Last Thrusday (09/07/2017) evening, Conklederp and I went to a pre-midnight (it was at 10:30 PM) showing of the recent film adaptation of Stephen King's 1986 novel IT. Before I get to the film itself, I want to mention that the audience at attendance at the Bagdad was very well behaved for a 10:30 PM showing of a movie that did not come out officially until the following day.
You know what, rather than go through the long and semi-sordid history of the production, I am going to jump to my conclusion that I really liked IT. I developed this conclusion even after having read the book (although it has been well over 10 years), and having seen the 1990 TV adaptation quite a few times; and I would be lying if I said that I wasn't subconsciously comparing the films. So keep that in mind while I ramble on about my opinion.
The Kid has mentioned on more than one occasion that she often does not like movies that feature a child heavy cast, especially if the movie is not intended for a younger audience, and while I agree with her on some points, I tend to feel that I am a little more forgiving. IT heavily features child actors, and thankfully not ones that are greatly older than the characters they are portraying, with most of the kids being around 14, which I very much appreciated. There's just something about when a studio tries to pass off an 18 year old as a 13 year old while forcing the audience that the character is as naive as the child is supposedly acting. And kudos to Jackson Robert Scott, who at the age of eight, played an appropriately creepy six year old Georgie Denbrough. And sure, there were plenty of times when one of the kids would walk towards something not-quite-right that any sane adult would tell you is just stupid to approach, but a lot of 13 year old kids feel invincible. Plus that was the way the story was written.
And how the story was written around kids is one of the strengths of Stephen King. Some people might complain about the number of times Richie Tozier talks about his penis, or the number of times he says "fuck," and that's okay. Like my Mom probably would not like the movie for the language alone, not even taking into account all of the child murders. But you know, I recall being a 13 year old and frequently swearing or talking about potentially inappropriate things when my parent's weren't around. That's what teenagers did in my experience and I think that IT does a nice job of capturing that attitude. All the child actors really did a great job being kids who were noticing the horrors around them while the adults seemed willfully and intentionally ignorant.
Now let's briefly talk about Bill Skarsgård. As I previously said, I felt that he did a great job as Pennywise the Dancing Clown. Taking on this role is comparable to Heath Ledger taking on the role of The Joker in Christopher Nolan's 2008 The Dark Knight. I never felt that Bill Skarsgård was doing his interpretation of what Tim Curry did as Pennywise, and he has even said as such [citation needed]. It probably also helped that the costume design for Pennywise was less of a Bozo the Clown based clown as it was styled after various eras that may not have been perfectly matched. The voice too, which is something that has always sounded like Tim Curry since 1990, sounded perfect for this adaptation of the character and its portrayal by Bill Skarsgård. Overall, I feel that Bill Skarsgård had a lot to live up to and that he came out well on the other side.
I feel like I really only had two major issues with the film, none of which though would make me not want to recommend it to others who already enjoy horror movies. My first problem with the film, was that a lot of the movie seemed based around how Pennywise, who was wonderfully portrayed by Bill Skarsgård, interacted with the kids, and not enough of the kids interacted with the town around them. There were times when it felt like the movie went from one interaction to another, with very little time for the audience to come down from the fear generated by the previous scene, but maybe that was the purpose?
The second issue I had, as mentioned above, was that I was unintentionally comparing scenes from Andy Muschietti's 2017 IT to Tommy Lee Wallace's 1990 IT. This I feel is only normal, especially with iconic scenes like Bill helping Georgie with his boat, Beverly's encounter with the other children in her bathroom, or the rock fight between Henry Bowers' gang and the Loser's Club. It would be like watching a production of Much Ado About Nothing and not comparing the actor performance of Dogberry to Michael Keaton's portrayal in Kenneth Branagh's 1993 adaptation. I believe it was during Beverly's bathroom scene that I was consciously able to separate the 1990 TV adaptation from the new theatrical release that I was watching, and after that point, I felt like I was more able to enjoy the movie.
Something that I would have liked to have seen, were more shots where the camera lingered. The example I gave Conklederp was when the kids were exploring a house, and one character wandered off into a room where the door inexplicably closes on its own. From what I recall, the camera then either cuts into that room, or cuts back to two other characters who do not immediately notice their missing friend. I would have loved the camera to have held on the closed door a few seconds, then pull back down the hallway, still focused on the door for just a few more seconds. Making the moment almost unbearably long, just to the point where it becomes uncomfortable or you just want to camera to move away from the door because you're afraid of what happens when the door opens back up. The Exorcist did this a few times when the camera hung out in Regan's room with the shot focused down the hall, and Regan herself not even in frame.
Okay, enough of the criticisms. I now want to mention that the music composed for the film by Benjamin Wallfisch was very good, but "good" in the way that horror music is good. There were not any themes that stuck out to me so much that I was humming them on our way back to the car, and they were not so dull that all I could pick out was a deep resonating drone. Additionally, since the film is set in 1988, I liked that the soundtrack was not a mishmash of heavy synths like John Carpenter had joined Tangerine Dream for the afternoon; I love John Carpenter's scores by the way. And there is nearly an hour and-a-half worth of music in Benjamin Wallfisch's score, which is comprised of 38 tracks. It's pretty massive and is interesting enough to listen to on its own, complete with jump scares and singing/screaming children, if that's your jam.
