Skip to main content

This isn't fun, it's scary and disgusting.

It
(2017)

(SPOILERS) Imagine how pleased I was to learn that an E Nesbitt adaptation had rocketed to the top of the US charts, evidently using a truncated version of its original title, much like John Carter of Mars. Imagine my disappointment on rushing to the cinema and seeing not a Psammead in sight. Can anyone explain why It is doing such phenomenal business? It isn’t the Stephen King brand, which regular does middling-at-best box office. Is it the nostalgia factor (‘50s repurposed as the ‘80s, so tapping into the Stranger Things thing, complete with purloined cast member)? Or maybe that it is, for the most part, a “classier” horror movie, one that puts its characters first (at least for the first act or so), and so invites audiences who might otherwise shun such fare? Perhaps there is no clear and outright reason, and it’s rather a confluence of circumstances. Certainly, as a (mostly) non-horror buff, I was impressed by how well It tackled pretty much everything that wasn’t the horror element, the only the aspect that seemed mired in formula devices and choices, and even then, mostly in the rather standard-issue third act.


At its best, It imbues a sense of character and setting that makes the classic King adaptations shine (Stand by Me is a frontrunner, but add in Carrie, The Shawshank Redemption and The Green MileThe Shining is something of a different kettle of fish in that regard). I wasn’t left with that impression from the very generic-seeming trailers, and again, I found the teaser’s record-breaking view count slightly mystifying. Where was allure coming from? Surely not the underwhelming villainy of Bill Skarsgård’s Pennywise, with his Bugs Bunny teeth and lack of… something.


Skargsård isn’t bad in the movie – his posture, in particular, is amazing, all gangling limbs like a puppet on a string –  but he has little charisma to speak of, no charm. That Beetlejuice poster (why do moviemakers know insist on placing pristine, perfectly positioned posters on kids’ bedroom walls? It’s Stranger Things syndrome screaming lazy nostalgia) is an unfortunate reminder of where It comes up short; shouldn’t Pennywise be like Beetlejuice but scary? That’s why the middling mini-series made such an impression on a certain age group: Tim Curry’s inimitable performance. When Pennywise is strutting his stuff on a circus stage all I could think was, “Wouldn’t this be so much more ghoulish if Michael Keaton were doing it?” Spellbindingly transfixing one moment and then revealing his terrifying teeth the next.


And the thing is, you get the impression director Andy Muschietti half agrees, because he so consistently segues from truly disturbing scenes with real human monsters (be they teenage bullies or abusive parents) to straightforward shock tactics with Pennywise – obviously, as he shows up when they’re at their most frightened and vulnerable – that it underscores that the villain isn’t really the villain here, so building to a climactic showdown that is slightly anti-climactic and ten-a-penny(wise).


You can feel these gears shift irrevocably the first time the group enter the old dark house, and the full-throttle scary set pieces take centre stage. Muschietti still delivers them inventively and a cut above, but prior to that he was sustaining an expert juggling act (the use of CGI is generally of a high quality, but inevitably distracts from complete immersion in a genre movie; having said that, some moments, like the giant Pennywise during the projector sequence, are very effective in spite of the obvious artifice).


There are no weak links in the young cast – pretty much everyone has a bright future to judge by these performances (mind you, you’d have said the same of Stand By Me, and then Star Trek: The Next Generation happened to Will Wheaton) – although a couple (Finn Wolfhard of Stranger Things, getting all the best lines, and particularly Nicholas Hamilton, who follows the rebellious son in Captain Fantastic with an out-and-out sociopath) are already well on their way. For nominal lead Jaeden Lieberher this comes at a blessed time, since The Book of Henry’s stink can be resoundingly dispersed.


Jeremy Ray Taylor brings subtlety to the forever-passed-over fat kid, Jack Dylan Grazer is surely going to play a young someone in a Scorsese movie at some point, while Wyatt Oleff could be a young Young Sherlock Holmes (that is, Nicholas Rowe’s nipper). Sophia Lillis, like Grazer, has a compelling but somewhat cartoonishly-staked out domestic horror to deal with, so it’s to her credit that she imbues it with utter conviction (one of the strongest elements of this thread is the blood-spattered bathroom, whereby her father’s obliviousness to its state is never spelled out). Less laudable is the decision to put Beverly in the position of requiring rescue in the third act. There’s also the problem with a compressed narrative like this, as opposed to a novel or serial, that it highlights the schematic nature of sequentially following each kid overcoming their personal traumas to face the greater threat.


Muschietti obviously doesn’t follow King’s novel with the “gang bang” of the final act, or we’d never have heard the end of it (which makes me wonder why it’s only now becoming a subject of discussion, mostly in the form of apologias and excuses by people who ought to find it creepy full stop), but he doesn’t pull his punches in other respects. Right from the opening scene, where Georgie (Jackson Robert Scott, whose performance outdoes even his peers) has his arm ripped off during a storm drain encounter with Pennywise, the director announces this as a taboo-busting picture (you can imply, but don’t actually show that sort of violence against juveniles).


I’m not sure how effective the realisation of Pennywise’s rather commonplace modus operandi is (It is, after all, an elaborate construct based on the oldest motive in the book, the monster that feeds on fear, and only really gets a pass because it’s kids who have to work this out), but Muschietti carries off the occasional impressive element even here, such as the weird cosmic totem built of children’s toys and circus debris encircled by levitated victims.


There’s also the question of how come, in a place where evil thrives every quarter of a century-plus, these happenings haven’t become an urban legend that keeps every nipper awake at night, such that it takes a new arrival to uncover Derry’s dark history? The quartet of bullies too, are remarkably orchestrated in their achievements, managing to impress themselves on every “loser” in the town with regimented dedication. But It gets much more right than it gets wrong, and I say that having seen a few talked-up “intelligent” horrors in recent years that rather stumbled when it came to delivering the goods (The Conjurings in particular).


Kim Newman said in his review that the picture “feels a little too much like pastiche”, but that wasn’t my first response. Similar charges were levelled at Stranger Things (not that pastiche is something necessarily requiring a defence), but they only tend to stick if the sources are foregrounded. There is an inevitable evoking of Stand by Me (‘50s made in the ‘80s, where this is ‘80s made in the ‘10s) but not so much that influences or period wag the dog (the '80s were, of course, replete with murderous movie clowns, from the ones from outer space to the one who tried to kill Dean Stockwell. Chris Isaak, to be precise). It’s deficiency, where it had a deficiency, is of the horror genre generally, that the pay-off very, very rarely actually justifies the work that goes into setting it up.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism