IMDb / Wiki
https://i0.wp.com/teaser-trailer.com...ster.jpg?ssl=1
Printable View
It took a few liberties from the book, but still decent. I'll give it a yay when I log on from my computer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good movie.
Not a great one.
But good.
Maybe even damn good.
Amazing child performances. You will fall in love with some of these kids. Not just the creative swearing (which is wonderful), but the plausibility of their familiarity with each other, the way they overlap; running jokes between them that feel well-worn (one boy's mother is a constant target). [I imagine most will fall in love with Richie Tozier and Eddie Kaspbrak - Richie's motormouth swearing is perfectly matched to Finn Wolfhard.]
Never as dreadful and truly frightening as you'd hope, playing instead with the spook-a-blast creativity of "Drag Me to Hell" or (at its best) "Poltergeist." There's a blood flood here worthy of "Evil Dead II" and a throwdown in a haunted house that provides the film's peak; Muschetti doesn't like to simmer the violence when he can crank the stovetop to boil in an instant.
It takes some time for the flick's story to ramp up, as the kids initially seem weirdly disinterested in discussing their experiences with Pennywise (the film has trouble establishing that the experiences even linger with them). That hurts the film, as you could re-arrange the first five or six Big Scares without changing the drama surrounding them. (One scare sequence resolves with an uptempo montage of bathroom cleanup.)
And there are too many times where Pennywise leans on familiar CG twitchery from lesser horror films. I got used to that style and even came to like a few of his more outlandish iterations, but the decision yanks the film back down to Earth and forces you to remember that Muschetti's "Mama" was best when it withheld its monster and, I dunno, tolerable (?) when Mama showed up.
But the film ultimately works on that backbone of empathetic child performances, the (slow) accretion of their shared experiences with It, and the hints that Derry's rotten to its core. I wish they explored that element more, since King wrote Derry as the Hill House of small towns, locked in mutual corrosion with Pennywise, but the hints of that decay do lurk at the edges, most notably when a pharmacist plays friendly with the underage Bev. Eww.
If you're expecting something with the calm follow-through of Reiner's "Misery" or the atmospheric discomforts of "The Shining," you won't be thrilled by "IT," and on that level you can not-unfairly call the flick a missed opportunity. But what you've got is a solid spookhouse film with an endearing emotional core.
Looks on course to open big with 65-80 million.
But seriously, Richie's response to learning about early Derry beaver trappers brought the house down.
hmmph. If this had been made by a more seasoned, dramatic director... I think this would have had the results I wanted. Instead the directing from Muschietti at times feels too modern, expected, even disappointing.
But the child actors and their chemistry is really lovely and fantastic- and I'm very much considering seeing this again in the theater because the result of the picture is so satisfying thanks to the scripting.
There's potential here, but the first half never really establishes the true fears of each kid. It speeds through it.
As mentioned above, the scares for half the movie rely on the CGI- fast forward/headshaking/screaming from Pennywise, which is more funny after a while then scary. It really never ramps up until it finally gets inside the house, with tactics of separating everyone. It's pretty fun for a bit, but some of the secondary antagonists rub off as over the top-ridiculous.
Eh..........
Is the film only the kid half of the book?
Ends with...
[]
People were freaking out in the clown room scene in my full theater, but outside of that, not too many screams.
Good movie. Opts a little too much for brazen "BOO!" scenes and all too often it has characters, kids who should be scared, running right into terror although it's somewhat justified here.
This felt more like an adventure with elements of horror rather than a straight-up horror film to me. the only problems I had with it occurred when humorous dialogue killed the suspense of terrifying scenes in the first half. Other than that, the characters are well-written and acted, Bill Skarsgard was great as Pennywise, and there's a thematic depth to it that's absent from most contemporary horror films. Overall, I enjoyed it.
What started this trope? I feel like I've seen it in many 21st Century horror films (or at least their trailers since I rarely watch them) but I watched a lot of 80s/90s horror back in the day and don't remember that being a thing at all back then. It's like the horror movie version of the speed ramp.
I remember the saw movies had some scenes which were played at faster than normal speed, but nothing like the puppet on a bicycle igniting its turbo and charging at its target.
But yeah speaking of trailers, horror trailers seem to frequently end with one surprise jolt before it's fade to black, or fade to credits.
Also, $117 million opening. Bully for the WB marketers.
That's colossal!
Casting and cinematography are MVP.
Surprisingly tame in places, but overall it's good fun. A little disappointed that the speech from the trailer about adults failing the children under their charge was absent, but perhaps it would have been too on the nose here. When Skarsgard is allowed to be physically present, he's wonderful; there should have been more of that. The kids were a total success, from the coarse language to the close bond to the way the boys stare agape at Beverly to how quietly strong Ben is. And Sophia Lillis is a hell of a find. Suffers some obvious thinness from compressing down even half of such a giant story, but I think it works fairly well.
Gets a bit samey after a while as we dutifully lurch from one kid's run in with It to another's, and I think it leans too hard into the awful adults trope (seriously, everything with Bev's father is ridiculously over-the-top in its presentation, and the second weakest aspect of the film behind the acting of the kid playing Henry Bowers, a character who is poorly utilized in the movie). That aside though, it has atmosphere to burn, and it runs like clockwork on the technical side of things.
It's a positive experience for me, though reservations abound. I'm happy that I remember so little beyond the outline of the arc from when I was the book about 20 years ago: it creates moments that I expected, but the details were less obvious than they''d have been if memory was any stronger. Not the biggest fan of Muschietti's structure of going to eleven at all moments; the old "woman" in the library as Ben is reading the history book isn't necessarily subtle, but I loved how I expected "her" to appear anywhere in the frame. And, naturally, Richie in the clown-room.
As D&MU astutely notes, the time-frame that the film works to condense makes it so that there's much less in the way of lingering terrors or trepidation. Instead, several parts feel like a one-off for each character without any successive collateral to make more of a payoff occur. Further, Mike needed one more scene to better acclimate him to the rest of the cast--the incorporation of his character feels very dependent on plot as opposed to feeling truly a part of experiences.
I'll be curious if the second part actually casts 40-year-old actors or whether they go younger.