Fone Bone
Matt Zimmer
It
I honestly did NOT expect to be giving that a negative review. Based on both the amazing reviews, and the fact that I knew ahead of time it changed the worst thing about the book, I intended to enjoy this. I'm a bit shocked I didn't. Truly. I did not see this coming.
Here is my problem with Stephen King's novel It. It's overlong, it's messy, and the ending is truly disgusting and appalling on every level. There is merit to be found in places in those 1000 pages, but by the end I can't help wishing it had been written in a era where King hadn't been coked out of his gourd. There are some neat themes, and even some Dark Tower connections, but as long as there is a child orgy at the end (played as erotic which is somehow a hundred times even more messed up) I throw up my hands and give up. But the movie didn't just change the bad things, it changed many of the best things about the book in the name of making it more like a traditional horror film. While it's probably superficially scarier for choosing to do that, many of the things they changed send a bad message. And that's compared to a book with a child orgy!
It was made into a broadcast network miniseries in 1990, and that still remains the definitive It to me. Better than the book, and better than this movie. Because it was on broadcast, and ABC, the network with the strictest censors at the time, it is not as horrific as it should be. But I think it did right by the concept without making the mistakes this movie did.
Let's briefly talk about what the movie did right. I can immediately think of two scenes that are superior to the miniseries. And in the first case, even better than the book. But the scene with Beverly in the bathroom with the blood was one of the most horrific onscreen things of the miniseries. The miniseries captured the book in that moment perfectly, and when her father wipes her cheek with his bloody hand you just want to scream. In hindsight, after seeing this, both the book and miniseries used the freaking light touch. That was messed up what I just saw. I approve.
The second thing I saw in the movie I cannot say enough good things about is The Apocalyptic Rockfight. That was my personal favorite scene in the book, with some of King's best writing of the era describing what is happening, and it's one of the few things the miniseries whiffed completely. This is not as good as the book. But it's way better than the miniseries. I guess all we really needed was a soundtrack.
One of the most notable early failures of the movie is something the miniseries wisely didn't even attempt. But one of my favorite things in the entire book is the horrific, gory, and deserved death of the kid named Patrick Hockstetter. The miniseries turned a blind eye, wisely, and I can't believe the movie added the character to kill him off in such an underwhelming fashion. You either go big with Patrick Hockstetter or you go home. And you CAN'T go big with Patrick Hockstetter, because if you film the scenes leading up to his murder, you'd be filming child pornography. But Patrick's death is the only death in the book where I'm on Pennywise's side, and am glad to see that little sociopath, who murdered his baby brother when he was six, get what was coming to him. But without the backstory, which you cannot do in live-action because none of the other characters even know about it, there is no rhyme or reason to Patrick's death, or any reason we should care. It was foolish to include the character at all in the movie.
I was disappointed we didn't get a version of the Ritual of Chud or the Turtle. Turtles are referenced a couple of times as Easter Eggs for the fans, but one of the disappointments of the miniseries is that they clearly did not and could not ever have the budget to do the Ritual, and the Void, and the giant Turtle who connects to the Dark Tower. I'm bummed that this movie probably DID have the budget for both of those things, and still ignored them. It is one of the few Stephen King scenes that has yet to be filmed, that NEEDS to be filmed, in my estimation.
Here is the part of the review I don't want to go through, but since I'm giving this a negative review, I must. I have to state every way this movie is inferior to both the book and the miniseries. And it's not completely worse than the book. It doesn't have a child orgy. BUT, (and everyone I know has a big but) all the movie had to do was pretty much show up and I'd like it. But it messes stuff up in the name of horror that it shouldn't.
First off, Bev being kidnapped at the end is unacceptable. She is literally the Losers' biggest gun in both the book AND the miniseries, and they've turned her into a damsel in distress, which is all kinds of messed up. It boggles the mind that the movie chose to do that. What bothers me is that based on the positive reception the film has gotten, is that more people haven't complained about it.
The Losers seem completely unprepared and out of their element during the entire film. The reason It fears the Losers at all during the book and miniseries is because the Losers are ready, and clever, and determined to kill It once and for all. Here, they march into Niebolt Street unarmed, and are shocked Pennywise hands them their butts. In the book Ben fashions silver ball bearings, and they practice shooting them with a slingshot, and Bev becomes the shooter because it was "supposed to be her". These kids are dumb, and despite seeing more modern horror films than the kids in the book or miniseries ever did, split up, hide in bathrooms instead of going outside, and do all kinds of other foolish nonsense instead of getting under Pennywise's skin like they did throughout the entire book and miniseries.
Richie Tozier is completely wrong. Here he is an outright jerk and bully, and super vulgar and gross. This should not be a character to get as wrong as this movie does. Richie is supposed to be the jokester. He saves his trashtalking for the people outside of the Losers Club, and whenever he talks trash with the Losers, it's clear he's joking around in a goofy manner, and everybody loves him for it. Richie in this movie is mean. I think that is absolutely 100% the wrong dynamic.
Another major mistake was splitting up the Losers after a spat over how badly the debacle at Neibolt Street went. The thing that bothers me is that it's the fact that the Losers have such an unbreakable bond in the book and miniseries that they get strong enough to defeat Pennywise by spending the entire summer together.
Here everyone splits up and only reunites when Bev is kidnapped. It dilutes the Power Of Friendship moral if the heroes defeat Pennywise despite barely being friends. I found the Faustian bargain at the end that Pennywise made of promising to spare the other kids if they let him take Bill fascinating, and something I would have not objected to seeing in the book or miniseries, It was a great extra hook. The problem is that Richie's response is actually in question for me and the audience, when it never would be in the book or the movie. There is a case to be made that the Richie of this movie WOULD split and leave Bill to Pennywise, and that is not something that should ever be suspenseful for the viewer. These are unbreakable friends, and you can't tell that in this movie.
I felt that Stan Uris had too little to do. They didn't even let him cut their hands with the coke bottles at the end. One of the biggest things about the first defeat of Pennywise is that Everybody Has A Part To Play. That is why when it's 30 years later and they are a Loser or two down, it's a huge open question whether they still possess the power to do that. If we're handing off Stan's victories to the other characters, when he's absent for the next film, the audience will perhaps not think it matters. But he doesn't have the bird book, or any of the smart ideas he has in the book. And it's a crying shame.
I felt the character of Henry Bowers was a bit of a draw compared to the book. The idea that he gave Bill a pass this year because of his brother is common sense, but far kinder than Henry was ever portrayed in either the book or the miniseries. There is also something nice about not hearing the character scream the n-word at every available opportunity. He's a scumbag whether or not he does that, but King as a white man is far too free with that word. But it's the fact that he uses that word that demonstrates what a scumbag he is most effectively. Plus his seething hatred of Mike Hanlon now makes little sense, while the writers refuse to state what his actual problem is.
Here is a weird, small complaint but it bugged me. It's the kids swimming in their underwear. Ben Hanscomb would not be caught dead with his shirt off in front of Beverly Marsh for any reason. In fact, he spent most of the summer in the book wearing a heavy sweatshirt to hide his breasts. I did not like that they completely ignored that aspect of Ben for what I could tell was actually no good reason.
I was interested that they went into a LITTLE bit of the town's history that they didn't in the miniseries, but if they DO properly explore it, I expect that would be in the next movie.
The subtext between Beverly and her father was correct throughout the entire movie, even if he doesn't actually beat her until the end.
Mrs. Kasprak however is too mild at the beginning of the movie, and doesn't come off as crazy and desperate as she does in the book and miniseries. She doesn't have a ton of scenes in the movie but none of them make me cringe at the character the way I am supposed to.
I think I talked about everything. Expect one thing. How is Bill Skarsgard, especially compared to Tim Curry? He has more nuance than Curry, and he's scarier, but I only think he's scarier because the R rated movie format and advanced special effects allow him to be. Curry's Pennywise was a MUCH more memorable character, probably also because he was much more present in the miniseries than Pennywise seems to be in this movie. I also found it very difficult to believe Skarsgard is able to charm Georgie at ALL at the beginning, whereas Curry was able to channel a harmless seeming Pennywise pretty effectively.
I haven't seen Chapter 2, and probably won't until it comes out on Blu-Ray. But I am shocked I liked the first part as little as I did. **1/2.
Deleted Scenes:
Oh, my God! That extended gag opening of Georgie taking the boat from Pennywise and scampering off while the clown curses was hilarious! Every single person who has read that book or seen that miniseries ALWAYS wishes it ended that way, no matter no many times they read it or see it. I'm glad it was filmed once, even as a joke. If things had gone THIS way, there might not even have been a movie. I like Stan's Bar Mitzvah speech, but Stan's dad is too harsh. In the book his are the few normal parents among the Losers. It's revealed in a deleted scene that Henry kill Belch and Victor. Unless they omit them entirely from the next movie, deleting that scene feels like an oversight. Even if they DON'T return, you WILL wind up wondering what happened to them. I liked the extended deleted ending better than the one in the film, but I'd probably only feel that way if there definitely wasn't a sequel coming. The way the movie itself ended works better as an open-ended moment. ****.
