The rules have been broken, on the first remake I actually think is better than the original

Rating: 9/10 (31 March 2018)

You never can count your chickens before they hatch. But sometimes, probably relating to the optimist that hides inside all of us, sometimes we catch ourselves doing it anyway.
Maybe because we buy into that crap about positive thinking. Maybe because we just finished watching THE SECRET (no, I haven't watched it all the way through yet). Or maybe it's just laziness.
I went into IT expecting to be disappointed. I left IT thinking about it so much that I wanted to go back and watch it again, although I never did get the chance.
Stephen King's IT, as I have been told, is a novel that spreads across 1,000 pages. I've never had the pleasure of reading it, and I made a rule years ago that I wouldn't read a novel if I'd seen the movie, and vice versa, because one form of artistic expression inevitably detracts from the other. I suppose, on some level, that may be a bad rule, in some way, but so far, I've kept to it.
So I've never read Stephen's novel. I've heard about it, watched many videos explaining in somewhat interesting (though ultimately frustrating) detail about how Andy Muchietti (who directed MAMA, another movie I've yet to see) failed to capture all the elements of the book into his movie.
It's an argument I've heard so many times, that it led to, and supports, my policy of not reading novels once I've seen the movie, and vice versa. A two to one thousand page book didn't manage to convert to screen exactly as you thought it would? WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED?
But I'm getting sidetracked.
I saw the mini-series, when I was a kid. The first half, the part with the kids, was terrifying. Tim Curry played the nightmarish It in a memorable, unforgettable way, and I think this is due to the abilities of Tommy Lee Wallace, the first part's director, to really bring out the chill in what would otherwise be the absurd. He created an atmosphere of disturbia that managed to keep me entranced, but at the same time weary, of a monster that seemed unstoppable, covered by his amazing ability to transform into the Loser's Club's worst fears. I really enjoyed it.
But it's nothing compared to this. Andy Muschietti went all out in creating a monster, a monster that shook me up the entire time I watched the film. There's no way on Earth I could claim the movie didn't have problems--it did, specifically for me in relating to the third, overly drawn-out act, but I don't care. I forgive him for this movie's misses, when it had sooo many hits.
First off, the chills were fantastic. Not only did Mr. Muschietti capture the menace of It, but he also managed to capture the menace of Derry, this strange New England town that seemed to be the backdrop for Its evil. The concept that the town was part of the problem was hinted to in the original, delivered to us through exposition, but as for the FEEL of terror all around these poor kids, it wasn't there before.
It's there now.
Derry itself is a terrifying, horrifying hellhole in Mushietti's version. I've been told that It, according to the novel, is less a clown and more a collection of lights that changes into whatever evil it needs to, as it feeds on the terror of Derry. Without knowing that, and without reading the novel, I was able to gather that, thanks to Muschietti's masterful direction.
The second part of the original mini-series is why and where it all falls apart. I'm afraid to see Part 2 of this film, because I know what happened the first time. Tim Curry's clown, in the second half, seemed less menacing and more desperate. Instead of being a clown who was the master of fear, it seemed he didn't know what to do with grown-up versions of his victims, and as a result, instead of being intimidated by him, we were crossed between amusement and sadness. After all, it IS sad to see your villain lose his teeth, and wither away into nothing.
Before I wrap this up, I have to mention the kids. While not perfect, their performances were solid, with Sophia Lillis as Beverly stealing every scene she was in. Don't get me wrong, there are no losers in the Loser's Club, from an acting standpoint. I think the kids, overall as a unit, are one of the strongest parts of this film. But Sophia takes the cake. She's haunting. She's clever. She's funny.
She's vulnerable.
For the first time, since this classifies as a remake, I have to say that it actually is better than the original. I never thought I'd hear myself saying it, but it's true.
I will watch this movie again. And I will add it to my collection.