Wednesday, 13 September 2017

Film: 'It'

Through all the 1980s I was a huge fan of Stephen King, avidly gobbling up everything of his that I could get my hands on - the paperbacks just couldn't come out fast enough! It was only in the ensuing years that I realised that there was a correlation between his most effective and memorable stories and the length of his novels, viz that the shorter the work the better it was - more effectively chilling and much more mind-retentive. 
'It' is one of his really looooooooong books. Furthermore, in this story the malignant force is a shape-changing entity, and whenever anything of this kind is used I always think it blurs the focus too much. However, the novel does have an absolute cracker of an opening, one of his very best - and I clearly recall when reading it being disappointed that nothing else in this voluminous work comes anywhere near the shock of that start.  

I've seen probably all the cinema adaptations of King's works, though none of those made for TV (thus never having seen 'Salem's Lot', which is regarded by many as having been the best adaptation of them all). I did like the feature film of 'Carrie' though not so keen on 'The Shining', revered by some and which did have some outstanding moments but for me was badly let down by its dullish final pursuit of the boy and its tacked-on concluding shot, even though Stanley Kubrick was and remains one of my two or three all-time favourite directors.

Set in Maine, though largely shot in Canada, this film version of 'It' splits off that part of the story dealing with half a dozen schoolkids, holding out the expectation that there'll be an 'It - Part 2' featuring these same characters some 30 years on. Probably a wise move, methinks.

These brattish kids, early teens at most, all boys but soon joined by an older girl with an incest-inclined father, are quite unable to compose a sentence without describing something as "shit" or "f*ckin' this"/"f*ckin' that". (In addition, being boys of that age in a gang there must, of course, be the 'regulation' scene of shoplifting!) As you'd expect, these boys, including the usual overweight one, are taunted and threatened, sometimes assaulted, by an older gang of even more repugnant youths.
One of the younger clan had a little brother who had disappeared the previous year, now presumed dead, and it was his disappearance to which I referred as being the stunning opening of the novel. One by one the boys (plus the girl) get visitations from a malignant force, personified by a circus clown named 'Pennywise' (Bill Skarsgard - the film's only name I recognised, at least through his surname being one, another one, of Stellan's sons). The clown sometimes changes into other figures either as an individual or in multiplicity, but always reverting back to its original guise in the clown figure - fairly creepy, but I have seen scarier clowns, like in a real circus when I was a kid. 
The appearances with changes of manifestation is the excuse for a range of special effects, which I thought were okay, sometimes actually rather good, though where this film has been criticised it's often been on the inferior standard of these effects. As I say, I found they passed muster.

Some of the film's many 'shocks' are down to no more than a loud report or thud on the soundtrack, which I regard as cheating - though most of them accompanied sudden unexpected visuals or frenzied action. Even if I did jump at times it was all pretty formulaic.  

I thought at two and a quarter hours the film is far too long for its own good. I caught myself yawning after the first hour. I dare say that I will be going along to see any sequel that comes out, though with no great sense of anticipation.

Argentinian director Andy Muschietti does a reasonable job with his material, though there isn't really much scope to do anything far removed from the story as written. That would have outraged too many King fans who must number in the scores of millions. 

The film was to a large measure what I'd been expecting. For lovers of horror it ought to fill the bill, but for me it was no great shakes...............5.

13 comments:

  1. I am not much of a fan of Mr. King, but I applaud him for denouncing Trump and I am glad to see his movie succeed despite the deplorables shouting to boycott it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't know of his denunciation of D.T., though it surely is a mark of intelligence. Nor of the calling for a boycott of this film, but even if that did have any effect I think from its generally positive reviews its success is pretty well assured.

      Delete
    2. You and Someone should definitely see this film. It will change Someone's appreciation of clowns. Every film I like to take away a quote. While there are several memorable quotes from this film, the one that sticks out the most to me is "I'm going to kill this f - king clown!" I think Someone would appreciate that sentiment thus burying his fear of clowns forever. SEE IT!

      Delete
  2. We were going last weekend, but then Irma derailed those plans until after she blew through. We're going next weekend because I need to see 'It.'

