Stephen King's It Reviews

• Quite good, but it fails to convey the essence of the novel

  
  By A3KF4IP2MUS8QQ on 2003-07-08
  Stephen King's It is my favorite novel of all time, and even though this miniseries adaptation of the book is done about as well as it could possibly be done, I can only give it four stars. There are several reasons for this, the two most important being time and money. The novel is an immense work, and no adaptation of three hours can even hope to do it true justice; even ten hours would not suffice for getting at the essence of the story, that essence being not horror at all but childhood. The movie only allows the viewer to take in everything from outside, whereas the painstaking detail, insight, and atmosphere of King's novel make the reader an active participant in events. Thus, a lot of things presented in the movie do not come off overwhelmingly convincingly, and there are more than a few noticeably sudden and seemingly unexplainable transitions even within single scenes alone. The money issue is most evident at the end, as the special effects for the big finale were not very impressive even at the time of the movie's completion. Special effects are not all-powerful, of course, but the B movie-ish visuals unveiled in the movie's climactic moments serve to break the spell of the viewer's suspended disbelief and introduce a touch of camp into a movie that should not really be about the big bad monster in the first place.

  The setting for this story is a familiar one to King fans, the disquietingly different town of Derry, Maine. Something lives underneath the town, a malevolent force that adults cannot and will not believe in, but which seven outcast kids recognize, fear, and steel themselves to conquer back in 1960. Thirty years later, the monster they hoped they had killed as children returns, and the one character who never left Derry realizes this and calls everyone back to fulfill the promise they all made to return and kill the thing if it ever came back. The movie is, in a sense, two movies in one, as the action shifts between the parallel actions of the characters as children and as adults. The main character, Bill Denbrough, is played by Richard Thomas, a casting decision I did not understand at the time and still fail to comprehend completely. Thomas does a good job, but he is still Johnboy Walton to me, and I just have trouble believing a pony-tailed Johnboy is Bill Denbrough. Harry Anderson and John Ritter are two additional big names lending their talent to the film, but the best adult performance is turned in by Annette O'Toole as Beverly Marsh, the group's sole female member. As I have said, though, this story is really about childhood, and the child actors are the true stars. Jonathan Brandis is young Bill Denbrough (and like his adult counterpart, just doesn't quite fit the bill as far as I'm concerned), Seth Green succeeds much more ably in the role of Richie Tozier than his adult counterpart, Brandon Crane (whom Wonder Years fans will immediately recognize as good old Doug Porter) turns in a winning performance, and Emily Perkins shines as young Bev Marsh. Tim Curry, it must be emphasized, was born to play Pennywise the Clown.

  The monster in It is a conglomeration of everything each individual is afraid of; he is in a very real sense the ultimate monster because he is everything you were ever afraid of. The seven childhood friends who comprise The Losers' Club represent a cross-section of children everywhere: one stutters, one is a hypochondriac with an overprotective mother, one is the victim of child abuse, one uses comedy to hide his fears and to win acceptance, one is overweight, one is a paragon of logic and duty, and one is a black boy in a white community; all of them are outsiders and are tormented by a bully who ably represents all bullies everywhere. Sadly, the movie does not make it possible for the viewer to really get to know these kids and to relive his/her own childhood alongside them. A big problem with the adult actors is the fact that they oftentimes seem to be over-acting; I understand why this almost has to be so, however. It is merely a sign of the intense emotions they must try to convey in a very limited amount of time and space.

  It remains one of King's better film adaptations, despite the problems inherent in its production. No movie can capture the magic of the novel, however. The only unfortunate thing about the movie is the fact that it comes off as primarily a horror movie. Certainly, there is great horror lurking in this film as it progresses, but that is not the original story's essence and primarily for this reason the movie falls short of rating five stars in my opinion.
  
  

• Through the Eyes of Children - Great Movie!

  
  By A3RYIN4KHLR3Y1 on 2002-03-19
  This movie I believe was one of the first mini series I have seen by Stephen King. I watched from start to finish I was so interested in the kids in this film. Two who are played by popular actor's today Seth Green (Young Richie Tozer), and Jonathan Brandis (Young Bill Denbrough). The children band together and call themselves "The Looser's Club" they face being different from their classmates and they also face their parents. But what they must ultmiately face is the monster who kills children called "Pennywise the Clown." Together and only together as a team can they defeat the monster.
  In the first half of the film we learn of the Clown (Played by the great Tim Curry) and the history with the town of Derry, Maine. We see the kids meeting for the first time and the fun they all have. But the serious times comes when they band together to stand up for themselves against a few of the classmates namly Henry Bowers who likes to torment the other kids in the school. They then come together to form a circle and defeat the clown/monster. With a promise that if it wasn't dead they would all come back to destroy it.
  In the second part of the film we see whats happened to them career wise and love life wise. Its a tad slower, but it is definately funny and has its serious moments as well. The kids all grown up are now played by a great cast: Henry Anderson (Richie Tozer), Dennis Christopher (Eddie Kaspbrak), Richard Masur (Stan Uris), Annette O' Toole (Beverly Marsh), John Ritter (Ben Hascom), Tim Reid (Mike Hanlon), and Richard Thomas as (Bill Denbrough). Again the second part starts off slow. But its fun to see them all come together again. And to try and remember the good and bad times and defeat the "clown."
  I was very much interested to see Stephen King use children to believe in this monster to where the adults couldn't. It's also interesting to see this sort of similarity in some of his other where the children are the key. Which I find really grand in a way. This movie did; however, really turn me off of clowns. So it does have its creep factor in the movie. I would definately recommend it! Athough the book does give more great detail and is better, and the book is different in most parts. But for a mini series this was my first love of Stephen King.
  
