IT
(SPOILERS)
A film review by Jim Mann
Copyright 1990 Jim Mann
I'll start this review by saying that I am not a horror fan. I won't pick up horror books unless I have a recommendation from someone saying that the book is a good book, not just a good horror book. I am, however, very fond of Stephen King. King transcends the genre, writing good novels, full of good, well-drawn characters.
The novel IT is probably *the* epic horror novel. I chose the word epic deliberately. The book has the feel of an epic. The actions of the characters feel as if they are a part of something much bigger, something very important. King uses a number of narrative techniques and extensive foreshadowing to achieve this. Before any major action happens, you have glimpses of it, helping to make the action seem much bigger when it does occur. (For example, there is mention of "the apocalyptic rock fight" several hundred pages before it actually happens. By the time it does, the reader knows (and feels) that it is a pivotal point in what is to happen.)
IT, like of all of King's major novels, contains well-drawn characters. By book's end, we know the main characters well, understand why they do what they do, have lived with them through several major choices, and so forth.
Last night, ABC presented the first part of a two part "novel for television" based on IT. Actually, instead of calling a "novel for television" they should have called it a "Cliff's notes for television" since it is as close to the King novel as Cliff's notes are to a novel. That is, it seemed to portray some of the surface of the book (not all, by any means. A number of important events are left out). It does not capture the feel of the book. It instead is a pale outline of the book.
First of all, all of the epic proportions of the novel are gone. Key scenes--the rock fight, the first confrontation with it in the sewers--are over quickly and seem rather trite. They certainly happen too easily. There is no real build up to these scenes--they just happen.
Secondly, the characters mostly seem shallow, there motives unclear. This happens a bit with the lucky seven (the 7 kids who challenge it) and happens even more so with the villains. Henry Bowers, the main nemesis of the kids, starts with murderous instincts, unlike in the novel where his descent into evil happens in stages as he crosses barrier after barrier in his criminal behavior. His companions aren't really portrayed at all. (For those who have read the book: I was particularly sorry that they left out Patrick Hofstadter (sp?), one of the creepiest characters I've seen.)
The novel portrays it as an ancient evil, something that had come to earth millions of years in the past and fed on and corrupted what would become the town of Derry, Maine. This comes through almost not at all in the movie. The kids see old pictures of Pennywise the clown (the chief guise of it), and one tells the story of a particularly nasty accident at the town's ironworks. This is not enough to really create the feel of ancient menace that the book conveys.
Moreover, the book has some moments of real menace. The kids seem in real danger a number of times, both when confronting Henry Bowers and his gang and in confronting it in its many forms. The teenage werewolf, a frightening figure in the book, is trivial in the movie, for example. (The movie downplays its shape-shifting, in any case.)
In summary, I'm glad I read the book before seeing the movie, since the movie would have soured me on the book. Will I watch part 2. Yeah, probably. Although at this point it is more a morbid desire to see how else they are going to butcher things.
On final note: how would it rate if I were taking it on its own merits, without reference to the book? That's hard to say, since I have read the book. Probably I'd consider it on par with your typical grade C Hammer film (like a Christopher Lee Dracula film), an OK way to spend two hours at the movie theater, but not anything great.
(Part 2)
On Monday, I reviewed the first part of the TV movie based on Stephen King's IT. At that point, I blasted it, calling it a "Cliff's Notes for Television" rather than a "Novel for Television." The characters were rather shallow and the film just didn't have the scope and epic feel of the novel.
Part 2 was aired last night. It was a bit better. The characters were fleshed out a bit (though still shallow) and the ending didn't seem quite as rushed. However, many of the problems of the first part still remained.
First of all, it failed to give you the feel of the scope, power, and age of it. It was simply a somewhat nasty monster faced by our characters, not the timeless evil it was in the novel.
The ending, while not as rushed as that of part one, still seemed a tad too easy. Moreover, the characters face down it on strictly a physical plain. It is a much more intense moment in the book, fought primarily on what can best be described here as another plain, first by Bill, then by Richie (whose role is trivial in the film).
Another problem is that the film tries to bring in devices from the book, but, without the buildup these things had in the book. Thus, they are just confusing or trite. For example, Bill's "He thrusts his hands against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts" chant builds up to something of mystic significance in the book, in part because of King's narrative technique, in which Bill remembers this bit by bit. In the movie, many readers must have been shaking their heads, wondering why he was saying such things to the monster at the end.
Similarly, Silver is just Bill's old bike. In the novel, it is built up in such a way that it seems much, much more, so that when Bill used it to "beat the devil" it fits.
Finally, the characters just don't seem to jell the way they do in the book. In the book, each character is an integral part of the whole. Richie, for example, is NOT just the class clown. His joking and his voices are important in the resolution, and are part of the synergy of the lucky seven.
I realize that much of this probably comes from the time constraints. If they had 6 or 8 hours rather than 4, they could have done a much better job. I certainly would have expected more of William Goldman, who is a fine screenwriter. However, what we wound up with was OK and enjoyable, but a pale shadow of what it could have been.
Jim Mann Stratus Computer jim_mann@es.stratus.com
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews