Stephen King’s best works, and conversely his best film adaptations, have always focused on the horrors that people do to one another. The supernatural aspects of his library aren’t nearly as compelling as his malicious characters. A miscalculation was made in moving the time period to the decade of excess.
Full Review...http://moviemavericks.com/2017/09/it-2017-review/
"...The original story was an early 1960’s set tale, which makes the actions of Bowers a bit more understandable than the more constrained 1980’s."
Tbh I didn't know that. That's interesting. Perhaps it probably would've played out more coherently if the original setting was kept as a sense of 1960s small town dynamics was evoked by the film for me. I've only read King's novella, The Shawshank Redemption due to my love of the film. Along with The Green Mile, they are imo the two best adaptations of King's works!😍 Other movie adaptations of King's books that I enjoyed watching were Stand By Me and 11.22.63.
"The 1990’s television miniseries is a different entity that shouldn’t be compared to the 2017 incarnation..."
Having watched the original TV mini-series as a teenager I couldn't help, but compare it with this remake while watching the film. Tbh I utterly detested the ending of the 1990 TV version, which I found confusing. This film, however, I found to be superior in contrast. I didn't really compare it to Stand By Me at all even though as you, and others, rightly pointed out there were common elements. I guess with King having grown up in the 1950s and 1960s as a youth he'd no doubt use such a period as an ideal setting for many of his novels. And being the hopeless nostalgic that I am idealizing the 1920s to 1950s era of American history it's not surprising as there's always been a market for such period pieces in novels and films.
Lol no. The two are completely different stories and movies.
shareno
share