Review: ‘It’ Brings Back Stephen King’s Killer Clown

Interestingly enough we watched the original IT last week and found it to be not a bit scary. All of the phone calls from "Mike" to gather, and then the movie ends. Two nights ago we viewed the new IT and found it to be a scary but totally stupid. No other words. While there were moments in the scenes of the individuals "recalling" their forgotten past that produced audience fear, the ending was do overdone and predictable that you just plain lost interest. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone. Ugh.

The first IT was a sleek classic of chills expertly staged with building momentum and sharply drawn young characters. This IT is the worst of King. Overstuffed with plot, characters, and zombie like monster. A hot mess.

When I read "It" for the first time I was pleasantly surprised to find a character included with my last name, Koontz, that I share with another popular author of the macabre, Dean...this Koontz was an attendant in the mental hospital that the leader of the bully 'gang' was sent to after violent crimes. Koontz was eventually killed by a monster (maybe It, I don't remember). I'm wondering if the Koontz character made it into this version of King's book? I hope so... Also, a new version of Blade Runner is coming out soon, can't wait, the original with Harrison Ford is one of my favorite movies of all time...

For those looking for true terror...that is, psychological terror without special effects to "fill in the gaps", may I suggest "The Exorcist" and "The Exorcist 3". The latter is a particularly effective example of lean storytelling.

Not one mention to Dolores Clayborne?? Strange. I thought it was a great movie. Book is even better. Watched IT, definitely worth it. The kids are such great actors. The movie is impeccably produced. A very good adaptation of a difficult book to adapt. Impossible to fit in one movie the many layers addressed by the book.

As a big fan of horror literature, I have been looking for good horror movies for many years. I can count them on the fingers of one hand. (Rosemary's Baby being my favorite.) I love Stephen King's novels - most of them. The best of those kept me awake at night, reading and scared. It has been one of my favorites, and I read it a number of times. I hesitate to go see the movie, both because it can't possibly create King's world in some two hours and because terror imagined is always worse than terror seen.

I have never read a Steven King novel.

I HATE to be scared!

I haven't seen a horror movie since the first time, in 7th grade, at Dana Caruso's house for a sleepover, when she made us watch the Exorcist. It took me years to get over it.

When my mom told me the story behind the movie Psycho, I washed my hair in the bathtub for three years. No shower. No way!

And yet...

I find myself actually thinking about going to see "It." I am simultaneously horrified and fascinated by it. I'm lurking around the Internet trying to prepare myself. My plan is to wear earplugs AND noise canceling headphones. Maybe a scarf to hide behind, too.

I'll probably end up looking scarier than the dang clown!

I could not disagree more about this film having a "Stand By Me" feel to it. Although I do respect Stephen King, and he has a huge body of very successful books published, I find him more "childish fear oriented" (which indeed this film is). I think his skills as a writer have diminished, ever since Stanley Kubrick directed "The Shining" (1980). Now interject right here to say Kubrick is without a doubt the greatest director in the 20th Century. This is not simply my opinion; he was a "director's director". All the great ones freely admit it. As Jack Nicholson said, "He's The Man, and I think that is a huge understatement."

Regardless, Stephen King was so upset with Kubrick's film version of his book, 17 years later King went so far as to push Warner Brothers Studios to make a "made for TV" "Mini-series" (3 episodes) of the, which was shown on ABC. Since Kubrick had bought the rights to the title, etc., it was named "Stephen King - The Shining". It is a woeful film. The casting and direction are terrible. The 3 episodes total over 4 1/2 hours of utter garbage (not counting commercials).

I much prefer Philip K. Dick. He was an absolute genius. Second (only to King) in having short stories, novellas and novels made into highly successful films (especially critically). His best is alternate realities, and long before King was around. A few of his stories made into films are: "Blade Runner", "Minority Report", "Next", "Total Recall", "The Adjustment Bureau" and many more.

The popularity of horror points to the fact that we have, on the whole, severe mental health problems. What is wrong with people? How can anyone enjoy this type of film? Life itself is scary enough, what with the Republiclown party and our very own Pennywise, the clown-wigged Donald Trump, along with North Korea, major hurricanes, real-life monsters like Betsy DeVos, and tax-dodging corporations all trying to run us into the ground. We have demons to fight out in real life. Why spend your leisure time doing the same?