I honestly did NOT expect to be giving that a negative review. Based on both the amazing reviews, and the fact that I knew ahead of time it changed the worst thing about the book, I intended to enjoy this. I'm a bit shocked I didn't. Truly. I did not see this coming.
Here is my problem with Stephen King's novel It. It's overlong, it's messy, and the ending is truly disgusting and appalling on every level. There is merit to be found in places in those 1000 pages, but by the end I can't help wishing it had been written in a era where King hadn't been coked out of his gourd. There are some neat themes, and even some Dark Tower connections, but as long as there is a child orgy at the end (played as erotic which is somehow a hundred times even more messed up) I throw up my hands and give up. But the movie didn't just change the bad things, it changed many of the best things about the book in the name of making it more like a traditional horror film. While it's probably superficially scarier for choosing to do that, many of the things they changed send a bad message. And that's compared to a book with a child orgy!
It was made into a broadcast network miniseries in 1990, and that still remains the definitive It to me. Better than the book, and better than this movie. Because it was on broadcast, and ABC, the network with the strictest censors at the time, it is not as horrific as it should be. But I think it did right by the concept without making the mistakes this movie did.
Let's briefly talk about what the movie did right. I can immediately think of two scenes that are superior to the miniseries. And in the first case, even better than the book. But the scene with Beverly in the bathroom with the blood was one of the most horrific onscreen things of the miniseries. The miniseries captured the book in that moment perfectly, and when her father wipes her cheek with his bloody hand you just want to scream. In hindsight, after seeing this, both the book and miniseries used the freaking light touch. That was messed up what I just saw. I approve.
The second thing I saw in the movie I cannot say enough good things about is The Apocalyptic Rockfight. That was my personal favorite scene in the book, with some of King's best writing of the era describing what is happening, and it's one of the few things the miniseries whiffed completely. This is not as good as the book. But it's way better than the miniseries. I guess all we really needed was a soundtrack.
One of the most notable early failures of the movie is something the miniseries wisely didn't even attempt. But one of my favorite things in the entire book is the horrific, gory, and deserved death of the kid named Patrick Hockstetter. The miniseries turned a blind eye, wisely, and I can't believe the movie added the character to kill him off in such an underwhelming fashion. You either go big with Patrick Hockstetter or you go home. And you CAN'T go big with Patrick Hockstetter, because if you film the scenes leading up to his murder, you'd be filming child pornography. But Patrick's death is the only death in the book where I'm on Pennywise's side, and am glad to see that little sociopath, who murdered his baby brother when he was six, get what was coming to him. But without the backstory, which you cannot do in live-action because none of the other characters even know about it, there is no rhyme or reason to Patrick's death, or any reason we should care. It was foolish to include the character at all in the movie.
I was disappointed we didn't get a version of the Ritual of Chud or the Turtle. Turtles are referenced a couple of times as Easter Eggs for the fans, but one of the disappointments of the miniseries is that they clearly did not and could not ever have the budget to do the Ritual, and the Void, and the giant Turtle who connects to the Dark Tower. I'm bummed that this movie probably DID have the budget for both of those things, and still ignored them. It is one of the few Stephen King scenes that has yet to be filmed, that NEEDS to be filmed, in my estimation.
Here is the part of the review I don't want to go through, but since I'm giving this a negative review, I must. I have to state every way this movie is inferior to both the book and the miniseries. And it's not completely worse than the book. It doesn't have a child orgy. BUT, (and everyone I know has a big but) all the movie had to do was pretty much show up and I'd like it. But it messes stuff up in the name of horror that it shouldn't.
First off, Bev being kidnapped at the end is unacceptable. She is literally the Losers' biggest gun in both the book AND the miniseries, and they've turned her into a damsel in distress, which is all kinds of messed up. It boggles the mind that the movie chose to do that. What bothers me is that based on the positive reception the film has gotten, is that more people haven't complained about it.
The Losers seem completely unprepared and out of their element during the entire film. The reason It fears the Losers at all during the book and miniseries is because the Losers are ready, and clever, and determined to kill It once and for all. Here, they march into Niebolt Street unarmed, and are shocked Pennywise hands them their butts. In the book Ben fashions silver ball bearings, and they practice shooting them with a slingshot, and Bev becomes the shooter because it was "supposed to be her". These kids are dumb, and despite seeing more modern horror films than the kids in the book or miniseries ever did, split up, hide in bathrooms instead of going outside, and do all kinds of other foolish nonsense instead of getting under Pennywise's skin like they did throughout the entire book and miniseries.
