The first film adaptation of Stephen King's book 'It' was released in 1990 as a two-part television movie designed for the morning air. Fans of the writer immediately branded this mini-series, noting that the tape does not convey the atmosphere of horror of the novel, and also criticized the simplification of the script in favor of the children's audience. I, who did not read the original source, also felt that the authors did not agree. The town is too strange and mysterious in this film adaptation and all its secrets have not been revealed. You don’t have to ask too much of a TV movie. As a child's scarecrow, he's doing quite well. This is largely due to the extraordinary actor Tim Curry. So masterfully he played the character of the Dancing Clown, which attracts and repels at the same time. Of course, in the history and memory of the audience will remain the actor from the movie adaptation ' It', but the TV clown has something to surprise horror fans. Other acting work in the project is also good, and young talents play even better than adults. But Tim Curry outplays the favorite of 90s children Jonathan Brandis, as well as the unrecognizable Seth Green and John Ritter. I really liked the actress who played the girl of the main character with a cute and slightly cutting ear name Odra.
I praise the atmosphere of the film. Long before the Japanese & #39; Call & #39; the creators of horror realized that rainy weather gives a mysterious aura, and contrasting bright colors irritate the eye and instill fear. I think that after this film you will often flinch from bright balloons!
This movie is a little outdated, few now understand the phrase of the clown that his balls fly. In the USSR there was a shortage of helium balls. There were balloons that were used in demonstrations, but they were non-volatile. And how children wanted their balloon to fly, and not lifeless lying in puddles. And here's a funny clown with flying balls! How can I not stay here?
Special effects in the film at the budget level of the regional TV channel, or even less. Apotheosis is the puppet monster at the end. But for some reason it looks threatening even in spite of its ridiculous appearance.
The tape is a little long, without the memories of the heroes by the end became boring. But it is clear that the director made the film with love. Working on an atmosphere of fear. I think that for those who saw the film as a child, many episodes of it were dreamed or inadvertently remembered. For example, it could be an animated photo in the album, an ominous eye or a cup of blood. It seems to be simple scenes straight from children's horror stories, but everything is so masterfully filmed and submitted that it is remembered forever.
This film, despite the ambiguous reaction, was enthusiastically received by the audience, it was released in video rental and purchased by TV channels in many countries of the world. So arrived in the early 90s this fresh American mini-series straight to the USSR. It was warmly received by the already hardened horror Soviet public, becoming a nightmare for children of the 80s. After the successful 'It' 2017, the now slightly forgotten mini-series again became interesting to the world audience. It's interesting to watch it now. Especially since he plunges the atmosphere into a carefree childhood! Play, have fun and never grow up!
9 out of 10
I remember that when I was a kid in video distribution, I was wildly frightened by the cover of the cassette with the famous Pennywise and I avoided this film. Though I really wanted to see it. Film adaptations of Stephen King's works are always an event, and they always arouse wild interest. By the way, the novel itself I read, and it caused me mixed feelings. I can't say I liked him very much. What can you say about the old film adaptation?
The film was released a good thirty-odd years ago and it is quite clear that today it is unlikely that anyone will be frightened by its special effects or not at all like real blood. But the atmosphere that reigns in this film, some hidden notes of the soul will certainly touch. This tape is a perfect example of those American horror films that were shot in the eighties and nineties, only in this case the film has meaning. This tape is about childhood fears, which met absolutely each of us and therefore, everyone will find something in the characters, their experiences and the plot as a whole.
Timekeeping, which lasts almost three hours, will not make you bored. I watched all these three hours without looking away from the screen, despite the fact that I had read the book before and basically understood what was waiting for me in this or that scene.
Separately, I want to note the work of the creators and Tim Curry, who plays the role of Pennywise. Just as he used to scare me from the cassette cover when I was a kid, now, after all these years, he still evokes certain negative emotions when he appears on the screen.
In this post, I will mostly compare the 1990 TV movie to the modern version of the Pennywise story. For in both cases, Stephen King's novel was based on a different interpretation. Regarding the film itself, I want to say the following – firstly, the picture became a hit for its time, and as for modern perception – I will not say that something seriously can scare. Second, by putting a 1000-page canvas of the book in three-hour timekeeping, we get the same situation as with the 1994 “Master and Margarita”. There is history, but there is no interest.
It's funny that a TV movie doesn't hide the fact that it's trivial. That is, this film is made for three pennies, but at the same time noticeable ... the efforts of its creators? Of course, most of the scarecrows are directly transferred from the source, shown on the big screen, but at the same time, puppet animation, low-quality special effects are clearly visible. I understand that modern cinema has more ways to scare the viewer. But on the other hand, I am still frightened by "Alien", "" catches up with horror, "Nightmare on Elm Street" causes tremors on the back. And "It" - well, you know, somehow not.
Even though the old movie's scarecrows are losing the 2017 versions, they have a trump card up their sleeve - music. The soundtrack of the new version sounds standard for an ordinary film, but in scary moments sometimes turns into some kind of cat who is twisted by the testicles. The old version kind of prepares the viewer, catching up with horror music. These circus motifs, accompanied by sounds pressing on the brain. While the new film leaves mostly thanks to camera receptions and the entourage of the town.
After the release of the new version of "It", a new column from the category "freak in the comments" was opened on the Internet. Everyone is trying to figure out one question - who is better in the role of Pennywise? Tim Curry or Bill Skarsgård? And here I turn to my review of It's 2017. Although Skarsgård causes attacks of screeching in little girls, but the main thing is lost - he is not cheerful! He's just trying to be creepy, according to the canons of all movie maniacs. With his appearance, I'm generally surprised how the local kids don't drape from such a powdered Ronald McDonald in the first minute. The old film wins an unquestioning victory on this issue. Not only does the appearance of Pennywise Tima Curry look simple, therefore attractive, so the behavior is appropriate. He can have a dialogue, he can try to make jokes, and then he will bite off his hand. I will note the scenes when the clown “blue eye” children from the Losers Club. He just gets in their sights and yells something like, "Hey, fat!" It looks stupid, but he's a fucking clown! It should be like that.
Finally, let’s talk about the kids who fight Pennywise. It is clear why in the new version of the teenagers, could cause sympathy among the audience. They're weirdos. Seriousness is serious, and jokes about moms on schedule. The arches of some of the children were written brighter, each had its own distinctive features. While in the old movie, they are... ordinary. I mean, they play well, except none of them have chips. All right, with well-established morals. Hence, the color of the characters is lost. Which, again, is a joint of timing. Modern dilogy (although the second part has problems with content) due to its duration devotes time to each of the Losers, allowing you to also understand where their fears legs grow.
About the bully Henry Bowers and his henchmen will not even crucify - it is a thorn in the eye that in the first and in the second case. In my opinion, this line with a single-celled bastard was in history only to show up after a while and rather stupidly drink himself out.
In this post, I will mostly compare the 1990 TV movie to the modern version of the Pennywise story. For in both cases, Stephen King’s novel was based on a different interpretation. Regarding the film itself, I want to say the following - firstly, the picture became a hit for its time, and as for modern perception - I will not say that something seriously can scare. Second, putting a 1000-page canvas of the book into a three-hour timeline gives us the same situation as the 1994 Master and Margaret. There is history, but there is no interest.
It's funny that a TV movie doesn't hide the fact that it's trivial. That is, this film is made for three pennies, but at the same time noticeable ... the efforts of its creators? Of course, most of the scarecrows are directly transferred from the source, shown on the big screen, but at the same time, puppet animation, low-quality special effects are clearly visible. I understand that modern cinema has more ways to scare the viewer. But on the other hand, I'm still frightened by 'Alien', '' catching up with horror, 'Nightmare on Elm Street' causes tremors on the back. And "It" - well, you know, somehow not.
Even though the scarecrows of the old movie are losing the 2017 versions, they have a trump card up their sleeve – music. The soundtrack of the new version sounds standard for an ordinary film, but in scary moments sometimes turns into some kind of cat who is twisted by the testicles. The old version kind of prepares the viewer, catching up with horror music. These circus motifs, accompanied by sounds pressing on the brain. While the new film leaves mostly thanks to camera receptions and the entourage of the town.
After the release of the new version of “It”, a new column from the category of “freak in the comments” was opened on the Internet. Everyone is trying to figure out one question - who is better in the role of Pennywise? Tim Curry or Bill Skarsgård? And here I turn to my post about it in 2017. Although Skarsgård causes attacks of screeching in little girls, but the main thing is lost - he is not cheerful! He's just trying to be creepy, according to the canons of all movie maniacs. With his appearance, I'm generally surprised how the local kids don't drape from such a powdered Ronald McDonald in the first minute. The old film wins an unquestioning victory on this issue. Not only does the appearance of Pennywise Tima Curry look simple, therefore attractive, so the behavior is appropriate. He can have a dialogue, try to make jokes, and then he bites off his hand. I'll note the scenes when the clown "blue eye" kids from the Losers Club. He just gets in their sights, and he's like, 'Hey, fatty!' It looks stupid, but he's a fucking clown! It should be like that.
