En el verano de 1989 un grupo de niños deciden unirse para destruir a un monstruo que cambia de forma y se disfraza de payaso atacando los niños de Derry, un pequeño pueblo de Maine.En el verano de 1989 un grupo de niños deciden unirse para destruir a un monstruo que cambia de forma y se disfraza de payaso atacando los niños de Derry, un pequeño pueblo de Maine.En el verano de 1989 un grupo de niños deciden unirse para destruir a un monstruo que cambia de forma y se disfraza de payaso atacando los niños de Derry, un pequeño pueblo de Maine.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 12 premios ganados y 49 nominaciones en total
Jaeden Martell
- Bill Denbrough
- (as Jaeden Lieberher)
Molly Atkinson
- Sonia Kaspbrak
- (as Molly Jane Atkinson)
Opiniones destacadas
So I went and saw IT, and came back unimpressed. I mean it was a good movie, no doubt about that. A bunch of kids, outcasts in their own right, being terrorized by an ancient demon that plays upon the fears of its victims is pretty much the standard in Hollywood horror movie territory. All the kids are well cast, the script is funny and tight, and there are plenty of monster shots. The cinematography is great, the pace is even and the CGI is flawless. But is more funny than terrifying- it's R rating more a justification of teenage slang in the script, rather than for true scares.
But that is what typically Stephen King is all about. His stories are studies on relationships rather than all out horror. In IT, King reversed Spielberg's E.T, and explored everyday monsters of childhood- abuse, violence and neglect. Juxtapose that with an eternal evil shape-shifting entity who wakes up every 27 years to prey, and you have a shawarma of a plot. The book is scary, the movie isn't. Probably so because today, we are used to Stranger Things.
We are used to kids doing stupendous stuff these days- whether running billion dollar companies, or bringing back lost souls from other dimensions. It all seems very easy for today's generation to figure things out- most of IT establishes this narrative. A wonderful group of actors face off against Bill Skarsgard's Pennywise the Dancing Clown, and they all nail their parts. The movie takes place in a town where all the adults are essentially villains- so its not just the kids versus the clowns everyone else. But for sheer impact, IT never reaches the highs it achieves in its first sequence.
It is a great example of how strong marketing can make mediocre movies look a billion bucks. Other reviewers are putting IT right up there with other Stephen King adaptions such as The Shining and The Thing. Oh please, that would be laying it too thick. Director Andy Muschietti's earlier take on the genre- Mama, is a far better contender.
No good horror movie can get away by being light on scares, however good the characters and the script are. So look at IT as an extension of Goonies or Stranger Things, a PG-13 romp, not an iconic horror movie. 7/10
But that is what typically Stephen King is all about. His stories are studies on relationships rather than all out horror. In IT, King reversed Spielberg's E.T, and explored everyday monsters of childhood- abuse, violence and neglect. Juxtapose that with an eternal evil shape-shifting entity who wakes up every 27 years to prey, and you have a shawarma of a plot. The book is scary, the movie isn't. Probably so because today, we are used to Stranger Things.
We are used to kids doing stupendous stuff these days- whether running billion dollar companies, or bringing back lost souls from other dimensions. It all seems very easy for today's generation to figure things out- most of IT establishes this narrative. A wonderful group of actors face off against Bill Skarsgard's Pennywise the Dancing Clown, and they all nail their parts. The movie takes place in a town where all the adults are essentially villains- so its not just the kids versus the clowns everyone else. But for sheer impact, IT never reaches the highs it achieves in its first sequence.
It is a great example of how strong marketing can make mediocre movies look a billion bucks. Other reviewers are putting IT right up there with other Stephen King adaptions such as The Shining and The Thing. Oh please, that would be laying it too thick. Director Andy Muschietti's earlier take on the genre- Mama, is a far better contender.
No good horror movie can get away by being light on scares, however good the characters and the script are. So look at IT as an extension of Goonies or Stranger Things, a PG-13 romp, not an iconic horror movie. 7/10
It's 1988, and a group of young teens in the town of Derry, Maine are terrorized by an otherworldly clown named Pennywise (Bill Skarsgard), who can make them see their worst fears. They must band together to stop the fiend before it kills them all.
King's novel succeeded in large part due to the nostalgic immersion into Baby Boomer cultural touchstones. The filmmakers decision to update the setting to the late 1980's is understandable in the sense that the follow-up, featuring the adult versions of the characters, will now chronologically fit with modern times. The filmmakers also decide to forgo any excessive wallowing in 1980's pop iconography, with a movie poster here and a song there the only references. That boils the story down to the horror film essentials, and while there's nothing original in the mix, it is well presented, and features a handful of memorable scare moments. The special effects are also largely successful, and Skarsgard is good as the monstrous clown. The filmmakers also made the interesting decision to not explain Pennywise, perhaps leaving that for the sequel. I'd be curious what a first time viewer, with no knowledge of the source novel or the previous 1990 TV mini-series version, thought of the story.