Richie Tozier is completely wrong. Here he is an outright jerk and bully, and super vulgar and gross. This should not be a character to get as wrong as this movie does. Richie is supposed to be the jokester. He saves his trashtalking for the people outside of the Losers Club, and whenever he talks trash with the Losers, it's clear he's joking around in a goofy manner, and everybody loves him for it. Richie in this movie is mean. I think that is absolutely 100% the wrong dynamic.
Another major mistake was splitting up the Losers after a spat over how badly the debacle at Neibolt Street went. The thing that bothers me is that it's the fact that the Losers have such an unbreakable bond in the book and miniseries that they get strong enough to defeat Pennywise by spending the entire summer together.
Here everyone splits up and only reunites when Bev is kidnapped. It dilutes the Power Of Friendship moral if the heroes defeat Pennywise despite barely being friends. I found the Faustian bargain at the end that Pennywise made of promising to spare the other kids if they let him take Bill fascinating, and something I would have not objected to seeing in the book or miniseries, It was a great extra hook. The problem is that Richie's response is actually in question for me and the audience, when it never would be in the book or the movie. There is a case to be made that the Richie of this movie WOULD split and leave Bill to Pennywise, and that is not something that should ever be suspenseful for the viewer. These are unbreakable friends, and you can't tell that in this movie.
I felt that Stan Uris had too little to do. They didn't even let him cut their hands with the coke bottles at the end. One of the biggest things about the first defeat of Pennywise is that Everybody Has A Part To Play. That is why when it's 30 years later and they are a Loser or two down, it's a huge open question whether they still possess the power to do that. If we're handing off Stan's victories to the other characters, when he's absent for the next film, the audience will perhaps not think it matters. But he doesn't have the bird book, or any of the smart ideas he has in the book. And it's a crying shame.
I felt the character of Henry Bowers was a bit of a draw compared to the book. The idea that he gave Bill a pass this year because of his brother is common sense, but far kinder than Henry was ever portrayed in either the book or the miniseries. There is also something nice about not hearing the character scream the n-word at every available opportunity. He's a scumbag whether or not he does that, but King as a white man is far too free with that word. But it's the fact that he uses that word that demonstrates what a scumbag he is most effectively. Plus his seething hatred of Mike Hanlon now makes little sense, while the writers refuse to state what his actual problem is.
Here is a weird, small complaint but it bugged me. It's the kids swimming in their underwear. Ben Hanscomb would not be caught dead with his shirt off in front of Beverly Marsh for any reason. In fact, he spent most of the summer in the book wearing a heavy sweatshirt to hide his breasts. I did not like that they completely ignored that aspect of Ben for what I could tell was actually no good reason.
I was interested that they went into a LITTLE bit of the town's history that they didn't in the miniseries, but if they DO properly explore it, I expect that would be in the next movie.
The subtext between Beverly and her father was correct throughout the entire movie, even if he doesn't actually beat her until the end.
Mrs. Kasprak however is too mild at the beginning of the movie, and doesn't come off as crazy and desperate as she does in the book and miniseries. She doesn't have a ton of scenes in the movie but none of them make me cringe at the character the way I am supposed to.
I think I talked about everything. Expect one thing. How is Bill Skarsgard, especially compared to Tim Curry? He has more nuance than Curry, and he's scarier, but I only think he's scarier because the R rated movie format and advanced special effects allow him to be. Curry's Pennywise was a MUCH more memorable character, probably also because he was much more present in the miniseries than Pennywise seems to be in this movie. I also found it very difficult to believe Skarsgard is able to charm Georgie at ALL at the beginning, whereas Curry was able to channel a harmless seeming Pennywise pretty effectively.
I haven't seen Chapter 2, and probably won't until it comes out on Blu-Ray. But I am shocked I liked the first part as little as I did. **1/2.
Deleted Scenes:
Oh, my God! That extended gag opening of Georgie taking the boat from Pennywise and scampering off while the clown curses was hilarious! Every single person who has read that book or seen that miniseries ALWAYS wishes it ended that way, no matter no many times they read it or see it. I'm glad it was filmed once, even as a joke. If things had gone THIS way, there might not even have been a movie. I like Stan's Bar Mitzvah speech, but Stan's dad is too harsh. In the book his are the few normal parents among the Losers. It's revealed in a deleted scene that Henry kill Belch and Victor. Unless they omit them entirely from the next movie, deleting that scene feels like an oversight. Even if they DON'T return, you WILL wind up wondering what happened to them. I liked the extended deleted ending better than the one in the film, but I'd probably only feel that way if there definitely wasn't a sequel coming. The way the movie itself ended works better as an open-ended moment. ****.
