Too many fans seem to be blown away

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

This tv mini series is underrated. The kids accurately portrayed, and the clown horrified me for weeks. He was also closer to the books description. I prefer this series over the new IT movies.

The 1990 version of "IT" most certainly has a good story, and this is definitely a good interpretation of the novel.However it just suffers from catering to a too broad audience in terms of having a fairly low rating, because a lot of scenes could have been so much more convincing with more graphic details of violence and horror.Good and wholesome entertainment, and the movie (or mini-series, as it actually is) never really ages or becomes boring to watch. I have watched it many times since 1990 and still revisits it every now and again.There is lots of value to the movie which, makes it a movie you can watch again and again."IT" has a very nice cast and they performed quite well. Tim Curry was so well-cast for the role of Pennywise, and brought his devilish charm and wits to the character. While Pennywise in this version is nowhere as diabolical or evil as in the 2017 remake, then Tim Curry certainly gave a lot of children nightmares back in the 1990s.

I was eleven and I had nightmares for months and was afraid of horror movies and clowns for years. I began to watch horrors again only few years ago and clowns still give me the creeps. Almost three decades later I decided (not to say I gathered courage) to see "It" again. Thank you for childhood trauma, Stephen.In the small town, where children are disappearing and being murdered, a group of boys and one girl joined forces to fight evil and became friends for life. Decades later, the killings begin again, and they leave their lives and gather in their home-town to defeat evil once more. The movie alternates between these two timelines, which is typical of Stephen King's style. There are other features of the "King of Horror" - a childhood trauma, an evil that lurks hidden behind the facade of a quiet town, ordinary people (often children) who, with their mutual trust and unselfish sacrifice, win victory over supernatural forces. The acting is good, especially performances of the children, but Tim Curry steals the movie in the role of Pennywise, character that will make you hate clowns forever.7/10

I watched this movie with a few friends, and most of us had seen the new one before the first one. One of my friends, however, had seen this one heaps before, and said that he thought it was great. And honestly? I can not possibly fathom why anyone even remotely likes this movie for what it is, and there is absolutely no possible argument to be made that this miniseries is better than the new movie. I don't really know where to start, but the thing that really kills this movie is the pacing and the acting. Maybe its just the limitations of the times or budget or whatever, but the whole thing just doesn't work. All the actors, including Tim Curry as Pennywise, are just really bad. They aren't engaging at all not only due to the fact they are bad actors, but also because the writing is genuinely terrible. Worse still, the whole thing is over 3 hours long, and it was terrible waste of time. I also just looked up the budget for this movie. It was $12 million. You know what horror masterpiece was made for a million less than that? Alien. 1979. 11 years earlier. I know this was a TV miniseries, but apparently they weren't trying very hard.Steer very clear of this rendition of It.