Good special effects, decent acting, TERRIBLE writing and directing.

Rating: 1/10 (22 September 2017)

A few weeks before this film was released, I started reading Stephen King's original novel for "IT". After dedicating several weeks to reading "IT", I was honestly blown away by how wonderfully detailed and immersive the setting, the plot, and the overarching journey was. But above all else, what I loved MOST about the novel, were the characters. I just want to say that the 2017 adaptation was not technically "Bad" objectively speaking, but it failed to capture that which was most precious in its source material; its CHARACTERS.
I have a lot of love for each of these adorable little 11 year olds, so let me just say that I am incredibly biased toward the original novel. I recognize that. But I feel like I would being doing a great disservice to myself and the book if I didn't explain WHAT this film did wrong.
One of the things the book did so well is to draw you into this homely setting of Derry by carefully introducing you to these misfit preteens who were still figuring out their place in the universe. It gives great care in introducing their personality, their quirks, their family life, and their interaction with other characters. However, now they all seem to be just randomly thrown together for no other reason than plot convenience.
Bill Denbrough: His character is one shrouded in guilt over his baby brother's death. He believes that he unwittingly sent his brother toward his his own demise, that he should have gone with him, and that somehow he could have saved him. This frequently haunts him throughout the course of the story, but in the film, we see NONE of the hatred and shame he forces upon himself. Why? Because the film washes away any sort of finality to Georgie's death by making him go "Missing" instead of making him bleed out from having his arm ripped off like the wing off a fly. This leads bill down a path of hope and optimism that he may still be alive down in the sewers. Bill's hatred for the thing that killed him brother and divided his family is not portrayed at all.
Ben Hanscom: Something the movie somewhat got right was Ben's introverted and bookish nature. Something I was hopeful to see more of. Unfortunately, his character is skimped over like most of the other characters in this movie. He only serves the purpose of being the "Smart one" and being the puppet of an unnecessary love triangle between Beverly and Bill.
Beverly Marsh: There were many things the film did wrong to Bev's character. From the first moment we see her, she's being harassed by over the top "Mean Girl" stereotypes, calling her a "Slut" for no adequately explored reason. After she inexplicably makes friends with a total stranger (Ben Hanscom) she is personified by being the victim of sexual abuse by her father. What the film fails to recognize, is the reality that victims of domestic abuse, still tend to love their abuser. But instead of taking the realistic approach, the film turns her into this closeted bad ass who strips half naked in front of 6 boys, sunbathes in front of them, then cracks her father's skull open like a pinata. She overcame her struggles and is now a stronger person because of it, right? Then she's randomly abducted by Pennywise and turned into the stereotypical damsel in distress in need of saving.
Richie Tozier: Not really much to say about him. The actor who played him was decent and recognizable, but all he seemed to do was shout out vulgarities and abandon his friends when they needed him most. Also he's scared of clowns for a reason the writers forgot to mention.
Stanley Uris: He served no purpose in the film at all. In the book, he was the cold realist of the group who enjoyed bird watching and had a sound logical mind. In the film his only distinguishing characteristic is that he's a flat footed coward, and that he's Jewish. Something of which the film seems to bring a lot of attention to considering it has no significance to the plot. He now has unexplained daddy issues and is afraid of a weird painting.
Eddie Kaspbrak: Probably the ONLY character in the movie that was fully developed by the end of the film. He is seen being coddled by his mother, forced to take heaps of medication, and is paranoid about practically everything that might make him sick. At the end, after discovering his medication wasn't real, and his mother absurdly sends his friends away, Eddie gets MAD. He tells her what he truly thinks, and throws away his "Medicine". The only thing that his development ignores is the fact that Eddie's brain physically believes that the "Medicine" works. That his body will literally go into withdraws and make him believe he's having an asthma attack. Something that stays with him for 27 years.
Mike Hanlon: Mike was another missed opportunity. Mike was taught by his father that he would always face strife because of who he was, and that one day he would know the time to fight back. Mike fought back plenty in the film, but the original topics of racism were greatly watered down and were only subtly hinted at instead of being an integral part of his original character.
All in all, the characters in this film did not meet my expectation and overall felt like they were cut and paste renditions of already established tropes. The bond that these seven children held in the original source material was non-existent in my eyes. From forced love triangles to uncharacteristic squabbling, I feel that IT (2017) did an extremely poor job of portraying Stephen King's beloved characters.