  

• Oh yes, they Float, Georgie, they Float

  
  By AR61Y2VWLST1V on 2001-11-12
  This movie rules! I'm a huge fan of the book, and I can say that the movie really does it justice. The whole story involves a group of kids, all "losers", drawn together by a supernatural force to confront an ancient evil that takes the form of a malignant clown.

  Tim Curry was, I think, born to play Pennywise the Clown. Sadistic, waddling freak with his doughy, grinning white face, red wet lips stetched as wide as his ears. In his clown form, he is able to charm the younger kinds, but he becomes the fears of the older ones, taking them down into his sewer dungeon to feed on them. The kids that finally beat the monster, Big Bill and Haystack and Bev and the rest of the Loser's Club, manage to force It back into It's lair, not dead, but nearly mortally wounded....

  Driven by a feeding cycle, It rises again decades later, and the Loser's Club, now forgotten in adulthood, is drawn back together to face the monster one final time. This was originally made-for-television, so the movie is only capable of so much, but I think that fact alone gives the movie special merit. The casting was pretty much dead-on (especially in the case of Pennywise) and the special effects were surprisingly good. Probably the fact that the film makers were incapable of going the hack-and-slash rated-R route helped to improve the suspense and the atmosphere. The book was great, and the movie was great. I would recommend them both. I think that the humble perfection of a classic good versus evil story can sometimes be overlooked. The purity of a tale in which you can easily lose yourself. And that's just what It is. Two big thumbs up from me.
  
  

• Kiss your old fears away and have some new ones--a clown!

  
  By on 1999-09-24
  I first saw "IT" when I was nine years old. My best friend was having a sleep over with four girls sleeping over and the other five were going to walk home around eight o'clock. When I showed up with "IT" they stayed until nine o'clock and were too scared to walk back to their houses in the dark. As for me, I was afraid too, but when I turned twelve I saw the book and immediately bought "IT", read "IT", loved the book. I agree with many people that saw "IT" and have also read the book; the movie is BAD compared to the book, though the movie is good in a way because some parts of the book are hard to follow and the movie is easy to go with (with the exception of the cheesy spider at the end). One of my friends adores clowns and I can't sleep over at her house anymore because you can see dozens of clown faces in the darkness, dozens of glaring smiles and fluffy hair of red or orange... I CAN'T stay over there after reading and watching "IT"!
  
  

• "They All Float Down Here!"

  
  By A2M1N8G4W4END8 on 2002-10-22
  STEPHEN KING'S IT is arguably the best of the TV films based on a Stephen King work. While devoid of countless details from the novel that would have made the plot more understandable to those viewers who don't actually READ King, the movie is nonetheless engaging and downright SCARY!

  One reason STEPHEN KING'S IT rises above standard TV-movie fare is the excellent cast. John Ritter, Annette O'Toole, Richard Thomas, Tim Reid, and Harry Anderson deliver stellar performances in their roles of adult versions of the story's protagonists, and Jonathan Brandis (later the teen-heartthrob co-star of TV's SEAQUEST DSV), Seth Green, and Emily Perkins do an excellent job of evoking childhood crisis and trauma in the flashback segments. But it is Tim Curry (yes, THE Tim Curry of ROCKY HORROR fame), as antagonist Pennywise the Clown, who really chews the scenery and steals the show. If Curry's marvelously malevolent merry-andrew doesn't make you develop coulrophobia (fear of clowns), he will at least haunt your nightmares for a night or two after your first viewing.

  Another reason this flick rates so highly is that it is, simply put, a ripping good horror story. King is a master at realistically recreating the wondrous ambiance of youth and childhood, and in spite of the minor shortcomings in the film's recreation of King's plot, the atmosphere of the novel is perfectly translated to the screen. Besides that, King is also keenly aware that the things that scared us when we were kids are probably still lurking deep down in our grown-up psyche, just waiting to find a little mental crack to jump out of and give us a case of goose bumps and chills. The film version of STEPHEN KING'S IT finds that same little crack...then pries it wide open!

  The long-awaited DVD version of STEPHEN KING'S IT is sparse on frills, but it does have an excellent feature commentary with stars John Ritter, Richard Thomas, Tim Reid, Dennis Christopher, and director Tommy Lee Wallace. Of course, the picture quality is beautifully crystal clear, especially when compared to the VHS version, but purists should consider a few caveats before purchasing. First, the picture has been cropped a bit to simulate theatrical widescreen format. In comparison to the VHS version, which offers the original 1.33:1 aspect ratio, there are small slivers of image missing from both the top and bottom. (To be fair, it should also be noted that the picture on VHS appears to be scrunched a bit horizontally to fit it into the TV "square," so it really doesn't seem as if all that much has been removed to create the faux widescreen on DVD.) Also, gone are the "To be continued" message and the second set of credits, both of which originally appeared between the first half and second half of the original two-part movie (these were included on the VHS).

  So the new DVD version of this excellent movie should, for the most part, please King fans and general horror fans alike. For the movie alone, STEPHEN KING'S IT would easily rate 5 stars. But taking into account the adulterated aspect ratio and the slightly altered transition from Part 1 to Part 2, this DVD gets an overall rating of 4 stars.
  
  

• Ludicrously Bad
  By A3JW7TT6JF5FJ1 on 2002-12-19
  Given that this picture was produced for network television, I suppose I should have known what I was in for; however, there were enough approving onsite reviews without spelling errors in the title to give me hope for a little amusement, and perhaps a few honest scares. I've missed the creepy fun of some of those microbudget TV Feel-Bad Movies of the 70's; some of them, like Salem's Lot, or Devil Dog, The Hound of Hell, can really spook you if you watch them by yourself late at night. Sadly, made-for-tv horror movies have really been atrocious since the dawn of videotape in the early 80's; there is something so desperately unfrightening and sterile about the look of movies shot on video that I'm not sure it would be possible to wrench any atmosphere out of a film shot in this format. But in this case, the source material (one of Stephen King's throwaways) was so damn scary that it seemed almost impossible to screw it up.

  Unless, of course, you're Tommy Lee Wallace, the director of this mess. I was convinced that this film was his sixth-grade honors project until I read his bio. At first I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, and blame the actors, who are mostly elementary schoolers. But perfectly fine performers, such as John Ritter, Richard Masur, Tim Curry, Annette O'Toole, and Seth Green perform their line readings as if they were acting in a low-budget porno. And for most of the movie Wallace seems to just plop down the camera in front of these boobs, without any thought to composing the scene, and watch them overact, as if their cheesy shrieks and hand-wringing were enough to scare us silly.

  What's more amazing is that Wallace even neglects some of the basic tricks of the low-budget horror genre, that might have saved him if he had any instincts for suspense or terror. The whole thing looks like it was shot with the (flourescent) lights on, and nearly the entire film takes place outside, on apparently the sunniest day of the year; even the underground sewers are lighted like someone's kitchen. And the special effects are really bad; Wallace could've been more effective if he'd ditched all the fake blood, third-rate opticals, and jerky claymation in favor of 99 cent flashlights placed under the actors' chins. In honesty, no one involved with this picture, least of all the director, the cinematographer, or the editor, seems to realize that they're making a horror film. Scenes drag on interminably, sometimes to the point of catching the actors dropping out of character before someone yells "cut", and whenever a moment of fright is meant to be conveyed there is a close-up of Tim Curry in Kabuki makeup and plastic fangs going "boo!".

  I cannot imagine that anyone over the age of 4 could be frightened by this picture. But then again, one Amazon user thought it was the best horror movie she ever saw--and if we assume she's seen Carrie, Rosemary's Baby, Nosferatu, Don't Look Now, Jaws, or something by real amateurs like, say, Hitchcock, that's quite a compliment. Could that be the true horror of a movie like "It"?
  
  

• Stephen King's: S**IT
  By A2G84MYP4DSC6K on 2002-12-09
  IT is silly and unfrightening. Horrendous acting. Amateurish directing. Pathetic dialog. Who wrote this stuff?? One particularly embarrassing scene has one of the main characters (an adult mind you) referring to the monster "IT" with this gem... "Why is it so...mean?!" Unbelievable. There are numerous cringe worthy scenes that are better suited for a middle school play than a serious movie.

  Every attempt at shocking the audience is set up so poorly that you're never surprised, just disappointed. The extremely lame and unintelligible ending really irked me, and it was never explained. Is "IT" a supernatural demon or a badly animated stop motion crab monster from a Sinbad movie? You really see every cent of the $4.76 special effects budget on screen. If only Mystery Science Theater had used this movie for one of their episodes, it could have been the best ever. I found myself chuckling throughout this weak TV movie. IT is a total waste of time. If you want more chills and thrills, watch CSPAN or mold growing on bread.
  
  

• Great movie, horrible DVD
  By A2ZRZK421L94HM on 2005-01-24
  I don't know about the rest of you, but I am getting sick of DVD reviews that just give a summary of the movie. If I wanted that I would go to imdb.com or some other site. People need to have a review of the DVD. It seems like almost all the reviews about this movie are just a summary, and not talking about the DVD itself. First of all the product information listed above says this DVD is 193 minutes but on the back of the DVD case it says 187 minutes. I am not sure if this is an error or if there really are six minutes of footage cut out. There is some footage cut out from the original version which I will discuss a little later. First off this DVD is presented in the aspect ratio of 1.85:1. The back of the DVD says "WIDESCREEN VERSION Presented in a "matted" widescreen format preserving a theatrical aspect ratio. Enhanced for widescreen TVs." Okay, this doesn't make any sense. The original aspect ratio of the movie is 1.33:1 because it was shot for TV. Saying that its preserving a theatrical aspect ratio means nothing. What exactly is being preserved? Nothing is being preserved. You are actually losing information on the top and bottom of the screen just so it will fit on your widescreen TV. The result is that the picture is longer, you are losing information, and they have to zoom in on the picture a little bit so it fills the screen, which results in slight grainyness, but isn't really that noticeable. I don't understand why some people only care about if their TV screen is filled with picture. If the movie was originally shot in widescreen, that's how the DVD should be. If it was originally shot in 1.33:1 (as is the case with "It") that is how it should be. They should've at least made both versions available.
  Now here comes the part that realy pisses me off. After part 1 of the DVD is done, you have to flip it over to watch part 2. This is okay since the movie was originally presented in two parts. It's basically two separate movies. But the thing that drives me crazy is that they cut out the ending of part 1 so that it would flow better into part 2. The original ending of part 1 shows Stan's wife screaming and then cuts to the wall in the bathroom where the word "It" has been written in blood. You can still hear her screaming and the camera slowly moves in on the blood while "to be continued" appears on the screen and you can hear laughing from the clown. Then the credits roll. On the DVD the part with the word "It" written in blood as the last shot and the clown laughing is missing, as are the end credits. Instead, they show the word "It" written in blood for a few seconds, then cut to the woman screaming for about one second then it just fades out really quickly and the DVD menu screen pops up. After the woman screams it's supposed to cut back to the word "It" and the clown laughing. The ending on the DVD is horrible. A close up of her screaming for a second then the video and audio fades out all of a sudden...Terrible. I prefer the original ending where it shows the word "It" written in blood. It was a perfect ending for part 1. Also this DVD doesn't have the opening credits of part 2. The argument that they wanted to converge both parts to make it flow like one movie isn't a good argument since you have to turn it over half way through anyway. I bet they decided to make you turn it over because they knew if they just put part 1 and part 2 together it wouldn't flow correctly. I don't understand how a DVD like this can be released. What is the logic in taking out the ending of part 1, the end credits of part 1, the opening credits of part 2, and then making you flip it over? I would have no problem with flipping it over if they showed both parts in their original entirety. The VHS and Laserdisc versions of "It" are just like the original, so why not the DVD too? Warner Bros. releases the worst DVDs in my opinion. Their cases are cardboard and their movies have almost no special features. The only special feature on here is the commentary by the director (Tommy Lee Wallace) and a few of the actors (recorded separately and then fused together to make it appear as if they were there at the same time). I found the director's commentary to be very interesting and I learned a lot. He was really fun to listen to and tells you how he did certain things in the movie. The actors' commentary was horrible. They don't really ever talk about the movie. They just talk about random things and crack jokes every fifteen seconds. I was highly disappointed when they spoke. They provide no insight. The director was the only good part about the commentary. I would have given this DVD two stars but since I love the movie (the original version) I decided to give it an extra star. My recommendation is that if you love this movie, rent the DVD to listen to the commentary but buy the VHS or laserdisc version.
  
