Post by The Social Introvert on Jan 26, 2018 14:42:37 GMT
If you prefer a video version, see here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvpA6F663RI&t=6s
‘It’ is the film adaption of Stephen King’s horror novel, coming after the TV mini-series starring Tim Curry as Pennywise the Dancing Clown, an entity that poses as a children’s entertainer who terrorises a group of kids in an American town in the 80’s. This version is rated R rated, and stars Bill Skarsgard as the child eater.
So we follow a group of children in a town where child-disappearances are a thing, who call themselves ‘the losers club’; they’re pretty much the outcasts of the usual high school clique, we’ve got the stutter kid, the black guy, the four eyes, the fat bastard and so on. Billy, the leader of the pack, lost his brother years ago, unbeknownst to him, to Pennywise. All of a sudden for no apparent reason, creepy stuff begins to happen all around them whenever the group is separate from each other, things that always seem to play of their own personal fears, usually a personal tragedy. The thing that is consistent in everyone’s episodes is a clown that appears. The kids eventually tell each other about these instances and do a bit of research after which they realize they are being hunted by a phenomenon that manifests itself every 27 years and wants to eat them.
It’s a very old school sounding horror plot, and it is quite an old school movie in the sense that everything is as it appears; there isn’t necessarily anything underneath the surface level, nothing wrong with that of course. But what I mean to say is a lot of the scares are generated through the visuals and jump instances. But it does lack quality elements that its predecessors excelled in. If I could momentarily compare it to John Carpenter’s Prince of Darkness, a movie which I was reminded of while watching ‘It’ – there were loads of visual scares in that film also, a man decomposing into a hoard of beetles, an undead human with its face ripped off – we see similar things in ‘It’ a headless dude chasing a kid, a giant crab-like creature, but for some reason there was something about the scares in this film that just weren’t resonating with me. I wasn’t digging it.
I think a lot of my issues were relating to atmosphere. ‘It’ doesn’t really have an identity, in terms of atmosphere. When you think of ‘The Fog’ for example, you think of cold ambience, spooky and eerie, if you are looking at Suspiria you think bright colours, bombastic and skilful style, but what is ‘It’s Identity? I don’t really feel it has one, and it takes away a lot from the movie. I guess a major factor is that the film doesn’t really take its time, despite the almost 2 and a half hour run time – it jumps straight into the horror and the clown doing his thing, going after everyone left right and centre. The movie doesn’t really feel like it has its own personality, instead it almost feels like a few set pieces of horror scenes loosely strung together. Add that to the fact that we open with a horror scene (a terrific opening, I might add), then a couple of more horror scenes of each main character being harassed by the clown, then everyone bonding, then more terror, then a bit more bonding, then a weird rock throwing fight against some bullies, then some more terror…I don’t know. I feel it all kind of lacks structure, lacks an efficient arrangement of scenes. Just take your time. We don’t need to see Pennywise popping up saying ‘BOO’ every 2 minutes – sell his appearance, build the fear, instead of throwing it at the screen.
Speaking of the scares, many of the horror scenes were rendered ineffective because there were a lot of very obvious computer generated effects, and that’s just a massive no-no, especially in horror. If it’s clear the effects aren’t real then it just ruins the immersion, any possible fear you’d feel is immediately evaporated.
So that covers the visual scares. The rest of the scares are pretty much jump scares. Nothing wrong with a good jump scare, but when they are scattered so frequently throughout the film and they become so common place each one loses its distinctiveness. I only saw the film yesterday and yet I can only really remember two jump scares, which isn’t the most confident commendation of a film whose entire shtick relies on these kind of scenes. Is ‘It’ scary? I don’t think so. Loud yes, but frightening? No. And it’s a shame, because the movie is dependant on these scares – without them, there isn’t much to come for. But they’re just not very effective. I mean, what’s the formula at work with the film? Introduce a scary set piece, have a terrified child walk up to it, unleash a CGI-filmed jump scare accompanied by the occasional seizure-like activity from the clown, and then he disappears. Rinse and repeat. But there isn’t really much else, no cake under all the sugar and icing. It’s unfortunate. To be honest I found the real life stuff more upsetting than the supernatural. Parts like a pack of bullies cutting a victim with a knife.
Pennywise himself looks pretty unsettling. The actor who played him did a great job of creating a sinister villain who, whilst is very threatening gives off the vibe that he’s simply toying with the kids most of the time and isn’t giving it his all. From what I hear from those who have read the book, this is the actual case and he will come back stronger and harder in the film’s sequel. I would have preferred an older and more innocent looking clown, one that might not stand out at a circus, but one whose tirades of evil reveal a much more physically terrifying appearance. That’s kind of the essence of a clown isn’t it? Innocent and playful, enticing to children, not immediately creepy and scary. But that’s the creative decision the film-makers went with so hay ho. Skarsgard also has a lazy eye which the director utilized quite well.
