It (2017)

By Saša Avramović

Alternative titles: It: Chapter One a.k.a. It: Part 1 - The Losers' Club

Director: Andrés Muschietti
Screenplay: Cary Fukunaga, Chase Palmer, Gary Dauberman
Starring: Jaeden Lieberher, Bill Skarsgård, Finn Wolfhard, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Sophia Lillis, Chosen Jacobs, Jack Dylan Grazer, Wyatt Oleff, Nicholas Hamilton
Cinematography: Chung-hoon Chung
Music: Benjamin Wallfisch

Stephen King's 'It' is one of the ten defining books of my life. The enjoyment it gave me when I first read it as a kid, plus on every subsequent re-read was immense. Its blend of coming of age and horror elements is done with great skill and passion for the themes and you can feel that from every page of the book. That special feeling when you read a book and the book starts to behave like your friend or guide to the unexpected is one of a kind. It helped also that I lived (and still live) in a village with surroundings not very different from the one described in the book. The woods, the river, the passages underneath the land surface, and gullies and streams at the surface. I and my friends were camping in the woods, making wood tents out of pine trees and other available materials. It was great. But most importantly, when it comes to themes, I find King's work universal in terms of perfectly capturing the growing-up process, while experiencing the first traces of death and the rotten world before your eyes.

The first adaptation of 'It' came in the form of a mini-series directed by Tommy Lee Wallace in 1990. I always held it dear to my heart, although it's evident that mini-series have lots of problems (sloppy direction in the second part and downer ending being the most obvious ones). Tim Curry was wonderful as Pennywise and the kids were excellent too, but this story needed a film format as much more fitting for its themes.

Enter Andrés Muschietti, the director of the pretty weak horror movie 'Mama'. That was the main reason for my initial concern about the quality of the movie. But with every new promo material my expectations grew, and I am really happy to say that I was initially wrong. Very wrong!
First thing I need to say - the new kids are amazing - so spontaneous, so natural. Yes, the young cast from the mini-series was very fitting in their roles, but the new ones are so great that I now cannot imagine anyone else in their parts. I completely believed them and trusted in their friendship, in front of my eyes were not actors but Bill, Bev, Stan, Ritchie, Mike, Eddie and Ben, the whole Losers Club. I cheered at their successes, I feared for them, and I wanted them to win. Also, I shed a tear during a couple of really emotional scenes. 'It' alternates very successfully between hard-hitting, tear-inducing scenes (and manages to never feel cheap or manipulative in a bad way during these scenes) and scenes of happiness and pure terror. All the supporting actors, both kids, and adults are inhabiting their characters completely and without pulling back. And Bill Skarsgård as demonic Pennywise took a different but very interesting path, playing the performance of a hypnotizer who leads children to their death, with more creepiness and horror than humor, but still taking enough of both. The very good script helps the actors a lot in that process.

New 'It' is a wonderful coming of age horror-adventure. I am glad to say that Muschietti improved himself a great deal - he gave space to every character to develop, with all their inner torments, blending their inner horror with the horror of Derry perfectly, which is one of the main strengths of King's book too. King is great at blending real-life horrors with supernatural horrors (in 'It', but also even more in 'Pet Sematary' novel for example) and Muschietti made it work on the big screen very well. The boundaries between the ancient evil lurking inside the brain of the town and its (older) inhabitants are almost completely blurred in this case and it brilliantly fits the themes of the movie. In 'It', the monster(s) is/are everywhere, in the sewer, in the family, in the school, the whole town is full of them and our heroes are slowly realizing the true nature of the everpresent evil of the town and its inhabitants and deciding to fight It in all its shapes. Real life and supernatural, personal and collective, they blur together in the waking nightmare that paralyzes the whole town, alternating between the moments of terror seen and felt only by kids (the adults are already part of It) and the real-life terror of dysfunctional families, child abuse and the constant neglecting by the adults - by those who are meant to care for and protect the children in the first place ("Then, one day, you realize that's not true.").

Horror scenes are realized with great skill. What the mini-series mostly failed to achieve (especially in the second part) and Muschietti did very effectively is evoking horror by setting an ordinary situation that suddenly morphs into its nightmarish version. That's of course an old trick but Muschietti made it work perfectly. And since the titular antagonist feeds on children's fears, there are some very creepy scenes of them confronting the demons of their tortured minds. Some people complained about the amount and the quality of the jump scares, but I never felt that they are out of place or wrongly used. These scenes are shown from the point of view of the main characters, and considering that the monster "hypnotizes" them in these moments, creating the space for its attack, these scenes always felt justified and in place. Also, some other horror scenes, especially the ones near the end showing the psychological and literal battle between It and the kids are perfectly realized. CGI is smartly used (again especially near the end of the movie), never overused and it adds to instead of taking out of the final experience.

