POP! Movies – Carrie

I seem to have been on a bit of a Stephen King kick of late. I reviewed the new version of IT just a few days ago, today we look at the POP version of Carrie and even as I type I’m watching the first episode of Stephen King’s The Mist.

Based on Stephen King’s first (published) novel, Carrie is the incredibly depressing story of a teenage girl who develops psychic powers. It was adapted into a film pretty quickly after release, with Sissy Spacek cast in the titular role. 

Both the book and movie of Carrie certainly contain their fair share of supernatural scares, and there are a lot of themes you can draw from it – high school as the real horror, bullying, victim blaming and sexual awakening just some of them. It’s not hard to see why the popularity of both continues after so many decades, even if they show signs of age*.  

But for me, most of the terror lies in Carrie’s religiously abusive mother. We don’t really find out which brand of Christianity Carrie’s mum adheres to, but it looks to be some kind of strange variant of Catholicism (we see Carrie praying in front of a statue of Saint Sebastian at one point). But in terms of practical application, her mother’s rantings and ravings come across as some kind of fundamentalist Protestant strain – ill-informed and deeply suspicious about the world. 

I’ve never experienced anything as extreme as Carrie, but as a kid I attended a Christian school that fell under the sway of a Charismatic movement known as the Toronto Blessing – lots of speaking in tongues, people collapsing around the place, that kind of thing. From my perspective, the principal used it as a way to consolidate his particular ugly brand of authoritarian leadership, by trying to fill student and teacher minds with bullshit. Maybe some of them even believed it at the time, I don’t know. It’s affected me more as an adult than I think it did as a kid, causing me considerable anxiety and leaving me highly skeptical of the whole phenomenon. 

Now to be fair, I haven’t been to the church in Toronto that originated the whole thing, so I can’t speak for their experiences. But based on my own, I’m inclined to think the whole thing was a hoax, or some kind of hysteria. I certainly don’t think it was a good thing – it’s been a blight on the modern church since. So yeah, the scenes with Carrie’s mum pushed some buttons for me.

But I have digressed heavily. The POP itself is quite simple, showing Carrie at her prom, post-pig’s blood. She’s wearing a slip-style dress, and still has her corsage on. My only real complaint is that could actually be way, way bloodier to better match the art on the back of the box, and the film itself.

If you’re a fan of the movie, this is a no-brainer. It’s one of Stephen King’s better adaptations, and though it’s showing its age, hugely influential on horror films ever since followed. Not Funko’s finest work, but definitely a solid piece for the shelf.

*I’m yet to see the remake from a few years ago

Lupine Film Club: IT (2017)

WARNING: Contains spoilers for the novel of IT, the 1990 adaptation of IT and the 2017 film of IT

Book to movie adaptations are always going to upset a certain contingent of fans. It’s not hard to understand why, either; the adaptation is often seen by far more people than read the original work, and if it’s a bad one…well…  

Few writers probably understand this as well as Stephen King, who must surely one of the most heavily adapted authors in the world. The man already has his name on literally dozens of terrible adaptations of his novels and it doesn’t seem to have hurt his book sales any – so what’s the issue here?  

Well, when you’re talking about IT, it’s not so simple. The book was actually already adapted for the small screen back in the 90s, as a TV miniseries which became an instant classic. For a certain generation of horror viewers, it’s one of the most terrifying pieces of TV ever made. Sure, it hasn’t aged perfectly, but it’s a pretty faithful adaptation and it’s readily available for home viewing. A remake seemed like a dubious idea at best, and an abomination at worst. Tim Curry’s take on Pennywise has long since entered the horror pantheon, and despite not having aged terribly well in the fashion department, the miniseries still conjures up some impressive scares today.   

But like IT herself, Hollywood seems to operate in 27-year cycles*. And so, the creature has again risen from beneath the sewers to terrify a whole new generation. Things have changed a little since we were last in the town of Derry, though. The children’s setting has been moved from the 1950s to the late 1980s, and the characters have also had certain background elements tweaked.

I am not a purist when it comes to book-to-movie adaptations myself, so for the most part, these changes are fine. The only one I didn’t really like was Beverley’s reduction to a “damsel in distress” role towards the end of the film. Aside from that, the plot follows the main beats of the novel, so there’s no real surprises if you’ve already read it. If you haven't, I won't give too much away; it's a kid's adventure story meets Stephen King's signature brand of disturbing small-town horror.

Proceedings feel a little cramped and rushed, but part of this is simply because there quite a few main characters. I may draw ire for saying so, but I suspect that at least one of the Loser’s Club could have either been cut or amalgamated into another character; a movie is not a book, and you don’t have the same space to work with in terms of giving characters equal time. With that said, all of the kids put in a great performance – there isn’t a weak one among them, and it’s almost a bit of a shame that we probably won’t see them in these roles again.

