EN – Review of the preview of the film based on the novel by Stephen King


Published on Oct 17, 2017


The film adaptation of It is exactly what should not be: a remake of the tv mini-series of 1990. The tv adaptation signed by Tommy Lee Wallace was reductive, superficial, devoid of splatter, only memorable for the performance of Tim Curry in the role of Pennywise standing in front of the camera screaming and threats to the seven Losers, wearing colored contact lenses and a mesh of sharp, sharp teeth. However, the mini-series has taken on cult status as it often happens to works of poor quality that can in any way get to the heart (and belly) of the public.

The literary masterpiece by Stephen King, published in 1986, is not simply the story of a monster that takes the form of a killer clown. This is a story that contains all the basic elements of narrative kinghiana. And’ the great american novel who marked an era, is a story in which the author pours all of himself, recalling with nostalgia the childhood in his Bangor, a town of Maine, moved in the imaginative Derry. A reality of the province, the appearance of quiet that hides beneath the skin of discomforts and horrors embodied by It.

Not surprisingly, it was initially chosen to direct the film that Cary Fukunaga, who had been able to tell the dismal horrors of a certain everyday life of rural american in the first season of True Detective. His screenplay, however, was too extreme for Warner Bros., and contained sequences, explicit, rape, pedophilia, and masturbation, to be unsuitable for a mainstream audience. The baton is then passed on to the more reassuring Andy Muschietti, a veteran of the ghost story, The Mother, carried out under the mold, the production of Guillermo del Toro.

It goes to comply with the trend of blockbuster horror in which the effects jumpscares are the only mezzuccio easy to blow the audience out of the chair and are unable to communicate discomfort or distress on a deeper level. Chills a lot of the chyle remain in the room and they played down eating pop-corn. Pennywise is left more to the mediocre digital effects that the interpretation of Bill Skarsgard. And makes enough laugh that the Swedish actor releases interviews in which he claims to have in-depth and intellectualized character.

Indeed, Pennywise does not appear even in the scene in horror success of the film, the explosion of blood in the bathroom of the Beverly. If Bill is the main character and the emotional force in the novel, the original, here it is the young, portrayed by Sophia Lillis is the real heart of the Seven Losers, still riding the wave of girl power around. It is however very easy to become attached to the protagonists, a group of young actors from the talented ensemble.

In the novel, the part set in the past takes place at the end of the years ’50 while in the movie we are in the years ’80. This choice is due primarily to a question of logistics, to be able to comfortably shoot the sequel to our days, but also to exploit the phenomenon of nostalgia as Stranger Things it teaches. It must be said that It does not indulge too much in quotations from the popular culture of the time.

Even if Stephen King has approved of the changes around the period in which the story takes place, the results are questionable. If you don't you tell the United States the ’50s and ’60s, the era of the Cold War, of the murder of Kennedy, the rock ‘n’ roll tales of terror EC Comics and the horror in black-and-white, you're telling me about Stephen King. And it is difficult to recapture the atmosphere of the novel in spite of the cured setting the years ’80.

This time the scene of the Losers who go to bathe in the lake, which seems more suitable for a neo-realist film of the postwar period. The bike Bill is called Silver in homage to the Lone Ranger, a character that the kids of the ’80s they hardly knew. The pretext with which the name is here maintained depersonalized totally the item iconic.

If The Green Mile, another story of a King, fills the most of the three hours of the film and the Lord of The Rings was divided into three films of the same duration (four hours if you consider the extended edition of The Return of the King), also It would need an adaptation of greater scope and with more time-dilated. Happen to too many things too quickly. It helps the pace, the film does not get bored, but there was no time to assimilate the facts, especially in the second part. The epic battle with the stones against the bully Henry Bowers and his companions is one of the highlights of the novel. Here is inserted after just over an hour and don't have the inspiration needed. The relationship of Henry and Beverly with their fathers is resolved in two scenes.

The novel is betrayed, above all, symbolic and metaphorical. In the original work, Bill, and the Losers face their fears by appealing to the entity's beneficial to the Turtle and collide with It on the metaphysical plane, thanks to the Ritual of Chud. In the film, the final battle is done to death and with a prosaic gun from slaughter.

I pull your ears to the Italian adaptation. The film comes out in our country with more than a one-month delay compared with the output of the united states, the voice of Pennywise is totally inappropriate and, children are dubbed by adults. The iconic pull quote the promotional “you galleggerete” has been replaced by the more mundane “what are you afraid Of?”

It is basically a good product of entertainment, a horror mediocre and a very bad translation. It's a film that slips away like a paper boat in a trickle of rain, but then ends up in the oblivion of the sewer. However, the general public will go in the room to see Pennywise that makes ‘BOO!’ and that's exactly what it will be, neither more nor less. You have to pay for the ticket? Then join the clown.

EN – Review of the preview of the film based on the novel by Stephen King is




Hey friend

Your blog talks about En – Review Of The Preview Of The Film Based On The Novel By Stephen King? Contact Us to be indexed in the BitFeed Network