Yes, it starts with Georgie.
But, even before he is sucked into the drain by Pennywise, (a very good Bill Skarsgard, but, face it, Tim Curry owns the role) this "It" showed every sign of being different, because, in an almost far too graphic scene, the kid's arm is ripped off, before he goes plunging into darkness. The director, Andy Muschiettti, lets everyone know he is going to push the boundaries of the 1990 telefilm.
My husband did not like the film. While "It" is no artistic masterpiece, its ensemble of child actors is very good, though I doubt this film will do anything for their careers. They are the pawns used to tap into what the story is really about--the manifestation of fear.
And fear abounds all through this film. Not just Pennywise, but an evil, leering pharmacist, a Munchausen by proxy afflicted mother, a sexually abusive father, not to mention sewer drains, the best haunted house seen on film in years, and the kind of film special effects that allow It to splinter into whatever It wants--a disintegrating clown, with tentacles coming out of its mouth was the best.
As well as Muschietti evokes fear in his young actors, the drama is in the visuals. This film is worthy of prizes in the categories of set design and art direction. They supply the necessary fear, and it is they who elicit the scares from both the children in the film, and the audience.
The film it as well constructed as a good amusement ride, providing, basically, the same thrills. This movie wants to be so much more, but does not succeed.
You want to float, darlings? Find a swimming pool that is still open, or indoors!!!!!!!!!!!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAgreed on all counts. I was expecting terrible, but it turned out to be a very well constructed thrill ride. The most surprising element for me was the audience reaction: even the jaded thugs and delinquents were totally taken in very quickly, and by the end were going out of their minds with anxiety (and enjoying every minute). Its a rare film that can grab todays youth by the throat and make them respond in a non-ironic, gut level manner. Of course it helped that probably none of them have ever seen the 1990 version or read the book (in today's Twitter-driven 160-character world, does ANYONE still read King's pretentiously bloated 1200 pages tomes anymore)? Their obvious total immersion in the film made it immeasurably more interesting for me: this is definitely one of those films that requires the big screen and theater audience to fully appreciate (it will fail with a thud if viewed at home alone on a TV, even 42").
ReplyDeleteI was perhaps more impressed by Skarsgaard than you were: yes, Tim Curry will always own the role, but Skarsgaard infused his Pennywise with a truly dark sadistic menace, making him seem all that more implacable and terrifying. Kudos also to the remarkable makeup team for his extremely unsettling yet realistically freaky appearance. That still you posted of him lurking in wait for poor Georgie in the storm drain sets the tone for the entire film: despite knowing the story and whats about to happen, he's still fuel for immediate nightmares.
The only glaring off-note that bothered me was the kids talking like hookers on the Vegas strip (even in the 80s, no 12 year olds in white subrbia joked constantly about going down on each others mother). That was distracting as hell, and kept taking me out of the moment: when being ferociously attacked by a supernatural evil, the last thing anyone is going to do is snark about fingering their friend's mother. Yuck. And, oh- yuck.
The gambit of splitting the novel into two separate movies will likely not pay off. While the children's story presented here does manage to stand alone, the inevitable sequel with them battling Pennywise again 27 years later can't help but be perceived as "more of the same, but minus the extra frisson of child endangerment". They should quit while they're ahead: re-imagining the adult story in an original way for the big screen will be a far more daunting task.