Finally, let’s talk about the kids who fight Pennywise. It is clear why in the new version of the teenagers, could cause sympathy among the audience. They're weirdos. Seriousness is serious, and jokes about moms on schedule. The arches of some of the children were written brighter, each had its own distinctive features. While in the old movie, they are... ordinary. I mean, they play well, except none of them have chips. All right, with well-established morals. Hence, the color of the characters is lost. Which, again, is a joint of timing. Modern dilogy (although the second part has problems with content) due to its duration devotes time to each of the Losers, allowing you to also understand where their fears legs grow.
About the bully Henry Bowers and his henchmen will not even crucify - it is a thorn in the eye that in the first and in the second case. In my opinion, this line with a single-celled bastard was in history only to show up after a while and rather stupidly drink himself out.
Stephen King did not just decide to be a writer, as a child he spent a lot of time for books that allowed him to go on an amazing journey to fictional worlds, where there were wonderful creatures and monsters that especially inspired the future author. Having become the king of horrors, King began to invent unique monsters on his own, but he always seemed that he had not achieved his peak in this direction. This was until the release of the novel “It”, which became King’s most famous work. In it, the writer unfolded as widely as possible, described the real horror in the form of a cunning toothy clown who knows the fears of each person and causes them at the most inopportune moment. Naturally, “It” was supposed to hit the screens and the first time it happened in 1990.
The Tommy Lee Wallis TV movie introduces us to a group of high school students who are part of the Losers Club. It is called so because children are constantly bullied at school, no one respects them or takes them seriously. But united in one team, they thus found themselves in a circle of like-minded people, where no one will ever refuse a friend to help. But the guys did not expect that their main problem would not be school bullies, and the clown Pennywise, awakened from a long rest.
There have always been disappearances in Derry, but no one has ever noticed it before. Now, the Losers Club is on the trail of a mystical monster, and only a single whole can defeat it. And everything seemed to be going as it should, Pennywise felt vulnerable, but don’t write him off because he embodies the apogee of pure evil that is not going to give up.
The film was divided into 2 parts and had a huge timekeeping. This was done in order to fit into the plot almost everything that King wrote. There was a lot of interesting information that I didn’t want to miss. Of course, some scenes simply could not be filmed, as they played with moral norms that the producers did not want to touch. In addition, the director did not have enough money to play a part of the scenes in space. But I believe that such trimmings of the original story were “It” only for good.
To the modern viewer, “It” may seem long and not so scary. In some ways, he will be right, because the horrors made a qualitative leap forward and the adaptation of “It” in 2017 came out more creepy and dramatic. But still Tim Curry as Pennywise is respected, and despite the fact that the second part of the film was a little boring, we still have the first where the characters are children. And it is very interesting, deep and even scary.
You can watch this version of “It” either for general acquaintance with the topic, or out of a sense of nostalgia. Still, the acquaintance with the Losers Club will not be superfluous for you. And comparing Curry to Bill Skarsgård will be a fun event.
8 out of 10
General impression: Recently there was the premiere of "It", the second part, where in the title role Bill Skarsgard frightened with his appearance and makeup as a clown. So let me tell you that it came out 30 years ago with the brilliant Tim Curry. What kind of clown came out of him? Charismatic, unusual, but completely fearless, alas, even making an age discount, his hero laughs, and not frightens with his appearance.
In general, this picture is solid and goes 3 hours 12 minutes, in contrast to the divided novelty 17 and 19 years (without comparisons can not do). Does that work for the movie? Rather, the movie is depressing atmosphere, sags between episodes, it becomes boring to watch the characters, although structurally something similar to the premiere. Well, it is expected, after all, this is a film adaptation of King, it is logical that some of the completions in the films are improvised, and most of them are taken from the novel. But if in the new “It” the first part is only children, and the second is adults with memories, in the old film, everything begins with adulthood, where the characters remember what happened to them 27 years ago (the terrible clown Pennywise wakes up every 27 years). And here I am on the side of the film of 19, because the divided part went into hand, the characters are fully revealed, and the parts are dedicated to the characters wider and deeper.
But despite the dullness of the film, in technical terms, the tape is shot well, special effects stand out, but you should not wait for great graphics, rather here the emphasis is on the scenery, but if we give the example of a horror film, then take “Nightmare on Elm Street”, 84 years, then it’s just disgusting, I’m about “It”, but nevertheless for a mini-series (and this is exactly a mini), not bad.
Also, the disadvantages can be attributed to the fact that the characters are poorly spelled out, and then the trouble is not in the timing, but there is no cohesion and communication between friends, the characters are strangers to each other, and the concept of friends hangs in the air. Alas, the huge timekeeping is filled with only slicings, which are fragmentarily connected with flashbacks, and the final is crumpled and empty. It's simple.
As a result, if you want to watch, then watch a new movie, read a book, and if you did both.
5 out of 10
Cinema of a bygone era and one of King's best-sellers. The film has an original idea, King has no other way. The film is called 'It' because it cannot be touched, seen or heard. The clown translates fear and children from the subconscious into reality, everyone has their own fear.
In the film there is a spirit of childhood, which was deprived of computers, mobile phones, and from this was so alive, when we wrote notes instead of texting, read books, not sitting at computers, were friends live, not on social networks.
3-hour film of 1990, incorporated the childhood and adult age of the main characters. In the modern version, the creators decided to split the film into two parts, 5 hours into two films. In general, I got an extraordinary order of viewing, from the newest to the oldest - this definitely has its own highlight. I was lucky to be able to watch the film in high resolution and with multi-voice translation, the perception of the film was much more pleasant. Fans have both new and old versions. The new version performed by Bill Skarsgård turned out to be scarier and more convincing, largely due to the budget that was allocated for the film, yet it is more than the film of 1990. And in general, this comparison is a little incorrect, because the difference is as much as 27 years!
The third part was a little more liked, due to the richness of events and more action, and so all three films are strong and worthy representatives of their genre. Cinema is worth watching if you are tired of computer graphics, if you appreciate the meaning in films.
8 out of 10
Plot. Unhappy children fight (with their fears) with a clown from the sewers.
Even if you kill me, I could never love the book “It” one hundred percent, it seems too dirty. Even it gets a little funny when you read the praises – a genius creation of King, a great story, etc. Nope. It has a lot of water, a lot of unnecessary moments. Subjective.
I was surprised by an old movie from 1990. Of course, I watched it for the first time in the cassette days. I was able to scare you a few times. And the ending was sad. Nice work by Tommy Lee Wallace. A little above average, nothing more. Waiting for something more is a stupid thing to do. Why?
The first was done for TV (just throw out insane criticism, like it was necessary to shoot harder - the channel would stupidly refuse). Automatically forget about the big budget and popular actors (although the actors play very well – not all, but many). The second - director Wallace is known for weak thrash fakes, "It" its maximum. If you don't believe it, go to Wallace's filmography, check out something.
About the outdated graphics, i.e. the technical side of the film. There is such a thing (especially the spider cuts his eyes), quite forgivable, putting his hand on his heart. Child actors evoke sympathy (Jonathan and Seth Green are out of competition). With adults a little worse, all saves (read – eclipses) Tim Curry in the role of Pennywise.
Tim Curry deserves an Oscar, at least an honorary one. He's a master of his craft. Put Pennywise in horror history. The most interesting thing is that Stephen King liked Wallace’s painting. That is, the author accepted Tim Curry and this film adaptation (waving his hand on shortcomings). In those days, cinema was in great demand.
My only major disappointment (no, not the absence of a turtle). King described an ominous atmosphere. He wasn't just a clown in the novel! You know? The whole town was weird. Director Wallace has a very ordinary town. Shame. Something like that. In general – a normal classic adaptation of “It”.
Nostalgia hasn't been canceled. No nostalgia? A new movie is waiting for you (they say it’s cool). I haven't seen it yet. By the way, don’t be too embarrassed if I start criticizing later. What? Is it Jessica Chastain and that nasty kid from Stranger Things? Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
7.5 out of 10
In this review, I will not focus on comparing the book and the film, because we all know that there will be differences, shortcomings, etc. We consider 'It' 1990 as a film unrelated to the book.
You can't say Tommy Lee Wallace did a great job. I believe that the director placed too much emphasis on the exact embodiment of the plot of the book in the film, that is, he sought to precisely - in - precisely convey the contents of the book in the film. It's not bad if you do it right. In the case of this picture, everything was done terribly. Not only is the film more than three hours, which is already difficult for the viewer, because the normal perception of the film ends at a maximum of 2 hours, so the special effects cause tears, and the protracted only one desire: turn off the film.
