Em 1960, sete pré-adolescentes lutam contra um demônio maligno que se apresenta como um palhaço assassino de crianças. Trinta anos depois, eles se reúnem para deter o demônio de uma vez por ... Ler tudoEm 1960, sete pré-adolescentes lutam contra um demônio maligno que se apresenta como um palhaço assassino de crianças. Trinta anos depois, eles se reúnem para deter o demônio de uma vez por todas quando ele retornar à sua cidade natal.Em 1960, sete pré-adolescentes lutam contra um demônio maligno que se apresenta como um palhaço assassino de crianças. Trinta anos depois, eles se reúnem para deter o demônio de uma vez por todas quando ele retornar à sua cidade natal.
- Ganhou 1 Primetime Emmy
- 4 vitórias e 2 indicações no total
Explorar episódios
Avaliações em destaque
This is a very entertaining made for TV mini-series. It does a good job at jamming a book with more than 1000 pages into 2x90 minutes movie running time. The most important parts have been adopted, unnecessary fat was thrown out, little amandments have been made, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. The writers really tried to remain faithful to the novel and even mentioned side characters or story lines in short sentences for those who have read the book. The coolest thing, however, is that director Tommy Lee Wallace somehow managed to transfer that unique spirit of nostalgia, friendship and fear into his movie. Of course, the incredible cast deserves a lot of credit for that, too. Amazingly the child actors of part 1 upstage their adult companion pieces of part 2. The greatest performance of all, however, is given by Tim Curry, who really gives "It" a face, and a very scary one. He makes this movie what it is. In my opinion, it's the role of Curry's career, even outshining his part in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show".
Now for the bad sides of "It": as a made for TV project this movie obviously couldn't get too graphic and violent and that's a bit of a pity. Stephen King's book is awfully graphic and the movie would have been twice as scary if they had shown a bit more gore. Mostly Pennywise just appears and shows his sharp teeth and that gets lame after a while. The other big minus of this film is its ending. It has to be said that the ending in the book is so bizarre it's unlikely it could ever look good on celluloid. Still, those crappy special effects were just disappointing and made me (and everyone else I know) go: "Is that what I've been waiting for the last 3 hours? That is the big climax?"
Bottom line is that for a TV movie with such strict time limits "It" did a very good job at bringing this scary book to life. Nevertheless, I think the story should be retold properly and turned into a mini-series à la "Twin Peaks". The only problem is that it's going to be hard to find someone who can fill Tim Curry's giant clown shoes.
Now for the bad sides of "It": as a made for TV project this movie obviously couldn't get too graphic and violent and that's a bit of a pity. Stephen King's book is awfully graphic and the movie would have been twice as scary if they had shown a bit more gore. Mostly Pennywise just appears and shows his sharp teeth and that gets lame after a while. The other big minus of this film is its ending. It has to be said that the ending in the book is so bizarre it's unlikely it could ever look good on celluloid. Still, those crappy special effects were just disappointing and made me (and everyone else I know) go: "Is that what I've been waiting for the last 3 hours? That is the big climax?"
Bottom line is that for a TV movie with such strict time limits "It" did a very good job at bringing this scary book to life. Nevertheless, I think the story should be retold properly and turned into a mini-series à la "Twin Peaks". The only problem is that it's going to be hard to find someone who can fill Tim Curry's giant clown shoes.
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.
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.
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
**Light Spoilers On A Couple Scenes, Nothing Too Big to Mark As Spoiler - I Won't Elaborate On the Scenes As Is**
Stephen King's It. It (2017) is a film I'm not too keen on, but if we're talking about the two-part miniseries film from 1990, boy it's great. The enjoyment I get out of this is what I had hoped in the newer one. Tim Curry gives an exceptionally good performance as Pennywise. The other actors give pretty good performances, too. There are far more creepy scenes in this than there are in the newer films I feel. Everything from the beginning, They All Float Down Here, and just the sheer presence of Pennywise to the disturbing "Don't Cha Want It?" scene, the Dog-head scene and the old zombie grandmother scene. This terrified me when I was 10 years old. Nearly fifteen years later, it still gets me. The pacing is great, it has laughs, it has chilling moments, it's just brilliant all-round. Wonderfully executed, good camaraderie and dialogue, and consistently strong acts, especially the first and second for me, I could go on. Make sure you see this if you're a fan of the 2017 one. And if you're not, I recommend this even more.
It started really good but in the second part it started to go down.
All the characters where suddenly really boring and the scenes where Bill and mike where riding that bike where really boring and they when they was at that restaurant and we just watched them eat for a couple of minutes that was also boring.
But part 1 was really cool and Tim Curry did a great job as pennywise in Both parts Even better than Bill Skarsgård.
The child actors were actually good.
Overall a pretty good miniseries and really recomend part 1🌞🌝🌛🌜🌚
All the characters where suddenly really boring and the scenes where Bill and mike where riding that bike where really boring and they when they was at that restaurant and we just watched them eat for a couple of minutes that was also boring.
But part 1 was really cool and Tim Curry did a great job as pennywise in Both parts Even better than Bill Skarsgård.
The child actors were actually good.
Overall a pretty good miniseries and really recomend part 1🌞🌝🌛🌜🌚
Stephen King Movies Ranked by IMDb Rating
Stephen King Movies Ranked by IMDb Rating
See how IMDb users rank the feature films based on the work of Stephen King.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesOn the DVD commentary track, the actors note that Tim Curry's characterization of Pennywise was so creepy and realistic that everyone avoided him during the filming.
- Erros de gravaçãoIt seems as if Mike was the last to join the seven back in the 1960s. The day Mike joins them was apparently several days after the other kids had encountered It. Out of the discussion about It, which takes place the day of the Rock Battle, we learn that every single kid in the gang has already seen It somewhere. However, later in the movie, Bev tells a story about the blood in her bathroom, and in the flashback, we see all of the 7 kids entering Bev's bathroom to clean the mess up, the day right after the blood had come out of the washbasin.
- Cenas durante ou pós-créditosDuring the opening credits, we see pictures of the "Lucky Seven" from their childhood like in a photo album. The final photo of the Paramount cinema segues into the actual one in Derry. The camera pulls back from the title IT, and it turns from white to red. In Pt 2, the final photo of a hotel segues into the one the "Lucky Seven" are staying at. At the end of both parts, Pennywise's laugh is heard.
- Versões alternativasAlthough released on VHS and Laserdisc in the original two-part miniseries format, the DVD and Blu-ray releases from Warner Bros. are an edited Home Video Version which removes the end of Part 1 and the beginning of Part 2 in order to turn it into one long film. Here is what has been removed at timestamp 1:34:00 (the chapter 28 mark on the Blu-ray):
- THE END OF PART 1: Stan's wife finds that he has slit his wrist in the bathtub and starts to scream, the scream is cut off abruptly and therefore also the final showing of "IT" written in the blood on the bathroom wall, accompanied by Pennywise laughing and "to be continued" along with the end credits.
- THE BEGINNING OF PART 2: Starts with Bill arriving at the Derry cemetery. This completely cuts out his arrival at the hotel, the conversation with the woman at the desk, a short scene in his hotel room, the full ride in a taxi to the cemetery along with the opening credits.
- ConexõesEdited into The Nostalgia Critic: Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties (2017)
- Trilhas sonorasItsy Bitsy Spider
(uncredited)
Traditional
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How many seasons does It have?Fornecido pela Alexa
- Why did It spare the young Henry Bowers?
- What is "IT"?
- at the end of the movie when the gang is pulling out the guts of the spider, the camera zooms to the wall showing a shadow of all of them ripping out what looks to be the shape of a human. What exactly is this that they ripped out of the spider?
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- Países de origem
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- It
- Locações de filme
- Buntzen Powerhouse 2, Buntzen Lake, Anmore, Columbia Britânica, Canadá(lake, sewer building, coordinates: 49°22'13.8"N, 122°52'25.0"W)
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente