MovieChat Forums > It (1990) Discussion > Why do people like this so much? Even th...

Why do people like this so much? Even the director hated the second half!

posted 2 years ago by [deleted]
25 replies | jump to latest

I liked it too when I first saw it, in 1990, at age 18, but now, 32 years later, it's just so QUAINT and DATED now in every way. The Muschietti remake was a welcome breath of fresh air, if only for a different take on the story.

The whole 1990 production just screams "old-fashioned", with the cheesy TV music, cheap budget, melodramatic feel, and "suitable-for-all-ages" crap that doesn't belong to a Stephen King story. The script is muddled, focuses too much on characters that are boring, especially Audra, and is just too short. The less said about the ridiculous stop-motion spider crab creature at the end, the better.

The adult actors are average at best, I didn't like any of them. As for the children, I liked the Eddie actor the most, same as with the remake, but then I've always sympathised with Eddie.

Also, I didn't really care much for the 1960 (1950s) setting for the children, as it's just too far in the past as of now, which is possibly why it's dated so much, even if the book had it. The smartest thing Muschietti did was to bring both time periods forward 27 years to late 1980s and 2010s respectively.

As for Pennywise himself, which is the USP of the whole story, Tim Curry did fine with the script he was given, and is memorable, but is just as goofy as Bill Skarsgard in the movies, and also not enticing to smart children, ie Georgie and the sewer. When Georgie meets Pennywise, critics say that Georgie should be running away from Skarsgard, but there is a moment with Curry where Pennywise acts exactly the same, not "friendly all the time" as has been suggested. So I'd say that both Pennywises are fine in general.

As for the second half with the adults: pure melodrama. Even the director of the production hated it in the end, he said so on the DVD commentary. It's just dull, dull and dull. OK, so Muschietti's version is about the same, but at least they tried to make it better.

All in all, I like the IT story a lot but the Muschietti movies are more enjoyable, to me at least.

[–] agentalbert (3090) 2 years ago

I just tried to watch this. Made it about an hour and 10 minutes and gave up. It's very dry. The music is awful, seems like something from an after school special or a soap.

Love the book, of course.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

It definitely feels like a made-for-tv movie (which it is). I really enjoy it. But I think a lot of ppl are just looking back with their nostalgic, rose-tinged glasses.

[–] LoveCatsHateDogs (1942) 2 years ago

In 1990 it didn't look dated.

A lot of people were very young when they first saw this, and it scared the shit out of them.

I was like 10 when I saw it.

I think those people (me included) have the nostalgia factor from seeing it as kids.

Having read the book I have never bothered with the 2017 version.

[–] whynotwriteme (7720) 2 years ago

The late-80s setting for the remakes was terrible. The late 80s wasn't an evocative, nostalgic time for anyone, even people who grew up then. There is no specific mood or real feeling about that era.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

The late 80s were better than the fucking late 50s.

If the late 80s isn't popular, why is Stranger Things a... thing?

[–] whynotwriteme (7720) 2 years ago

Stranger Things' popularity was built around the time period of the first season, which was early '80s. The time of E.T. and Speilberg suburbia and D&D and MTV and arcades and everything people recall about the '80s with fondness. By the late '80s the whole '80s thing was already used up and stale. I barely even consider 86-89 to be part of what we know as "the '80s". People are still watching the show, but now they are just going along for the ride.

And if the late '50s are such a bad setting, why is Stand By Me one of Stephen King's most popular stories and film adaptions?

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Why are people like you so determined to hate on Muschietti's adaptation and stick with a severely dated TV (and I stress melodramatic TV) movie, when the story clearly needed a new version, which Muschietti delivered? Or is it just because I'm pushing the IT movies on a board that is the last stalwart of defence for a TV show that is ridiculed by many as of now for being so... poor?

[–] whynotwriteme (7720) 2 years ago

Because the new adaption is empty and dull with no real characterizations and a "try-hard" approach to milking scares. My son (14 at the time) and I watched the new ones and we were both really disappointed. The TV miniseries may not have the latest special effects, but at least it had a real story and characters that are distinguishable from one another. The only part out of either of the two recent It films that was any good at all was that faceless woman ghost. Like less than 5 minutes out of two films.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Of course it was real characterisation in the movies. The movies are closer to the book, for a start: the miniseries has no Well House on Neibolt Street and no Patrick Hockstetter, which are iconic characters and locations in the book, and the characterisations are unique in the movies, too.

I can only imagine that the miniseries had an impact on child viewers who were easily scared back then, and of course they would defend it, like you, WNWM, but I saw it when older, and while it was OK, it did not really scare me.

