It (2017)

• Year: 2017
• Released: 08 Sep 2017
• Country: United States, Canada
• Adwords: 9 wins & 48 nominations
• IMDb: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1396484/
• Rotten Tomatoes: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/it
• Metacritics: https://www.metacritic.com/movie/it
• Available in: 720p, 1080p,
• Language: English, Hebrew
• MPA Rating: R
• Genre: Horror
• Runtime: 135 min
• Writer: Chase Palmer, Cary Joji Fukunaga, Gary Dauberman
• Director: Andy Muschietti
• Cast: Bill Skarsgård, Jaeden Martell, Finn Wolfhard
• Keywords: based on novel or book, murder, small town, creature, flashback,

	7.3/10
	69/100

It Storyline

Undoubtedly, something is going on in the once-peaceful late-1980s town of Derry, Maine, as a seemingly endless string of violence, murder, and unaccountable child disappearances terrorise the small community. Against the backdrop of anguished remorse after the recent death of the innocent six-year-old, Georgie Denbrough, the close-knit band of school pariahs, or The Losers’ Club–Georgie’s troubled older brother, Bill; the bullied new classmate, Ben Hanscom; the ill-treated, Beverly Marsh; the playful, Richie Tozier; home school kid, Mike Hanlon; the asthmatic, Eddie Kaspbrak; and the fastidious, Stanley Uris–pluck up the courage to confront their well-hidden childhood fears and the blood-curdling clown-like shape-shifter who lives in their twisted visions. Nevertheless, is the malevolent bright-eyed demon, indeed, the nightmarish creature that horrifies Derry? Either way, the otherworldly entity needs to feed, and the young team of defenders are no match for him. Do they have what it takes to face IT?

It Play trailer

It Photos

It Torrents Download

It Subtitles Download

It Movie Reviews

Extremely over-hyped, a cringe-worthy missed opportunity

I’m a huge fan of the 1990’s TV film of “It”, especially for its aesthetics and soundtrack, but it left out a lot of content from the original novel, leaving me confused when I first saw it at the age of 12. This remake, or perhaps actually a “re-adaptation”, is certainly very timely, what with “Stranger Things” becoming so huge with pretentious hipsters everywhere. I’m still not sure it hits the “scary” factor very well, especially without Tim Curry’s tremendous acting, but it’s certainly creepy. It’s not nostalgic though, nor does it retain much of the original novel, including the 50’s setting, changed to the 80’s to obviously market itself with “Stranger Things” and “The Goonies”.

My problem with this new adaptation of “It” is that it’s addled with CGI and jump scares, neither of which add to its nostalgic appeal. At the risk of sounding like a film snob, if you’re trying to make a film set decades before this era, you don’t use CGI at all if you can avoid it, unless you really know how to camouflage it. The constant profanity did nothing for the story either, it only gave the false illusion of being edgy. Yes, the book had profanity, but King knew where to draw the line and keep the perfect balance of immature vulgarity and true friendship. The sheer level of nerdiness here made me cringe, unlike the TV movie which had genuine friendships and sweet moments of love and joy amidst the horror, just like King’s novel. Did one of those boys seriously just say “Get me my bifocals, I hid them in my second fanny pack”? What the hell kind of child wears bifocals? Why not just rename him Poindexter while they’re at it? The kids in the book and the miniseries were never this obnoxiously dorky. And what’s with all this New Kids on the Block stuff? There was a scene in which for no apparent reason all these close-ups of NKOTB posters pop up on-screen. Why? Just because earlier in the film a kid had been listening to that music? It made no sense! We get loads of terrible one liners from Richie comparing the blood in the sewers to “period blood” (lovely, eh?) and trust me, no way does any thirteen-year-old talk like this. All kids at that age swear and tell fart jokes and stuff, but even they have their limits.

Mike is only added as an afterthought, which seems borderline offensive, as if they only added him as a token minority whereas in the book and film he was such a complex, central character. He had a strong bond with his father that’s totally absent from this film. Stan is unlikable, and the newly revamped Pennywise the Clown has teeth that could rival the most inbred hillbilly, and the most scary thing he seems to be able to do is hop around like some kind of wino. Uh yeah, real “spooky”, I’m shaking in my boots.

Then we have the film’s complete disregard for the friendship, the glue that holds the story together. Killing and gore and sex and violence and swearing is not what horror is about, it’s about the darker side of life, and this film only portrays it in a cheesy slasher film type of way. I’m not trying to sound preachy, but where’s the love and friendship between the characters? When it is there (which isn’t very often) it feels forced. In the old miniseries, it felt authentic and true, and the kids were actually portrayed as kids, not young adults. This new film is completely void of the book’s special qualities such as the “hi-ho Silver!” thing and Eddie’s “battery acid” line. The film just doesn’t have the stunning scenery that the miniseries had, either. The miniseries had an actual gothic revival pump house as the sewer building (the Buntzen Hydroelectric Station of British Columbia), and it was creepy and nostalgic and absolutely the perfect choice. It had nailed down the industrial small town in an economic slump kind of look perfectly, too. This film looks too clean for that, with CGI used in all the wrong places to create what looks like fake looking stage sets.

This film isn’t completely terrible. It passes the time, but the only thing it has going for it is that the director thinks he has hit some 80’s vibe gold mine when in reality it just looked like a bad video game full of childish jump scares. I was hoping it might be more like the 2012 film Sinister, a genuinely frightening and timeless boogeyman that leaves a subtle unsettling presence wherever it goes, but no, it just looked cheap and lazy, an obvious cash grab that’s being WAY overhyped. A 7.5/10 rating, are you kidding me? Even King’s 1995 notoriously bad film The Mangler was better than this! It’s like with good marketing, this new film was able to pull the wool over everybody’s eyes and fool them into thinking it was a classic masterpiece.

Not at all the type of film I usually watch…but I did enjoy it and am glad I saw it.

Of all the different genres of films, I think modern horror is probably my least favorite. I love old horror films…mostly because they aren’t extremely graphic and leave a lot to the imagination. But this is a case which proves I can be won over by a violent modern horror pic. The only reason I saw this one at all is because my daughter wanted to see it…and I didn’t wanna disappoint her.

I am not going to make this review long…as there are nearly 800 for this hit film already. Suffice to say, the movie is scary, the story very good (the things omitted from the book are generally best not being in the film) and I enjoyed the heck out of the picture. Who knows…maybe I don’t hate the genre…just the brainless teens begin slaughtered at the abandoned amusement park/roller disco by a guy in a hockey mask sort of film.

Floating with brilliance

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