It

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. (07/09/2017)

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)

It matured for me a few days later. It is excellent as an adaptation of King's exuberant novel, but a little weaker as a horror film about a clown with a penchant for murdering small children. Muschietti has removed the bushiest branches from the book, but he has captured the most important thing - the children who have stopped being afraid and have gone to face evil, bravely. The superbly led cast clicked and despite many simplifications, it works. The build-up is excellent, and the final confrontation even goes beyond the carefully, but otherwise actually very down-to-earth and respectfully filmed book imagery. Anyway, I fundamentally miss "It" in the film. (spoiler!) What I mean is the hard-to-grasp evil that is embedded in deep-seated fears. However, paradoxically, this is where the second part when the kids become adults may have a major advantage. It is thus possible that a horror combination will be created that will undeniably find its way into genre textbooks. 4 ½. (19/09/2017)

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. (20/09/2017)

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... (06/09/2017)

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)

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%. (07/09/2017)

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. (15/09/2017)

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. (23/06/2020)

An homage to the 1980s full of modern visual effects, mature teenagers, social allusions and a nice relationship thread that entertains more than the horror passage, and almost as much as the gradual transformation of the protagonists from snotty kids to fearless adventurers with the help of teamwork, because you can't do it without it. The young cast is terrific, especially Sophia Lillis. However, it is very likely that for those unfamiliar with the original film, let alone the book, it may be a rather middling experience, precisely because of their ignorance of the source material, which is supposedly very colourful and carefully written. (15/01/2018)

I liked perhaps everything - from superbly cast and acting child actors to the utterly mad Pennywise, from whom untold horror was truly felt (Tim Curry was ok, but his variations on Freddy Krueger just don’t have what it takes), to the script that, although it changed things from the book, it did so cunningly and is still faithful to it. So far, only Stanley Kubrick has done Stephen King this well. This is much more than a band aid for The Dark Tower - It is just a great old-fashioned horror film and I can't wait for the second chapter. (13/09/2017)

In the end, nothing groundbreaking or approaching the genius of the book, but what is certain is that not many such thoughtfully told and beautifully crafted nostalgic horror films are made in Hollywood, and it’s definitely worth going to the cinema to see this one. If nothing else, Muschiatti's deft directorial touch and sincere approach to the voluminous subject matter has made me want to read the book version of the story a third time, with great pleasure. (12/09/2017)

Okay, so the makers of the new It learned from the mistakes of the makers of the original It. They used the book as a foundation on which to build the story in a much looser way, so it didn’t get strained. Plus, they took advantage of the budget and split the story into two parts, so the writers and architects will come next time. Despite my general satisfaction, I have to say that the 1990 Pennywise clearly beats his 2017 namesake. (21/01/2018)

There are scenes in the movie It that will make your ass clench. And there are quite a few of them. Moreover, they are interspersed in such a way that they are present from beginning to end, ensuring that there is never a part where nothing distinctly horror-related appears. Andy Muschietti directed one of the best adaptations of King's works, which I didn't even hope for much anymore. We can only look forward to the second part of this great story. (08/09/2017)

A dense psychological spectacle in which the murderous clown himself plays second fiddle. The fear and trauma of his victims are often prefigured by dysfunctional family backgrounds, in which parents (at best) discourage their offspring through inertia or (at worst) treat them in an unhealthily possessive or violent manner. The characters themselves come to the fore, which results in a certain amount of realism and an absolutely serious psychological depth to the story. Moreover, Andy Muschietti was clearly inspired by the hugely successful visuals of Stranger Things, when he wrapped the fictional Maine town of Derry in a cool 80s retro look and directly cast a child actor from Stranger Things in one of the main roles. I haven't read King's novel and haven't seen the original 1990 TV version. I am, however, planning to try both. (05/03/2019)