It (2017) Poster

(I) (2017)

User Reviews

Add a Review
1,133 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
Not so much a movie, as IT is an intangible collection of scenes.
EndeAbgrunds8 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
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.
489 out of 717 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Where was the tension?
mr_bickle_the_pickle8 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
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.
167 out of 241 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
nels78216 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
It has become ritual for me to read the novel "It" once a year every year since it was released in 1986. The story is more than a gore-fest, it's a story about love and hope and friendship that is still meaningful to me to this day.

The only thing this movie has in common with the beloved book, is its name and the characters names. IT is a literal disaster and a slap in the face to anyone who actually read and cherishes the book. There are NO character backstories, nor character development at all. You are literally thrust into the movie expecting to know everything about everyone and why they are the way they are. IE: Henry Bowers and why he hates the "Losers Club" - He LITERALLY starts the movie trying to kill them. This is sad, because a large portion of the novel was meticulously spent doing quite the opposite and made you relate to and fall in love with the characters.

Editing? What editing? This is the worst edited movie I've ever seen in my life and I've seen a lot in 41 years. It was literally like the film makers shot 100 scenes, put the film in a hat, and took out said scenes and spliced them together at total random. I can't describe it any other way than saying, at one point, one of the characters (I can't tell who, because they all share the EXACT same personality) says, "I banged your mom last night", or something similar, and before the audience can even react, the scene changes to a jump scare happening in ANOTHER PART OF TOWN INSTANTLY and with no rhyme or reason. You don't have time to laugh at jokes, because they aren't funny (unlike Stephen King's jokes in the book) - and you don't have time to be scared, because you're still trying to process the dick joke that was still being told when the scene abruptly ended.

While the filming location for the town of Derry was suitable, having the movie take place in the 1980's instead of the 1950's JUST TO APPEASE the "Stranger Things" crowd was simply a terrible decision. The 1950's were a totally different time, and much of the characters' reasoning and mannerisms that you need to make this movie work are lost to a time and cultural difference. These guys call themselves "THE LOSERS SQUAD" in this movie for god's sake! Kids didn't start calling themselves a "squad" until the 1980's (IE "The Monster Squad) So, you love the book like me and are still reading? Thank you! Now let me list just SOME things that we both LOVE about the book that you will NOT find anywhere in this movie: The Deadlights, The Ritual of CHUD, The Mummy and the bridge, The Loser's Club Dam in the Barrens, the moving picture book (now its a slide machine), The Smokehouse, "This is battery acid", The Werewolf, Making the silver bullet after a game of monopoly, The stand pipe, Bower's hair turning white, "beep beep Richie", the giant bird, the 50's racism against Mike (actually Mike Hanlon himself is missing. The writers just made arguably the most important character an afterthought in this movie), character backstories, "Hi Ho Silver-AWAY!", Haystack... I could go on and on and on.

With god awful editing, absolutely no character backstories, cheap teen jump scares, not being faithful to the book, and too much CGI usage: Simply put - if you want to know how this movie is like the book, read the first 10 pages of "IT", and burn the other 1077 pages because that is exactly what the screenwriter and director did to this failed abortion.
184 out of 267 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
teepyrneh17 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I'll start this review by addressing that I had no expectation for the movie. I am not a fan of the horror genre as it usually lacks the thought provoking aspects I look forward to in film, but the reviews were great and I thought I'd give it a shot.

The films antagonist is a demon-clown, who can shape-shift and move through space in an instant as demonstrated during the film. IT abducts, kills and eats children, but can only do so if they are experiencing fear. In the finale fight scene of the movie Pennywise is unable to kill and eat Beverly because she is not afraid of IT but at the start of the movie he kills Georgie after having a 5 minutes conversation with him where they laugh and mingle, Georgie even reaches towards IT to grab his boat - Would he really be so scared of IT at that point or was Beverly so not scared of an actual demon holding her up by the neck?

