It

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. (20/09/2017)

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. (06/09/2017)

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. (09/04/2018)

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... (06/09/2017)

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% (07/09/2017)