Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo

It Reviews

Floating with brilliance

Posted : 3 months, 1 week ago on 27 January 2024 09:42

Just got back from seeing 'IT'. Expectations were that of great interest but also apprehension. Eight years ago, back when there was a personal unfamiliarity and ignorance of Stephen King's style and less appreciation for the book, there is the admission of saying don't bother with a re-make.

Couldn't be more wrong. This was a case where another adaptation was not only warranted but necessary. 'IT' is such a great story that deserves to be done justice and with one of the best trailers of the year this actually looked good. However, with the other King film released this year 'The Dark Tower' being such a disappointment, there was apprehension as to whether a film based on such a huge book would work.

'IT' as a book is one of King's best and one of the best of the horror genre. King's attention to detail, how he writes scenes with children and depiction of fear are unparalleled, with wonderfully drawn characters, one of the terrifying antagonists in literature and many unforgettable scenes, ones that burn long in the memory in how scary they are. The book is much more than just a horror story though, also with nostalgia, comedy, pathos and deep characterisation.

'IT' was previously adapted as a mini-series in 1990, which is remembered fondly by those who saw it as children and left them terrified but often derided by fans of the book. To me, it has a lot wrong with it with a vastly inferior second half and an anti-climactic let down of an ending with the infamously terrible effects of IT's true form. But it is nowhere near one of the worst King adaptations, it's not even the worst of the mini-series. Compared to the book it's very poor, as a standalone it's wildly uneven but has more to it than Tim Curry's unforgettably magnificent Pennywise. It has a great first half with strong performances from the child actors, some unsettling moments, a 'Stand By Me'-like nostalgia and a great music score.

This 2017 film adaptation is a big improvement and one of the best King adaptations in years. It does have changes, including the change in decade, not following the same structure, different IT encounters for some characters and another motivation for wanting to defeat IT. However, it is very loyal in spirit to the book that is apparent throughout. What makes it better are better production values, explanations and character motivations being more logical, Henry Bowers being more of a psychopath (and he is given a reason for why he came to be the way he is, when it was only implied once in passing previously), Beverly's father and the relationship between the two having more of a creep factor and even better child performances.

Not without its faults. Not all the special effects work, the fangs and the overdone Pennywise shaking look cheap. Mike is underused and underdeveloped compared to the others and the other bullies are pretty much given short shrift (Victor Criss practically anonymous).

Some people have said that 'IT' is not scary. Personally disagree, finding it one of the scariest films seen in a long time. Not many films recently made my heart jump, covering my eyes, biting nails or stifling a scream. The Niebolt Street, bathroom, George and Pennywise and photograph/slideshow scenes especially are absolutely terrifying, and there are beautifully timed jolts, real tension and eeriness and suspenseful lead-ups, aided by atmospheric intricate lighting and clever effects for IT's forms (that leper!).

With that being said, 'IT' is much more than a horror film, and is more successful in its other elements. It has comedy, and it's hilarious especially with Richie and Eddie. There is an affectionate nostalgia, reminiscent of 'Stand By Me' and 'The Goonies' and reminding one of how good King was at writing scenes with children and childhood adolescence, which the writers understood and it translates brilliantly on screen. There is pathos, like with Ben's poem and the two most heart-wrenching moments are in the frightening, heart-tugging and triumphant climax. The characters are written very well on the most part, particularly Bill, Beverly and Ben, while Pennywise is evil-incarnate.

Production values mostly are terrific, not just the lighting but also the beautifully realised Derry setting (Niebolt Street is a standout), taut editing and cinematography that's both stunning and unnerving. The effects mostly are not bad, the make-up is superb and how Pennywise is made up has a creepier effect. The music score is truly haunting, "Oranges and Lemons" has never freaked me out this much.

Andy Muschietti directs with suspense, potent realism, confidence and affection, while the writing has a great balance of hilarious comedy, touching drama and pathos, references to the time period, King and history of Derry and nostalgia. The story, even with the change of time-line and structure, is cohesive and logical, rich in suspense and emotion but it's the chemistry between the children and the sweet and surprisingly real relationship between Beverly and Ben that resonate most.

One couldn't ask for better performances. The children are uniformly wonderful, especially a vulnerable Sophia Lillis, a hilarious Finn Wolfhard and a relatable Jeremy Ray Taylor. Jaeden Lieberher handles Bill's dramatic arc very touchingly while Jack Dylan Grazer is very funny. Mike and Stan are well cast. As for Pennywise, it is a very difficult feat filling the iconic Tim Curry's giant clown shoes, but Bill Skarsgard does so superbly, providing a different interpretation that never feels like a copy and has just as much chilling menace, nightmarish air and dark twisted amusement. Curry's laugh is creepier, but Skarsgard's is closer to that described in the book.

All in all, brilliant and if the second film with the adults happens please have the same writer, director and Skarsgard on board, and use this as a model rather than the mini-series' second half with better cast adults and a far better ending. 9/10 Bethany Cox


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Floating with brilliance

Posted : 1 year, 8 months ago on 24 August 2022 12:09

Just got back from seeing 'IT'. Expectations were that of great interest but also apprehension. Eight years ago, back when there was a personal unfamiliarity and ignorance of Stephen King's style and less appreciation for the book, there is the admission of saying don't bother with a re-make.

Couldn't be more wrong. This was a case where another adaptation was not only warranted but necessary. 'IT' is such a great story that deserves to be done justice and with one of the best trailers of the year this actually looked good. However, with the other King film released this year 'The Dark Tower' being such a disappointment, there was apprehension as to whether a film based on such a huge book would work.

'IT' as a book is one of King's best and one of the best of the horror genre. King's attention to detail, how he writes scenes with children and depiction of fear are unparalleled, with wonderfully drawn characters, one of the terrifying antagonists in literature and many unforgettable scenes, ones that burn long in the memory in how scary they are. The book is much more than just a horror story though, also with nostalgia, comedy, pathos and deep characterisation.

'IT' was previously adapted as a mini-series in 1990, which is remembered fondly by those who saw it as children and left them terrified but often derided by fans of the book. To me, it has a lot wrong with it with a vastly inferior second half and an anti-climactic let down of an ending with the infamously terrible effects of IT's true form. But it is nowhere near one of the worst King adaptations, it's not even the worst of the mini-series. Compared to the book it's very poor, as a standalone it's wildly uneven but has more to it than Tim Curry's unforgettably magnificent Pennywise. It has a great first half with strong performances from the child actors, some unsettling moments, a 'Stand By Me'-like nostalgia and a great music score.

This 2017 film adaptation is a big improvement and one of the best King adaptations in years. It does have changes, including the change in decade, not following the same structure, different IT encounters for some characters and another motivation for wanting to defeat IT. However, it is very loyal in spirit to the book that is apparent throughout. What makes it better are better production values, explanations and character motivations being more logical, Henry Bowers being more of a psychopath (and he is given a reason for why he came to be the way he is, when it was only implied once in passing previously), Beverly's father and the relationship between the two having more of a creep factor and even better child performances.

Not without its faults. Not all the special effects work, the fangs and the overdone Pennywise shaking look cheap. Mike is underused and underdeveloped compared to the others and the other bullies are pretty much given short shrift (Victor Criss practically anonymous).

Some people have said that 'IT' is not scary. Personally disagree, finding it one of the scariest films seen in a long time. Not many films recently made my heart jump, covering my eyes, biting nails or stifling a scream. The Niebolt Street, bathroom, George and Pennywise and photograph/slideshow scenes especially are absolutely terrifying, and there are beautifully timed jolts, real tension and eeriness and suspenseful lead-ups, aided by atmospheric intricate lighting and clever effects for IT's forms (that leper!).

With that being said, 'IT' is much more than a horror film, and is more successful in its other elements. It has comedy, and it's hilarious especially with Richie and Eddie. There is an affectionate nostalgia, reminiscent of 'Stand By Me' and 'The Goonies' and reminding one of how good King was at writing scenes with children and childhood adolescence, which the writers understood and it translates brilliantly on screen. There is pathos, like with Ben's poem and the two most heart-wrenching moments are in the frightening, heart-tugging and triumphant climax. The characters are written very well on the most part, particularly Bill, Beverly and Ben, while Pennywise is evil-incarnate.

Production values mostly are terrific, not just the lighting but also the beautifully realised Derry setting (Niebolt Street is a standout), taut editing and cinematography that's both stunning and unnerving. The effects mostly are not bad, the make-up is superb and how Pennywise is made up has a creepier effect. The music score is truly haunting, "Oranges and Lemons" has never freaked me out this much.

