It

Dir: Andrés Muschietti

2017

****

Stephen King’s It is one of the scariest books ever written. The author himself has confessed that he could never bring himself to writing a follow up because, much like Mary Shelly when she wrote Frankenstein, he scared himself too much when creating the main character. I’ve never had a phobia of clowns or have ever seen them as something sinister – until I saw Tim Curry in the novel’s first adaption into 1990’s two-part miniseries. To be honest, I haven’t been scared of them since but I can’t say I’ve ever seen Tim Curry the same way (and Congo is far more entertaining when you watch it imagining Curry’s character is in fact Pennywise in disguise). I was open to a remake, especially when considering that the 1990 two-part miniseries was a two-part miniseries that had a relatively low budget and really, it was never a remake anyway, but rather a feature-length adaptation of the novel. The 1990 version is brilliant, it scared the pants off me, but it wasn’t totally faithful to the novel and a different take was always full of potential. The only things I (and everyone else) was fearful of, was the style of the film and Pennywise himself. Tim Curry made the part his own, it was impossible to see anyone else play the character instead of him. Robert Englund is Freddy, Bruce Campbell is Ash, and Tim Curry is Pennywise. I guess I was worried they would mess up, just like they did with the Nightmare on Elm Street remake and the new Evil Dead. At best I thought it would be as good as the first remake of Friday the 13th, and that would have been a disaster. The film had to feel like a Stephen King story. I thought we’d all dodged a bullet when Will Poulter dropped out of the film and lead role, I get the sinister smile thing but seriously, I hated the idea. I can’t say I was particularly thrilled though that Andy Muschietti was directing after watching the underwhelming 2013 horror Mama (although I find his fear of Amedeo Modigliani paintings intriguing) and the announcement that Bill Skarsgard would be taking over from Poulter was almost as puzzling as the original actors casting in the first place. I suppose my lack of enthusiasm for the film put me in good stead, but all credit due, this was a brilliant adaptation that stands on its own merit and really understood what was needed and what was wanted by the audience. Once again, it scared the pants off of me. I’m relieved also that this is chapter one of the story and that they are going to take time over the sequel. The young cast are superb and Bill Skarsgard’s take on Pennywise is brilliant. To be fair, this version of Pennywise is totally different to Tim Curry’s – it had to be. I believe Curry was asked to return but after suffering a massive stroke some years ago it just wasn’t possible. There are many tributes to him hidden in the film though. Far more time is spent on each of the characters then in the 1990 version and the spirit of the story really felt like an authentic King novel. I love how the story was moved from the 1950s to the 1980s. It makes perfect sense, as most people enjoyed the book in the 80s and if you pictured the kids as they were back then, then they would now be adults, meaning the sequel can be made in the present day. The 1950s style was also very popular in the 80s, so it also works visually and still has that lovely sense of nostalgia. The film is great thanks to years of passionate development from various different people. David Kajganich worked on the project initially, penning the first draft of the film. It was his idea to set the first chapter in the 1980s and I think when he suggested that his dream choice for Pennywise would for him to be played by Buster Keaton because he would be less self-conscious of his own irony and surrealism, it set the tone for the character and the film in general. Cary Fukunaga and Chase Palmer then came on board to develop the script further, stating that they were looking to make the film like a horror version of The Goonies and the combination of ideas took off. The original idea was obviously always there and always best to follow but the small tweaks made were undeniably important for a contemporary version to work. The original story is surreal, so the adaption is surreal and for me that was the element they got right when I really didn’t think they would. It’s a horror film set in the 80s that could have easily been made in the 80s, and that’s what I love about it. I thought Pennywise had much more depth to him, his character has clearly been rigorously analysed by the scriptwriters, and I quite liked his Renaissance styling. It was interesting to see Pennywise as something more than just another monster. His immortality is explored somewhat in asking about his survivalist attitude. He needs to eat children to survive but they also need to believe in him in order to exist, so he can’t eat them all. This and his slightly childlike appearance is a great contrast to the loss of innocence that the group of children are all going through throughout the story. There is a little more brutality in this version of the story but I’m glad they still avoided many of the more graphic scenes from the book. The film is visually stunning, the tiny little details are so important and I don’t know why, but the geometry of having Pennywise’s balloons in a perfect triangle is genuinely terrifying. I love the easter eggs and the nostalgic references to 80s films and other horror favorites. I love that they got the comradery of the kids right and I love the new Pennywise. It’s easily the best horror remake (but not really a remake) made thus far and it is the perfect balance between 80s family adventure and genuinely frightening horror film. My popcorn was everywhere, I loved every second.