It (I) (2017) User Reviews

Brilliant

[tcarty-29367 · 8/10 · 19 September 2017]

Well shot and well formed script. Bill Skarsgard did a fantastic job as Pennywise. You'll float too scene was just brilliant, as was the opening scene with Georgie. The reality of IT being dependant on the children's belief and fear of IT taps into what we know as reality.

I thought this film was fantastic. I did think the film could have been creepier and even darker, but maybe Chapter Two will dive beyond the abyss.

Overall I would say definitely see this film if you are a fan of the Tim Curry version or a general horror film fan.

Slightly updated, partial retelling of Stephen King's massive tome

[AlsExGal · 8/10 · 19 December 2022]

It's 1988, and a group of young teens in the town of Derry, Maine are terrorized by an otherworldly clown named Pennywise (Bill Skarsgard), who can make them see their worst fears. They must band together to stop the fiend before it kills them all.

King's novel succeeded in large part due to the nostalgic immersion into Baby Boomer cultural touchstones. The filmmakers decision to update the setting to the late 1980's is understandable in the sense that the follow-up, featuring the adult versions of the characters, will now chronologically fit with modern times. The filmmakers also decide to forgo any excessive wallowing in 1980's pop iconography, with a movie poster here and a song there the only references. That boils the story down to the horror film essentials, and while there's nothing original in the mix, it is well presented, and features a handful of memorable scare moments. The special effects are also largely successful, and Skarsgard is good as the monstrous clown. The filmmakers also made the interesting decision to not explain Pennywise, perhaps leaving that for the sequel. I'd be curious what a first time viewer, with no knowledge of the source novel or the previous 1990 TV mini-series version, thought of the story.

I recently caught up with the first season of the TV series Stranger Things, which almost certainly had some impact on this film version of It, even going so far as to cast one of the show's leads in this as well. That's not a problem, though, as that kid (Wolfhard) is good in both, and the rest of the cast in this is also terrific, with Lillis, as the sole girl in the group, and the aforementioned Wolfhard, as the foul-mouthed jokester, the stand-outs.

Where was the tension?

[mr_bickle_the_pickle · 6/10 · 8 September 2017]

I think the film was good, but didn't really live up to expectations. I didn't find it that scary. Admittedly, one of the jump scares worked on me but otherwise I never felt any dread looming in the pit of my stomach. The film is gorier than the mini series. That's for sure. And I liked that updated aspect, but nothing particularly shocked me. There was quite a bit of special effects that just were not very good. And I think that's a big reason why I just wasn't very scared.

The other dumb thing I want to mention is that sometimes the characters fell into predictable horror movie tropes. Its just kind of silly when they've already been scared by Pennywise many times. Knows this all "isn't real" and yet will wander off by one of the missing kids going "Come here". I mean, really? You're going to fall for that? I think what does save this film are the performances. Bill does a good job with Pennywise. However, he does lack the charm that Tim Curry had. But those were always going to be big shoes to fill. (Clown pun not intended). The kids though were amazing. In particular Jaeden Lieberher (who played Bill) and Sophia Lillis (who played Bev) were the standouts. I also want to give a shoutout to Nicholas Hamilton (who played Henry) for managing to make me feel empathy for a bully. Finn Wolfhard (from Stranger Things) plays Richie who is meant to be the jokester of the group. And Finn does well with that character. I just wish the writers had laid off from the jokes some of the times. You're supposed to be building tension and it kind of gets ruined when he opens his mouth to make a joke about period blood or whatever.

I see the potential in this film. And I think it could have been really good. I just think they spent too much focus on "shock value" rather than building on an atmosphere.

Starts well but gets boring fast once you realise there is no goal

[rabbitmoon · 6/10 · 8 September 2017]

The opening scene of IT is so promising - well directed, atmospheric, and Skarsgard's clown is compelling to watch. There is a brief moment where while laughing mutually with the kid, the clown suddenly goes quiet and stares menacingly. Its brilliantly unsettling. But sadly, that's it as far as unsettling clown performances go - the rest of the film is typical CGI scares, and the clown throwing out taunts like the deriative satire of Scary Terry in Rick and Morty.

The cinematography and acting is great. Its watchable in an afternoon Netflix kind of way. But there is no real gist, goal or drive to the story, it all just sort of unfolds scene after scene, goalless and drifty like the string-along nature of a Police Academy film.

Its OK - but it really isn't the classic that people are making out to be. Its been incredibly over-hyped. I personally found Insidious to be a far more effective supernatural chiller.

Not at all the type of film I usually watch...but I did enjoy it and am glad I saw it.

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 26 September 2017]

Of all the different genres of films, I think modern horror is probably my least favorite. I love old horror films...mostly because they aren't extremely graphic and leave a lot to the imagination. But this is a case which proves I can be won over by a violent modern horror pic. The only reason I saw this one at all is because my daughter wanted to see it...and I didn't wanna disappoint her.

I am not going to make this review long...as there are nearly 800 for this hit film already. Suffice to say, the movie is scary, the story very good (the things omitted from the book are generally best not being in the film) and I enjoyed the heck out of the picture. Who knows...maybe I don't hate the genre...just the brainless teens begin slaughtered at the abandoned amusement park/roller disco by a guy in a hockey mask sort of film.

Genuinely terrifying

[jaxenross · 7/10 · 21 September 2017]

Just got out of the new IT movie and I utterly thought it was spine-chilling! I'll have to give as much credit to the cast, direction, cinematography and musical score for what made this film all that worthwhile. There's plentiful scares often at a nightmarish level and most certainly, I have to agree with the critics that this movie is an immense improvement over the TV-miniseries - which can be seen as tame by today's standards. If you get the chance to catch this movie before IT'S too late, you'll surely float too!

A movie's movie - stunningly beautiful, mystical, haunting

[stroggos · 8/10 · 20 September 2017]

I absolutely loved the new 'IT' movie and didn't expect it to be that good. It is a perfectly paced and beautifully shot movie that captures some of the love for 80's horror movies.

But 'IT' is actually much more than just a rehash of a plain-old horror movie: The characters are all interesting and the kids' acting skills are surprisingly convincing and moving. You really do feel for them and you want them to succeed, which is really what makes a horror movie be a hit or a flop. The emotional subplots are not too shallow as well—the love story does not feel haphazardly attached onto everything else; the interactions between the characters feel meaningful and real.

The new clown is also quite well done with some very creepy acting and a compelling voice. What's more: I didn't even mind the CGI of the horror effects. Usually CGI puts me off, but here, everything was done rather well with some really suspenseful moments.

In the end, what really got me to love the new 'IT' is that this is a movie for people who love movies. The cinematography is just like true movie fans like it: Lots of stunning landscape and wide shots, perfect lighting and atmosphere, and on top of that a great score! What do you want more?

A relentlessly creepy and unsettling ride.

[jackcwelch23 · 17 September 2017]

While it could have used more subtlety in the scare moments, the movie delivers surprising and effectively bizarre set pieces to keep you engaged. The likable and endearing losers group make the film worth watching again long after the fright has worn off. It manages to go from terrifying to hilarious, with Richie smashing it as the comedian of the group. It also touches on deeper themes of the bonds of friendship, the traumas that take our innocence away and the courage we need to face our fears. You won't only be scared, you'll be moved and inspired. Though your opinions on clowns might take a hit.

Entertaining but could've been better

[davispittman · 7/10 · 18 November 2017]

It (2017) was a pretty good movie overall, most of it was entertaining and well made. I will say that it wasn't as good as I expected, there were parts that could have been better. Well first the positives. One of the positives is the acting, great performances were given by all, I was impressed by the child actors, clearly very talented. I think the child actors really committed and showed the level of talent that you'd usually see in an adult actor. The special effects were also very well done. Pennywise's look was well put together and all the wild effects with him looked good. The beginning sequence was very well done, I loved the exchange between Pennywise and Georgie. The middle part of the film was alright, it had good acting and it set up everything for the finale, but to be honest, the beginning and the end were great, very well done, and I felt like the middle portion was alright, but my mind wondered some and I just felt like there wasn't enough substance to the middle part of the movie. Yes, the characters were good and the acting was still good in the middle, but I feel like the story needed more support in that section. I haven't seen the original Tim Curry It miniseries yet, so I cannot compare the two, all I know is that the original is basically like two films in one. I am excited for an It 2, which I feel is on its way since the original had two parts to it. All in all, a 7/10. Overall enjoyable, and I was entertained by the end of it, even though there were places in the movie that could've been better.

Terrifyingly brilliant. You'll float too.

[Film96 · 9/10 · 31 August 2017]

What persuaded me to watch this movie was the blessing bestowed upon it by the stories original creator, Stephen King, who claimed: "I wasn't prepared for how good it really was".

He's not wrong.

