Amazon.com Widgets
  • It 2017 was a lot better modern horror movie the 90s version was only really good for its time

    The updated graphics and the more darker vibe to it in comparison although they aren't really comparable because they are played differently it 1990 was more like john wayne gacy with more of a charming clown to lure kids to show his hidden agenda and not an obvious threat where as the new it kinda portrays him like leatherface because hes an obvious threat in his new terrifying attire

  • No no not

    Hi there are we still at work and we are not getting back to on time for we have a good car lot so I can go to do something a big one time thing and then go home get a canopy and for me a lot and if of something that you I don’t can want to me you do not have a car and I don’t can get you to do.

  • The focus has shifted from the classic

    The fact is, the reason It succeeds as a horror movie and a story is the very haunting nature of the town of Derry. It is a classic American back-town with a mystery to it. The story has been built around this mystery. The advantage of It is its excellent utilisation of shock elements. It uses the unfamiliarity of its horror to grasp a watcher. It (2017) used classic horror niches much more than the shock element. The disturbing imagery was replaced by flashing lights and quick frames. It has never been about the "Did I see something there?", the story has always been about "Wow, I just saw that" and though it is true that the 1990 effects and relative mildness in regards with exploring race, sexuality and gore make it a little less true to the source material, it delivers shock and power in a much better way.

  • The focus has shifted from the classic

    The fact is, the reason It succeeds as a horror movie and a story is the very haunting nature of the town of Derry. It is a classic American back-town with a mystery to it. The story has been built around this mystery. The advantage of It is its excellent utilisation of shock elements. It uses the unfamiliarity of its horror to grasp a watcher. It (2017) used classic horror niches much more than the shock element. The disturbing imagery was replaced by flashing lights and quick frames. It has never been about the "Did I see something there?", the story has always been about "Wow, I just saw that" and though it is true that the 1990 effects and relative mildness in regards with exploring race, sexuality and gore make it a little less true to the source material, it delivers shock and power in a much better way.

  • It 1990 was not as good as people remember

    I rewatched the It 1990 miniseries recently, and it has not aged well at all. The acting is hokey and awkward. Tim Curry is the only one who really delivers a good performance. While I do like Tim Curry's portrayal of Pennywise better than Bill Skarsgard's, I think the factor that really raises the 2017 version over the 1990 is the horror aspect and the phenomenal performances of the child actors. I think the painting lady scene with Stanley was hands down one of the most unnerving cinema experiences i have ever seen. The 2017 kids are all much better actors than the 1990s cast and that is shown in the natural delivery of their dialogue as they curse at and roast each other like normal kids do.

  • The focus has shifted from the classic

    The fact is, the reason It succeeds as a horror movie and a story is the very haunting nature of the town of Derry. It is a classic American back-town with a mystery to it. The story has been built around this mystery. The advantage of It is its excellent utilisation of shock elements. It uses the unfamiliarity of its horror to grasp a watcher. It (2017) used classic horror niches much more than the shock element. The disturbing imagery was replaced by flashing lights and quick frames. It has never been about the "Did I see something there?", the story has always been about "Wow, I just saw that" and though it is true that the 1990 effects and relative mildness in regards with exploring race, sexuality and gore make it a little less true to the source material, it delivers shock and power in a much better way.

  • The focus has shifted from the classic

    The fact is, the reason It succeeds as a horror movie and a story is the very haunting nature of the town of Derry. It is a classic American back-town with a mystery to it. The story has been built around this mystery. The advantage of It is its excellent utilisation of shock elements. It uses the unfamiliarity of its horror to grasp a watcher. It (2017) used classic horror niches much more than the shock element. The disturbing imagery was replaced by flashing lights and quick frames. It has never been about the "Did I see something there?", the story has always been about "Wow, I just saw that" and though it is true that the 1990 effects and relative mildness in regards with exploring race, sexuality and gore make it a little less true to the source material, it delivers shock and power in a much better way.

  • No, not really.

    All they did is swap replace actual horror with gore and special effects. Ya, they have more blood, and the character of Pennywise has rows of pointed teeth but that only distracts from the poor acting including that of the key role of Pennywise. Today, we have many people afraid of clowns because of the original series. I pulled out my DVD of the original an my roommate at the time, who was in her mid 20's ran from the room just from the picture on the cover. The original series freaked her out that much. Personally, I like the book better, but at least the series was closer to the book. As far as Stephen King remakes, I think they did a much better job with Carrie.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
BeautifulAngel17 says2018-04-07T15:51:26.503
I am so sorry but I was not alive in 1990.
BeautifulAngel17 says2018-04-07T15:51:34.163
I am so sorry but I was not alive in 1990.
>