Andy Muschietti directs with suspense, potent realism, confidence and affection, while the writing has a great balance of hilarious comedy, touching drama and pathos, references to the time period, King and history of Derry and nostalgia. The story, even with the change of time-line and structure, is cohesive and logical, rich in suspense and emotion but it's the chemistry between the children and the sweet and surprisingly real relationship between Beverly and Ben that resonate most.

One couldn't ask for better performances. The children are uniformly wonderful, especially a vulnerable Sophia Lillis, a hilarious Finn Wolfhard and a relatable Jeremy Ray Taylor. Jaeden Lieberher handles Bill's dramatic arc very touchingly while Jack Dylan Grazer is very funny. Mike and Stan are well cast. As for Pennywise, it is a very difficult feat filling the iconic Tim Curry's giant clown shoes, but Bill Skarsgard does so superbly, providing a different interpretation that never feels like a copy and has just as much chilling menace, nightmarish air and dark twisted amusement. Curry's laugh is creepier, but Skarsgard's is closer to that described in the book.

All in all, brilliant and if the second film with the adults happens please have the same writer, director and Skarsgard on board, and use this as a model rather than the mini-series' second half with better cast adults and a far better ending. 9/10 Bethany Cox


0 comments, Reply to this entry

It review

Posted : 5 years, 3 months ago on 19 January 2019 03:41

En lĂ­neas generales es una pelĂ­cula muy entretenida con un par de fallos importantes; el primero es que al ser un remake hace muy poco por trascender independientemente de la obra original y solo se aprovecha de esta tendencia retro que ha caracterizado a los 2010's, ademĂĄs de eso estĂĄ el hecho de que la gente mĂĄs observadora notarĂĄ un problema importante de ambientaciĂłn y es el hecho de que las interacciones de los personajes parecen personas de hoy en dĂ­a en un pueblo decorado como en los 80's.
Estos dos aspectos difĂ­cilmente pueden hacer menos disfrutable la pelĂ­cula y por ello me parece altamente recomendable para ver con tu grupo de amiguitos de pelĂ­culas de terror.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

A good movie

Posted : 5 years, 8 months ago on 22 August 2018 11:38

I already saw this movie but since ‘It: Chapter Two’ was now available on Netflix, I was quite eager to watch again this first instalment. In fact, I was actually supposed to see this movie when it was released but, at the last minute, Nick, my step-on, bailed out and, instead, we went to see at the time ‘The Hitman's Bodyguard’ which turned out to be really forgettable. Coming back to our main feature, well, the first time around, even though I did like it, somehow, it didn’t really completely blow me away though. Maybe it had to do with the fact that I saw the acclaimed TV mini-series less than a year before. However, I have to admit that, with this version, they improved pretty much everything that was disappointing with the TV mini-series. Indeed, the directing was pretty good, the special effets were top-notch and the kids all gave some solid performances, especially Sophia Lillis. Concerning Bill SkarsgĂ„rd, he gave a completely different performance than Tim Curry but he did a really fine job as well. So, it was all fine and, yet, the whole thing never really grabbed me. Maybe it was because I already knew where everything was leading to, maybe it was because it was too faithful to the book (which I haven’t actually read). Indeed, when Cary Fukunaga was still involved, he had removed many famous scenes from the book which were added back by Andy Muschietti afterwards and maybe Fukunaga's approach would have been more interesting. Still, it remains by far one of the best stories delivered by Stephen King and I’m glad I gave it a 2nd chance since I actually enjoyed it more this time around. Anyway, to conclude, it is definitely a really solid horror flick and it is really worth a look, especially if you like the genre. 



0 comments, Reply to this entry

An instant genre classic

Posted : 6 years, 2 months ago on 18 February 2018 12:47

The literary works of celebrated author Stephen King have been adapted into dozens of feature films, but 2017's It represents one of the most successful page-to-screen translations to date. An adaptation of King's 1000-page novel of the same name published in 1986, this proficiently-constructed and riveting horror endeavour is also one of the best contemporary genre films of the decade, thanks to the laudable efforts of director Andy Muschietti and the three credited screenwriters. King's "It" novel was previously turned into a television miniseries all the way back in 1990, but Muschietti's update more than justifies its existence, bringing the source to life in extraordinary ways and finding its own voice. The picture is certainly frightening, but It primarily excels because the screenplay shows interest in dramatics and character development as opposed to just lazy jump scares. Indeed, viewers simply seeking fast-paced, undemanding instant gratification may be advised to look elsewhere.




