It (TV Mini-Series 1990) Poster

(1990)

User Reviews

Review this title
514 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
First Half Good - Second Half Bad
Gislef22 December 1998
That's what most of the other commentators say, and I can't disagree. Part 1 (or the first half, depending on which format you're seeing it in) is great: pitting some excellent child actors (including future star Seth Green of Buffy the Vampire Slayer) portraying some in-depth characters fighting against a demonic clown. The second half seems more like a "gee-wow - look who we got" self-indulgence at casting Anderson, Thomas, Reid and Ritter, with very little to make us care about these folks. The ending is also an incredible dumbed-down letdown, although in all fairness I don't think they could pull off King's ending, and most of the audience wouldn't understand it if they had tried. There are a few touching moments in the last half, and Tim Curry couldn't screw up no matter how bad the writing is, but generally the two mismatched halves make for a mediocre film when it could have been so much more.
153 out of 193 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Solid adaptation of a great book
Superunknovvn6 November 2004
This is a very entertaining made for TV mini-series. It does a good job at jamming a book with more than 1000 pages into 2x90 minutes movie running time. The most important parts have been adopted, unnecessary fat was thrown out, little amandments have been made, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. The writers really tried to remain faithful to the novel and even mentioned side characters or story lines in short sentences for those who have read the book. The coolest thing, however, is that director Tommy Lee Wallace somehow managed to transfer that unique spirit of nostalgia, friendship and fear into his movie. Of course, the incredible cast deserves a lot of credit for that, too. Amazingly the child actors of part 1 upstage their adult companion pieces of part 2. The greatest performance of all, however, is given by Tim Curry, who really gives "It" a face, and a very scary one. He makes this movie what it is. In my opinion, it's the role of Curry's career, even outshining his part in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show".

Now for the bad sides of "It": as a made for TV project this movie obviously couldn't get too graphic and violent and that's a bit of a pity. Stephen King's book is awfully graphic and the movie would have been twice as scary if they had shown a bit more gore. Mostly Pennywise just appears and shows his sharp teeth and that gets lame after a while. The other big minus of this film is its ending. It has to be said that the ending in the book is so bizarre it's unlikely it could ever look good on celluloid. Still, those crappy special effects were just disappointing and made me (and everyone else I know) go: "Is that what I've been waiting for the last 3 hours? That is the big climax?"

Bottom line is that for a TV movie with such strict time limits "It" did a very good job at bringing this scary book to life. Nevertheless, I think the story should be retold properly and turned into a mini-series à la "Twin Peaks". The only problem is that it's going to be hard to find someone who can fill Tim Curry's giant clown shoes.
99 out of 125 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Extremely long but worthwhile horror yarn.
Jonathon Dabell30 January 2003
Many critics have complained that Stephen King's It is an overlong film. However, considering that the book upon which it is based takes over 1,000 pages to tell its story, it is hardly surprising that the film version needs so much running time to cram in all the twists and turns. Besides, the three hour running time goes by quickly because the film is briskly paced and full of engaging incidents. Also, the depth of the story allows to us to really get into the minds of the characters, which is a rare thing indeed in a horror film, since usually the characters are hilariously shallow.

The story unfolds like a two part mini-series (which is, I believe, what the film was originally meangt to be). In the first half, a bunch of seven kids in a small town realise that recent child killings are not the work of a murderer, but are attributable to a monster which awakes every thirty years. They track it down and very nearly kill it, but it just manages to escape. Thirty years later, the seven are all grown up, but they re-unite to seek out the monster when it once more awakens for its regular killing spree.

The acting is very goood, especially John Ritter as a successful architect and Tim Curry as the terrifying Pennywise the Clown. There are some spooky moments, but nothing that I would describe as absolutely horrifying. This is an unusually deep and detailed horror film, well worth seeing.
101 out of 137 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
memories (re-reviewed in 2015)
A_Different_Drummer23 August 2015
If you are of the King generation (lotsa books, bookstores, drugstores with books, tobacco stores with books, no computers or personal devices) then you probably have your own views on his place in the creative continuum.

