It

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)

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)

Much better 80s, true, Amblin movie than a horror movie, which is a problem, because it was supposed to be both Amblin and regular horror movie (by the way the music addresses this distinctive dual dynamics perfectly), but it is more of a dark fairy tale for adults than a combination of " Gonnies versus Freddy Krueger". It might have been the intention to show a noticeable possible shift in stylization between the children's and adult part. In any case, it looks largely like a feature-length Stranger Things. Which is quite paradoxical considering that they are based on It and Stand by me. The movie not afraid to address the tricky passages of the original, and yet it faithfully captures the original central atmosphere of a party (great cast) of overlooked children on the threshold of puberty united by the common fight against primary evil unseen by adults. Rather than on horror, the movie is based on the ubiquitous disturbing atmosphere, where behind every other corner there may (and may not) hide the embodiment of your innermost fears or, worse, nemesis in the form of bullying youth. In this regard, I have no objections. The problem comes up when Pennywise plays with its prey and this (un) fortunately happens quite often. Although Skarsgård is absolutely excellent (however Mendelsohn that was considered for this role would have been even better), and especially what he does with his voice or his "dead" squinting eye are ingeniously disturbing details, but apart from the prologue, we never see him in a scene where he would slow down and tried to get out of one of the Suckers´ mind in other way than through the scaring everyone. Either is after them to the fullest "ouch" in a geronimo way or he's not on stage. Nothing in between, there is no creeping gradually graded fear of the unknown. All the scenes of materialized nightmares are intense and some even damn impressive and memorable, but they are not even spooky, let alone terrifying. They are simply action attractions in daylight. Everything is terribly fast, that the only thing that remains in the footage is directly related to the fears of one of the Suckers. And nothing more. The move doesn´t beat about the bush, no scene within their families, nothing with adults, no sleepless nights because of experienced trauma, just a few references to kingversum nada. It's fully stripped. Although it´s a nice watch, but you can´t shake the feeling of missed opportunity of something more than "only" the best king movie in recent years. That´s for sure. Seems the movie requires some clothes too. (09/06/2017)

I've read some of King’s books. I found "Carrie" interesting and have seen most of the adaptations. I know Misery from the film and stage adaptations... But I never got into It. The new film version is extremely unbalanced. It's a strange mix of genres that doesn't hold together and the whole thing doesn't make sense in the slightest. And it's not scary either, just full of primitive scares. (06/23/2020)

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)