The film 'It'1990 is a great example of the fact that not always a complete correspondence to the plot of the book is good. Sometimes you need to change something, fix something, because a book and a movie are completely different things and not always techniques that work for books, work for movies. As a result, we have a long, boring picture that does not cause the emotions that it should.
As for the acting, I can say that it did not impress me. Rarely do children play better than adults, but this is the case.
It seems to me that this film is suitable for people obsessed with the art of Stephen King, as people who are not interested in his books will find the film rather boring and uninteresting.
Did I like the film? - No.
Watched the movie before the remake came out in 2017 to sort of compare. His timing is large, but I did not feel any weight when watching, it was quite interesting.
I have not read 'It' so I have no opinion on the adaptation of the script. I don’t know how the story is built in the book, but here because of the flashbacks it seemed to me torn. You look at grown children, you like how a clown mocks them, scares them, there is a sense of inevitability, you follow their thoughts and reactions, and then you go into the past. Where, to be honest, the clown doesn't even try to scare them. On the other hand, it’s great because it looks like a detective story – the characters put together a puzzle of memories and try to understand Darry’s mysterious past.
Both adults and children coped well with the transmission of emotions and feelings of the characters. It only seemed to me that the children (except Bill) could not convey the fear the way adults did. And the clown himself is not scary enough and scarecrows for children puff. Maybe, of course, wanted to emphasize that the appearance is often deceptive and so it is more convenient to attract children, but I liked Penywise more in the remake.
Despite these frequent leaps into the past, I loved the thriller atmosphere that was created (not without the help of a composer whose disturbing notes tickle nerves). The film does not feel like a horror movie, but rather like a detective thriller. In which, by the way, some questions remained unanswered.
I remember a lot of people saying they owed this movie their fear of clowns, but I always loved clowns, and I thought they were fun and harmless, because I went to the circus, not to those kind of movies, which are usually not meant for children. It is also a popular belief that old movies are often better than new ones. Perhaps in some cases this is the case, but so far, attempts to test it in practice are pretty disappointing for a person like me who likes to whine about what ' used to be better ' And this film was no exception. The start was promising. A cool exposition of diverse characters, high-quality use of flashbacks to reveal their past. All this gives a good background, but then you start to look at the frankly wooden acting in some episodes, and the impression is somewhat spoiled. And then the horror begins, and you realize how ungrateful it is to compare what is happening to something in the coming years. Absolutely all scarecrows here look extremely naive, even banal bloody scenes there, as in some ' Something' where it added plausibility and made you still believe in the proposed circumstances.
Here we are talking about a rather strange situation when adults do not react stupidly to the mass loss and death of their kind and children. They're not trying to leave, they're not reporting to the federal level, as if they're living in complete isolation. Even when it's not about a monster, people stupidly ignore outright wrongdoing and immorality. But not children. Okay, well, the movie is about them and their relationship, about psychology, but from the point of view of lore, everything is very tense, and I don't like that. We could have pinned down some sinister cult that took over everything, but no, people just behave inappropriately. Why? Because their minds are affected by the local Something. All right, let's say. It also knows where and when the objects are located when they are near the water. How then did it let things get to where it ended? A rather weak, implausible, and at its peak is a frankly unafraid film for younger teen audiences or adults with heightened nostalgia for sunny childhood. With a good educational message, with scenes that suggest pleasant memories of the past. But everything else does not reach the modern level. I will throw another point for the contribution to the culture of the genre and cinema in general, and so - 5 balls of blood out of 10.
“A book, a book, a book, a film adaptation of a book, but King has a book...” – the stream of endless absurdity of critics, constantly “pushing” the director into the literary basis of the plot, gives a complete description of the incompetence of the first in cinema in general. It is time to understand and accept the fact that the film adaptation of the work is an exclusively personal artistic interpretation of the director. And then he decides whether to deviate from the main topic or not. And it is not tabloid appraisers to decide on the quality of the picture, based on personal “wet” expectations, inspired by a completely different field of art.
Speaking about the work of Lee Wallace, it is worth noting that the story about young children who are faced with problems not commensurate with their age and understanding is kept in a very atmospheric manner, creating an atmosphere of mysticism and veiled drama. However, this does not prevent us from classifying the first, classic realization of “It”, as a horror genre, at a time when the picture carries not so much suspense and an attempt to inspire fear (these details are worked out very “averagely”), but the most that neither is morally instructive component. Here you can tell the younger viewer a little about the real child sacrifice and the concept of friendship, and adults clearly hint that they too were once children (so that they did not enter (at least a little) the path of the main characters who have become older).
Of course, playing on the subtle “threads” of human emotions, you need appropriate “tools”. The main instrument of this film, oddly enough, was the “children” led by Jonathan Brandis. In fact, it was this young company, the narrative of which is given to the first half of the film, and set the tone for the entire tape. Against the background of older comrades, the guys looked much more lively and sincere, which becomes evident closer to the end of the film, when Harry Anderson and Dennis Christopher turn into emotionless “bodies”, completely unnaturally reacting to all the action in the frame, where, in fact, the culmination occurs (this is not to mention the excessively sham special effects, which is still quite forgiven for the 90th year). And everyone praised Tim Curry, certainly a talented actor, did not make the proper impression as a phantom killer who can get his victim anywhere. Rather, it was like a crazy pun with elements of focus. With all this, we have to admit that the clown outfit becomes quite in time, but definitely inferior to the color of the Skarsgård prototype of 2017.
Based on the above, it is safe to say that the movie turned out. A strong introduction and an exciting set-up, combined with good work of young actors (who, in the end, “outweigh” the entire adult cast in the game), balances with a “sluggish” and indistinct ending, which was facilitated by several previously cited thoughts and a couple of terrible scenes with blood and faked tears.
It's worth a look. But be prepared for the fact that the opinion of the majority may not coincide at all with the final version ... and in general, it is deceptive.
7 out of 10
I've never tried to watch this movie. I remember in school, a friend told me the story, and I was already shaking in fear from the retelling, so the viewing was postponed for more adult years. But by adulthood, a remake of the film arrived, which I watched at home, deciding that I would be very scared in the movies. It was probably a mistake to watch the remake first and then the original. Because after what I saw, the original felt like a miserable cheapie with a pontificate plot, with terrible actors, no special effects. I was very disappointed.
So, in order, let’s start with the story. Everything is repeated, of course, because the film is based on a book and a remake, similarly. But these inserts, as friends as adults, have fun in the same restaurant before the battle - what nonsense? And it's so disgusting, so unnatural. It felt like I was not watching a horror movie, but a romantic youth comedy. There are not many overlaps in the plot, as an option - an abandoned corpse in a hotel. He does not fit with the realities on all sides, this is not at all scary. Very infuriating relationship between a girl, fat and handsome. When they meet as adults, this woman kisses a handsome man on the lips, and they stand hugging - what nonsense? Dude has a wife he loves. Why would he kiss some chick he hasn't seen in 30 years? The figure of the father of this girl is not revealed, he is not at all interesting, not terrible. And the ending was very funny, where this woman has already established a relationship with a fat one, and they are like together and they are constantly huddled. You know, it looked like they were following the slogan, "Hugh in any strange situation," so they were hugging.
What else to say... actors, but the Americans did not know how to play then. It's not natural, it's playful. All their actions, instead of fear, caused laughter. Especially that love triangle.
Of course, you can not scold special effects, because at that time there were no such technical capabilities that we have now. But I cannot ignore this question. Everything is terrible, disgusting, it is impossible to watch.
As a result, I do not recommend, do not look, otherwise blood will splash from the eyes. It's not a movie, it's pain. It is better to watch the remake immediately and not even think to touch this masterpiece. The film is not scary, not interesting and boring. Three hours of life wasted.
To be objective, I will try not to compare this adaptation of “It” with King’s book, as well as with the latest film adaptation of 2017. So, objectively watching this film, I can say one word – “Mediocre”, extremely mediocre.
And his main problem is a very fast and confused narrative. In the film very quickly change frames, none of them at the same time do not focus and create the feeling that some trailer watching, not the movie. The first series is particularly affected. First, we are shown a quick murder of a girl, then a quick flashback of Bill Denbrough, a quick murder of his brother, the quick adventures of Ben and the bullies, quick talkers of the guys and a very quick denouement with the villain. Seriously, the whole first series can fit into the theses: Murders - school - talk - home. The second series turned out better, more balanced, but the overall picture is not saved. And such a confused narrative infuriates, since the general story does not add up, there is no tension. The film runs for 3 hours, but this clock flies like half an hour and it is not good.
There are, of course, a couple of good scenes: Ben and Eddie's first conversation about Bill, the guys talking about the clown, the adults talking about their past at the hotel. These scenes due to the fact that they do not “fly” anywhere, and the characters calmly talk, they are good. Even something from King is felt.
