Others say...

"Stephen's King It"
This is the most horrific movie that I have ever watched. It is the cause I hate Clowns eversince I was young.. Go watch.. If you dare... Haha...

""We" used to love It when we were children"
I loved It as a child... I found It scary... but that was 18 years ago when It was new back then and I was around 12 years old. Then I read the novel 4 years ago.

I watched it again and found it quite different! The acting is bad, the effects are stupid (ok, maybe because it was for TV and made in 1990) and all in all it doesn't compare to the novel by any meaning! Maybe it's the novel that made me feel that the movie/mini-series is stupid.

Surprisingly, when I told my friends, who also watched it 12 years ago, that I re-watched It and I found it stupid, they completely agreed and gave the same comments! We all found It scary when we were children, but now it's not. Maybe you want to show it to your children (12 or older) who might think of it as a cool scare. I'm not sure.

"Movie Rating"
The movie was really good and it was easy ordering it from Amazon. Thanks Amazon

"Poor Adaptation"
The DVD of Stephen King's It is a big disappointment. This is one of the best books that I have ever read and was eagerly awaiting this adaptation. It doesn't portray the unbridled fear that the book does and the acting is average. I give this 3 stars, but the book is easily 5 stars!

"Logical (and other) problems with "IT""
I've got no problem with Stephen King. I read him like crazy back in the 80s and still admire him. The Shining, Salem's Lot, Misery, Carrie--all horror masterpieces of their era.

I'm also not a snob who can't appreciate a good horror flick, or even a "good bad" horror flick. Love the Living Dead movies, and all the old giant bug movies from the 50s.

But a horror flick, even a "good bad" one, has to make sense. It has to establish and follow its own logic to work. Actually, any film does. My beef with "IT," then, isn't with source material or with genre, but with its inept storytelling and craftsmanship. In a way, it doesn't matter if the book was great. The movie should be able to stand on its own, as a movie. And "IT" just doesn't. It shows contempt for its audience and its source material and tries to get by on King's name and loud overacting.

The plot is paper thin: kids in a small town are menaced by an evil clown/creature only kids can see. They drive it away, but it returns 30 year later when they are adults, so they must get rid of it again. Simple enough premise and plenty there, God knows, for a good horror flick. (Magnificent horror flicks have been made on simpler premises.)But coherence and consistency are still needed, and very quickly, this messy affair starts to show a number of serious problems with both (Gripe time):

The "What is it" problem. Is the clown thing a monster or a demon? Is it natural or supernatural? If natural, how does it know so much--like that Richard Thomas' wife has followed him from England, which he doesn't know himself? If supernatural, why does a "silver bullet" (okay, a silver earring) seem to kill the creature or drive it away?

The Motivation problem, or "why did they do that?". On the same subject, how do the kids know the silver bullet thing will work? Why does Richard Thomas put the paper boat down and follow it back to the Thing's lair? It works, but how does he know it will work? All through this thing, people do things just to do things, just because the plot decides they should.

The "Who cares?" problem. This movie, way too long anyway, suddenly takes the most idiotic and irrelevant sideroads without a thought. Just before the adults go in to tackle the monster, one character takes a moment to tell the others he's never slept with anyone. It isn't cute, it isn't important, it isn't even in character really. Late in the movie, after the adults have apparently decided to fight the clown, actors stare into the camera and have childhood flashbacks that don't matter a damn to the plot. Then they come out of it, shake their heads and say, for the hundredth time, "Okay, let's do something about this scary thing now."

The "That's not scary but we'll pretend it is" problem. Hammy actors reacting to ridiculous, unscary "shocks"--the stuff of bad horror movies for decades. John Ritter terrified because claw pincers pop out of his fortune cookie (I died laughing myself--Richard Thomas at least had the decency to look embarrassed). Tim Reid craps himself when colored balloons come jostling out of his refrigerator. Actually, ANY TIME a balloon appears in this movie, it's an occasion for high terror. The story takes us into a horrible drippy sewer, but what appears to scare the actors half to death is a floodlight going up and down one of the drain pipes.

The Big Chill problem. The director or screenwriter or someone involved in this project apparently thought they were writing the next Big Chill-Breakfast Club-St Elmo's Fire installment. "After all, these are old school chums getting together again, right? So surely they can take a break from being scared by balloons long enough to ride bikes to the sound of old Motown tunes." These moments in which Richard Thomas pops wheelies and cries "Hiyo Silver" are perhaps the scariest moments in the miniseries.

Oh, there's tons more...

Thirty years of reflection and the adult kids still go after the clown creature with silver earrings, a slingshot, and no battle plan (the Idiot Protagonist problem).

Heavy-handed terminology abounding: "I looked into its `deadlights'!" (The Exposition-Heavy Dialogue problem).

The clown busts out a lunatic from an asylum to be his agent (Dracula and Renfield rip-off), but after one stab and two minutes tussle with Tim Reid he's dead on the floor (the "Why Bother" problem).

Perhaps worst of all, the Total Lack of Sympathy problem. There's nothing, just nothing offered to us to make us care about these characters or what happens to them. With so much time given over to lame horror scenarios (like gym showerheads turning into telescoping snake-things), we don't have any time to learn who these people are or why they care about each other. Stephen King is always, always great about this sort of thing. So that means somewhere a choice was made when scripting this turkey: cheap shocks instead of character. It's infuriating and disappointing.

I'll concede a few effective touches. A time or two, something is weird enough to pack a jolt, usually one of Tim Curry's leering moments. And there's some nice Stand By Me-like atmosphere scattered throughout. But it's all too little--not nearly enough to make up for a pathetically hammy performances and a series of half-baked ideas that staggers on forever.

I think I can proclaim this without flinching Worst Stephen King Adaptation Ever. And let's face it, that's up against some pretty stiff competition.