Reed Alexander's Horror Review of 'It' (1990)

Let me start off by saying that there is a lot about this movie that might disappoint a modern viewer who had never seen it before. It's campy, the production quality is actually pretty low, the acting honestly isn't that great. Frankly, we have to be honest that those of us who love this movie, are really riding a lot of nostalgia. That's why we ended up with It (2017) and It Chapter 2 (2019).

The remakes are simply superior. They have better acting, better production quality, the story is every bit as good and doesn't require all the hamfisted flashbacks. Having two movies separates the story of the characters when they're young and when they're adults, which really pays respect to the importance of both stories. It's quite frankly just a better telling of the story in general.

But I'd like to defend the original. Yes, the remake is everything we really wanted out of the franchise, but that doesn't mean the original was bad. The original was simply what was possible at the time. So far as production quality, of course the remake is better. It (1990) was made on a 12 million dollar budget. The budget for It chapter 1 (2017) was more than triple that at almost 40 million dollars. And that was just for the first movie. Chapter 2 was a whopping 79 million dollars. Let's also talk about the fact that the original It (1990) was a made-for-TV miniseries. It didn't even have remotely the same resources as a major studio production. For what we got, we got halfway decent cinematography and solid practical FX.

The acting of the remake is also quite superior. In fact, new viewers might compare the acting of the original to that of an after-school special. I mean, they had Night Court's Herry Anderson as one of the main characters and his brand of comedy seems quite awkward for the tone of the movie. It's much different than Bill Hader who, while also a comedian, has a sharper tone for his character that matches the tone of the movie. I'll give the original one thing, their child actors were actually pretty good. Let's also not forget that Tim Curry plays Pennywise the Dancing Clown. I'd argue that there is no real comparison. His portrayal was arguably better than Bill Skarsgard who was no fucking slouch either.

And I just wanna give some props to the extras that were present during the balloon scene in the library of It (1990). They sat, perfectly fucking still, without flinching, as balloons full of fake blood were popped right in their face. Round of applause.

But you know what It (1990) will have that 2017 and 2019 will never have? The depth of a coming-of-age story. There was something just plastic about the remakes. It (1990) very much reminds me of Stand By Me (1986), and I would argue that it stands as a movie that you can watch with your children. I'm just not sure the remakes have the same connection, or at the very least, I wouldn't recommend them for children. I could really relate to It (1990) as a child of the 80's just like I could relate to Stand By Me (1986). Something about the remakes just doesn't connect with my childhood and to be honest, I don't really know why. Maybe it really just is the nostalgia talking. I watched It (1990) as a kid, and maybe that just stuck with me; seeing kids my own age take on a monster from their nightmares.

Here's the thing. Even if there was never a remake, It (1990) is still good enough to watch and especially watch before the remakes. While the production quality isn't as good, and the acting a little hammy, it's still good enough for horror, and I recommend it. In fact, for Horror Heads, it's required viewing.