The recent release of this mini-series/TV event film from
1990 was celebrated by it's fans. I have never considered myself much of a fan
of it or, indeed, many of the various television adaptations of Stephen King
stories. They have always struck me a neutered versions of tales that really
need a blast of subversive ultra-violence or darker-than-allowed
characterizations to become the full blooded horror efforts that they were on
the page. The only one that seemed to find a way to craft visceral thrills that
actually crept under my skin was SALEM 'S LOT (1979) but it appears to be the only one with any real
dark power and the ability to hold up over the years.
So, I picked up the cheap Blu-Ray of IT (1990) to see if my
memory of it as 'not bad' held up twenty-seven years later. The good news is
that I think it is actually better than my dim memories led me to believe. The
bad news is that it's flaws are still IT's downfall and they come in the
expected spots.
I expected some of the acting to be less than great - this
is, after all, a TV production with a huge cast of mostly television stars and
a large number of child performers. But I was surprised to note that the young
actors are mostly very good. There are some flubs and it's easy to spot some
careful editing to get around particular actors not being able to successfully
bring off certain emotional notes as well as might be wished for, but overall
they are solid. The adult versions of these characters are played by an
assortment of familiar 1980's TV faces and other than Harry Anderson, who is
way out of his depth, they are quite good. In fact. Dennis Christopher, John
Ritter and Richard Thomas turn in strong work and Ritter plays well off of
Annette O'Toole in an emotional scene in the final hour that is very affecting.
It speaks to the talent of the cast that they managed to accomplish what they
do in a story with so many characters.
6 comments:
The It remake will be in two parts. I'm sure they won't loose any character detail doing it that way.
Cool! That's good to know. Although it's odd to divide a horror tale into two parts.
Cash Cow!
IT being made for tv is where the problems start. Having read the book, 90% of today just cannot be put on tv. And even now there is one thing that won't be in the movies and its completely understandable. You just can't film 9-12 year olds having a gang bang in the sewers. I don't want to complain about the costuming for Pennywise since I just don't know the context for it in the movie, but that is the one thing the tv version got right. There's nothing immediatly offputting about Tim Curry. You don't know something is terribly wrong until its to late. The book is some crazy as shit though; the town itself is almost the bigger villain.
Damn Vila - you almost make me want to read the book! Pre-teen gang bang? Holy hell! I'd heard there was a sex scene that the filmmakers were going to have to leave out but THAT is insane.
After they 'kill' Pennywise the map guy is basically walking catatonic and they get really lost. One of them figures that since adults inspect the sewers on a regular basis and never get lost they need to be adults to get out. The most adult thing they can think of is sex. So there's a preteen gang bang.
And all of the adults know about Pennywise. They let him eat kids every few years because once or twice he's "defended" the town from outside threat. They knowingly cover up the murder of their own kids 'for the greater good.'
Also, Pennywise is why they all got famous. He did some magic to make them all wildly successful in their chosen fields as a sort of peace offering + get the fuck out of here and let me eat kids.
Post a Comment