The second big problem with the film is that there is no horror or thriller. And that's the biggest puncture. All the action in the film takes place in sunny and bright weather, the narrative generally goes on half-jolly tones. There is no attempt to incite fear. There are no flashing lamps, no banal scrimmers, no sudden turns. Nothing. Even the scene of Georgie's murder is filmed under the sun, and instead of rain, it's so clearly visible that it's a watering room that it's embarrassing. I may be wrong, but horror movies are supposed to be frightening with their atmosphere of fear and disparity. You don’t have to have a big budget for that. Remember the slashers of the 80s Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Friday the 13th or even "The Shining" of 1980. (also according to King), These films frightened primarily with their atmosphere of fear, thriller, frightening music, frozen faces, screamers. And that's what works, that's what scares, not monsters. So in "It" in 1990, there is no, absolutely no atmosphere of fear, everything happens in the sunny day. It feels like the director decided that their Pennywise is so scary that one of them is enough.
Speaking of him. On the one hand, the creators are good at making Pennywise a real clown. I mean, he looks like a harmless and cute clown, and I didn't even believe before I saw the movie that he could be a ruthless killer. But as soon as he speaks, you immediately realize that you are a bloodthirsty killer. I think it’s right, because children are attracted to such a clown. In comparison, Pennywise in the 2017 film loses because it shows that he is a murderer, none of the children will approach him. But on the other hand, no, let's be honest, no matter how hard Tim Curry tried to pull Pennywise, but it's all the fault of this baby makeup. I can't take Ronald McDonald's half-brother seriously as a scary killer clown. He doesn’t do anything bad during the film. I have already said why the murders at his hands do not scare (there is no atmosphere of horror, from the fact that a lot of people are killed in the film Machete, you will not be afraid of this film, because it is filmed on jokes, also in It). So he does not behave like a murderer, he just crooked, like in the library.
Of the advantages of the film, you can also include characters. First of all, adults. There are no questions, everything turned out just like a book. I especially liked Bill Denbrough and Ben Hanscom, they are beautiful. Adult conversations are like a book, so it's good. Children, on the one hand, also turned out to be excellent and convey the images of their characters. But there's another problem. Why Richie and Stan look much older than all the other guys, they look like 9-graders, and the main characters are supposedly 10 years old. And this contrast is so obvious in their height that the director of casting has a couple of questions. And the second problem is Beverly. I have to compare it to a book. Bev seemed to be a “bad” girl: she drank, smoked, copulated, and was red. And here? She's just an example of a pupil of the Institute of Noble Maidens, all so perfect. This is a violation of the canon.
But what made me laugh the most was when it turned out that this film, unlike It in 2017, was considered to be closer to King’s original. So the man who said that didn't read the novel. Because if that's the case, explain why Pennywise scares kids, adults, not like the book. Where's the mummy on ice? The bird? With the murder of a gay friend, Henry Baurs? How do guys figure out Pennywise's story? How does Mike teach the story of Derry and Pennywise? Derry hurricane and flooding? Why does Pennywise win for the first time, not like in the book? In addition, due to the “hurriedness”, much of the film is not clear. We weren't shown how the guys found out Pennywise was hiding in that house? How did Bev know the adults in Derry were under Pennywise's control, seriously, she just said it, where did she come from? About Pennywise, we will never know who he is, where he came from, what he wants, what his phrase “We will fly all below” means.
Conclusion: I can’t call it “It” in 1990 bad, there are still good elements like I said: characters and a couple of good scenes. But otherwise, it's a pretty mediocre adaptation that King's epochal novel doesn't deserve. There is absolutely no horror in the film, no matter what anyone says about growing up, childhood love and other subtexts in the book, but we love the novel It primarily for the fact that it is a beautiful horror thriller. And the film adaptation of the most important and did not. And without it, there's only the growling Pennyvay, who I don't understand, who can really scare? Was someone scared by the shower scene or the dog's head? So it surprises me that this film has such a high rating on Kinopoisk and someone writes that even today this film is frightening. And to the book of King, this film has such a relation as the last film adaptation.
4 out of 10
P.S. Fortunately, a worthy adaptation of “It” we still received.
Stephen King can without a shadow of a doubt be called the best author of horror literature of the second half of the twentieth century. In the United States, his works are very popular, and almost everyone has a film adaptation. "It" is a voluminous novel with many storylines. Transmit absolutely everything was unrealistic, so in the film adaptation of 1990 had to be limited to the most basic.
Who, if not the Americans, owes its appearance to coulrophobia - the fear of clowns? Monstrous people (and not only, I must say) in light masks and bright wigs in horror films often grind their teeth, like the legendary chupacabra, and kill those who were initially pleased and amused with their curvature. This amazing combination of laughter and cruelty has inspired many directors to shoot black comedies, which is partly “It”. Clown Pennywise in this two-part film is the most successful competitor of Freddy Krueger in terms of jokes sent to victims. No murder is complete without a caustic mockery and... it's really funny. Here's a perfect example of how laughter, even if it's caused by black humor, really prolongs life. Unless, of course, you're in the movie itself.
However, this film, as the title of my review suggests, is not primarily valuable for humor. “It”, directed by Tommy Lee Wallace, is a real standard of American horror films. Despite the fact that this film was made in 1990, when viewers were not yet familiar with "Astral", "Paranormal phenomenon" and "Sinister", it is even frightening nowadays. The most important thing is that there is not a single screamer, that is, a sharp moment that makes you flinch unpleasantly. It's not cheap intimidation, but it's still scary. The nightmare is caused by the successful music of Richard Bellis and, of course, Pennywise himself. Pale face with sharp teeth inspires a real primitive horror, because it combines two images that cause us trembling - death and the mouth of a hungry predator.
The culmination of the excellent work on the film is a successful and downright talented acting. Richard Meyser, Annette O'Toole, Dennis Christopher and especially Tim Curry live in their images, perfectly revealed on the screen. The fear, sadness and hatred in their image are genuine, and Tim Curry was so terrible that he frightened himself on the set. Comparing “It” with the horrors of the zeros and 2010s, you immediately understand what is a masterpiece and what is a cheap fake.
Both episodes of this film turned out to be alive, forcing me to penetrate and sincerely thank the director for a good three hours. Such a successful film, even without new remakes and interpretations, will live forever in the memory of the audience.
Stephen King's "It" story has always seemed really scary to me. When I read the book, it was a dark spot in my memory. This thick story seemed really interesting, and most importantly creepy. I have been waiting since childhood for a new film adaptation of this story, and this year with great curiosity I went to it, and a new film. I liked it in 2017, and now we are waiting for the continuation of the second part.
The film adaptation of the novel “It” in 1990 always seemed to me a kind of attempt. I liked something about this movie, and something didn’t. I always wanted to reboot this story, a different perspective from the director. And recently, the world could see the old story in a new treatment, which was very cool.
Stupidity always helps when you get into strange situations. (c) Richard Tozier.
Tommy Lee Wallace is a loser director. He made second-rate horror movies, and I didn't like any of them. His only less successful project is the mini-series “It” and then, the familiar story of King, he controversially shot. The image of the clown was creepy, and that’s what it was all about, but the film as a whole is dubious, and something was always missing. This I understood as a child, this I feel now, watching this TV movie.
We see the story of a group of children facing pure evil. It feeds on the fears of children and has been around for a very, very long time. In the image of a clown, this creature brings fear to young heroes, but they are not stitched together, and the young people fight him back both in childhood and many years later. Heroes all together become a weapon against a terrible something and can not allow this mystical evil to exist further.
He didn’t know what loneliness was because he never had friends. If he had a friend and then disappeared, he would probably understand what loneliness is, and so it was the very essence of his life.
King is a master of horror, and his story is truly terrifying. I have always liked his book more than this movie. Tick Curry played a clown well, but how cool a clown played in 2017, Bill Skarsgård – it was really creepy.
“The only mortal sin is to surrender.” "
The choice of actors in this old film adaptation was not very successful. Young at that time Emily Perkins (the star of one of the most terrible horror films that I saw “The Werewolf”) approached the female role in childhood not bad, but there were a couple of moments where she outplayed and I can’t help but say about it. This applies to all the young actors in this film. They were all over it a little. And Seth Greene, and Jonathan Brandis including.
The composition of the heroes already adults was not inspiring either. Richard Thomas and John Ritter came up for their roles, and these actors played well, but here is the female role in the face.
Annette O'Toole was extremely unfortunate. I should have picked another actress. Most of all killed just by his playfulness Olivia Hussey in a secondary role. She overplayed terribly and the scenes with her looked very fake.
For many years, there was nothing to compare this film with, and because of the love of King’s novel, we watched this film and swallowed what we saw, but now we can use the method of comparison and see a new, very successful adaptation. This movie is not even close to it.