I recently caught up with the first season of the TV series Stranger Things, which almost certainly had some impact on this film version of It, even going so far as to cast one of the show's leads in this as well. That's not a problem, though, as that kid (Wolfhard) is good in both, and the rest of the cast in this is also terrific, with Lillis, as the sole girl in the group, and the aforementioned Wolfhard, as the foul-mouthed jokester, the stand-outs.
King's novel succeeded in large part due to the nostalgic immersion into Baby Boomer cultural touchstones. The filmmakers decision to update the setting to the late 1980's is understandable in the sense that the follow-up, featuring the adult versions of the characters, will now chronologically fit with modern times. The filmmakers also decide to forgo any excessive wallowing in 1980's pop iconography, with a movie poster here and a song there the only references. That boils the story down to the horror film essentials, and while there's nothing original in the mix, it is well presented, and features a handful of memorable scare moments. The special effects are also largely successful, and Skarsgard is good as the monstrous clown. The filmmakers also made the interesting decision to not explain Pennywise, perhaps leaving that for the sequel. I'd be curious what a first time viewer, with no knowledge of the source novel or the previous 1990 TV mini-series version, thought of the story.
I recently caught up with the first season of the TV series Stranger Things, which almost certainly had some impact on this film version of It, even going so far as to cast one of the show's leads in this as well. That's not a problem, though, as that kid (Wolfhard) is good in both, and the rest of the cast in this is also terrific, with Lillis, as the sole girl in the group, and the aforementioned Wolfhard, as the foul-mouthed jokester, the stand-outs.
For a younger audience, unjaded by so many horror and suspense flicks, this movie will probably be creepier. This version of the story is somewhat a victim of itself. So many derivatives have occurred over the years, many from King novels, including this one, that this remake suffers as somewhat less of the same. At my 55 years of age, it just never hit a fear climax. Sure, some great scenes, just not enough impact. For the younger audience, I expect it would be great. Also, perhaps by the edit- down for the screen play, the story seemed to leave a lot of plot holes uncompleted, and seemed to violate its own plane of existence. Appropriate for Netflix, or a young couple on a date.
While it could have used more subtlety in the scare moments, the movie delivers surprising and effectively bizarre set pieces to keep you engaged. The likable and endearing losers group make the film worth watching again long after the fright has worn off. It manages to go from terrifying to hilarious, with Richie smashing it as the comedian of the group. It also touches on deeper themes of the bonds of friendship, the traumas that take our innocence away and the courage we need to face our fears. You won't only be scared, you'll be moved and inspired. Though your opinions on clowns might take a hit.
It is a new adaptation of Stephen King's novel of the same name about a mysterious entity that shows up every 27 years to feed on children. Sometimes in the form of something they are most afraid off and sometimes just in the form of the clown and then this group of kids tries to put an end to the whole thing.
I had extremely high expectations that only increased when I heard about all the great reviews. And it's by no means a bad movie, but it certainly is a bit of a disappointment. The story isn't very faithful to the book, but it mostly keeps to the spirit of the novel and contains the essential elements. Adapting that book onto the screen is no easy job, so I'm gonna be a bit forgiving. One thing this movie nailed though is the characters. That's the best thing about this movie. The characters and the performances. Every member of The Losers Club has their own personality and everyone stands out. But still, not entirely (Mike was very underdeveloped). Still, everyone shines in their roles. And Bill Skarsgård is incredible as Pennywise. He's not always terrifying, but he did a fantastic job. I thought both him and Tim Curry in the 1990 TV miniseries were great in their own ways. And they both fit their versions perfectly. Since 1990 version is more of a fun Halloween movie, Curry is a lighter and sillier spin on the character. But this version is darker and creepier, and so is Skarsgård's Pennywise. The characters are a joy to watch, they absolutely nailed that aspect of adapting. And, as I said, it's not easy to adapt this book. But I think they were playing a bit too safe here.
The cosmic horror aspect of the book was one of the most fascinating and terrifying to me, so I was really wondering how they would translate that to a movie. The problem is, they didn't even try. And that's why it feels a bit too ordinary and conventional. If that part was done right, it would have been amazing. Maybe they are saving that for the second part of the story, who knows? In case you didn't know this was only half of the story and the book has a part when they are kids and when they are all grown up, 27 years later. I hope they are saving more mature and creepy parts for the sequel. Also, I was very disappointed by the horror aspect as a whole. The opening scene was very disturbing and creepy, but the movie just doesn't retain that atmosphere. I wanted this movie to get under my skin and give me shivers, but you just don't really feel that sense of dread. You've got some fun scenes with jump-scares, but it's never really as terrifying as I expected it to be. And something the director doesn't realize (same mistake can also be seen in his previous film, Mama) is that the more you show the monster, less scary it becomes. And Pennywise is shown way too much. He's creepy at the beginning, but eventually becomes just fun to watch. And that's not really a good thing for a horror movie.
