In part one of this miniseries a group of seven 12 year old children are brought together to fight an ancient evil in the form of a clown called Pennywise (played by Tim Curry) who murders children in their hometown of Derry Maine.
In part two the adults who were the children who fought Pennywise the clown return to Derry to fight him again and hopefully defeat him after another series of child murders begins in Derry.
The cast in both of these parts are great. They all fairly accurately portray the characters as they were written in the novel. This miniseries is a great example of how the filmmakers of the newer It films could have tried following the novel while making slight cosmetic changes and still staying true to the story. You care about these characters and you can probably relate to some of them (apart from the scary clown and living in a haunted town of course). They cut out a lot of details but the story is still well done. I don't think that they had the budget to bring the novel more fully to the screen but still it's a great movie. The special effects haven't necessarily stood the test of time (particularly the spider) but it's pretty good all things considered.
Tim Curry is amazing as Pennywise. He is the reason that I was and still am scared of clowns. He was so convincing that even as an adult I can't fully reconcile him as the same person who plays Pennywise versus other beloved characters (for me) that he's played over the years. His portrayal is more like the novel in that Pennywise is supposed to be a clown so that children feel safe to approach him so that he can get them. In the newer versions they tried too hard to make Pennywise scary. No child in their right mind would approach the newer Pennywise. He even looks like he is possibly crying tears of blood from a distance. Tim Curry's is warm and cuddly. He's friendly. He would never hurt you. As I said in another post I'm very glad that no one has tried to replicate Tim Curry's performance. It simply can't be done and no one should ever try.
Everyone gets caught up in how fake looking the spider is and how stupid the spider is. While the special effects aren't great, imagine for just a moment that you are being faced with a giant spider like that. Until the spider kills you, you would be scared too I don't care who you are.
I'm going to give a bit of spoiler from the novel that might help you better appreciate the spider. Quite a few people are like "It is a spider?!" and immediately think how stupid that is. I myself was one of those people when I first read the novel. Silly me. The novel explains, from It's perspective no less, that It is a spider because It is trapped in that form. It isn't really a spider, that is simply the closest thing that the children can reconcile what they are seeing with. That's part of It's problem It is bound by whatever images that It's victims come up with, It transforms into whatever It's victim is scared of and It can even simlutaneously be two different things when two different people see It (there's a few scenes in the novel where this happens). Unfortunately for It, It has become trapped in spider form because of the Loser's Club. It's pissed off because of this. As an added frustration for It, It is bound by that form to have the same weaknesses and vulnerabilities. For example, because It is a spider, It can be injured and/or killed as a spider. So don't get caught up in the spider. It actually makes a lot more sense if you give it some thought.
Don't get caught up in the weak special effects. They did the best that they could considering their budgetary and time constraints and their presentation of It is better and more accurate than the two newer films.
If you haven't seen this miniseries, give it at least one full watch. You might not like it for whatever reason but give it a shot. It's worth the four hours (four hours!? Yes, four hours. Each part is two hours long and there are two parts. The newer film versions are longer so don't sweat it.)
Hopefully whenever It is remade again (and it will be I hope) the filmmakers of that future version will refer to this miniseries and the actual novel when it comes to making their vision. If they consider the newer versions at all it is hopefully to learn from the mistakes and not repeat them and/or make worse mistakes.
Monday, September 9, 2019
It Chapter 2 rated R for disturbing violent content and bloody images throughout,
As before, if you haven't read the novel and/or watched the original miniseries and/or It part 1, there are spoilers in this post.
Also I'm including some of my personal opinions/interpretations in this post. They are simply my opinions and I don't mean any offense by them. My opinions and thoughts are not representative of anyone attached to this film in any way, shape, form or fashion. If you choose to be offended, no offense is intended.
27 years after the events of the first movie, the adults who dared to try to face down It as children are called back to their hometown to finish It or die trying.
The cast was pretty good in my opinion. Obviously Bill Skarsgard is once again doing a great job of playing Pennywise and putting his own spin on it. I was excited at the prospect of seeing some of the cast members most notably Bill Hader and James McAvoy. James McAvoy is usually a treat to watch as he is so talented in my opinion. Bill Hader is underrated regarding his more dramatic roles and he didn't disappoint me in this movie either.
Once again the filmmakers were handed gold to work with in the form of the novel. Once again they started to make me happy with some of the special touches from the original novel that weren't included in the original miniseries. Once again they let me down.
The changes that were made to this film were so fundamental that essentially this movie was inspired by the novel rather than based off of the novel. As such the story was changed too much to where it doesn't even make sense. One of the biggest changes that is really the whole problem of this film is using Mike as the "leader" rather than Bill. Bill is the leader in the novel because he is the one who inspires the others. He is also the leader because of his brother Georgie being murdered by It. Of all of the characters, none are as affected as him. Even in the novel it says [and I'm paraphrasing] that It might never have been challenged much less stopped if Georgie hadn't been killed by It. That is why Georgie dies. It is through this that Bill finds the strength and determination to try to kill It. It is through Bill's strength and determination that the others are pushed beyond their limits to rise above with Bill to fight and defeat It. Alone they can't do it. However, as strong as Bill is, he does need their help and support. He needs them at his side. Each of them feels even as children that they would gladly die for him. It even knows that he is the head and that if he were killed the others would easily be stopped. Or so It thinks and It is probably right.
Mike as the leader doesn't make any sense at all. He is the "lighthouse keeper". He is also the keeper of the history. He is really the only person who has any idea of the true scope of It and It's reign of terror. That doesn't make him a weak character by any means. If anything it could be argued that he is one of the strongest characters because he knows the full extent of everything and still stays in Derry.
I didn't like that Mike is not only portrayed as the leader, he's a weak leader. He sputters when he talks. He is demanding rather than even trying to be understanding. He doesn't seem to take responsibility for the fact that his call brought them back. He seems to have absolutely no consideration for the danger that he is putting all of his friends through much less the emotions and feelings that they are feeling. He doesn't seem to care at all for them only that his agenda is accomplished. It could be that the reason(s) for this is entirely due to bad directing, bad writing, or simply excessive/bad editing. Whatever the reason, it suck and does a serious disservice to the original novel/character.
In the book and the original miniseries, Mike knows full well what he is asking (not demanding) of his friends. He takes responsibility for calling them back as well he should. Sure they made a promise but he struggles at first with calling them back knowing that he is yanking them out of the relative safety and comfort of their current lives and possibly bringing them back to die. He is so aware that he waits to call them until he has overwhelming proof that there is a problem and that It is back.
In every story, there is always at least one "strong" character and one "weak" character. In the novel Bev is the "weak" character. She is very reactive and seems to generally need protecting or saving. However she is also the heart of the group. She is an inspiration in that the guys are able to take their minds off of their fears out of love for her to protect her and to save her. Also she's their "archer"/"artillery". If they can keep It away from her, she can shoot it and save them all. She has an empowering moment that actually translates ok from the novel to this movie when she stands up to her abusive husband despite her fear of him and bravely leaves him to join her old friends. In this film the filmmakers chose to make her stronger when it comes to facing It. This sounds good on paper but it fundamentally takes away from a major aspect of the story in the form of Bill being the leader. He was the one who rallied the group repeatedly both as a child and an adult. Sometimes he got caught up in emotions and each of the other kids took turns helping to rally Bill from whatever emotions he was caught up in. It never fell exclusively to Bev and it shouldn't have.
Both of those changes felt nothing but political in nature and it's sorely disappointing. It's all well and good to have strong female characters in movies and/or to have strong non-whites in movies. However I don't feel that there was ever any kind of negative intention for Bill to be the leader and/or Bev to be weak. Everybody can't be strong. Everybody can't be the leader. They were written that way because that's the way that they are. It's disappointing that the filmmakers of this movie chose to interpret the original novel in a negative way rather than just presenting the story more straightforward.
This movie only half-assed the "smokehole scene" and they badly executed that. In the original novel Mike and Richie are the only two who successfully share the vision during the "smokehole scene".
In the original novel Mike doesn't find out about the ritual of Chud, Bill does. And the ritual of Chud is nothing like the one portrayed in the film so once again you have a fundamental change to where the scene is inspired rather than based off of the novel
This movie felt so cut from the original novel that they cut to the bone. As good as the cast was I didn't really care if they lived or died. I wasn't necessarily relieved when the end comes. I didn't feel emotionally connected to anyone. Most of these character were way too selfish and concerned about trying to avoid their fate. Almost none of them seemed to give a crap about the fact that if they didn't fight it, there would probably be no one else and It would continue its reign of terror forever and ever. They shouldn't have needed the threat of a terrible death if they avoided facing It. The thought that they could stop It and refused to stop It should have been more than enough to rally them. They should have been scared but the thought of all of the innocent victims that had been and those that would be should have been the thought and focus just as it is in the novel.
Very disappointed. On the one hand I'm a little sad for those who haven't seen the original miniseries and/or read the novel. On the other hand I'm more glad for them because they don't know what they are missing. If you choose to read the novel, don't be discouraged by the size of it. It is a larger novel but it is so well written and interesting that it doesn't feel long.
It is my hope that someday in the future (hopefully sooner than later) that someone will have the courage and take the time to take this wonderful novel and turn it into two, three maybe even four wonderful movies that actually follow the novel. If ever there was novel that warranted four parts this one is it.
Nothing will replace the original miniseries for me as I'm sure that nothing will replace these movies for whomever loves them. Still it would be so excellent if only someone and some studio would take a chance and make it happen somehow some way. The story is already written. It's simply a matter of generally following the novel. No modernizing. No fundamental character changes. No creepy sex scenes involving children (I heard that there was, at one time, talk of including said sex scenes in either this film or the previous It. I'm sure that everyone is glad that that didn't happen.) People like nostalgia. Follow the novel for heaven's sake. It is considered a great novel because it is great just as it is. It didn't become a best seller due to modernizing or making fundamental changes. To the person/people who choose to take on this project in the future, please please please actually base it off of the novel.
Also I'm including some of my personal opinions/interpretations in this post. They are simply my opinions and I don't mean any offense by them. My opinions and thoughts are not representative of anyone attached to this film in any way, shape, form or fashion. If you choose to be offended, no offense is intended.
27 years after the events of the first movie, the adults who dared to try to face down It as children are called back to their hometown to finish It or die trying.
The cast was pretty good in my opinion. Obviously Bill Skarsgard is once again doing a great job of playing Pennywise and putting his own spin on it. I was excited at the prospect of seeing some of the cast members most notably Bill Hader and James McAvoy. James McAvoy is usually a treat to watch as he is so talented in my opinion. Bill Hader is underrated regarding his more dramatic roles and he didn't disappoint me in this movie either.
Once again the filmmakers were handed gold to work with in the form of the novel. Once again they started to make me happy with some of the special touches from the original novel that weren't included in the original miniseries. Once again they let me down.
The changes that were made to this film were so fundamental that essentially this movie was inspired by the novel rather than based off of the novel. As such the story was changed too much to where it doesn't even make sense. One of the biggest changes that is really the whole problem of this film is using Mike as the "leader" rather than Bill. Bill is the leader in the novel because he is the one who inspires the others. He is also the leader because of his brother Georgie being murdered by It. Of all of the characters, none are as affected as him. Even in the novel it says [and I'm paraphrasing] that It might never have been challenged much less stopped if Georgie hadn't been killed by It. That is why Georgie dies. It is through this that Bill finds the strength and determination to try to kill It. It is through Bill's strength and determination that the others are pushed beyond their limits to rise above with Bill to fight and defeat It. Alone they can't do it. However, as strong as Bill is, he does need their help and support. He needs them at his side. Each of them feels even as children that they would gladly die for him. It even knows that he is the head and that if he were killed the others would easily be stopped. Or so It thinks and It is probably right.
Mike as the leader doesn't make any sense at all. He is the "lighthouse keeper". He is also the keeper of the history. He is really the only person who has any idea of the true scope of It and It's reign of terror. That doesn't make him a weak character by any means. If anything it could be argued that he is one of the strongest characters because he knows the full extent of everything and still stays in Derry.
I didn't like that Mike is not only portrayed as the leader, he's a weak leader. He sputters when he talks. He is demanding rather than even trying to be understanding. He doesn't seem to take responsibility for the fact that his call brought them back. He seems to have absolutely no consideration for the danger that he is putting all of his friends through much less the emotions and feelings that they are feeling. He doesn't seem to care at all for them only that his agenda is accomplished. It could be that the reason(s) for this is entirely due to bad directing, bad writing, or simply excessive/bad editing. Whatever the reason, it suck and does a serious disservice to the original novel/character.
In the book and the original miniseries, Mike knows full well what he is asking (not demanding) of his friends. He takes responsibility for calling them back as well he should. Sure they made a promise but he struggles at first with calling them back knowing that he is yanking them out of the relative safety and comfort of their current lives and possibly bringing them back to die. He is so aware that he waits to call them until he has overwhelming proof that there is a problem and that It is back.
In every story, there is always at least one "strong" character and one "weak" character. In the novel Bev is the "weak" character. She is very reactive and seems to generally need protecting or saving. However she is also the heart of the group. She is an inspiration in that the guys are able to take their minds off of their fears out of love for her to protect her and to save her. Also she's their "archer"/"artillery". If they can keep It away from her, she can shoot it and save them all. She has an empowering moment that actually translates ok from the novel to this movie when she stands up to her abusive husband despite her fear of him and bravely leaves him to join her old friends. In this film the filmmakers chose to make her stronger when it comes to facing It. This sounds good on paper but it fundamentally takes away from a major aspect of the story in the form of Bill being the leader. He was the one who rallied the group repeatedly both as a child and an adult. Sometimes he got caught up in emotions and each of the other kids took turns helping to rally Bill from whatever emotions he was caught up in. It never fell exclusively to Bev and it shouldn't have.
Both of those changes felt nothing but political in nature and it's sorely disappointing. It's all well and good to have strong female characters in movies and/or to have strong non-whites in movies. However I don't feel that there was ever any kind of negative intention for Bill to be the leader and/or Bev to be weak. Everybody can't be strong. Everybody can't be the leader. They were written that way because that's the way that they are. It's disappointing that the filmmakers of this movie chose to interpret the original novel in a negative way rather than just presenting the story more straightforward.
This movie only half-assed the "smokehole scene" and they badly executed that. In the original novel Mike and Richie are the only two who successfully share the vision during the "smokehole scene".
In the original novel Mike doesn't find out about the ritual of Chud, Bill does. And the ritual of Chud is nothing like the one portrayed in the film so once again you have a fundamental change to where the scene is inspired rather than based off of the novel
This movie felt so cut from the original novel that they cut to the bone. As good as the cast was I didn't really care if they lived or died. I wasn't necessarily relieved when the end comes. I didn't feel emotionally connected to anyone. Most of these character were way too selfish and concerned about trying to avoid their fate. Almost none of them seemed to give a crap about the fact that if they didn't fight it, there would probably be no one else and It would continue its reign of terror forever and ever. They shouldn't have needed the threat of a terrible death if they avoided facing It. The thought that they could stop It and refused to stop It should have been more than enough to rally them. They should have been scared but the thought of all of the innocent victims that had been and those that would be should have been the thought and focus just as it is in the novel.
Very disappointed. On the one hand I'm a little sad for those who haven't seen the original miniseries and/or read the novel. On the other hand I'm more glad for them because they don't know what they are missing. If you choose to read the novel, don't be discouraged by the size of it. It is a larger novel but it is so well written and interesting that it doesn't feel long.
It is my hope that someday in the future (hopefully sooner than later) that someone will have the courage and take the time to take this wonderful novel and turn it into two, three maybe even four wonderful movies that actually follow the novel. If ever there was novel that warranted four parts this one is it.