Of course, it is atmospheric and long, the whole book is laid out on shelves, but the feeling of dissatisfaction was always present when watching, I wanted more from what I saw.
It is a 1990 television horror film. There is something good in this picture, something is not at all, and in general I always treated this film adaptation neutrally between “yes” and “no”. Once out of curiosity, fans of King can watch this film, but I always want something more from this picture, as if something very important film missed. Thank you very much.
And the balloon? I have red and green and yellow and blue.
- Are they flying?
- They fly, Georgie, they roar, they fly, and when you come down here with me, you too will.
To begin with, I watched the TV series after the sensational adaptation of 2017. And here is my advice to you: if you want to assess the picture of the late 20th century fairly and soberly, do not repeat my mistakes, look at it first, and then move on to a new film.
One of the advantages is:
1) A very strong desire to reduce the discrepancy between the original and the series.
2) Beautiful children's faces.
That's all it is.
By the first point I mean a fairly accurate adherence to the canons (from which the admirers of the Great King of Horrors will, of course, be delighted), that is, much of what was in the book, in the film is also: and a bloody photo of George, and clearly marked school life of the heroes, and repeated hints to explain the essence of It. There are even some lines that are saved. Well, the second point - children - with them everything is clear, the guys played really well (given that the film was released as early as 1990), for me even better adults.
Cons:
1) Tightness and haste (right from the beginning of the film, towards the end, it all takes on an unprecedented scale). What is strange: after all, this is a TV series, we could increase the timekeeping for one or two episodes. A lot of the storylines are just like that somewhere in the middle and cut off. Scenes, started quite decently, do not get space (and perhaps time) for development and end somehow.
2) The clown image. In itself, it is an alien being, and therefore must have the appropriate parameters. At least that was King’s idea, which means that if the series tries to copy almost exactly all the scenes and even some of the lines that were in the book, this idea should be preserved by him. It turned out the effect of contemplating John Gacy on the screen: for me, It looks more like a maniac dressed up as a clown, strange and allegedly humorous, than a “devil reading our thoughts.” Well, yes, this maniac knew how to disappear to nowhere and in case of what instantly grew tiger teeth. But that’s not all that should be in the image of a powerful evil, and, to sum up, I never for a second felt that I was looking at Tim Curry, only at the actor, but not at the clown Pennywise.
3) And the special effects. In this regard, the series passed very much. The scenery looked like scenery, dolls - dolls, and this significantly spoiled the picture. If at first you still somehow put up with the simplification of the image of the main antagonist, then by the end, repeated "simplifications" begin to get bored. It turns out a kind of “room of fear”, like an attraction in the park: it seems that everything is observed, and there are monsters, and the music plays, and outwardly everything is almost real, and there is no horror effect. And it can not be (well, for those who even modern horror is not particularly frightening, what to say about the horror story of the early 90s).
Is it worth watching “It” of the last century? Depends on who. I do not advise fans to tickle their nerves - they will be disappointed. Fans of good old movies (including horrors) will definitely be satisfied, because the picture has all the features characteristic of their favorite genre: shooting, costumes, and locations - everything reminds of what time period this creation belongs to. Also, if you want to compare old and new film adaptations, I repeat: look in the order in which they were released, so you can judge more objectively. It is better to read the book first.
The television version of the legendary thriller Stephen King “It” was released in 1990 and gathered several tens of millions of viewers from all over America. The producers have long wanted to bring the events that took place in the town of Derry to the screens and King agreed. But only taking into account the fact that he personally will adjust the script, because without him with his favorite work could happen anything. It is worth admitting that such a fascination of the author with his works is commendable, because many writers openly do not care about their own heritage.
The film adaptation "It" is divided into two and a half hour parts. In the first, we meet very young members of the Losers Club, who gradually get together and become friends. In addition to being laughed at by their peers, they share a shared passion and the courage to challenge the terrible Pennywise, a nightmarish resident of the local sewer. Killing children and adults, the clown does not even think to stop, but he will be given a worthy rebuff.
The second part of “It” takes place 27 years after the last meeting of the Losers Club. The boys have grown up, but they will have to fulfill an old oath. Pennywise is not easily defeated because he is the focus of universal evil. He's back again and demanding sacrifices.
Of course, the film adaptation of 1990 now looks comical and completely unable to scare, but it does not take away nostalgic charm. It's an interesting and soulful film. I also enjoyed the casting. Young and adult characters are similar to each other and no unnecessary questions arise.
The result: a worthy adaptation of the cult novel. Stephen King should be pleased. But if you haven't seen "It" before, don't give it too strict an estimate. Every film has its time.
Once again, I am going to review a movie based on the novel by Stephen King. It."" But this time, the desire to see him arose after watching a new adaptation of this story.
The creation of director Tommy Lee Wallace can not boast of the entertainment that offers a freshly shot picture, but it has the spirit of childhood, that was deprived of computers, mobile phones and tablets, and that was so alive, so colorful when we wrote notes instead of SMS, read books, not sitting at computer games, were friends in reality, not in social networks.
I would also like to note that despite the fictional plot and characters, this movie is very lifelike. It demonstrates to the viewer the consequences of childhood naivety and credulity, shows that cruelty and evil are often disguised under the most cheerful and kind smiles.
The film is distinguished by the brilliant play of the entire cast, but in particular it is worth highlighting Tim Curry, who played the role of Pennywise - the most charismatic and charming monster of the past era.
This movie is worth watching if all the computer graphics and fake blood, you appreciate the meaning in the films, as well as nostalgia for the cinema of the past era.
The dancing clown Pennywise? Nope! Pulling clown Pennywise. This could be one of the slogans of the film. Why not? Because apart from the clown scarecrows and childhood friendships, there is nothing to admire in this film. Of course, for many children and teenagers of the 90s, this film was a real nightmare, a bomb! This movie made more than one Russian or American child coulophobic, instilling chilling horror before going to the circus and clowns! But... This is a component of children and children's worldview when watching. What's left for an adult? Does an adult see the horror of sitting in front of a movie, immersed in it? My answer is categorically No! But for the adult population, this film certainly has advantages. Namely friendship. A true childish, selfless, sincere and adventure-rich friendship. The camaraderie. When watching the first part of this film, you are involuntarily transported to childhood, remembering yourself small and climbing with friends where my mother told me not to stick and keep your nose away. Very nice and warm looked the children's relationship, the willingness to help each other in their fight with Pennywise. There's also a psychological component to this movie, yes. Fear has power and dominion over us when we truly fear something. The clown personified the children's fears. But what happened when they weren't afraid? He was losing all control over them.
I would like to say a few words about the second part. I didn't like her. There were grown-ups who had become boring and bland adults. Living by the standard, without childish imagination and despair. And one point (I won’t spoil it for anyone who’s read it or has seen it) concluded that children are much stronger psychologically and are much better able to withstand their fears and nightmares. American kids made adults! Easy and irrevocable!
“It” was included in the list of those films that are planned to watch, but the viewing was constantly postponed indefinitely. The release of this year’s remake still made me look at the original picture before watching a new reading. It’s strange, because I love the genre of mysticism and horror, but for some reason I never bothered to see it before. To be honest, the feeling is very strange... Let's sort it out.
First, I will immediately say that I have not read the book and perceive the picture as an independent work. Maybe this fact influenced the emergence of many questions during the viewing. Secondly, it is really difficult to say unequivocally how I feel about this film. Maybe I’ll watch it as a child of years, so 15 years ago would have been cool and terrifying ... but now somehow not the same.
Let's start with the pros. The film is definitely atmospheric, it cannot be taken away from him. Well, the main reason for watching the film is the sinister Pennywise performed by the magnificent Tim Curry. It's really cool, but is it scary?
And that's where the trouble begins. I've found myself thinking a few times that I don't have 100% concern for the main characters, especially their adult versions. The children in this film looked much more convincing, no matter what. If they were at least somehow interesting to watch (albeit not without minuses), then adult characters leveled this effect. Most of them are like cardboards, to which there is no sympathy or empathy. And as a result, we come to the fact that Pennywise outshines everyone at all, and without much difficulty. That is, adults completely lost to children and Curry.
The sinister clown himself is also not without flaws. As cool as Curry was, he couldn't scare me. I enjoyed the charisma, but nothing more. I will immediately say that it was not his fault, what was required of him, he did above all praise, but the embodiment of evil was very caricatured, not terrible and too human. But the fact that this character became "cult" thanks to Curry, there is no doubt for which I thank him!
Timekeeping. When the film runs for 3 hours, you expect everything to be revealed as much as possible, that the whole message will reach you without unnecessary brain attempts. Maybe the problem is that I haven’t read the book and I would have understood many things, but in fact, for me, a lot of hooks have gone unanswered. During the viewing, I noticed that all the children have problems in the family, all those who left were successful (which Michael emphasized during the meeting), the city itself with its residents is also some strange and too sullen, all the characters have a memory like a blown away after leaving... There are plenty of questions.
