Nostalgia is a hell of a thing. I was in love with It when it aired on ABC as a 2-part miniseries back in November of 1990 (the second installment airing on my 13th birthday). Well, I was in love with the first half anyway. I recorded it on VHS and watched it several times with friends. That Christmas, I got the book as a gift (a very hefty yarn by Stephen King) and devoured all 1,100 pages of it (more than once). The miniseries pales in comparison to the book, naturally, but I’m not here to judge the movie vs. the source material. After not seeing It for nearly 25 years, I must say that it doesn’t stand the test of time very well. Nostalgia can only take you so far. This, of course, comes as no surprise, as, after all, this was a made for TV movie that attempted to capture a very dense and complicated novel into a low-budget three-hour event. Corners needed to be cut, and they were—sometimes painfully.
The two parts of the mini-series take place in, basically, two different timelines. One in 1960, and one in present-day 1990. In the 1960 timeline, the small town of Derry, Maine is in the grips of a rash of child abductions and murders. A group of middle-schoolers, who are dubbed “The Losers Club,” come together after each experiencing unexplained phenomena. They rather quickly deduce that an evil clown named Pennywise (played by Tim Curry, and the often most fondly remembered aspect of the entire film, for good reason) is the culprit. A plan is hatched, and the monster is dispatched. Or so they think.
In the second installment, the creature is back, and our losers, now grown and successful, return to Derry to confront It once again.
I’ve left the plot description purposely brief and abrupt because that’s how it plays. Each child sees something strange, unexplained, and somewhat horrifying, they come together, and they do battle. Then, they all return, reminisce, see some weird shit again, and go back into battle. It’s clunky. This is partially due to the nature of the TV movie (commercial ads are unavoidable, after all) but that doesn’t explain all of it. Mostly, it’s due to the enormity of the story not translating very well to the length and budget of the project. Even though it would be wrong to judge this as an adaptation of the source material, when you take the meat and the bite out of the story—as was done here—you’re not left with much.
If I were to rate the film’s two parts individually, part one fares much, much better than part two. I think this is universally accepted and probably was in 1990 as well. It’s better acted (which is astonishing considering part two features veteran actors, not children), shot more dynamically, scarier, and all around more compelling than its counterpart. The kids’ realization that there’s something sinister about Derry and its past, and their growing bravery resulting in action is reasonably handled given the budgetary constraints. When Pennywise first pops up in the sewer drain to entice Georgie (Tony Dakota), it’s a truly creepy moment. There are other moments like this as well, ones that try at capturing the very strange and nearly Lovecraftian elements of the novel. For example, when Stan (Ben Heller), one of the Losers, and the character I’ve always most identified with (a whole paper could be written on this character alone), Henry Bowers (Jarred Blanchard), the sadistic bully, and his sidekick, Belch (Chris Eastman) see It’s true form, we’re treated to among the best horror moments of the era. It’s not graphic, it’s just plain other-worldly. The sight of Belch being dragged into the sewer pipe and Henry’s stark white hair is disturbing and suggestive, to say the least.
The adult portion is hokey, campy, poorly acted, and to boot, there’s nothing that even closely resembles scary. Close-ups of grown actors overreacting to fortune cookies or mysterious balloons are off-putting at best. Downright obnoxious at worst. Sometimes you have to wonder just what the hell Wallace, the director, was thinking. To top it off, the special effects are terrible, even for the day.
Tim Curry, as Pennywise the Clown, is the glue that holds it all together (if such a thing is possible). I suspect, however, that those who remember him fondly are overexaggerating his role. While on screen, he’s great, but his appearances are rare and short. He’s clearly the most visible and memorable aspect of the film, but, in reality, he has very little screen time. He is great though, switching between buffoonish clown, sinister Gacy-like menace, and fanged beast with ease. His role should be (and rightly is) praised. It’s too bad the rest of the film doesn’t match up with his impressive performance. It’s not even close, unfortunately.
So, what does it all mean? I did have a good time watching, but I suspect that’s because I was able to tap into the middle schooler left in me. Had I been seeing It for the first time, two stars may have been generous.
I purposely revisited the 1990 version before seeing the newly released theatrical version. I wanted my experience to be tainted by nothing but memory and nostalgia. The remake is getting decent reviews, and I am hopeful, but, even though it is doubtless a better version than the original, I’m not nearly as excited to see it as I was to see the miniseries in 1990. The excitement of the kid version can’t compare to the adult one, I guess.
P.S. I know it was the 90s, but what the hell is up with Richard Thomas’ ponytail? That thing should be a crime.
James is a writer, record collector, wrestling nerd, and tabletop gamer living with his family in Asheville, North Carolina. He is a member of the Southeastern Film Critics Association, the North Carolina Film Critics Association, and contributes to The Daily Orca, Razorcake Magazine, Mountain Xpress, and Asheville Movies.