My view is that his "early" works (including IT, THE STAND, SHINING) were his best. Wonderfully warped. And great fun to read.

That was the good news. The bad news is that, with rare exception (eg - SHINING) the B-grade studios that made easy money doing "tv movies" (you had to be there, otherwise you would not understand) generally snapped up his stuff and then did cheap, low-talent adaptations.

Wotta waste.

IT was one of King's more interesting works and this is one of the less awful adaptations. For insiders, most of the fun is in the first few scenes where one of the "characters" himself a writer explains that he has a job adapting his own work: "If anyone is going to mess it up, it may as well be me." The inside joke is that King himself was brought in as co-writer here because so many of the earlier TV adaptations were a disaster.

Again, one of the better ones. Lots of interesting faces here and there, including Ritter (an unappreciated dramatic talent) and Otoole looking radiant.
22 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Who's David Graham if he's not the bloke scared of Pennywise the Clown?
davideo-215 January 2004
STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs

Adapted from the epic novella by Stephen King,It is set in the town of Derry,Maine,in 1960.A series of gruesome child killings are going on,which seem to replicate similar events that happen every 30 years in the town,rounded off by a big disaster that causes similar confusion and devastation.Seven young kids are drawn together over the course of the summer to face off against a psychotic bully named Henry Bowers and his gang,as well as coming face to face with the perpetrator of the horrific killings,a monster which generally takes the shape of a clown named Pennywise (Tim Curry).One day,they decide to go down in to the sewers and confront and kill It once and for all.They believe they have done this,only to get a call 30 years later informing them that this is not the case and that they must now abide by a promise they made as kids to return once again to do battle with It if it ever returned.Now,as mature adults instead of naive kids (and therefore finding it harder to believe) can they be as successful?

Very rarely do adaptations of King novels translate well to the screen,with only a handful of exceptions,and the producers of this two parter certainly had an even harder job on their hands turning a book of over 1000 pages in to a film adaptation.Under the circumstances,one might say they haven't done too bad a job,but they've had to edit out a lot of key sequences (and even characters) from the book,and as a result,they've ended up with a script that's had to leave out a lot of the original source material,and so you don't get the full effect of the book,which was a real door stopper of a book that took forever to read but engrossed you right to the end all the same.So as you might expect this film adaptation isn't as good as that but it's still an impressive, scary enough effort all things considered that spreads out an epic story engrossingly enough.

On the acting front,the child actors (with the exception of the one who played Bowers) fare better than the adult actors,with the exception,of course,of Tim Curry in terrifying form as Pennywise (one of the scariest characters in the history of cinema,never mind the fact he only ever appeared in a TV movie) and possibly Harry Anderson.Some of them are laughably bad in parts(especially the one playing the adult Bill when he tries to stutter,so sad when young Johnathon Brandis played him so well).Pennywise always gave me the creeps,possibly in a way no other horror movie character could,and nothing else is scarier in the film.But maybe scares aren't the main aim of the game here,this being a Stand By Me style King fable of friendship over-coming great evil against all odds.

Overall,this is a decent enough effort taking on the challenging task of turning an 1000+ page book into a feature adaptation,where it's easy to see where the cracks are showing but easy to appreciate for the things it gets right.***
66 out of 98 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
IT has become S&IT!
Phantasm011 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
To start things off honestly: "It" is probably one of the poorest book adaptions I've seen in quite some time. After reading the book and finding an extraordinary piece of writing, an amazing work of art, I was thrilled to see the movie. I knew it couldn't be all that the book was, but I hope for some semblance...