The only thing I can do to justify the creators is that It (1990) is a TV miniseries. Apparently, this limited a lot, including the display of a larger visual tin. But without that, I don't have much reason to be afraid of this clown, other than that he doesn't look very friendly and in absentia I've been told he's killing children.
In general, I am very much looking forward to going to the cinema for the film of 2017, hoping that it will please me much more.
As the result, I can not say that It (1990) I did not like, but for me personally the disadvantages are more than pluses, to my great regret. From which I conclude that here we are not so much talking about "cult cinema", as about "cult character"
Stephen King is one of the most talented writers in the genre of horror, mysticism and drama, a decent number of excellent films have been shot on his works. But there are also disadvantages of King’s work – his own clichés (almost in every book the action takes place in Maine, always the same images: religious fanatics, cattle, gopniks, alcoholic writers, telepathic children, etc.). And scarecrows are not always scary, King knows how to escalate and he does it perfectly, but there is a feeling that he has a principle: to do obviously intrepid things, everything is also obviously intrepid (Balls of air as in "It", corn in the story "Children of corn", Clubs for croquet in " Shining"). But still his novels, novels and stories I like, including the mentioned novel "It", which made a pretty good film.
Only I was always surprised that many people say that they are afraid of this film and began to fear clowns after watching it, although it is not scary at all.
We can admit, Tim Curry just annealed in this film, the clown Pennywise in his performance turned out to be memorable, but not terrible. Yes, he should look like a regular clown to bait children, but when necessary, he is not frightening, even when shown with sharp teeth, he looks funny and caricatured. Still, in the 2017 remake, the clown is more fearful than this one.
What about the other actors? Children played surprisingly well, but adults did not play well, when they are frightened, then with emptiness in their eyes. The special effects of the film are bad, especially the monster at the end, well, it's excusable in principle, since the film is for TV. I’m not one of those who scold movies that are slightly different from the book, but still a few creepy moments from the book’s original source could be added to the film.
Of the advantages, you can distinguish a good acting game Tim Curry and children. Soul and light, yet the film was able to transfer the atmosphere of the book.
It’s one of Stephen King’s best movies, but it could have been better. A bunch of silly moments, not a lot of scary scenes and King's clichés, yet it was wrong to film one of King's tough books in TV format. But it 1990 year lookalike, it can even be revised, although the test of time has not passed. But I like the movie, there's something nostalgic about it.
Pennywise syndrome: what else, except for the cunning clown, can boast the first adaptation of the cult novel by Stephen King
One day, one of the most popular writers of our time published a multi-page novel about several children of the provincial town of Derry, who had to face an ancient horror, multifaceted and multifaceted, capable of both killing and releasing the most secret human fears. The novel’s narrative was based on two times – when the characters were just going to school and when they had to return to Derry, Maine, many years later, to destroy the reborn from the ashes and blood of Ono. The book is considered one of the pillars of Stephen King’s work – and for good reason. Of course, not everyone will master this voluminous “brick”, but it is worth it. King’s skill, his ability to keep intrigue, combine the most terrible with the most beautiful, penetrate the psychology of the characters, frighten and quarrel, make you worry and not leave you indifferent – all this makes “It” a hit not only of its time, but all subsequent times.
In 1990, Tommy Lee Wallace took the liberty of adapting the novel into a three-hour film. This is what happened.
The first hour
Despite the slightly naive acting of the actors and the too obvious construction of the scenes, especially greasy shortcomings are not yet visible - and unlikely to be. I do not notice anything offensive in some changes: although adult Bill Denbrough is not bald at all, and Richie Tozier is much more red than Beverly Marsh, and much, much more, the director does not deceive us in one thing: he very diligently and scrupulously squeezes out of the book all the scenes necessary for a full perception of the film. It even does it roughly as King originally described it—that is, it alternates between two times. At the same time, some episodes and stylistic techniques remain almost completely unchanged from the original source (as we can see, for example, when a photo album falls in George Denbrough's room, or when Ben Hanskom first enters the Wasteland, fleeing from bullies, or when Beverly hears It in the bathroom), while others (mainly concerning the appearance of the Pennywise clown) are played quite differently, but also quite well. I also surprisingly liked the music, then, by the way, used when voicing the Russian version of the audiobook in 2014.
The second hour
The “children” part of the film exhausts itself after exactly half of the session, the “adult” comes immediately after its denouement. Of course, the struggle with Pennywise and its other manifestations here acquires a slightly different interpretation, but it seemed to me that the spirit of the book is not lost: the friendship of “losers” is believed without difficulty, the incarnations of It make you pretty nervous (especially interestingly it manifests itself in the sewers, when you do not see the evil itself, but you understand that evil is ready to attack), and the arrival in the city many years later of mature characters does not seem boring. Of course, the best depiction is a visit to Beverly’s former home: there is almost no departure from the original. The second hour of the session ends at a long-awaited meeting of longtime friends and is the starting point for a last-ditch attempt to destroy Derry's main threat.
Third hour
Well, once again, I want to praise Tommy Lee Wallace for not departing from the original, especially in the final scenes. Also taken into use are very important accents used in the original source: for example, the fact that adults did not want to notice what was happening to children, and therefore, if you follow the logic, they themselves took the side of evil, which means that the town of Derry and its inhabitants – and is the evil itself. At the same time, Pennywise and the secondary heroes, who will either get into trouble or carry evil intent with them, have not disappeared, but all this is opposed by the determination of the newly reborn team of “losers” (which almost faltered) to fight Ono – this time for good, to save Derry from the curse. In the end, as I wrote above, the finale is almost no different from the book version, and it’s a joy.
Result
The undisputed classic of the Stephen King Cinema. The film, which not only changed the image of the clown in the minds of the mass audience, making it an ominous caricature, but also paid tribute to the novel, taking from it exactly what was most suitable for a three-hour television version.
Despite the imperfect acting and peremptory assertion (very true in this case) that the book is better, deeper, and stronger in all respects, “It” wins due to a very good plot similarity with the original, impressive special effects, excellent Tim Curry and music, which, no matter how annoying, was too little, so it wonderfully fits into the atmosphere of the story.
I will not say that my assessment is very high, I did not want to make implausible stretches, but still it gives a certain guarantee of quality.
7 out of 10
“The Master of Horror Reveals Everything You Ever Feared”
As the story goes, Stephen King once lived with his family in the town of Boulder, Colorado, far from the noisy highways and skyscrapers with hundreds of vocal neighbors. One evening, picking up a broken car from repairs, the writer passed by a small bridge and decided to make an optional stop to enjoy the beauty of the picturesque surroundings. Watching the water flow, the King of Horrors recalled ancient Scandinavian legends describing formidable trolls luring people into their endless dungeons, stretched under impassable, virgin forests and incomprehensible rocky mountains. Standing on the bridge, King did not notice the passage of time, sketching in his restless imagination a future story from which something worthwhile could emerge. And just this iconic moment, which seems like eternity, became the starting point for the creation of one of the most famous novels of the writer, called “It”. King himself could not begin writing this second, as he had his obligations to publishers, and yet his imagination returned again and again to Boulder, spurring the author to develop intriguing thoughts into one of the most intriguing mystical novels in history.
Having finally settled all the affairs that bind him hand and foot with endless lines from the contract, King nevertheless returned to the ancient legends that flashed into the memory on the bridge, in order to come up with an extraordinary story on their basis, a kind of graduation exam in the field of monsterology, which he had so long postponed. Like any horror writer, King simply had no right to ignore such classic works as Bram Stoker’s Dracula and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In all the works of the King of horror can be seen slight hints and borrowings from the incorruptible novels of the past, and now he has a great opportunity to sculpt his own monster, worthy of the highest places in popular culture. Drawing on the causal relationships of “It”, prescribing the characters and locations inspired by Boulder, King was obliged to emphasize the image of the demonic clown Pennywise, personifying evil in its pure, pristine form. Picking up hundreds of volumes of tales, legends and legends from libraries, the writer absorbed into Pennywise everything that frightened him and others for hundreds of years. Due to such a painstaking approach to the work of "It" was born slowly, it took King years to complete the story, but the long wait was worth the finished result. The novel became a classic of the genre, gained the status of a cult and was doomed to the film adaptation that appeared on television screens in 1990.
