He Thrusts His Fist Against The Post
Listen here, Mushchietti. Mushietti? King? Brian DePalma? I don’t know who wrote the script for 2017’s IT, but that was some bad fucking writing. I know I touched base a little with this one on Facebook, but I’ll say it again.
After the apocalyptic rock find (Anthrax providing the soundtrack), RIchie Tozier yells at Henry Bowers, “Go blow your dad, you mullet wearing asshole!”. That right there sunk the movie for me.
EVERYONE had a fucking mullet in the 80s. A mullet wasn’t something that was made fun of. In fact, I am almost positive the term, mullet, hadn’t even been coined at that point. Bad fucking writing. I know you wanted to make Richie a funny guy and whatnot like the book, but that was just pathetic. I’d like to see Trashmouth call David below a mullet wearing asshole.
A lot of gripes I hear, are people complaining the movie tried too hard to be Stranger Things. Well people, I haven’t seen Stranger Things so I can’t offer my derelict, but witty, perspective. But I do know that the Stephen King story about an entity that takes form of your worst fear has been around since the 80s. So perhaps Stranger Things tries too hard to be IT.
There was also the obligatory complaint of bad CGI. This is getting old. It’s not a complete day unless bad CGI is complained about. This has bad CGI. That has bad CGI. Just stop now. It’s the movies. Please stop. I couldn’t imagine the cost or time or effort it would take using costume and make-up to make a guy morph between a fangy clown and other ghastly things.
Seriously though. I was GEEKED about the 2017 version of IT. I along with billions of others watched the teaser trailer rubbing my hands together with glee. I remember seeing the woman posting a picture of Patrick Hockstetter as missing. That thrilled me to no end. Patrick Hockstetter was easily the most disturbing brat in Henry Bowers’ gang.
That would not be so in the 2017 version. Patrick is just there by name, I am afraid. His big bit? He sprays an aerosol can and lights it to produce a torch effect that Gene Simmons would scoff at. Yes people. Oh wait. He’s also tall. Unlike the aforementioned Gene, Patrick achieves this feat without the aid of high heel boots. So there’s that, right? He’s the tallest member of the bullies, and he lights aerosol spray.
Run for your fucking lives.
In the novel adaptation, Patrick smothers his infant little brother, jerks off Henry Bowers, kidnaps and kills the local pets by suffocating them in an old fridge. He’s just your typical boy next door. Boring.
And what the fuck is up with Henry Bowers? He barely has any screen time. His flunkies Belch, Victor, and the aforementioned tall fire guy, Patrick don’t even provide solid support. They don’t all chase The Losers Club into the sewer only to be picked off by IT one by one in gruesome fashion. No. They chill in Belch’s Firebird while Henry follows them into the spooky house and falls in a well.
I’m struggling to figure out which interpretation of the novel I enjoyed more. Despite my seeming ire in this text, I didn’t hate either movie. And to be fair to both movies, there is no way in fucking hell you can get an honest adaptation of a novel that’s over 1000 pages long.
The 2017 version was superior in some aspects. The cinematography was monumental. It was visually stunning. In some aspects it was much better acted. The showdown with Pennywise/IT was much better.
But there were things about it too that drove me batshit. I don’t know about you guys, but in grade 8, my friends and I never would have swam in our underwear, especially with a fucking girl in attendance. Anytime before college if someone saw your underwear anywhere but a high school locker room, it was freakin’ embarrassing. I know there will be some macho Don Juan amongst you who say you would have done it. Well good. You’re on the wrong site ok? There has to be a UFC site, right?
The house on Neibolt street was a bust too. Come on. I lived right down the street from where they built it in Oshawa. It was a big thing for Oshawa. A town known for its crack and abject self-importance was suddenly dignified by this cheesy looking haunted house looking prop. People were going down in droves to have their pictures taken with it. I even went down a couple times to appease whatever company I had with me at the time. I didn’t have my picture taken with it though. I’m not interested in going down in Oshawan cinematic history.
I think IT really wanted to make Richie Tozier a thing, using that kid from Stranger Things. But Seth Green’s RIchie Tozier from the 1990 version was superior. Let’s take a minute to compare the 1990 actors to the 2017.
This is a tough one. But ultimately I am going to have to go with Jonathan Brandis. I found his character to be a little more likable. His pain over the loss of his little brother seemed a little more sincere and childlike. Jaeden just seemed a little too adulty to me. He was a little too huggy with his little brother. I had five brothers when I was a kid and we were all way too hetero to be that hugsome.
I felt Jonathan’s pain a little more. He emanated way more sadness it seemed.
This one is easy. Sophia was a superior Bev. Her acting chops were very impressive at portraying the coming of age solo female lead. Emily Perkins was adorable in her own right and wasn’t bad, but Sophia really knocked it out of the park representing a troubled, but strong, young teen coming to grips with her sexuality.