In the small town of Derry, Maine, dozens of unsolved child disappearances occur once every generation. With school finished for the summer of 1989, a curfew is in place after a number of children vanish without a trace, including Georgie Denbrough (Jackson Robert Scott), who left home during a rainstorm to sail his paper boat but never returned. Thoughts about Georgie plague his older brother Bill (Jaeden Lieberher), the de-facto leader of a group of social outcasts branded as The Losers' Club. Refusing to accept that Georgie is gone for good, Bill seeks the assistance of his friends - Ritchie (Finn Wolfhard), Stanley (Wyatt Oleff), Eddie (Jack Dylan Grazer), Beverly (Sophia Lillis), Mike (Chosen Jacobs), and Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor) - to investigate. The group, who are abused by psychotic town bully Henry (Nicholas Hamilton), are soon taunted by visions of Pennywise the Dancing Clown (Bill SkarsgÄrd), a sinister shape-shifting demonic entity from which nightmares are made. Pennywise only awakens every 27 years to feed on the children of Derry before returning to hibernation, and the Losers refuse to become his next victims, banding together to confront their worst fears and overthrow the clown.

Whereas King's book was partially set in the late 1950s, this adaptation shifts the story to 1989, which will allow the second half (in the upcoming sequel) to unfold in present-day. Muschietti and his team manage to seamlessly weave '80s pop culture references into the picture to vividly evoke this particular time and place - for instance, a local cinema marquee advertises Lethal Weapon 2, Batman and A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child, while a poster for Gremlins is displayed on a bedroom wall, and Ben desperately tries to conceal his fandom for the boy band New Kids on the Block. A healthy sense of humour is evident throughout the film (the one-liners are almost endless) which keeps it enjoyable and watchable, on top of being frightening. There is a minor Stranger Things vibe due to the young characters and '80s setting, but one must bear in mind that It was in active development before the Netflix series initially dropped. (Interestingly, the Stranger Things masterminds - The Duffer Brothers - were actually in the running to direct It at one stage.)




Clocking in at a hefty 135 minutes (including credits), It's length may be daunting, and it does feel like a full meal, but Muschietti uses the generous length to deal with characterisations and drama. The town of Derry almost feels like the true villain of the story, as many of the elders are portrayed as predatory and uneasy, while Henry is a violent, deranged psychopath of a bully who does not balk from carving letters into Ben's stomach with a knife. Members of The Losers' Club have their own personal issues to contend with, and the material is exceedingly adult; Beverly is ostracised for false rumours of promiscuity and suffers sexual abuse at the hands of her father, for example, while Eddie has a domineering, obese mother who keeps him feeling paranoid about his health, and Mike is bullied due to the colour of his skin. However, certain fragments of the narrative appear to be missing, and some parts of King's book were reportedly excised. There are talks of an extended cut which could rectify this, even though the movie is certainly long in its current state and could probably stand to be a bit tighter - certain scenes or moments could be removed.

The original It miniseries was understandably held back by its budget as well as the constraints of network television and early 1990s televisual aesthetics, but this update had more freedom to truly explore King's macabre imagination and do justice to the literary source. Backed by a $35 million budget and with a hard R rating in place, It is gruesome and unsettling, with a violent opening attack to set the scene. Pennywise takes several other forms throughout the picture, with his antics being aided by digital trickery and visceral make-up to convey the breadth of the character's evilness. It may not be the scariest movie ever made, but it is unquestionably chilling and unnerving, and it has its terrifying moments. Muschietti belies his relative inexperience (he last oversaw 2013's underwhelming Mama) to orchestrate the horror here with the confidence of a genre veteran. Muschietti and his team generate scares using imagery, periods of silence, well-judged music and an intricately-designed sound mix, exhibiting more creativity than any number of more formulaic genre endeavours. The cinematography by Korean maestro Chung-hoon Chung (Oldboy, The Handmaiden) exhibits unending visual flair - compositions are strong and lighting is exceptional, making great use of shadows. Flawlessly complementing the visuals is Benjamin Wallfisch's spine-chilling original score, while there is also a selection of great '80s tunes to give the picture more flavour and emphasise the period setting. Admittedly, not all of the CGI-enhanced mayhem is entirely successful, but this is a minor quibble.