"IT" is quite extraordinary. The attention to detail, the subtle but effective comedic undertone and the exquisite cinematography not only do the original title proud, they make this re-imagining of the original classic even better than its predecessor.

It's a very scary film but what impressed me was how true the film sticks to the original's tricks; it isn't filled with loud in-your-face jump scares, in fact, a lot of what makes this film scary is the slick cinematography and intricate shadow play. The use of lighting and creation of atmosphere is what makes this film so tense, which is why it's perfectly suited for those who like Horror movies but without the obnoxious gore.

Watched the pre-release as a critic - August 28th.

A decent next attempt at IT

[mungflesh · 7/10 · 7 September 2017]

This 2017 production of Stephen King's book is a well-crafted, decently acted imagining of the story. I really enjoyed it but did speak to some people who were disappointed that it had diverged from the book too much.

In brief, the children of Derry are going missing at an alarming rate. Something evil lurks in the town and it's up to the Loser's Club to overcome their fear and unite to confront IT ...

I found the old TV movie somewhat dull in the second half. The first half, which this movie is concerned with, was always the stronger half and I think this version is probably just as good, if not better than the original TV movie. It's certainly more gruesome and scary.

I'm not sure Tim Curry's Pennywise has been upstaged though. Bill Skarsgard has done a good job but I think Curry's is hard to beat.

IT 2017 is refreshingly old-school, in that it focuses on character and story, unlike too many recent "horror" movies. It is beautifully shot and superbly acted but perhaps could move at a slightly better pace.

IT will divide opinions due to story vs screenplay issues but it's definitely not a bad remake.

exciting although surprisingly un-scary

[cherold · 8/10 · 29 August 2019]

Like the miniseries Stranger Things, It hearkens back to 80s filmmaking, falling somewhere between Stand By Me and Poltergeist. While ostensibly a horror movie, in spirit it is more a coming-of-age drama with a monster.

The movie is not particularly scary, even by Poltergeist standards, but it is quite exciting, particularly in the final, thrilling confrontation. The movie also does a lovely job of reminding us that not all evil dwells in the sewer, with some of the most disturbing scenes being purely human; I was ultimately more scared of Bev's father than of Pennywise.

The kid's are all excellent. I like how little they fit to typical stereotypes; the stuttering kid is the brave one, the kid with glasses is a sex hound rather than a nerd, and the chubby kid is a scholar.

I don't have strong feelings about Pennywise. He is probably most effective in that first disturbing scene, but unfortunately I had already seen the SNL/Kellyanne Conway parody of that scene which was so dead-on that it impacted how seriously I could take the movie Pennywise (it's not the movie's fault, of course, that Kate MacKinnon captured the role so well). The actor doesn't have as strong a personality as Tim Curry did in the previous version of It, and ultimately seems like more a vehicle for evil rather than a distinct character.

light on scares

[achyutaghosh · 7/10 · 9 September 2017]

So I went and saw IT, and came back unimpressed. I mean it was a good movie, no doubt about that. A bunch of kids, outcasts in their own right, being terrorized by an ancient demon that plays upon the fears of its victims is pretty much the standard in Hollywood horror movie territory. All the kids are well cast, the script is funny and tight, and there are plenty of monster shots. The cinematography is great, the pace is even and the CGI is flawless. But is more funny than terrifying- it's R rating more a justification of teenage slang in the script, rather than for true scares.

But that is what typically Stephen King is all about. His stories are studies on relationships rather than all out horror. In IT, King reversed Spielberg's E.T, and explored everyday monsters of childhood- abuse, violence and neglect. Juxtapose that with an eternal evil shape-shifting entity who wakes up every 27 years to prey, and you have a shawarma of a plot. The book is scary, the movie isn't. Probably so because today, we are used to Stranger Things.

We are used to kids doing stupendous stuff these days- whether running billion dollar companies, or bringing back lost souls from other dimensions. It all seems very easy for today's generation to figure things out- most of IT establishes this narrative. A wonderful group of actors face off against Bill Skarsgard's Pennywise the Dancing Clown, and they all nail their parts. The movie takes place in a town where all the adults are essentially villains- so its not just the kids versus the clowns everyone else. But for sheer impact, IT never reaches the highs it achieves in its first sequence.

It is a great example of how strong marketing can make mediocre movies look a billion bucks. Other reviewers are putting IT right up there with other Stephen King adaptions such as The Shining and The Thing. Oh please, that would be laying it too thick. Director Andy Muschietti's earlier take on the genre- Mama, is a far better contender.

