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.

Polar Express

I watched a movie called Polar Express, directed by Robert Zemeckis, released in 2004. It stars Tom Hanks, Michael Jeter, Eddie Deezen, Peter Scolari and a host of other people. This film is unique in that it is motion-capture, computer animated musical based on the book of the same name written by Chris Van Allsburg. The story is about a boy who doubts that Santa Claus exists until on the night of Christmas Eve, a mysterious train comes to him in his yard, The Polar Express and takes him on a journey to the North Pole. There are other children on board, also taking this journey. What will this doubting boy find there? Will he meet Santa Claus?
I had seen this film when it was originally released in IMAX 3-D, at a time when 3-D was still quite new. I was quite impressed with it because I had only seen this kind of motion capture in video games (small-screen) and in the Lord of the Rings movies, for Gollum. I am a big fan of Robert Zemeckis movies, such as Back to the Future series, Forrest Gump, Cast Away, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and even as a writer on 1941, Steven Spielberg’s underrated WWII spoof that underperformed, so even though I had no expectations going in, I knew it couldn’t be too bad with Zemeckis doing the directing. I didn’t read the book as a kid though I knew of its existence; it came out in 1985, which was when I was deep into Transfomers and G.I. Joe. I still read books but I don’t recall reading this one.

The movie is really interesting because Tom Hanks plays 6 distinct parts and it’s really interesting to see the difference in characters that he portrays. One would probably think that is over the top for one actor to do in a kids movie like this but it totally works because they are distinct but with that Hanks accessibility and charm. Some of the motion-capture can get into uncanny valley territory in some scenes, though to be fair it must but it can be a bit frightening looking at the kid’s faces on the train and they look like polished dolls. This movie also has the distinction of being Michael Jeter’s last film and is dedicated to him. The music score is done by Alan Silvestri, who does a magnificent and epic job, as always. The musical numbers are catchy and some are a bit schmaltzy but it is a kids movie so it is forgivable in some ways.

Overall, it is a very well made movie that will tug at your heart and is one of those comfy Christmas movies that really reinforces Christmas spirit and what it means to believe in the season and what is important to hold on to. It is a journey of growth for the doubting boy and the audience as well.
Find it and check it out.