More than just a series of tormented encounters, It takes the time to delve into the trials of adolescence - it's more of a coming-of-age movie like Stand By Me as opposed to just another run-of-the-mill horror offering. Beverly becomes an object of desire for the boys - Ben acts as a secret admirer from a distance as he writes poetry, while Bill can only stare at her, struggling to find the courage to make a move. Characterisations are exceptional; each Loser is distinctly-drawn and they all have an individual handicap, be it social, physical or ethnic. They bond because they do not care that Ben is overweight or Bill has a stutter, and their camaraderie is instantly palpable - it's easy to believe that they're all friends, especially since the actors became fast friends in real life. This gives the movie genuine heart, as we grow to care about the people being victimised, and the horrific moments with Pennywise therefore carry an even bigger sting. From top to bottom, the acting is remarkable and naturalistic - there is not a single weak link in the ensemble. It can be hard to find talented child actors, but everybody here hits their mark. Even if you don't find the movie scary, it's still enjoyable to watch the kids interacting with one another, which is important since Pennywise remains out of the picture surprisingly often despite being the primary antagonist.

Filling Tim Curry's shoes would be a daunting task for any actor, but Swedish model SkarsgÄrd (son of Stellan) excels all reasonable expectations to pull off arguably the definitive portrayal of Pennywise the Dancing Clown. Covered in astonishingly nuanced make-up, SkarsgÄrd avoids a single-note performance, changing up his tone and mannerisms depending on the situation, and coming across as an intimidating presence. It also helps that the actor is so tall, towering over his young co-stars. It's truly a transformative performance, representing one of the production's biggest assets. Just see the much-publicised scene with Pennywise in the sewer talking to Georgie - SkarsgÄrd is such a powerhouse that you hang off every word, and the scene is incredibly tense.




1990's It covered both parts of King's novel across its two episodes, but 2017's It only covers the first (it actually ends with a "Chapter One" title card) to give the story sufficient breathing room whilst still emerging as a satisfying standalone motion picture in its own right. Transcending its horror roots, this is an engaging and often terrifying coming-of-age fable, able to remain interesting between the scary set-pieces, and even bring out genuine emotion. This may be a long movie, but it stands up to repeat viewings and does not feel like a chore to get through. With the long-gestating The Dark Tower turning out to be a distilled, muddled disappointment, It is the year's superior Stephen King adaptation. To predict that this masterwork will go down in cinema history as an all-time horror classic (alongside the likes of The Shining, The Exorcist and The Thing) does not feel either hyperbolic or rash.

8.5/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

It review

Posted : 6 years, 4 months ago on 2 January 2018 02:18

Derry stand by me by other children King's world well understood in a film. Pennywise is a n effective clown, specially chatting from beneath the street. A good piece of terror and americana


0 comments, Reply to this entry

IT

Posted : 6 years, 7 months ago on 12 September 2017 06:49

To be incredibly pithy, you can call this Stand By IT or Nightmare on Goonies Street and find yourself in the neighborhood of what this movie is. I do not mean either of those descriptions as negatives, far from it. I thoroughly enjoyed and found its insistence on placing its tonal and emotional emphasis much harder on the ways childhood is made up of scars that last with us into the future and not on the scares was smart.

 

One of the most enjoyable things about this film is how the ensemble of young actors, uniformly strong and tasked with some tricky material to play, makes us believe in their friendship, root and care for them as a both a group and individuals. Any adaptation of IT lives or dies on its ability to make us invest emotional with these kids, and any weak-link would cause the entire thing to topple under its own weight.

 

Granted, there’s a major problem of underserving two of the kids from a narrative standpoint, but don’t fault the actors for that. The part that makes me squeamish about their relative lack of narrative import is the fact that they’re the Jewish and black kids. A large part of me wants to believe this merely a coincidence, but it becomes noticeable the further the film goes on (and it does go on at 2 hours and 15 minutes) that these two are not as developed or important to the narrative/group as the rest. Still, Chosen Jacobs and Wyatt Oleff are just as strong as the rest of the Losers Club.

 

That leaves us with the rest of the Losers Club to more intimately get to know and spend time with. Chief among them is Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher), the older brother of Georgie, Pennywise’s first victim. Lieberher is fantastic as he navigates his character’s profound guilt and uses it as the driving force to investigate what was going on and make it all right. It makes a scene where Pennywise taunts him using Georgie as a marionette that decays and screams “you’ll float too” in a manner that transforms from playful to threatening to a call from the bellows of hell all the more disturbing and heartbreaking.