  
• Decent treatment for a creepy TV movie
  By A3K91X9X2ARDOK on 2006-09-06
  I'm assuming that you've come here looking for a review on the DVD presentation of the film, right?
  
  THE BAD:
  
  The film originally aired in two parts on ABC, so this film is split over both sides of the disc. I'm not big on the whole flipping thing when it comes to DVDs but it's understandable here.... if only sort of.
  
  The thing that actually gets on my nerves about this DVD is that the disc doesn't tell you what side you're putting on. Looking at the disc, there is no indication of whether you're about to play side A or side B and it's annoying to have to wait until the disc is playing to see whether you're watching the right one. This in itself is just irresponsible on the part of the manufacturers.
  
  THE GOOD:
  
  Picture quality is good and the Dolby Surround sound is good also, if nothing awe inspiring. The film is presented nicely at the least.
  
  The DVD commentary by director Tommy Lee Wallace and actors Henry Thomas, Tim Reid, Dennis Christopher and the late John Ritter is actually a lot of fun. These guys laugh so much and have so much fun remembering their work on "It" that you can't help but crack up everytime someone makes a smart remark. John Ritter especially was a hoot to listen to and listening to this commentary made me a little melancholy to know he died so young.
  
  So there you have it. I happen to like this film, even if I prefer the book much more and the ending for the film was almost pathetic (admit it, that spider was just a big joke). Still, the film has a dynamite first half and great acting by not only the adults but the kids as well. It's genuinely frightening at times and Tim Curry makes for one scary clown.
  
  Not the best presentation in the world but I'd still recommend it, at least for the commentary.
  
  
• Why does everyone pick on the ending?
  By on 2000-03-07
  Look obviously most of you have not read the book. The ending in the movie is the same as the ending in the book. They face a giant spider who is capable of shape shifting. And for those of you who think this movie is good, GET REAL! If you want intense characterization, READ THE BOOK! This TV-movie DOES NOT do this movie justice. You get better insights to all the characters in the book. There are things in the book that are not even mentioned in the movie that will scare the socks of you. For scare quality, the book scares you more than this movie. The movie is comical. Tim Curry was the only thing worthwhile in it. It did have a good cast, but you do not get the deep insights to the characters that the book gives you. So people, please read the book. You'll see why this movie is AWFUL! A note to Stephen King: Please stop allowing your books to be made into movies, unless they do it page by page and are at least 10 hours long!
  
  
• IT: A Mind-Blower
  By AZGO18DNOX5GB on 2002-09-30
  The problem with taking Stephen King out of the pages and translating him to the screen is that so much detail is often lost, costing the viewer the feel that was drawn from the actual novel. That all changes with "It"! Amazingly enough, a TV mini-series captured the best two facets of the novel: the evil of Pennywise the Clown (won't give away too much here), and the ability of a group of children, who dub themselves "The Loser's Club", to bond together in friendship with the common purpose of ending a killing machine that's been feasting upon their little Maine town for ages & ages.

  The best part of this movie was Tim Curry, hands down. He played Pennywise in a campy fashion, but when Pennywise needed to be evil and ghastly....oh, brother, was Curry right on the money. Puts shivers down your spine. This is one that my children avoid at all costs because the nightmares aren't worth it to them.... but YOU'LL love it! Excellent horror story......well presented.
  
  

• Oblivion is belief
  By A3UDYY6L2NH3JS on 2001-02-05
  This book, this film, is a masterpiece.

  First, it works on the fears and frights all children have, but those fears and frights are all dressed up as something they like, as a clown, so friendly-looking, so attractive, and yet IT is a fiend. Here King multiplies those fears so much, due to the fact that there are SEVEN children, six boys and one girl, that we get lost in the real labyrinth this book builds.

  Second, it analyzes those children in so many details, and it takes them thirty years later, unrealized for most of them, successful but totally unrealized, just empty shells, filled with oblivion and the impossibility to really be full and happy. That is the worst thing fear produces in a man or a woman, the impossibility to be happy and to fulfill his or her perspective, plan, project or future. He or she can maybe reach a certain level of fame, or art, or quality, but he or she cannot enjoy the happiness any man or woman should endeavour and deserve to get. IT is the anchor that forces us not to go all the way to the rising sun.

