***
out of ****
I
first discovered Stephen King's novels when I was 13 years old. Three years
later I had read everything he had written, and bought my first ever
hardcover book, King's newest novel “It” in 1986. It was a
massive missive, some 1100 pages and over the next 15 years I bet I
read it ten times. That novel is still my pick as King's best, both
funny and heartwarming, with passages that will make you cry from
both laughter and sorrow. Oh yeah..... it's also no-doubt, shit-your-pants, fucking
scary. Without exaggeration, it is my pick as the horrorbook par-exellence.
Back in
1990 ABC attempted a miniseries of the novel, calling it “Stephen
King's It”, and considering that it was made for a TV audience it wasn't
too terrible. But the thing that the critics liked most about it, Tim
Curry's turn as Pennywise, was to me it's greatest failing. Curry's
villain just wasn't villainous enough, and definitely not scary.
Also, perhaps I had a pre-existing bias, as I expected him to break into
“Sweet Transvestite” from Rocky Horror at any moment.
But
this version of “It” is something altogether different. First,
it focuses solely on 50% of the novel, the half where the kids fight
the monster, and totally ignores their adult selves battling said
monster again. Seven
children all survive attacks by an ancient monster that they dub
“It” (aka Pennywise the Dancing Clown), and their common
survival experiences draw them together into what they call "The Losers Club". The monster, they discover, rises
every 27 years from hibernation to feed on the young people of Derry, Maine. It kills
mostly children, but it's real “food” is fear; it gains its strength
from the richness of the terror of its victims. Its greatest trait
in this hunt is its ability to take the form of whatever its victim
fears the most. And after eating its fill, it vanishes for another
quarter century before returning to repeat the cycle. The kids,
having found all this out, decide to try to stop It's reign of terror once and for all.
The
decision to only do half the novel is a brave one, but also one that
works. Probably the greatest complaint about every film made from a
Stephen King novel is that is so abridges the events of the novel
that the story loses all its cohesion. By ignoring the later half of
the novel, this film is able to probe much deeper into the characters
and events than most other attempts at King's work. And for the
first half of the movie, director Andy Muschietti builds tension
beautifully. Not just the typical horror movie “jumps”, there is
some real fright going on, where the hair on your arms and the back of
your neck stands up. These kids find themselves fighting the things
they are most terrified of, and in a few cases you feel like you're
right in there with them.
The
casting of the movie is top notch, with all seven child actors
playing their parts admirably. Finn Wolfhard provides most of the
comic relief as Richie Tozier, and I found Jack Dylan Grazer and
Jeremy Ray Taylor as Eddie and Ben respectively to be really
wonderful at relatively thankless roles. But the star of this film,
make no mistake, is Pennywise the Clown (Bill Skarsgård).
He is everything that Tim Curry wasn't in the 1990 version, evoking the spirit of the novel's monster in truly malevolent
fashion. Some credit goes to makeup and special effects, but this
Pennywise has that sinister and horrifying air that King's novel had,
and the 1990 miniseries did not. Especially if you have a penchant
for not liking clowns in the first place, “It” may haunt your
dreams.
That
isn't to say this is the horror film par-exellence to go with the
horrorbook par-exellence. Some of the changes made to the story from
the novel are weak (especially Beverly's last reel abduction and the
deal offered by “It” to the Loser's Club) and some great
opportunities are missed; when I saw the giant statue of Paul Bunyan
I was excited to see how they would recreate a particular scene from the book
– sadly they never even tried. But for a few minor weaknesses I can't
discard the strength of the rest of the storytelling.
Clearly,
there will be an “It: Chapter Two” which will tell the story of
It's return 27 years later. The movie itself doesn't even bother
with foreshadowing – it's made crystal clear at the end that there
will be a sequel. All I can say is that if they make the second one
as strong as the first, it may be remembered as one of the great King
adaptations.
One
final note to leave on – later this month Netflix will be releasing
the film “Gerald's Game”, based on King's 1992 novel of the same
name. I have always felt that this book would make a GREAT (and
scary as hell) movie. Keep your eyes open for it – if they did it
well at all, it will be easily as good as “It”, which is good
indeed.