The films plot surrounds around a bunch of disasters that the kids find out seem to happen every 27 years. this information is found out by a 13 year old kid named Ben, and he figured this out by reading some articles in a library. So this entire town of people has not been able to figure this out? And he informs the rest of the gang that in Derry there are substantially more children going missing than anywhere else in the US - If that is the case who is doing the abducting of children when Pennywise is on ITs break?

All of the disasters have happened near sewage drains, that's how the kids are able to figure out where IT lives, but at one point of the movie how was Pennywise able to appear in places that have no actual relation to the sewage? Pennywise appears and disappears in Bills garage and basement, Beverlys bathroom, in a building where Mikes parents died and in Stanleys dads office. If IT can appear anywhere why does he choose to murder and abduct near the drain if ITs only purpose is to feed upon the children as demonstrated in the final act of the film, he is willing to make a deal with the gang to keep Bill and let the rest of the children go as after eating Bill he would start his 27 year break again. Why would a killer demon clown not be willing to let these kids go anyways and just hunt the other kids in town to feed as these kids are obviously trying to kill him?

Pennywise seems to have unfathomable power as in a scene IT is using hair from Beverlys sink to grab and pull her but in the final scene IT is having a fist fight with a bunch of children, couldn't IT control some sort of object found in the sewer instead to do the same? Why is IT choosing to not use ITs full power against people who are fighting back but use such powerful methods when just trying to scare somebody?

The movie is riddled with cliche's about the bully having a really strict father, the plot point that the only way they can defeat the evil all-powerful shape-shifting demigod of a clown is to stick together and get over their fears! and of course the scene where the boys find Beverly levitating in mid-air while she is in a complete state of trance - a coma, and what brings her out of this is a kiss on the lips from one of the boys. before the movie ends Beverly is talking about this moment saying "It was like being dead" but when she comes out of her coma she without taking a breath starts quoting the poem one of the boys had sent her.

The movie takes place during the three months of summer and ends with the start of September where the kids still look bruised and battered from their fight. So it's safe to assume it must have been like a week since it happened. What were the kids doing the rest of the summer as they started seeing the clown as soon as school was out? Were they just having terrifying hallucinations of a killer clown and then enjoying the rest of their summer at the beach before going out and hunting it down? The times-pan of events in the movie don't seem to reflect the time it actually took to accomplish them.

This is the first time I have ever considered walking out of the cinema during a movie.
84 out of 117 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Candy coated perversity - directed at an age group that should not be watching
karlharvey197213 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
What is this? Horror for kids? This movie convinces me that the world has gone mad. This is entertainment for what age groups exactly? If its for adults, why is there so much childish humour and dialogue appealing to the sensibilities of an age group that should not be watching this level of blood, guts and graphic murder? The story line is directed towards a certain mentality, which is not of appeal to adults, at least not mature adults. Why on earth is this so popular? It failed to scare me on so many levels that I found myself imagining better scenes. How is it acceptable that kids of 12 years old were in the audience, looking at images of even younger children in the movie having their arm torn from their body, a man with a knife right in his throat? What the hell?! As soon as it was revealed that all the horrors were their imaginations, it was a pointless exercise. What happened to all the kids that were floating down at the end? Where was the main characters brother at the end? Wait for the next episode? No thanks. I would have enjoyed a psychological horror, but gore is not what I was expecting. Shows a lack of imagination by the director that he had to resort to this level of candy coated perversity. What a shame.
89 out of 126 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A scary movie that isn't scary.
bha0998 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
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.
262 out of 398 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Terrifyingly brilliant. You'll float too.
MovieGuy_abc12331 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.
463 out of 736 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It's a no from me
clairesmaybin18 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
There just isn't the heart that was there in the mini series. In my opinion. The actors were fine, but the story wasn't there. I believe there is to be a next installment covering the (now) grown ups. I'll probably watch it - if I've nothing better to do. It's simply not Steven King's "IT'. ALso,they appear to have recycled the CGI lady from ' Mama' at one point : can't find it now, but look out for it. "Beep,beep, Richie" appears once, so far as I can tell - a long way into the film. Against all odds, I looked forward to this. But it's another turkey. Steven King tells great stories - why do the Hollywood mob insist on killing them? I truly think this was dreadful and not a patch on the original. I hope to goodness they don't remake The Stand.

