Skip to main content

IT (1990) - Just Because It Is On TV Don't Mean It Ain't Great Cinema

 



My love of horror films can really be traced directly to the different influences of my parents. My mom grew up in the 80s so she adored slasher films and introduced me to most of the major franchises, from classics like Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street to then-contemporary films I was definitely too young to be watching like Scream. My dad on the other hand was somebody who had bookshelves lined with Stephen King books and regularly brought out the VHS copy of the IT miniseries which definitely gave me and I’d bet my sister too a lot of nightmares as kids. That is a big reason that as a 32 year old I find all these things to be absolute comfort films, but few more than IT.

As such, I tend to do a rewatch of it at least once every single year, even owning a version of it on DVD as part of a King box set I own. However, this one was a very special one cause it came just hours after I finished listening to the Steven Weber-read audiobook over the course of over a couple of months. While there’s some stuff that has aged like milk in IT the book, I really enjoyed my time and finally digging into the deep lore and side characters that the couple of adaptations have left out or barely touched on or drastically changed. I would likely revisit the book again in the future even though it was a big undertaking, but this review isn’t for the book and I will try to limit how many references I make to the text to judge it entirely on its own merits as visual media, but thought it was worth noting.

I always like to start with the negative first to end on the brightest possible note, so let’s get into it. I’ll try to avoid spoilers, but I think most people will argue that the worst part of the miniseries is the ending which seems lazy and half-assed on a set that looks extremely cheap with an animatronic that looks like it’d be laughed off a spooky dark ride at a theme park, it’s obvious that they lacked the budget or guts to try and translate the very metaphysical and metaphorical final clash with Pennywise but couldn’t really come up with anything better. The translation to network TV is also where some of the other problems occur, like the use of blood probably being A LOT for TV for the era but so much less than you would think a project like this would call for, same for the goofy PG replacements a lot of characters use for actual profanity. The tendency to boil down “friendship” establishing scenes into really corny, upbeat montages that just reuse the same song rather than shell out for licensing rights and largely just ignoring the huge role music plays in the book I think is clearly more a cost saving measure than time. There are certain scenes where even if you had never read the book, you just know from watching them “I bet this was probably better/longer/more in depth” in the book such as the rushed scene where Eddie finds out what a placebo is or there are certain characters like Henry Bowers that seems really undercooked and generic in a way that isn’t very King-like.

However, I don’t see how anybody could argue this isn’t one of the most effective King adaptations, and I still argue it is far superior to the fairly mediocre but bigger budget film adaptations done more recently. Every single time Pennywise is on screen is a great strength of the film, Tim Curry gives one of the most iconic scary movie performances of all times that works when “funny” just as much as when outright scary, he has shocking range within a fairly limited role and it is just truly wonderful. Pretty much all of the adult cast give really solid performances, though I’d give a special shout out to the perfectly cast Harry Anderson, Richard Thomas who is asked to take the most on as the leader of the gang and John Ritter who makes a mid-range character without a great deal to do shine through his pure charisma that made him arguably one of the biggest stars in the cast. Likewise, and this is real difficult for a production like this, they managed to find kids who are both realistic and likable, rarely do they come off as annoying or grating and or too mature for their age and only sometimes do they have moments of woodeness in their performances when they are asked to run the gambit of emotions much more than your typical children’s roles, not a surprise a couple of them would go on to decent careers.

The film is one of the single best directed and shot TV movies or miniseries in the pre-It’s Not TV, It’s HBO era I have ever seen. Tommy Lee Wallace, whose most now-iconic film as a director was Halloween III: Season of the Witch which is something I’m planning to review later on this year when spooky season comes but it is safe to say I’m a firm fan, does a wonderful job keeping the action exciting, moody, scary, nostalgic, fitfully bloody. Along side legendary Canadian cinematographer Leiterman, the only thing that really makes it feel like TV are the 4:3 aspect ratio and hard cuts to black for commercials, otherwise it could absolutely pass as a really good mid-budget theatrical horror epic. The special effects and makeup work, except where noted towards the end of the film, is really solid throughout, very effectively creeping anybody out on a regular basis whether balloons of blood or snarling wolfmen or stretching a drain in a shower to man sized via stop-motion. This effects work really gave the first confrontation in the sewer in particular a deep sense of dread and somebody on social media told me about how much the Fortunate Cookie scene still sticks with them from when they were young and for simple puppetry it still works tremendously well.

Obviously, nostalgia still colors how fondly I view this film but for basically a PG-13 take on Stephen King it really works just as well as it ever did, especially if you felt the CGI and foul mouthed humor of the most recent films was really over-the-top and often boring. In reading the book finally, it is funny how there are certain things I actually thought the miniseries does better like Richie’s voices not being mostly racial stereotypes or Ben as an adult being given more focus within the narrative, which I definitely didn’t think would be the case. It wasn’t one of the greatest times in horror, the early 90s, when the genre kind of took a backseat except for some notable cases until the slasher revival, but that doesn’t blunt my saying that IT can stand alone as one of the best horror films of its era as long as you don’t mind wading through a bit of cheese to get there.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ivan the Terrible, Part 1 (1944) - Uncomfortably Stalinist, Visually Astounding

  I know that I usually start reviews with a personal anecdote of some sort, but this one is kind of a head scratcher. My only real ties in my life to the Soviet Union are just a lifelong, morbid fascination with the Cold War era and rocking a hammer and sickle pin on my backpack as middle schooler into punk rock. However, I do like a lot of Soviet era cartoons which are a special kind of surreal and I really like some film movements of Soviet states on the fringe, and what Soviet films I’ve seen often have very strong and striking visuals. So when I saw that Ivan the Terrible Parts 1 and 2 were on Max, I couldn’t turn down the opportunity to do something different for this blog even if it might be a bit shorter than my typical review. Obviously, the biggest and most valid criticism of the film is how deeply unsubtle it is in most ways, but particularly when it comes to defending and propagating the ideals of Stalinism. As a member of the left, I’m well aware there are factions t...

Scream (1996) - Williamson Dialogue Hasn't Always Aged Well, Though Iconic All the Same

  My mom grew up among the slasher golden era of the 80s, so she adored the genre and many of the 2000+ VHS tapes she had around for a lot of my childhood were various slasher franchises and what we didn’t have by 7 or 8 I was begging my parents to rent for me from Hollywood Video or Movie Starz on a regular basis. So it goes without saying that Scream coming in and revitalizing the entire genre’s popularity for a handful of years was a big deal in our household and I was probably very young the first time I saw it which was likely not long after it came out on tape in probably ‘97, same with the sequels in later years. I then proceeded to watch it so many times across my childhood well into adulthood that practically every line and scene and even delivery are memorized at that point, which made stepping back to write as objective a review as I can somewhat difficult but I found the more of a critical eye I applied to it the more it worked out. As always starting with the negat...

The Cabin in the Woods (2012) - Funny, Fun, and a Little Bit Insufferable

  The late 00s and early 10s were a pretty good time to be somebody who loved cult horror films with a sense of humor. You had the likes of Trick r Treat, Drag Me to Hell, and my favorite at the time which was The Cabin in the Woods. Whether it was on pay cable or early streaming, the film became a regular fixture in the years I mostly just spent my time frequently re-watching the same movies and drinking far too much beer. Because of that, I’ve gone some years without watching it very frequently cause I got kind of burnt out on it in my 20s but I had this former Blockbuster rental Bluray copy that cost less than 2 bucks so I figured why not see how well the film holds up? The thing that hasn’t held up so well is how smugly in love with its own dialog and cleverness the film is in a way that immediately signals that Joss Whedon was a writer on it. There’s a certain too cute quality to a lot of Whedon’s projects that have made me not like them as much as other people do, sorry to ...