Badmovies.org Forum

I havent seen the remake yet. It looks really good, according to most of the opinions here, it is. Ive never read the book either, so the only thing I know as far as "IT" goes, is the miniseries from 1990. When this aired back in the day it was a big deal. Everyone was talking about it and at the time it was actually scary. I used to play and explore sewers as a kid, after watching this, I stopped. Recently I revisited it and rewatched it. All 3 painful hours of it. Ive also noticed that I use the word "it" alot.

Well, I dont think its held up too well. To be fair, it was a made-for-tv miniseries with a Low budget and a lot of condensing of story. Bad acting. Bad fashion. Worse special effects. I think there is some good in it though, like Tim Curry. Everybody likes Tim, right? His performance alone is what made pennywise so iconic. With his big eyes and mouth he managed to be funny and disturbing at the same time.

The miniseries is in 2 parts. One focused on childhood and the other on adulthood. I think the childhood story isnt that bad, I actually like it. It has a charm. Kind of like "stand by me". The second part just sucks. This is where pennywise is a giant spider-thingy and it looks really bad. The "kids" kill pennywise by cow-tipping him and pulling out his heart. yeah. just like that. I havent seen the remake yet, but Im convinced that its a better film.

Well, technically, yes. Better image, better lighting, better performances.

Otherwise, you have a s**tload of annoying jump scare attempts, no real sense of character endangerment, bog-standard attempts to be scary, and a clown who would rather drool than swallow (Ooh, that is so, so, so scary.  :lookingup:).

If you have never watched a horror movie or if you are frightened of your own shadow, then you might find "IT" scary.

I watched the new IT last weekend and liked it more than I expected (although it had some flaws), so this weekend, it inspired me to break out the old TV mini series and rewatch it. And yes, I feel the same way you do, but also understand its limitations of the time. Yes, the second half was weaker and when I had initially watched it in 1990, I felt the same letdown then with the ending. Still, for nostalgia, it was fun to revisit, but yes, parts did drag.

I will say this, however: I am glad both the 1990 and the 2017 versions have omitted the children gang bang scene. Yikes wtf was King on then?

 I agree as well. Except I didn't like it in 1990 either. King's work doesn't work well on TV. TV's the SHINING (1997), the TOMMYKNOCKERS (1993) and that stupid UNDER THE DOME (2013-2015) are waaay to talky. IT is the same. Tim Curry is the only redeeming factor.

Tim Curry was good in the 1990 version.  When he wasn't around ... ehhhhhh.

The 2017 version has too many jumpscares but also some real scares.  The guy playing Pennywise is GREAT in one particular scene - a scene which doesn't have any special effects, to boot (when he corners Ed in the house on Neibolt Street).  I think that one scene is probably the only time he really got to do what he wanted as Pennywise.  Effects and camera tricks overshadowed him in most other scenes.