Not Bad. Not Bad at All

Rating: 7/10 (8 September 2017)

Unpopular opinion that will likely result in you guys sicking your dogs on me: I don't like the original It mini-series. I honestly don't. Do I hate it? No. I think the child actors did an okay job for what they're given and there are a couple decent scares here and there, but maybe it's just me, but I found it damn near impossible to take seriously. Most of the scares just bordered on unintentional comedy for me (I still find myself cracking up at the "Kiss me, Fatboy" line) and here's another unpopular opinion that will likely result in me getting killed or maimed: I didn't like Tim Curry's Pennywise. Don't get me wrong, I like Tim Curry, but he came off as more funny than he did scary or intimidating which probably isn't a good sign if you're doing a balls-to-the- wall horror film. Maybe the film was terrifying at the time it came out, but nowadays it's just really corny and dated. I don't think it holds up nearly as well as people say it does. But enough bashing of the original. How does the new film hold up?
Honestly, I think it's a marked improvement. That's not to say it doesn't have its flaws because it does. Its biggest issue is that it can be over-reliant on jump scares at times and I can't help but feel that was because the studio felt the need to try to appeal to basic movie-goers who consider a horror film sucky if it doesn't make them jump out of their seat at least once or twice. But to be fair, most of the jump scares are at least being used to utilize something we as the audience are supposed to be afraid of and they do manage to stir in a few clever and ballsy scares in there too. Hell, there's one scare in the first five minutes of the film that I'm surprised they even attempted. I won't spoil it for you, but it's pretty shocking to say the least. So I guess you can say, it appeals to both audiences in a way. It definitely feels a lot more like a horror film than the original did.
Most of the performances were pretty good for the most part. Most the child actors did a pretty good job, the two best probably being Bev and the kid from Stranger Things. The only performance that didn't really work was the kid playing Stan. His performance was pretty iffy and I didn't really buy it at all. But good child acting is a rarity, so it is a pretty impressive feat that only one of the actors isn't very good as opposed to all of them. The kids themselves had pretty good chemistry as well and I had no problem believing the legitimacy of their friendship. But the scene stealer by far is Bill Skaarsgaard as Pennywise. Sure, he could be funny at times, but not once did I ever forget that he was also supposed to be scary and a legitimate threat. He managed to find a good balance unlike Tim Curry whose performance was so over-the-top, that I forgot that he was even supposed to be threatening.
Some of the side characters were a little underdeveloped, but they at least had a lot more character in this film than they did in the mini-series. Henry Bowers was a little more than just a generic bully and Mike was more than just the token black kid who shows up randomly near the end of Part 1. They could be developed a lot more, sure, but there's at least SOME character there.
So all in all, while I don't think it's anywhere close to being one of the best Stephen King movies, it's still an enjoyable film. It's creepy, it's funny, it's energetic, and it's effective. I see myself watching this version again a lot more than I do the Tim Curry version. From what I understand, they're making a second film about the adulthood portion. While even fans of the book and mini-series seem to agree that the adulthood portions aren't that great, I am curious to see how these filmmakers pull it off. They surprised me with this film, didn't they? So you bet, I'll be back for the sequel.