 

If Bill’s one of the primary forces pushing the group, then Beverly (Sophia Lillis) is the other. While IT doesn’t go into depth about her shame over being poor, it is indirectly hinted at, it does go deep into the abuse inflicted upon her and the ugly rumors that surround her. Lillis may be the best of the group, possibly even toppling Bill SkarsgĂ„rd’s Pennywise, and I hope this launches her into a very long career. Her major scare scene involving a bathroom sink vomiting up blood ends with her delivering a frantic, teary-eyed panic attack that lingers with you for its desperation.

 

The other three kids act as a chorus of wisecracking jokes (Finn Wolfhard’s Richie) or much-needed voices of caution (Jack Grazer’s Eddie) or expositional dumps (Jeremy Ray Taylor’s Ben). Primarily knowing Wolfhard as the “Bill” of Stranger Things, it’s a nice change of pace to see him dropping a mountain of f-bombs and dick jokes at a rapid clip. While Taylor’s Ben offers the movie a wounded soul that refuses to wilt in the faces of adversity or loneliness, and Grazer’s Eddie is a shrieking neurotic that gets a lot of laughs out of his miniature Woody Allen shtick.

 

I’ve described a lot of humor and heart in the movie, and it’s true, IT possess a lot of scenes where we watch these kids try to navigate growing up and the battle scars that we get while doing it. They are inevitably alone in this process, and it doesn’t help matters that they’re being stalked by a killer demonic shape-shifter. The removal of the adulthood sections doesn’t bother me as we must see where these battle scars come from before we reflect upon them. When the inevitable IT: Chapter Two is released, I hope that watching the films back-to-back will be in conversation with each other.

 

Of course we have to talk about the clown. Pennywise is an otherworldly entity that is a predator that gets tremendous joy from his cruelty and the hunt. In a scene with Eddie he taunts him, ramping up his fear and anxiety, and mentions that he loves doing this because the fear sweetens the meat. Bill SkarsgĂ„rd is unrecognizable under layers of makeup, but he invests little choices into his character that only underscore just how strange and foreign this creature is. While Tim Curry’s Pennywise is justifiably well-liked and remembered from that godawful miniseries, he played his version with a touch of humanity that SkarsgĂ„rd forsakes. They’re both valid readings on the character, but something about SkarsgĂ„rd’s primordial hunter creeped me out that much more.

 

For all of its strengths, of which there are many, eventually the length and a sense of artificiality about the special-effects work begin to wear and tear. The length is punishing and IT cannot sustain its sense of dread, suspense, or terror for all of that time. The reoccurring scares begin to feel repetitive and routine. We know that Pennywise will divide-and-conquer the Losers, make them face their worst fears, or generally pop out of nowhere to scare the hell out of us/them. There are still plenty of disturbing sequences that work incredibly well, but certain ones deflate when they should pop. Although a scene of Jacobs’ Mike getting bullied only to catch a glimpse of Pennywise chewing on a child’s arm and wave maniacally with it is a small touch that stands out for its normalcy and lack of attention drawn to the moment. IT needed a few more moments like this.

 

IT ends with the blood pact of the Losers and an obvious open door for the sequel. I look forward to it. While this version of IT is not a perfect film, it is still a great one that I enjoyed immensely. I put the miniseries to shame, and it feels like Stephen King at his best. I’m not about to proclaim it as standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the original Carrie or The Shining, but goddamn is it close. Maybe when we get the second half and we can view both films as one united work my opinion may change. Hell, another viewing of just this film may only strengthen my appreciation for this film as it stands. IT is just so damn good.



0 comments, Reply to this entry

It review

Posted : 6 years, 7 months ago on 8 September 2017 11:27

So, the clown is creepy, and there are some scenes that are intense, but I never really felt it was that scary. It also suffered from the typical horror movie problem of wondering why the behavior of the monster changes. Obviously, the easy answer is because the script calls for it, but it lacks in in-story explanation. Same to be said for the kids deciding that they need to stick together, and then, almost seemingly on purpose, run away from each other at every turn.

The story of the kids becoming friends and doing things together was interesting and well done. However, their interactions with literally everyone else in town was over-the-top ridiculous. That all adults were cartoonish villains, and the bullies were over the top aggressive and everywhere, just made it hard to believe. It would have been appropriate if this had been a kids movie, but with an R rating, that clearly was not the intent.

Finally, it didn't help that pretty much every scene of interest was already shown in the trailers. These might have bumped the scare factor, but expecting them took all of the suspense away.

A bummer, cause I was looking forward to this one, but it really had me waiting for it to just end by the cliched finish.


0 comments, Reply to this entry