50 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Goonies meets IT
lakies8 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I already had low expectations of this movie because of the immense CGI in the trailers. I felt super conflicted with this movie because the acting was amazing by the entire cast, however there was way too much 'comic relief'. This is a horror movie. I wanted to feel terrified because I was stuck in terror just about the whole movie. I should have left the theater sore because of being too tense. This did not happen at all. There was only one scene in the entire movie that felt like this and it was the bathroom scene with Beverly. That was literally it (no pun intended). The clown was so cliché when it comes to cheap horror movie antics of the 2,000's. It has the retractable teeth like every new zombie movie since the Umbrella Corporation and It moves all jumpy like every ghost movie that has been out since The Ring. Absolutely NOTHING scary about the clown. If Tim Curry weren't in a wheel chair I would have rather had him come back and take the place of Penny Wise without ANY CGI. All of the CGI made this movie pure CRAP. The script writing was ridiculous and felt like it had been pushed through the works entirely too fast. Each kids fear was super cheesy and AGAIN, nothing but CGI on the tackiest scale they could have ever done. It felt like this movie had SO much potential but it was all thrown away because they were too afraid to make it 'actually scary'. Those of you who are REAL horror movie fans, you WILL be disappointed. This should have been a 'straight to Netflix' movie as far as I'm concerned and I wish I could have gotten at least 1/2 of my money back
186 out of 302 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
bienkowk14 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Wow, I honestly can't believe these reviews. I made an IMDb account just to write a review. I love the original and have seen it many times. This movie was horrible! I feel insulted by the directors. It wasn't scary at all. Any potential "scary" scene was downplayed by jokes so forcefully inserted into the script. There are multiple, major holes in the story line as well.

Hole 1: the group of bullies never once said anything about their buddy missing.

Hole 2: the girl is pulled down from "floating" and brought back to life. Doesn't that mean that the hundreds of kids that come down from floating at the end come back to life too? Or do their rotting corpses fill up the sewers for 27 years? Does Georgie come back to life too?

Hole 3: the girl can't decide which boy she loves. She took the poem from the pudgy kids room (I have to assume because she randomly ends up with it in her bedroom) but then she thinks that Bill wrote the poem somehow. The pudgy kid kisses her, bringing her back to life (true love brings back the dead girl like Princess & the Frog or something) but she winds up with Bill.

Every cheesy, horror film jump scene was witnessed in this film. The acting was good, but I can't see how this is touted as a horror film. I felt like I was watching a Disney movie by the end of it.
73 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I have never been so let down
loserville-928148 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I don't even know what to say. There was so much wasted potential here. I will say that the cinematography, the location, and the children (The Losers Club) hold up really well for this film. Yet, I'm still sitting here after seeing this premiere and I'm still shaking my head.

Here is the one thing for me, that ruined the movie. If you don't want any spoilers I suggest you stop reading. Here goes..

What is going on with all the CGI in this film? Computer animated graphics have never scared me and this movie is littered with seemingly terrible and unimpressive visual effects. I had a feeling this was going to happen after watching the directors previous film "Mama" Anytime something was seemingly scary, or anytime I thought "Hey, this movie might redeem itself" it was almost instantaneously followed by some cheap jump scare with a villain who was computer animated to look scary. The human eye is easy to detect how fake CGI can be and folks, let me tell you, this movie relies INCREDIBLY HEAVILY on computer animated effects. No incredible monster movie effects from the 80s here. The sad part about it is that the movie takes place in the 80s (instead of the 50s like the book). What better way to write a beautiful love letter to the time period than to get some natural, realistic, and horrifying movie effects? The 70s had The Exorcist. Top notch REAL effects. Do you remember The Thing from the 1980s? ThHOSE PRACTICAL EFFECTS STILL HOLD UP TO THIS DAY. Its truly sad to see computer programs taking the forefront to create scares. Anyway, I'm rambling...

For all of you fans of the book out there.. Spoiler alert again..

You WILL be disappointed. It only uses the book as a small guideline for the story they decided to craft here. There is no Ritual of Chud. There is no Mummy, Werewolf, or drowned children in the Standpipe. Everything is rushed. This film is just a complete mess and it pains me to say so.

If you haven't read the book, maybe you'll have a decent time if you can handle CGI. I for one thought IT was extremely disappointing, confusing, and ultimately boring and cliché. God, I wish this could have gone a different way.

If you are truly interested in seeing IT... Please...please.... Save your money and go see something else. Or at the very least, wait to rent it.
253 out of 427 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
If you come with me, you'll float too.
Tsunami3002 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.
262 out of 447 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Disappointed is an understatement.
adrenaline-695609 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers

Honestly I was really excited about this movie, like really excited. I watched the original IT this morning to get ready for it and have some reference. And it was absolutely terrible. Seriously, TERRIBLE. Not only did I want to walk out the second Pennywise was shown in the beginning but the rest was torture. I was with other people so I couldn't walk out. Here's the thing, this is the first time I've ever been so disappointed with a movie that I went out of my way to write a review about it. The clown was not scary in the slightest. The teeth were stupid. The acting was a joke. The kids made a ton of terrible and sexual jokes. It didn't stick to the original movie whatsoever. They took the "you'll float too" a little too seriously. It just plain sucked. In the original, the kids were innocent and actually dorks but this was pathetic the way the kids were talking. And why the hell did we watch them in their underwear?!? I still keep wondering how the hell this movie is rated above an 8 when it should be a disappointment for anyone who knows what a good movie is. This was so much CGI that it took away from the whole movie. I could keep going but I think I've made my point. I wouldn't waste your time or money. Watch the trailer and that's as good as it gets. Ugh.
73 out of 119 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Went for Horror not Heart
leslieakelly-5070910 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
IT was...meh.

I am sure part of my problem with this movie is that I am such a King addict, and IT is one of my favorites. The book had some problems, for sure, and the movie did a couple of things that I thought were an improvement.

But for the most part, this new movie wasn't a wonderful story about friendships and grief and terror and strength and survival, which made the book so good and memorable. It was just a horror movie with little character development, and cheap tricks. And that was a major disappointment

Specific problems I had:

1) There was NO reason to change it from 1958 to 1985, other than to capitalize on Stranger Things. IT lost a lot with that change. The 1980's were far less innocent. Some of the stuff from the 50's just didn't translate to what kids would do in the 80's (paper boats with parafin wax??? What house had parafin in the 80's?) And with that loss of innocence it makes far less sense that the kids would even see IT in all its guises. The whole point is that only small children who are still basically afraid of the boogeyman can even see him.

2) Tying in with that--the kids were aged from 11ish to 14ish. Kids just finishing fifth grade? Yes, you can believe they'd still be afraid of scary clowns, mummies and lepers. Kids who just finished their first year of high school? In the 80's? No. (Somebody said they weren't in high school--check Ben's yearbook. And classmate-- Henry's friend is driving.)

3) This Pennywise was almost too dark. Yes, he's a monster, but there's also this manic charm that he can use to lure kids. Skaarsgard is very good, but he's just terrifying. Little kids would be scared to death of him; they'd run away from him on sight, not be kinda interested. Tim Curry handled that brilliantly.

4) The casting of the kids was atrocious! Bev and Mike look like they're 17. Eddie looks 10. They do not in any way look like contemporaries. Bev was far too mature for the sweet romance to work and Mike was big enough to beat Henry up himself. Also, his backstory was just so weird with his parents being dead and the sheep killing. He didn't work at all, and he was such an important character--the lightkeeper.

5) They cut a lot of the kids' backstories and connection/friendship moments in favor of cheap thrills. And the special effects went the "jerky" horror movie route and looked really fake and dumb for a big-budget movie.

6) I hated what they did to Stanley's character. You won't have much empathy for him for the choice he makes as an adult because he's so unlikable as a kid.