Nothing will replace the original miniseries for me as I'm sure that nothing will replace these movies for whomever loves them. Still it would be so excellent if only someone and some studio would take a chance and make it happen somehow some way. The story is already written. It's simply a matter of generally following the novel. No modernizing. No fundamental character changes. No creepy sex scenes involving children (I heard that there was, at one time, talk of including said sex scenes in either this film or the previous It. I'm sure that everyone is glad that that didn't happen.) People like nostalgia. Follow the novel for heaven's sake. It is considered a great novel because it is great just as it is. It didn't become a best seller due to modernizing or making fundamental changes. To the person/people who choose to take on this project in the future, please please please actually base it off of the novel.
Saturday, September 7, 2019
It (2017) rated R for violence/horror, bloody images, and language
If you haven't read the novel and/or haven't watched the original miniseries then this post has spoilers.
In the 1980s a group of seven 11 year olds are drawn together by mysterious and horrible events in their hometown of Derry Maine to fight an ancient evil in the form of Pennywise the Clown (played by Bill Skarsgard).
The child actors were mostly great. Bill Skarsgard did an excellent job playing Pennywise. I confess that when this movie was announced I was nervous that whoever played Pennywise might try to replicate Tim Curry's perfect performance. I didn't know who Bill Skarsgard was but, being familiar with his family, I had hope that he would do well. He didn't disappoint. He did such a great job of putting his own spin on the character while giving the impression of giving respect to the original.
Overall the movie was ok and, after reading the novel, I would say that it's more accurate to say that this movie was inspired by the original novel as opposed to being an accurate screen adaptation of the novel. Just because they got the most basic gist of the story doesn't make this an actual screen adaptation of the novel. It isn't simply that the novel is so big that it can't be done fully by just two movies. They full on made fundamental changes that completely miss the mark of the novel and the original miniseries. It's all well and good to make slight adjustments (see the original miniseries to better understand) but many of the changes that were made took away rather than added to the movie. It was disappointing because the novel is so good that it should have been easier to make a great movie. All of the writing was done for them in the novel, all they had to do was figure out how to bring it to the big screen. They failed on so many levels.
They did do well on jump scares. This film has quite a bit of jump scares that are for the most part good.
If you haven't already, read the novel (I know it looks big but it is so well written that you won't notice) and watch the original miniseries.
This movie shouldn't necessarily be avoided but just know that they got it wrong.
In the 1980s a group of seven 11 year olds are drawn together by mysterious and horrible events in their hometown of Derry Maine to fight an ancient evil in the form of Pennywise the Clown (played by Bill Skarsgard).
The child actors were mostly great. Bill Skarsgard did an excellent job playing Pennywise. I confess that when this movie was announced I was nervous that whoever played Pennywise might try to replicate Tim Curry's perfect performance. I didn't know who Bill Skarsgard was but, being familiar with his family, I had hope that he would do well. He didn't disappoint. He did such a great job of putting his own spin on the character while giving the impression of giving respect to the original.
Overall the movie was ok and, after reading the novel, I would say that it's more accurate to say that this movie was inspired by the original novel as opposed to being an accurate screen adaptation of the novel. Just because they got the most basic gist of the story doesn't make this an actual screen adaptation of the novel. It isn't simply that the novel is so big that it can't be done fully by just two movies. They full on made fundamental changes that completely miss the mark of the novel and the original miniseries. It's all well and good to make slight adjustments (see the original miniseries to better understand) but many of the changes that were made took away rather than added to the movie. It was disappointing because the novel is so good that it should have been easier to make a great movie. All of the writing was done for them in the novel, all they had to do was figure out how to bring it to the big screen. They failed on so many levels.
They did do well on jump scares. This film has quite a bit of jump scares that are for the most part good.
If you haven't already, read the novel (I know it looks big but it is so well written that you won't notice) and watch the original miniseries.
This movie shouldn't necessarily be avoided but just know that they got it wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)