Ça

C'est ainsi que la version de 1990 aurait dû se conclure. Nous en parlerions encore aujourd'hui comme l'un des films culte de King. Et la version actuelle aurait dû être plus sophistiquée, effrayante dans le style The Conjuring. Mais je ne veux pas la critiquer. Le film est délibérément réalisé dans un style « années 80 », il respecte l'original et ses personnages grâce à un excellent travail avec eux, n'est ennuyeux à aucun moment malgré ses 130 minutes. Dans sa magnifique présentation grand format, il ne présente aucun défaut technique, et il fait plaisir de par une conclusion rafraîchissante, qui n'est pas utilisée dans le genre aujourd'hui. Et surtout, il brise brutalement la règle dont j'ai récemment parlé dans un commentaire sur Annabelle 2 - celle selon laquelle rien ne peut arriver aux enfants dans l'horreur grand public hollywoodienne. Mais en ce qui concerne l'effroi, qui est assez important pour ce film - je n'ai pas eu peur et je n'ai pas été effrayé une seule fois. J'ai seulement ressenti une énorme rage conjointe avec les jeunes à la fin, et j'ai vraiment eu envie de foutre une bonne raclée à ce minable baveux. (07/09/2017)

It is a great pity that the undoubted potential of this project ultimately boils down to very little inventive work with horror and fear. Make no mistake. Pennywise is great, and a couple of jump scares are really successful. But Muschietti gives the impression of a director who has little time and patience to create tension, so he chooses shortcuts and, moreover, properly old-school shortcuts. Unfortunately, Pennywise's jumping from all corners of the screen gradually gets old, and one only nostalgically remembers, for example, the masterpiece of the seemingly endless infernal terror in the second Conjuring. Similarly, films like It Follows or Get Out create a rather relentless contrast to this solid routine in terms of directing. However, IT excels with great characters and an intelligent image of growing up in an indifferent and dangerous world. It is very easy to identify with the characters, the film is funny and poetic, and it evokes Stand by Me in certain respects. At the same time, the film cleverly plays on the trendy notes of 80s nostalgia, but it’s a pity that it does not do it as subtly as Stranger Things. The Loser’s Club quickly grows on you and Derry's atmosphere is duly burdensome... nevertheless, the intrusive feeling that IT could have reached even deeper into the subconscious persists. But I have to admit without torture that I am looking forward to the second part. The first chapter is definitely one of the better King adaptations, but when one sees the amount of accumulated talent, it is clear that IT could and should have been one of the best. And that didn't happen... (06/09/2017)

It matured for me a few days later. It is excellent as an adaptation of King's exuberant novel, but a little weaker as a horror film about a clown with a penchant for murdering small children. Muschietti has removed the bushiest branches from the book, but he has captured the most important thing - the children who have stopped being afraid and have gone to face evil, bravely. The superbly led cast clicked and despite many simplifications, it works. The build-up is excellent, and the final confrontation even goes beyond the carefully, but otherwise actually very down-to-earth and respectfully filmed book imagery. Anyway, I fundamentally miss "It" in the film. (spoiler!) What I mean is the hard-to-grasp evil that is embedded in deep-seated fears. However, paradoxically, this is where the second part when the kids become adults may have a major advantage. It is thus possible that a horror combination will be created that will undeniably find its way into genre textbooks. 4 ½. (19/09/2017)

These childhood adventures with a touch of the 1980s started with Super 8 a few years ago, but it hasn’t fully taken off until the Stranger Things came out in 2016. It took a year for It to use this vibe exemplarily. They really took the advantage of it in its full glory, because from what I read, it will probably become the most commercially successful American horror movie ever. At the same time, I personally wouldn’t even call it a horror movie. Well, the beginning is a bit brutal, but the rest is a completely classic children's summer adventure and they nailed the casting down perfectly to the last detail. In fact, the group reminded me a lot of the gang in Stranger Things. One of them is a girl with a boyish cut, one is nerdy, one is chatty, one is black, and so on. On the other hand, I didn’t mind that the creators took this proven idea and introduced it to the movie It; on the contrary. But I was a little annoyed that a number of jump-scares were a bit too artificial and forced. However, after I finished watching, I assessed that it wasn’t actually a horror, but a children’s adventure and I really enjoyed it as such. (20/09/2017)

Yesterday, I had fun with a comment under a hipster-tearful article from Indiewire, from a user parodying the occasional critic lamentations over the new adaptation of IT , saying "it's actually very good, but it's not reminiscent of Tarkovsky's Solaris,” and then adding "shut up and enjoy the movie". On the one hand, I fully agree with them. Andy Muscietti managed to make a good film that is relatively faithful to King’s poetics, and it’s certainly among the TOP 5 adaptations of his horror masterpieces (together with The Shining, Misery, Carrie and The Mist). The cast is amazing and the direction of the young actors is as if by the way. And Bill Skarsgård’s portray of Pennywise is superb. On the other hand, I can’t avoid the feeling that more could have been done with it; even maintaining all the creators and the tropes of a “pleasing mainstream horror movie”. To really scare, IT doesn’t appear all that much and in order to squeeze everything, the spooky scenes end surprisingly fast with jump-scares; there is no time to properly escalate the tension (from a pure horror side, I thought the recent sequel of Annabelle was more effective and scarier). But what I lament the most is that Pennywise isn’t a full-fledged character, but only a bogeyman. It’s a real shame that he was not given more space to speak, because in those few scenes where manages to not only say ‘boo!’ but to also verbally interact with his victims, you can see a potential that was not exploited. Maybe next time, in Part Two. And the next time, and the time after that, in all the sequels, because there’s no way the studios will limit this excellently performed, main horror character to two films – especially given the expected profits. 75% (07/09/2017)