7) Why on earth would the entrance to the sewers be underneath the Niebolt Street house? Just because the filmmakers needed a shortcut to include the spooky house? (Oy and talk about cheesy CGI--that house looked like a graphic you'd use in a Halloween party invitation!) And the way the kids acted in the house--getting separated twice--was just such lazy writing and was really dumb. (But the clown room was wicked cool!)

8) OMG they cut Eddie's most important line?! (battery acid) Does that mean adult Eddie doesn't get to reprise that moment?

Okay, there were a couple of things I really DID like:

The scenes with Bev and her father were horrifying and so tense I was clenching my fists. He was the most terrifying monster in the film.

The "floating" (we all float) was finally done in a way that looked amazing and made the repeated threat make perfect sense.

All the actors were very good! I just didn't like the choices the writers/directors made with them.

Out of curiosity, I did just rewatch the IT miniseries. Yes, it's very dated. The soundtrack isn't great, the graphics are very miniseries-ish, and the special effects are laughable. And the adult portions were just okay--TV actors reunion. Yes, they were fine, but not standouts.

The kids, however, were standouts, and all the kids' sections were really good. Really good actors, amazing chemistry, age and era appropriate, they all looked the parts, looked the same age. Really, everything about the kids parts of the miniseries was superior to the new film if you look at it as just a really solid movie and not a "horror flick." It didn't have the scares, but it had the story, and the heart.

It's very possible the IT-2, adult part will be better. But despite its age, its cheesiness and its eye-rolling special effects, I think the 1st half of the miniseries was superior to the new movie.
48 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The trailer looked great, the film is not
elainetaft12 October 2017
I am very surprised that this film got such a high ranking. I enjoy the books, films and TV shows of Stephen King but found that this film fell way too short. The trailer looks great and Pennywise the clown looks terrifying so I was really looking forward to seeing this, but after watching this film which is over 2 hours long I could not wait for it to finish,I was waiting for it to get better but it does not - there was no scare factor whatsoever I just found it a bit boring and such a let down. I really feel this should have just gone straight to DVD - way over hyped.
69 out of 115 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Extremely over-hyped, but still entertaining
TheBlueHairedLawyer8 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a huge fan of the 1990's TV film of "It", especially for its aesthetics and soundtrack, but it left out a lot of content from the original novel, leaving me confused when I first saw it at the age of 12. This remake, or perhaps actually a "re-adaptation", is certainly very timely, what with "Stranger Things" becoming so huge with pretentious hipsters everywhere. I'm still not sure it hits the "scary" factor very well, especially without Tim Curry's tremendous acting, but it's certainly creepy. It's not nostalgic though, nor does it retain much of the original novel, including the 50's setting, changed to the 80's to obviously market itself with "Stranger Things" and "The Goonies".

My problem with this new adaptation of "It" is that it's addled with CGI and jump scares, neither of which add to its nostalgic appeal. At the risk of sounding like a film snob, if you're trying to make a film set decades before this era, you don't use CGI at all if you can avoid it, unless you really know how to camouflage it. The constant profanity did nothing for the story either, it only gave the false illusion of being "intense". The sheer level of nerdiness made me cringe, unlike the TV movie which had genuine friendships and sweet moments of love and joy amidst the horror, just like King's novel.

This film isn't completely terrible. It passes the time, but the only thing it has going for it is that the director thinks he has hit some 80's vibe gold mine when in reality it just looked like a bad video game full of childish jump scares.
98 out of 168 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The IT Factor
Rhiannon Irons1 September 2017
I had the pleasure of seeing an advanced screening of IT in Brisbane. The film is absolutely brilliant. Bill Skarsgård has taken Pennywise and made the role his own. Creepy, disturbing, humorous, IT really possess the creep factor, giving audiences a new reason to fear clowns.

The entire casting choices were sensational. All actors really held their own, creating a sense of comradery between the characters.

Like most people, I do hold the miniseries with Tim Curry close to my heart, but after seeing this adaptation, I was beyond pleasantly surprised. So much so that upon IT being released into cinemas, I'll be back in line to see it again.
248 out of 451 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Best PR team of any movie in a long time.
modularmax15 October 2017
First I wanna say great family movie, bring the kids... So they can laugh along with you, I don't want to spoil the immense amount of nothing that happens in this movie, or how you'll grow bored of waiting for "it" to get scary, but I do want to know how much they were paying people walking into the screenings giving this movie a 10 star rating, or how large is the pr team? I laugh when I see red balloons now. Thought I was going to see a horror movie, got a comedy.. Talk about a let down.
76 out of 130 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
CGI clown terrorizes Derry
chasebart7 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I had high hopes for this movie. In fact, you could say this was one of the most anticipated movies of my lifetime. I was psychologically tormented by Tim Curry at the age of 10, and it took several years to get over the weekly nightmares. Although aspects of the trailers made me concerned this was going to turn into a jump scare film that you stop taking seriously by the midpoint, the overwhelmingly positive reviews that were coming out after the initial screenings had me optimistic and excited to be the first one telling everyone to go see it. Unfortunately, I can't do that after seeing IT.

The first 10 minutes of the film were perfect. Ultimately what I was most looking forward to from IT was a new take on Pennywise. I wanted to see what a different actor could do with him, particularly his ability to be psychologically creepy and disturbing. And I felt like I got that in the first scene, and that was pretty much it. After the Georgie scene it seemed like anything Skarsgård did was masked by CGI, overblown audio, and distracting cinematography in 80-90% of his remaining screen time. What's sad is I think the mainstream audience will still eat this style up. The same people who will call this Pennywise scarier than the last are the people who said the Star Wars prequels were better because they had more LIGHT SABERS in them. OK.

Sure, I enjoyed the crude Richie and Eddie humor, and thought it was well-cast for the most part. But by the end I was almost yawning through the Pennywise scenes. I just got out of the film and am alone in a dark basement right now and am not scared in the slightest. There is something wrong with that.
97 out of 173 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The perfect blend of comedy and horror
Liam Cullen8 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!
144 out of 270 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
For simple minded, Stranger Things loving, millennials
jhenson-2906910 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
If you've ever seen the original, and you have even the slightest modicum of respect for originality, story telling and artistic integrity, this movie should infuriate you. Firstly, it isn't really a movie. There is no story. It's basically just a 2 hour collection of different sorts of scares. The brilliance with the original was that it was a story of kids torn apart by a traumatic event, and then brought back together as adults to face their fears and avenge their friend. Great story. But this version was essentially a haunted house on the screen. They abandoned the kid to adult story and just focused on a group of kids getting scared. There was way too much "comedy" being sprinkled throughout. You know, the lame kind where the characters make some unoriginal comment and everyone in the movie theater bursts out laughing like Dave Chappelle just hit his stride on stage. And the random love stories among the kids that didn't matter or further any narrative. I could write a 10,000 word essay going into the depths of all that is wrong with this movie so I'll stop. The worst of all is watching all of America fall in love with this. It makes me feel like a cynical jerk, but I think really it's just a clear sign of the dumbing down of people on this earth. No one respects or cares about great storytelling anymore. Just give them cheap pop-up scares and they will be happy. It really is sad.
148 out of 279 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
light on scares
Achyuta Ghosh9 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
95 out of 174 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Very good as a standalone movie, but somewhat disappointing to fans of the original novel (so, what else is new?)
Harry T. Yung9 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Not a fan of Stephen King by any stretch of imagination, I nevertheless consider "It" to be among my most favourite novels. "It" is a "losers bonding" story. To that we can add coming-of-age. Those two ingredients are key to the charm of this story that is packaged as a horror.

As screen renditions rarely satisfy fans of the source book, I am a little surprised that I found the 1990 two-part TV version satisfactory on the whole. That one, incidentally, has John Ritter from the household-name series "Three's company" of the 1970's. There is also A-list actor Tim Curry portraying Pennywise the hideous Clown.

