REVIEW: It (2017)

As I've said before, modern horror seems to be in something of a rut. For the past decade (starting noticeably with the release and success of Paranormal Activity), it seems as though the majority of recent horror films tend to focus on delivering nothing more than predictable jump-scares to a PG-13 audience. The market is oversaturated with small-budget event films that offer very little in the way of plot or ingenuity, designed to appeal to middle-schoolers getting dropped off at the local cinema for their first big date-night. I can't exactly fault studios for exploiting this marketing model; the teenage spook-show has been a time-tested venture since the 1950's. Films like Annabelle Creation and Lights Out go on to gross upwards of twenty-times their modest budgets, so it's understandable why the market seems so flooded with these types of horror films; if it ain't broke, don't innovate, after all. 

That said, it's still disappointing that we've entered an age of film without any monsters. Sure, there's generic ghosts and demons, but there's no personality or character to it anymore. This is a generation without a Freddy Kreuger, a Jason Voorhees, or even a Chucky. Sure, occasionally you'll get a nice, low-concept horror film like Get Out, or even something like The Conjuring or Insidious (which manages to tell an interesting story despite being littered with popcorn-flinging jump scares), but for each of these films you have at least a dozen generic, toothless "upper-middle class family moves into suburban house, haunting ensues" projects designed to turn a $4 million budget into a $200 million profit. Which is why I was so excited for a new adaptation of Stephen King's iconic novel, It. As messy as the source material can be at times, the story is anything but generic or simplistic; it explores themes such as maturation and the loss of innocence, involves Lovecraftian cosmic entities from parallel dimensions, and is all tied together by the OG killer clown, Pennywise (once iconically portrayed by the immortal Tim Curry). Not to mention, this was promised to be a hard-R horror movie that stuck closer to the novel than the campy 90's made-for-TV miniseries. I went into the theater with high hopes and, while It most definitely has a host of flaws, I still found myself more or less satisfied with what I had seen.

The original novel tells the story of a gang of misfits who twice encounter a demonic entity known only as It; once as children, and again as adults, 27 years later. This particular adaptation exclusively follows the former part of the story (with the adult section to take place in the planned sequel). It is a notoriously dense book, so whereas dividing a novel into multiple films usually reads like a blatant cash-grab (I'm looking in your direction, The Hobbit), here it feels entirely justified and definitely works in the film's favor. The story takes place in the town of Derry, Maine in the year 1989 (updated from the novel's setting of 1958) as we follow a group of plucky youths known as The Losers Club; over the course of the summer, each child shares a terrifying encounter with the same supernatural being (usually taking the form of a dancing clown named Pennywise, played by Bill Skarsgård). Coming to the conclusion that the entity is responsible for the long history of annual tragedies in their sleepy hometown (most-recently a string of missing and murdered children), the Losers decide to take a stand and confront the darkness which lies at the heart of Derry, facing their deepest fears in the process.

While I don't think this film is by any means perfect or mind-blowing, there's definitely a lot it gets right, namely in terms of tone and character interactions. This is, oddly enough, a very feel-good horror movie; I hesitate to even call it a horror film at all, considering there's so little about it that is genuinely scary. The film moreso excels at establishing a very strong sense of atmosphere and tension which, unfortunately never leads to a payoff as strong as the buildup. There's a very foreboding, oppressive atmosphere that the film really gets down perfectly, yet things never feel overly depressing or outright unpleasant for the sake of unpleasantness or shock value. There is considerable darkness here, yes, but it's all overcome through the power of courage and friendship. We aren't left feeling like the film flipped us a sardonic middle finger as with Alien: Covenant; the Losers are all likeable, endearing characters and we all want to see them overcome the oppressive fear that permeates so much of their day-to-day lives.

It can also be quite tricky when the majority of your cast is composed of child actors, but the talent at play here completely makes this movie. The dialog doesn't shy away from prepubescent vulgarity and it all flows very naturally, thanks both in part to the talented writing staff (Chase Palmer, Cary Fukunaga, and Gary Dauberman) and the talented group of child actors the filmmakers had assembled to portray the Losers (Jaeden Lieberher, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Sophia Lillis, Chosen Jacobs, Jack Dylan Grazer, Wyatt Olef, and Stranger Things' Finn Wolfhard). They really come off like a group of friends hanging out during the summertime, even when forced to band together to destroy a trans-dimensional clown creature. Which brings me to, arguably, the star of the show; Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise, the dancing clown.

