One of the most talked about things this year since its release has been the new adaption of Stephen King's IT. But was it really as good as the hype train has been making it? Or was it another cinematic adaption that was talked up highly, only to fall flat on its face in the cinema? Well, that's what I'm here to answer for you today. And what better way to answer it than to compare it to the original TV miniseries of old?
First off, let me get this out of the way: Unlike the original adaption which was a mix of present day moments and flashbacks, the new adaption is simply them as children. There are no moments that show the cast as adults, and thus any of the deaths that happened in the original adaption in those moments (such as the opening death) haven't been introduced yet.
In many ways, the flashbacks in the original adaption as well as the overall plot of the new adaption are similar. The kids each experience moments with the clown, come together as a group, find a way to confront their fears and face him, and make a vow to come back to town if IT isn't truly dead.
Likewise, in those same many ways, the moments in between as well as some of the smaller details are completely different. This movie is set in the 80s (as is evident by Ben's love for New Kids on the Block) instead of the 50s. Instead of Mike being the fountain of knowledge on Derry's history, Ben was given that backstory (and Mike was given very little). Stan is no longer a scout, but instead was given a Jewish background (with little backstory as well). Bev's relationship with her dad plays much more like the book in the new adaption (to where he's more pedophile than abuser). Some of the encounters are different as well, such as Eddy encountering a Leper (like the book), Stan encountering an unusual creepy portrait lady, and Richie not encountering Pennywise until they go to the house near his lair.
Some moments, such as the Beverly bathroom encounter scene have been heightened (she's held above the drain by wet hair, as blood pours out incredibly and covers the entire room), and some such as the rock throwing scene have been downgraded (which is made more silly than serious, complete with an odd slow camera moment), and even Georgie's scene had a comedic moment of him hitting a sign during his boat chase.
I know you’re chasing your boat and all, and I’ll let you get back to that, but let me tell you about Derry Public Works first. No? Bad time? Alright...well just watch out for creepy clowns in storm drains.Likewise, some moments were beautifully added (such as a small backstory for Henry Bowers, complete with him killing his dad in one of my favorite scenes), and some were altered (the photo album scene with Pennywise terrorizing the group was switched to a slideshow scene of a similar nature). But in many ways, it still kept on balance with the nature of the original miniseries.
One of the highlights of the film is, for the most part, the acting. The kids in this one have much more attitude to them, and Richie is far less annoying and much more of my favorite characters in this. The adults are wonderfully detached, but act as more than just set pieces for the main actors. And despite the direction he was given to go in this movie, Bill Skarsgard actually did a pretty decent job as the main antagonist Pennywise.
However, Pennywise is also probably one of the two big problems with this movie. In the way he was described, the direction they were going for with him was to be a scary clown rather than a comedic one like the Tim Curry adaption. But there's really nothing about him that's really incredibly scary. In the Georgie death scene, he still has the comedic dialogue complete with the addition of him going "pop pop pop!" when he talks about popcorn and doing little comedic things in that degree. When he's encountered in his lair, he dances (for once as his name implies), but it's an awkwardly amusing dance with an odd camera movement rather than something that would make me be afraid.
Why did anyone think this would be scary?Really, his only "scary" moments are his sudden shift in facial expression (such as immediately after his "pop pop pop!" moment), or his "ARARARARARARARA" (aka the running schizo moments, or flying at Richie) moments.
BE AFRAID, HE RUNS LIKE A CLOWN!Although this made Henry's scene much nicer, and was a genuinely neat moment:
Can we see more of THIS Pennywise?However, I will concede that he at least LOOKS scary in his costume, and the creepy smile that Bill Skarsgard can do does translate wonderfully in his makeup to make him more terrifying.
Funny looking in the promos, but creepy-looking enough in the movie when the mannerisms are thrown in.But then that itself contradicts the type of character that Pennywise is, in a way. In the book, he had the power to hypnotize kids to lure them to him...but there was nothing in the movie that indicated he had that power, so why would the kids trust a clown that looks so terrifying?
Whereas in the original adaption, Pennywise looked and acted like a normal silly clown:
There’s nothing more evil than a clown that tries to make you laugh before he kills you.Kids would be more likely to trust him, because he looked and acted like the genuine thing. And it certainly helped that Tim Curry was playing the part of a clown that just happened to have an evil killer side to him. When he was meant to be a killer, the switch was sudden. When he was meant to be a clown telling jokes, being overly annoying to the characters, or playing tricks, he did it beautifully. Sure, the role was a bit cheesy, but he also KNEW it was cheesy and relished it. Whereas the new adaption's Pennywise was trying to be multiple things, and didn't succeed in the same capacity.
And that's actually the other big issue with the new movie: It tries to be multiple things. It tries to be a comedy, horror, 80's film, timeless masterpiece, and coming of age story. It tries to go in too many directions, so it instead becomes confusing on what type of movie it is. It wanted to be a cinematic wonder, but it instead felt like a B movie with A+ movie budget. Whereas on the flipside, the TV miniseries merely meant to be a B grade horror, and it did well. Was it scary? No, but watching it, you knew that it was aware it wasn't scary, and relished in its cheesiness and B grade mentality. As Nostalgia Critic put it, the miniseries had much more personality as well as a main actor that gave it his all in his performance of Pennywise. Whereas on the flipside, the new cinematic adaption felt confused and almost empty if it wasn't for the performances by the cast, and even Bill's Pennywise didn't have the magic or even the creepiness as Tim Curry's version did, even though the former was going for a "darker" and "grittier" version of the character.
It also doesn't help that so much CG was thrown into it. One reason I didn't particularly care for the Slideshow scene in this movie was the moment that Pennywise comes out and attacks the kids: You KNOW it's CG, and you know he's not in that scene. He looks completely disconnected from the set and the kids, and this happens again when they first encounter him in the haunted house. But there were some CG moments that actually looked decent, such as that before-mentioned creepy portrait lady that Stan finds, as well as all of the floating victims in Pennywise's lair (yes, there are ACTUALLY floating people in this one!), so again despite the amount of CG, there's at least a balance of good moments and bad.
But overall, sure the two versions balance each other out for the most part. But for the areas that really matter, the miniseries is still better than the cinematic version (which is sad to say). But we'll wait until Part 2 comes out to really decide which was
really the better version.