 The scenography is extremely well done (with the house of It being the most impressive) and creates another layer of creepiness or 80's style adventure look, depending on the situation. Cinematography is another strength of the movie. It's done by Chung-hoon Chung, best known as the director of photography for Chan-wook Park's movies. Many of the horror scenes are set during the bright day, which is a smart move that returns us to the golden 70s and 80s when the great masters of horror filmed some very effective horror scenes during the bright day. Also, when it comes to the look of the movie, the period of the late eighties (1988 and 1989) is perfectly reconstructed. The film also has a perfect sense of time and space and plays wisely with all its visual and verbal elements. Visual elements are fused with passing time and verbal parts are used in smaller but effective amounts. We have movie marquees for 'Batman', the fifth part of 'A Nightmare on Elm Street, 'Lethal Weapon 2', posters for 'Beetlejuice' and 'Gremlins' and a picture of a monster car on Eddie's T-shirt (possible reference to 1983 John Carpenter's movie 'Christine', adapted from Stephen King's novel). Also at one point, Richie says, referring to Bev: "Who invited Molly Ringwald into the group?” (one of the funniest lines from the movie), which is of course a reference to one of the main stars of John Hughes movies from the same era. Also, the music by various bands is cleverly used (with New Kids on the Block being very funny and nice touch :) ). The original score by Benjamin Wallfisch alternates between very creepy and John Williams-like, adding layers of very effective horror and 80's nostalgia.

I would have loved it if the movie contained bigger hints at the origins of Its evil, rooted in Lovecraftian cosmic horror. There are a couple of hints near the end of the movie, but I would have loved to see more of that, because it gives It the wider implications and makes its evil more Lovecraftian - that was another strength of King's book, making It part of the cosmic terror existing beyond any superficial and banal, being truly dangerous and universal. Also, as a part of that mythology, the turtle Maturin is referenced a couple of times in the movie, but not much. I would have liked to see more of that. All that is very well explained in the 'Ritual of Chüd' scene in the book (which was one of the scenes initially planned for the movie, but never filmed because of budgetary reasons). It would be great to see Ritual of Chüd and other similar scenes in the second part of the movie, in the form of flashbacks. Also, since the director's cut on DVD and Blu-Ray will be 15 minutes longer, there is a strong possibility of including more scenes of Its background (a background that does not destroy the character, which was often the case in similar situations, but enriches it). All in all, the goods that this movie delivers are too big so I don't consider this a big problem (and I am certainly not one of those "the movie must be faithful to the book" type of people, on the contrary), only suggesting a thing that can (and probably will be) more explored.

'It' is an amazing experience. I watched it with a friend at the cinema. Apart from five or six of us twenty- and thirty-somethings, the cinema was full of kids and teenagers. They liked the movie a lot (Bev got the biggest applause for her stabbing It in the head). When the movie was over, one kid stood up and said very loud, so that everybody can hear him: "This is the best horror movie I've ever seen!" While that's not true in my case, I can certainly understand where he is coming from. 'It' is one of the best horror movies of recent years and the success it enjoys is completely justified by its qualities.
 

"They're gazebos, mom! They're bullshit!"
Eddie Kaspbrak

4.5 / 5

We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011)

By Saša Avramović

This film directed by Lynne Ramsay (Ratcatcher) was greeted mostly with standing ovations from audiences and praise from the critics at the festivals where it was shown. It is mostly better than the products usually served at similar events, but not so much to call it a masterpiece - the word that many rushed to use while describing it. On the contrary, it's far from that.
The film follows Eva (Tilda Swinton), the mother of Kevin (played by Ezra Miller, Jasper Newell, and Rocky Duer in various stages of his life) who has committed a terrible crime and is now in jail. The film follows her struggle with inner demons and relations with the outside world, as her recollections of her former family life when she was trying to establish a normal relationship with an impossible child.
Another in a series of films about evil children, 'We Need to Talk About Kevin' tries to be anti-thriller, drama, and horror at the same time and to say some important things about the problems of the modern world, in this case about mass murders in schools of the United States. It doesn't fully succeed in any of the self-assigned tasks. When it comes to the thriller aspect, the entire film is set as an anti-thriller. Very soon after the beginning of the film the future of the main characters is revealed, the tragedy has already happened and the perpetrator is known. We see the flashes and the scenes in which survivors of the tragedy appear. That's a valid method but it doesn't work here because of the mild treatment from the director. The main function of that anti-thriller frame was to bring us closer to the characters, to both the victims and the ones responsible for the tragedy, to their drama and life. Sadly, the film failed in that area. We don't fully believe it, most of it isn't convincing at all and it doesn't bring us closer to the characters.

