This is It or Is this It? - Review of It

Cannily enough, the last time Stephen King's mammoth sized horror epic It got an adaptation it was 1990. Then It was adapted into a tv-movie starring the inimitable, sinister voiced, Tim Curry. Now 27 years later, just like the titular monster's feeding cycle, It is back, and ready to feast on the fears of children. And unfortunately, that's about the only peer group I suspect will find this, whilst wonderfully made bit of 80s retro kids on bikes adventuring throwback, scary.

But before we dive deep into that tautologically turgid claim a few side notes. First, I'm not a mega Stephen King fan. That isn't saying I dislike him but I've only read a handful of his books, although considering how vast his body of work is maybe that isn't too bad. The first King book I read was Cell, which I read in high school. That was a twist on the zombie apocalypse genre, where all the mobile phones in the world suddenly let out a phone call which, if answered, turns the recipient into a not quite braindead zombie, but a zombie nonetheless. Certain sections of this book are blazed into my head. Like nearly all Stephen King books, it got adapted into a film. I'm told it is awful.

It seems that simply by sheer volume of King books in film form, the majority aren't so good. Prior to reading Cell, I'd seen most of his classics before reading them. The Shining (eternally improved/tarnished/beloved by the Simpsons "Shinning"), Salem's Lot, The Mist (killer ending), and Misery. After reading Cell, I got into reading his books every so often, ticking off the classics before plucking up the courage to read the titanic It in the summer of 2012. The book clocks in at 1,138 pages, weaving two storylines running in two different time periods, and deals with themes like child abuse, murder, racism, and what happens when a clown rips you arm off, proving that it isn't exactly a light read. But, as you can see, I'm able to pinpoint not only the year but what time of year I set off on this adventure of a read, so it must've stuck with me.

Fast forward to Sunday 7:30pm the 10th of September, the date and time of seeing It, and I hate to say it but in a few weeks, but for this blog, I'll have little memory of when I saw It, so little is the aftermath impact of the film. That isn't to say it is a bad film, it is just not a memorable one. The horror in It starts of strong, becomes repetitive quick, crescendos at a false ending about two-thirds in, then returns to rather standard fare at the end. It opens with Bill (Jaeden Lieberher) making a paper boat for his brother Georgie. Georgie runs out into the rainy streets of the fictional Derry, chasing his boat through gutter water. Unfortunately the current runs too strong and ends up down a drain. Luckily, a certain clown is there holding it up for Georgie. This is Pennywise the Dancing Clown, played with otherwordly menace, and childish ticks and clicks, by another one of the Skarsgärd clan, this one a Bill. A tense little conversation ensues between the young Georgie and Pennywise, culminating in one of the few scenes of horror in the film that actually has some weight. Whilst there is an ineffective jump scare just proceeding the genuinely chilling and disturbing act, this only underscores how weak the former is compared to the latter.

And unfortunately whilst the issue with an over-reliance of jump scares is the only issue of the film, they are used so often and are almost exclusively the only mine of horror plundered by the film makers that it becomes a major problem. You see, It, under the guise of Pennywise and various other monstrosities wishes to terrify the children of Derry before doing unspeakable acts of cruelty to them. To avoid spoilers I won't say why he must do this, but do this he must. In the film this means that the of children making up the protagonists of the film each have to have their own vignettes of It terrifying them, taking the form of something that scares them the most. This means the film resembles watching a huge amount of those horror short films on youtube, with the same lazy jump scare at the end but devoid of any tension they had as none of these scenes are given a chance to breath. We get fountains of blood, lepers, creepy paintings, zombies, people burnt alive. But give or take a few of these, nearly all the scenes play out the same. Kid wanders off from a group, lured by a weird sight or sound, then something leaps forward, edited to hell and screeching like seven million violins being smashed by seven million pianos. Normally a loud noise would at least elicit a lazy startle from me but it didn't even get that, they were that predictable.