What is this urge to force oneself to be upset and frightened? Teens use horror films as a rite of passage and a way of bullying each other: you're uncool if you don't go along with your peer group and subject yourself to two hours of mayhem, fear, and ugly human behavior.

Don't people have real feelings any more? Or are we so hardened to violence that we have forgotten what it is like to be really frightened? Don't these audiences already wake up in a cold sweat, wondering what's going to happen to them when they're old and there's no social safety net any more? That's fifty times more scary and upsetting, because it is real. Who needs to replicate that feeling in the movies? No one in their right minds. We are a sick society and getting sicker by the year.

In this same NYTimes issue, there is an article about race in Hollywood and how it is presented onscreen.....then in this review, A.O. Scott cannot attribute any characteristics to a black character other than "black"?! The white kids are described as "a chatterbox", "a melancholy thoughtful boy", "a sweet girl", but the black kid is just described as "black"....

I'm going to pass on seeing "It." I was sorely disappointed (and more than a little ticked off) when Pennywise turned out to be (spoiler alert; stop reading if you haven't seen the 90s miniseries) nothing but a goofy-looking giant spider! I remember thinking that all along tfhe only thing those kids needed was an industrial size can of Raid! One good spray and boom! No more killer clown. Maybe this version of "It" is better but with very few exceptions ("Carrie", "The Shining") most movies adapted from Stephen King books haven't lived up to the hype.

I am a die-hard, life-long Steven King fan. Before I was old enough to read "IT", my older brother was telling me his own oral interpretation as a kind of campfire story. There are very few Steven King adaptations that are any good. "The Shining," while an excellent movie, is a Stanley Kubrick movie, not a Steven King movie; I would say the same thing about Cronenberg’s "the Dead Zone." So I am just going to come out and say it: the new "IT" movie is the best Steven King movie ever made. The film is at turns hilarious, terrifying, and heart-breakingly sad, just like the book. "IT" filled my heart with both joy and dread.

Richie steals the show. Enjoyable popcorn romp, but essentially A Nightmare on Elm Street Parts 3, 4 and 5. A lot of fun--the audience clapped, shrieked and yelled a lot of stage directions.

"It" has the look of a classic "scary movie" - we've been stuck in a horror rut, with films that have dark corridors and spooky children - creepy but not scary - it's good to see this review heralding the return of Stephen King - a horror master - long overdue! - https://johnrieber.com/2017/09/07/the-killer-clowns-are-here-it-terroriz...

This review has me looking forward to "Stranger Things" and not seeing "It"

It deserves the R rating. The strength of the film are the grisly expertly shot vignettes that pulse through the film with shocking clock work regularity. The band of outcasts come nicely together with sharp dialogue and characterization. This is a group that really needs each other. Their parental environment is only slightly less creepy then Pennywise.

"It" was a fabulously disturbing bit of storytelling by Stephen King. Very few films can be as great as the excellent books from which they are adapted, so I hope I am not disappointed when I see the new "It" at a local theater tomorrow. I do remember being pleasantly (if that's an applicable word for the horror-meister's flicks) surprised by the brilliant Tim Curry adaptation in the eighties. I do think that "Stranger Things" is a direct descendant of "It" and "Stand By Me" but that's OK because it's really an homage, in a sense, to two of the Scaremaster's greatest works. Frankly, this clown looks scary, but the one embedded in the souls of those who read the novel is far scarier...he's the evil clown YOU imagined, and way, way worse than any evil movie clown.

An H. R. Gigeresque creature ok why not, but definitely Lovecraftian as it comes to King's original inspiration.

So--should we both go out and see "IT"? I"m not sure. Some thoughts:

I was a child when "The Blob" came out. My parents had strict views about "horror movies"--and movies in general. Was I taken to see "The Blob"? Of course not! But I thought about the film. As one might think about the forbidden fruit. Gleaming--swaying on some leafy bough.

Then I saw it on Turner Classic Movies. A few years ago.