But nevertheless, this is still a fun and enjoyable movie that I will definitely be coming back to. They got most of the characters, themes and story on point, but the scares are where this movie really disappoints. What was supposes to be a unique, refreshing and terrifying experience turns into a fun (at times laugh-out-loud funny), but too ordinary and conventional experience. Still, I had a good time and will be coming back to it. It just wasn't what I expected.
I had extremely high expectations that only increased when I heard about all the great reviews. And it's by no means a bad movie, but it certainly is a bit of a disappointment. The story isn't very faithful to the book, but it mostly keeps to the spirit of the novel and contains the essential elements. Adapting that book onto the screen is no easy job, so I'm gonna be a bit forgiving. One thing this movie nailed though is the characters. That's the best thing about this movie. The characters and the performances. Every member of The Losers Club has their own personality and everyone stands out. But still, not entirely (Mike was very underdeveloped). Still, everyone shines in their roles. And Bill Skarsgård is incredible as Pennywise. He's not always terrifying, but he did a fantastic job. I thought both him and Tim Curry in the 1990 TV miniseries were great in their own ways. And they both fit their versions perfectly. Since 1990 version is more of a fun Halloween movie, Curry is a lighter and sillier spin on the character. But this version is darker and creepier, and so is Skarsgård's Pennywise. The characters are a joy to watch, they absolutely nailed that aspect of adapting. And, as I said, it's not easy to adapt this book. But I think they were playing a bit too safe here.
The cosmic horror aspect of the book was one of the most fascinating and terrifying to me, so I was really wondering how they would translate that to a movie. The problem is, they didn't even try. And that's why it feels a bit too ordinary and conventional. If that part was done right, it would have been amazing. Maybe they are saving that for the second part of the story, who knows? In case you didn't know this was only half of the story and the book has a part when they are kids and when they are all grown up, 27 years later. I hope they are saving more mature and creepy parts for the sequel. Also, I was very disappointed by the horror aspect as a whole. The opening scene was very disturbing and creepy, but the movie just doesn't retain that atmosphere. I wanted this movie to get under my skin and give me shivers, but you just don't really feel that sense of dread. You've got some fun scenes with jump-scares, but it's never really as terrifying as I expected it to be. And something the director doesn't realize (same mistake can also be seen in his previous film, Mama) is that the more you show the monster, less scary it becomes. And Pennywise is shown way too much. He's creepy at the beginning, but eventually becomes just fun to watch. And that's not really a good thing for a horror movie.
But nevertheless, this is still a fun and enjoyable movie that I will definitely be coming back to. They got most of the characters, themes and story on point, but the scares are where this movie really disappoints. What was supposes to be a unique, refreshing and terrifying experience turns into a fun (at times laugh-out-loud funny), but too ordinary and conventional experience. Still, I had a good time and will be coming back to it. It just wasn't what I expected.
Stephen King Movies Ranked by IMDb Rating
Stephen King Movies Ranked by IMDb Rating
See how IMDb users rank the feature films based on the work of Stephen King.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaJack Dylan Grazer (Eddie) was the first one out of all the kids to work with Bill Skarsgård (Pennywise). During their scene, Grazer would cry and gag while Skarsgård was right in his face yelling and drooling. Skarsgård was genuinely concerned for Grazer and after the scene ended, asked him if he was okay. Grazer looked right at him and said, "Love what you're doing with the character!" Skarsgård was left confused and impressed at Grazer's attitude, calling the child actors "little professionals."
- ErroresDerry, Maine is in the USA, however, a war memorial contains the line "For king and country", revealing the filming ___location in Canada.
- Citas
Richie Tozier: I hear the list is longer than my wang.
Stanley Uris: That's not saying much.
- Créditos curiososThe film title "It" appears at the start as the camera zooms out of a Derry sewer tunnel.
The title appears again in the closing credits with "Chapter One" added to it.
- ConexionesFeatured in Blackcatloner: The Last Week of Work Workout (2017)
- Bandas sonorasLove Removal Machine
Written by Ian Astbury and Billy Duffy (as William Duffy)
Performed by The Cult
Courtesy of Beggars Banquet Records Ltd.
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- Países de origen
- Sitios oficiales
- Idiomas
- También se conoce como
- It
- Locaciones de filmación
- Bangor, Maine, Estados Unidos(on ___location)
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 35,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 328,874,981
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 123,403,419
- 10 sep 2017
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 704,242,888
- Tiempo de ejecución2 horas 15 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta