It (1990) User Reviews

Solid adaptation of a great book

[Superunknovvn · 6/10 · 6 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.

First Half Good - Second Half Bad

[Gislef · 6/10 · 22 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.

memories (re-reviewed in 2015)

[A_Different_Drummer · 7/10 · 23 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.

Extremely long but worthwhile horror yarn.

[barnabyrudge · 30 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.

Much better than the movie.

[danielb-62873 · 7/10 · 3 September 2019]

First part is excellent, second part still good. Tim Curry is the Star.

Brave adaptation of a truly difficult Stephen king novel

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 30 January 2009]

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

A made for TV classic.

[adriscoll-25665 · 10/10 · 24 June 2018]

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!

Did to me for clowns what "Jaws" did for swimming in the sea.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 7/10 · 3 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/

Nostalgic, beautiful scenery, superb camaraderie, unsettling background stories n cheesy effects.

[Fella_shibby · 8/10 · 11 September 2017]

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.

Who's David Graham if he's not the bloke scared of Pennywise the Clown?

[wellthatswhatithinkanyway · 7/10 · 15 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.***

Don't Skip the Book!

[ouija-5 · 3/10 · 15 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.

Best It ever

[julie_bourne · 10/10 · 18 September 2019]

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.

Good but the ending?

[halfbreed_angel · 7/10 · 13 July 2005]

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.

Huge fiasco

[daniel-n-c180 · 1/10 · 23 September 2016]

I really do not like being a drama queen, but I'm gonna make no bones about by discontent.

First and foremost, I'm speaking on behalf of all those who read the book beforehand.

The book was completely underwhelming, a huge let-down, a total fiasco. It doesn't live up to the book's reputation at all. The characters are clumsily portrayed, to begin with. On account of the Unskillful actors (except some of them) for one, and because the story not only was truncated excruciatingly short (that could be a good thing in some cases, but in this one, believe me , it is not), but a great deal of key moments were altered, which can't be but a shortcoming, at least for the readers.

Some of us, the readers, resolve to watch the movie, if there is an adaptation, after liking the book. One of the chief reasons being to see how the way we imagined the characters contrast with the way they are enacted in the movie. And there is a huge difference.

Because Beverly sounded a lot more beautiful in the book, and in the movie, while in her childhood, she is , well... not so much so. Ben was described as quite fatter and shier and here he was all cool smiles, ballsy and stuffed with innuendos. Stuttering Bill - same situation. In the book he is , at adulthood, BALD. and he has reddish hair, the same way as Beverly should be an auburn-haired chick and she isn't. All of them are more or less messed up in comparison with what the book's describes them to be like.

Also, the movies seemed to me as really , really fast-paced and an outsider could hardly make sense of the events.

I didn't see the whole movie, because ,Like I said, I was nothing but struck dumb by the movie's incapability to rise up to the mark. An because the book's finale was as well a bit anticlimactic. But that's a whole other story.

Long story short, readers of the book, beware of this smoke-and- mirrors thing. It is nothing to it, really. If you want to see something else and not a time-waster, a warm recommendation would be Psycho (yep, the 1960 black and white,antediluvian thing).

The Problem With IT

[timetrapped · 19 May 2017]

IT is, by far, my favorite tale of all time. The best story I've ever grasped into my mind - from Stephen King that is. I never thought in my entire life that I would be one of those guys who simply just says, "the book is better." Horrifically, I come to you all now with that similar common complaint, though I'll try to explain myself a little more.

Though this television mini-series terrified an entire generation of clowns, it is only a small piece of the pie to the masterpiece story that is IT. The television show also ages horribly, going back and watching this show from 2017 was extremely saddening, especially after just reading the book again as well. Aside from all those problems, the biggest problem with this two episode television show is that the true understanding and experience of IT can not be grasped within 2-3 hours, it's impossible, the book alone is over 1100 pages. This mini series has attempted to cram a 12 hour story into just 3 as well as missing so many key scenes that impacts the story in so many ways. This IT is truly a total mess.

The only way IT could be properly translated to the screen is if at least a full season or two with multiple episodes were to be created. For an example, imagine if the creators of Stranger Things (An amazing Netflix original series) created a season of IT. In contrast to only 2-3 hours as well as terrible acting; picture ten 45 minute episodes per a season with modern day special effects - yeah let that sink in. As a huge fan of IT, I do hope that one day the money is put into this and this wonderful story finally gets to be experienced by so many people who particularly don't enjoy reading and are more of the film/visual types.

Lastly, I suppose I should point out some positive things about this IT as well. Tim Curry did a good job in my opinion considering what he had to work with. You can tell the scenes are forced, the actors are forced to do so much within such a short amount of time and the director attempts to develop the characters way to quickly. So it isn't all their fault, even though I don't think most of them were very good anyhow. It is important to remember this is an adaptation I suppose, so while it is an entirely different beast than the book, it is still painful to see so many people miss out on one of the greatest stories of all time.

The first part was great!🌞

[jonflottorp · 7/10 · 20 December 2021]

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🌞🌝🌛🌜🌚

Destroying 90's childhoods

[BandSAboutMovies · 7/10 · 24 May 2018]

Ommy Lee Wallace has made many lasting contributions to genre filmmaking, first on John Carpenter's Dark Star and Assault on Precinct 13 before appearing as The Shape/Michael Myers in the original Halloween, writing Amityville 2: The Possession, co-writing and directing the original Fright Night Part II and acting and being part of the effects team for The Fog. But this film cements his legacy, with a great build and plenty of scares within the limitations of television.

Originally airing from November 18 to 20, 1990, screenwriter Lawrence Cohen turned 1,138 pages of King into a two-part, three-hour TV movie. Wallace - and others - have commented that the first night is near perfect story-wise, but it falls apart on night two.

The story concerns The Lucky Seven, or The Losers Club, a group of outcasts who learn that the shapeshifting creature named Pennywise has taking and killing children in their hometown of Derry, Maine. They first battle him in 1960 as teenagers before coming back to battle him again in 1990.

This might sound like a broken record when it comes to King movies, George Romero had originally been signed on to direct the project when ABC had planned for an eight-to-ten-hour series that would play over four nights. He left the project due to scheduling conflicts, but he would finally direct a King adaptation, The Dark Half. This is considered one of the most faithful treatments of the author's work.

That said, we're here to talk about It, which begins with Georgie Denbrough playing with the paper sailboat that his brother Bill (Becca fave Jonathan Brandis) has made for him. As it sails down the sewer, he encounters Pennywise (Tim Curry, whose work in this movie led to thousands of nightmares of 90's kids), who gnaws his arm off and leaves him to die.

The Losers Club comes together when Bill and Eddie Kaspbrak welcome the new kid, overweight Ben Hanscom. They're soon joined by Beverly Marsh (Emily Perkins from the Ginger Snaps series of films), Richie Tozier (Seth Green), Stan Uris and Mike Hanlon. They all have two things in common: they're bullied by Henry Bowers' gang and they're all encountered the evil of Pennywise. They soon learn that every thirty years, the shapeshifter comes back to town to claim the lives of children.

When Stan is ambushed by the gang, Pennywise (or It) emerges and kills two of the gang members. Henry is left traumatized and left with white hair. He eventually confesses to all of the murders, although he didn't commit them. Stanley and the rest of the Losers learn how to use their imagination to stop the creature and drive it into the sewers before making a vow to come back to Derry if it ever comes back.

Thirty years later, Mike (Tim Reid from TV's WKRP in Cincinnati) is the only member of the Losers Club to stay in Derry. When It returns and begins killing again, he brings everyone back together. Bill (Richard Thomas, Battle Beyond the Stars) is now a famous horror writer married to Audra, a gorgeous British actress (Olivia Hussey, Black Christmas). Ben (John Ritter) is an architect. Beverly (Annette O'Toole) has grown up to be a fashion designer but has transitioned from being abused by her father to being beaten by her husband. Richie (the late, great Harry Anderson) is a comedian. Eddie (Dennis Christopher, Fade to Black) runs a limo service. And Stan is a real estate broker who decides to kill himself rather than come back home to face It.

Meanwhile, Henry has escaped from the mental institution with the help of It. His goal? Kill the rest of the Losers. The shapeshifting monster also draws Bill's wife to town.

Mike is hospitalized after being stabbed by Henry and the five remaining Losers head to the sewer for a final battle. That's when the movie falls apart, as the monster can never live up to King's words. If you ask nearly anyone, they always bring this up. That's because it's true.

All of the Losers but Eddie make it out, with Beverly and Ben reconnecting and Bill saving his wife. But at this point, most people have been scorned by the spider that Pennywise becomes.

That's because it's hard to beat just how scary Tim Curry is in this movie. Supposedly, he unnerved the cast so much that many avoided him during the production.

The movie eliminates some of the problematic parts of the book for me, such as Beverly taking the virginity of all the male characters in the sewer, but retains Audra becoming a victim who needs to be rescued. Tommy Lee Wallace has noted that he doesn't think that it works dramatically in the movie or novel.

Lightyears better than the new one

[RussHog · 9/10 · 12 September 2019]

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.

What is your deepest secret fear?

[rainking_es · 7/10 · 28 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

A prefect masterpiece

[davekeanu · 10/10 · 20 November 2017]

Now this is how you do a good horror film with no Cgi grafts but with good writing I have always wanted too see this movie as it look really good and what to say I really enjoyed it Tim Curry is great as pennywise the clown and he does a fantastic job at it while it may not be as good as the novel its still wroth watching soundtrack is very well done giving it a very spooky tone Stephen King has blown me away again with his movies and this is What I call a good horror film horror films in the 90s where at their finest as it was the golden era of horror films.

Now I have heard about the 2017 remake and I plan to watch it but while it be as good as the original only time will tell

fantastic horror film from the begging to the end

10/10

Don't scrap this 1990 version just because there is a remake. This version still has lots to offer...

[paul_haakonsen · 7/10 · 9 June 2018]

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.

It Was Okay

[yawael · 5/10 · 28 September 2017]

The first episode talks about the heroes of the story when they were teenager and the second one is at the present time. for many people they found the first episode great and and the second a flop, and i really can understand why.

After watching each of the episodes i was a kind of unsure about this show i found it as a whole an OK TV Show, even for the first episodes.

the main problem for the first episode was the adult actors who were really terrible although there were some of my beloved actors such as: John Ritter, but the biggest problem was their reaction which was so unrealistic and it became more at the second part. to be honest it was the children who saved the show and brought to the screen a brilliant performance that no one can ever deny.

As for the second part i only can say that i only watched it because of Tim Curry, he was the only guy to be featured in both episodes and was the only one who carried the whole second show.

it was so nice to see one of the earlier performance of (Jonathan Brandis) who really had a unique acting quality (I still wish he was still alive today so we could see a lot of his performance), although i laughed a lot when i saw one of my most beloved actors from Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Seth Green) . At the end it's an OK show with some memorable and enjoyable moments, but don't expect that much, and i only recommend it if you really a fan of the new version of this film (only if you want to make a comparison between them)

Tim Curry Cannot Be Replaced

[kg-57040 · 9/10 · 12 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.

It has a bad Ending but the Rest is worth to watch

[vocator · 7/10 · 23 January 2019]

"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.

bad, worse, it

[Dark_Fox · 1/10 · 9 March 2003]

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.