Review: IT (2017)

Set in Derry, Maine in the late 80s, young Georgie Denbrough is outside playing with his paper boat in the rain when he is viciously dragged down into the sewers by Pennywise the Dancing Clown (Bill Skarsgard). A year later, Georgie’s older brother Bill (Jaeden Lieberher) hasn’t recovered from losing his little brother, and is being haunted by visions of Pennywise. Talking to six other 11 year-old outcasts who eventually become ‘The Loser’s Club’, Bill realises that Pennywise is no mere man in clown makeup, an age-old menace who feeds off children’s fears, and kills them. Jeremy Ray Taylor plays chubby Ben Hanscomb, Sophia Lillis is abused tomboy Beverly Marsh, Jake Dylan Grazer is resident scaredy-cat Eddie, Finn Wolfhard is smart arse Richie Tozier, Wyatt Oleff plays rabbi’s son Stan Uris, and Chosen Jacobs plays home-schooled African-American kid Mike Hanlon.

As is often the case, I’ll be coming to this adaptation of the popular Stephen King novel from director Andy Muschietti (the OK “Mama”), from a very different point of view than many of you. I’ve avoided picking up King’s epic tome not out of disinterest in the material, but I take a good while to read a book and It is one helluva big book. I just don’t think I want to devote a whole chunk of time to one book, OK? So I’m not familiar with the novel. I have, however seen the 1990 mini-series, and at age 10-11 it was one of the first horror-themed things I’d ever been exposed to that didn’t send me running away screaming or something. I was especially a fan of Tim Curry’s performance as Pennywise, which whilst often funny, was still creepy as hell. A lot of people of my generation recall the miniseries and Curry’s performance, usually with a mixture of terror and approval.

So what did I make of this new version? Well…it’s well-shot. The kids are occasionally pretty good. So yeah…uh, that’s all I’ve got in the win column, I’m afraid. Whatever it is that this film’s many champions see, I wasn’t seeing it. Perhaps what I brought to it influences my reaction to it, perhaps it’s just a weak-arse film. Either way, I didn’t get a whole lot out of this one.

The opening scene is quite similar to what happens in the miniseries, only longer, more explicit, and of course no Tim Curry. And that brings me to one of the film’s biggest flaws for me; Pennywise, as played by Bill Skarsgaard, an over-the-top visage, and presumably a shitload of CGI. I know Pennywise was only one facet to ‘IT’, which ultimately was an otherworldly being, but I think it was a massive mistake here to make Pennywise himself already very otherworldly. It tips you off too early that this isn’t just some creepy clown guy, and whether that’s in the book or not, what I appreciated most about Pennywise as played by Tim Curry (with a lengthy sit in the makeup chair, but still, a guy with clown paint) was that he seemed somewhat human. He was hilarious in the role, but he was also creepy, because let’s face it, guys who dress up as clowns seem somehow creepy. Certainly creepier than what we get here, a giggly-voiced, try-hard Skarsgaard, and way too much CGI ‘zombie rage virus’ FX schtick. I wasn’t frightened because more often than not I didn’t think what I was seeing was really there on the screen interacting with all the other characters most of the time. So there was a disconnect for me. If you don’t buy Pennywise (and a lot of people had issues with Curry’s portrayal, I might add), it’s hard to get into the whole thing, really. Skarsgaard’s only good moment in the film is when he gets out of a cupboard he’s contorted his body to fit into, and then sets himself right. That’s creepy as fuck. The rest of the time the character and performance are too overdone and too unrealistic-looking (Though they do get his size right, when seen in full he’s flippin’ huge!).

I also didn’t like the horror this film supplied in general. It’s not creepy or scary, it’s hoary, clichéd jump scare crap. So while quite a bit of the film follows a familiar path, it’s just not effectively done. At least not in my view. Credit where it’s due, I did love the bathroom scene with Beverly. Better than its 1990 counterpart, it’s spectacular and brilliantly bloody. I also liked how they made it clear that the father couldn’t see the blood, thus Pennywise was mind-fucking Beverly and the other six. Outside of the look of Pennywise, I can honestly say this is a much better-looking film than the miniseries was. However, on the downside this version doesn’t bother to give Derry any oppressive or creepy atmosphere. It’s actually quite a dull film.

While some of the adult actors in smaller roles are poor (the guy playing Bill’s dad especially, though it’s always good to see Steven Williams as another parental figure), the kids mostly work here. In fact, they’re the best thing about the whole film (aside from one creepy visual of all the missing kids floating like balloons), which isn’t saying a whole lot. I’ve always liked the late Jonathan Brandis as the 1990 child Bill, but Jaeden Lieberher is clearly a better actor and more convincing stutterer. He may not be the most charismatic child actor around, but giving a good performance is probably more important. With all due respect to Emily Perkins (one of the best child actors in the miniseries), Sophia Lillis is probably used a lot better here as the younger Beverly. She does look alarmingly older than the other kids, though I thought. I’m not sure they needed to cast a generic ‘fat kid’ actor to play young Ben Handscomb in this, I think it paints things with a slightly too heavy hand. However, Jeremy Ray Taylor, whilst no Brandon Crane (“The Wonder Years” co-star who excelled as Ben in the miniseries) mostly works in the role as written here. The most impressive young actors are Jake Dylan Grazer, as wimpy Eddie ‘Spaghetti’, and Finn Wolfhard as Richie Tozier. Thanks to the hilariously wimpy Grazer (whose scaredy cat face is hysterical), Eddie’s actually a lot funnier than the frankly annoying Wolfhard’s Tozier. But that’s no slight on the latter, because Richie’s meant to be an annoying foot-in-mouth smart arse, so Wolfhard is pretty funny at being annoyingly unfunny, if that makes any sense. These two steal their every moment, even if I’m still a bit partial to the earlier Richie, played by a then-young Seth Green.

On the other hand, Wyatt Oleef makes the same non-impression as his 1990 counterpart as the rather dull Stan, and poor Chosen Jacobs hasn’t got a hope in the poorly written role of Mike. Once again, I only have the miniseries to go off, but even if I didn’t see the miniseries, the way Mike’s character is only gradually integrated into the ‘Lucky 7’ is unsatisfying, and shifting over much of his characteristics and scenes from the miniseries over to the Ben character here further robs Jacobs of any chance to shine. 45 minutes in and we’ve barely seen Mike at all because he’s a home-schooled kid and kept away from everyone else for song. That just isn’t acceptable to me, nor is it necessary. I also didn’t like how noticeable it was that they’ve stretched this early portion out of the story out quite a bit so they can greedily make two films out of it. I really think the miniseries was the perfect format for this story. As scripted by Gary Dauberman (the dreary spin-off “Annabelle”), Cary Fukunaga (writer-director of something called “Sin Nombre”) & Chase Palmer (whose background unsurprisingly is in shorts), the film comes off as awfully repetitive.

I really didn’t want to write an entirely comparative review here, but because this film gets wrong a lot of things I feel the miniseries got right, and the latter was such an important part of my movie/TV upbringing…comparisons are unavoidable. This is overrated, repetitive, overblown, unscary, and largely uninteresting. Some of the kids are good, the film is subpar and overly reliant on CGI.

Rating: C-