Twenty six years ago today, the first half of the two-part miniseries adaptation of Stephen King’s It premiered on ABC. It followed the children of the Losers Club as they were beset upon by Pennywise the Clown, who kills Georgie, the younger brother of leader Bill. The second part aired two nights later, focusing on the adults of the Losers Club and their attempt to vanquish Pennywise, the alias of the titular character. Directed by Tommy Lee Wallace, who co-wrote the film along with Lawrence Cohen, the event was a smash success upon premiere with the first part landing the fifth most watched program in that time slot and the second part was the second highest viewed program.
I hadn’t seen the film in about 15 or so years and I remember thinking very little of it. As I mentioned at the end of my revisit with the 2005 remake of The Amityville Horror, it’s worth coming back to something you don’t like when you have a different mindset and different life experiences. Perhaps what didn’t bring enjoyment at one point of your life will at a different point. Alas, It doesn’t fall under that category.
The first half of the film deals primarily with the Losers Club as children, introducing them one at a time and focusing on their connection to Pennywise. This is definitely the stronger half as the child actors are damn good and there is a lot of exciting events going on throughout the runtime. When Pennywise isn’t scaring everyone half to death, there are the perils of simply being a child: overprotective or abusive parents, bullies, and small town life where racism is alive and well (remember, this part takes place in the mid-50’s), as well as the towns folk seemingly doing their best to ignore the rash of child deaths.
Still, it must be said that the first half also feels terribly disjointed. It’s great getting to know these kids but the way it’s done makes it feel like we’re getting the smallest of snippets and there aren’t really any solid connecting lines. There’s a lot of awkward attempts to tie everything together but the film does itself a disservice by constantly jumping back and forth between the two timelines. Since they knew it was going to be two parts, they could’ve done what New Line Cinema is doing now, which is to have the first film focus 100% on the children while the second film focuses entirely on the adults. We all know how flashbacks can become really annoying and frustrating and that’s precisely the problem with the It miniseries.
The second half is more problematic because the film loses its flow and rhythm, coming to a grinding halt when the Losers club reconvenes as adults per the request of Mike Hanlon, who tells them that “It” has come back. They proceed to bicker and quibble about what they’re going to do. If they’re not doing that, they’re swapping random stories, eating Chinese food, and drinking booze. It just feels like all sense of urgency is lost, even though they each encountered a version of Pennywise who warned them to leave before it was too late. Eddie Murphy must’ve had a field day with that.
Plus, we all know that the climax of the film looks atrocious. I realize that this was before CGI was affordable and exceptional (although Terminator 2: Judgment Day came out less than a year later…) but this was also after John Carpenter’s The Thing, so we know how good practical FX could be. The spider-thing was a damn disgrace and its design is laughable at best.
Furthermore, the way the movie was filmed just feels like it’s made for TV. And yes, I realize that it was but c’mon now! Just look at “Twin Peaks”, which was on air in 1991 and was most likely filmed around the same time as It and you’ll see a stark difference in visual quality. It just felt cheaper, even though it was a big event for ABC. After all, King’s “It” was the best-selling novel of 1986, according to Publisher’s Weekly.
Even Pennywise, who is played expertly by Tim Curry, ends up looking bad at points simply because of how he’s shot. To make him scary, the film resorts all too often on close-ups of his face, especially when he’s got those sharp disgusting fangs. It just feels lazy, especially considering the amazing potential that was there throughout the story.
Watching the film with today’s eyes, it’s hard to understand why there is resistance to the upcoming remake from Andy Muschietti. King’s story has a great deal of opportunity within and getting a multi-million dollar studio production is rather exciting! And yes, I realize that Bill Skarsgard isn’t Tim Curry, so Pennywise will be totally different. Then again, Heath Ledger wasn’t Jack Nicholson. Kane Hodder wasn’t Richard Brooker. There are great remakes and there are shitty ones, just like there are great horror movies to counteract the really bad drivel that gets put out without a second thought.
It was a major event in its day but that time has come and gone. We now have much better technology to make something grander and far scarier than what was previously given. I look at It and see potential for something greater. Because I’m an optimistic kinda fella (I promise you, I really am), I’m allowing myself to be cautiously optimistic about Muschietti’s film. But you better believe I’ll speak my honest opinion about it once it’s released.
Until that day comes, “Beep beep, Richie!”