  Third, intelligence, conquering energy and strength is in children because they believe the world is not what they want it to be, they believe the world is what it wants to be, IT wants it to be, that is to say a long perspective of suffering and terror, interspierced with some moments of light and life and communion. This communion is the power of humanity. And grown-ups never get to that level of unity because they are afraid of the others, of their neighbors, of death, of suspicion, of what other people may think of them.

  Fourth, King invests the monster once again in the ground, underground. The monster is some kind of supernatural spider that needs to capture as many preys as possible every thirty years to be able to hibernate and live happily in its lair for the next thirty years. But then it has to come out again to feed and to replenish its cupboard with fresh meat and flesh.

  The most interesting aspect of this book or this film is the distance in time between the children and the grown-ups they become. The distance enables us to measure time and change, and yet to recognize that change is only on the surface whereas the depth of humanity, the depth of society, the depth of human nature remains the same. Yet a simple thing, like a bicycle, is able to bring infancy and childhood back and to enlighten the present with the past, to refill our heads with memories, and memories are the fodder of our minds, the force that is driving us to the sun and success. We can only get somewhere if we can solve the problems of our past, if we can get over the blocking stones of our engines, if we can put aside the narrow blinders education has put on our eyes and if we finally can see the whole picture all around and not be reduced to the tunnel vision most of us only have.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, Paris Universities II and IX
  
  

• On going spider situation
  By A3M5O6UHXO9IBU on 2002-01-14
  Ah, the old giant spider down the sewer disguised as clown ploy. Nobody creeps up behind me with the old giant spider down the sewer disguised as clown ploy. I'm a Stephen King survivor. It's a support group, you know. A group of kids are not fooled by the giant spider down the sewer disguised as clown ploy and decide that this flagrant violation of local bye-laws shall not go unpunished. Naughty spider, stop what you are doing - that sort of thing. Call it a manifesto, if you like. Not to be out done, the spider retaliates with a manifesto of his own. "I am the eater of worlds and of children" he tells them. I do wish he'd get on with it then. I'm sorry, but popping up every few years and dancing in the streets dressed as a clown is not exactly cutting it in the world domination stakes. If he got on with the eating of worlds bit then the eating of children bit would sort of take care of itself, wouldn't it? But then spiders are not very bright. You yell at them to get the hell out of the bath from your vantage point standing on the sink but do they listen? No! Anyway, this spider gets his manifesto the wrong way round and has to resort to the old werewolf down the boiler room with attitude problem and no shoes ploy. The kids are not impressed by the old werewolf down the boiler room with attitude problem and no shoes ploy so they buy a sling shot for a couple of dollars and let rip.

  Years later they get together as adults and decide local bye-laws are still not being closely adhered to. Unfortunately, Richie has grown up to be a loud mouth who keeps insisting everyone leave town. Go already. So annoying is he that it's a wonder 'The Losers Club' as they are so monickered, don't borrow a gun off the clown and shoot him. Trouble is, a red flag saying 'BANG' would probably come out the end. The team decide they must go down the sewer and arrest the spider for over acting in a built up area. Just before they do, Richie tells them he's leaving for the airport. Go already. His mouth is so big you could fly a plane into it and still have room for a golf course. In the sewer they find a very small door. Now how does a spider go about carpentry? Did it kidnap Santa's elves? (It's a very small door and a few kids in the town won't be needing their presents anyway, heh-heh). It is at this dramatic point in the story that one of the team decides that this is just the moment to have a nervous breakdown over the fact that he's never had sex. Stop whining, it's never done me any harm. They find the door is easy to open. Great, he's the eater of worlds and he can't even afford a decent home security system. Now, in 'Annie Hall', Woody Allen sorted out a spider in Annie's bath the size of a Buick with a tennis racquet. I mean, Woody had the tennis racquet, not the spider. Unfortunately, The losers Club are faced with a spider the size of Wisconsin. There is no choice but to get stuck in and give the spider a quite comprehensive duffing up. That'll teach it to sell balloons without a license. It goes quiet and they walk away. Now, this is a mistake. Spiders curl into a ball and play dead and then they suddenly attack you when you're sitting on the floor with the headphones on. Spiders are not so dumb. Which contradicts what I said earlier. So sue me, already.

  How long is this film? Felt like years. What really scares me is the thought that Stephen King may drop his shopping list and a producer will grab it and turn it into a series. After this debacle, I wouldn't want to be the production company that handles his potatoes.
  
  

• Wow, this movie really sucks!
  By A12USWB75T8ZGF on 2004-05-14
  This movie just plain blows. How can it have a 4 star average rating?? The book is great- I love Steven King, and a lot of movies based on his books are good, but this one is a joke. The acting is the worst part of the movie, it's so bad that's it's almost good. One very annoying thing they try to do is use as many tiny little details from the book, or use the exact same phrases that the characters in the book used. Sometimes that's cool, like in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but it really doesn't work here. Don't waste your time watching it and definantly don't waste your money buying it!
  
  
• Why do they even bother
  By on 2006-11-18
  I loved It, the book that is. It kept me going. The plot, story, characters, everything was great. When i finished the book, I searched for the movie. When I found it, I eagerly sat down and watched it. By the end of part one, I was ready to cus at the TV screen. What the heck! It destroyed the book! The characters, the plot, the ending! They all sucked. I really feel that great novels shouldn't be wasted with cheap TV movies. I feel that most of King's works that are made into movies just don't give you the feel like the book. If you want to enjoy It to its full potential, read the novel. Don't watch the movie
  
  
• Just barely deserves 1 star!
  By A3QR5L4SG42380 on 2002-08-28
  This movie starts out with a lot of promise, but is dogged by the same problem throughout it - its dual nature accentuates the weakness of half the film.