The plot of the film, divided into a couple of parts in order to accommodate the maximum number of ideas of Stephen King on film without losing quality, takes place in the fictional provincial town of Derry, Maine. While examining the documents in a vast library, her devoted caretaker Mike Hanlon (Tim Reid) tries to find connections between the mysterious events taking place in the vicinity at the moment and what frightened the people of Derry in the distant past. After finding a lot of evidence of the disappearance of children over a variety of time periods, Michael finds common links, from which it becomes clear that someone sinister has returned to the town and will not rest until he fulfills some devilish plan that requires an abundance of innocent victims. Escaping into the memories of a distant childhood, Mike begins to open the veil over what he tried so diligently to forget, but he can not do without the help of his comrades. Connected with all the surviving members of the former Losers Club, the librarian gradually puts all the details of the puzzle into place and recalls Pennywise (Tim Curry), a nightmarish clown who likes to hide in the sewers. Once you see him, you will never forget. I had been able to get rid of him before, but he came back. And now it must be destroyed once and for all, otherwise, after 27 years in obscurity, he will return and then the children of Derry will not be good.
As is known from a number of questionable adaptations of Stephen King, his work for some reason resists a decent transfer to film. Almost all major studio projects based on the novels and novels of the King of Horrors are failures, both creatively and commercially, but King’s ideas, despite everything, have an attractive magnetism that cannot be resisted. Nevertheless, the work on transferring “It” to film bypassed the ambitions of a full-fledged theatrical rental, which does not mean a decrease in the quality of production. When knowledgeable people are hired, the risks of quality decline become less acute. The producers who agreed with King on the rights to “It” were not afraid to allocate the necessary funds for the film adaptation, along the way inviting director Tommy Lee Wallace, far from the most mediocre director, who had previously noted the third “Halloween” and the sequel to “Fear Nights”. Stephen King himself expressed a desire to correct the creative process, helping Wallace to understand the main idea of the story, and although "It" looks a little comical due to the television features of the early 90s, the presented film adaptation still has charm and a good message that came straight from the novel.
Developing the concept of “It”, Stephen King placed several critically important accents at once. One of them was Pennywise, the aggregate image of monsters and monsters from the mythology of various peoples, and the other was the same Losers Club, which gathered in its bosom the outcasts of society. The choice of the latter for leading roles in the sinister story was not accidental. King wanted to show us that only in unity can people achieve what they want, and it doesn’t matter who has a steel bicep and a snow-white smile. Even outright losers, such as Mike co-fellows, are capable of incredible surprises. Tommy Lee Wallace was tasked with finding worthy performers capable of conveying the character traits and spirit of each member of the Losers Club, both in adulthood and youth. And although special casting thoroughness was not a priority for the television production, Wallis coped with the task to the fullest. Yes, his film years later does not look as serious as before, but a strong source, a terrible atmosphere and brilliant acting parts do not allow “It” to dissolve in the genre without a trace.
Their role in the formation of the tape also played excellently selected shooting locations. The quiet town, clearly written off from the well-known Boulder, turned out to be no less sinister in the frame than the dark forest of Transylvania by Bram Stoker. Neat houses with equipped backyards do not cause any sense of security. There seems to be something lurking behind every turn, and you can’t be sure that evil won’t emerge from, say, your own pantry in the middle of the day. Pennywise doesn't care if you're asleep or not. If he wants to scare you, he will certainly succeed. But what can be more nightmarish than a ghostly town living in constant tension, is the dungeons where the hellish clown acts as the undivided ruler. Prepare for a mystical horror that will not let you go. King and Wallace know their business.
Clowns are very funny and cute, they amuse children! (Parallel killing the helpless)
"It." Stephen King. Undoubtedly a legendary novel that made many afraid to approach the circus. But it's not a bad idea. Clowns are the perfect material for horror movies, isn't clownphobia just there? It’s also good stuff for a horror movie. One has only to throw aside laziness and do not regret the money for makeup and, voila, nightmares are provided to millions! Tommy Lee Wallace clearly wasn't planning on being lazy.
The most important element of the circus is the clowns. Every time they bring a big smile to the children’s faces! (Remembering the parents who will take them soon)
It was decided to make the adaptation of "It" 90s mini-series for TV. So we got one piece divided into two parts for an hour and a half. And, strangely enough, you can not call both parts equally good. Let’s start with the first series: here the story of children who were “lucky” to meet “this” is put at the forefront. Surprisingly, this story looks the most interesting. Two factors play a role here: child actors play very well (in fact, often even better than adults) and their characters are revealed to the maximum, so that we learn about almost everyone enough. Their attempts to confront the clown-killer look extremely fascinating, and it is also interesting to observe their relationship.
The red nose of clowns only makes them cute! (Until people know their nose is stained with blood)
And here’s the paradox: Adults actually do their jobs so well. Often they either overplay or underplay, so it’s good that there aren’t many of them in the first episode. And the kids, again, are good. But everyone is familiar with the cherry on the cake - the well-known "It". Did Tim Curry manage? More than that. It is fair to say that today he is not particularly frightening, because of him you will not be afraid to go to the toilet at night. However, when it appears on the screen, it becomes extremely unpleasant, creates a creepy atmosphere. When he shows his teeth, he wants to turn away.
Clowns are very creative and inventive! (When it comes to torture)
In general, the first part, although it has its disadvantages, but it is still a cranky story with pleasant, small main characters and a creepy clown. By the way, there are also unpleasant, bloody scenes without the presence of the Curry character. However, the second part came out a little weaker. For starters, adults are now at the forefront (these are adult characters from the previous series). And, as in the first episode, their play is not a masterpiece. In some places, she's just not believable. There is also one problem with the clown: here the creators seem to have expelled all the mystery from him and in moments when he appears as a guide in the shape of the moon or where he abuses the number of balls and his dances, he no longer seems so unpleasant. But, there are creepy scenes here, and the finale was interesting in its own way.
We always call a clown for a baby’s birthday! (To punish him)
There is another problem with the second part: sometimes it feels as if the creators had enough events for the next hour and a half and so they score time with a lot of conversations, sometimes simply unnecessary. Seriously, about 60 percent of the second episode is of characters moving their mouths. The first episode was much stronger in terms of action. But don’t think the second part is bad. Again, there are still creepy scenes, there is an interesting ending, and the charisma of Tim Curry has not gone away.
Love clowns! Your horror stories are lying to you. Jokers, Pennywise... All lies! (Clowns don’t want to be told the truth.)
What's the result? Tommy Lee Wallace's work definitely needs to be appreciated. At least for the beautiful Tim Curry. And in any case, the first series is a great thriller about brave schoolchildren and a creepy clown. Very interesting was the first half. And although adult actors make you want the best, but the second part is a good “frightener”. In general, we get an uneven, not perfect, but fascinating and atmospheric work, after which there is a desire to get acquainted with the book. Have a good time! And remember, the clowns are among us.
7.5 out of 10
I am already looking forward to the restart, which we will finally see tomorrow - the first reviews say that we are waiting for a good day.
I was afraid of werewolves, vampires and snakes, but not clowns.
I decided to read this piece “It”. And I'll be honest after the werewolf cycle. This is the second piece by King that scared me. Neither the rage nor the able student made such an impression on me. There was, of course, the Mist and the Pet Cemetery. They made me imitate properly. But it is not for nothing that King is called the master of horror. The novel and the film are valuable because in the first place is not a monster, but a very lively, truthful plot. Children from Derry, their friendship, dreams and desires, fears, fates rallied around themselves strange events in the city with the appearance of the strange clown Pennywise. Which, unlike King's other villainous heroes, does not stand out. However, in fact it is the devil in human form (not a clown, not a man). The whole city or not, even the whole planet, is a kind of id. It is an ancient entity that feeds the fears and experiences of children and adults.
I liked the actors kids. They well conveyed the problems of growing up and childhood fears with their play. Of course, it is impossible to film the whole book, but Bill’s hero is the young King and his friends. First love, sex and enemies in the form of evil people. The book is stronger than the movie.
What I didn’t like was cutting down a lot of the details. It is the time when the characters begin to slowly understand that the mysterious clown is not a person, but a creature from a parallel world.
Well played by Henry Bowers and his friends. Typical school bully sadistic, wearing leather jackets chasing losers. That strangely Pennywise didn't kill him. You see a soul mate.
Despite childhood difficulties. Heroes defeat Pennywise. Pennywise has a weak spot - he thinks he's invincible and that no one can beat him. His weakness is the complete disbelief in him and the use against him of objects in which the power of the human soul is invested.
The second part of the story, as difficult as it is to guess about adult children. When they're 40. Why children, because they believe in a terrible clown? Although the clown really came back renewed strong. Now, it can kill adults and feed on their energy. Moreover, he manages to kill some of the heroes. And finally, he begins to take the form of ordinary people and manipulate both bandits and relatives of our heroes.
The film is about our fears and our attempts to overcome them. The darkness in the hearts and souls of men.
