It (2017)

I watched a movie and it was called It, directed by Andy Muschietti, starring Jaeden Lieberher and Bill Skarsgård, released in 2017. It is an adaptation of the 1986 novel by Stephen King. The movie follows 5 kids who are terrorized by a malevolence in a small town, Derry after one of their own, Bill’s brother Georgie gets killed by It. It is a complicated story to synopsize without revealing too much of the plot. Though to be fair, this is the second adaptation of the classic horror novel, the first being in 1990, as a tv movie and that one was more or less a condensed version of the book. Here, the 2017 version, focuses solely on the kids and how they navigate through the town. All of the kids are terrorized by 3 bullies AND their parents in different ways (Bev’s dad is sexually abusive though it is mostly implied and not shown so explicitly and Eddie’s mother is a hostile hypochondriac) as well as the adults in town avoiding helping Ben when he is getting abused by the bullies. There is something off about Derry, that is very conveyed through the style choices that Muschietti uses, as I mentioned earlier. There are some differences, as Ben is now the historian of Derry rather than Mike though in one scene Mike mentions his grandfather knowing something was not right about the town and even calls out the It curse.
Bill Skarsgård does an amazing job as It. Even from the first scene with Georgie, you can tell there is something most definitely wrong. However Bill adds a childlike voice to It that just feels off as well. The effects of It and everything surrounding it are really spot on, the jumpiness of the character when it attacks the children, the manic change of faces and the way everything just escalates was frightening. The kids all sold on their performances, sounding like kids, rather than Adult kids. It helps that they were all age appropriate so that there was some realism there, as with the dialogue overlapping in certain scenes and really terrified looks on their faces and in their actions. It has a weird air to it too since it rides the line on winsome tween coming-of-age story to terrifying clown horror. Ive read some of the book (online and it was hard to follow as I am distracted by school and life in general) and I felt that there was enough in this adaptation to see that it was adapted really well. A lot of what I imagined was on screen which is pretty rare and it also changed enough, not in 1958 rather in 1988 setting the story this time, that it could be relatable. Additionally, the terror comes from both ends which really has meaning and was not really conveyed in the first tv movie adaptation.  I am sure that a lot people will have mixed feelings about it but I would recommend it. Something that is interesting here is the adaptation of two films and using the same source material; what gets cut? What gets saved? How does one adapt such a thick book into a different medium? How does one make it fresh for new audiences while there is another version that is 27 years old? Overall, it is a great adaptation to King’s work which has been called hard to adapt many times. Little things have changed but the message is still there overcoming fear both as a child and an adult.

High Fidelity

I watched a movie and it is called High Fidelity, directed by Stephen Frears, released in 2000. It stars John Cusack, Iben Hjejle, Joan Cusack, Jack Black and many others. It is based on the book of the same name by Nick Hornby. It is the story of Rob Gordon, played by Cusack, and how he has broken up with his girlfriend Laura, played by Iben Hjejle. He goes through an existential crisis by examining his past relationships with women and all the while tries to get Laura back, all while running a failing record store. That’s the story in a nutshell. The movie makes some changes from the book here and there to accommodate filming (Rob’s last name change, location setting change, putting two characters together, et al.) though this kind of streamlines the story and makes it more accessible. That’s not to say that the book is not without its merit or accessible, I read it long before seeing the movie and really I didn’t notice the difference until I read it again. To be honest, I understand how they can change it because the book is dense with references that would be hard to film and would be just excessive to put in the movie to make it interesting. I’m sure purists would disagree with me there but really, the movie would’ve been 3 hours long or more. Not that that would be bad but it would be tedious though that is moot point.
Cusack brings in a great performance as Rob. You feel for the guy and are somewhat repulsed by him. After watching this again after a few years, I see how dick-ish he really is and self-centered he is. However, he does have personality that is very much like a normal person so in that respect, it is very easy to identify with him. All the supporting cast was great as well, though a bit more out there in terms of character compared to Cusack’s Rob Gordon. The locations were great, Chicago, and you could really feel the cool breezes (cold?) and the smell the city. The soundtrack is awesome of course, since it is about a record store owner. Lots of obscure but lovely tunes that score the film really well and put you into the mood of just about every scene.
Overall, I think this is one of Cusack’s best films. His fourth wall narration to the audience is pitch perfect and you get the feeling he really was involved a lot on this project. I suggest watching it, if you haven’t seen it already. Then read the book. Or even better, READ THE BOOK then watch the movie.