2017 has already been a great year for horror with Get Out and Split. Even the new Annabelle movie was better than it had any right to be really. It is further strengthening this already strong year for the genre. I don’t think It is a better film than Get Out, but It is certainly a bigger film. In just about every way.
Based on the beloved Stephen King novel, It takes place in the small town of Derry, Maine. In the late 80s, children start to disappear and never return. A group of 7 kids calling themselves the Losers, determine that a monstrous clown is behind the disappearances. It, as the Losers call him, shape-shifts to whatever form will frighten a child the most. Fear makes them “tastier.” While grappling with the terrors of puberty, school bullies, and a town full of uncaring and disinterested adults, the Losers must fight It.
Like Get Out and really the best horror films, It is about more than just scaring the audience. The film wants you to think. It is about the horrors of childhood, growing up, mortality, and fear itself. Working with those themes, the film establishes a sense of existential dread that is often missing in horror films. “What was the irrational thing that scared me when I was a kid? How would It appear to me?” I kept asking myself. Not often does a film, of any genre, get to me like that.
Fans of the book will be glad to know that most of the films changes work for the better. At least for 2017. Moving the story to the 1980s from the 50s was a smart choice. Although there is that critique of the “innocent” 50s in the book, having it set in the 80s retains that “simpler time” quality while still updating. Changing some of It’s incarnations was also a good decision. As much as I enjoy the Rodan and Frankenstein stuff in the book, that wouldn’t work now. Though the film isn’t exactly faithful in the purest sense, the emotional tone and dread are 100%. Andy Muschietti and the screenwriters found 2017 equivalents that create that same sense of fear that King did in 1986. This film creeped me out as much as the book did, which is not an easy thing to adapt. In the book, the action alternates between the Losers as kids and as adults. We just get the kid part here and that serves the film quite well dramatically, if not at least practically. The sequel will feature the Losers as adults. Another change is It’s convoluted macroverse mythology is missing here. The only turtle we get in this is a Lego one, but that is probably for the best.
The production behind the film is well crafted, but it's the performances that really sell the story. An R-rated film about kids is hard to tell if the actors aren't exceptional. All the child actors hold their own here, particularly Sophia Lillis and Jeremy Ray Taylor as Beverly and Ben respectively. Finn Wolfhard as Richie almost steals the show, having worked before on the similarly themed Stranger Things. The Netflix show being something between Stephen King’s E.T and Steven Spielberg's It (no that isn’t a typo). Even if you find the whole “scary clown” trope trite by this point, Bill Skarsgård will still give you a bad case of the heebie-jeebies at least.
Despite all my gushing, the film is not perfect. The CG could be a little better and the script could be a more refined. Certain Easter eggs from the book will no doubt come off as strange to uninitiated viewers (the “Beep! Beep! Ritchie!" gag doesn’t quite work here). Also, I couldn’t help but feel that perhaps a little too much screen time was devoted to 13 year olds in their underwear. My major issues are hard to address without spoilers, so...
Here Beginth the Spoilers:
This might be some book bias, but I was disappointed by the damseling of Beverly and the handling of Mike Hanlon’s character. In the film, It captures Beverly and takes her to his lair. In King's novel, the Losers head into the sewers to fight It because they have figured out how to kill It, or at least put It back to sleep. Having Beverly become something the boys have to “save” instead cheapens that act of heroism. What's more, Bev being awakened from a floating trance by Ben’s kiss comes off as silly. However that is better than her having sex with all the boys like in the book.
In the novel, much of It and Derry’s history is presented to us by Mike Hanlon. Most of that history is expressed by Ben Hanscom in the film, which seems a strange choice. These changes with Bev and Mike might not be as big a deal to other viewers. I will admit that Mike and Beverly are probably my favorite characters in the Losers because there is an extra layer of “outsider” in them. Beverly being a girl and Mike being black in a group of predominantly white boys. Though those specific changes are off-putting and disheartening, but I don’t think they ruin the film.
Here Endth the Spoilers.
The film is quite intense and will pobably resonate something in most viewers. I am not easy to scare, but even I found myself having to shout the f-word in my car to relieve the tension afterward. When I left the cinema, someone had tied a red balloon to a sign in the parking lot. That certainly added something to the experience.
Even with the film’s issues, I strongly encourage you to see this and to see it in the cinema. If you are on the fence about horror films, you may still enjoy the coming-of-age aspects. It is an ambitious adaptation that accomplishes nearly all its goals. The roller-coaster cliche that critics like to use certainly fits here and like all great roller-coasters you may find yourself wanting another ride. Grade: B+
-Andrew
I assure you it makes sense why I added this song.