No good horror movie can get away by being light on scares, however good the characters and the script are. So look at IT as an extension of Goonies or Stranger Things, a PG-13 romp, not an iconic horror movie. 7/10

Not so much a movie, as IT is an intangible collection of scenes.

[EndeAbgrunds · 5/10 · 8 September 2017]

IT truly is the scariest movie of all time... If you're 10 years old or younger, maybe.

I honestly am shocked by all the positive reviews and high rotten tomatoes score. Did I see a completely different movie?

IT starts off very well with a genuinely good opening scene. Great cinematography, atmosphere, lighting, a likable child whom you connect with easily, and an interesting encounter takes place between this kid and a very creepy clown. The dialogue is good, there is an eerie sense of dread, and a moment where IT aka Pennywise goes from being a friendly-ish clown to a terrifying villain in an instant through a very well placed awkward stare. It was a moment I wasn't expecting and gave me hope for the rest of the film, then... It's all downhill from there, after an almost laughable use of CG.

This movie has big issues. IT isn't scary. IT's story is weak, if you can even call it a story. IT has too many underdeveloped characters. And IT is a counterproductive villain with no concrete rules for what IT can or can not do.

The overuse of CG ruined any sense of tension or fear and Pennywise's tactics didn't make sense. If he feeds off fear, why reveal himself to each of the kids within a close time period? Why not concentrate on each child individually, causing far more mental torment and making them an easier kill? Pennywise also just randomly manifests himself anywhere at anytime, and disappears randomly. I don't find it scary when the antagonist manifests itself, attacks a character and right before doing damage IT vanishes..

The story is a mess and there are far too many characters. I swear the first 40 minutes is the longest montage in film history. A montage of each child's development and exposure to Pennywise. It was predictable and monotonous. As for the story, I don't know what to say, besides there really isn't one. Character motivations are weak, Bill is the only one who makes sense. Where were the parents at? Not a single parent seemed to care about their missing children. The few on screen parents there were, came off as caricatures. And there were a few scenes that felt completely pointless within context of the story. The school bully and his dad, being the oddest.

So in closing, IT is an uneven movie or more accurately a collection of scenes that don't flow well in a tangible story. There are some good laughs, and a few entertaining scenes. But all in all it's just an average movie. Which should've been an evident sign, when the original attached director Cary Fukunaga jumped ship.

Better for Younger

[LongTimeMovieLover · 7/10 · 16 September 2017]

For a younger audience, unjaded by so many horror and suspense flicks, this movie will probably be creepier. This version of the story is somewhat a victim of itself. So many derivatives have occurred over the years, many from King novels, including this one, that this remake suffers as somewhat less of the same. At my 55 years of age, it just never hit a fear climax. Sure, some great scenes, just not enough impact. For the younger audience, I expect it would be great. Also, perhaps by the edit- down for the screen play, the story seemed to leave a lot of plot holes uncompleted, and seemed to violate its own plane of existence. Appropriate for Netflix, or a young couple on a date.

If you come with me, you'll float too.

[Deo300 · 9/10 · 2 September 2017]

I managed to win a preview screening to 'IT' on the 30th of August, in Sydney. I had high expectations for this film - and IT exceeded them.

The acting. Great performances all round. The kids had great chemistry, and you really believe that they were all great friends. It reminded me of Stand By Me and The Goonies. Out of the child actors, Richie (played by Finn Wolfhard) was my favourite and his jokes cracked the whole cinema up. Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise is scary and really creeped me out, but for me there was just something missing about his character and I think he wasn't given enough dialogue.

A minor flaw for me was that the plot was a bit rushed, in terms with the development of Mike (played by Chosen Jacobs), but for an adaption from a book, they managed to condense the original material very well.

Overall, it (no pun intended) was a great thriller film that kept me on the edge of my seat, with strong performances.

Some Great Stuff But Also Some Flaws

[Michael_Elliott · 18 September 2017]

It (2017)

*** (out of 4)

A small town has a strange history with various disasters that strike every twenty-seven years and more times than not it's children that are harmed. One summer a group of friends realize that they are all being stalked by the vision of a sinister clown known as Pennywise. They soon realize that if they don't try to kill it then he will kill them one by one.

Stephen King's IT was originally made for television in 1990 and it was a hugely successful film that scared the crap out of people. The film had all sorts of hype going into it and it actually lived up to it. The film carried on a cult following for years and then news broke that a new adaptation was coming. This film really try to create the same type of hype and it ended up being a massive box office hit. People were eating it up and it's easy to see why. With that said, as much as I loved certain parts of it there's no question that there are some major flaws as well.

