this movie is really all over the place. from its jaw-dropping 170 minute run-time, to wild tonal shifts that occur within the same scenes, i don't think overall that either muschietti nor screenwriter gary dauberman knew what they wanted to do with this story.
it's not like the source material is iron clad, either, but at least the original miniseries was able to glean enough of the original intent to have a coherent story.
here, it's hard to tell whether it wants you to laugh, or be creeped out, or scared, or intrigued at all. there are so many broken scenes that aren't necessary or don't have any real purpose.
there are some effects that are just flat out laughable. in fact, the kids sitting next to me burst out laughing at some of the ridiculous CGI monsters (bev's return home, for instance), and rightfully so. for all the shit the original miniseries takes for it looking corny, this doesn't really have much to brag about either. and this has no excuse. that movie was made on a TV movie budget. this movie cost over $60 million.
the performances are decent, with the most exceptional going to bill hader and james mcavoy. the problem with both of these films, though, is that the characters have almost zero personality. there's nothing to distinguish one from the other except for the clothes they are wearing sometimes.
the casting is well done, in that the kids and adults *do* resemble each other (best example would be eddie); but it's kind of pointless when they don't elicit any real emotional connection. they don't even seem like friends sometimes. and sometimes they're just downright irritating (best example again would be eddie).
they also include something that wasn't in the original miniseries and it does not work at all--the ritual of chud. there's very little backstory given, and it's used more as a deception than an actual device by mike (again, an underused character who should have had a lot more importance). again, it just comes off as slap-dash and underdeveloped.
the film does have some nice moments, especially the last 10 minutes or so, but it doesn't really earn that sentimentality genuinely. the final narration comes from a character we barely knew, and his fate is poorly explained and justified in this film.
there are some interesting "easter eggs" that i'm sure youtube videos will be orgasming over in the next few weeks (there's probably already a bunch of "ending explained" nonsense going around)...one is a nod to Maturin (king readers will understand that), and another is a nod to john carpenter's "the thing". it makes no sense that it's in there, but it will bring out a laugh.
i didn't care for the first part of this series, and if they do make a part 3 (which would be really dumb), i won't go see it. this had the potential to become the standard "it" adaptation. instead, it's just a muddled collection of scenes and premises that never fulfill a promising story.
it's somewhat noble that they have a running joke about stephen king not being able to come up with a good ending for his stories; but they don't really have the right to mock when they can't tell a decent one on their own.
out of
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
