Forums
Horror Movie Reviews
Stephen King's IT Review - Find Out What Was Better: The Novel Or The TV Mini-Series
I just watched this two part televion mini-series based on Stephen King's novel IT. I finished reading the book earlier this week, and I love it. I think it is one of King's best works, the only ones that I enjoyed better are Misery and Salem's Lot. It is a long movie to watch all at once, 192 minutes to be exact... over 3 hours.
Here's a brief plot for IT: A group of children discover that an evil creature beyond all adult understanding is inhabiting their home town (No, It's not their teacher)... They decide to fight It, and nearly kill It, swearing to return if It ever started again. Now it's 30 years later, and It's happening again. Each member of the "Loser's Club" gets a call to return from the only one who stayed in Derry and remembers... They all come back (except one) and they are now in for the fight of their lives against a creature that only they (and children) can see.
(If you don't want to read my rantings about how the book is better and how they should have included this or that, don't read the next few Paragraphs and skip to the end...)
Ok, Let me say one thing... the book is better. King delivers real suspense throughout the entire 1000 page novel. I loved that each of the characters has a specific monster that It takes the form of to scare them. Not that they didn't do that in the film, but several monster (specifically Mike's giant Bird, Eddie's Diseased Leper, and Stan's zombie children) which I was really hoping to see... I think that they should have at least kept Mike's Bird, so that when he opens his fortune cookie, the bird fetus inde would have made more sense. They showed way too much of Pennywise the Clown. The fact that it could be anything that you fear (really ANYTHING) made it that much scarier in the book. Also, the characters are better developed in the book. I still cared about them in the movie, but King just wrote them SO WELL... I was kind of disappointed that almost none of the characters looked the way I imagined in the book... that always gets me in a movie based on a book, if the characters are not the same (or extremely milar) I will most likely be disappointed. The acting wasn't the best that I have ever seen, but it good enough, especially for a made for tv movie...
Also, some VERY key elements to the story were left out. Where was the Turtle??? Where were the lver Dollars they melt into slugs to kill It??? Where was Bill's connection to his bike lver??? Where were It's eggs??? Where were all of the scenes from the book that make you KNOW the character, really let you into their head and KNOW who they are??? Where is the Ritual of Chud??? Where is the scene of the full out Deadlights at the edge of eternity??? Where was all of the gore???
I probably am being unfair, I did just finish reading the book after all... It is a very good movie, but there was just so much that I feel that they missed on.
The spider at the end was pretty awesome, but again, I would have loved to see It's de split open and pour out eggs. That was one of the freakiest things about the book for me.... THERE WERE MORE OF THOSE THINGS ABOUT TO BE HATCHED???Ok, now here's what I like about the movie...
As I said before (but maybe you didn't read it, it was in my "book is better" rant), the acting is really good for a made for TV movie. Tim Curry was awesome as IT, and the spider at the end was awesome (old school stop motion still works). I loved that they had the paper boat in the sewer at the end... it was one of the things that I think should have been in the book. Another scene that should have been in the book was the shower scene when all of the shower heads move and block the exits (its a school gym shower) and Pennywise comes out of the drain.
All in all, I really enjoyed the movie, in spite of what I said. It is one of the best made for TV movies/ mini-series that I have yet seen... And I will be staying pretty far from any town named Derry for awhile...
Here's a brief plot for IT: A group of children discover that an evil creature beyond all adult understanding is inhabiting their home town (No, It's not their teacher)... They decide to fight It, and nearly kill It, swearing to return if It ever started again. Now it's 30 years later, and It's happening again. Each member of the "Loser's Club" gets a call to return from the only one who stayed in Derry and remembers... They all come back (except one) and they are now in for the fight of their lives against a creature that only they (and children) can see.
(If you don't want to read my rantings about how the book is better and how they should have included this or that, don't read the next few Paragraphs and skip to the end...)
Ok, Let me say one thing... the book is better. King delivers real suspense throughout the entire 1000 page novel. I loved that each of the characters has a specific monster that It takes the form of to scare them. Not that they didn't do that in the film, but several monster (specifically Mike's giant Bird, Eddie's Diseased Leper, and Stan's zombie children) which I was really hoping to see... I think that they should have at least kept Mike's Bird, so that when he opens his fortune cookie, the bird fetus inde would have made more sense. They showed way too much of Pennywise the Clown. The fact that it could be anything that you fear (really ANYTHING) made it that much scarier in the book. Also, the characters are better developed in the book. I still cared about them in the movie, but King just wrote them SO WELL... I was kind of disappointed that almost none of the characters looked the way I imagined in the book... that always gets me in a movie based on a book, if the characters are not the same (or extremely milar) I will most likely be disappointed. The acting wasn't the best that I have ever seen, but it good enough, especially for a made for tv movie...