But the real question on everyone’s lips is really centred around another character, though – Pennywise the Clown, the titular IT. Revealed to be something of a Lovecraftian entity in the original novel, IT's origins largely go unexplored in this film, beyond the obvious conclusion that he’s some kind of supernatural monster -- but more importantly, how does this new version compare to Tim Curry's take on him? 

Well, Bill Skarsgård does a good job, if not quite such a distinctive one as Tim Curry. My main objection is that most of the time it really seems like a stuntman or CGI double is there in his place; though Pennywise gets a reasonable amount of screentime, I didn’t really feel like Bill Skarsgård got enough time for himself to shine in the role. Part of the character’s appeal is that he’s menacing without necessarily doing too much; the implied threat is often more effective than the xenomorph-esque jaw dislocation. Still, his design will no doubt give kids nightmares for years to come – and that’s as good a measure of success for a horror villain as any, really.

IT has had something of a troubled production. Actors and directors have come and gone, and it becomes most evident in the updated 1980s setting -- or rather, the lack thereof. With Finn Wolfhard in a starring role, and the 1980s setting, comparisons with last year’s Stranger Things are inevitable -- you can't help but think they're aiming for some crossover appeal. Indeed, you sometimes find yourself wishing for the deft touch of the Duffer Brothers in handling the look and feel of the era. The period setting feels more like window dressing; aside from a few bizarre outfits and the lack of computers or mobile phones, it could have been filmed last week. The main concession we get are some vague allusions to The Goonies and Stand By Me. Neither is surprising, given that The Goonies came out around the same time the novel was released, and Stephen King wrote the short story Stand By Me was based on.

Part of the reason IT – both the novel and the TV adaptation – worked so well is because it tapped into the zeitgeist of the time. Clowns are always objectionable and terrifying, so King picked a good villain – but there is much more to its success than that. Y’see, back in the 1980s there was a big revival of interest in 1950s culture; early rock and roll, James Dean, all that stuff. Baby Boomers were getting nostalgic for their childhood, and the pop culture of the time reflected that in a lot of ways^**. IT pushed all these buttons, and also tapped into a more disconcerting truth about the era, too – it’s fun to reminisce, but you’re getting older…and you might actually have been a better person back when you were a kid. Your best days are quite possibly already behind you.   

This adaptation doesn’t really have, or even try to create that kind of resonance, and instead trades subtext for (admittedly effective) jump scares. The end result is that it’s creepy and unsettling, but it doesn’t really establish a distinct identity for itself. IT is ultimately a very competent film, and certainly worth a watch on the big screen – but it does feel a little disposable. Here’s hoping that Chapter 2 rectifies some of those issues, and showcases the true potential of the story. 

IT opens in Australian cinemas on September 7th. You can view the trailer here.

*Not entirely, but just suspend your disbelief for the purpose of the line here.

**This is also part of the reason Back to the Future was such a hit, and why Chris Isaak had his breakthrough in the era.

POP! Movies – Pennywise with boat (Chase Version)

I’m normally pretty ambivalent about book-to-movie adaptations. And I must say, I become particularly ambivalent when it comes to Stephen King adaptations, because the hit-miss ratio is very unfavourably skewed.

But with that said, the upcoming adaptation of IT actually looks quite good. Trailers can be misleading, but I’m quietly confident that this will be a good update of the source material. Entertaining as it was, the 1990 Tim Curry miniseries is definitely showing its age (look no further than the spider scene if you need confirmation) and it’s time for an update. It’ll be good to see a new generation pick up the book too.  

Anyway, Funko have decided to release POPs based on Pennywise the Clown, the titular IT. There are three different sculpts, but four versions in total if you include the Chase. The “with boat” version is the basic one, with the other two sculpts serving as retailer exclusives in the USA. No word on when (if ever) they’ll show up in Australia, but I would assume sometime around the movie comes out.

Though I had my initial reservations, I quite like the design they’ve gone with for Pennywise’s costume. The 1990 miniseries was a good take on a “real” clown, though of course with various distorted details to make it clear he was actually anything but. This version is a little more overtly creepy, with the costume having a sort of Elizabethan look, combined with Drop Dead Fred hair and weirdly angled teeth. And of course, he’s holding Georgie’s little paper boat. Poor Georgie…

The paint leaves a little to be desired, but this seems to be the same across regular and Chase versions. The teeth in particular could be neater, but it’s all within acceptable standards.