The structure of the novel has a time span of 27 years, the recurring cycle of re-emergence of the titular being, an extra-terrestrial monster that landed on Earth in prehistoric times in a spot that later became the humble New England town Derry. The subterranean sewage system of Derry eventually became a perfectly cozy home. With hibernation as its normal state, It comes out every 27 years to feed - on human children. In the original novel (as well as the miniseries) the 7 protagonists, 12-year-olds in the summer of 1958, find comradeship in forming a "Losers' Club", initially to oppose school bullies. Eventually, together they defeat the monster, but come just short of killing It. When summer is over, before going on their separate ways in life, they swear that if It comes back 27 years later, they will come back to finish the job. The second part, naturally, happens in 1985 when 6 of them who have almost completely forgotten that life-changing occurrence are rudely awaken by a phone call from the seventh who has stayed behind in Derry to keep watch.

The above paragraph recounts far more than the current movie reveals. Shifting the story of the kids to 1989 (from the original 1958), this movie tells only the first half. That much was quite evident to me well before I bought the ticket to the cinema, from the cast shown in IMDb which has only the children. While the book starts with the adults receiving the aforementioned phone calls, this movie is a standalone, just about the kids. The hint of a "part 2" comes only in the very end when the kids vow to return, if needed. Then, quite playfully, at the very last frame showing the title of the movie, "Part 1" is superimposed ever so nonchalantly.

The movie is a commendably successful effort in adapting the novel to a standalone movie. But I cannot help feeling disappointed, as one who has re-read the novel several times over the last three decades since its publication. Some of the best parts have been left out in the movie, for perfectly good reasons (to customize a standalone movie), I do agree. Unfortunately, that does not change the fact that they are left out.

The best part of the story is bonding of the "losers". The movie has done a very decent job in depicting that. Yet, the best sequence can only be found in the book: the building of the dam. Fleeing from the bullies, Ben bumps into the Bill, Eddie and Richard who are trying, unsuccessfully, to build a dam on a stream in The Barrens. While they immediately sympathize with this new kid on the block as a fellow-victim, it is Ben's skill as a builder (an innate ability) that wins the respect of these new friends. As well, Bev has also been invited into the group initially to participate in this project.

Equally disappointing is "the Apocalyptic rock fight" (a chapter title in the book), which is anything but. Throughout the story, up to that point, a very important thing repeatedly alluded to is that these seven kids have somehow been connected, way before they know it. There is one incident (in the book only) in which Stan and another kid drop by to play, and right away the "losers" have that uncanny feeling that Stan is "one of them" while this other kid is not. Mike is the last to join, barely knowing these kids hitherto. The six others are playing at the edge of a rock pit and somehow there is a premonition that something important is going to happen. Mike then bursts into the open from a bush, desperately running from the bullies. What ensues is the "Apocalyptic" rock fight that finally cements the group of seven. The scene in the movie is disappointingly lame, compared with the book.

Just one more major deviation, but with this one I have no bones to pick. I am referring to the climactic finale and has to do with the true identity of It. While the clown is the collective visual manifestation to all, It also appears in different hideous images to different individuals (leper, mummy, werewolf etc). However, the true, final form of this monster is a spider. In the movie, only a glimpse of a spider's claw in shown coming out of the clown they are battling, the significance of which will only be recognized by people who have knowledge the novel. I have no problem with that. Obviously the spider form is saved for Part 2.

The cast, comprising new faces to the screen, is uniformly excellent. Playing the clown Pennywise is Bill Skarsgard, the son of seasoned veteran Stellan whose performance I have enjoyed in movies too many to list. Just one other to mention is Sophie Lillis who plays, and inhibits, Bev Marsh with charm and defiance in equal measure. Her smile alone is sufficient to melt down The Wall. As well, moving the time frame of the story to 1989 allows incorporation into the dialogue the mention of Molly Ringwald (reigning teenage idol at the time), a clever reference to the uncanny resemblance both on-screen (Marsh) and and off (Lillis).
21 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Take the boat, Georgie!
www.ramascreen.com5 September 2017
The brand new #ITMovie scared the heck out of me and I don't throw that around loosely because just when you thought that "Annabelle: Creation" may have set the bar for this year, bam! "IT" comes along and smashes that bar into pieces. Wow! This is one incredible horror film, everybody involved should get a congratulatory pat on the back, definitely a huge upgrade from the '90s miniseries. This is best Stephen king adaptation yet.