When you've got a role as iconic as Pennywise (especially when said character is famously portrayed by an actor as beloved as Tim Curry), it's obvious that arguments are going to spring up as to who's portrayal of the character is the definitive version. I'm going to put that entire debate to bed right now with an unsurprisingly anticlimactic answer; they're both good. First of all, we haven't seen the entirety of Skarsgård's take on the clown, considering this is only the first half of a greater whole. But even ignoring that and simply going off of what we've already got, it's hard to say who truly had the better take on the titular monster. Curry had a certain whimsy to his performance that isn't really present in the more modern take; Skarsgård's Pennywise is overtly threatening, whereas Curry's was silly on the surface with something sinister lurking underneath. Conversely, Curry's take was very much limited by the 1990's television budget they were working with; while Curry's Pennywise shows a greater range of emotion, Skarsgård's is far easier to take seriously as a legitimate threat. Where each interpretation of the character is weaker, the other is stronger; at the end of the day, they're two very different takes on the same character and any question of who is better than who simply boils down to personal taste. For my money, Skarsgård did an excellent job, especially in regards to the physicality and screen presence he brought to the role; while I can't in good faith say he'll eclipse Tim Curry anytime soon in the eyes of the public, his is most definitely a respectable and original interpretation.

I also have to compliment the cinematography; in conjunction with the tone, dialog, and performances, this film creates a number of memorable moments and images that are still seared into my head. There's a lot of detail in terms of set design and dynamic camera angles that really adds a lot to the film as a whole and I simply must praise everyone involved for not going full "80's nostalgia" with this. There's a few out-of-focus movie posters, a handfull of New Kids on the Block jokes, and a reference or two to Street Fighter; other than that, the film deftly avoids that modern pitfall of confusing references to 80's iconography with actual story development (ironically enough, I got a trailer for Ready Player One before the movie began). Overall, the film presents an organic and immersive atmosphere that really ropes the viewer in; it's easy to care about these characters and the mission they undertake, and the visuals are a big part of what make this movie as good as it is. Unfortunately, I can't say as much for the sound design. 

As I mentioned before, despite this being a reboot of the film that gave so many 90's kids a severe case of coulrophobia, this just isn't a very scary film. Tense, yes, but far from terrifying. The scares lack any and all subtlety (take a shot every time you hear that obnoxious "HEHSHENNKH!!!" sound during a jump-scare, double up if it's with that same shot of a befanged Pennywise lunching at the camera) and a little restraint (especially in the audio department) would have gone a long way in terms of complimenting the existing air of dread and suspense. It feels as if everything has to be big, loud, and bombastic, simply because this is a big-budget theatrical release; for example, the scene in which Beverly Marsh's bathroom sink erupts into a comical geyser of blood. While the buildup is solid (and the red-tinted lighting that follows is a nice artistic touch), all of the tension leading up to this moment is entirely done away with (and that's ignoring how this scene is one of the majority of scares which was spoiled through various promotional materials). And that's truly the biggest problem with this movie; the payoff never lives up to the buildup.

Don't misunderstand me; the rising action here is rock-solid. The buildup will have you on the edge of your seat, waiting for something terrifying to happen. However, once that terrifying thing actually does happen, it immediately stops being scary. The most chilling scene involves a character simply flipping through an old history book; there's no jump scare or obnoxious sound sting, just good old fashioned tension and atmosphere. When the film works, it truly works, but the majority of scares feel like a terrifyingly-long climb to the top of a rollercoaster, only for the car to drop about ten feet before slowly returning to the station. Horror demands a certain rhythm; just like comedy, timing is everything. It displays masterful skill when it comes to setup, but the punchline falls flat nearly every time. It's this sense of unbalance that causes the majority of the film's primary hiccups. 

It, as a villain, is tremendously interesting, yet it feels like we hardly get to see him; whenever we do, he's interrupting the vastly more engaging character interactions of the Loser's Club. There's a strong sense of mystery, which is good, but it's also easy to feel a little cheated when we're given so little of what is clearly an imaginative, charismatic, well-acted antagonist. Conversely, all of the Losers are well-acted and likeable, but several of them definitely get the short end of the stick when it comes to character development (Chosen Jacobs' Mike Hanlon disappears for a good twenty minutes during the first act and Wyatt Olef's Stan Uris gets hardly an ounce of the development his peers receive, which is troubling, considering the role his character is presumably going to play in Chapter 2). There's also a severe dip during the second act in terms of pacing; the first and final acts are by far the most engaging parts of the film. Once the film falls into a pattern of "Losers scene, Pennywise scene, Losers scene, Pennywise scene", the movie slows to a crawl despite each of these scenes being more or less enjoyable in their own right.

Don't get me wrong, I very much enjoyed this movie, but there's definitely a lot of room for improvement. It's clear that this is meant to be watched back-to-back with the eventual follow-up, but on its own it feels a little lacking in some regards. My hope is that the filmmakers can learn from the mistakes and missteps present in It, so that Part 2 can become the kind of sequel that retroactively improves its predecessor (such as the case with the first two Insidious films). All that said, I would definitely recommend It; it's definitely got its flaws, but there's certainly a lot to like (heck, there's a lot to love). If you're a fan of Stephen King or the original 1990 miniseries, or if you're like me and just long for the kind of chilling monster movies we'd see before found footage was deemed the most cost-effective option, definitely give It a watch. It's got loads of atmosphere and enough heart to match, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of horror films we see today; there was clearly a lot of love and artistic elbow-grease put into what could have been a sloppy nostalgia-job, and for that much at least I have to give it some kudos.