Who says Pennywise cannot be otherwise?

Rating: 9/10 (1 October 2017)

I think a lot of people dive out of cinemas angry and review things before they've had a breather and a think and sometimes a re-viewing can help quell that immediate HATE reaction.
I've seen this new IT twice in the cinema because I really wanted to come to terms with what I wasn't happy with and what I was happy with before ranting or approving.
I did not like Pennywise as soon as he appeared in this movie the first time I saw it. I was cynical and thought Bill's portrayal was a bit silly and bizarre and not at all charming or funny like Curry.
I went away a little grumpy, mostly because of the missing lines. When IT is in the fridge I'd have suppressed a little happy squeal if he'd said "This is a little inconvenient, Eddie, just hold on while I make a few... adjustments", it was teasing us that it would be the case when he was tapping his fingers, just teeeasing us!! Or if the sink had gurgled "you'll die if you try". Good God, he didn't even say the infamous line, "Oh yes, Georgie, they float, and down here with me... you'll float too!" He DOES say "beep beep Ritchie", and although I was pleased this line actually made me think maybe it's a good thing he didn't say the rest because I'm not sure those charismatic, confident, cocky lines are well suited to this new interpretation of the clown.
Bill may not be charismatic, but there's almost something interestingly naive about the chuckling baby faced clown in the gutter. Something child-like. Something I can see would attract the kids equally well as being charismatic and funny. And the contrast between the baby faced gutter clown and the later deformed by pole through face and menacingly tall and drooling kitchen scene clown gives a good comparative perspective on the manipulative shape shifting monster. Take a look at a picture of the gutter clown opposed to the clown poised to pounce at Ritchie on the coffin lid online and it's actually quite a cool transformation from careful, hidden predator to something all encompassing, evil and powerful.
I'd actually say Bill's portrayal is more like a monster posing as a human than Curry's is, because he tries to be human and never quite gets there! He seems more animal, more like a hyena that has learned to mock us. Those wonky eyes, that baffling ill-defined voice - both age and gender are undefined at times. He is consistently strange and "other", and that is fitting. Could say he's a bit alien (nudge nudge).
So yeah, I like this interpretation, too. It's new. That doesn't have to be sacrilege.
Am I a Millennial? I was born in 1988 and I was scared of Curry's Pennywise as a child of around 8-10 when I first saw it, like a lot of "original" fans. I like the first adaptation although it isn't scary to me anymore, Curry's acting is still brilliant. I do not think I'm blinkered by the Millennial generation's tastes at all. I don't think it's a generational issue.
The reason this film changed the dates from the 50s to the 80s was purely to make the year the next film comes out as close to the true date, implying Pennywise has re-awoken from his 27 year slumber in real time (or approximately). It isn't something that's done to appeal to the Stranger Things fans, but is trying to be clever in bringing IT to life today. The original adaptation would have been set proximate to the modern day at the time just coincidentally, so why not do the same with this one by bringing it forward? Not so much harm in that.
As an aside I was very surprised reading someone on here thinking IT is a remake of Stranger Things. Stranger Things is deliberately borrowing a lot from already existent horror, including IT. It isn't a coincidence that is has similarities and it is meant to be like IT. It is a multiple homage.
Anyway.
IT is not scary. No. I will have no sleepless nights. And I am a horror fan. But I am also just a fan of good movies. This is just good fun, if you don't have to be so precious.
It doesn't have to be like the original, and it is a little bit like the book, like how the original was only a bit like the book.
Neither adaptation IS the book. And thank God for that cause King is a terribly verbose and slightly pervy writer and he spoils the comparative innocence captured in both adaptations that makes the children so likable.
Aside from the orgy, I'm not sure anyone would take to the leper chasing Eddie around offering him a BJ like he does in the book, either. Let's just admit some of that book needs to stay in the book! You don't have to be born in the 90s or dislike horror to enjoy it, and I'm still Team Curry if it ever came down to a Pennywise-off, because that man is just terrifying dressed as a clown and delivers those lines so charmingly.
I also appreciate that they gave the kids license to make the characters their own and don't necessarily "act the part", I think they all work well. No one, I don't think, is denying that the kids do a great job. I just wanted to put my penny's worth in for the clown.