Directed by Andy Muschietti, based on Stephen King's timeless novel of the same name, IT is set around the mysterious disappearance of children in Derry Maine, when a group of young kids will have to come face their biggest fears and square off against an eternal evil clown named Pennywise who comes around every 27 years to repeat his reign of terror.

It's no secret and it's not really a spoiler that New Line and the filmmakers of this new version have planned to re-imagine this story into two installments, with the first focusing on the children and then chapter two will be about their grown up selves once again battling Pennywise. So with this first chapter, I think the timing of its arrival couldn't be more perfect especially with last year's debut of the hugely popular series, "Stranger Things" that brings up '80s childhood nostalgia while presenting mystery at the same time, "IT" offers you that same vein and I think that's OK because we haven't gotten to the point where it's played out so for the time being you're going to love that aspect about "IT." There's definitely a "Stand By Me" vibe to it as well, and the whole thing does feel episodic, at one point while screening it I didn't want it to end, it felt like I was binge-watching, it was so cool. Kudos to all the young actors featured in this film, they really hold their own and each of their characters' distinct personalities stand out. Their backstories and their process of slowly but surely coming together as some sort of a team is both honest and engaging.

Now, if you've ever read Stephen King's book, "IT," you'd recall that it is a super duper thick book. You can use it as a stool to stand on for when you need to change that lightbulb. But the point is, I think the screenwriters of this new film did well in condensing the story to just the right amount of time that contains just the right mix of kids camaraderie and the horror fest that is Pennywise. And if you've watched the '90s miniseries, you'd recall how much that version held back plus the low quality practical effects that they had at the time. Well, I'm happy to tell you that this new "IT" doesn't hold back, this is Pennywise unleashed, it's practically proud of being R-rated, which is great because it allows for the scary parts to be really really scary and not second-guessing or pandering.

And if you have never liked clowns before, you're going to hate clowns even more because Bill Skarsgard's performance as the new Pennywise will haunt your dreams for the next few weeks after you've watched this movie. What I appreciate about Skarsgard is that he doesn't try too hard to emulate or imitate or channel Tim Curry, Skarsgard does his own take of creepy. And because Pennywise is pretty much invincible to a certain extent, you'll see him pop up in the most unlikeliest of places meaning when you least expect him, that's when he'll scare you to your core so brace yourselves for surprises around every corner. Another reason why the timing of this movie's arrival could not be more perfect is because today's visual effects compliment Pennywise's limitless abilities and so director Andy Muschietti and his crew have the creative freedom to not only realize some of the scare points in the book but they managed to also go beyond that. "IT" goes for massive, it goes for bold, it goes for bloody, not a single boring minute, it goes for the "Goonies" fan in all of us. You will laugh, you will scream, you will have nightmares, hands down one of the best horror movies ever made.

-- Rama's Screen --
213 out of 416 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mediocrity all over the place
Navneet Khare9 September 2017
I don't have very specific complaints from the movie other than that it was just...mediocre. And all over the place. It failed to set any "tone" to the movie. Is it supposed to be scary? Or funny? Or a mix of both? The character development was sort of really poor. Especially when it comes to the sexual abuse victim.

Comic relief was used a bit too much for a movie that's supposed to show the darker tones of life. The fear and apprehension that should have been sketched as it's supposed to be when your brother is killed off by a paranormal evil entity was watered down by the all over the place spectrum of emotions.

And by God the length of the movie was way overstretched for the content that they had to offer.

Just...mediocre B grade movie. The rating its getting kind of insults the hard work and brilliance that a lot of movies had to showcase to get the rating this movie is getting for no reason.
39 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews