YNMS: the IT remake
Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 9:00PM 
Chris here. We may not be the most horror movie focused here at The Film Experience, but some new films do get our curiosity whether it's because of strong reviews, exciting new filmmakers, or the revamp of known properties. This week we got a first look at long-developing remake of Stephen King's evil clown epic It. Apologies to any of our readers who fear clowns.
While It's early-90s miniseries lives in the infamy and closely-held sanctity of shared childhood nightmares, I'd wager that here is an example of story worth retelling. Tim Curry's original Pennywise may be one of our greatest and most terrifying horror performances, but if you rewatch now, everything around him doesn't really measure up. Perhaps it's time to do justice to the massive novel beyond its demonic villain while our fondness for King sees another pop culture resurgence.
Take a look at the trailer and we'll run down the Yes No Maybe So as we peek through our hands after the jump...
YES
- For starters, we get some truly terrifying moments. The slide show is an inventive update (this version will take place in the 80s) of Pennywise's haunting of old photos, and an outright slow motion spine tingler.
- Who knew Pennywise was so great at Instagram!
- The visuals. Chan-wook Park's usual DP Chung-hoon Chung is creating something classically beautiful and spooky here. A huge step up from the original's indistinct palor!
- The first reveals of character design we've already seen for Pennywise were a little iffy out of context. But seeing him in action here makes his Victorian influences quite unsettling. Thank heavens they're keeping it weird.
- No annoying"aw shucks"-ness towards the kids. Respecting their youth and not reducing them to precociousness is key to making this so viscerally scary. [side-eyes Stranger Things]
- Director Andres Muschietti has delivered one of the more underrated horror films in recent years: the Jessica Chastain starring Mama. We should expect a certain degree of humanity here.
NO
- There is a certain familiar conventionality here, right? In some ways it looks more of the universe of The Conjuring films.
- When this was in Cary Fukunaga's hands, it was proposed as a two film adaptation. There's no sign of the grown-up kids and no mention of a "part one" in the credits. Are they just lobbing off an entire half of the novel? Or waiting to see if this makes money? Give us clarity!
- Man, what Fukunaga could've created with this...
- Remember how solid the first trailers for the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and A Nightmare on Elm Street were? Didn't end up so well...
MAYBE SO
- Pennywise is used surprisingly sparsely here. We still have no idea how Bill Skarsgard sounds and lives as the legendary character and that's a good thing.
- There are some original visual takes on iconic moments - baloons, blood spouting from the sink, etc.
- Sure there are some jump scares, but this looks do mine its chills from a mix of mood, slow creep outsm and raging terror. Could they actually work for audience fear beyond making us jump?
I am a firm YES on the film and it leaped up the ranks of my most anticipated films of the year - let's hope we're not gearing up for a let down when it arrives on September 8. Are you YES, NO, or MAYBE SO?
Reader Comments (21)
As someone who doesn't particularly like clowns, I thought the first pictures we saw of IT were laughable. Some of the shots here are much better, but then the running bit at the end looked naff. I dunno.
"Remember how solid the first trailers for the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and A Nightmare on Elm Street were? Didn't end up so well..."
Well, I think the Texas Chainsaw Massacre ended up surprisingly excellent. Nightmare, notsomuch. Terrible film, that.
The Wikipedia entry is calling it It: Part 1 – The Losers' Club.
Horror isn't my cup of tea, but if this gets great reviews I'll go see it.
I like it. I don't know if it's truly conventional, or if trailer-making is rigidly conventional now. Some of the shots remind me of Carrie, which is good. One of the few movies to utilize King's schlockiness and run with it.
Yes.
Yes.
1000 times YES.
this was the first horror movie i ever saw (I was 4) and it scared the shit outta me. It was kind of a let down when i saw it again and it was terrible.
SO IN. DO THIS BOOK JUSTICE!!
that kid playing the lead [i assume] is a fantastic actor - eg: st vincent, midnight special and season four of masters of sex
of course i'll never see him in this - can't sleep, clown'll eat me
I know Stephen King skews boy-heavy, but didn't 1990's It have at least one female in it? Was she written out here?