  Every second where the characters are children is chilling, unnerving and unsettling, with some sequences making you squirm and others making you jump. The child actors vary between average and excellent, and none of their performances detract from the quality of the film.

  HOWEVER, whenever the characters are adults, terrible acting, corn-ball humour and dreadful special effects "haunt" the movie far more than Tim Curry's clown. In fact, even the clown loses impact in these sequences, as Tim seems to have been given a script written by buffoons in these parts of the film. The dreadful special effects include the WORST disembodied head in film history - talking (wait for it) from a BAR FRIDGE! The acting is no better, with all the adults struggling to do anything with the very weak material on offer. And, since the ending of the movie, which entails (go ahead and read it, when you watch it it's less painful if you know how bad it's going to be...) a gigantic fake spider with glowing green parts and a gross-out fisting to death of this creature. Yes, this brilliant and mysterious clown that killed children and haunted adults was not some Gacy or some supernatural force, but A SPIDER!!! Give up on this movie before you start it.

  I wish they had done this movie only with children - it would have been creepy and unresolved. Unfortunately, like most of Stephen King's movie adaptations, it has a dreadful ending and camp acting. (Kubrick seemed to be the only director who has enough of a brain to convert text into images well, and he's gone now...) I might attack this film with a Digital Editing suite to make a decent project out of it, but in the meantime, put it on your avoid list.
  
  

• Clearly One Of The Worst "Movies" Ever Made
  By A2RBPSLLLJHOG4 on 2003-03-02
  I feel I must "vote" to counterbalance all the positive reviews of this flick. I am truly, completely AMAZED that there are ANY positive reviews of this movie. The movie is as far from scary as it could possibly be. It is not scary, it is not interesting, it is not weird, it is vaguely coherent and it is certainly not entertaining. Terrible acting, lousy script, horribly directed. Plus, since it was created for TV originally, the scenes all fade to black after about 15 minutes. Why in the world they left the credits in the middle is beyond me. I assumed they would have reedited the mini series for video, taking out the fades, the first half credits in the middle of the movie, mabey even adding footage that couldn't be shown on TV or that didn't work originally with the timing issues of a TV broadcast...nope. This movie wouldn't frighten a 10 year old child. The only convincing performance is from John Ritter; the actor who played John Boy absolutely can not act. I can't believe this was deemed acceptable to air on TV, let alone to release on video and DVD. Though I purchased the video for only two dollars, I was robbed. I want my two dollars and three hours of my life back.
  
  
• It Has Become $@It
  By A2OMOO9PDZEVOG on 2003-09-14
  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."

  -Escushion
  
  

• One of the greatest books of all time was turned into...
  By A2SLOR14IS943W on 2004-02-10
  ...one of the most rediculously awful film adaptations i have ever seen. this is seriously a HUGE letdown for someone who has read the entire 1000+ book. either a memorable seen from the book was ruined in careless acting, or they just left a scene out all together. many of the characters you grew to love in the book aren't interesting here. Stephen King describes them to the point that you FEEL and UNDERSTAND there emotions. the movie desplays them as boring kids you couldn't give a crap about.

  the worst part by far was what they did to It. the book portrays the beast as something very desgusting and evil in graphic detail. the movie uses it as Pennywise the Clown 85% of the time, and you feel like laghing more than shivering. plus, they kill It after a fight that seems to last a matter of seconds. in the book, the fight is incredibly long, and SO MANY differant things happen(if i told you it would spoil the story).

  anyways, maybe i am a bit harsh on this movie, but people like me who have been huge fans of this story, and find that it is put in such crap like this can't help but feel terribly upset.

  1/10
  
  

• The best horror mini-series on TV next to "The Stand".
  By A1COW0UIB5HA9J on 2004-03-27
  Seven adults ( John Ritter, Harry Anderson, Dennis Christopher, Richard Masur, Annette O'Toole, Tim Reid and Richard Thomas) had a terrifying childhood in the 60's in a maine town where an evil being in the form of a clown named "Pennywise" ( Tim Curry) has murdered children there and the kids stopped him. However in 30 years, they are grown up and suddenly murders start happening in that maine town by the creature " IT" and must face IT again.

  Excellent adaptation of the classic Stephen King novel and packs great scares, fine performances especially by the terrifying Tim Curry and shocks as well. It's probably the best Stephen King mini-series movie this side of " The Stand".

  Also recommended: " Freddy Vs. Jason", " A Nightmare on Elm Street", " Hellraiser", " Making Contact ( a.k.a. Joey)", " The Ring", " Candyman", " Hellbound: Hellraiser II", " Creepshow", " Stephen King's Cat's Eye", " Dreamcatcher", " House By The Cemetery", " City of the Living Dead", " The Dead Zone ( Both Cronenberg 1983 version and remake)", " Ringu", " The Shining ( both versions)", " The Beyond", "The Others", " Poltergeist" and " House on Haunted Hill ( 1999)".
  
  

• Shudder in a Bad Way
  By ATIRJ2ERWIXJ8 on 2004-11-06
  The movie IT is one of the very worst movie adaptions that i have ever seen, doing no justice at all to the absolute grandeur of the book. IT is one of the greatest books that i have ever read; scary, thought provoking, profound, gripping, and fun, it ranks in the top five in my list of greatest books of all time. The movie, on the other hand, attempts to fit a book with over 1000 pages into three hours and fails miserably. It has it all: bad acting, (except for Tim Curry of course), loss of plot, theme, and philosophy, and horrible new ending that has nothing to do with the book. Here's a tip, screw the movie, read the book.
  
  Summarized reaction:
  Wow, Tim Curry is a really good actor and plays his part really well! Too bad everything else sucks.
  
  
• "I'm Everything You Ever Were Afraid Of!"
  By A157XTSMJH9XA4 on 2006-02-23
  For the plot details, here is what the back of the DVD box reads:
  "IT can be anything. A fanged monster that won't stay on the movie screen. Something ominous lurking in the basement. No matter what your biggest fear is, no one knows IT better than Stephen King. Based on King's 1986 bestseller, IT is a jittery, jolting excursion into personal fear starring Harry Anderson, Annette O'Toole, John Ritter and Richard Thomas. A malevolent force in a small New England town takes the shape of a clown (Tim Curry), but he's not clowning around. Instead, he terrifies youngsters and brings some of their untimely doom -- until some wily kids fight back. The evil resurfaces 30 years later: meaner, angrier, dealier. And friends who vividly remember youthful terrors reunite to battle IT."
  
  Stephen King's IT has become a horror classic. And, surprisingly enough, it was a made-for-TV miniseries (a two-nighter). Running at a little over three hours long and designed to be appropriate for the average Joe tuning in to its original broadcast in 1990, you'd think it'd be a bit of a stinker. But by all means, IT provides a thrilling and darkly charasmatic adventure into one very terrifying story. Great script, great directing, great cast. And the best part? Well...
  
  Remeber Bozo? Ah, what a great guy. How about Clarabell, or even Ronald McDonald? Clowns have been a real treat to the entertainment business for as long as we can remember. But Tim Curry changed that for oh so many children and adults alike with this film. Undeniably the star of the show -- whether for freaky amusement or inescapable horror -- Curry really helped this along in its long running time. Don't get me wrong, the character development through childhood scenes and drama unfolding between them as adults really keeps the viewer interested and engaged. But let's face it, without Curry's performance there would be something missing. Luckily, we're given plenty of delightfully scary scenes showing off the unforgettable portrayal of history's most malevolent clown throughout the film.
  
  By the end, you can't help but to feel for the characters and be glued to the screen -- even if you've seen it already. It's one of the best examples out there of how a lot of time can actually be put to good use and overall make a great movie. IT -- just like many of King's writings -- really grabs the viewer and reflects on something we can all look back at with awe and mystery: childhood.
  
  Sadly, there aren't many special features on this double-sided disc. But there is a fairly interesting commentary with Dennis Christopher, Tim Reid, John Ritter, Richard Thomas, and Director Tommy Lee Wallace (why no Curry? probably not available. they do talk about him a bit, though). And with a wonderful, crystal-clear print and audio, you won't mind the almost bear-bones packaging. So go ahead and pick this baby up for one hell of a ride into a nightmare where fear reigns over all!
  
  
• IT-THE MOVIE
  By ASVYTK8NBZ9XC on 2006-07-18
  I just want to start this off by saying....CHECK MY REVIEW FOR THE BOOK
  
  
  I loved the book, so i had my wife buy me the DVD off of EBAY
  
  I couldnt wait to watch it. After watching this movie, i am truly scarred. This has to be one of the most HORRID things that has ever been put on film. How can SK let this be created?
  Are they kidding me, with this movie? was it supposed to be a joke?
  
  My wife said for that we will just sell it on EBAY, i said NO. I could not let another human being go thru this torture!!!
  So i took the DVD and casing, went out in my backyard, and burned it with lighting fluid!!!!!
  
  THIS MOVIE IS BRAIN POLLUTION
  GO READ THE BOOK....THE BOOK WAS THE BEST THING I HAVE EVER READ!
  
  
• Flawed but still creepy as heck
  By ADKHI1TUGAX4 on 2006-10-28
  I guess I'll be one of the few people who still enjoys watching the television adaptation of the Stephen King classic "It". Unfortunately the Stephen King novel was so long not everything in the book could be included in the tv mini-series otherwise the tv mini-series would have probably been a week long mini-series. I can understand why fans of the novel is not enamoured with the film unlike me.
  
  The storyline takes place in Derry, Maine. The small town is plagued by a series of mysterious killings of children by a monster that adults are unable (and in serious denial) to believe in. This monster comes in the form of the extremely creepy Pennywise the clown played by the brilliant Tim Curry who made me see clowns in a whole new light after seeing the film. Tim Curry's performance truly stood out for me. I still get the goose bumps whenever I come across "It" on cable tv.
  
  The protagonists of the story is a small circle of childhood friends who were considered outcasts by their peers and losers by a group of psychotic bullies. The cast is rounded out by Harry Anderson, John Ritter, Jonathan Brandis, Seth Green, Annette O'Toole, Richard Thomas, Tim Reid, Emily Perkins, Ben Heller, Olivia Hussey, and Dennis Christopher.
  
  The film begins with a phone call from Mike Hanlon (Tim Reid) to his friends when the killings begins again after their last encounter with Pennywise. While everyone had left Derry, Mike remained in town as the unofficial watcher of It. This is not a happy reunion to say the very least. The story goes between the past and present.
  
  I personally enjoyed the film adapation a lot. Yes it is a very condensed version of the novel but ya can't cram every single detail from the book into the film within a certain amount of time. Every scene with Tim Curry as Pennywise the clown sent the hairs on the back of my neck straight up, especially the opening sequence when he encounters Bill's younger brother George Denbrough. The confrontation between the grown up friends and the flesh eating spider was cheesy, if not laughable. Despite the obvious edits and cheesy confrontation, I still love "It". This is the only film that creeps me out. Eat your heart out Michael Myers, Freddie Krueger, and Jason Voorhees.
  