And some semblance is what I got... and that's all. The deep, thoughtful construction that helped build the novel, where both the stories, the side of 1958 and the side of 1985 (the years are changed in the movie, but there's nothing wrong with that) are shown alternatingly, starting with 1958, moving ahead to 1985, and back again, creating a heartfelt atmosphere. The movie instead plays the older part in the first segment, as one full flashback that tries to cram way too many events into one bit, whereas they should have simply tried to organize their own way of telling, and the more recent events in the second half. It seems like every event in the children's section is segmented into 15 minute episodes, just trying to pile notable events in from the book, and it doesn't work. It might have worked better if they kept the construction that King originally established, but even then it would have hardly stood, as they took the events for no reason.

And even with this chronological sorting, they seemed to actually forget scenes and had to tack them on later as additional flashbacks that had little to do with the scene, but desperately needed introduction earlier.

Gone is the unifying theme of the group: They each escaped It. That's there, in a way, but it's moreover just tossed in for scares, and horribly stupid ones at that. Gone is the leper with the three-foot tongue that chased Eddie down the traintracks. Gone is any fear or tension when Bill rides off on his bike with Stan (it was Richie in the book, but that's not important...It's supposed to be a moment of escape, but they just simply ride away, ruining all reason for Silver to matter until the end, when the makers suddenly remembered that they needed it.

And then, the worst two bastardizations. It's OK if Richie encountered a werewolf instead of a giant statue. It's OK if the scene with Georgie at the start was during the day, stealing what could have been a truly horrific scene (maybe cause it was made for TV, that lightened it.) It's OK if the whole point of Henry's return is gone (maybe not... but I'd have let it slide.) And it's OK that they cut out the kids being lost after first believing they killed It (definitely because of the made for TV movie... hell, even a theatrical movie... I don't see that scene, even in suggestion, ever reaching film if this movie were to be remade and I'm not going to reveal it, you'll just have to read the book.) And gone is the origin of It. No, those things are forgivable... let's get to what isn't.

Personal Bastardization: I felt jipped when they finally confronted It and the whole deadlights business was dumbed down. It wasn't supposed to be hypnotic, it was a staring contest, that would eventually lead into the Ritual of Chud. This point is missed. And then the Turtle (don't ask, read) is also gone, losing the relation to the universe that Stephen King set up in the novel. It's no wonder that the scene of Patrick Hockstetter and his demented fridge (aside from it being made for TV and that scene would never be allowed), as the dealings of the Other weren't explored or even mentioned. I wanted to see how they portrayed the whole scene and they didn't even have it, which ruined the entire final confrontation at the end.

Universal Bastardization: The vow to return. In this, they easily walk out of the sewer and look outward, where Bill has them promise to return. In the novel, they crawl from there, exhausted and bewildered. Instead, there is no forced promise; they do it themselves, cutting their palms with a glass Coke bottle and making a blood pact that they would return if It was still alive. And the meaning disappeared as well, but I won't get into why, for fear of telling too much of the book, which I truly hope the readers of this review will read.

OK, I suppose I should get onto why I let this have two stars instead of one if I hated what it had done to the book, right? There are some beautifully horrifying scenes, such as when Beverly exits her childhood home and sees a balloon bouncing down the road, laughing. The sharkteeth in Pennywise's mouth aren't used well, but they look scary. And there was the great scene when they were children, where they hold hands in a circle and Stan suddenly finds himself holding hands with the clown. The acting is decent for a TV Movie and there are a few notable celebrities.

These few things aren't enough to make the movie good, and it really would only be scary for young children, who probably shouldn't be watching it anyway.

