MOVIE REVIEW: IT (2017)

Few characters are as iconic in the world of horror as Pennywise the killer clown or whatever we want to say, played in 1990 by Tim Curry, the clown that emerged from the novel written by Stephen King almost immediately became the material that the nightmares of the children – and some not so children – of the ’90s are made.

Perhaps because of that iconic character of Curry’s Pennywise, most of us feared the worst when it was announced that a new adaptation of the novel was being prepared when after a couple of years of advances in pre-production it was announced that Cary Fukunaga (True Detective, Beasts without a country, etc.) left the project as director and that the new director would be Andrés Muschietti (Mom) the fears seemed to be confirmed and the project that at that moment seemed to adrift give the impression of being condemned to be a catastrophe.

As the project progressed and the cast was announcing itself, criticism and doubts fell on Bill Skarsgård, some considered him too young for the role, others said that inexperience would make Curry’s shadow more than he could bear. Fortunately, we were all wrong, neither was Muschietti too green to lead a project of this magnitude nor was Skarsgård too young to be Pennywise.

The new version of IT was breaking records even before reaching the screens, when the first trailer was released it became the most-watched horror trailer in history in its first 24 hours, from that moment the project seemed not to need Plus, those 90 seconds of footage were all it took to ensure the film’s success, at least on opening weekend.

The commercial aspect has resulted in an epoch-making movie, the most successful Horror movie in history when it hasn’t even been in theaters for a month and even without having been released yet in several countries – in some South American countries. was released until September 21 for example-, but not everything that glitters is gold and not everything that sells is good, so with the commercial aspect already resolved, you have to ask yourself:

Is the new version of ESO that good?

 Yes, the answer is simple, yes. It is that good, compared at least to the precedent of its 1990 television version (let’s be honest, as an adaptation to a Stephen King text there are several that are surpassed by Shawshank Redemption, Misery, The Green Mile to name a few examples).

 From this moment on the spoilers will begin (small I promise) so if you have not seen it, perhaps the best option is to go back to read this when you have left the cinema.

 

 * There are several elements why this new version outperforms the original and we will list them below.

1.-The losers. There is a big difference from the 1990 film, in the television version Pennywise stole the show entirely, the film revolved entirely around him and the losers led by Jonathan Brandis in the role of Bill Denbrough were in the background, a shot very far from that reached by Tim Curry. This new version corrects that, now it is the losers who fill the screen headed by Finn Wolfhard who plays Richie Tozier, if you read correctly, Richie is not the protagonist I know, however, it is Finn’s performance (Stranger Things) that It stands out above the rest, transmits fear when it must and makes the viewer smile again and again throughout the 135 minutes of the film, an honorable mention also deserves the performance of Sophia Lillis as Beverly Marsh

2. The forms of It. Yes, Curry’s Pennywise is unforgettable – unsurpassed according to many – but only his Pennywise, but whoever remembers the way that It manifested itself to each of the losers, I’m sure none of us do, and who can we say? Of course, I remember the leper from Neibolt Street or the werewolf who attacks Richie, sorry friend, memory has played a trick on us and we are remembering the novel, not the miniseries. Fortunately, this new version rescues that part of It’s nature and we can finally see how it presents itself to each of the boys, personifying their greatest fear –although it doesn’t exactly follow the personifications of the novel

* Personally the best scene in the movie for me, at least the scariest was the way that is presented to Stanley Uris.

 

3. At this point it is not worth developing too much, there is no point of comparison between the 1990 version and the current one, but if there is something to argue in defense of the former, it must be said that there is also no point of comparison in the technology they had to its disposal 27 years ago and the technology we have now.

4. Does the name Tommy Lee Wallace mean something to you? I supposed, the truth is that it doesn’t tell me much either – unless you remember the worst movie in the history of the Halloween franchise, Halloween 3: The Witch’s Empire – well, he was the director of the 1990 version. and it was his best work, at least the most notorious. Now, the name of Andrés Muschietti will tell you much more from now on if his career continues the course it seems to have headed. This new version is superior to that of 1990 in each and every one of the technical aspects, the sound, the excellent photography for some moments and of course the rhythm – at least in most of the film – is wonderful, it accelerates when it has to do it and let the viewer breathe when they need it.

5. Go where others would not have dared. Indeed, they did not dare to include the scene of the orgy, but it is not that it was too necessary, nor important, on the other hand with what they did dare was to capture the sexual tension in Beverly, both in the awakening of his sexuality both in fear of possible incestuous abuse with his father, which contributes to creating great tension between the viewers and increases the atmosphere of the film to perfection

Of course, not everything is perfect and this new version also has its flaws, if you don’t want real spoilers from both the movie and the book then I recommend that you stop here

Where is IT failing?

1. The disappearance of Georgie. This is more personal than anything, but I don’t see the point of making up a disappearance of Georgie instead of making it clear that he was killed by Pennywise from the get-go.

2. The story behind the losers (or its lack of history rather). Yes, the losers are fantastic but if there is something that is missed in the film is the lack of background, the film loses a lot by not showing the story behind each of the boys, the coldness of Bill’s parents, Ben’s loneliness, but the blow that hurts is the way they send Mike Hanlon to an almost non-existent plane, I think that’s one of the biggest mistakes in the film – at least for those of us who read the book.

3.-The disappearance of Bev and the «Disney kiss.» There’s not much to say about it, but it took Bev to disappear to reunite the losers when there was no need to separate them in the first place. And finally, that Disney princess kiss to wake her up was over and totally out of what the movie is.

 

4. Henry Bowers, Victor Criss, and «Belch» Huggins. There are several problems with the group of thugs that stalk the losers, the first is that they practically do not exist in the film, although the scene where they meet Ben appears in the film and there is also the mythical stone battle where it ends After forming the group of losers, his participation in the story practically ends there, although the film’s biggest mistake is killing Henry Bowers -almost as much as the sudden disappearance of Victor and Belch-, more when at least in the novel he is a fundamental piece of adult history, why if somehow Henry did not die then the credibility of the first part is highly questioned. two.

5. The waste of the ’80s. After the enormous success of Stranger Things, we are all very clear that there is no better tool – both for sales and for connecting with the audience – than nostalgia (Who has seen Mad Men will understand this very well), that’s why when it was said that the film It would be set between 1988 and 1989 We believed that the 80s would play an important role in the film, however they go completely unnoticed, apart from some period jokes or some posters that appear in the film, the truth is that it could well be set in 1920 or today, for that matter it would be the same.

Curious fact

 The fact that the movie being screened in the cinema is Nightmare on Hell Street 5 (released in 1989) is no coincidence since it was thought that there was a cameo by Freddy Krueger, probably to take the role of the werewolf as the scared of Richie Tozier, however in the end that scene was left out of the movie.