The great stuff includes the drama aspect of the story. The real terror comes from the bullying, the girl's sexual abuse by her father, the blame you place on yourself for your brother's death and of course there's the building of friendships that kids do during the summer. All of this is perfectly done and director Andy Muschietti does a wonderful job with the development of the characters. He also does a terrific job at capturing the mood and setting of a small town. The 1988/89 settings were perfectly captured and you can sit there and feel that you're in a real town with real characters.

All of the performances by the kids are simply wonderful with Sophia Lillis and Jeremy Ray Taylor really standing out. The adult performances are just as great even though they're all basically small supporting roles. Tehn there's Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise. I thought the actor was terrific in the park and I enjoyed how much more sinister this clown was. I also loved the line delivery and thought the actor was terrific at bringing this character to the screen.

With that said, there are some major, major flaws that pretty much kill the horror elements of the film and that's the CGI. The CGI effects are so fake looking that I couldn't help but be taken out of the drama that was going on. This isn't a Marvel movie or some sort of fantasy. Why build up the setting so much just to throw it all away with cheap effects? And I ask you this.... Was this CGI, fake looking clown that rushes towards the camera or floats around really as creepy as the actor and his make-up? Why they had to throw these cheap, fake looking effects is anyone's guess but it really hurts the film.

Overall, I'd say that the original was better but there's still a lot of great stuff here. It's really too bad that there really aren't any scares due to the fake looking effects and it's even worse that everything was there for a much better movie. As it stands, IT is good but not a classic.

Great horror film from the classic mini series

[kickurass6 · 10/10 · 19 September 2017]

The movie was amazing. A couple of friends told me they were disappointed after watching it but after reading the reviews, I knew it would be a great film to watch. All around, the acting was great. Bill as Pennywise was just amazing. Go watch it! Cinematopgrahy was awesome, the suspense was there too.

The mass amount of hype made this a let down

[mitchellzelenak · 6/10 · 8 September 2017]

When I heard all the talk of the new movie, It, I was nothing but excited to see what the film had in store. Unfortunately, the movie didn't quite live up to the hype. There were many amazing scenes throughout the film, with top notch music, creepy moments, and surprisingly good child actors.

I think the downfall lies in the lack of scare factor, the run time, and the mass amounts of comedy. I have no issue with comedy in a horror movie, but when the movie is over 2 hours long and 60% is comedy, I start to wonder where the scares are. I found myself laughing in scenes that were supposed to be serious due to characters trying to throw in "just one more joke" which began to wear on me.

It's a good movie and should definitely worth the watch if you were a fan of the original or just looking for a new horror flick.

An amazing recognition of conquering our inner demons. Especially the ones that held us back as children.

[willferrie · 9/10 · 21 September 2017]

While 'IT' doesn't compensate the "scare" factor that we had hoped for, the film touches on a human level that most modern horror films can't. 'IT' should be watched more as a Dramatic Thriller. The extra time the film takes establishing stong character develpoment allows the audience to connect to their true questioning of what really scares them and why haven't they confronted 'IT'.

An honest review from a 40+ guy who read the book

[joakim-ericsson · 7/10 · 6 October 2017]

Really liked it, but it's not perfect.

Hard to judge how much of the liking is because of the 80:s (like Stranger Things) nostalgia, but it's far from all of it.

+ Kids act great, especially "Ben Hanscom". Good touch and psychology in the coming of age scenes. Dark and serious social stuff in between the jump scares. Like most Steven King stories, the best parts are in between the horrors. As a member of my own hometown's "loser club", as a kid, I really felt like I was one or all of the protagonists. The film has a good heart. Pennywise is a great mix of a powerful, psychopathic, godlike entity, and a playful kid. Scary and sad at the same time. Music is good too.

• The pacing feels rushed, scenes are stacked on top of each other in a "too fast" tempo, just to stay true to the book. We don't have enough time to really get to know our young heroes. I feel this movie could really have benefited from being 30-45 minutes longer, or even better, a 5-10 hour TV series.

I think this story is hard to do justice in 2 hours of film, but it does a good job, the visuals are also great. Art direction and all.

Overall: Way, way better than the weirdly over appreciated 90:s TV series. I saw that as a teenager, who really looked forward to it as well. It sucked then, and it sucks now. Don't understand how that production was ever talked about by fans. Tim Curry might have been OK, but the dialogue, makeup, production value, and acting (except the kids) was horrible.