And how the story was written around kids is one of the strengths of Stephen King. Some people might complain about the number of times Richie Tozier talks about his penis, or the number of times he says "fuck," and that's okay. Like my Mom probably would not like the movie for the language alone, not even taking into account all of the child murders. But you know, I recall being a 13 year old and frequently swearing or talking about potentially inappropriate things when my parent's weren't around. That's what teenagers did in my experience and I think that IT does a nice job of capturing that attitude. All the child actors really did a great job being kids who were noticing the horrors around them while the adults seemed willfully and intentionally ignorant.
Now let's briefly talk about Bill Skarsgård. As I previously said, I felt that he did a great job as Pennywise the Dancing Clown. Taking on this role is comparable to Heath Ledger taking on the role of The Joker in Christopher Nolan's 2008 The Dark Knight. I never felt that Bill Skarsgård was doing his interpretation of what Tim Curry did as Pennywise, and he has even said as such [citation needed]. It probably also helped that the costume design for Pennywise was less of a Bozo the Clown based clown as it was styled after various eras that may not have been perfectly matched. The voice too, which is something that has always sounded like Tim Curry since 1990, sounded perfect for this adaptation of the character and its portrayal by Bill Skarsgård. Overall, I feel that Bill Skarsgård had a lot to live up to and that he came out well on the other side.
I feel like I really only had two major issues with the film, none of which though would make me not want to recommend it to others who already enjoy horror movies. My first problem with the film, was that a lot of the movie seemed based around how Pennywise, who was wonderfully portrayed by Bill Skarsgård, interacted with the kids, and not enough of the kids interacted with the town around them. There were times when it felt like the movie went from one interaction to another, with very little time for the audience to come down from the fear generated by the previous scene, but maybe that was the purpose?
The second issue I had, as mentioned above, was that I was unintentionally comparing scenes from Andy Muschietti's 2017 IT to Tommy Lee Wallace's 1990 IT. This I feel is only normal, especially with iconic scenes like Bill helping Georgie with his boat, Beverly's encounter with the other children in her bathroom, or the rock fight between Henry Bowers' gang and the Loser's Club. It would be like watching a production of Much Ado About Nothing and not comparing the actor performance of Dogberry to Michael Keaton's portrayal in Kenneth Branagh's 1993 adaptation. I believe it was during Beverly's bathroom scene that I was consciously able to separate the 1990 TV adaptation from the new theatrical release that I was watching, and after that point, I felt like I was more able to enjoy the movie.
Something that I would have liked to have seen, were more shots where the camera lingered. The example I gave Conklederp was when the kids were exploring a house, and one character wandered off into a room where the door inexplicably closes on its own. From what I recall, the camera then either cuts into that room, or cuts back to two other characters who do not immediately notice their missing friend. I would have loved the camera to have held on the closed door a few seconds, then pull back down the hallway, still focused on the door for just a few more seconds. Making the moment almost unbearably long, just to the point where it becomes uncomfortable or you just want to camera to move away from the door because you're afraid of what happens when the door opens back up. The Exorcist did this a few times when the camera hung out in Regan's room with the shot focused down the hall, and Regan herself not even in frame.
Okay, enough of the criticisms. I now want to mention that the music composed for the film by Benjamin Wallfisch was very good, but "good" in the way that horror music is good. There were not any themes that stuck out to me so much that I was humming them on our way back to the car, and they were not so dull that all I could pick out was a deep resonating drone. Additionally, since the film is set in 1988, I liked that the soundtrack was not a mishmash of heavy synths like John Carpenter had joined Tangerine Dream for the afternoon; I love John Carpenter's scores by the way. And there is nearly an hour and-a-half worth of music in Benjamin Wallfisch's score, which is comprised of 38 tracks. It's pretty massive and is interesting enough to listen to on its own, complete with jump scares and singing/screaming children, if that's your jam.
Clocking in at just over two and-a-half hours, I can see how this might be a long movie for some audiences, let alone horror movie audiences who have paid money expecting to be entertained and frightened for the duration of the film. There was only one time during the movie that I felt like it was going long, but that was replaced by the excitement at having more story to watch. You would expect a horror movie that runs this length to lose its legs at about the 90 minute mark, for the audience to get fatigued with the jump scares (of which there are quite a few, but I never felt annoyed or overwhelmed at their frequency), or being able to maintain the tension, but Andy Muschietti does a very good job with pacing, once you realize how the movie has been shot and edited.
And speaking of long winded, I think I am going to end this review now by repeating that I really did enjoy IT (I gave it a 9/10 on IMDb) and I would very much like to see it again in theatres, especially since the independent theatre up the street is showing it now.
~JWfW/JDub/Jaconian
Instrumental
P.S. Just because I felt it appropriate and amusing, I found out that I use "it," but not including "it's" or "its," 22 times. 24 if you also include the title and labels/search tags.
And speaking of long winded, I think I am going to end this review now by repeating that I really did enjoy IT (I gave it a 9/10 on IMDb) and I would very much like to see it again in theatres, especially since the independent theatre up the street is showing it now.
~JWfW/JDub/Jaconian
Instrumental
P.S. Just because I felt it appropriate and amusing, I found out that I use "it," but not including "it's" or "its," 22 times. 24 if you also include the title and labels/search tags.
No comments:
Post a Comment