The works of acclaimed horror and fantasy author Stephen King rank among the most difficult subjects for film adaptation in recent memory. The verbose, intricately detailed, and massively interconnected nature of his books (“The Stand and the “Dark Tower” series in particular) render the narratives at play so deliberately paced that any sort of cinematic interpretation runs the risk of being redundant and too slow for its own good. Still, while difficult, such adaptations are by no means impossible, as shown by the fact that the beloved epic “It” was adapted twice with similar levels of considerations of length. While the recent film opts to be a theatrical duology, the 1990 adaptation was made for T.V. and split into two parts. In preparation for the former, I was excited to take a look back on the latter, and the result was as entertaining as it was disappointing on some fronts.
“It” is as much a slice-of-life story as it is a tense horror-thriller, chronicling the life and times of a group of children (dubbed “The Losers’ Club) in the 50’s, as well as their adulthoods nearly three decades later, and focusing specifically on their struggles with a malevolent being that threatens their hometown of Derry, Maine. The titular monstrosity is a being that preys on children, taking numerous forms (especially those of its victims’ greatest fears), but most prominently appearing as a chillingly jovial clown dubbed “Pennywise” (played in this version by Tim Curry). The impending members of the “Losers’ Club” are brought together by their encounters with the nameless horror, along with the losses of friends and families to its presence, and after fighting it once and winning in their youth, the seven “Losers”, Bill, Ben, Richie, Beverly, Eddie, Stanley, and Mike are forced to reunite when it returns in their hometown in their adulthoods.
The original book was, in reality, about the length of two novels, with each half of the text encompassing the childhoods and adulthoods of the main characters and entire chapters detailing the backstories of EVERY character. Naturally, the length of any adaptation for something this large has to simultaneously streamline the details while also remaining faithful to the overarching content. With this in mind, the old miniseries does well in the way of a faithful, yet trimmed down adaptation, but does so with the caveat of many flaws. On the positive end of things, the film has a solid sense of tone. The atmosphere is that of a Goonies-style coming of age story mixed with supernatural horror, and the blending of youthful adventure with instinct-rattling imagery is still an effective one in spite of its campiness. Speaking of which, Tim Curry’s performance as Pennywise continues to be the undisputed highlight of the series, as he mixes eerily jolly humor with genuine menace well enough that neither aspect derails one another. In fact, his performance is so great that it renders the rest of the movie something of a disappointment, for while Curry is able to find that necessary balance, the series itself does not. This interpretation of the book’s events leans more toward the coming of age story involving the Losers, and while there are genuinely creepy moments behind It’s appearance, they never quite approach “terrifying” levels. Much of this problem can be blamed on the acting. Barring the child actors, Tim Curry, and John Ritter as arguable deuteragonist Ben (as an adult), the performances range from passable to downright over-the-top, reminiscent more of low-budget theatre than a narrative such as this one. Still, if nothing else, the aforementioned style has made the “It” miniseries memorable enough to endure, and while it’s nowhere near as gripping as I remember it, I’m certain it will make for great comparison material for the release of the new movie.
All in all, “It” is deeply flawed, but charming and original enough that I’m hoping the new movie stands out in different ways than this one.
Rich Reviews 