What a surprise! A trip down Memory Lane! Small-town America. Oh the blob itself was scary enough. Not too scary. But plenty of wise, responsible adults in the background--ready to lend a listening ear. Reach out a helping hand. And then of course--the U.S. government. Taking charge when it has to. Disposing of the blob.

"IT" doesn't sound anything like that There is no "small-town America" feel. The adults (I gather) are not terribly nice. Or sympathetic. The kids themselves--ditto! Not so nice. Not so pleasant.

Mr. King's imagination (I gather) owes something to H. P. Lovecraft. (A fruitcake if ever there was one.) His entire universe--sinister and ominous to the last degree! Haunted by malevolent powers! One of these is the horrifying Pennywise--but he's only one. There are more.

We're a long ways from Main Street. The kindly policeman. The town librarian. The man that runs the local diner.

A very long ways.

"IT." Well, my goodness! Should we see it? What do you think?

There was a tv version of this in the 80's or 90's, ( before cable). It was very well done. No mention of this in the article?

Great. Thanks to this movie, every Halloween party will have a surplus of scary clowns, which would only be amusing if they arrived in the same car.

I don't need to see the movie; the trailer is the most terrifying trailer I've ever seen. Much scarier than any other horror movie out there. Bar none, King's clown is simply the most menacing, nightmare inducing character in the history of horror films. And the little kid's face says it all.

One of the best horror movies I've seen is "The Blair Witch Project." No witches or monsters are seen in the film. I think it is a highly under-rated film. I know one thing after seeing the film.... I will never take a walk in the woods again.

Per MM, the book is definitely upside down- unless the director wanted to show the boys ignorance of Judaism so having the book upside down was intentional? I guess we'll have to see the movie. Other then that, get better screeners - you are only scaring Rabbi's now.

In the first film, Pennywise looked exactly like the clown in the parade in the film "Peyton Place". That was creepy.

Although dated now, the 1979 TV version of Salem's Lot with the great James Mason scared the bejesus out of me at the time. I'm looking forward to this one but I just skimmed the review, want to just enjoy the visceral thrill without so much analysis.

I saw it! Excellent. Of course, once again, despite the fact that this is a well-made film with good writing and great direction of smart, cute kids, it never can be the book. The book made me scared to come home to a dark house for a few months. The film probably meets with the Scaremaster's approval, but I just want to assure him that it can't touch the book for raising the hair on the back of your neck. Also, Tim Curry's clown was better (though Bill Skarsgard did a fine-scary job). Really looking forward to the sequel, "Chapter 2." If anyone remembers, it was quite good, focusing a lot on the kids as grown-ups and their relationships with each other. When Stephen King is good, he's really BAD.

Thanks for the heads-up on the climax. This has too frequently been the unimaginative go-to ending for not just action hero films, but across an increasing number of genres. Even the end of recent "Baby Driver" (an otherwise good film) devolved into pointless overdone smash-porn with requisite multiple fake endings. I hope the public soon tires of it, (as critics already have) and I'm glad I am not alone in my opinion. I'll wait for the video on this one.

The biggest weakness in the film is that it's way too short.

The cast is excellent. The set design is excellent. A few of the scenes (Beverly and her father, Eddie and his mother) are almost perfect.

The beauty of the book is that a large chunk of the fear is adult fear. Pennywise doesn't burn down The Black Spot, it's the white supremacists. Pennywise doesn't push Adrian Mellon into the canal; it's ordinary gay bashers. Stan is bullied because he's Jewish. Mike gets called the N-word and it's stated that he's the most hated member of the Losers because of the color of his skin.

Cutting out all of the nuance and going right to the killer clown weakens a lot of the horror in the book. A much, much longer film/series would have captured this.

If this has another of those stupid fake endings where, after the heroes have done all the work the villains still alive--count me out. I believe Halloween started this rotten trend.

Jeez, what's with the superhero hate?

Those of us who are familiar with the novel may recall that "It" comes out of the shadows every 27 years. So kudos to the filmmaker for updating the 1990 movie with a new cast. I'm putting a reminder on my calendar for 2044.

King was the first author that I sunk my teeth into with the vigor of a blood starved vampire. I've read his collections of short stories and the novels and I've always found that King has the ability to put his finger on the pulse of the time and raise mine in the process. I still remember being in college reading Pet Cemetery and I literally had a chill go down my spine when I finished the last page. The guy moves me.

