It

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)

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)

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)

These childhood adventures with a touch of the 1980s started with Super 8 a few years ago, but it hasn’t fully taken off until the Stranger Things came out in 2016. It took a year for It to use this vibe exemplarily. They really took the advantage of it in its full glory, because from what I read, it will probably become the most commercially successful American horror movie ever. At the same time, I personally wouldn’t even call it a horror movie. Well, the beginning is a bit brutal, but the rest is a completely classic children's summer adventure and they nailed the casting down perfectly to the last detail. In fact, the group reminded me a lot of the gang in Stranger Things. One of them is a girl with a boyish cut, one is nerdy, one is chatty, one is black, and so on. On the other hand, I didn’t mind that the creators took this proven idea and introduced it to the movie It; on the contrary. But I was a little annoyed that a number of jump-scares were a bit too artificial and forced. However, after I finished watching, I assessed that it wasn’t actually a horror, but a children’s adventure and I really enjoyed it as such. (09/20/2017)

This is what the 1990 version should have looked like; to this day, we would’ve remembered it as one of the best Stephen King adaptations. And today’s version should’ve been based on a more sophisticated, James Wan style of inducing terror. However, I’m not disparaging this movie; it is intentionally directed in the 1980s style, honoring the original novel and its characters. Thanks to the quality rendering, it’s not boring, not even for a single moment of its 130-minute runtime. It also has great widescreen visuals without a single technical fault and a nicely refreshing ending, which is something that’s rarely seen in today’s horror movies. And above all, as early as at the beginning, it breaks the rule I recently mentioned in my review of Annabelle 2, which is that in a mainstream Hollywood horror movie, nothing can happen to kids. But as for the evocation of fear, which is a rather fundamental aspect of the movie, I was never frightened, not even startled. I just felt really angry on behalf on the youngsters at the end and desperately wanted to kick that drooling bastard’s ass. (09/07/2017)