  
• The clown "IT" By: Stephen King
  By on 2006-11-17
  The clown "IT" is a cereal killer. He comes and goes and no one ever knows where he will pop up next. But every time he does pop up he ends up killing someone or something. When the killing happens the person that dies doesn't really expect "IT" coming. When this happens something odd happens to them or part of there property. An example would be losing power to there house in middle of the night. So begins the exciting and scary book. I thing that Stephen king deserves all the rewards that this book has won. Children twelve and up should have a copy of this book for there home library because this book could keep you going for hours if you like scary fun filled books.
  
  
• Actually negative 10 stars
  By on 1999-04-28
  Did we all see the same movie?!?!?! Well maybe because I am 25 years old that I can see the difference in real horror and a rushed film. This junk was rushed. Maybe if saw the movie first and then read the book, it would have been better. But the book was just the best. I can't believe that they even disgrace MY book with that mess. Sometimes if you read a book and then see the movie you can appreciate the movie a little for it's differences- not here. I read the book and the next night after I finished it I rented the video- couldn't even get through the entire thing. It Sucked so bad I wanted to cry. PLEASE, DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE- PLEASE READ THE BOOK- I BEG OF YOU. Poor Billy and his friends. Well at lease the movie gave Stuttering Bill hair even though his stuttering was ridiculous. I know people who stutter and none of them are THAT bad. I could hear him in the book, but in the movie the few times when he stuttered, he looked like he needed Eds asthma medicine!!!!
  
  
• i am so disappointed
  By AOSQGCFCH4XCR on 2001-07-22
  i am so disappointed by this movie. this is nothing like the book. the casting was done horribly. i think the only people who were even cast correctly as thier discription in the book was Richie (played by seth green) and bill (the kid from the never ending story). everybody else didn't even look the the way they should. like stanely uris' mom. she shouldn't been fat in the movie she was an skinny old lady. damn't kids can't we just do what the book says...
  
  
• It's great!!!
  By A3O78KBEJ5HUS9 on 2001-09-12
  Ok, so its not as good as the book, but then Stephen King never intended it to be on the screen. I've read the book and seen the film, so here is my tip for complete enjoyment. Read the book first, then watch the film, there is some good acting here, and instead of criticising everything note how the clown is actually a very real, very scary foe, and also how lovely Jonathan Brandis (Bill Denbrough, age 12) is, that will take your mind off the poor adaptation! I think my fave bit of the movie, is when they come out of the sewers age 12, and they have the "swear to me, that if it isnt dead, you'll all come back" moment. The acting is great here, and you can totally feel the childhood ties, it's really sweet!! If you're supposed to read the book for school, then dont think you can wangle out of it by watching the film, its totally not the same at all, but i think the film adds a few nice touches that the book couldnt convey, but make sure that you read the book first, cos the film is good, and it might put you off reading it, cos it's a hell of a lot easier to sit for two hours than it is to plough your way through the heft of the novel, but believe me, its worth it, read the novel, it may take you a while, and your hands may shake as you turn the pages (i hid mine on several occasions cos it is a bit of a frightener) but at the end, i promise you will feel warm and fuzzy! magnificent book that a good film tried to be like, it's like britney spears trying to upstage madonna, we all know its not going to happen, but we enjoy ourselves watching her try! Sx.
  
  
• Scary but doesn't give you nightmares
  By A1CEK79P47OADL on 2001-11-07
  This movie is about 7 best friends,aka the "Losers Club" and a killing 200 year old clown named Pennywise. Every 30 years the clown kills children, and all 7 children have had encounters with the clown, and one had his younger brother killed by it. They attempt to kill it by using an asthsma inhaler and throwing pebbles at it. They aren't sure if they killed it, so they all make a pact that if it is not dead, they will all come back and kill it. 30 years later the killings start up again, and they all
  come back to the town. But upon their return, people wind up dead and strange things happen, such as their fortune cookes with strange things in them, such as eyeballs, blood and crabs. Also at the Kersh house and the blood in Bev's tea cup. Strangly only the 7 can see these things. The first tape is mostly flashbacks when the 7 kids, now adults, get the call about the killings. The second one has the events when the 7 are back and attempt to kill it one last time.
  I give it 5 stars because it was really, really good.
  
  
• ...iT BiTeS...!
  By A2FCVS3YFIH4Z6 on 2002-02-21
  i WaS eXTReMeLY DiSaPPoiNTeD iN THe MoVie aDaPTaTioN oF a FaNTaSTiCLy FRiGHTeNiNG BooK!

  iT WaS aS iF THe SCRiPT WaS WRiTTeN FRoM aN ouT-LiNe SoMeoNe JoTTeD DoWN oN THe BaCK oF a MaTCH-BooK CoVeR aFTeR oVeR-HeaRiNG SoMeoNe aT a NeaRBy TaBLe in a CRoWDeD CLuB TaLK aBouT WHaT THeY iMaGiNe THe BooK WouLD Be LiKe aFTeR ReaDiNG THe BaCK oF THe BooK. (THe BaCK CoVeR oF THe CoPy i ReaD oNLy HaD a PiC oF MR. KiNG, HiMSeLF)...Do Ya GeT WHaT i'M SaYiNG?

  iN SHoRT...iT WaS THe CLiFF NoTeS oF THe CLiFF NoTeS VeRSioN.
  DoN'T BoTHeR WiTH THe FLiCK ReaD THe BooK iNSTeaD.
  
  

• Stephen King's Storm of the Century
• Pet Sematary (Special Collector's Edition)
• Salem's Lot
• The Shining
• Rose Red