When I found out there was going to be a Chase version, I figured it would be a pretty easy pass. It’s a sepia paint scheme, which are often underwhelming in execution. But then I ran across it in person and decided it looked just as good as the regular version, if not better. I wouldn’t go and pay aftermarket prices for him, but at retail price it was much of a muchness.

It remains to be seen whether this new look will become iconic in the same fashion as Tim Curry's take, but with the movie just around the corner we don't have long to wait to find out. In the meantime, this figure is a great take on the creepy clown trope; one that doesn't simply look like a poor man's Insane Clown Posse. 

Stranger Week Day 6 – POP! Television: Mike (Stranger Things)

Like many of its inspirations, Stranger Things is ostensibly for adults but is also eminently watchable by a younger audience. Sure, at a few points it’s violent or scary, but it’s hardly The Evil Dead.

While Mike’s not exactly the main character, he’s probably the closest thing the show has to an audience surrogate for its younger viewers. Fortunately, he’s got substantially more depth than most audience surrogates. The Duffer Brothers have obviously heeded their own childhood viewing as a warning about how terrible audience surrogates can be, as the ratio tends to skew about 10,000 Orkos to 1 Mike.

Mike’s POP shares quite  a good likeness to Finn Wolfhard, though Will’s is probably still the best overall. He’s equipped with his walkie-talkie (which would have made a good accessory for Lucas, too), which seems omnipresent throughout the series, and as with all of the Stranger Things POPs so far, the sculpting is well-executed and painted well. The only (possible) detail missing is a cut on the chin, though you could always add this yourself if you wanted.   

I’m in the middle of watching the series through again, partially in preparation for series 2, but also just to refresh my memory as I write these reviews. And on second viewing, I strongly suspect that Mike is at least partially based on Sam, John Francis Daley’s character from Freaks and Geeks. Though not identical, they look somewhat alike, dress similarly and are definitely on the same wavelength of interests, though Mike is considerably less dorky*. In an interesting example of things coming full circle, Finn Wolfhard has since been cast in the new version of Stephen King’s IT – which has also had its setting updated to the 1980s. I'm hoping he doesn't get too typecast in the long run!

As with Joyce, Mike is not the most fascinating design that we’ve ever seen Funko come up with, but he’s an essential part of the show; one of my favourite characters from it too. Eleven and the Demogorgon are the obvious pickups from the range for more casual fans, but Mike is a very close third.

*If you’ve never watched Freaks and Geeks you should definitely check it out – it was one of my favourite shows as a teen, and pushes a lot of those 80s nostalgia buttons in the same way that Stranger Things does.   

Funko Mystery Minis Horror Classics Series 3: The Grady Twins (The Shining)

Remember a few months ago when I reviewed Regan and mentioned that if ever there was a movie that suffered for being influential, it was The Exorcist? Well, I still stand by that statement. But if I had to add another horror film to that list, I would definitely add The Shining.

Now don’t get me wrong, The Shining is a very good film…if perhaps a wee bit on the long side. But I would be quite happy to never, ever see someone paying “tribute” or doing a “hilarious” parody of it ever again. We’ve seen the kid cycling around, we’ve seen “Here’s Johnny” and above all we’ve seen the creepy twins again and again. No need for any more, pls.

But nonetheless, the Grady Twins are one of the defining images of the film, and so it’s only fitting that they got their own Mystery Mini from Funko. The first thing I noticed was that – perhaps somewhat surprisingly – they aren’t just mirror images of one another. Though they’re clearly twins, one is slightly taller than the other, and their heads are also a slightly different size. This is accurate to the girls who played the Twins in the film, but if Funko hadn’t bothered then I doubt anyone would have complained. It’s an impressive bit of detail in a stylised format, though.

The Shining is quite an enigmatic film, and one of the few ghost films that I like. Perhaps this is because of its ambiguity; in the original novel, the horrors are definitely real – but in Kubrick’s take on the story, you can’t be quite sure. This is my roundabout and clumsy way of saying that these figures are good, but they work due to their larger context, not due to their base design. At face value they’re simply two kids in old-fashioned dresses – but when you’ve seen the film, they’re something else entirely. They’re fun, but as I noted in the Jack Torrance review, it would be good to get a Danny Torrance too. Maybe in series 4?   

POP! Movies -- Pennywise the Clown

Company: Funko

Year: 2014

I know it’s been very trendy to hate on clowns lately, particularly after the whole clown sighting thing last year – but I’ll quite happily state that my dislike of clowns extends well back to childhood. I don’t have a phobia of them or anything, I’ve just never associated them with positive feelings. The Joker, John Wayne Gacy, those eerie (and depressing) Pierrot paintings every second house seemed to have displayed in the 80s and 90s…clowns are boring at best and genuine serial killers at worst.  

