Spoilers for ‘IT’ (2017) ahead.

Tonight, I saw the new adaption of Stephen King’s ‘IT’. It’s one of this year’s most talked about films so far, and after a week of eager waiting and non-stop positive feedback, I went in expecting to be impressed, but I still had my reservations. The book is one of my all-time favourites, and I’ve read it at least 5 times. I’m one of those people who watches a film after reading the book and flinches every time a deviation is made or a line of dialogue changes. My family refuse to watch Harry Potter with me because although I love it, I can’t resist criticising all the changes from the books as I watch.

However, I tried to put all thoughts of King’s novel aside as I entered the cinema, and engage with the film simply as a horror enthusiast. Spoiler – it didn’t work. Although the fundamental elements of the story remained, and the relationships between the characters, too much was cut, altered, or just outright discarded for me to fully enjoy the ride.

Where was the werewolf? The mummy? The giant, flesh-eating bird? Sure, times change, fears change, kids change. But the appearances of IT in its various forms in this adaption didn’t feel right. They changed one appearance. I could live with that. Then they kept going, and I slowly lowered my expectations. It might just be me, but the computer-generated parts of the movie seemed wrong for the atmosphere that needed to be created. They felt too modern, the movements too jittery, too 2017, jerking me out of the story and reminding me that this was a modern horror film.

One particular part which stuck out to me was Stan’s painting, and the distorted woman with the flute. The entire scene, and subsequent reappearances, felt like they were pulled straight from the second ‘Conjuring’ film and reimaged slightly in an attempt to make the film more appealing to modern horror fans.

Which leads me to another question: was it necessary to set the story in the 1980s, instead of the 1950s? Although 1980s horror style and era are having a resurgence in interest – just look at the phenomenal success of ‘Stranger Things’ last year – to uproot a story and move it 30 years into the future because of this doesn’t seem quite justifiable. There are enough 80s horror movies, and 80s coming of age movies in this world. Give me 1950s or give me death.

Speaking of death – I am firmly of the belief that the trend of children’s voices singing a nursery rhyme in every single horror movie should die. It’s overdone, it’s a cliché. Any film with a multimillion budget surely can afford to be a little more innovative and original with their score, instead of relying on this cheap fall-back. Also, haven’t they run out of nursery rhymes yet? And why do these children sing such old songs? It’s the 80s – these kids should be singing the ‘Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles’ theme. At the very least, circus music would have sufficed, considering the main antagonist takes the shape of a circus clown.

Although the 1990s miniseries is not without its flaws, one thing it does right is the clown. Tim Curry was, without a doubt, the perfect Pennywise. In the new adaption, you get the feeling that they changed it up so that Bill Skarsgård would be doing more

than imitating Tim Curry’s iconic role, but somewhere along the line, they overdid it. By making him look unquestionably malevolent, with an almost cartoonishly evil voice, the essence of what makes Pennywise the clown so terrifying was lost. He is a clown, until he is not, and then you die. Curry’s clown looked human when he chose to, before the claws and fangs emerged, but Skarsgård’s Pennywise does not look human at any point, appearing nightmarish and freakishly distorted at all times.

Although I’ve done nothing but criticize the film so far, that is not to say that I didn’t enjoy it. One element of the film I had no issues with whatsoever was the performances of the child actors. The chemistry between the characters was perfect, and it was obvious that these kids got on well off screen as well as on, making their relationships and interactions feel that bit more authentic. Were it not for the interactions and dialogue between the characters, and how the film takes time to build on their friendship, it would not have worked half as well as it did.

There were scenes scattered throughout with truly palpable tension and jump scares, however ‘IT’ was most frightening in its humanity. As Ben is pinned to the fence by Henry Bowers and his friends and a car drives by, the middle-aged occupants make eye contact before driving away. Beverly’s father’s interactions with his daughter and the fear she feels towards him. Missing posters are covered by more recent posters, the children forgotten. These smaller moments are truly chilling; there is no supernatural explanation, and these moments are all too real, too easy to relate to. At its core, ‘IT’ is about more than evil clowns and disappeared children. It is about the relationships and connections formed, and how important these can be.

The ending of the sewer scene was cathartic and touching, and if you’re wondering, they didn’t include that scene. Although I would have enjoyed the film substantially more had it been truer to the novel, few could stomach a prepubescent group sex scene, and I am not one of them.

Despite my complaints, I did enjoy ‘IT’. It was entertaining, it was frightening, it was touching. Unless you’re even more ridiculously invested in the book than I am and couldn’t live with the changes they’ve made, I would recommend it to anyone who likes either horror or coming of age stories, and even more to those who like both.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go reread the book.

With love and circus music,

Aimee.