Maybe. I do like that Chung-Hoon Chung is lensing it. But...clowns, man. I am freaking terrified of clowns.
YES!! IT is one of my favorite novels of all time. I was disappointed when Fukunaga's version was rejected. But this trailer has me excited again.
Beverly is with the boys. She just has short hair, and it looks like she has lost her ginger hair.
I'm with Migs. 1000 times YES!
The book, although a messy, opaque climax, is one of his best. I thought it conveyed that the horrors of our childhood metamorphose into the fears of our lives as adults. And the book had all kinds of scary things, even the kitchen sink!
I liked TCM, too, especially that trailer. "Nightmare" I still haven't seen, but the 80's version haunted me.
If well done, yes. Hard-edged like Get Out and this scary film about Donald Trump resonate with audiences.
Dropping the entire adult half of the novel would actually be the best thing to do for a movie version, but I sincerely doubt that the filmmakers are that smart. They sacked Fukunaga after all.
Jaeden Lieberher may be a fantastic (or at least: very good) actor, but he seems all wrong as Bill. Nevertheless, this certainly conventional trailer looks quite good for the most part.
Thus: maybe so.
I'm totally on board, but yeah, if only they'd let Fukunaga make it. Poor guy - this was one of his passion projects.
I'm totally a Yes. Seems genuinly creepy.
The 1990 miniseries gave 10-year-old me the type of fright that kept me in bed with my mother for a couple of nights, so I hold this property as something rather precious. This film adaptation better not tarnish the sanctity of my childhood memories. I'm a yes for now.
It's one of the most bonkers books I've ever read - will be intriguing to see how the film handles the climax to the kids story, as, well... it's pretty bonkers. Good trailer though!
As someone who read the book multiple times I'm definitely a yes, but I've always thought a ten part miniseries on FX or Netflix would have been the way go. The best parts of the book are when they dive into the history of Derry and how Pennywise has been there for centuries. A miniseries could deeper, which I think would work better than a two hour movie or even two two hour movies if that's the case. Actually many of King's stories are too long for movies, I'm surprised he hasn't launched an anthology series ala American horror story or Fargo to present his longer works, seems like a no-brainer.
I'm a strong yes, after reading that King himself said they did a great job with it. The trailer supports that perception as well.
I was under the impression that it's still two films, which is exciting. I hope that didn't change.
I'm also hoping that they rely less on jumpy sound effects and more on earned scares.
I'll miss Tim Curry but that's how it goes sometimes.
King is a talented writer but he does tend to go on...and on. I just read IT for 1st time last year and it was way too long, and, as per IanO above, the climax to the kids' story is really goofy (and offensive, quite frankly). I was an adult when the original miniseries aired and I only saw a chunk of it, but it's not good, with that laughably lame, giant spider climax. I guess it helped to be a kid for it to have been effective.
Anyway, I'm hoping they can do it right this time. I'm a horror fan and I see most ever major release in the genre. I agree that making it say, a 5-part miniseries might have been the way to go, but surely this 2-part movie will be an improvement over the original. Let's hope!
I still can't look at a poster of the original 1990 IT without getting serious chills. Something about Tim Curry's deadeye stare under clown makeup really creeps me out. He was similarly terrifying under layers of makeup in the misbegotten Tom Cruise/Ridley Scott mid-80s fantasy Legend.
That said, I entirely agree with Chris Feil about the original. Apart from Curry's Pennywise, the rest doesn't really hold up that well, or at the very least could be improved upon, and going by this trailer, this could be the film to do it. Like Chris, this new adaptation is now close to the top of my 'must see for 2017' list. The only question: can the new Pennywise possibly top, or come anywhere close to, Tim Curry's?
Mike Troutman ask and ye shall receive:
http://consequenceofsound.net/2017/02/hulu-picks-up-stephen-king-anthology-series-castle-rock-from-j-j-abrams/
So, this trailer confirms they're messing up the book's genius structure by making one film about the past and another one about the present?
It looks great, this trailer, but the fact that they're not keeping the structure worries me. King wrote it, in that fashion for a good reason.