This adaptation is 10 times better. Recommend it, if you like this sort of stuff.

The perfect blend of comedy and horror

[LiamCullen6 · 9/10 · 8 September 2017]

Having not seen the original movie and only tidbits of the trailer, I didn't really know what to expect when walking into the cinema this evening. Someone described the movie as 'The Goonies' meets 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' - this turned out to be an extremely accurate description!

The opening scene seems to suggest that the movie will be very dark, yet these expectations are quickly dispersed as the horror is undercut by comedy. This happens repeatedly throughout the film: and it works. My friends and I (as well as the entire packed cinema) found ourselves gasping at scenes of sheer terror, then only moments later laughing hysterically at the banter between the main characters.

I would say that this is not a film for the faint of heart, yet I think even those individuals would find themselves enjoying 'It'. If not for the horror, then certainly for the comedy and camaraderie. It's as if this is a movie within a movie: a mix of a high-school-problems/coming-of-age movie and a horror. A brilliant two-for-one if you ask me!

Great acting from all of the cast as well as excellent writing make this movie a must watch!

"It" shows flare, but needs to have more confidence in it's ability to scare.

[pecinqa · 6/10 · 11 September 2017]

"It" is a mostly successful horror film that, unlike it's peers, manages to easily surpass the quality of it's predecessor (although it did have a slight luxury in being a remake of a TV film). Surprisingly enough, the film's biggest issue arises in the confidence of the film to allow itself to scare the audience.

Fortunately the film manages to stay standing in spite of itself. A large part of this is due to the casting of the child actors and the antagonist, Pennywise. For the most part these kids are believable in their roles even when they have to read through some clunky King dialogue. Only a few times do their performances feel hammy, the most notable being a painful but short exchange between Ben and Bev during the third act. The kids also play the comic relief of the film well in their dialogue. Although the film does push the comedic limit sometimes, especially a bit that referenced 'New Kids on the Block' that felt like it belonged in a tripe PG-13 comedy. Otherwise the only other shortcoming in the characters is the criminally underwritten role of Mike. I feel for Chosen Jacobs who did really well with what sparse material they gave that character.

I can't really add anything about Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise, it's everything that it's been built up to be.

I also appreciated that the film had some cinematic shots as well. Too often directors in horror forget how crucial framing a shot can be. Fortunately "It" does not forget this and I actually remembered a few specific shots the day after watching the film. One particular shot I enjoyed was a dutch angle shot from the perspective of a painting, the character in the frame straightens the literal frame and by extension the actual shot as well.

While I praise the film for those shots, I have to acknowledge the gigantic pitfall of the film.

Obnoxiously loud stings during every single scare.

"It" is filled with many disturbing and scary visuals. However, the film insults your intelligence by fishing for a jump scares with abhorrent sound cues. So much more could've been accomplished with appropriate ambient music, or sounds to really let the fear and unease creep into the audience instead of essentially yelling "Boo!". This was very unfortunate as even in a theatre with a full audience, only once did a single person scream during the entire film.

Jump scares aren't uncommon in horror, but this film was strong enough to stand on it's own without resorting to such trite measures.

As a result the film finds itself being just good, instead of great.

A scary movie that isn't scary.

[bha099 · 5/10 · 8 September 2017]

The opening scene is good. From there on...not as much.

I guess this movie will please those not familiar with the book much more than those who are. That being said, I don't think it is possible to make a satisfying adaption of "It" without doing it the Game of Thrones way. More time is needed to dwell on each of the novel's parts to create the feel the book gave us. To tell the story as it was told on paper. So I guess I'll forgive the filmmakers for that.

The kids are okay. They've managed to portray the losers and the relationship between them decently enough- considering the running time. Again: more time is needed for better development. Much of what actually happened between the kids and It has been cut, but again - running time. They had to.

That they've changed the setting from the 1958 to the 80s was a bad choice, and so are the other changes. They're creating scenes that aren't in the book. They're changing things that are there. The biggest problem I have with the film is the execution of the horror. Constant jump scares, way too much CGI, and a complete lack of understanding of the fact that less is more. Waiting for a scare is the scary part of horror, and this movie just throws everything at you constantly. It just isn't terrifying. At all.

I didn't find myself bored, though. Besides the poor performance when it came to being scary, it is an okay movie. It just isn't a good adaptation.