With its thick-rimmed glasses, fanny-packs and listless summer-time existentialism, Hollywood has recently become infatuated with the 80’s. Between “Stranger Things”, itself a King-esque science fiction drama, and period dramas such as “Sing Street”, the era of big hair and MTV has returned with full-force.

Capitalizing on the current nostalgia craze, “It” steamrolled its competition and quickly became the largest horror release, grossing $123 million opening weekend.

Its box office success is certainly not unwarranted. Directed by Andres Muschietti, “It” returns the original heart and soul of Stephen King’s novel to the silver screen. While the eponymous It continued to assert its dominance over the horror genre throughout the marketing campaign, the true stars were not decked in white face paint and gaudy ruffles. Instead, the Losers’ Club, a makeshift gang of seven high school outcasts, remained the one grounding element which cohesively tied together the film’s sometimes drifting focus.

The film works at establishing a strong bond between character and character as well as between character and audience. Each of the seven members of the Losers’ Club — Bill, Richie, Ben, Mike, Eddie, Stanley and Beverly — are adeptly characterized within the first act through their interactions with others and, more importantly, what terrifies them. As a film about fear, its characterization lies most directly through the portrayal of innermost fear and Muschietti skillfully utilizes this device visually.

The actors, particularly Jaden Lieberher, Finn Wolfhard and Sophia Lillis as Bill, Richie and Beverly respectively, do a fantastic job in carrying the roles. Together, they breathe genuine emotion into the story and elevate it beyond a simple fall horror.

However, with the film’s chosen method of characterization comes an inevitable failing: an overt reliance on archetypes. In an almost “Breakfast Club” situation, each Loser is assigned an archetypical role: Bill the leader, Richie the clown (the fun kind, not the murderous kind) and so forth. Instead of digging into their psyches like the novel did, “It” glosses over the characters somewhat, touching upon the larger issues without ever really dwelling.

This feeling continues for the rest of the film as Muschietti seems unsure in which direction he wished to take the movie. Half terrorscape, half John Hughes coming-of-age drama, the film feels as if it is following two separate paths at once, but never settling on either. In trying to conquer 1,400 pages of material and thematic building, Muschietti’s attempts to reconcile both aspects of his film — the thrilling horror story and the underlying symbolism and themes it represents — cause “It” fall somewhat flat on both sides.

The first act works well in creating a strong tension in the atmosphere of the seemingly innocent town of Derry, hinting at larger conspiracies and dark elements lurking in the background. Yet, Muschietti fails to continue in this path and deserts the larger thematic meaning of the novel by overlooking the racial tensions in Mike’s story and avoiding the direct discussion of Beverly’s home life. By steering clear of the larger issues in Derry, “It” fails to reach the level of commentary that the original book had and loses its exigence as a work.

The second and third acts capitalize on the formulaic horror script, such as epic fights between good and evil and an apparent destruction of “evil” before it dangerously resurfaces. As a horror director, Muschietti is capable: His ability to build suspense and utilize visual and lighting cues to create fear is often very effective. However, at times, his attempts to embody the fun-house atmosphere of the source material often create confusingly absurd visuals that detract from the audience’s engagement in the film. Often, scenes that were meant to inspire fear left the audience laughing instead. Granted, this did serve as an effective, if unintended, way of breaking the tension.

Despite its shaky focus, “It” is an enjoyable end-of-summer film, complete with a couple of good scares and a good atmosphere. Horror fans and Stephen King fans alike will find Muschietti’s take on the classic novel refreshing and entertaining. Through the impressive performance of the child actors and the good visuals, the movie carries itself well throughout the entire 135-minute run and floats far above its competition.