Stephen King: Gonosz

In this case the comparisons with the book are unavoidable. The plot of the 1000-page novel is quite well translated to the screen (it’s missing a couple of childhood scenes, the origins of It and the monumental climax, but probably there wasn’t any money left for it in a TV film). The performances of the child actors are fine, but the adults ruin everything. They are incredibly badly cast (though that’s probably subjective, I pictured them differently when I read the book) and they overact a lot. The film does have some atmosphere, but not as intense as in the book. The climax in the sewers feels like a bad joke, mainly due to the awfully looking It, but also because the tension is suddenly lost. The best thing is Pennywise the clown, he’s really scary every time he shows up. The film brought memories of the pleasant moments I spent with the book and for it I’m giving it three stars with a clear conscience. (2008.08.15)

Reviews of the two-part television movie will inevitably differ according to the viewer's knowledge of the book. The novel "It" is Stephen King's best work, and I consider it to be the best modern horror novel. Unlike other King works, it does not excel due to chatty characters, and the reader does not feel that every fourth sentence should be crossed out for the sake of pace. On the contrary, King's ability to fabricate and his incredible imagination are fully showcased. In other words, it is undeniably suggestive reading, one of those cases where the reader picks up the book intending to read two pages before bed, and ends up putting it down when preparing for work in the morning. The novel begins with King stating, "Fiction is the truth inside the lie, and the truth of this fiction is simple enough: the magic exists." It is no coincidence that it took King, who wrote at a fast pace, four long years to write "It." It took Tommy Lee Wallace five weeks to film it, and the film reflects that. For someone unfamiliar with the book, the repellent mask of Pennywise the Clown may be attractive, but others will miss the amazing atmospheric elements, a variety of motifs, and above all, King's imagination. This novel needed more money and, above all, a director endowed with artistic sensibility and imagination for a successful adaptation to be made. While the first part of the film was still tolerable for a television production, the second part brought the film down to the bottom, and the finale (King plays it out on an incredible 80 pages) took it even lower. From my perspective, considering the possibilities the material provided, this is the worst King adaptation I have seen so far. Overall impression: 25%. (2007.11.26)

It's usually not the mess you'd expect, especially the scenes with well-cast children, but the more the film deals with the adults and the closer to the hasty conclusion, the cheaper and more boring it is. I don't get the right horror feeling from Pennywise, who always just scares the kids and then lets them be, and unlike the book, Derry itself doesn't play a big role either, which is a similarly big minus. In terms of what was possible and, for example, compared to the tragic TV version of The Shining, it is a very faithful adaptation of King's epic. (2017.09.12)

It’s alright. The impressive and depressing atmosphere of the book is totally absent, and overall it doesn't even come close to the quality of King's masterful novel, but fans of the book shouldn't have trouble enduring the 170 minutes. Unfortunately, it's a TV movie in which the filmmakers spent only a few bucks and it shows a lot in the terrible visual effects. In addition to money, the director clearly lacked courage, building up the atmosphere without any imaginative jump-scares or any at least scenes that would be a bit rawer, and instead he only sticks to a grinning white face that just wants to scare the kids. And that's a shame, considering the potential that not only the story, but also the character of Pennywise the clown has. I'd rather see it at 2*, but just for the courage to get those 1000 pages on the screen and for some pretty good scenes I'll push it to 3*. (2011.10.27)

After years, I decided to rewatch It to compare it with the new It. I had to take away one star off my original rating. The filmmakers desperately tried to stick as closely as possible to the book, a virtually impossible task given the three-hour running time and the scope of King's book. Thus,  the whole structure got somehow disjointed after a while. Some of its aspects were rather schematic, and some things could have been either better explained or omitted. Time also took its toll on the film, so the monster in the final showdown was plain ridiculous. On the other hand, Tim Curry's Pennywise was demonically perfect. (2018.01.21)

No, the movie "It" definitely isn't as great as the book. Whether it's the television production or simply the creators, "It" is just a diluted version of the great novel. Yes, it has been relatively well adapted, Tim Curry is absolutely perfect as Pennywise, but the movie is not capable of truly scaring you. It was clear that some scenes would need to be omitted, but that greatly diminishes the film. As an adaptation, it is good, but only good. This book deserves something stronger. (2015.04.20)