It

Yesterday, I had fun with a comment under a hipster-tearful article from Indiewire, from a user parodying the occasional critic lamentations over the new adaptation of IT , saying "it's actually very good, but it's not reminiscent of Tarkovsky's Solaris,” and then adding "shut up and enjoy the movie". On the one hand, I fully agree with them. Andy Muscietti managed to make a good film that is relatively faithful to King’s poetics, and it’s certainly among the TOP 5 adaptations of his horror masterpieces (together with The Shining, Misery, Carrie and The Mist). The cast is amazing and the direction of the young actors is as if by the way. And Bill Skarsgård’s portray of Pennywise is superb. On the other hand, I can’t avoid the feeling that more could have been done with it; even maintaining all the creators and the tropes of a “pleasing mainstream horror movie”. To really scare, IT doesn’t appear all that much and in order to squeeze everything, the spooky scenes end surprisingly fast with jump-scares; there is no time to properly escalate the tension (from a pure horror side, I thought the recent sequel of Annabelle was more effective and scarier). But what I lament the most is that Pennywise isn’t a full-fledged character, but only a bogeyman. It’s a real shame that he was not given more space to speak, because in those few scenes where manages to not only say ‘boo!’ but to also verbally interact with his victims, you can see a potential that was not exploited. Maybe next time, in Part Two. And the next time, and the time after that, in all the sequels, because there’s no way the studios will limit this excellently performed, main horror character to two films – especially given the expected profits. 75% (09/07/2017)

Legendary. That's what the book form of the saga is. A complex dealing with childhood, injustices, bullying, and more generally, adolescence. It also encompasses almost all genres, making it highly enticing and equally susceptible to being adapted into a film. It is precisely the childhood part that accounts for about two-thirds of the story, told through memories, exploration of history, personal desires, and imaginings, and occasionally even visions – a language that is somewhat unconventional for film. However, the film manages to touch upon or even adequately develop these themes as if by magic, and even though it primarily focuses on the most captivating centerpiece, Pennywise himself, everything unfolds smoothly like Swiss clockwork, to the point where I couldn't believe that the entire search was nearing its end. Unfortunately, not all members of the Losers' Club get their due during this process, especially Mike, who is merely included for the sake of numbers, and Richie is partially reduced to being a pubescent troublemaker (although even in this position, Finn Wolfhard portrays him with great likability). On the other hand, Jaeden Lieberher seems as if he stepped right out of my book version of Bill, and I can believe that I would have followed him anywhere during my childhood, even into the sewers, even though I wouldn't be able to explain why exactly I was doing it. (04/09/2018)

Is this the end of the curse of bad adaptations of King novels? After The Dark Tower, this is balm for the soul. Basically faithful to the book, while in some respects considerably different and inventive. When Fukunaga quit directing, I stopped believing in the project, but in the end it turned out well. A balanced tempo, sophisticated characters. Even the transposition of the present and the past worked well (drawing on the success of Stranger Things). The recipe proved itself again – the atmosphere of Stand by Me combined with a modern horror full of special effects. The clown served as a vessel for evil, in number 2 his very essence forces itself into the world. Making a sequel will be a hard task. (09/15/2017)

I have never read anything better from Stephen King than "It". He didn't rush it, played with the text for a long time, and finally created a novel full of creeping horror and omnipresent tension, one of the basic building blocks of the modern horror genre. The television adaptation disgusted me in its time, and practically nothing worked in it except for the clown's mask. What can I say about the film version? It's definitely not the best King adaptation, the victory in this category still belongs to Kubrick with The Shining. But Muschietti's film will hold a more than dignified spot in the ranking of film adaptations of King's works. It's definitely worth a visit to the movie theater to see it because the big screen undoubtedly enhances the viewing experience. Some (quite unnecessary) modifications may not please fans of the novel, and in a few places, the director slightly breaks the chilling atmosphere with comical scenes (Georgie hitting his head, the shooting of the phantom with a butcher's pistol, or awakening "Sleeping Beauty" with a kiss). I can imagine many films being shorter but here I wouldn't hesitate to add on fifteen minutes. Some scenes are rushed and lack a feeling of uncertainty and subtle hints of losing control over one's senses. The jump scare should be the period at the end of the sentence. In my opinion, the film also too ostentatiously showcases ideal friendships and there are simply too many big words in there. The novel's characters lived their friendship more than they showcased it. Despite all the minor criticisms, I ultimately lean towards giving it 5 stars. I don't see a film far and wide that could compete with It in its category at the moment. It is helped by excellently chosen child actors, excellent camera work, appropriate set design, and music that can stretch nerves to the breaking point. It's all there, even though by "it" I mean something different than what horror fans were looking forward to. Muschietti's film works more like a dark fantasy or like an adventurous story of a group of friends who have an already difficult adolescence made harder by a battle with a supernatural, irrational evil. Overall impression: 90%. (09/07/2017)

It is a great pity that the undoubted potential of this project ultimately boils down to very little inventive work with horror and fear. Make no mistake. Pennywise is great, and a couple of jump scares are really successful. But Muschietti gives the impression of a director who has little time and patience to create tension, so he chooses shortcuts and, moreover, properly old-school shortcuts. Unfortunately, Pennywise's jumping from all corners of the screen gradually gets old, and one only nostalgically remembers, for example, the masterpiece of the seemingly endless infernal terror in the second Conjuring. Similarly, films like It Follows or Get Out create a rather relentless contrast to this solid routine in terms of directing. However, IT excels with great characters and an intelligent image of growing up in an indifferent and dangerous world. It is very easy to identify with the characters, the film is funny and poetic, and it evokes Stand by Me in certain respects. At the same time, the film cleverly plays on the trendy notes of 80s nostalgia, but it’s a pity that it does not do it as subtly as Stranger Things. The Loser’s Club quickly grows on you and Derry's atmosphere is duly burdensome... nevertheless, the intrusive feeling that IT could have reached even deeper into the subconscious persists. But I have to admit without torture that I am looking forward to the second part. The first chapter is definitely one of the better King adaptations, but when one sees the amount of accumulated talent, it is clear that IT could and should have been one of the best. And that didn't happen... (09/06/2017)