setting and introduction to the story are great, atmospheric and full of evil foreboding but they also set a standard that unfortunately the film then fails to get back up to. It was a huge shame that the story’s timeline was moved from the 1950s to the 1980s so that we could get a Stranger Things-like story on the big screen because I genuinely believe this takes away the strength of the tale. One example being the monsters, in the original story they are ridiculous movieland creatures that would the kids of the day would be frightened off, silly-looking but in Pennywise’s hands deadly and dangerous. In Muchietti’s version of It they are generic and ultimately dull.

Another anchor that drags the film down is the movie victim’s trope that really should be lost nowadays. The kids are shown to be scared by resourceful, have a good idea what they are fighting and how it works, then when we get to the meetings with Pennywise they forget all about it and scream, shout, split-up and generally behave like it’s next victims, rather than nemesis.

Herein lies another rub too. Although I’m an old beardy weirdy man and therefore don’t necessarily get scared by films I am not made of stone and understand what is meant to be scary, or enthralling or as I see it, funny and at no time did I really feel that It was truly scary. There was tension, monsters, death, mystery but it just was not scary. Logic, as in most films, take a break, but with Pennywise being all-powerful, feeding on the fear of children by isolating them, able to get access to anywhere they are, well that’s just a bit too all-powerful even for resourceful brave kids.

It is ultimately a bit of a damp squib, well-acted throughout, seems to be the correct running length, after all it is a big novel and a lot of stuff has to excluded, but the film does not do any justice to Stephen King’s novel and has some ideas that should have stayed on the ideas board. Too much CGI for Pennywise, let him be more clown than monster, that is supposedly how he got all his victims over the centuries, if you going to make your kids, bright, resourceful but scared do not make them bright and resourceful one minute then as dumb as fence-posts the next. It would take extraordinary children to beat Pennywise.

Finally, what happened to all those floating bodies at the end….yeeeew.