Here the director asks some simple, but (some would say) important questions: was Kevin born bad, was it all about the family influence, or perhaps both? The fact is that the mother was not happy because of the birth of a child. All that translates to Kevin during an early age and he uses every opportunity to turn her life into hell. The director settles for the option - born bad, and the environment made him even worse. So, he is set on the wrong track from the very beginning, and the behavior of his mother in the beginning (and later his father, but in a different way) form his personality. Kevin is evil and a manipulator. Even when it seems that he established a normal relationship with his mother, the next event shows us that it was only an illusion, and part of his game. He behaves completely differently around his father (John C. Reilly, in a very weak role) and the father does not believe his mother when she blames Kevin for various violent acts - he kills his sister's hamster, and in the end, blinds his sister in one eye. This part of the film has a big problem because the director decided to present the characters and their relationships in black and white manner. In essence, the most problematic thing is the way Kevin's eeeeevillll is represented, the claim that he is the main cause of all problems, and the way his family responds to his acts. Without going now into the ideological and moral implications of this deeply disgusting perpetual blaming of the children as the root of all problems (a very common thing in cinema), let's try to play by the director's rules (with an emphasis on "try"). Relations between the characters are very simplified and subordinated to the director's intentions. Father always acts confused, is not aware of Kevin's actions, and always complies with him. If Kevin is evil, then his mother is always nice to him, even though at first she did not want to have a child. She always attempts to get over all his wrongdoings. But it seems that Kevin doesn't believe in her love, he is convinced that deep down she hates him. In one scene, when he intentionally dirties his diapers (he wears diapers only to annoy his parents, not because he needs them) she angrily pushes him and he breaks his arm. Before this flashback, in prison, in a scene set in the present, he says to his mother that this action of hers is the only honest thing she had ever done to him. Kevin is wrong because she immediately shows remorse for her action and stays with him until his arm is healed. That much proof of his hatred toward his mother is unnecessary. The director does everything so that we as viewers feel uncomfortable because of Kevin's actions, but I felt uncomfortable mostly because of the way Kevin's acts were represented, and most of it is completely unnecessary. It's pure grotesque, and a simplified quasi-psychological portrait of the genesis of the main problem.

The director also wanted to play with a horror genre in this film, but it's not functioning, again largely connected with the previously described problems of the weak writing and the portrayal of the characters and because of the director's lack of understanding of the possibilities of the genre. Kevin's actions as a child are not truly creepy nor were directed in a horror key, and in the end, everything becomes pure exaggeration and almost funny in its failed seriousness (I can imagine how the actors who play little Kevin were directed: "Okay, now lower your brows and look evil!"). In the beginning, there are a few interesting scenes. The scene of the bathing in tomato juice in the crowd is effective because it shows Eva's current freedom with hints of future events. There is a partially effective scene of childbirth, during which we see only Eva's horrifying reflection in the mirror, then after giving birth we see her in a catatonic state in the bed with her husband holding the baby. In the scenes taking place in the present, the director is satisfied with the repetition of actions that should leave an unpleasant and uneasy impression on the audience, and this applies in particular to the scenes of Eva's attempts to cope with the new situation after Kevin's crimes - Tilda Swinton is excellent in some scenes, but in multiple scenes, she slips into pathetic - this part of the film is unconvincing because it should be shorter and less repetitive. Eva is constantly taking off red paint thrown onto her house (okay, you made your point, we understand the symbolism and we don't need to see the color red in every single scene of the film). The director wanted to make sure that we see Eva's character as a victim too, and she made that point aggressively. Eva accepts insults and slaps on the street without question and moves on. The almost identical scenes showing her loneliness begin to annoy her after many repetitions. In fact, in this film, there is no real human drama or horror, only at moments some effective scenes, with a lot more redundant ones. The director wants to show us the victims of the tragedy and their suffering, but there are not many of these scenes. The crime that Kevin commits is shown in a way that Kevin sees it as the fulfillment of some kind of messianic fantasy, but the scene remains sketchy and incomplete. When it comes to the actors who play Kevin, the best one is Ezra Miller as Kevin the teenager, who occasionally manages to show a tangible threat. Tilda Swinton is an excellent actress but she didn't impress me much here, she is mostly playing the same flat type of character and going with the flow of the script.