    And I'm with Ur-spo, about liking King's anti-_____isms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a big-time major release here, Bob, so I was going to see it come what may. Being curious as to how it was adapted was another factor. It's in no way a poor film, it just didn't surprise me when I wished it had.

      Delete
  3. Yes, King is vocal and articulate in his hatred of Trump. As should we all be.

    I could not see this, even though I've read all of King's works, long and short (and his On Writing is one of the best). And now that you've mentioned Salem's Lot I won't be able to walk down the basement steps without turning on every light in the vicinity...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did read King's treatise 'On Writing' too, Elle, also probably back in the 80s, and I do remember enjoying it.

      You've confirmed that in not seeing 'Salem's Lot' I missed a TV classic. I remember people in the office talking about it but it was being shown way past my bedtime, and this was before video recorders. I may see if I can catch up on it at a later date.

      Delete
  4. I don't believe that King's books translate particularly well to the big screen. The only exception I can think of is "Misery".

    "It" has always been my favorite King novel. Always hated clowns and this one scared the crap out of me. I remember being disappointed in the 1990 miniseries which I was so looking forward to seeing. But over these many years, my perception has changed because of the amazing actors who starred in it: Dennis Christopher ("Fade To Black") and Richard Thomas.("Andre's Mother"). I don't see much star power in the current version.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How could I have not mentioned 'Misery', Paul? It's one of his very best novels and one of the better films - though it's a pity that they changed the foot amputation (and cauterisation - aaaaargh!) to the use of a mallet. But the film was well cast in the two major players and an all-round fine production.

      I'm surprised that you think so highly of 'It' the novel, though I'm duty bound to believe it. (Why should I not?) I just thought that there were at least half a dozen better, maybe a dozen.
      One I did like a lot but which didn't get the approval of some readers was 'Pet Semetary', despite it dealing so much with animals. But it scared the living daylights out of me. Another animal one, 'Cujo', I liked a great deal as well.
      And there are so many mini-masterpieces among his short stories.

      As in the case of 'Salem', I also didn't see the TV version of 'It', but would love to have seen Tim Curry as Pennywise. (The two actors you name mean nothing to me, I'm afraid).

      You don't say whether you're going to see this new 'It'. I hope you do. The more alternative views I read the better, I always feel.

      Delete
    2. I like to do matinees when the theater is empty. My plan was to see "It" today. However, this morning I read a glowing review of "Beach Rats" (a film of which I was not aware) so I'll be going to see that one today. "It" - maybe next week?

      Delete
    3. I'd also not heard of 'Beach Rats', Paul, which I see doesn't open here until start of Nov. Looking it up, it sounds interesting enough to make the effort, so I almost certainly shall unless most reviews are dire, which seems unlikely. Hope you enjoy both it - and 'It' next week.

      I also tend to go to matinees - nearly only matinees, in fact. I prefer nearly empty cinemas too, but not so that I'm just one of two or three - and certainly not when I'm totally alone. A dozen to 20 is about ideal - and I always sit way apart from the others anyway. Also, being out alone on a dark evening is just not worth risking these days.

      Delete
  5. Alright Ray. I see where I didn't see your review of "It" until now. Back thirty years ago I used to devour Stephen King's novels. I lost interest with "Cujo". Too over the top. I tried to read his book on "It" but just couldn't get into it. But I saw this movie just to get out of the Hamilton heat while visiting Pat, my Canadian boyfriend in Hamilton, Ontario. My take, great CGI. Poor acting by the kiddies. All stereotypes even down to the fat kid who is bullied. By the way, in real life fat kids bully skinny kids. Interesting how this film reversed the roles. None of this film scared me but it did amuse me. Especially a new favorite movie quote that I will never forget "I'm going to kill that fu_king clown!" I give it a 5.
    Ron

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup, the kids' acting wasn't so good. They never convince me when words come out of their mouths showing that they are more savvy than the characters they portray. But you know my beef against child actors generally anyway.

      In my memories of school it was, as in this film, usually the fat kids who were bullied by the 'normal' (= non-skinny, either) boys. Most, but not all, of the overweight boys in my year tended to be softies.

      The clown in my imagination was scarier than this representation. I think it was a mistake to allow his face occasionally to go all serious. He should have been non-stop grimacing evil, but here he wasn't.

      Delete