The 2017 It is a remake of the 1990 TV miniseries. Check out our "No Small Parts" video on Bill Skarsgård's early career and watch the young stars of It reveal what it was like to meet Pennywise the Clown for the first time.
Several people are hunted by a cruel serial killer who kills his victims in their dreams. While the survivors are trying to find the reason for being chosen, the murderer won't lose any chance to kill them as soon as they fall asleep.
In 1960, a group of social outcasts who are bullied by a gang of greasers led by Henry Bowers are also tormented by an evil demon who can shape-shift into a clown and feed on children's fears and kill them. After defeating the demonic clown as kids, it resurfaces 30 years later and they must finish it off as adults once again.Written by
When Ben briefly flashbacks to Henry Bowers and his gang surrounding him, when we actually see the event, the situation plays out differently, e.g. we hear different sentences. See more »
My dad says there's no way to date this one. He says it's probably from the early or mid 1700s when Derry was a logging town.
Hold it. P-P-P-Pennywise the clown?
That's him. That's him!
200 years ago? He was here then?
Come on, It's just a drawing.
Now look. Here he is again. The same man.
It's not a man.
[the scrapbook begins flapping]
Th-That's what happened back in Georgie's room.
[...] See more »
During the opening credits, we see pictures of the "Lucky Seven" from their childhood like in a photo album. The final photo of the Paramount cinema segues into the actual one in Derry. The camera pulls back from the title IT, and it turns from white to red. In Pt 2, the final photo of a hotel segues into the one the "Lucky Seven" are staying at. At the end of both parts, Pennywise's laugh is heard. See more »
While the acting in this version of Stephen King's It, is for the most past good, (who can argue with Tim Curry as the clown), it none the less was stripped of a lot of its themes to be put to television. It follows the general premise of the book but omits huge sections of the occurrences that happen to the children, some of which are vitally important to the character development and plot. We lose some of the most beautiful aspects to their relationships this way. Also, the structure of the novel, which although overwhelming, is supremely successful, and is again lost in the film. While they could have made it much worse, I must urge people to read the book first. It's scarier, deeper, more complex, and a far better story.
80 of 137 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this