Also, some VERY key elements to the story were left out. Where was the Turtle??? Where were the lver Dollars they melt into slugs to kill It??? Where was Bill's connection to his bike lver??? Where were It's eggs??? Where were all of the scenes from the book that make you KNOW the character, really let you into their head and KNOW who they are??? Where is the Ritual of Chud??? Where is the scene of the full out Deadlights at the edge of eternity??? Where was all of the gore???
I probably am being unfair, I did just finish reading the book after all... It is a very good movie, but there was just so much that I feel that they missed on.
The spider at the end was pretty awesome, but again, I would have loved to see It's de split open and pour out eggs. That was one of the freakiest things about the book for me.... THERE WERE MORE OF THOSE THINGS ABOUT TO BE HATCHED???Ok, now here's what I like about the movie...
As I said before (but maybe you didn't read it, it was in my "book is better" rant), the acting is really good for a made for TV movie. Tim Curry was awesome as IT, and the spider at the end was awesome (old school stop motion still works). I loved that they had the paper boat in the sewer at the end... it was one of the things that I think should have been in the book. Another scene that should have been in the book was the shower scene when all of the shower heads move and block the exits (its a school gym shower) and Pennywise comes out of the drain.
All in all, I really enjoyed the movie, in spite of what I said. It is one of the best made for TV movies/ mini-series that I have yet seen... And I will be staying pretty far from any town named Derry for awhile...
Kidtut
Sunday 7/31/2011 at 08:11 PM | 79649
You've really overmplified, I think. You can't cram a 1000+ page novel into a 182 minute film without making some changes. I think it's a little much to try and decide if the book or film is better - invariably, the book is almost always better. It's more the translation from one form of media to another that should be judged.
You have to keep in mind that the film was made for televion in 1991. There are things that wouldn't make it to primetime tv then - bloated animated corpses of dead children, for example, or a pedophile leper - and there are things that budget and special effects of the day wouldn't allow. Condering the amount of material that was there to work with, they really did a phenomenal job.
The only real problem with this film comes at the end.
Shying away from the perennial book-to-film debate, the fact does remain that the ending in the movie does not do the book justice.
This problem lies in the strong build to reveal the true face of IT, ending only in a gigantic spider that becomes all that the aged minds of the remaining Lucky Seven will allow them to see.
For those not having read the book, this can seem to fall flat and just short of a good ending.
Even the hints dropped throughout the film that a human mind will never grasp the true nature of IT are not enough to save it.
Perhaps if the film had been made five or x years later, advances in CGI and special effects could have come up with a better end.
Apart from that, the film is near-flawless.
The score is spectacular, with use of Beethoven’s already haunting Für Elise melody against the dreary, rainy backdrop of the small Maine town compounding the creepy quality of the film.
The main theme continues this haunting trend, producing a highly recognizable sound while perpetuating the hopeless feel of the impending battles.
The child actors in the cast were perfection.
The ill-fated Jonathan Brandis more than proved himself in the role of the troubled young Bill, with phenomenal support from soon-to-be star Seth Green as funnyman friend Richie Tozier, who faces down a werewolf in the school basement.
The child cast rounds out with Marlon Taylor as Mike, Ben Heller as Stan Uris - playing his role of a nervous, disbelieving Boy Scout to a T, Adam Faraizl as the hypochondriac asthmatic Eddie, Brandon Crane as stock Ben “Haystack” Hanscom, and Emily Perkins (who would later return to the horror genre in the Ginger Snaps films) as abused rag-doll Beverly.
They each face their own fears and survive, coming together not only through their shared experiences of facing down IT, but also in their shared torment at the hands of school bully Henry Bowers (Jared Blancard). The level of emotional torment and fear that these children express is compelling, surpasng performances of even their contemporary adult actors in some cases.
Jared Blancard is deliciously evil as the racist, violent and absolutely demented Henry Bowers, showing that in spite of the evil that lurks in the sewers, there are even more real-life experiences the children have to deal with.
The adult casting is just as good as that of the children, the only real problem lying in the casting of Richard Masur as the adult Stan.
A good actor, no doubt, Masur brings his own quality to the role, and while his counterparts manage to portray believable adult personas for their child characters, Masur is so unlike the young Stan that it just doesn’t play well.
Tim Curry is, of course, phenomenal as Pennywise the Clown, no doubt instilling nightmares with his chilling yet comical performance for years to come.
Best of all is Dennis Christopher, a much underrated actor who, while typically typecast into darker roles (Fade to Black’s Eric Binford and “Profiler”s Jack-of-all-Trades) manages to shine in his role of the mousey Eddie Kaspbrak.
All in all this is a great film, and one of the best film translations of a Stephen King novel to date.
I was really taken aback to see so much criticism, when so many other King novels were completely massacred for the purpose of film!
You have to keep in mind that the film was made for televion in 1991. There are things that wouldn't make it to primetime tv then - bloated animated corpses of dead children, for example, or a pedophile leper - and there are things that budget and special effects of the day wouldn't allow. Condering the amount of material that was there to work with, they really did a phenomenal job.
The only real problem with this film comes at the end.
Shying away from the perennial book-to-film debate, the fact does remain that the ending in the movie does not do the book justice.
This problem lies in the strong build to reveal the true face of IT, ending only in a gigantic spider that becomes all that the aged minds of the remaining Lucky Seven will allow them to see.
For those not having read the book, this can seem to fall flat and just short of a good ending.
Even the hints dropped throughout the film that a human mind will never grasp the true nature of IT are not enough to save it.
Perhaps if the film had been made five or x years later, advances in CGI and special effects could have come up with a better end.
Apart from that, the film is near-flawless.
The score is spectacular, with use of Beethoven’s already haunting Für Elise melody against the dreary, rainy backdrop of the small Maine town compounding the creepy quality of the film.
The main theme continues this haunting trend, producing a highly recognizable sound while perpetuating the hopeless feel of the impending battles.
The child actors in the cast were perfection.
The ill-fated Jonathan Brandis more than proved himself in the role of the troubled young Bill, with phenomenal support from soon-to-be star Seth Green as funnyman friend Richie Tozier, who faces down a werewolf in the school basement.
The child cast rounds out with Marlon Taylor as Mike, Ben Heller as Stan Uris - playing his role of a nervous, disbelieving Boy Scout to a T, Adam Faraizl as the hypochondriac asthmatic Eddie, Brandon Crane as stock Ben “Haystack” Hanscom, and Emily Perkins (who would later return to the horror genre in the Ginger Snaps films) as abused rag-doll Beverly.
They each face their own fears and survive, coming together not only through their shared experiences of facing down IT, but also in their shared torment at the hands of school bully Henry Bowers (Jared Blancard). The level of emotional torment and fear that these children express is compelling, surpasng performances of even their contemporary adult actors in some cases.
Jared Blancard is deliciously evil as the racist, violent and absolutely demented Henry Bowers, showing that in spite of the evil that lurks in the sewers, there are even more real-life experiences the children have to deal with.
The adult casting is just as good as that of the children, the only real problem lying in the casting of Richard Masur as the adult Stan.
A good actor, no doubt, Masur brings his own quality to the role, and while his counterparts manage to portray believable adult personas for their child characters, Masur is so unlike the young Stan that it just doesn’t play well.
Tim Curry is, of course, phenomenal as Pennywise the Clown, no doubt instilling nightmares with his chilling yet comical performance for years to come.
Best of all is Dennis Christopher, a much underrated actor who, while typically typecast into darker roles (Fade to Black’s Eric Binford and “Profiler”s Jack-of-all-Trades) manages to shine in his role of the mousey Eddie Kaspbrak.
All in all this is a great film, and one of the best film translations of a Stephen King novel to date.
I was really taken aback to see so much criticism, when so many other King novels were completely massacred for the purpose of film!
dew
Sunday 7/31/2011 at 09:41 PM | 79653
I was really taken aback to see so much criticism, when so many other King novels were completely massacred for the purpose of film
Sorry if I seemed to over-critize for it not being enough like the book, but I gust got so involved with the book that I probably wouldn't be completely satisfied... I loved this film, I think that it is one of the best King adaptations (one of the ONLY good adaptations would be a better phrase...), but there is just so much going on in the book, It could never be done in film accurately, so I should stop complaining... I should probably appreciate how much they actually managed to keep in the movie, seeing how there are so many crappy King adaptations. Thanks for sharing your opinion...
Sorry if I seemed to over-critize for it not being enough like the book, but I gust got so involved with the book that I probably wouldn't be completely satisfied... I loved this film, I think that it is one of the best King adaptations (one of the ONLY good adaptations would be a better phrase...), but there is just so much going on in the book, It could never be done in film accurately, so I should stop complaining... I should probably appreciate how much they actually managed to keep in the movie, seeing how there are so many crappy King adaptations. Thanks for sharing your opinion...
Kidtut
Monday 8/01/2011 at 12:19 AM | 79661
I read IT when I was in fifth grade and it was the only book at the time to literally scare me for about x months straight. King's nightmarish and vivid descriptions and the believable characters scared me more than the mini-series did when I was a kid. I'm still wary when walking around sewer grates.
ObscureCinema101
Monday 8/01/2011 at 01:54 AM | 79665
I read IT when I was in fifth grade and it was the only book at the time to literally scare me for about x months straight.
Weirdly, I read IT at the same age. Still remains my favorite novel of all-time.
Even in King's short stories, there is usually SO MUCH going on that it's extremely difficult to cram every detail into the film. When you get to 1000+ pages, it's imposble. I still feel the 1991 miniseries was a very decent translation and its irksome to see it ragged on for things that were sort of out of control at the time. You really have to take into account that this was more than 20 years ago (yikes, I feel old!).
There's also a huge difference between the written word and a film, let's be honest. Stephen King is not just a great horror writer, he's a great writer in any genre. He creates entire worlds with his words and it becomes difficult for any film to live up to that.
"... Maybe that's why God made us kids first and built us close to the ground, because He knows you got to fall down a lot and bleed a lot before you learn that one mple lesson. You pay for what you get, you own what you pay for... and sooner or later whatever you own comes back home to you." - Stephen King, IT
Sadly this is yet ANOTHER film that has been slated for a remake. While I have become more optimistic about the Fright Night remake, I can't see them doing this any justice, in spite of the advances in effects tech.
Weirdly, I read IT at the same age. Still remains my favorite novel of all-time.
Even in King's short stories, there is usually SO MUCH going on that it's extremely difficult to cram every detail into the film. When you get to 1000+ pages, it's imposble. I still feel the 1991 miniseries was a very decent translation and its irksome to see it ragged on for things that were sort of out of control at the time. You really have to take into account that this was more than 20 years ago (yikes, I feel old!).
There's also a huge difference between the written word and a film, let's be honest. Stephen King is not just a great horror writer, he's a great writer in any genre. He creates entire worlds with his words and it becomes difficult for any film to live up to that.
"... Maybe that's why God made us kids first and built us close to the ground, because He knows you got to fall down a lot and bleed a lot before you learn that one mple lesson. You pay for what you get, you own what you pay for... and sooner or later whatever you own comes back home to you." - Stephen King, IT
Sadly this is yet ANOTHER film that has been slated for a remake. While I have become more optimistic about the Fright Night remake, I can't see them doing this any justice, in spite of the advances in effects tech.
dew
Monday 8/01/2011 at 02:12 AM | 79668
Sadly this is yet ANOTHER film that has been slated for a remake. While I have become more optimistic about the Fright Night remake, I can't see them doing this any justice, in spite of the advances in effects tech.
The only way a remake could do the book (or the original) justice would be for them to come up with another, even longer Televion series... If a channel like IFC does IT, it could end up being pretty good, however, if Syfy gets IT...
The only way a remake could do the book (or the original) justice would be for them to come up with another, even longer Televion series... If a channel like IFC does IT, it could end up being pretty good, however, if Syfy gets IT...
Kidtut
Monday 8/01/2011 at 11:05 AM | 79672
The only way a remake could do the book (or the original) justice would be for them to come up with another, even longer Televion series... If a channel like IFC does IT, it could end up being pretty good, however, if Syfy gets IT...
Last I saw, it was the CW. So, yeah. Not many high hopes there.
If they did a longer miniseries (like The Stand), it might be decent, but I don't know that anyone would ever live up to Tim Curry as Pennywise.
dew
Monday 8/01/2011 at 01:29 PM | 79676
Last I saw, it was the CW. So, yeah. Not many high hopes there.
If they did a longer miniseries (like The Stand), it might be decent, but I don't know that anyone would ever live up to Tim Curry as Pennywise.
No, he was awesome as Pennywise... I don't think anyone else can play the part so well...
Kidtut
Monday 8/01/2011 at 09:34 PM | 79700
I still say "Dont make me come collect you"
everytime I am yelling at my boys.
Its an running joke with my Pops too.
everytime I am yelling at my boys.
Its an running joke with my Pops too.
latingoddyss
Tuesday 8/02/2011 at 07:35 PM | 79782