I'm also fed up of hearing Curry, Curry, Curry all the fucking time as (somehow) the "ultimate" screen Pennywise! GIVE SOMEONE ELSE A CHANCE! That's why I'm backing Skarsgard all the way! Curry has had his time, now it's time for someone else to TAKE OVER!

[–] Noirdame79 (99) 2 years ago

The house in the flashback in part 2 that Stan approaches was supposed to be the Neibolt Street house. The late Gabe Khouth played Patrick Hockstetter (as mentioned in the closing credits) but IMDB lists him as playing Victor Kriss for one of the episodes. While the standpipe wasn't shown, Mike does have a photo of it in the classroom scene and mentions it. There was so much that they couldn't include for time constraints, and it's unfortunate that they weren't able to make it four parts as originally intended.

The miniseries has a cult following for a reason, hence the documentary, "Pennywise: The Story Of It".

[–] jekporkins (1972) 2 years ago

For a broadcast TV mini-series from 1990, it was and is an impressive feat. Scoring Tim Curry was quite a coup and at the time those were some pretty decent stars as the adults. The first half still holds up quite well. The second half really lets it down. Honestly, both versions have terrible second halves.

If you line it up versus the new version there are things I still prefer. I think the 1950s setting works better. I think Curry is a better Pennywise. It's not a complete CGI-fest.

I think it's like Jumanji - I enjoyed both versions for different reasons.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

"I think Curry is a better Pennywise."

HOW? He comes across as too human, IT is meant to be an evil shape-shifter from another dimension, I don't get that from Curry at all. I actually think he's overrated as an actor.

[–] jekporkins (1972) 2 years ago

Opinions vary.

No way those kids would have come near the new Pennywise - the guy was terrifying even when trying to coerce kids to trust him. I believed a kid could have been coerced into getting near Curry's version for him to bite an arm off.

Also, the way Curry's character changed moods depending on the scene was great. I felt the new version was always the same.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

"No way those kids would have come near the new Pennywise"
Georgie had no problem with Pennywise, the two were even laughing together at one point. And Skarsgard's Pennywise didn't look threatening, unlike Curry's Pennywise. With Georgie, Pennywise was really hungry (you could see it) and was really trying hard to gain Georgie's trust. Curry's Pennywise showed absolutely no signs of hunger.

"I believed a kid could have been coerced into getting near Curry's version for him to bite an arm off."
Curry's Pennywise looks more intimidating to me in appearance, if not in actions. Skarsgard's Pennywise looks more like a baby to me.

And with both miniseries and the movies, the rest of the time, both Pennywises (and their various forms) scare the crap out of the kids.

And I really should point out that the character is called Pennywise the Dancing Clown, yet Curry never did any dancing.

[–] LoveCatsHateDogs (1942) 2 years ago

He does some flips and some cartwheels, does that count?

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

It's rather a grey area to me. The movie Pennywise does a hypnotic dance to intimidate Beverly.

[–] Noirdame79 (99) 2 years ago

In the novel, Pennywise is described as looking like a typical clown, a cross between Bozo and Clarabell; the reason why he was able to draw children to him was because he didn't look threatening. That was the point. Bill Skarsgard's Pennywise was so obviously creepy and evil, you can see that from the sewer scene, glowing eyes and trembling with hunger.

[–] RussellNash (2087) 2 years ago

The second half really lets it down. Honestly, both versions have terrible second halves.

In a nutshell!

[–] sslssg (34222) 2 years ago

I really liked the first part when it when it first aired. I am a fan of Tim Curry, so it was fun to see him in the role. I didn't care much for the second part, but I did like the cast.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

"I didn't care much for the second part, but I did like the cast."

The adult cast look NOTHING like the kids, unlike the movies. Why would Richie wear the glasses as a kid, and then all of a sudden Eddie is wearing glasses? Rubbish! Utter rubbish!

[–] sslssg (34222) 2 years ago

I didn't mean that I liked them in their roles. I did not explain that well. I liked the actors. It was kind of weird to have John Ritter, Harry Anderson, and Tim Reid in it. To me they were mostly known for sitcoms at the time, and I didn't really buy them, but I still like them.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I like John Ritter and Tim Reid, yes. Their dialogue was the best part of the adult half.

[–] WandererFromYs (2309) 2 years ago

I think there was some dialogue where Richie explained that he got contact lenses, and then Someone made a comment about how often he used to break them.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Yes, but that was put in because the Richie actor doesn't like glasses. I think the adult Eddie actor requires glasses. I saw him in Star Trek and he didn't have glasses then, but he was playing an alien and probably couldn't see a thing.

[–] Noirdame79 (99) 2 years ago

It's addressed that Richie wore contact lenses as an adult. Your eyesight can change or start to fail once you become an adult.