The film doesn't say anything new and important about these horrific crimes. As a study of the relationship between parents and children, the film is weak and one-dimensional. Also, it doesn't say anything new about human rights and choices in life. Eva at first does not want a child, then she changes and struggles with the problems, but it is all shown in a black-and-white manner and the end, leaves us almost cold. The very end of the film is effective but does not help much with the overall impression.

Hellraiser (1987)

By Saša Avramović

This review may contain spoilers.

Clive Barker is certainly one of the most important writers and artists working today. He cemented that position at the beginning of his career with a short story collection 'Books of Blood', issued in six volumes during 1984 and 1985. This collection is more than enough evidence of the wild imagination of the author, and quite sufficient for entry into the pantheon of immortals. A true Renaissance man, Barker writes books, directs movies, paints and designs video games.
In 1986 Barker adapted his story from the 'Books of Blood'  called 'Rawhead Rex' into the script which was made into a very weak movie (directed by George Pavlou). Unhappy with the results of the adaptation, Barker decided to write and direct a film based on his novella 'The Hellbound Heart' (issued in 1986). 'Hellraiser' was born. 

Frank (Sean Chapman) wants to go beyond the limit of sensual and spiritual pleasures by acquiring and solving a mysterious puzzle-box (the Lament Configuration), which opens a new doors of perception. What he gets is a slavery in the underworld of Cenobites, a demons who in their experiments on people are constantly crossing the border between pain and pleasure. The family of Frank's brother Larry (Anrew Robinson) will soon have to face the world which they never dreamed existed. Frank wants to escape from the depths of Cenobite SM hell. Few drops of Larry's blood spilled on the floor of the attic where Frank was torn apart by Cenobites will bring him back (in a magnificent scene of rebirth), but horribly deformed. For complete recovery he needs flesh and blood of the victims brought to him by Larry wife Julia (Clare Higgins), his former lover and partner in research of (at that time still just physical) limits of experience. Larry's daughter Kirsty (Ashley Laurence) will soon discover the secret hidden in the attic. Even greater problems arise when she solves a puzzle and Cenobites come for more flesh.
With 'Hellraiser' Barker found perfect art form for expressing his thematic preoccupations. For him there are no borders between different worlds and limits between layers of experience, seemingly distant worlds are mixed together building a new world that exist beneath the thin surface of the "normal world", a surface that sooner or later breaks and the underworld exposes itself. In Barker's work, supernatural horrors attack and consume our physical world, transforming it and forming new unbreakable unity of mutated flesh and spirit. His Sadean demons are not the "bad guys" in traditional sense of the word. He gives them space to speak and explain, he is successfully balancing on the border. 'Hellraiser' is his own "sympathy for the Devil". As the main Cenobite says, in his concise and effective reply to the question: "Who are you?" "Explorers, in the further regions of experience. Demons to some, angels to others." 

Pain and pleasure are inextricably mixed, and the flesh is a playground of inhuman forces. Those forces are represented by the Cenobites, who subject their victims to a continuous and extreme sadomasochistic experiments. Their design is completely in accordance with that: piercings, pins protruding from the head, leather suits cutting through the skin. Original creations in every sense of the word. Cenobites are the priests of new religion of flesh and spirit (the word "cenobite" comes from the Middle Ages and have direct religious conotation, meaning "the member of the monastic community"). The actors who play them are perfect in their roles: Doug Bradley plays Lead Cenobite, Grace Kirby plays Female Cenobite, Nicholas Vince plays Chattering Cenobite and Simon Bamford plays 'Butterball' Cenobite. They are the demons of human flesh, completely dedicated to their work. Using chains and hooks they are tearing apart human bodies, which is just the beginning of the process. Those extreme sadomasochistic experiments are the rituals of their faith, a faith of the seekers who solved the puzzle. The element of religious ecstasy ("Doors of plesures of heaven or hell, I didn't care which") are perfectly fused with pain and pleasure in the scene when Cenobites come back for Frank. Seconds before he is torn apart, while hooks and chains are holding him in the crucifixion pose, deforming his skin and body, he perversely licks his lips, smiles and says: "Jesus wept." and is immediately torn apart. 

Another important religious element of the film is the portrait of the demonic. Barker shows the figure of the Devil (not necessary a Christian one) in five shapes through the film. The first and obvious one are the Cenobites, the priests-surgeons of the new religion. The second one is the figure of the Tramp (another synonym for the Devil in mythology and literature), shown in one scene in a pet shop while eating the crickets from his hand. At the end of the film he transforms into the dragon-like creature, The Guardian of the Lament Configuration who takes the puzzle-box from the fire and flies away with it. In the last scene he is presented as the salesman of the puzzle, asking the next candidate: "What's your pleasure, sir?" The fifth one is the creature that visually resembles the cross between scorpion and worm. Its anatomy is fittingly inverted, the sting and the head exchanging places. All five incarnations are part of the same religion, the religion of the seekers and the curious ones. 

In the world of 'Hellraiser', people who are looking for new sources of satisfaction (and thus knowledge) are getting much more from what they initially wanted. But although Cenobites clearly say that their task is exploring the further limits of experience and winning a new landscapes of knowledge, even though Frank at one point says that Cenobites brought him the experience beyond every border in the form inextricably mixed pain with pleasure, still their experiments have the form of punishment. In a way, it becomes a punishment for those who want to explore new worlds.
Here Barker makes direct link between sensual pleasures and desires with the forbidden, some would even say with a sin. The angle from which that element is viwed is far from the traditional (Christian) perspective, but have its roots deeply in Christianity. In Christianity, the body is directly connected with forbidden desires and sin, which Barker uses to create his own mythology that exist beyond good and evil, which connects him with Marquis de Sade. In his mythology, the punishment for curiosity and desires has no form of Christian punishment in the eternal torments of hell. In Cenobite SM hell pain and pleasure are inseparable from each other and brought to such extremes that even the people like Frank did not count on that.
Julia is the woman who neglects her marriage, relationship with her husband and stepdaughter because of the desire for Frank. This craving for new sensual experiences is a major factor in the decision to help him bringing his victims. By living with Larry, she repressed her desire for Frank, and when she had the opportunity to renew the relationship, she will do it, no matter what the obstacles are. In this sense, the film exposes the dark family secrets and the consequences that arise when instincts come to the surface.

Before this film, Barker directed only two (solid) experimental short films ('Salome' and 'Forbidden') but with 'Hellraiser' he proved to be a true master. The film is drenched in a dark atmosphere, it combines intriguing ideas, physical horror, gothic iconography and the excellent acting into one highly original film. Makeup effects (designed by Bob Keen) are excellent and give another level of quality to the film. The budget for 'Hellraiser' was extremely low (about one million US dollars). Most of the film was shot on single house location, which Barker used to the maximum (although the filming in the house partially restricted movement of the camera), turning it into gothic torture chamber. 

My only serious objection goes to very end of the film, which at times looks like it was done in a hurry. Which is actually true, at the end very little money was left and everything was actually filmed quickly, including the weak animation effects. With regard to the budget, it can be said that the Barker achieved most of what he wanted in the film, but still we are left wondering how it would all look with improved effects at the end of the film. Also, the other problem arises from the scenes when Kirsty sends Cenobites back to their hell by solving the puzzle backwards. That element is not in sync with the rest of the film, it breaks the established rule - Cenobites are the ones who are bringing in new members. But because of the other enormous qualities, that element is not that much problematic for the construction of the film. Especially because nothing is final at the end, the doors are still opened for new seekers and new pleasures. 

The acting is on very high level, Clare Higgins and Doug Bradley are the best of the group, although everybody gave their maximum. Music by Christopher Young ('Hellbound: Hellraiser II', 'The Dark Half') is another element important for the success of the film. The original version of the music was composed by industrial band Coil, but it was rejected by the studio, and issued on their album The Unreleased Themes for Hellraiser. Young's very dark, beautiful, and elegant orchestral compositions are effectivelly fused with the visuals, pervading the events with the sounds from the Cenobite hell.
'Hellraiser' became a modern classic and his strength, intensity and strong conviction in presenting both visceral and intellectual elements, his refusal to draw any borders remained an inspiration to future filmmakers and a guide for achieving their goals. No limits!