There is something mythic about Stephen King's novel IT. The novel was released in 1986, at a time when horror cinema was all the rage and the horror genre as a whole was "in." Just four years later the first film adaptation of IT came to the small screen in households everywhere. Directed by Tommy Lee Wallace and starring Tim Curry as the terrifying Pennywise, IT became the reason why many from my generation hate clowns. The high acclaim for the book and the powerful performance by Tim Curry have made the status of this story legendary in the hearts and memories of the populace.
With nostalgia proving to be an extremely profitable business in cinema these days (Star Wars and Jurassic World), and horror remakes still going strong, what better time to revisit the story of Pennywise?
Andy Muschietti, director of the horror film Mama (2013), directs this new version of Stephen King's IT. In the first weekend alone the film has shattered horror movie records across the board. Being rated R did not hurt the film whatsoever as it made $123 million it's opening weekend. It's certified fresh with 86% on Rotten Tomatoes and receiving rave reviews across the board. And people are already trying to figure out diplomatic ways of saying they prefer Bill Skarsgard's Pennywise over Tim Curry's Pennywise. Needless to say, for the moment this movie is taking cinema by storm and could possibly go down as the film that launched a new era of horror greatness.
For the last several years I have been measuring new horror films against the likes of the first Conjuring film and The Evil Dead remake (both 2013). After seeing IT do I have a new standard with which to measure all other new horror by? Read on and find out.
THE PLOT
The small town of Derry, Maine has a problem. A monster has laid claim to the town and has a particular taste for children. In 1988 a young boy named Georgie disappeared while his older brother, Bill, watched from his upstairs window. Bill and his friends have now taken up the search for Georgie. But the closer they come to finding Georgie they soon find themselves the targets for the monster. Evil descends on these seven friends from all sides as they are victimized by their parents, hounded by bullies, and stalked by the monster. Everything is against them. And if they are going to survive they'll need to rely on each and remain fearless in the face of their worst nightmares.
WHAT I LIKED
The Effects. The biggest let down for me when watching the original film is that the monster effects didn't live up to the scope of story. Granted it was a television mini-series with an incredibly low budget so I can't fault the filmmakers for making the best of their resources. But Tim Curry delivered such an amazing performance that it was a shame the special effects couldn't deliver as well. Here however the filmmakers had more than enough money to realize Stephen King's nightmarish sequences. And they use a mix of practical make-up effects and CGI for the best looking monsters and gore one could hope for. Once again Tom Woodruff Jr and Alec Gillis, the same men responsible for Annabelle: Creation's monsters and effects a month earlier and responsible for so many horror film legends from the 1980's on to today, are the ones to thank for IT looking so good.
Bill Skarsgard. After seeing him in the Netflix series HEMLOCK GROVE, when I heard he was cast as Pennywise I knew the movie was going to work. Nailing Pennywise is one of the essential ingredients for an IT adaptation, maybe even the most essential (I'd argue getting the best child actors is equally important too). And Skarsgard knocks it out of the park. He approaches the role in a different way from Tim Curry too, in a way that doesn't make a Tim Curry IT purest feel ashamed for liking Skarsgard's Pennywise. Curry plays the role with pure malevolence and revelry for the suffering of others whereas Skarsgard lends a subhuman quality to the character. Pennywise in this film isn't so much enjoying what he's doing but rather performing his tasks as a cat plays with mice or as a lion stalks its prey. There's less humanity in it and more animalistic drive. Yeah, Pennywise is evil but I get the feeling from Skarsgard that it is merely Pennywise's nature, not a choice It's making. Whereas I feel the real evil in the film comes from the human antagonists like Henry Bowers and Mr. Marsh.
The Narrative Structure. In the book and the original film, the narrative is told from two alternating timelines. We received a piece from one timeline and then a piece from the other, experiencing both narratives simultaneously. Here the film only shows us the children's timeline and presents it uninterrupted in a more streamlined approach. Set in the 1980's versus the 50's, IT actually channels a STRANGER THINGS/A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET vibe which is something audiences have really responded to as of late. The filmmakers also resist the urge to populate the film with an abundance of 80's pop songs, which for me felt refreshing and reinforced the serious tone. The humor was also used sparsely and more through clever dialog than forced moments of levity. In short, I felt the screenplay was well written and executed.
