Let’s not clown around, ‘IT’ is not about Pennywise- it’s
about fear itself.
Stephen King’s IT is a book very dear to my heart; it is
long, detailed, absurd, at times tedious but ultimately terrifying. It has been
one of my favourites ever since reading it at about 11 or 12 years old and has
spawned multiple re-reads.
That is the great thing about Stephen king books is that they are so full of substance and content that you can never remember all of it at once. Many would argue that this is a weakness or poor writing but I look at it from a different perspective- I like it because when you re read his works you always come across something new you didn’t remember and reading become exciting again.
That is the great thing about Stephen king books is that they are so full of substance and content that you can never remember all of it at once. Many would argue that this is a weakness or poor writing but I look at it from a different perspective- I like it because when you re read his works you always come across something new you didn’t remember and reading become exciting again.
If I’m honest, I never watched the 90s miniseries until I
was an adult and by that time could see all of its flaws in harsh daylight.
Without the element of nostalgia to make it important, I just don’t like it. Upon
hearing of a new IT movie being in the works, I had followed this movies
production since it was first an idea/ rumour. The hype built and built to a
point when on Thursday I was sitting down to watch movie I had been excited to
see for over a year.
So, did IT (2017, directed by Andy
Muschietti ) live up to the hype? I think so. It was well paced with never a
dull moment, such a riveting experience from start to finish. IT had heart and
guts, the script was a welcome release from the horror of watching children
getting attacked again and again. The film managed to catch the comradery of
The Losers Club, which is the heart and soul of the story and the scares and
monsters were so fun to watch.
The movie different from the book
in a lot of ways but that is part of its charm: that the director, writers and
actors put their own personal spin on the characters, situations and scares. The
change in eras from 50s or 80s was seamless to the point of me forgetting it
was the adaption the film did.
I think that is why the movie did do well and elicited such a great response from audiences because this film didn’t just pick all the scariest parts from the book and mash them together haphazardly (Miniseries, I’m looking at you); instead it took the premise of the book and went from there.
I think that is why the movie did do well and elicited such a great response from audiences because this film didn’t just pick all the scariest parts from the book and mash them together haphazardly (Miniseries, I’m looking at you); instead it took the premise of the book and went from there.
 |
| I want to adopt him |
To
make a horror film about the characters’ greatest fears, you have to develop
your characters first; then it becomes believable, then it becomes real. Take Eddie
for example- the films dialogue and character development show Eddie as an
anxious germaphobe who is taught (in a somewhat psychologically abusive way) by
his mother to fear getting sick. If you stop and think about it you can
understand then why a leper would be Eddie’s worst fear. It makes sense, we
feel for the poor terrified boy whose upbringing and personality shape what
‘IT’ becomes. That is the terrifying nature of the monster.
On a side note eddies character was one of my favourites and I loved the
performance Jack Dylan Grazer did. Maybe I’m just partial to kids dropping
f-bombs.
I find it poignant reading about the
inclusion of the horribly uncanny woman of Stan’s worst nightmares. It had nothing
to do with the book but I really liked her design and thought she was a great
addition. Apparently, Andy Muschietti was scared of a similar painting as a kid
and added her into the movie as personal touch; what it would become were he in
Stan’s situation. I find that wonderful, that a director would take on the
source material and really understand and relate to it. The movie was quite
different to the book but I think that became one of it’s strengths.
You can read the article I read
here:
http://horrorfreaknews.com/spoilers-artist-inspired-terrifying-manifestation/20206
http://horrorfreaknews.com/spoilers-artist-inspired-terrifying-manifestation/20206
On a lighter note, I thought I
would write about what ‘IT’ could have possibly revealed itself as if it were
targeting me when I was a child. I went with the most absurd, but also the one
thing that gave me the worst nightmares. It’s a little ridiculous but children’s
brains work in mysterious ways.
In 1999, I was 7 years old, also
in 1999 Blink 182’s album ‘Enema of the State’ was released. The cover is
pretty recognisable, it’s the sexy nurse snapping her glove.
 |
| Sexy nurse Pennywise is an image that isn't going to leave your head quickly |
I’m sure she was supposed to be
sexy but as a child I was just terrified of her. To my 7-year-old brain she was
going to go full on American Mary on me. I had many, many nightmares of her and
her scalpel; it didn’t help that I was weirdly afraid of surgery at that age.
It also didn’t help that every teenage cousin in my family would have a big
poster of her on their wall, which I would see whenever I was made to sleep
over. I would stare at her absolutely petrified she was coming to amputate my
limbs. That look in her eye was pure evil.
So that’s my thoughts on IT. The
movie was so well made and acted that it is hard to find any flaws in it. I
would have liked a little less CGI, but when you have a shapeshifting creature
of doom it’s a little hard to convey that with only practical effects- so I’ll
let it slide.
I’m giving IT (2017) a 9.5/ 10