This one is tough too, but I am going to have to give Jeremy the nod. He was freakin’ fat. Brandon Crane was chunky. The book made it abundantly clear that Ben is a fatass. Jeremy was extremely convincing as a sweet little lardass bookworm with a crush on Beverly. And lest we forget it was HIS kiss that saved Beverly from the deadlights. *rolls eyes*
1990: Seth Green
2017: The kid from Stranger Things
No brainer. Seth Green shone as Richie. It’s borderline infuriating how hard the kid from Stranger Things didn’t have to try because he was the kid from Stranger Things. Yay for the kid from Stranger Things. .
Really? Who cares. To hell with Stanley Uris! He was so unlikable in both versions. He was poop in the book too. Although if I really had to pick I would take the Stan on top because for some reason with his hand on his ear like that it reminds me of Leonard Graves Phillips performing live with The Dickies.
I am going to give these guys a tie. I will give kudos to 2017 for giving Mike a little more action than the 1990 miniseries. I don’t remember if Mike had a run-in with IT in the 90s version. I know what you’re thinking. Hey idiot! If you’re going to review and write about things, should you not do better research? I guess. But I am lazy and honestly want to bring a new perspective to whatever this is. But if you don’t mind, I am taking away from MIke’s moment.
I know one thing that pissed me off in the 1990 version of IT. Henry Bowers and the gang had Mike pinned up against a wall and were going to light off a cherry bomb on him or something, only to be foiled by someone guy coming out of a store and yelling at them from across the street. This really really really contradicts the whole mythology of the adults not caring about or seeing what was going on with the younglings.
Either way. Both actors did a decent job of portraying Mike.
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! Here I am trying to do all this creative cutting and pasting (mostly cursing) trying to find comparison pictures and I stumbled across this nifty little video on Youtube. There is no way in hell I am taking my hard work down at this point, so the initial pictures are staying.
Here is the blessed time saving comparison video.
1990: Adam Faraizl
2017: Fred Savage?
They both did an alright job. Adam was a tad wooden in the 1990 version but he was so damn cute! Eddie was a great character and not that hard to fuck up. Adam was a little more subdued but Fred Savage did a bit better at portraying a neurotic hypochondriac. I just found him a tad more annoying. But I guess that’s kinda the point. This movie just seems to miss so many of them.
I know I am going to catch it in the ear for this one, but Tim Curry wins. Not even remotely close. Maybe I am just old. When I was a kid, clowns weren’t scary. They were funny. I laughed like hell at clowns. Whether it was Bozo, Checkers, Sol, or Ronald Regan. Clowns were funny. So along comes Pennywise to use his good-natured clownish ways to charm kids into a false sense of affable security only to rip their bony little arms off and drag them into sewers.
Somewhere along the lines of time, clowns have become unfunny. They’re scary now. I think the 90s did that. Maybe it’s Tim Curry’s fault. Clowns are evil now. This is a really hard pill for me to swallow. This ranks up there with gay people stealing the rainbow. Much like happy clowns, the rainbow was just sort of stolen from us.
Bill Skarsgard didn’t get the memo about clowns. Being a spring chicken himself, he done fucked up. Followers and bandwagoners will compare his jaunt as a disturbed clown to that of Heath Ledger’s Joker. While they were both creepy motherfuckers in their own right, they completely abandoned source material arrogantly. I think the whole “PUT THEIR OWN SPIN ON IT” thing I keep hearing talk of, is getting old.
The Bowers Gang 1990
The Bowers Gang 2017
I’m not going to articulately point out the differences of the bullies. This one is really easy. The 1990 bullies were individually awesome. They had a presence and did an admirable job of supporting the nefarious ways of Henry Bowers. They were picked off one by one by the entity known as IT. It was done in creative and gruesome fashion. 2017? I’ll say it again. They chilled in the car while Henry fell in a well.
Why couldn’t the 2017 version spend a little more time on the bullies? Henry’s willingness to shoot a cat and look like he was hopped up on goofballs the second he received his dad’s knife in the mail, didn’t do a whole lot to capture his descent into further madness..
I am sitting here chuckling at the thought of Pennywise with his ten million fanged tooth grin wrapping up the knife and sending it off in the mail.
If they were going to put Patrick in the movie then why not at least allude to his mass murdering of the naighbourhood pets? I would have gotten the euphoric heebs from seeing him receive his comeuppance from the proboscises of a swarm of flying leeches!
Ok. I’m running out of gas here. This review is about as long as the novel itself. I am really interested in knowing your thoughts on this. Please comment below. I will respond to your comments. This is good new for trolls who like to beak squawk at me incognito. But don’t you are or I’ll start moderating the comments again and I will never ever have to read your comments again and you’ll be left alone frustrated staring at your imaginary fruit baskets on either side of you. Those imaginary baskets aren’t going to save you from yourself!!!!
Thanks guys. Much love.