Robert Gray's Thoughts: It... again. *No Spoiler Version

[Robert Gray]

I am working on a longer review which will include spoilers, but I wanted to see the color of my thoughts here at the end of opening weekend. This review, as advertised, will include no spoilers. It will be short and to the point. I am a purist, and I hope to see this particular tale told again far closer to the the source material. I think it could be done properly in the new formats which serialize tales over many episodes. In fact, I think the episodic design of the original book is a perfect fit for said format. With that disclaimer out of the way, I think this movie is a must see.

It manages to capture the spirit of the source material, and my greatest fear was not realized. The film did not not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The story of the Losers themselves was present. While some of the Losers were more eminent than others, I think that is in part due to the writing, or the rewriting they did once they figured out who had the most acting chops. The film is scary, funny, and pushes some buttons emotionally. I give it a eight out of ten, and I suspect there is a Director's Cut coming someday that might get a nine out of ten. Bear in mind that I am not rating this film in any way which compares it to the book. That would not be a fair comparison and if I were doing that, the marks would drop. I am rating it based entirely on being a self contained film. Let's face it, there is only so much I can say without spoilers.

 

[recitador]

I am working on a longer review which will include spoilers, but I wanted to see the color of my thoughts here at the end of opening weekend. This review, as advertised, will include no spoilers. It will be short and to the point. I am a purist, and I hope to see this particular tale told again far closer to the the source material. I think it could be done properly in the new formats which serialize tales over many episodes. In fact, I think the episodic design of the original book is a perfect fit for said format. With that disclaimer out of the way, I think this movie is a must see.

It manages to capture the spirit of the source material, and my greatest fear was not realized. The film did not not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The story of the Losers themselves was present. While some of the Losers were more eminent than others, I think that is in part due to the writing, or the rewriting they did once they figured out who had the most acting chops. The film is scary, funny, and pushes some buttons emotionally. I give it a eight out of ten, and I suspect there is a Director's Cut coming someday that might get a nine out of ten. Bear in mind that I am not rating this film in any way which compares it to the book. That would not be a fair comparison and if I were doing that, the marks would drop. I am rating it based entirely on being a self contained film. Let's face it, there is only so much I can say without spoilers.

i've been kind of wondering what you thought about it. i've seen a few people get very twisted up in the differences between the book and movie, but there's been a lot of ignoring the time constraints and other factors. for me it captured the spirit, and while many events were changed, they did include a lot of subtle nods to stuff that didn't make it in.

 

[Robert Gray]

i've been kind of wondering what you thought about it. i've seen a few people get very twisted up in the differences between the book and movie, but there's been a lot of ignoring the time constraints and other factors. for me it captured the spirit, and while many events were changed, they did include a lot of subtle nods to stuff that didn't make it in.

I love books the most, but I also love movies. When I rate them, I will always give them a fair shake based on how they are as self contained entities. The only time I'm going to tear a movie apart for being different from the book upon which it is based is when they gut the story so badly that it is nothing more than taking the title and names. I find that offensive. It makes me wonder why they decided to adapt the book in the first place. That did not happen here. In fact, I think they took a few bold steps (for today's politically correct market) to keep a few markers from the book.

While this is a spoiler free thread, I don't think I'm actually spoiling anything by revealing that Bev is seen smoking in the film. The Losers are not presented as perfect little angels. There are some interesting artistic choices too (some of which I like and some of which I didn't). The books talks about how there are two worlds which largely only interact in passing, i.e. the world of children and the world of adults. Children are below the sight line of most adults. The film embraces this stylistically. Not unlike the old Peanuts cartoons (Charlie Brown to those of you who are too young to know what that means), adults are almost entirely missing from the film. Where there do appear it is in an exaggerated, almost alien way. Adults are, after all, aliens when they land on the world of children.

It also spoils nothing to comment on the film structure. They have decided not to mix the story of the Losers as adults and children (at least not in this first film). They do not switch back and forth in time. This is one of those artistic choices that I don't love. It isn't because this film suffers for it. This film is great. The problem is that it makes doing the second film almost impossible. The bar has been set too high by the very fact that this story is about childhood and then childhood revisited. This implies the second film will be entirely about the adult versions of the Losers. Things the book manages to accomplish are only possible because of the rapid switching back and forth. I expect that while there were no adult Losers in this film, the second will be impossible to make without flashbacks to their young selves in the second. It will be interesting to see.

I wish this story had been done as a trilogy. I say this even accepting the changes with an open mind. These guys made a hell of a film, but I still think they were constrained from what they wanted to do, and why I think there will be a longer Director's Cut at some point. I think the film version, thus condensed, still needed three movies to do it. The first film would have been the Losers coming together, i.e. would have given us more time with each Loser and thus tied us to them as individuals much more, all of them rather than some being eminent. The film's climax would have been the Losers all coming together (rock fight) and the subsequent sharing of experiences and the group reveal of Pennywise in that garage (film version of course). That would have been more than strong enough to close on. The second film would have been the Losers, now a club, following the path, with an increasing battle with Bowers, their question to kill Pennywise, and the now expanded tensions with the key adults. The third film would be the return battle as adults, and I expect it would have to be the shortest. Bear in mind that I'm basing these thoughts entirely on the film and how it is structured. It isn't because I didn't like the first film; I loved it. I'm just think they have set themselves up to jump the Grand Canyon on a moped now when they do the sequel.

 

[muskrat]

Hey, from ol Bob Grey, this is high praise indeed. What more proof do ya need? Get yer arse in a seat and watch It, cats.

 

[GeorgiesArm]

It's nice to finally read your opinion on it - and to see you enjoyed immensely at that!

I expect that while there were no adult Losers in this film, the second will be impossible to make without flashbacks to their young selves in the second

The director has acknowledged the second part will have flashbacks. He feels just the adults wouldn't work, and that their storyline needs the dialogue with the past.

As for a director's cut: earlier cuts shown at test screenings were about 15 minutes longer. We might get a longer cut on blu ray, but as of now it's also possible they're saving the scenes to incorporate them in the sequel.