Ça

Many critics have complained that Stephen King's It is an overlong film. However, considering that the book upon which it is based takes over 1,000 pages to tell its story, it is hardly surprising that the film version needs so much running time to cram in all the twists and turns. Besides, the three hour running time goes by quickly because the film is briskly paced and full of engaging incidents. Also, the depth of the story allows to us to really get into the minds of the characters, which is a rare thing indeed in a horror film, since usually the characters are hilariously shallow.

The story unfolds like a two part mini-series (which is, I believe, what the film was originally meangt to be). In the first half, a bunch of seven kids in a small town realise that recent child killings are not the work of a murderer, but are attributable to a monster which awakes every thirty years. They track it down and very nearly kill it, but it just manages to escape. Thirty years later, the seven are all grown up, but they re-unite to seek out the monster when it once more awakens for its regular killing spree.

The acting is very goood, especially John Ritter as a successful architect and Tim Curry as the terrifying Pennywise the Clown. There are some spooky moments, but nothing that I would describe as absolutely horrifying. This is an unusually deep and detailed horror film, well worth seeing.

First part is excellent, second part still good. Tim Curry is the Star.

If you are of the King generation (lotsa books, bookstores, drugstores with books, tobacco stores with books, no computers or personal devices) then you probably have your own views on his place in the creative continuum.

My view is that his "early" works (including IT, THE STAND, SHINING) were his best. Wonderfully warped. And great fun to read.

That was the good news. The bad news is that, with rare exception (eg - SHINING) the B-grade studios that made easy money doing "tv movies" (you had to be there, otherwise you would not understand) generally snapped up his stuff and then did cheap, low-talent adaptations.

Wotta waste.

IT was one of King's more interesting works and this is one of the less awful adaptations. For insiders, most of the fun is in the first few scenes where one of the "characters" himself a writer explains that he has a job adapting his own work: "If anyone is going to mess it up, it may as well be me." The inside joke is that King himself was brought in as co-writer here because so many of the earlier TV adaptations were a disaster.

Again, one of the better ones. Lots of interesting faces here and there, including Ritter (an unappreciated dramatic talent) and Otoole looking radiant.

That's what most of the other commentators say, and I can't disagree. Part 1 (or the first half, depending on which format you're seeing it in) is great: pitting some excellent child actors (including future star Seth Green of Buffy the Vampire Slayer) portraying some in-depth characters fighting against a demonic clown. The second half seems more like a "gee-wow - look who we got" self-indulgence at casting Anderson, Thomas, Reid and Ritter, with very little to make us care about these folks. The ending is also an incredible dumbed-down letdown, although in all fairness I don't think they could pull off King's ending, and most of the audience wouldn't understand it if they had tried. There are a few touching moments in the last half, and Tim Curry couldn't screw up no matter how bad the writing is, but generally the two mismatched halves make for a mediocre film when it could have been so much more.

This was a brave and well above average adaptation of a truly difficult novel. It is uneven at times. The first half is better than the second half, which isn't helped by a pedestrian script and a woefully miscast Richrd Thomas. IT is NOT the worst book to TV movie in existence, there have been a lot worse since then. As for the book, which is very good, it is still flawed. There is too much swearing(the children's harsh language and sexual desires are inappropriate), the character development takes far too long, the book has a very confusing structure especially in the latter half of the book, and Frankenstein is name of the inventor not the monster. Still the characters are well described, and the murders are gut wrenching. Also the way King describes fear is brilliant, and his attention to detail is unparallelled. I am not criticising the book, I am evaluating the pros and cons of both the book and the movie, or mini-series, to be exact.The movie is the closest to the language of the author. The children did miles better than the adults, especially Jonathan Brandis and Seth Green, and there was a Stand By Me-ish nostalgia, that generated a definite spark between the players. As for the second half, it started off well, and rapidly became pedestrian 45 minutes before the end, which was ruined by a poorly designed spider. Other than that, the effects and script were generally good for a TV movie. Tim Curry, one of my favourite actors, steals the show, with his almost exact portrayal of Pennywise. His career-best performance was a perfect mixture of creepiness and hamminess, like Jack Nicolson from the Shining( which was turned into a pointless TV series). He also DID NOT overact. He's a British character actor, and was the only mature actor who didn't play himself, and stayed consistent throughout the entire movie. Pennywise also isn't his poorly written role, that's Gomez in Addams Family Reunion. It was criminal he didn't win an award for his performance.Also the music by Richard Bellis is outstanding, and that alone captures the creepy mood. In the slower bits, especially with the children, it's hauntingly beautiful and makes the scene poignant. However, Harry Anderson badly underplayed the library scene, while Annette O'Toole showed the most genuine fright, which grew tiresome as the movie progressed. Most of the scenes in the book were unfilmnable for a low budget movie, so they did well in that aspect. Adaptation means to adapt, so accept that. No film I've seen is word from word to the book, it just isn't done that way. I know they missed things out, and all that, but there are some truly sensitive issues in the book that people wouldn't want addressed on screen, and there were some of the metaphysics like the turtle that I didn't understand. The fantastic Inspector Morse series had the protagonist changed completely from a sleaze to a sensitive human.See what i'm getting at. Don't bother about the remake, apparently it's 90 minutes, which isn't enough to condense a 1000+ novel in. Plus, it probably won't have Tim Curry in it, who at the moment seems to be the only person who can do the job right, even if he is a little reminiscent of the Green Goblin. In conclusion look out for It. It is not as good as the Shining, but far better than the dreadful Tommy Knockers. Only read the book if you're a true Stephen King fan( I'm not) or if you're 18 or over(I'm 16), unless you want to be sick for a week (you don't want that). I still recommend both the book and the movie.7/10 for my personal favourite of the Stephen King movies. Bethany Cox