Disclaimer 1 - Although I'm normally careful to avoid huge spoilers in my discussions this will be a spoiler review, for the simple reason that a book of this story has been out since 1986 and a filmed adaptation since 1990. Whilst I won't be posting a synopsis of everything that happens in the movie (a pet peeve of mine in reviews), I will be discussing things that happen which may be more effective as surprises or unknowns. If you don't want to know anything and haven't seen the movie then please return to this review once you have, and feel free to share your own thoughts on It.
Disclaimer 2 - I have never read Stephen King's It, nor have I seen the 1990 mini-series (I know, I know!). Although I'm aware enough of the general plot, some story beats and the things that have permeated pop culture, you should regard this review as being by someone who is watching this movie as their first real exposure to this story. As such I have no idea how faithful this film is or it's comparison to it's predecessors. There's a fascinating article to be written about these but that's not this one, I am judging the film entirely as it's own entity rather than as a remake or re-telling.
"IT" 2017 is a good movie. Let me start by saying that. It's not a perfect film by any stretch and it doesn't re-define the genre or do anything new. It's phenomenal success, both financially and critically, can presumably be put down to things that should be a given but sadly aren't these days; a good plot, decent direction and outstanding, well- defined characters played by incredibly talented actors. There are flaws, which I will get into, but the overall feeling I had when leaving the theatre, and reflecting back since, is "that was a good movie".
It didn't start that way. I was actually a little worried for about the first 20 or 30 minutes. The opening scene has sadly been over-played (including by this film's trailer) and it's familiarity robs it of a lot of impact. This is coupled with the fact that Bill Skarsgard's take on Pennywise (the default clown form of the titular monster) didn't come off as all that menacing or intimidating at this point. When he switches into full, toothy monster mode and bites off an arm the CGI and shock are played more bombastic than perhaps would have been more effective for me. The scene is vital to the ongoing plot moving forward though, and is just emotionally effective enough for me due to the young actor's performance of Georgie, and my own well-documented discomfort of seeing young children in distress. As the film goes on from this it unfortunately doesn't immediately pick up either. It seems like we spend a long time introducing character (retrospectively necessary but could have been a little deeper and tighter). What's really problematic though is that the film seems to set a pattern of good but slow character work leading to the next set-piece, which is where the film will try and scare you and reaffirm it's horror status. The horror never seems to come naturally and jars a little at first, before the film settles you into it's heightened reality. At this point it's not all that scary either, at least for anyone with tolerance and affinity for horror. My biggest gripe with the first half of the film though is a technical one, the sound design and sound editing are terrible. It seems like the film-makers knew that the visuals weren't all that scary so try and create discomfort and fear by having the music and sound cues be distractingly loud. Of course I'm on edge, my teeth are rattling and my ear drum hurts!. It's a shame as something more atmospheric could have worked much better, and does as this problem settles down after the first hour.
It probably seems at this point that I'm being wholly negative about the film and so I have to mention a plus, and it's a big one. The cast here, primarily the seven young members of the "losers club" are uniformly excellent. You'll see this praise brought up a lot in reviews but I assure you it is well deserved. It's rare for child actors not to be annoying or seem fake but the seven young stars here absolutely carry the movie. I realised whilst watching that these characters are so relatable, and are played as such. I can't believe that there will be anyone who watches this film who doesn't find at least one character to identify with, who acts in a way that reminds you of yourself at that age. Heck, I saw parts of myself in three or four of the kids. It seems almost unfair to pick a stand out but I would say that Sophia Lillis (Bev Marsh) handles incredibly tough material with restraint and skill. It was, for me however, young Finn Wolfhard (Richie Tozier) who just comes out as the most memorable here. Perhaps a small part of that is knowing he's a good actor (from Stranger Things) and convincingly playing a totally different role here. He also gets most of the humour, sarcasm, the best lines and is the person we wish we were like, even if that doesn't make him literally the most relatable.
As the film develops, it's verisimilitude increases dramatically. Previously hokey jump scares start to actually shock. They didn't terrify me at all but there were a couple of interesting scares that did get a little jump out of me, and I'm quite hardened and desensitized. The people sitting around my seat were jumping up like a pogo too so you might be scared, though I wouldn't personally class anything as terrifyingly scary. That's not how I necessarily judge a horror movie though. The film also improves as it's underlying themes become apparent. This isn't just a story about kids against a schlocky monster, it's about other horrors you fear as a child, both literal and intangible. For every monstrous creature there is representation of growing up, accepting loss, loneliness, facing bullies, extreme abuse (psychological, physical and sexual. Be warned). Perhaps a bigger theme that resonated with me, although I may be projecting too much onto it, is unity. It's explicitly stated that the kids are strong enough to face the monstrous "It" only when they are together. Friends can be family, even for the loneliest "loser". And whilst this is cemented incredibly disgustingly in the novel this film culminates with a simple, but effective, blood oath by an end point that is earned as we too have come to care about these people. It does slightly fudge what could and should have been a better-handled romantic subplot though.
The only other gripe I have is a moment of seeming unreality when the movie spurts a geyser of blood at Bev, in a clear homage to the original Nightmare on Elm Street. This did take me out of the movie as I tried to comprehend how the parent figures can't see a bathroom literally covered in blood. I'm assured this is explained in the book though and the film just didn't explain it all that well, so perhaps that's on me. It was still a great homage and, indeed, there are a wealth of horror, Stephen King, 80s and director Andy Muschietti Easter Eggs and references which nerdier types (like me) will enjoy.
In the end the film left me really wanting more, despite it's hefty run-time, and the final reveal of the film's actual title of "It: Chapter One" has me really excited to see the conclusion in Part 2 ASAP. That film will have some work to do in casting adult actors who can live up to their young counterparts though. I also got so invested in the mythology and story that I immediately began reading the novel when I got home (long story short; it was on sale for £1 digitally, I got it on my phone, started it about two weeks ago and now I'm truly ready to get stuck in). It is not a perfect movie but it's probably one of the best horror films I've seen in the last decade or so. The mix of Stand by Me type coming-of-age elements with Nightmare on Elm Street style horror and mythos leaves me excited to watch this again and dive deeper. I'm told I'll float...
**** (4/5)
MM
No comments:
Post a Comment