MovieChat Forums > It (2017) Discussion > My Salty Review of IT... [may contain sp...

My Salty Review of IT... [may contain spoilers]

posted 7 years ago by ScoreKeeper (25)
8 replies | jump to latest

Overall:

It sucked. The jump-scares were predictable. The peripheral 80s setting was more distracting than relatable. The movie felt like a long Goosebumps episode emboldened with a lush, cinematic soundtrack and kids whose dialogue is comparable to prepubescents playing MMORPGs, trash-talking strangers on TeamSpeak. This movie lacked what I loved about the 1990 miniseries and failed to compensate for its setbacks. I still believe there could be a great variation of the IT story... but it's not this one.

Pros:
- The opening.

It set up a beautifully eerie interpretation of Georgie's famous scene. The set design and lighting had a dream-like quality to it that made great for a base to start things off. It really propelled the story well. The score was appropriately "mushy" with an underlying fear that creeps up as Georgie takes his paper boat on her maiden voyage. The first appearance of Pennywise was just what the trailer prescribed, and I was really happy with Bill Skarsgard's portrayal as the character. After this scene, the music crescendo's as a POV shot floats us out from deep within the sewer and the iconic title appears. This build only leads to a rather flat plateau that is the rest of the film.

That's honestly about the only good thing about this film. That and the one comic relief line where Richie says something like, "Hurry up! This kid's pouring out Hamburger Helper from his stomach!" That had me rolling in laughter so loud that for a second I was that annoying guy in the theater.

Cons:
-The 80s bandwagon gimmickry

Sigh... Okay. I'm going to get a bit salty now. But this is my review, so if you don't agree with me, well, go sniff someone else's shit. Anyway, unlike the book, this adaptation of the It story takes place in the late 80s. I knew this going into the film, and I really didn't have any issue with it. I knew some creative licenses were going to be taken, assuming from all that was revealed in the trailers. And that's okay. Unfortunately, the longer the movie progressed, the more I felt like I was be subjected to what I'm going to call "nostalgia-baiting." Nowadays, a lot of studios are using nostalgic devices as a means to attract audience members to watching their shows. In our current times, millenials like myself are typically the target demographic for most R-Rated and MA films. And since the movie Super 8, I've noticed a trend in movies and TV series incorporating the 1980s as a prop to keep the attention of their audience. And sometimes this trick has worked well... before it wasn't so fervently used. (Stranger Things is an exception.)
IT tried to infuse the spirit of Stranger Things' success of nostalgia-baiting into its narrative, but it swoons only fools and 80s-crazed bandwagoners. Reference after reference after reference. NKTOB, summer blockbuster movies being showcased (Nightmare on Elm), Lego playsets, walkmans, calculator wristwatches, and a cheap joke about Michael Jackson fringing his scalp... Okay, so the set designers and costume designers bought a ton of shit on ebay to make this movie feel authentic. But I wasn't fooled by it. I found it to be more distracting than anything. Had the story taken place in the 50s, you'd be in a better setting for the scare tactics that this film deserves. But I understand that that decade would be much more expensive to recreate and it would be harder for younger audience members to relate to. Which brings me to the next point:

-Overbaked cinematography

Movies are a unique art form in which visual space, time, lighting and color all harmonize together to create emotions and moods that help support the story they convey. The cinematography in this film was so stylish and doctored that it really didn't evoke a raw sense of "realness." It worked very well for Georgie's opening scene, because it becomes a past event that sets up a base of fear for the audience to bounce off throughout the rest of the movie. But instead, the movie kind of drags itself through making EVERY scene feel so epic and serene with overused tracking shots and dutch angles during low-key moments in the plot that you feel like everything you're seeing is pre-orchestrated. Which in the back of our minds we know this about every movie, but it is the filmmaker's job to distract us from that knowledge. Overall, the look of the film was contrived.

****Continued in comments below...***

[–] ScoreKeeper (25) 7 years ago

-Kids using adult language gimmickry

I personally don't mind cursing. I love South Park. I get that kids typically use foul language fluently when parents aren't around. But this movie once again abuses the kids' license to curse as a wild card to distract you from the real fuckery that the story has no real value in and of itself. Less is sometimes more! You know the kids loved having that freedom. But it was overused to the point where the script was sanded from all its potential luster. In the TV series, there was a moment when Ben Hanscom says "It kills kids, damnit!" And that one use of a wimpy curse word as "damn" was more effective and memorable than all the fucks literally given in the new screenplay.

-Misplaced score

Again, the opening of the film, in my opinion, was well done. And even the first few minutes of the score really intrigued me. Music is a hard task in filmmaking. The composer and director have to reach agreements in a craft that most directors have no real familiarity with and the composer has to follow through that direction aurally without being too obstructive to the dialogue, sound effects and story. The orchestrations for this score are very pleasant to the ear. It really was aiming to melt the heart during the more personal scenes. And it does well to that point. But it almost works too hard to connect you to the characters through mushy music sap that by the end of the film you feel like you just finished watching a Nicholas Sparks melodrama. I get what they were going for... and sometimes it worked. But the score felt overstated many times. Especially during the suspense and jump-scare scenes. Bwaaaaahhh!

****More below....(sorry)****

[–] ScoreKeeper (25) 7 years ago

-Disjointed editing and pale characters

This is something that really turned me off throughout the film. There was no real fluidity in the editing of this movie. The challenge really lies in trying to show each kid's encounter with Pennywise while simultaneously establishing their characters. The scenes seemed rushed and perforated. And I know there has been a ton of praises to the acting abilities of the kids, but I wasn't sold on it. I felt the 1990 version group had even more chemistry than this version. They had their moments... Like when Bill cries while grasping on to Georgie's raincoat at the end. That was convincing enough to give me the feels.

-CGI

I appreciate CGI. It is used extensively in practically every single film made nowadays. But the best CGI is the subtle. The CGI in this movie was a bit too much on the cartoon-y side for me. I was really looking forward to the leper scene. But I wasn't expecting a motion captured stencil being entirely colored in with technology. I was more hoping for a real actor layered in terrifying makeup and dressed in practical costume. And CG alterations to intensify Pennywises form and ambulation were bland and earned yawns.

Okay... Now I feel like a cynical old man. Thank you.

[–] legalizeranch (28) 7 years ago

Very accurate review to me, I think I agree with every point you made.

[–] lasteven (309) 7 years ago

I'm not looking at my copy of "It" now, but I remember it being pretty heavy on profanity, as King has been frequently with younger characters. Is it that you think the script changes this to use more profanity in a way that doesn't work, or that you think the book made the wrong call for the characters and the script should have changed the language?

[–] ScoreKeeper (25) 7 years ago

I have no problem with the profanity. That is how kids talk or in the very least how they think. I get it. I'm cool with it. But it did not do what it was supposed to do in making believe the characters were sincere. I mean, it's my opinion. I'm not saying it wasn't effective for others. The adolescents in my theater were eating it right off the plate because the jokes and colorful language were sophomorically impressive to them. I just saw it for what it was: pre-rehearsed wit acted by kids. But i understand where you were confused by my original critique on this aspect of the film. I hope i could clear it up a bit for you. I mean, i could be caught up in my own steam from disliking the movie so much that i just want to shit all over it in any way i can. Haha

But thanks for showing interest in my opinion. 😎

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

Agreed, the film is garbage.

[–] Lord Rake (4454) 7 years ago

I think many reviews will change when people see the film outside of the theater setting. Every jump scare was accompanied by deafening cannon blasts out of the speakers and subs that I think some reviewers may have just been shell shocked.

[–] legalizeranch (28) 7 years ago

My ears are actually still ringing from how loud the movie was. I wish I could physically assault this movie for damaging my hearing.