First of all, either I'm getting desensitised (or deeee-hyumanised! Don't you realise?) or I know the story in question too well or the director is incompetent, but I wasn't scared at all. But yeah, that's coming from someone who spent
a lot of his spare time watching and reading various horror stories, so it's possible I'm at fault there. Also, it's still hundred times scarier than the TV miniseries, but that's a given, I guess.
Second of all - I realise that some of the book fans will be disappointed, because - while staying
very true to the novel - there were some changes in the movie in the end. I don't think anyone really misses the children orgy and having
two versions of the Chüd ritual as in the book would probably make no sense film-wise (I guess we'll get the only "proper" version in the next part), but also the story as a whole is a bit streamlined, some shortcuts are made etc. That's expected and the film works well as a result. Still, some nitpickers (wifey
) might complain a bit. Yet I say "swell". Because the book is probably unfilmable as it is and a literal adaptation would be probably unwatchable, even for the fans of the novel, whether they realise it or not. Also, that being said, a lot of the stuff
is lifted directly from the book and this adaptation is certainly much more accurate than the 90's version.
The setting change was also probably for the better. Well, maybe not for the better, but a wise choice anyway. Remember, the adult part of the novel was meant to be set in present time then and King's fond memories of growing up in the 50's are great and I love them, but as a whole it would probably resonate much less with audiences today, because, well, let's be honest - the Baby Boomers (and King himself) are nowadays the generation of our
grandfathers - the update of the setting was done in a believable and sensitive way and I appreciate the choice.
Connected with the previous paragraph is the choice of "updating" the kids' fears. I mean, while understandable for the book's 50's setting, who nowadays is afraid of
werewolves and
mummies? Therefore making the Losers a late 80's club and changing some of the particular scares actually worked for the atmosphere of the movie, IMHO ... Wifey said that the "distorted" woman that haunted Stanley was a retread of
Mama (the director's previous film, also excellent BTW), but I realised that only in hindsight. Her introduction (where she disappears from the painting) was particularly well done and I can't help but to like her much more than even the book's "dead boys".
Oh gosh, the
actors. The chemistry between the youngsters (especially Richie and Eddie) was absolutely unbelievable - I could watch a
fucking three-seasons TV series with them. All of them pretty much unknown, they captured the characters and the spirit of the book so well I could hardly believe my eyes. Skarsgard's Pennywise took a bit longer to truly appreciate (at first he reminded me some weird Burton-like version of Peter Pettigrew on speed), but I came to the conclusion he does him well in the end and he also managed to play the part in a completely different way than Tim Curry and so really made the role his own (pretty much like Nicholson's / Ledger's Joker - despite popular opinion, none of them is really superior, both are stellar performances by a talented actor that are pretty much incomparable). Beverly's Dad's actor plays the role in such a way it
will make your skin want to crawl off you and jump on the next train to Poughkeepsie and Bev herself ... made me feel like a dirty old man at a tender young age of 25. I mean, after certain scenes I felt I should go to confession a bit too early this time, so I'll refrain from talking about her acting abilities at once, as it would be obviously
way too biased and instead say that - while I miss the sociopathic side story of Hockstetter that really makes you feel you should wash your soul in bleach - his actor made him memorable even in the 2 minutes he had in this movie.
The biggest complain probably would be that by dropping some of the book's exposition and inner structure the film gets to some points way too quick, the scares are somewhat incoherently placed and as a result - for the people who have not read the book, at least - the film might probably seem a bit too phantasmagoric. Again, not a serious problem as such, but I've noticed there have been complaints. Also, since I know for a fact the director
can create an atmosphere of genuine creeps (again,
Mama), I think the film could have been scarier. I guess that with all the story and characters, there was no time to build some serious tension in certain scenes as not to stretch the "first part" out to three hours.