This is where the translation of a gigantic book to film which just clocks in around two hours fails. There is a lot of plot, side plot, random discussions, and town back story in the book, a lot of which is touched upon in the film. But each of the kids in the Losers club needs to have their own backstory explained too. This is easy to cover in a big book but not so much in a film. Unfortunately the constraints of a film means that some of the Losers fade into the background, namely Mike and Stan. Stan's phobia in particular seems to have no particular resonance other than it looks creepy. Of all the horror in the film nothing hits the heights of the impact of the opening scene of violence but coming a close second is whenever the film actually just allows Pennywise to be Pennywise rather than a screaming blur leaping at someone. When Pennywise is just allowed to move with his creaking and disjointed limps, looming large over the cowering children, and hissing promises of grisly deaths upon them, then you can see the fear. It isn't a cheap jump out of your seat fear, but it is a feeling of dread and unease at this unnatural beast terrifying children and hopefully you. Other Pennywise highlights include his multiple appearances in the background of pictures and at one point a projector image, warping the image into his likening. Skarsgärd is very good in the role, and casting an actor who isn't hugely older than the teens (he's in his 20s) gives this Pennywise a different, childish edge, that Tim Curry's didn't have. Also, whilst Tim Curry has a wonderful villainous voice and laugh, there is something just a bit off and alien about Skarsgärd's that makes it work. It is just a shame his appearances are buried behind hollow sound and fury.

Now, that's the negative. Pretty much everything else about the film is spot on. Top of the list is the casting. Each of the members of the Loser's Club are perfectly cast, likeable, funny, show real fear, and can act. Standouts for me are Finn (I'm from Stranger Things) Wolfhard as foul-mouthed Richie, and Eddie played by Jack Dylan Grazer with a machine gun staccato paranoia inflected speech pattern, spouting deadly statistics and chances of death by mundane objects whenever he can. These two get the lion's share of the jokes in the movie and surprisingly there are quite a lot of them, told with a great deal more panache than the horror scenes. Each member of the Loser's Club bounces off the other wonderfully, and it is because you like these characters that your patience and investment in between the lacklustre scenes of horror is sustained.

Stranger Things Series 2 - Legit kids on bikes on an adventure

This sub-genre of young teen riding on bikes to defeat evil in the 80s has been done recently in the tv show Stranger Things. It doesn't only share an actor and tone with the show (which the show openly cribbed from the original book) but also a setting. In the book It is set in the 1950s when the protagonists fight It as kids, then 30 years later in the 80s which would have been present day when the book came out. By shifting the story into the 80s for the kids it means the filmmakers get to tap into the 80s nostalgia that is rampant at the moment (hail synthwave music is what I say) whilst also meaning the sequel will be set in our modern day. A few other changes have happened in relation to the book, including some of the more out their cosmic horror elements which whilst a fan of that genre, in the book they are explained too on the nose which goes completely against the idea of that genre. Naturally, this film also cuts out one hugely inappropriate scene from the book which I'm kind of surprised isn't really the first thing that anyone brings up when asked about Stephen King's work. If you really want to know what it is try google, with private browsing on of course, "sewer gangbang It." It was a fucked up thing to write then, it is still fucked up now.

Anyway back to a more palatable conversation. Apart from the Losers Club fighting It they also have to deal with various personal demons, be it puberty, or most often an aberration of the family unit. These scenes of domestic horror are far more effective and queasy than the flights of fancy It brings upon them. Even the grotesque bully teen who hunts the Loser's Club gets is not just a one note cliche, getting some backstory and motive explaining his actions, told elegantly through one action and one line of dialogue by his father.

Despite my disappointment with the horror of this horror film, the fact that a horror movie that didn't have a minuscule budget, that ended up MA15+ rated, that has a sufficient plot outside the scares, has done so well at the box office office is a great positive for the horror industry. Hopefully we will get bigger more epic horror movies that have actual plot running through the scares. Of course, this success could also be a double-edged sword and that whilst we may get more plot centric horror, if the horror in It is considered the benchmark we will also continue to get barraged with loud noises in substitute of true terror.

Still, on the whole, the film is undeniably a success. The film tries very hard to film a quite possibly unfilmable novel and makes a very good stab at it. In terms of the casting and look of the film, it is a faultless recreation of the book and the 80s nostalgia we are currently going through. Whilst the horror constantly trips over its oversized clown shoes when it comes sprinting at you, when It is given time to slowly creak and crack its limbs towards you, then Pennywise floats on a cloud uncanny and unnerving air.