Saw It, the Stephen King clown picture. It was a really really good adaptation of a Stephen King book. I used to read a lot of his stuff in high school and in this film, as with all of his books, a grand mythology is synthesized out of prosaic things. There are also the King hallmarks of lionized but troubled childhoods, and a horror writer who just happens to be the protagonist. It's not particularly scary but it is interesting and unusual.
The logic behind this film ties it together pretty well, and on paper I imagine this works really well because King is good at grounding outlandish and surreal horror with very specific and familiar details that make it seem more real. On screen, of course, it just looks ridiculous. There is a post-climax mini-climax where a grown-ass man peddles a child's bike, his knees sticking out like chicken wings. The actual climax of this film is indistinguishable from a stop-motion-powered serial from the 50s. The worst thing about this film is the endless nostalgia which the plot elevates to monster-killing mythos. This mythos is well-integrated and a really well-though-out approach to take, but it's still glorifying fond memories into something they aren't. The best thing about this film is the antagonist, Pennywise.
Pennywise is just great. He minces and roars and terrorizes everyone. He's anarchic and unstoppable and fun, damn it. I even enjoyed the "everyone floats down here!" nonsense. I may be over-thinking it here, but it somehow seemed like something an alien intelligence would fixate on. Anyway, Pennywise is the secret hero of the film, slain by the lame and villainous ponytail-sporting, leather-vest-clad, feather-haired, middle-aged, nostalgia-dunk weenies. As kids they seem understandably scared and wimpy, as adults, they just seem to constantly interrupt the flow of the film with "I just remembered!" which gets annoying quickly.
Apparently this was originally a miniseries however, which explains a lot of the uneven pacing and frequent fades-to-black just after a cliff-hanger. This mirrors King's habit of either eschewing chapters or leaving cliff-hangers at the end of each one, in the grand tradition of page-turners. Like I say, this is probably a line-for-line adaptation of the book. It really feels like I'm watching one of his books. How much you'll enjoy this film I think depends largely on how willing you are to suspend your disbelief (and your snark.) It probably works better on paper, but it's not terrible on screen.
No comments:
Post a Comment