With the same budget and time space, a decent movie of "It" could have been made. Instead, there's this trash. I can only hope that someday, there will be another version of this created, one that captures the emotion, atmosphere, and incredible imagination that formed Stephen King's masterpiece of a novel, "It."
21 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Nostalgic, beautiful scenery, superb camaraderie, unsettling background stories n cheesy effects.
Fella_shibby11 September 2017
I first saw this on a rented VHS in 1991. I still remember the shopkeeper telling me to rent both the VHS as it was a two part series. Revisited it recently on a DVD. Saw the remake with my son in a theater. The remake was really good. The fat boy's acting n facial expressions were good. Coming back to the original, it has some nostalgic moments attached to it. Considering it was a made for TV mini series, it wasn't that gory n the special effects weren't that good. Also the pacing was a bit odd. The most striking thing about the film was Tim Curry's iconic, creepy performance as Pennywise the murderous clown. The only movie which had dealt with creepy clowns before this was Salva's Clownhouse. Maybe Stephen King borrowed the clown thing from Victor Salva n Salva borrowed the concept of the thing coming back after 23/27 years in Jeepers creepers from Stephen king. The plot is about a group of misfit children who end up becoming lifelong friends and how they unite to deal with the horror affecting them. It almost acting as a dark version of Stand By Me. Some scenes were really nostalgic, the ones showing them play down by the river and go on bike rides. Country life can b really fun for growing kids. The child actors are marvelous. We easily are attached to them.
17 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Did to me for clowns what "Jaws" did for swimming in the sea.
Boba_Fett11383 September 2005
People were terrified of swimming in the sea after the movie "Jaws". This movie did to me for clowns what "Jaws" did for swimming in the sea. After watching this, clowns will just never be the same to me again. The unrecognizable Tim Curry portrays a very scary and perhaps even somewhat classic horror character. Pennywise/It surely is one scary looking character!

To be honest without the character Pennywise/It this two parts TV-movie wouldn't had been very well watchable or recommendable. The movie has a typically awful looking TV-movie visual style and the actors and storytelling aren't much good either. I have quite some fantasy but I'm just no big fan of Stephen King's horror novels. The story and the moments in it are just always highly unlikely, silly and over-the-top. "It" is no exception on this. Another major disappointing aspect of the movie are the special effects and the awful ending that is just a major let down and just isn't fitting and doesn't seem to have an awful lot to do to the earlier scary moments and the character Pennywise/It.

Still for the fans of the horror-genre, there is plenty to enjoy. The movie has some good, original and well constructed scary moments and the character Pennywise/It should be reason enough for horror-fans to watch this two part made for TV movie.

The cast mainly consists out of TV actors and aren't much good or likable. Funny thing is that the children cast is possible better and more likable and believable than the adult cast members. It was especially fun to see an extremely young Seth Green, who already acted in the same manner as he still does today.

Silly, bad looking but still scary and recommendable.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
54 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Don't Skip the Book!
ouija-515 November 2001
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 out of 137 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
The worst book-to-movie adaptation in existence
Ellen16 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The majority of the people I know who have seen It all say the same things. "I saw this movie when I was a kid and I'm still scared," or "It's the best movie ever!" After finally seeing it myself, I have to disagree. It is by far the worst book-to-movie adaptation I've ever seen.

Why, oh why did they have to turn Eddie into a Mama's boy? In the book he's married. MARRIED. The "I've never been with a woman and now I'm going to die a virgin" line at the end of the movie didn't make sense. Eddie is a great character. Why did the movie have to ruin him?

So many important things were cut. What happened to the house on Neibolt Street, the underground clubhouse, various characters that were left out, Eddie's leper, or Bill dealing with Georgie's death, just to name a few? And I just HAVE to mention the ending. The spider was so fake it wasn't even funny (okay, kind of). It wasn't dramatic enough either. Nobody looked the least bit scared. It was just, "Oh golly, let's go down in the sewers and kill It once and for all." It wasn't turned into a climatic moment like in the books. The characters acted as if what they were down in the sewers was as natural as walking to the corner store and buying a loaf of bread. Wouldn't most people be terrified, thinking, "Oh my God, I'm going to die!"

