Stephen King's IT (2017) Review

I’ve learned to stop asking what it is I’m watching if-and when I get invited to advanced screenings. Such was the case when the call came in to watch the 2017 adaptation of Stephen King’s “It.” I was excited to see (again) the trailer for “Blade Runner 2049,” but any bonfire of excitement was doused by the trailer that followed – which was for “Justice League.” (And I know some people are on board with what DC is doing, and to those wonderful few I can only say: mazel tov!) From the first establishing shot to the final mid-close up shot of the (wonderful) cast, “It” was a visual feast. There were shots and camera work that made me jump for joy. (The only jumping I did, unfortunately.) There are hints in the beginning of the kind of movie “It” wants to be - among them the light bulbs in the cellar and the gory fate of poor Georgie (which reminds you that you are in fact sitting in an R-rated flick). The film has some fantastic moments. And if you’re familiar with the “Save The Cat” formula of screenwriting, you can see the boxes checked off (even with its 2-hour and 15-minute run time). But the triad of sins that bog this movie down are: The book, Wyatt Oleff, and Bill Skarsgard. The book is a classic - don’t get me wrong, but it is set in the late 50s early 60s (from what I remember). The film is set in 1986-87, so there are a few changes that are for the betterment of the story (rampant racism being at the top of the list). But it also loses some of its bite because of this. The werewolf (one of my favorite mythos) is replaced by a fear of clowns – how “convenient” (read: lazy writing) for you as a screenwriter. This is the kindest of the offenses I took with the film, so take it with a grain of salt. The Stanley Uris character played by Wyatt Oleff is another matter. Stan in the book is haunted by two drowned boys – with the tagline “you’ll float too” attached to the film you would imagine no better tie-in, right? Well, the writers threw that idea out the window and tortured him instead with a misshapen woman from a portrait in his father’s office. In the film Stan was another voice that got lost in the crowd – and it’s not like there’s a gang of them, there’s only six other members of “The Losers Club” (which they thankfully kept in). Stan is a nobody in the film, so much so that when he is separated from the group you kind of hope he gets attacked – just so he could do something other than nay-say and whine. (Spoiler: He doesn’t do anything.) Then there’s Bill Skarsgard. When he’s not saying anything, he’s a frightening presence . . . Ad then he opens his mouth. Now, to be fair, I have hated his acting since “Hemlock Grove,” so I didn’t come into this expecting to be floored. But he was at his funniest when he was shaking-ly terrorizing the kids. Like a theatre warm-up exercise gone wild this guy. It didn’t help that the audience members behind me (and several rows back as well) started laughing when he charged forward. I guess some people just have to laugh through their fear, right? Just be aware that he probably won’t be scary to you – so a lot of the jump scares won’t be scary to you either (since he’s in most of them). For something that sustains itself on the primordial fear of its prey, Pennywise would’ve starved off my reactions. As an ushering in of Halloween, the movie passes –barely. It’s a good date flick. Turn your brain off at the seat, and try not to pull at any of the loose threads – trust me. The rest of the cast is fantastic, with Jaeden Lieberher, Sophia Lillis, and Finn Wolfhard leading the pack. The 2017 adaptation of “It” scores a [B-] in my grade book.

#it #stephenking #stephenkingsit #moviereview #movies #film #horror #review