It (2017) Poster

(I) (2017)

User Reviews

Review this title
1,604 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
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.
780 out of 1,164 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
379 out of 580 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
262 out of 398 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
416 out of 662 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
581 out of 1,001 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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
263 out of 444 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
336 out of 576 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Better than Original! Seven Kids Versus Evil Cannibal Clown
hilaryswank201125 September 2017
The first sequence is classical example of US horror film. In which, the evil clown suddenly and naturally appears, and it victimizes the kid who drops his toys into drainage passage on a rainy day in the local city of US.

We not only easily grab the setting of the evil clown and what he wants. It is a typical bogie man story who eats and kidnap kids who are afraid of it.

It(2017) proves effective use of VFX. CG animation is to crate what traditional acting or camera working or editing technique can not achieve.

This film actually avoided overused VFX and CG animations (CG is not an editorial work but it's computer animation).

Moreover, it recovered or tried to revive the core spirit of 1980s' Goonies(1985) or Stand By Me(1986) to the certain extent. This is also well accepted and understandable.

The evil clown is typical Boogieman like Freddy in A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), and it has common feature with Freddy. Furthermore, it is scarier than the latter.

I appreciate the legitimate and efficient structure of this film. It is the best horror film of 2017!
195 out of 335 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.

131 out of 221 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
165 out of 286 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Extremely over-hyped, a cringe-worthy missed opportunity
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 edgy. Yes, the book had profanity, but King knew where to draw the line and keep the perfect balance of immature vulgarity and true friendship. The sheer level of nerdiness here 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. Did one of those boys seriously just say "Get me my bifocals, I hid them in my second fanny pack"? What the hell kind of child wears bifocals? Why not just rename him Poindexter while they're at it? The kids in the book and the miniseries were never this obnoxiously dorky. And what's with all this New Kids on the Block stuff? There was a scene in which for no apparent reason all these close-ups of NKOTB posters pop up on-screen. Why? Just because earlier in the film a kid had been listening to that music? It made no sense! We get loads of terrible one liners from Richie comparing the blood in the sewers to "period blood" (lovely, eh?) and trust me, no way does any thirteen-year-old talk like this. All kids at that age swear and tell fart jokes and stuff, but even they have their limits.

Mike is only added as an afterthought, which seems borderline offensive, as if they only added him as a token minority whereas in the book and film he was such a complex, central character. He had a strong bond with his father that's totally absent from this film. Stan is unlikable, and the newly revamped Pennywise the Clown has teeth that could rival the most inbred hillbilly, and the most scary thing he seems to be able to do is hop around like some kind of wino. Uh yeah, real "spooky", I'm shaking in my boots.

Then we have the film's complete disregard for the friendship, the glue that holds the story together. Killing and gore and sex and violence and swearing is not what horror is about, it's about the darker side of life, and this film only portrays it in a cheesy slasher film type of way. I'm not trying to sound preachy, but where's the love and friendship between the characters? When it is there (which isn't very often) it feels forced. In the old miniseries, it felt authentic and true, and the kids were actually portrayed as kids, not young adults. This new film is completely void of the book's special qualities such as the "hi-ho Silver!" thing and Eddie's "battery acid" line. The film just doesn't have the stunning scenery that the miniseries had, either. The miniseries had an actual gothic revival pump house as the sewer building (the Buntzen Hydroelectric Station of British Columbia), and it was creepy and nostalgic and absolutely the perfect choice. It had nailed down the industrial small town in an economic slump kind of look perfectly, too. This film looks too clean for that, with CGI used in all the wrong places to create what looks like fake looking stage sets.