For myself, some of his best reads are when King steps outside the horror with works like Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile and Stand by Me. Although with King the horror is really never that far away from the stories. Though not as terrifying as getting Captain Trips and having Annie Wilkes as your nurse or as frightening as running into Randall Flagg or Pennywise, the story of an innocent man sent to prison as in Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile or the death of a child in Stand by Me are nevertheless horrifying events.

That King can wrap these and other horrors with humor, love, kindness, and compassion with such talent is what keeps me turning the pages as one chapter leads into the next. (Maybe I just don't want to turn off the light.)

Now my son is of the age when I started reading King so I've given him my copy of Christine to enjoy and get him started on reading stories by one of the great American authors of all time.

As for seeing the movie, I wouldn't miss It.

I'm a Baby Boo er and didn't expect to like "It. " saw it today. Not so much scary as it is sad and poignant. I found myself tearing up in the last half hour of the film.

All of the child actors are stupendous- in particular the actor who played the chubby boy and the actress who played Beverly

Well done all round.

Both a friend and I started to collect Stephen King novels in the 80s. We decided that some of his stories have a spiritual element to be found and when asked, I tell the interrogator that the author is my favorite American historian to be found in his writing.

Now before placing a pin in the balloon, when forwarding these new movie releases to Latin America, Europe and here, my friend will recognize that 'IT' is the one that is going to draw our attention, while others will select something quite different for their bill of fare.

If I did not find clowns funny in the 50s, and stayed behind to clear the remains of the birthday cake, I find them creepier than ever in maturity and while attempting to be penny wise, there is little doubt in my mind that Mr. Pennywise is back on the street, in our midst, and 'IT' walks among us.

Thanking Mr. King for giving us some entertainment seen through the eyes of children and adults, some of us need heroes more than ever to defeat an ongoing sense of unease.

I watched the original miniseries by accident. I woke up one day at 3 am and turned on the TV. The first half of "It" was just starting. I watched, thinking it would bore me and help me go back to sleep. I got hooked. It was terrifying.

The next morning, I set my alarm clock for 3 am and watched the second half. Then I ordered the DVD. It has a great commentary track in which many of the actors participated.

I'll probably see the movie and the sequel eventually. Stephen King really understands evil, especially as it affects children and the damaged adults some of them become.

First, yet another remake. Mr King has published over 50 novels; yet the producers find it necessary to redo one of them rather than try something new, then they wonder why people are going to movies less these days.

Second, am I the only one who, at least from the description in the review, sees a remake not only of the 1990's version of It but also an attempt to make a non-comedic version of Goonies?

IT. I remember thinking it was the most terrifying book I ever read and felt the same way about the TV movie. I'm still scared thinking about it. It's the essence of Steven King. I'm not going to see this new movie.

I haven't seen the movie, and haven't read the book or the seen the made-for-TV version in ages, but I'm intrigued that the movie leaves out the entire half of the story concerning the children re-convening in Derry as adults to do battle once again with Pennywise. I know there are significant time limitations in a feature-length film, but I thought one of the real richnesses of the novel and the TV-version was the interplay between those two storylines.

As a horror aficionado, I agree 100% with the following, "As creature design has become easier and more elaborate, thanks to digital techniques, it has also become less imaginative. Movie monsters resemble one another more and more," Horror movies now rely on these digital effects, and the movies are beginning to resemble video games. The best movie monsters are made of mist and fog, and are barely seen, the mere suggestion of their horror is enough to terrify. In the first Alien movie, the Alien is never seen until the end, and then just barely. In the original Thing, the viewer is never shown what the thing actually looks like - only what it can mimic. This is what scares me, not some over-digitized video game looking unimaginative monster.

This is a strong review though I disagree with the statement that the climax is sacrificed to action-movie bombast. The scene from the book is an intense showdown between good and evil. Though deeply creepy, the scene is bombastic in and of itself.

In the synagogue scene, the hebrew book is upside down!!!! When the boy closes the book, the hebrew writing on the cover is upside down!
Tel the director he screwed that up!