It
Regie:
Tommy Lee WallaceKamera:
Richard LeitermanMusik:
Richard BellisBesetzung:
Tim Curry, Dennis Christopher, Richard Masur, Annette O'Toole, Tim Reid, John Ritter, Richard Thomas, Jonathan Brandis, Seth Green, Emily Perkins (mehr)Streaming (4)
Inhalte(1)
In der amerikanischen Kleinstadt Derry geht es nicht mit rechten Dingen zu: Ein halbes Dutzend Kinder wurde ermordet oder ist unauffindbar. „Es“ – das Böse – treibt in Gestalt des Clowns Pennywise wieder sein blutiges Spiel, wie vor dreißig Jahren schon einmal. Sieben heranwachsende Freunde, als „Club der Verlierer“ bekannt und allesamt belächelte Außenseiter, konnten ihn damals nur deshalb besiegen, weil sie sich auf ihre gemeinsame Stärke besannen und übersinnliche Kräfte ins Feld führten. Nur einer von ihnen blieb in Derry: Bibliothekar Mike Hanlon. Er trommelt die Gruppe wieder zusammen, um einen alten Schwur einzulösen. Die Männer stellen sich tief unten im Kanalisationslabyrinth aufs Neue ihrer Angst vor dem personifizierten Grauen. (Premiere)
(mehr)Kritiken (7)
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.
()
Und dass es mit Clowns keinen Spaß macht! Sie sind fröhlich, bunt und haben viele schwebende Luftballons. Ja, sie schweben alle. Außerdem helfen sie Ihnen, verlorene Dinge zu finden (zum Beispiel ein Papierschiffchen im Kanal) und sie erfinden jede Menge unterhaltsame Streiche, nur damit Sie sich nicht langweilen. Zum Beispiel Pennywise, er ist ein Meister in diesem Fach. Er wird Sie mit einem seltsamen asiatischen "Glücksbringer" unterhalten, Sie mit Blut aus dem Waschbecken erschrecken, Ihnen tolle Witze erzählen, auch ohne Schwämmchen, und er ist ein angenehmer Begleiter in der Bibliothek oder unter der Dusche. Na ja, und wenn dieser Narr sich zum Beispiel in eine Riesenspinne verwandeln kann, dann gibt es überhaupt nichts zu diskutieren. Einfach der optimale Kumpel. Schlimmer ist es mit denen, die keinen schwarzen Humor haben. Die schneiden sich lieber die Arterien auf. Aber er hat mich immer amüsiert. Schade, dass der berühmteste Clown von allen erst in Derry, im Bundesstaat Maine, lebt. Das liegt etwas weit weg.
()
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%.
()
Meistens ist es nicht so schlimm, wie man erwarten würde. Besonders die Szenen mit gut besetzten Kindern sind gelungen. Je mehr sich der Film aber den Erwachsenen widmet und je näher das überstürzte Ende rückt, desto billiger und langweiliger ist er. Pennywise, der die Haupthelden immer nur erschreckt und sie dann in Ruhe lässt, vermittelt meiner Meinung nach nicht das richtige Horrorgefühl. Im Unterschied zum Buch spielt auch Derry keine große Rolle, was ein ähnlicher Minuspunkt ist. Im Rahmen der Möglichkeiten und z. B. im Vergleich zum tragischen TV-The Shining handelt es sich jedoch um eine ziemlich treue Adaption von Kings Epos.
()
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*.
()
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.
()
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.
()