The news that in September 2017 will be a remake of the film “It”, which has become a classic of the genre, and saddened and pleased at the same time. Of course, it is always interesting to see a different vision of the book, a new work of the director and writers. But, on the other hand, we live by the stereotype that old films cannot be remade qualitatively. And it is this fact that prompted me to reconsider “It” once again, so I write a review on fresh impressions (albeit not after the first viewing).
Residents of the small American town of Derry witness terrible crimes: kill children, or they just disappear. So little George died in Bill's family. He and his friends suspect that behind these murders is a terrible creature that came from the underworld. Guys call this force "It" because it has no specific shape and feeds on young children. It appears in the form of a clown. But will the youths be able to fight with this chilling force?
And now about the movie in detail. Making a discount on special effects (which in fact in the early 90s was not yet), I can say with confidence that the picture turned out great. The atmosphere of a small town with its residents, their problems, joys and sorrows is perfectly conveyed. Stunning colors, forest landscapes, tiny houses perfectly reflect the America of its time. And the clown is the brightest spot in all of this. Scared, toothy and with red eyes with rage.
It's hard to say who played better: the child actors or their adult companions. Eddie, Stanley, Richie, Beverly, Mike, Ben and Bill are examples of perfect friends supporting each other, going through problems together, finding their way out together. Each of the children faced typical problems for adolescents: domestic violence, the loss of a loved one, excessive care of their mother, bullying at school. It's perfectly explained in the film. As adults, the friendship of the children was not lost, but only strengthened. I'd like to stop at Pennywise. His clown isn't just creepy, he's creepy. It seems like an ordinary clown. But the image is so cut into the memory and stands before the eyes that will not leave anyone indifferent. Facilitation, a malicious grin and full of rage red eyes - all this makes the image of Pennywise unique and memorable. Well, Tim Curry coped with the role, of course, by 5 plus.
For me, It is not just one of the exemplary horror films, it is a film about friendship, love and human devotion. I highly recommend it!
Is everything normal with our city? Nope. How can a statue of Paul Bunyan be normal?
Hellish cheerleader
Most likely, Stephen King does not always manage to make neologism in the genre of horrors, but the lion’s share of his narratives is based mainly not on horrors and mysticism, which of course also have a place to be, but on the author’s amazing psychological knowledge, coupled with interesting ideas and competent syllable. The “maestro” of horror stories manages to immerse its reader in a new world – a world distinct from everyday reality. One such story, not devoid of truisms, but at the same time possessing fascinating magic, was a story about a sinister werewolf clown who personified an ancient evil eager to kill. Every time this demon was killed, it was bloodthirsty. The hatred and thirst for the blood of this monster threatened to turn into a terrible pestilence for innocent people. Thought... Whether to decide who is innocent and who is guilty of something, to kill, kill, drive people mad, to condemn a person to death is the main task of this hellish “fun man”.
Portals to other worlds
The film “It”, turned out to be peculiar, sometimes even mocking, yes, mocking, as if mocking her literary source, but given all the flaws, the picture was a gift for a certain circle of people who wanted to visually feel the power of their favorite book. However, if something is good for books, it is not always good for cinema. When the writer of the tape turns a blind eye to key details, when censorship prohibits powerful and important episodes for the narrative, citing their exceptional cruelty. Cruelty, which can put pressure on the psyche, but the film version of “It” is a gift, what no, but a gift for a certain circle of people who want to visually feel the story of seven guys who drove out evil by the power of friendship and cohesion, love for loved ones. Isn't that what matters? Friendship and love. You can even consider the film a promotional move for the book, because the on-screen narrative had the potential to sow curiosity in the audience, a strong curiosity, well, after curiosity will scratch the soul stronger, the audience will go and buy the book from the dusty counter, blow on the cover and open the first page. This is how portals to new worlds are opened, through books, knowledge and curiosity, absolutely normal human qualities.
Everything is always
Everything, as always, tells about the value of friendship, allows you to admire the courage of a certain circle of people who did not save even before a foreign evil. History allows us to judge or pity characters like Henry Bowers, and to unleash our consciousness and feelings. This is a story from Stephen King, embodied on the screen. Maybe not so virtuoso, this story is embodied as a literary original, but the quarrels on this topic are better left to the knowledgeable.
Statue of Paul Bunyan
Humanity. Thanks to humanity, whether we read a book or watch a movie, we awaken feelings of empathy, feelings of fear, since we are talking about the books of the beloved S. K. (Stephen King), tension, tenderness, jealousy, rage. All these feelings are embedded in us since ancient times, and books and films are catalysts, some of the catalysts are stronger, some are much weaker. Thus, the influence of the book on our hearts and minds can be so strong that you can close your eyes to weak special effects, forgive the writers of the plot gaps, and immerse yourself in the main narrative of the tape and relive what the characters experienced, even if everything in the picture is tortured. Beverly Marsh, Bill Danbrough, Richie Tozier - he is a "balabol", Ben Hanskom, who is overly in love with a person who lived with her difficult, for an eleven-year-old girl problems, Stanley Uris, as well as Mike Hanlon and a slightly naive asthmatic Eddie, familiar faces, familiar fates, and for this film, we forgive you. Farewell and transported to the city where the statue of Paul Bunyan towers above passers-by, as if mocking the residents of the town of Maine, residents and heroes who are a mirror image of many of us.
The review is dedicated to my good friend Tatiana.
Well, here comes the end of my short evening alone with this film.
To be honest, I started watching only because of the moment in the sewer (you don’t judge me), but the authors of the adapted script decided not to please me. There was also a huge interest in the cinematic interpretation of events, before the first interlude (Bar Falcon, etc.), as well as the puppet theme, but even without raising these themes, the film has an impressive timekeeping. And they are not in general in the family horror.
With the removal of the historical part, the atmosphere of the town partially disappeared, as a kind of likeness of Lovecraft Insmouth. It was especially unfortunate to lose a scene that echoes the aboriginal entourage.
In addition, the main protagonist was seated on the bench, and Mike found the position of Mother Abagail from the Confrontation. Surprisingly, when I finally saw Pennywise on screen, I suddenly got rid of my years of coulphobia. Too charming villain, about whom I would see a separate movie, when every appearance of him on the screen I have to be afraid. But in the absence of the forces of good, it was necessary to make It the lamb of God in the hands of bloodthirsty, high-aged children.
Very little attention is paid to the parallels of childhood/adulthood. This refers to the root causes of the fears of the main characters. The ones that are, they're kind of attracted. Mostly flickering Bill (but who else flashes, he is also the head). But at some point we don't understand why a character is afraid of a dead chicken. We are most aware of Marsh’s fears. Blood, girl. King of Horrors, what are you doing to me? The rest we should probably correlate by instinct. Mummy, werewolf - images are mixed up. Leper, where is my leper and everything connected with him? Paul Bunyan is the personification of a migrant worker. Eh.
They abused dirty and vulgar moments, such as the scenes with Beverly’s tyrant husband and her father. As for me, without such charms, King's works do not work. Too much childishness, even for a movie about children. Moreover, the inadequacy of Derry's residents was part of a stunning lore. I also didn’t have enough views of the town itself and in general all the scenes look very chambered. I'd like the city to suck. In the book, forgive me the fierce fans of the film, a walk through the forgotten places in the framework of the second interlude gave such a greasy and enveloping atmosphere that one scene with Beverly I somehow not enough. She is beautiful, and the actress is cute, but no.
But it's still a digestible film adaptation. Most of the details were still conveyed. I was really scared now watching, like I was when I was a kid watching my first horrors. Pennywise performed by Tim Curry is really great.
For the ridiculous final monster and cut the best (not just the ones I listed) scenes of the book
6 out of 10
Recently, I finished reading Stephen King’s novel “It” and was in a very unforgettable and positive impressions, so I immediately decided to watch a film based on the work. And I was in a dim feeling after watching...
The plot is:
In the sewers of the small town of Derry lives Horror, who, approximately every 30 years, wakes up and takes the form of a clown Pennywise, to hunt for children. In the summer of 1958, when it woke up again, the Losers Club, consisting of seven 11-year-old children, decided to fight it. And after the first battle with Him, they swear that if it survives, they will return to their native Derry, at all costs, to kill this monster completely.
On actors and their play.
For the childhood scenes of the main characters, the cast was selected very well, and I, in general, pleased, despite minor inconsistencies in the appearance of the characters or the course of events. Very happy with the young actors.
What I can't say about the adult cast. But this is more the fault of the director Tommy Lee Wallace, because there are strong inaccuracies in the appearance and life of the characters. For example, in the book, the author makes it clear that adult Bill Denbrough is bald, but in the film we see the exact opposite (the actor’s hair is so long that he ties them in the tail).
Of course, it is impossible not to note separately the play of actor Tim Curry, who plays the clown Pennywise in the film. It's like he's got a role.
The movie is pretty good, you can watch it. It will be easier to understand certain events in the picture after reading the book.