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% (2017-09-07)

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. (2017-09-20)

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. (2017-09-19)

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. (2017-09-15)

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. (2018-04-09)