NITPICKS
Too many scares? No such thing, am I right guys? Well, maybe. I used to think there was no such thing as too many scares in a horror film but in my later years I've come to realize the old axiom "quality over quantity" is quite true especially in terms of horror. There are a ton of scares in this film. Now I'm not saying the scares weren't good. They were very good and the 2 hour and 15 minute run time flew by. But even though they were all well done, I felt a little numb to the scares by the end of the film. And I can't even remember them all. In many instances the film rolled from one scare to the next over and over without the time to digest the previous scare and contemplate what had happened. I also felt some scares weren't given a proper build up and were lessened as a result. Like I said, all of the scares were good but there were so many of them that a portion of the scares have become lost in and among the rest.
The Rules. When dealing with supernatural subjects or magic systems in stories I feel the rules and parameters of said worlds need to be firmly established and adhered to or the story ceases being compelling. If the badguy can literally do anything then how do you expect me to believe that a bunch of kids could defeat it? And vice versa in the case of the hero, where is the threat when your goodguy has every power you can think of? Now there are plenty of great arguments against this and that's cool if you feel differently than I do.
As I was watching I couldn't help but notice Pennywise's seeming omnipresence and omniscience. I don't feel the film established Pennywise's abilities and limitations very well. They talk about a connection to the Well and traveling through the sewers. So, was there a manhole cover or plumbing in Bill's garage? Or the upstairs of the synagogue? Or the library archive? And why doesn't Pennywise kill the Loser's Club outright? He killed Georgie and Patrick outright? And he had Beverly, Eddie, Stan, and Richie dead to rights... in his place of power no less. If the argument was that Pennywise needed his victims to reach a certain level of fear before killing them then Georgie and Patrick reached that level stupid fast. But you can't tell me that the others weren't scared shitless at numerous points in the film, both in their own homes by themselves and at the old dark house.
FREDDY KRUEGER IS PENNYWISE IN DISGUISE
As the film progressed I couldn't help but notice how similar the movie felt to the original A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. The cast of young characters and a town's youth being stalked and murdered by a supernatural being. Pennywise feels like an amped up, more powerful version of Freddy. I never noticed this before due to the unique storytelling method employed in the book and the original film. Here, with the narrative being strictly the children's timeline and the special effects finally able to showcase Pennywise's powers convincingly, the parallels were unmistakable.
Stephen King has said that the original idea for his story came about in 1978 but he didn't start writing it until 1981 and that the monster started out as something quite different. The book didn't come out until 1986, a full two years after Wes Craven's A Nightmare on Elm Street film. Now, I'm not saying Stephen King was inspired by Wes Craven's film, more that both men were tapping into the same idea. Granted, Pennywise is portrayed quite differently in the novel than in this new film, more of a shapeshifting slasher killer than an insanely imaginative magical being like Freddy.
Both are brilliant stories and incredible films, but with the parallels so strong I can't help but compare the two. I'm not comparing the novel but rather the film approaches. In this case I feel A Nightmare on Elm Street is the stronger of the two due to satisfying my personal hangups of firmly establishing the magical story parameters of Freddy's powers. But even so, this new IT is one helluva film. Feel free to fight me on this or point out these missing story parameters for the new IT that I may have missed while watching (it is conceivable that they're there and I totally missed them).
THE VERDICT
Director Andy Muschietti delivers a strong sophomore horror film and the powers of Pennywise the Dancing Clown have never been better displayed, albeit maybe not as defined as I would've liked. Bill Skarsgard takes the role of Pennywise and makes it his own and delivers a truly frightening performance. I daresay Skarsgard has established himself as a new horror icon. The narrative structure is streamlined and as a result we only get one half of Stephen King's original story. Of course this is merely a setup for a sequel, which in this case is really the other half of the novel (so is it really a sequel then?).
Compared to The Conjuring and The Evil Dead remake, I still hold both of those in higher regard. I really enjoyed this film but it didn't get to me as much as other horror films from the past few years. But then I was never too scared of clowns. I do feel this film is stronger than the original, quicker, and easier to digest than the three hour television epic. I feel though with a little more restraint that this film could've been even better. Maybe I'm being extra critical, but even so I do feel it is a really good horror film.
Overall Ranking: 7 out of 10
Nude-O-Meter: 0 out of 10
Check out my thoughts on the original IT below
No comments:
Post a Comment