596 reviews
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.
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.
- Superunknovvn
- Nov 5, 2004
- Permalink
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.
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.
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.
- A_Different_Drummer
- Aug 22, 2015
- Permalink
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.
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.
- barnabyrudge
- Jan 29, 2003
- Permalink
- danielb-62873
- Sep 2, 2019
- Permalink
It started really good but in the second part it started to go down.
All the characters where suddenly really boring and the scenes where Bill and mike where riding that bike where really boring and they when they was at that restaurant and we just watched them eat for a couple of minutes that was also boring.
But part 1 was really cool and Tim Curry did a great job as pennywise in Both parts Even better than Bill Skarsgård.
The child actors were actually good.
Overall a pretty good miniseries and really recomend part 1🌞🌝🌛🌜🌚
All the characters where suddenly really boring and the scenes where Bill and mike where riding that bike where really boring and they when they was at that restaurant and we just watched them eat for a couple of minutes that was also boring.
But part 1 was really cool and Tim Curry did a great job as pennywise in Both parts Even better than Bill Skarsgård.
The child actors were actually good.
Overall a pretty good miniseries and really recomend part 1🌞🌝🌛🌜🌚
- jonflottorp
- Dec 19, 2021
- Permalink
Most know the story, a killer clown that terrorizes kids in a little town on the east coast. But many don't know this TV mini series follows the book much closer than the new release in 2017. This series is split into two parts. The first part is excellent. The second part is fair. What makes the first part of the film so good is the characters who play their roles. All seven of the children in this film are great actors/actresses. We are able to identify with them and follow them through the 1960s town of Derry Maine. Tim Curry who plays Pennywise is exceptional to say the least. He plays the clown that will forever terrify kids and grown ups for years to come. Overall the kids who play the part are great actors, with a good script, and beautiful cinematography throughout the entire first series. One of my favorite films!
- adriscoll-25665
- Jun 23, 2018
- Permalink
- halfbreed_angel
- Jul 12, 2005
- Permalink
I feel the tv miniseries was better than both It movies. It was more believable and likable to me. The It movies 1 and 2 was boring lame and wasn't as believable as the miniseries. I prefer the miniseries anytime over It and It the 2nd chapter.
- julie_bourne
- Sep 17, 2019
- Permalink
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/
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/
- Boba_Fett1138
- Sep 2, 2005
- Permalink
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.
I first saw this on a rented vhs in 1991.
I still remember the shopkeeper telling me to rent the two cassette tapes as it was a two part series. Renting two vhs was a bit expensive those days but the film never made me regret shelling me the extra rupees.
Revisited it recently on a dvd.
Saw the remake with my son in a theater. The remake is really good.
Coming back to the original, it has some nostalgic moments attached to it, the ones showing the kids play down by the river and the bike riding ones r memorable.
Country life can b really fun for growing kids. The child actors in this film are marvelous. We easily are attached to them.
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. In my opinion it is a darker version of Stand By Me.
Considering it was a made for TV as a 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 remake nailed it again with the child actors. The remake has superb cinematography, awesome acting n terrific direction. The fat boy's acting n facial expressions in the remake is spot on.
The remake nailed it again with the child actors. The remake has superb cinematography, awesome acting n terrific direction. The fat boy's acting n facial expressions in the remake is spot on.
- Fella_shibby
- Sep 10, 2017
- Permalink
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.***
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.***
- wellthatswhatithinkanyway
- Jan 14, 2004
- Permalink
This was a brave and well above average adaptation of a truly difficult novel. It is uneven at times. The first half is better than the second half, which isn't helped by a pedestrian script and a woefully miscast Richrd Thomas. IT is NOT the worst book to TV movie in existence, there have been a lot worse since then. As for the book, which is very good, it is still flawed. There is too much swearing(the children's harsh language and sexual desires are inappropriate), the character development takes far too long, the book has a very confusing structure especially in the latter half of the book, and Frankenstein is name of the inventor not the monster. Still the characters are well described, and the murders are gut wrenching. Also the way King describes fear is brilliant, and his attention to detail is unparallelled. I am not criticising the book, I am evaluating the pros and cons of both the book and the movie, or mini-series, to be exact.The movie is the closest to the language of the author. The children did miles better than the adults, especially Jonathan Brandis and Seth Green, and there was a Stand By Me-ish nostalgia, that generated a definite spark between the players. As for the second half, it started off well, and rapidly became pedestrian 45 minutes before the end, which was ruined by a poorly designed spider. Other than that, the effects and script were generally good for a TV movie. Tim Curry, one of my favourite actors, steals the show, with his almost exact portrayal of Pennywise. His career-best performance was a perfect mixture of creepiness and hamminess, like Jack Nicolson from the Shining( which was turned into a pointless TV series). He also DID NOT overact. He's a British character actor, and was the only mature actor who didn't play himself, and stayed consistent throughout the entire movie. Pennywise also isn't his poorly written role, that's Gomez in Addams Family Reunion. It was criminal he didn't win an award for his performance.Also the music by Richard Bellis is outstanding, and that alone captures the creepy mood. In the slower bits, especially with the children, it's hauntingly beautiful and makes the scene poignant. However, Harry Anderson badly underplayed the library scene, while Annette O'Toole showed the most genuine fright, which grew tiresome as the movie progressed. Most of the scenes in the book were unfilmnable for a low budget movie, so they did well in that aspect. Adaptation means to adapt, so accept that. No film I've seen is word from word to the book, it just isn't done that way. I know they missed things out, and all that, but there are some truly sensitive issues in the book that people wouldn't want addressed on screen, and there were some of the metaphysics like the turtle that I didn't understand. The fantastic Inspector Morse series had the protagonist changed completely from a sleaze to a sensitive human.See what i'm getting at. Don't bother about the remake, apparently it's 90 minutes, which isn't enough to condense a 1000+ novel in. Plus, it probably won't have Tim Curry in it, who at the moment seems to be the only person who can do the job right, even if he is a little reminiscent of the Green Goblin. In conclusion look out for It. It is not as good as the Shining, but far better than the dreadful Tommy Knockers. Only read the book if you're a true Stephen King fan( I'm not) or if you're 18 or over(I'm 16), unless you want to be sick for a week (you don't want that). I still recommend both the book and the movie.7/10 for my personal favourite of the Stephen King movies. Bethany Cox
- TheLittleSongbird
- Jan 29, 2009
- Permalink
- BandSAboutMovies
- May 23, 2018
- Permalink
The original IT movie is vastly superior to the new IT film. It has the appropriate story structure as the adults and children plot lines are mixed. It takes place in the appropriate year which adds to the haunting atmosphere. And the monster is very simple and effective. It is clear that in this world the adults are mean to the kids, the kids are also bullied at school..and if they get close enough to the sewers a monster clown terrorizes them and plans to murder them. These are enough to haunt a kid forever. Best of all - Tim Curry is absolutely perfect as the monster.
**Light Spoilers On A Couple Scenes, Nothing Too Big to Mark As Spoiler - I Won't Elaborate On the Scenes As Is**
Stephen King's It. It (2017) is a film I'm not too keen on, but if we're talking about the two-part miniseries film from 1990, boy it's great. The enjoyment I get out of this is what I had hoped in the newer one. Tim Curry gives an exceptionally good performance as Pennywise. The other actors give pretty good performances, too. There are far more creepy scenes in this than there are in the newer films I feel. Everything from the beginning, They All Float Down Here, and just the sheer presence of Pennywise to the disturbing "Don't Cha Want It?" scene, the Dog-head scene and the old zombie grandmother scene. This terrified me when I was 10 years old. Nearly fifteen years later, it still gets me. The pacing is great, it has laughs, it has chilling moments, it's just brilliant all-round. Wonderfully executed, good camaraderie and dialogue, and consistently strong acts, especially the first and second for me, I could go on. Make sure you see this if you're a fan of the 2017 one. And if you're not, I recommend this even more.
- TheMelancholySpirit
- Nov 19, 2019
- Permalink
"It" (1990) is a two-part horror TV series about a clown named Pennywise who scares kids in a little town every few years to kill them. In the first part it's about a group of children who gets haunted by the clown. In the second part it's about those children as adults.
Tommy Lee Wallace created with "It" a nostalgic horror classic, especially for 80s kids. Nowadays the "movie" looks less scary, not least because of the FX and animations. But this shouldn't be a critic point due to the fact that it was only a TV production in the 90s.
The real major point of criticism is the ending of the series. I don't want to spoil, but it is a huge disappointment. In the first part of "It" the plot was thrilling and it's ending was rounded off well. But the second part failed through its showdown. Part 2 is weakened by the adult cast too. In spots, they played their roles a bit bad. However, Tim Currys performance as Pennywise is outstanding. The cast of the children is also very authentic and as a group they go very well together.
That's why "It" gets from me 6.5 out of 10 points.
Tommy Lee Wallace created with "It" a nostalgic horror classic, especially for 80s kids. Nowadays the "movie" looks less scary, not least because of the FX and animations. But this shouldn't be a critic point due to the fact that it was only a TV production in the 90s.
The real major point of criticism is the ending of the series. I don't want to spoil, but it is a huge disappointment. In the first part of "It" the plot was thrilling and it's ending was rounded off well. But the second part failed through its showdown. Part 2 is weakened by the adult cast too. In spots, they played their roles a bit bad. However, Tim Currys performance as Pennywise is outstanding. The cast of the children is also very authentic and as a group they go very well together.
That's why "It" gets from me 6.5 out of 10 points.
- citizenpictures06
- Jul 23, 2022
- Permalink
The 1990 version of "IT" most certainly has a good story, and this is definitely a good interpretation of the novel.
However it just suffers from catering to a too broad audience in terms of having a fairly low rating, because a lot of scenes could have been so much more convincing with more graphic details of violence and horror.
Good and wholesome entertainment, and the movie (or mini-series, as it actually is) never really ages or becomes boring to watch. I have watched it many times since 1990 and still revisits it every now and again.
There is lots of value to the movie which, makes it a movie you can watch again and again.
"IT" has a very nice cast and they performed quite well. Tim Curry was so well-cast for the role of Pennywise, and brought his devilish charm and wits to the character. While Pennywise in this version is nowhere as diabolical or evil as in the 2017 remake, then Tim Curry certainly gave a lot of children nightmares back in the 1990s.
However it just suffers from catering to a too broad audience in terms of having a fairly low rating, because a lot of scenes could have been so much more convincing with more graphic details of violence and horror.
Good and wholesome entertainment, and the movie (or mini-series, as it actually is) never really ages or becomes boring to watch. I have watched it many times since 1990 and still revisits it every now and again.
There is lots of value to the movie which, makes it a movie you can watch again and again.
"IT" has a very nice cast and they performed quite well. Tim Curry was so well-cast for the role of Pennywise, and brought his devilish charm and wits to the character. While Pennywise in this version is nowhere as diabolical or evil as in the 2017 remake, then Tim Curry certainly gave a lot of children nightmares back in the 1990s.
- paul_haakonsen
- Jun 8, 2018
- Permalink
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.
It is a great adaptation to the classic Stephen King novel. The two part mini-series has great performances from the main cast. The film is a classic that ages like fine wine. Although It (2017) is much more terrifying, this mini series will always be an outstanding horror film.
- forthemovies
- Mar 8, 2022
- Permalink
- Phantasm01
- Aug 31, 2006
- Permalink