It (reboot)

It is a two part film, also referred to as a series by most sources, based on the novel of the same name by Stephen King. The first volume was release in 2017, which told the story of the childhood characters, and the second volume was released in 2019 telling the story of the same characters 27 years in the future as adults. The time line was changed so that it would better align with our time, so instead of the 50s and the 80s, it was changed to 80s and modern time. I chose to review these films as one, two part film, rather than on their own, because they are both parts of one novel.

So, have you ever read a book and loved it, and thought to yourself, "I wonder how this would look on the big screen with an R rating, as it deserves, but changing almost everything about the story?" Well if so, then you are in luck because that is It. If you didn't like the way Stephen King writes, and relish the opportunity to mock him for writing bad endings, then these films are for you! I have to look at this film in two ways, one as a film, a work of its own, and judge it on its own merit, and honestly it really does excel at being a great entertaining film. Then I also need to look at it as a film adaptation of a classic Stephen King novel that is beloved by Constant Readers like myself, and as that, well this movie sucks really bad, I mean really disappointingly bad. So I think I will first talk about that deep disappointment of it as an adaptation, before looking at it as a work of its own.

Stephen King, crafted a wonderful horror story with It, one of my favourite horror novels that I have ever written, just behind Pet Semetary as my favourite King novel, and to my own constant readers, you know that I love Stephen King, and am a fan of all of his works (except Duma Key), in both book and film. I felt that when the television mini series came out, starring Tim Curry as Pennywise, that the film within the constraints of made for television, did a really good job at bringing It to life. Now, knowing how great that film was, within those constraints, I got very excited when I found out that they were doing an R rated big budget film release for It. I expected to see what restricted the miniseries taken out, and improved upon. I looked forward to seeing some of my favourite scenes like the dam building scene, and Mike being obsessed with researching Derry history, and Ben teaching the Losers how to build the dam, and Beverly being the most powerful badass of the group that keeps the group together when they are falling apart. I saw some of the characters that were being cast like Finn Wolfhart as Richie and I got really excited, because of his work in my favourite television series, Stranger Things. Honestly Stranger Things got me excited for how good this film could look. Two films in 2017 excited me more than any film since The Lord of the Rings, one was The Dark Tower, and the other was It. I saw both opening day in the theater, and both the theaters were packed, and both left me thinking..."that's not right, that isn't how that was supposed to be at all." That is where I was with It part one. The dam scene was removed and replaced with a swimming scene at a quarry, that dwelt far too long on a pubescent girl's chest, and little boys awkwardly staring at her. I kind of get the feeling that this was supposed to replace the group sex scene in the book, but it is wrong, in its placing and its purpose. The dam building scene is where the group grew and learned how to work together as a team, and is honestly my favourite scene from the book, because of the childhood camaraderie that it builds, in a realistic way. The kids come together and flood the Barrens, which causes them to be talked to by the cop, informing them to never go out alone. This is all removed, as a kid Ben isn't talked about his building skills until retroactively in the second installment. Also Ben is credited as being the researcher of the group, robbing Mike from the role, that is so integral to him as an adult. There were other things about Mike's character that was changed that ruined the story as well. All of these changes led to confusion as to how they could possibly reconcile that in the second adaptation. And how do they reconcile it? Well they don't. In the second installment, the entire film is a joke about how bad Stephen King is at writing endings, that kind of sums up the theme for the entire second film. Directors always change King's endings in his films, look at Doctor Sleep for example, but in It Chapter Two they have the balls to outright tell Stephen King that he sucks at writing endings, and "fuck you, man we are no longer making your book into a movie we are just doing our own thing now". Even Stephen King is in on the joke, as he plays a cameo that out right tells Bill (who is basically Stephen King), that his endings are shit. The entire second installment of It throws the book out the window and does whatever the fuck it wants to, and honestly other than being a joke, is a terrible ending, they should have just kept Stephen King's original ending.

Aside from being an adaptation of a book, which it completely fails to do, how does it do as a film? Someone once said, that jump scares are like a comedian tickling their audience, sure they made them jump, but were they really funny? That describes the majority of the horror of both parts of It. Most of the horror relies on jump scares, rather than actually creating a real horror or fear through story telling. The CGI is really hit or miss in these films, at some points it is amazing, then other points like the Paul Bunyan statue they are laughably bad. Also part one had much better effects than part two as far as looking good. I think the CGI effects worked here better than in most films, where it was on it was perfect, but where they failed, it was atrocious. I like Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise, I tend to like him as an actor, but why the fuck does he sound like Scooby Doo? I feel like in part two they were aware of that, and made fun of that fact when they had him lick a window like a dog with an exaggeratedly big tongue. The film flirts with comedy to the point that it loses itself as a horror film, but it looks too good and polished to be written off as comedic horror like Evil Dead or a Troma Films movie. The film tends to get lost within itself quite a lot really, and seems to just steer from jump scare to jump scare, failing to do the actual work to deliver real scares to the audience, and that is honestly really lazy writing and directing. I think this film suffers from having terrible writing and directing, and I don't blame the actors at all for this mess.

The actors, are really well cast, both adults and kids. I mean the ensemble cast of kids in the original miniseries was one of the greatest cast of kids ever, and I feel like with this adaptation the kids just don't have the same feel to them as the original cast, but they are great. The characters played the roles they were given well, and I really find no fault in them at all for these films not working for me.

The first volume of this two part film, was a huge success and is one of the most successful R Rated horror films of all time, breaking many records. The second installment was also a success, but a far lesser success than the first. The films won several awards and were nominated for even more. However the critics were definitely divided, many sighting It's over use of jump-scares, and finding similar issues that I am with it. Others showered it with great praise. Even the scores on film critic sites rank the films just above average for ratings.

Would I recommend these films? Yes, you definitely should see these films, they are very entertaining, they are mostly very beautifully done, and honestly they are both great films. However if you are a fan of the books, please don't expect to see the book come alive on the screen, because you will be left unfulfilled and frustrated. Great films, but terrible adaptation, which is true also of The Shining by Stanley Kubrick, which is as a film a great film, but as an adaptation of the novel one of the worst ever made. This version of It, is loosely inspired by King's book, and the mini series from the 90s was a much more faithful adaptation, and honestly creepier. But yes, you should see these films, they are great entertaining films, and I highly recommend them, even though overall my review of them seems negative. It is possible to hate and love a film at the same time, and that is my view on It (chapters 1 &2).