This movie was terrible, don't waste your time on it. Read the book, and then wait for the remake. I'm hoping it will be a lot better than this piece of garbage.
52 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
bad, worse, it
Dark_Fox9 March 2003
Warning: Spoilers
the book has thrilled me for many evenings and nights, so I wanted to watch the movie. But; what is this? This is horrible! One of Kings most gruesome books has been transformed to a story for children (rated 12+, I think it's PG)!! this will not stand!! That stupid clown is nothing compared to what It is in the book, and making It look like a giant spider at the end is just too bad for words, creating a monster that looks like a spider is plain dumb cashing in on an old human fear and not worthy a King-film. They lost most of the good scenes, reduced good scenes to bad or dull scenes and the 'deep thinking' of the book (It being an alien that landed thousands of years ago, other good aliens (the giant turtle), the cruel history of the town) are completely gone. If you liked the book, I don't think you should watch this piece of crap.
23 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
This Thing is more horrible than It itself.
Yoshi250113 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
I couldn't believe someone has actually liked this movie. It's horrible by all senses. To say it's better than the book is a true atrocity. The book was wonderful, explaining the true nature of children and they're understanding of fear. The movie is more a stupid parody.

This may come as a spoiler, so be aware, and if you don't want to read it move to the next paragraph. I actually laughed at the end, when they exhibited that stupid spider-puppet as the final monster. if some thing like that would approach me, i'll just smack it right into the ground, although i'll probably need a bigger shoe. It was horrible, yes, but horrible not because it was scary, but because it was a huge joke at the author's intentions, i'm sure. a real amusement.

I'd be laughing if i hadn't known what a true master of horror Stephen King is, but i'm mostly sad that his best book never got to have a good movie. Sad, sad, sad. This movie shall get a minor 1, and never to be watched by me again. Nor anyone else, i hope. A true atrocity.
39 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
What is your deepest secret fear?
Henry Fields28 August 2004
"It" it's possibly the best TV adaptation of a Stephen King novel. Ok, that does not mean anything, because TV adaptations from King's novel usually leave a lot to be desired (Langoliers, The Stand...); but it is the one I've enjoyed the most.

This is an story about the fear itself. Your fears as a child, and your fears as a grown man. It's kind of a parable: when you're an adult and you think everything is under control, that monsters and ghosts doesn't exist, that they can't scare you anymore... Well, you're wrong: as "It" clearly shows, adults are much weaker than children when it comes to face your fears. At least that's my interpretation of this story of seven friends who had to fight against some kind of evil pressence in their little town when they were kids, and have to do just the same 30 years later, when they had almost forgotten of each other and what it happened.

The first part of "It", in which the children are protagonist, is way much more exciting that the second one (with the adult characters). That first part has reminded me (in some way) of another Stephen King's adaptation: Stand By Me. Definitely it is much more entertaining. I haven't read the novel, so I don't know if they've made a good work adapting it (if it's exact enough), but I suppose that other reviewers will have talked about it.

And there's not much more to say. The special effects are a little better than in Langoliers (no big deal, anyway), and though there're lots of ups and downs in the script, "It" achieves it objective: to entertain.

PS: Pennywaise's character is the most histrionic and crazy performance of Tim Curry since Frank N'Further.

My rate: 6.5/10
30 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Good but the ending?
halfbreed_angel13 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
IT looked very appealing when I first saw it, and it was. Tim Curry played a very interesting Pennywise and was probably the only one who could do the job right. The cast of kids I found to be very good as well as the adult cast. The movie from the beginning to just before the climax of the end was very enjoyable and very thrilling, but that's only before the end. The ending was the only thing I was most disappointed about. How they killed IT was very stupid. Kicking and punching a giant spider isn't going to do the job. And now that I think about it, at certain points of the film, the acting was kind of flimsy. The only actor that stayed strong throughout his whole performance was Tim Curry. Overall, it's a very good film and worth watching for a few good scares.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
disappointment
anti_zombie20 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I am not known as a big reader and I never thought that I am able to finish a 1200 page long tome. But Steven King's "It" handcuffed me and after two weeks I completed the book. The most important thing in a book are the characters; I loved the characters, the story was frightening and it was consequential for me that I have to see the movie.