My larger point is that Stephen King chose quite well when he made the villain of IT a clown, even though they’ve become a heavily overused horror trope. I’m re-reading the novel for the first time in…ooh, maybe a decade or so…and while it has some of the usual shortcomings I associate with his books, Pennywise the Dancing Clown, the IT of the title, is one of his great villains.

Of course, even more people are familiar with the character through the 1990 TV miniseries adaptation, where he was played by Tim Curry. Somewhat disappointingly, I’ve never actually watched the whole thing (like many King adaptations, it was everywhere on VHS, but seemed to disappear in the DVD era), but Tim Curry seems to do the character justice. So today we find ourselves looking at the plastic representation of Pennywise, delivered to us by Funko.

This is Pennywise in his more overtly evil form; while he’s creepy in all his appearances, his face changes slightly when he’s about to commit a murder, teeth becoming pointed and eyes shifting in colour. His hands are also stretched out, presumably to grab one of his victims.

For the benefit of anyone who hasn’t seen the book or watched the film (SPOILERS), Pennywise is not actually a clown. King was really riffing on Lovecraft when he wrote IT, though he dressed it up with plenty of Americana and kid’s adventure story to subvert some of Lovecraft’s usual story structure – rather, the clown is a manifestation of an H.P. Lovecraft-style supernatural/extraterrestrial horror that lurks beneath the city of Derry, Maine. Arriving before the dawn of recorded history, he manifests every 27 years or so, wreaking terrible violence before returning to some kind of slumber. 

More in common than you might have realised

There was probably scope to do at least a couple of different versions of Pennywise -- maybe a “plain” version or one holding balloons – but this one serves as well as any other. With the upcoming 2017 movie of IT, it seems likely that we’ll get one based on that film’s take on the character too.

Overall? He’s a well-designed figure, and though I wouldn’t say I rate him as highly as a number of my other horror-themed POPs, my affection for the novel and Stephen King’s wider works was enough to push me to purchase. If you can find him (he seems to be discontinued) and you’re a fan, he’s a worthwhile investment.  

*For the younger reader of this blog, I think it may be difficult to comprehend just how big a deal Stephen King was when I was a kid. Sure, he’s still an exceedingly famous author, but back then he was a genuine phenomenon. My childhood memory may exaggerate a little, but not too much. A public figure since the 1970s and highly prolific throughout the 1980s, the 1990s saw King’s popularity explode to a whole new level. For a while there, you couldn’t walk into a video store without seeing some new adaptation on the shelves, and had an average bookstore display of his works collapsed on you, you would have likely been killed, given how many books he’d published at that point.  

Funko Mystery Minis Horror Classics Series 3: Jack Torrance (The Shining)

My parents – in hindsight – were not especially strict, particularly in comparison to some of my friends. But like all parents, they wanted to instil a certain set of values into me – and as such, most horror-related material was treated with a deep suspicion. 

And few names were more synonymous with horror than STEPHEN KING. Back in the 1990s, he was arguably at the height of his commercial (if not creative) powers. Bookstores were stuffed with his wares, and video stores seemed to overflow with filmic adaptations of his works. Being a keen reader from a young age, I was naturally very curious about him – but parental authority steered me away from him until I was a teenager. Probably wisely, in hindsight, though it was frustrating at the time.

In the long term, the parental admonition against horror didn’t work. What did I do as soon as I was old enough? Went out and read a ton of Stephen King books, and watched scores of horror films. I love both to this day -- and one of the best adaptations of King's work is The Shining, from Stanley Kubrick.

Stephen King was not thrilled with this adaptation. Having subsequently read the novel, I can kind of understand why, as it deviates from the source material on many important points. But I enjoyed it myself; the pace was probably just a little too slow for my tastes, but it was definitely bizarre and memorable. And its influence has been undeniable – every TV show on the planet of every genre seems to want to do some kind of tribute to scene with the twins at one point or another. 

This Mystery Mini does a reasonable job of replicating Jack Nicholson’s Here's Johnny look in the film -- the check shirt, red jacket, jeans, maniacal expression, and of course the axe. It doesn’t look like Jack Nicholson specifically, but that’s just the nature of the aesthetic –and at a glance, he could fit in reasonably well with the humans from the Walking Dead Mystery Minis too. My only real criticism is related to the hair. Jack Nicholson has never gone totally bald, but even by the time of The Shining it was looking pretty thin – though again, this is probably just a side-effect of the aesthetic.

Overall? Jack Torrance isn’t my favourite figure in the series, but there isn’t a ton of merch for The Shining out there. Given that we also got the Twins in this series, I assume we’ll get Danny soon too – viewed in combination, that would be a fun set.