I don’t really understand the creature and what he can and can’t do. This was one of my main peeves with prince of Darkness also in that the villains’ abilities weren’t well defined. If Pennywise relies on fear and is unable to attack certain characters in pivotal scenes because they are not afraid of him, how is he able to take out Georgie in the opening scene when the kid is literally laughing and mingling with him, even being fearless enough to reach out a hand to grab his boat the Pennywise is holding? He is able to teleport anywhere grabbing victims but gets knocked out in a fist fight with a bunch of self-proclaimed losers? Why is he even engaging in a fist fight? Surely he could use one of his powers to handicap or even kill the children instantly? I don’t really get it.
Acting wise, I think all the youngsters did a fine job. The film is as much of a Stand By Me style, coming of age tale as it is a horror movie, and the Loser’s club actors played their parts effectively, coming across as genuine kids acting the way children would act. You can see what the film is go for what with the kids, the 80’s, the clown, like I said it all feels very old school but is damaged by various problems, most of which are modern day problems, like the already-mentioned CGI.
This is a bit of a spoiler, I guess. But one thing I was really bummed out by was after hearing Pennywise’s well known quote about floating and telling would-be victims that “You’ll float too” it turns out his victims do actually float. They are literally suspended in mid-air flying around after they are killed down in the sewers. That was a bit iffy really. I never thought Pennywise meant that literally, more like “you’ll float down the sewers after I’ll kill you”, not “I’ll turn you into a flying Christmas tree decoration.” It probably epitomizes one of the main problems with this film, in that everything is literal, everything is visual. None of the scares are otherworldly, none of the ideas abstract. It’s all just really roars, screams, clowns, spiders, teeth etc etc There’s a few other things here and there that had me rolling my eyes, like how the group repeats that sticking together is the key to success, but constantly and intentionally separate from each other when in the spooky house or in the sewers.
‘It’ was serviceable, it was functional, but it lacked a kick. It lacked something that I usually refer to as the ‘soul’ of the movie. Elements of it come off as artificial, rushed and lacking heart and to be honest, even with the constant barrage of Pennywise attacks and illusions…I was a bit bored really. And it made no lasting impact, which is one of the measures of an effective horror movie. I am sad to say I give it a 6/10.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvpA6F663RI&t=6s
‘It’ is the film adaption of Stephen King’s horror novel, coming after the TV mini-series starring Tim Curry as Pennywise the Dancing Clown, an entity that poses as a children’s entertainer who terrorises a group of kids in an American town in the 80’s. This version is rated R rated, and stars Bill Skarsgard as the child eater.
So we follow a group of children in a town where child-disappearances are a thing, who call themselves ‘the losers club’; they’re pretty much the outcasts of the usual high school clique, we’ve got the stutter kid, the black guy, the four eyes, the fat bastard and so on. Billy, the leader of the pack, lost his brother years ago, unbeknownst to him, to Pennywise. All of a sudden for no apparent reason, creepy stuff begins to happen all around them whenever the group is separate from each other, things that always seem to play of their own personal fears, usually a personal tragedy. The thing that is consistent in everyone’s episodes is a clown that appears. The kids eventually tell each other about these instances and do a bit of research after which they realize they are being hunted by a phenomenon that manifests itself every 27 years and wants to eat them.
It’s a very old school sounding horror plot, and it is quite an old school movie in the sense that everything is as it appears; there isn’t necessarily anything underneath the surface level, nothing wrong with that of course. But what I mean to say is a lot of the scares are generated through the visuals and jump instances. But it does lack quality elements that its predecessors excelled in. If I could momentarily compare it to John Carpenter’s Prince of Darkness, a movie which I was reminded of while watching ‘It’ – there were loads of visual scares in that film also, a man decomposing into a hoard of beetles, an undead human with its face ripped off – we see similar things in ‘It’ a headless dude chasing a kid, a giant crab-like creature, but for some reason there was something about the scares in this film that just weren’t resonating with me. I wasn’t digging it.
I think a lot of my issues were relating to atmosphere. ‘It’ doesn’t really have an identity, in terms of atmosphere. When you think of ‘The Fog’ for example, you think of cold ambience, spooky and eerie, if you are looking at Suspiria you think bright colours, bombastic and skilful style, but what is ‘It’s Identity? I don’t really feel it has one, and it takes away a lot from the movie. I guess a major factor is that the film doesn’t really take its time, despite the almost 2 and a half hour run time – it jumps straight into the horror and the clown doing his thing, going after everyone left right and centre. The movie doesn’t really feel like it has its own personality, instead it almost feels like a few set pieces of horror scenes loosely strung together. Add that to the fact that we open with a horror scene (a terrific opening, I might add), then a couple of more horror scenes of each main character being harassed by the clown, then everyone bonding, then more terror, then a bit more bonding, then a weird rock throwing fight against some bullies, then some more terror…I don’t know. I feel it all kind of lacks structure, lacks an efficient arrangement of scenes. Just take your time. We don’t need to see Pennywise popping up saying ‘BOO’ every 2 minutes – sell his appearance, build the fear, instead of throwing it at the screen.
Speaking of the scares, many of the horror scenes were rendered ineffective because there were a lot of very obvious computer generated effects, and that’s just a massive no-no, especially in horror. If it’s clear the effects aren’t real then it just ruins the immersion, any possible fear you’d feel is immediately evaporated.
So that covers the visual scares. The rest of the scares are pretty much jump scares. Nothing wrong with a good jump scare, but when they are scattered so frequently throughout the film and they become so common place each one loses its distinctiveness. I only saw the film yesterday and yet I can only really remember two jump scares, which isn’t the most confident commendation of a film whose entire shtick relies on these kind of scenes. Is ‘It’ scary? I don’t think so. Loud yes, but frightening? No. And it’s a shame, because the movie is dependant on these scares – without them, there isn’t much to come for. But they’re just not very effective. I mean, what’s the formula at work with the film? Introduce a scary set piece, have a terrified child walk up to it, unleash a CGI-filmed jump scare accompanied by the occasional seizure-like activity from the clown, and then he disappears. Rinse and repeat. But there isn’t really much else, no cake under all the sugar and icing. It’s unfortunate. To be honest I found the real life stuff more upsetting than the supernatural. Parts like a pack of bullies cutting a victim with a knife.
Pennywise himself looks pretty unsettling. The actor who played him did a great job of creating a sinister villain who, whilst is very threatening gives off the vibe that he’s simply toying with the kids most of the time and isn’t giving it his all. From what I hear from those who have read the book, this is the actual case and he will come back stronger and harder in the film’s sequel. I would have preferred an older and more innocent looking clown, one that might not stand out at a circus, but one whose tirades of evil reveal a much more physically terrifying appearance. That’s kind of the essence of a clown isn’t it? Innocent and playful, enticing to children, not immediately creepy and scary. But that’s the creative decision the film-makers went with so hay ho. Skarsgard also has a lazy eye which the director utilized quite well.
I don’t really understand the creature and what he can and can’t do. This was one of my main peeves with prince of Darkness also in that the villains’ abilities weren’t well defined. If Pennywise relies on fear and is unable to attack certain characters in pivotal scenes because they are not afraid of him, how is he able to take out Georgie in the opening scene when the kid is literally laughing and mingling with him, even being fearless enough to reach out a hand to grab his boat the Pennywise is holding? He is able to teleport anywhere grabbing victims but gets knocked out in a fist fight with a bunch of self-proclaimed losers? Why is he even engaging in a fist fight? Surely he could use one of his powers to handicap or even kill the children instantly? I don’t really get it.
Acting wise, I think all the youngsters did a fine job. The film is as much of a Stand By Me style, coming of age tale as it is a horror movie, and the Loser’s club actors played their parts effectively, coming across as genuine kids acting the way children would act. You can see what the film is go for what with the kids, the 80’s, the clown, like I said it all feels very old school but is damaged by various problems, most of which are modern day problems, like the already-mentioned CGI.
This is a bit of a spoiler, I guess. But one thing I was really bummed out by was after hearing Pennywise’s well known quote about floating and telling would-be victims that “You’ll float too” it turns out his victims do actually float. They are literally suspended in mid-air flying around after they are killed down in the sewers. That was a bit iffy really. I never thought Pennywise meant that literally, more like “you’ll float down the sewers after I’ll kill you”, not “I’ll turn you into a flying Christmas tree decoration.” It probably epitomizes one of the main problems with this film, in that everything is literal, everything is visual. None of the scares are otherworldly, none of the ideas abstract. It’s all just really roars, screams, clowns, spiders, teeth etc etc There’s a few other things here and there that had me rolling my eyes, like how the group repeats that sticking together is the key to success, but constantly and intentionally separate from each other when in the spooky house or in the sewers.
‘It’ was serviceable, it was functional, but it lacked a kick. It lacked something that I usually refer to as the ‘soul’ of the movie. Elements of it come off as artificial, rushed and lacking heart and to be honest, even with the constant barrage of Pennywise attacks and illusions…I was a bit bored really. And it made no lasting impact, which is one of the measures of an effective horror movie. I am sad to say I give it a 6/10.