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. I was hoping it might be more like the 2012 film Sinister, a genuinely frightening and timeless boogeyman that leaves a subtle unsettling presence wherever it goes, but no, it just looked cheap and lazy, an obvious cash grab that's being WAY overhyped. A 7.5/10 rating, are you kidding me? Even King's 1995 notoriously bad film The Mangler was better than this! It's like with good marketing, this new film was able to pull the wool over everybody's eyes and fool them into thinking it was a classic masterpiece.
172 out of 301 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
150 out of 261 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
199 out of 352 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
197 out of 351 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
326 out of 594 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Starts well but gets boring fast once you realise there is no goal
rabbitmoon8 September 2017
The opening scene of IT is so promising - well directed, atmospheric, and Skarsgard's clown is compelling to watch. There is a brief moment where while laughing mutually with the kid, the clown suddenly goes quiet and stares menacingly. Its brilliantly unsettling. But sadly, that's it as far as unsettling clown performances go - the rest of the film is typical CGI scares, and the clown throwing out taunts like the deriative satire of Scary Terry in Rick and Morty.

The cinematography and acting is great. Its watchable in an afternoon Netflix kind of way. But there is no real gist, goal or drive to the story, it all just sort of unfolds scene after scene, goalless and drifty like the string-along nature of a Police Academy film.

Its OK - but it really isn't the classic that people are making out to be. Its been incredibly over-hyped. I personally found Insidious to be a far more effective supernatural chiller.
193 out of 346 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Nothing you love about It is in this movie.
drforeman7 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Nothing. This was a staggeringly ham-fisted approach to either King's novel or the miniseries based on it. It missed the point utterly... You will not see a group of children whose shared bond enables them to overcome a monster. You will see a load of bickering kids who seem to barely tolerate each other come together briefly to rescue the kidnapped object of their pre-teen lust. You will not see an intelligently-written story. You will see a dumbed-down, by-the-numbers screenplay, complete with the usual beats, Crisis of Faith, Catharsis, and all. You will not see belief overpowering evil. You will see a ten-minute fight scene where every kid tries to out-cool every other kid and get off a Schwarzeneggerian one-liner.

This movie is garbage. I can't express it more eloquently than that.
132 out of 239 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Terrapin669 September 2017
Dare I say it, the cheesy 1990 mini-series is far superior. Despite the hype, this adaptation was a real letdown. The kids were great, however the the CGI was awful and the jump scares were cheap.

Bill Skarsgard? Hard to tell between him and the CGI.

This adaptation was lacking in both exposition and soul. All we have here is a CGI clown terrorising some kids. There is no depth to the story of his origins. There is no proper backstory regarding the kids.

There is absolutely none of the feeling of dread that both the book and the original mini-series encapsulated. No atmosphere whatsoever.

Its not a bad film, but highly lacking.
100 out of 179 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The IT Factor
Ahlephia1 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.
303 out of 580 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I Honestly Have No Clue What People See in This
Gorgorgorgoroth11 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
It really is ridiculous how this movie is being praised like crazy. This movie is so fvcking generic. It wasn't scary nor was it funny. Just stupid. This movie is FULL of jump scares. That's literally all the movie does in attempt to "scare" the audience. It's the cheapest and laziest way to "scare" people. Many times the kids in this movie try to be funny but come off really stupid instead. The scene where the two groups of kids are throwing rocks at each other and the movie is playing some rock music is so cringy. What the Hell was the point of that scene? Ridiculous. And what was up with that zombie homeless looking dude? That zombie guy talks like a death metal singer and I felt like I was watching The Walking Dead. I did not give a fat fvck about ANY of the kids in this movie. I was not interested nor was I rooting for the kids. There was nothing special about any of the kid characters. NONE of the kids of the "Losers Club" gets killed in this film. All that tension and none of the kids get killed. Not one. Close to the end of the film, Pennywise gets his ass beat by a group of kids with baseball bats and chains. LOL! He couldn't fight them back. Stupid movie.
91 out of 165 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
127 out of 236 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The perfect blend of comedy and horror
LiamCullen68 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!
196 out of 379 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
153 out of 292 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
147 out of 280 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
81 out of 149 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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

Recently Viewed