The film-version of King's "It" was exactly the opposite of the book. A total disappointment. The performance of the actors (adults as well as the kids) was poor and there was no scene which attracted my attention. I totally missed suspense, tension and horror. Tim Currry as "Pennywise the Dancing Clown" was OK but the rest of the cast was just bad.

Sure it is a TV- production and no big cinema but anyways this film is no dishonorable representative for the book. I had to laugh when i saw the rating: 6.5! .. I mean what the hell is wrong with you guys?
18 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
The Lucky Seven
Claudio Carvalho28 August 2009
In 1990, when a mysterious serial-killer attacks children in Derry, Maine, the local librarian Mike Hanlan (Tim Reid) feels that something is wrong in his hometown and calls his childhood outcast friends that formed the loser club and that are presently successful professionals Bill Denbrough (Richard Thomas), who is a writer of horror novels that is working with his wife Audra (Olivia Hussey) in a movie in Hampstead, England; the awarded architect Ben Hanscom (John Ritter) in Houston, Texas; the designer Beverly Marsh (Annette O'Toole) in Chicago, Illinois; the entrepreneur Eddie Kaspbrack (Dennis Christopher) in Great Neck, New York; the comedian Ritchie Tozier (Harry Anderson) in Beverly Hills, California; and Stanley Uris (Richard Masur) in Atlanta, Georgia. Each one of them recalls when Bill's brother Georgie (Tony Dakota) was murdered by an evil entity with the appearance of a clown named Pennywise (Tim Curry) and how Bill had summoned them to defeat the creepy monster in the sewer of the town and their oath that they should reunite and fight against Pennywise in case of its return. In their reunion, Mike tells that every thirty years Pennywise returns Derry to kill children and they are capable of destroying the evil force with the power of their friendship.

In the early 90's, I saw "It" on VHS with about 160 minutes running time and in that occasion I loved the first part of the story and I found the conclusion very disappointing. At that time, I did not know that the movie was edited, limited by the storage capacity of a VHS. I have just watched "It" on DVD with 192 minutes running time and now the long story makes sense. The first part, with the tale of friendship of the six boys and the girl, is really creeping and engaging and better and better; however the pace in the second part, when they are adults and return to Derry, is slow and I was a little tired while watching the movie. Despite of the running time and the lower pace, I liked this movie a lot. Further, it is great to see the talented Seth Green and Emily "Ginger Snaps" Perkins in the beginning of their careers. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "It: Uma Obra-Prima do Medo" ("It: A Masterpiece of the Fear")

Note: On 18 Dec 2017 I saw this film again.
25 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worst book-movie conversion ever...
deatman928 July 2011
Now I don't know how many of you out there have read the stephen king novel IT. If you have you would know that it is a very graphic and intense book. It paints grisly images in your mind with graphic story telling. It is definitely an adult themed book. It was actually mildly scary.

The movie on the other hand was the lamest most boring piece of crap I have ever seen. It was horribly low budget and it was about 3 hours long. They took out all the graphic nature of the book. They made the book into some kind of kids story. No violence, no gore, no scares and no swears.

So if you like the book then please stay away from this movie. I don't recommend this movie to anyone even if you haven't read the book you would be bored to tears. I want them to make a remake of IT and make it stay true to the book. Violence and gore. WORST BOOK-MOVIE EVER
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Awesome Stephen King telefilm
kungfuquaker25 September 2005
Of all the video versions of Stephen King books this is one of my all time favorites. The Stand and Dolores Claiborne were also fantastic, but for plain old horror IT stands out. Tim Curry's laugh was terrifying (but I have always been terrified of clowns), Harry Anderson's/Seth Green's off the wall humor was relieving, and all the performances were great. Dennis Christopher (who I have loved since Breaking Away and Fade to Black), Richard Thomas (still a writer, but other than that quite different from John Boy), John Ritter and Jonathan Brandis (RIP), Annette O'Toole, Tim Reid, and the other young actors who played them as children were all super. This story seemed to be Stephen King's answer to Ray Bradbury's "Something Wicked This Way Comes." Just scarier and more geared to adults.
41 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Horrible. Just horrible!
Warfire14 May 2002
This is the single WORST novel-to-movie translation I have EVER seen. Ever. This filth seemed more like like a parody or Mad Magazine satire of Stephen King's excellent novel. The acting is horrible. The special effects are horrible. The writing? Horrible. This movie is so insanely bad it actually made me laugh at a drunk father beating his daughter. If you hold any reverence for It at all, please, just stay away.
18 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Excellent Movie
t_barton6910 December 2001
This is one of the best movies I have ever seen. It is Stephen King at his best. Scares the heck out of me every time I watch. I also thought the book was excellent and spent a week of security guard duty in a shack at a paper mill factory reading every page, I could not put it down. When the movie came out, I had to own it, and only the complete double tape would work, not the cut up single tape version. It has become a family tradition to watch this film several times a year. The kids love it and have to sleep with the light on for a solid week after. This is a film that makes you check the drain before washing your hands. I highly recommend the book and the double cassette video. Thanks Stephen King for a great book and film!
20 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Tim Curry Cannot Be Replaced
kg-5704012 September 2017
9/10 because its old and cheesy. Not the best horror Stephen King ever did and most will see this and Carrie and believe they know his work, but do not base it on those style films alone. Stephen King's best work is when he dives into the darkness of human kind and takes you with him. But this review is about the original IT and this is an iconic movie regardless of how out of date it may be now. I would suggest anyone going to see the new one, see this one first and even read the book if you can. Tim Curry is one of my favourite actors and his role in this film is in my opinion, what makes the film. Compared to the clown in the new film, he is by far the best for the job.
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Under-rated and unappreciated.
Elswet19 August 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Highly entertaining adaptation of King's beloved literary work. Far better than its ratings would suggest. I didn't want to like this movie. The cast was a motley crew at best, and the screenplay wasn't like the book. But what I found when I bought this movie was: it was better. INFINITELY BETTER! All the "fat" has been trimmed out of the screenplay and what is left is the core of King's story.

DEFINITE SPOILERS

Okay, before I start this, let me say, I don't care about the turtle (the other "good aliens"), the omitted sexuality or anything else King put into the novel. I read the novel over and over for years and I loved it, but as with all "adaptations," there will be changes. Accept it and move on.

The smarmy casting threw me off a bit at first. I thought, "Jeeeeez." But I was delightfully surprised by the performances of the actors (both adult and child) in this artfully written and perpetrated attempt.

It wasn't truly what I would classify as "horror," but the moments were tensely suspenseful, and the acting was top row.

The story is of seven children, brought together once again as adults to face an ancient evil; an evil they have defeated once before.

The town of Derry is more than just quiet. It has a history of mass disappearances and indifference concerning the untoward events which occur there. A mysterious shroud of forgetfulness lies over this town, and soon after leaving, most forget everything that happened. But Derry has one asset. It has Mike Hanlon (Tim Reid/Marlon Taylor-12), a dedicated friend to the other six, head librarian, "Lighthouse," and Keeper of Derry.

A phone call to the rest of the "Lucky Seven" brings them together once again and, as they slowly begin to remember the things which happened all those years ago, also serves to outline and reshape their lives forever.

Is the magick that brought them together so many years ago, still in them? Will they win against Pennywise a second time? Will they survive? This is a good movie. It's adequate as an adaptation, having been changed, as adaptations are; the very WORD adaptation comes from adapt, meaning to change to fit. It's decent as a horror movie; scary in places and has a consistent storyline. It's not what I'd call true horror, but more...suspense.

The storyline and the performances of the child actors is what fully redeems this movie. These kids (among them is Seth Green!) are true talent. I was also quite impressed with the adult actors' performances.

