Do you need to be a virgin to see this fucking clown? -Richie Tozier
Ladies and gentlemen I give you the new measuring stick that all modern Stephen King adaptations should be held to. Is this a masterpiece worthy of acclaim akin to The Shining? Hell no. Does this feel like a "Stephen King Movie"? Oh hell yes. We can always hope for more masterpieces, but going forward when it comes to adapting King's work anything less than this shouldn't be acceptable.
After the stripped down and simplified version of The Dark Tower followed by the atrocious Mist TV Series (seriously it's garbage), 2017 was not looking good for Stephen King adaptations. Enter director Andy Muschietti who thankfully took over a project that was stuck in developmental hell and fought not only to get rid of elements that were never in the novel (no one wanted to see Henry Bowers fuck a sheep), but fought to add MORE material from the actual novel. We thank you Andy Muschietti.
It's not to say that nothing was changed from the book, but to my eyes most of the changes have logic behind it. First the moment they decided that the story was taking place in 1988/1989 instead of 1958/1959 some fundamental changes had to be made. While having The Werewolf, The Mummy and Frankenstein's Monster show up in the movie would have looked cool, it would no longer make any sense in the context of the film's new time period. To the film maker's credit though, they use the novel's established logic on why those monsters appear to create new threats for the kids while keeping the ones that would still make sense in the film's context.
Other changes were simply made to save time because even at 135 minutes the film still can't cover everything in the book (just the kids section that is). Unlike the 1990 mini-series though, instead of creating new locations like the sewer building pump house, the film combines locations from the book like the house on Neibolt Street.
Of all the changes from the book though, the one I wished had been handled differently was the character of Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs). In the novel he's an integral part of the story, but the changes made to his backstory and actions here completely diminish how important he is. I do understand the changes though. In the novel, just like the film, he only joins the "Loser's Club" later on in the story with most of his character development happening before he even meets them. That of course causes major problems for a film if one character out of the group spends most of the story away from them. This is something the 1990 mini-series struggled with as well. While I don't like the changes made for that particular character, I understand why it was done.
How did I like the film on it's own merits though? I loved it! The horror. The humor. The story. That cast! I loved these kids! I ended up seeing this at the drive-in as a double bill with Annabelle Creation and was surprised by how good the kids were in both these movies. Here the "Losers' Club" has come to life. Bill, Ben, Richie, Stan, Eddie, Bev and Mike are right there on the screen! Bill struggling to be brave and nobble beyond his years. Richie being just as god damn annoying as I imagined. Eddie trying not to turn into a hypochondriac. Ect, ect... It's going to be a lot of fun to see who gets cast in the sequel as the adult versions of these characters.
There's another slightly important cast member of course, Bill Skarsgård as the iconic Pennywise. Now remember when the first pic of him as Pennywise was released? While I didn't exactly shit all over it like a very vocal set of fans, I'll admit I didn't know what to make of it. I tried to stay positive telling myself that who knows how it would come off in the movie, but the pic looked silly. Turns out it was a great example not to judge something, even a picture of a character, when it's out of context from the movie. In the movie everything about Pennywise is spot on, from Skarsgård's portrayal to his entire look. It's one of the few instances where an iconic character is revisited by a different actor and it actually fucking works. Loved him in this. He might be the biggest highlight of a film that his loaded with highlights.
Review by Mr.DuLacVIP 8BlockedParent2017-09-12T23:29:48Z
Do you need to be a virgin to see this fucking clown?
-Richie Tozier
Ladies and gentlemen I give you the new measuring stick that all modern Stephen King adaptations should be held to. Is this a masterpiece worthy of acclaim akin to The Shining? Hell no. Does this feel like a "Stephen King Movie"? Oh hell yes. We can always hope for more masterpieces, but going forward when it comes to adapting King's work anything less than this shouldn't be acceptable.
After the stripped down and simplified version of The Dark Tower followed by the atrocious Mist TV Series (seriously it's garbage), 2017 was not looking good for Stephen King adaptations. Enter director Andy Muschietti who thankfully took over a project that was stuck in developmental hell and fought not only to get rid of elements that were never in the novel (no one wanted to see Henry Bowers fuck a sheep), but fought to add MORE material from the actual novel. We thank you Andy Muschietti.
It's not to say that nothing was changed from the book, but to my eyes most of the changes have logic behind it. First the moment they decided that the story was taking place in 1988/1989 instead of 1958/1959 some fundamental changes had to be made. While having The Werewolf, The Mummy and Frankenstein's Monster show up in the movie would have looked cool, it would no longer make any sense in the context of the film's new time period. To the film maker's credit though, they use the novel's established logic on why those monsters appear to create new threats for the kids while keeping the ones that would still make sense in the film's context.
Other changes were simply made to save time because even at 135 minutes the film still can't cover everything in the book (just the kids section that is). Unlike the 1990 mini-series though, instead of creating new locations like the sewer building pump house, the film combines locations from the book like the house on Neibolt Street.
Of all the changes from the book though, the one I wished had been handled differently was the character of Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs). In the novel he's an integral part of the story, but the changes made to his backstory and actions here completely diminish how important he is. I do understand the changes though. In the novel, just like the film, he only joins the "Loser's Club" later on in the story with most of his character development happening before he even meets them. That of course causes major problems for a film if one character out of the group spends most of the story away from them. This is something the 1990 mini-series struggled with as well. While I don't like the changes made for that particular character, I understand why it was done.
How did I like the film on it's own merits though? I loved it! The horror. The humor. The story. That cast! I loved these kids! I ended up seeing this at the drive-in as a double bill with Annabelle Creation and was surprised by how good the kids were in both these movies. Here the "Losers' Club" has come to life. Bill, Ben, Richie, Stan, Eddie, Bev and Mike are right there on the screen! Bill struggling to be brave and nobble beyond his years. Richie being just as god damn annoying as I imagined. Eddie trying not to turn into a hypochondriac. Ect, ect... It's going to be a lot of fun to see who gets cast in the sequel as the adult versions of these characters.
There's another slightly important cast member of course, Bill Skarsgård as the iconic Pennywise. Now remember when the first pic of him as Pennywise was released? While I didn't exactly shit all over it like a very vocal set of fans, I'll admit I didn't know what to make of it. I tried to stay positive telling myself that who knows how it would come off in the movie, but the pic looked silly. Turns out it was a great example not to judge something, even a picture of a character, when it's out of context from the movie. In the movie everything about Pennywise is spot on, from Skarsgård's portrayal to his entire look. It's one of the few instances where an iconic character is revisited by a different actor and it actually fucking works. Loved him in this. He might be the biggest highlight of a film that his loaded with highlights.