To get consistently good, believable performances out of this rather motley crew of comics and has-beens took directing genius on behalf of Tommy Lee Wallace. This come as a genuine surprise, considering everything else he's directed has just STUNK to high HEAVEN...(Halloween 3: Season of the Witch! *gags* the ABSOLUTE WORST of the series, by the way!) It's entertaining and gives you a feel of having history; roots, as it were.

I did, however, find that they left out one significant detail. They never explained the relevance of the clown's repetitious, "They float down here."

It's a good movie. Watch it.

This movie gets a 7.8/10 on the "TV" scale, from...

the Fiend :.
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
worst film i have ever seen
Laura Adams7 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This film was supposed to cheer me up because it looked pretty freaky and i'd heard it was supposed to be pretty good.

However, it was quite possibly the worst three hours (exactly) i've ever spent in my entire existence. The only reason that I carried on watching this horrendous piece of ass is because I thought the ending might provide some sort of comfort in that it would actually conclude BUT it didn't, they kicked a giant spider that was supposed to be a clown to death and the geek churped up that he was a virgin, randomly, it had nothing to do with the story, like wa?

It's horrendous, awful and really not worth the 6.8 that IMDb gives it, i just don't realise what happened during the three hours that i spent watching this balls.

The only thing i liked about this film was little georgies raincoat and matching hat and mike because he was a babe.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
This is beyond appalling.....
LoneWolfAndCub27 November 2006
IT was a brilliant, interesting and frightening book. It had some brilliant characters, genuine scares and a terrific plot. It would have made an absolutely scary as crap horror movie. Unfortunately, this movie is the biggest pile of junk I've seen. It is beyond saving, it is so damn laughably bad it isn't funny. Sad is the perfect word.

Where do I start?? The acting is an extract from Days of our Lives or some really bad soapie. The only half-decent performance is from Tim Curry as Pennywise the Dancing Clown. And he wasn't even that scary and this is coming from a guy that has got a genuine fear for clowns. He was scary in the book, not on film. The story has been changed to the extent where it bears no resemblance to King's intriguing story. It's just so different and not the least bit good. The special effects are the most unintentionally funny things I have ever seen. The person behind them should be fired and sent far, far away.

All I can say is this, READ THE BOOK!!!!!!!! It's great. Steer FAR away from this pathetic excuse for a movie.

0/5. (The rating system won't go any damn lower)
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
This is the movie that is the major cause for clown phobia
Kristine14 November 2003
You know every time that I mention this movie or book, all my friends say that this story is the reason for their clown phobia, funny enough, it's mine too. I remember seeing this movie when I was five years old, I begged my mom to let me watch it, she didn't want me too, but I did it anyways. Oh, boy do I regret that, lol. But I did end up reading the book later on in life and I really enjoyed it. Both the book and movie are a bit different, but since this is the film, I'm just going to judge it solely base on that. Made for TV, almost 4 hours long(oddly enough not enough time for this huge story), it was a very decent horror movie that could easily give anyone nightmares for many nights.

A group of friends are re-united and go back to Maine when an old friend calls them up and tells them about the murders that were similar to the one's that happened 30 years ago. Murders that were caused by an evil force, a demon who dressed himself up as something as an innocent clown calling himself Pennywise. This group of friends go through old memories of the terror that occurred to them that one summer when the took on tough bullies and an evil demon while growing up very poor as well. They come back to face this evil once and for all before it destroys them permanently.

It is a terrific horror movie, it had a perfect cast, an excellent story, and just many spooky terrors after the next. Tim Curry, I didn't realize how much of a scary villain he could be, he did a terrific job. He just mixed up incredibly dark humor with his character which made him a bit more intense to watch. This movie also started up some careers with the youths like Seth Green and the grown up stars like John Ritter. I would recommend this for a horror movie fan, but if you're not, I'm warning you, you're gonna have big nightmares.

8/10
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews