lol buggs bunny hmm im suprised no rape joke at 15:43
XD

or another Bugs Bunny made me cry joke XD

yeah or that XB

This movie's full of them.

Holy shit, 29:00 - did he just pull a Frodo?

This must have been the stupidest thing I've ever seen, why did a giant spider change shape into a clown, kill people and then brag about how things float!?

Awesome review though, I'd really like to sit down and have a few glasses with the TGWTG crew sometime :P Probably not gonna happen but one can dream.

giant spider is closest to It's true form we can see.
I killed people to feast on them.
He was talking about how dead bodies float.
Any other questions?

If bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, how is a raven like a writing desk?

Poe wrote on it

Okay, so why can't I have my cake and eat it too? It only seems logical that if I have a food, I should be able to eat it.

Well?

The cake is a lie.

Nice.

I never thought of that. Thanks, Lewis!

If hot dogs come in packs of ten why do hot dog buns come in packs of eight?

umm... They both have inky quills? :P

Dr. Smith FTW

..........You're stark RAVENING MAD!!!!! 0_0

because I'm batman :D

I haven't the slightest idea!

Edgar Allen Poe used both. Easy.

I do got another question mook his true from is a spider or it's the closest thing is it ever described? BTW I never read the book.

It's true form in the Macroverse is the Deadlights, and any human who sees them goes insane or dies (think Lovecraft). A giant black spider is the closest thing the human mind can approximate It's earthly form to.

So, I don't suppose the deadlights have a physical form in this macroverse. I've never read much King or Lovecraft, but I find it easier to understand things if I can get a mental image.

Also, I find it hard to believe the creature could live so long. It predates prehistoric times? Cuz it seems like at least one of those ancient animals called "dinosaurs" would eventually be big enough/fast enough/tough enough to find some way to kill it reguardless of the form it takes.

That's just scratching the surface of the questions this whole thing brings up!! :(

The hell was that "saying birds names" about?

.......... that makes no fucking sense.

obviously we see its true form because it took its true form. this isn't cthulu, it is a psychotic demon clown.

Hey, I just want to drop some answers that the movie didn't answer.

The reason why the final form was a giant spider-like thing is because the creature is an eldritch terror kind of monster in the same vain of H.P. Lovecraft's stories (Stephen King has a hard-on for Lovecraft. They're both horror writers don'cha know!) In fact, the creature that lived in the sewers had been on Earth for not just over 200 years, but thousands, even predating to prehistoric times.

The reason why It takes the form of a clown, is because clowns are traditionally supposed to entertain and invite people to carnivals and stuff. You know, bring joy. It uses this form to lure people into Its lair, especially children, because only kids can see It and "kids are gullible morons."

The reason why It plays around with its victims, bragging about killing them rather then outright killing them then and there, is because the victims taste so much better when they are afraid (which is pretty plausible if you ask me, because your blood DOES actually get stickier when you are in a state of fear).

Now you know the creature is a shapeshifter, it can morph into anything that people are afraid of, anything. For instance, in the book, there was this evil bully named Patrick who killed his baby brother; he had a deep fear of things leeching off of his existence (like leeches!). It takes the form of a mosquito/wasp hybrid, and drains him of his blood. So, that's the tagline of the book for you "It is everything you were ever afraid of..." In short, It lures you into its lair, promising fun and laughter, then It takes on the form of your worst and deepest psychological fear, and it feeds on you at your highest moment of sheer terror.

Ulmuchia just answered what I was about to answer about why It keeps talking about how everything "floats down here."

"He was talking about how dead bodies float."

But I'll expand on it anyway.

So yes, when It says to people stuff like "I'll teach you how to floooo~at!" of "Everything floats down here" or when he takes the forms of the characters dead friends and family "Come down here. We all float down here!"

It is referring to the piles of dead bodies floating around in the sewer waters... And also the shit.

Yeah, actual shit, the poopy kind. Both dead bodies and shit tend to float in the water. The sewer is traditionally where all the shit goes, and it is fittingly the home of It, being that It is the sum of all psychological fears.

In fact the stuff that floats is probably a combination of the two. The shit and the bodies that is. After all, It does feed on the bodies, and what goes in must come out.
This is also probably no adults seem to notice the bodies in the sewers, because all the digested bodies are indiscernible from all the shit. In fact, in the scene where Beverly comes to visit her old home and is let in by "Mrs. Kursh" (Note: This scene was omitted from the review, maybe because it was actually pretty scary and you couldn't really make a joke about it). The cup of tea that she drank from with contents that out to be blood, was actually a cup of shit in the book.

Also, I just wanted to also add a little tidbit from the Book that explains why Bev is "easy with everybody" if you know what I mean.

The Loser's Club was originally formed as nakama (or bonding) for kids in the town's school who are bullied; The club forms a big friendship between one another.

The kids of The Loser's Club noticed It, but they didn't fall for It's traps (When they saw the clown trying to invite them into the sewers, posing as family members and whatnot, they ran away, or stood in fear). They talked to each other about "It" or "The Clown", did some research, and found out that it has been lurking in Derry for over 200 years. After it kills the bully, Henry. They decide to form up and go on a childhood quest to kill It. (A lot of the stuff here that regards to killing involve the power of "make-believe", since kids have over active imaginations, that is why they can see it. Also, using harmless stuff believing it to be a weapon (This is BATTERY ACID!) works too, as well as saying "You're NOT REAL." Pretending is a good way to repel It.

But now to my answer, when the team of kids go into the sewers. Beverly decides to get all the kids to have sex with her before they venture further... Yeah... (somebody call Chris Hansen and tell him to keep an eye on King[btw, Kudos to the intro art!]}.

The reason for this squicky-ness is because 1) Bev was sexually abused by her own father, thus, warping her with sex at a young age. 2) This was also a crucial character defining and bonding moment for The Loser's Club because this moment symbolizes their everlasting friend towards each other and their transcendence into adulthood.

I was really surprised that there was no shot taken for the sexualizing of children or, more specifically, sexualizing of psychic children. That crap is all over the place in King stories. I second that Chris Hansen comment about Stephen King. Man has issues.

>I second that Chris Hansen comment about Stephen King. Man has issues.

The Man may have issues, but he still is a good writer in my opinion due to his legacy as a horror writer and his effort. Even when he sucks, he's still a better writer than Stephanie Meyer.

http:// encyclopediadramatica.com /Twilight
“...Stephenie Meyer can't write worth a darn. She's not very good."- Stephen King (The MAN)

I hear recently he has been tying all his stories together into one big canonical universe, especially with "The Dark Tower" series. Pennywise makes cameos with references to It hiding the backgrounds of some novels. (In "Dreamcatcher" there's some graffiti that reads "PENNYWISE LIVES!")

Anyway I just wanted to thank the artist of the intro art and Doug for the shout outs.
http:// encyclopediadramatica.com /Chris_Hansen
http:// encyclopediadramatica.com /Pedobear

"We" appreciate it very much thank you.
Keep up the good work NC.

(btw, plz review "American Rabbit" NC, LULZ are to be had! Kthxbye!)

Anyone is a better writer than Stephanie Meyer. My ass is a better writer than Stephanie Meyer. Steven Kings stories are BLAH and filled with let downs over and over again. Sure he's rich, famous and well known for turning ANYTHING into a film or book. But just because he can do all that with good writing (use of words) it does not mean he's a good writer though. If the stories suck, then they suck, no matter how badly or how good they are written. Same goes for Stephenie Meyer so hers sucks on multiple levels.

The Shawshank Redemption sucks?

While you are right, some of Stephen King's work sucks has let downs and is stereotypical, he has also written some of the better novels of the latter half of the twentith century:

The Stand
Carrie
Christine
The Shining
Pet Semetary
The Mist(Although that was a short story)

Just to name a few; but he like any number of famous popular writers suffer from what me and my friend have coined "The Wheel O Plot", you see alot of writing is done in contracts especially with the big publishers, and an author has to write as much as the contract says, now does that excuse him for Dream Catcher or any of the horrid tales he's laid out over the past decade? No, because really that's his own fault for not wanting to let go of what he's lost.

OH and by the way, IT is a far better book than movie. Just goes to show you authors shouldn't always pen their novels adaptations

>"But just because he can do all that with good writing (use of words) it does not mean he's a good writer though."

I'm sorry, but I just can't resist committing a "dick move" by putting your words in your mouth in a very douchebaggy manner...

...Because my TROLL INSTINCTS ARE OVERWHELMING ME! :psychotic:

So lets deconstruct your point shall we?

Now I don't know what you think makes a "good writer", but I suppose the common definition of a "good writer" to be someone who "practices the art of good writing"... Which is something you admitted Stephen King to doing with "use of words", which is basically what writing is! "Good" just means the writing is amusing/fun/sexy/scary/ informative/descriptive in some way.


In other words,
"...just because Stephen King is a good writer doesn't mean he is a good writer."
XD Someone sure is jelly here! YOU MAD!

Stephen King does not suck. You say that because you haven't even read the stories.

I don't think he's THAT bad, but his stories are full of so many inconsequential details that it makes them hard to read. I read IT because the movie confused me so much, which only led to more confusion. He spends twenty pages on Stan, describing his boring ass bank job, before killing him off. He describes everything in Eddy's medicine cabinet. Blah blah blah useless. Not to mention his sexualization of children, which seemed pointless and a little TOO detailed.

Oh, and how Bill and EVERY OTHER MAIN CHARACTER IN ONE OF HIS BOOKS is just him. Seriously, I don't need Stephen King as my main character in a Stephen King book. It gets old fast.

"Dreamcatchers" also has a retarded alien who shouts "I Dudditz" and monsters that come out of people's asses. Would you really want that story in ANY kind of continuous universe?

>"Dreamcatchers" also has a retarded alien who shouts "I Dudditz" and monsters that come out of people's asses. Would you really want that story in ANY kind of continuous universe?


If it was in the universe of Troma film, then YES!

That ending is only in the movie version which I doubt Stephen had very much to do with.

Dudditz is in the book, but has a tragi-heroic ending.

He does NOT turn into another monster.

Issues or not he's still a terrific writer if you ask me.

You have issues. That scene in IT With Bev and other kids is about the discovery of lust.

...Who has issues again? That seems pretty fucked up, even by King's standards.

Here's the scene where Bev visits her old home and sips blood/tea tea. I still think it's still scary in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=n9n6cbd3D4Y

What I found scary about it is when It shape-shifts form from "Mrs. Kursh" to the form of Bev's Father, her father's rotting, eye-less corpse. It says to her this double entendre of nightmare fuel, "I worry about you Bev."

What's chilling about that line, is that here father often spoke that to her when he was still living. It obvious to both her status as her child and a sexual plaything. It is also creepy because this is It saying the line to her. It is scary because It know her on a psychological level as well as the other losers. The line is clearly used to mock and intimidate her as It's ultimate goal is to kill her and the rest of the Losers because the Losers are It's mortal enemies (The Losers are all pawns in this convoluted plot on behalf of this Turtle deity to ritualistically seal It.)

actually I thought the creepiest part about that scene was not just that the woman was actually the ghostly rotting corpse of the Dad, but that when Beverly left the house, she discovered it'd actually been boarded up; she'd been inside an abandoned derelict without realizing it.


Actually my only really big problem with this movie was how these 7 people are totally fucking obsessed with their childhoods. I mean...there's waxing nostalgically about your childhood...and then there's being obsessed to the point where it pretty much runs the rest of your life; like even the point where one of the characters says "I've never loved anyone else in life as much as I've loved you guys". Yeah...that's kinda sad....

Actually she had sex with them after they thought they defeated IT. They got in to the sewers and found IT's lair because they believed in IT and had an imagination. When they tried to leave, they were trapped by their own imagination and fear, the sewers were like a maze and Bev thought that by having sex with them, they would form a strong bond with each other again and also enter into adulthood thus helping them escape. It's still a bunch of 12 year olds having sex though and that is the one part of the book I always have a hard time getting through.

The townspeople being in on it was explained much better in the book. It actually wasn't that they were in on it so much as they turned a blind eye to the violence that happened in their town and were kind of under ITs spell. IT used the town's prejudices to fuel the fear that IT craved. There was a story in the book about a bar for black people back in the day that of course the white people didn't much approve of. A man fueled a large mob to go down to the bar, trap the people that were in it and burn it to the ground, in all the panic, the man would grab people and eat them because he was in fact IT. They cut out a lot of the scariest and most disturbing aspects of the story which is a shame because they really help to explain IT and the dread and helplessness the kids felt.

The book itself is awesome and is an examination of fear and the power it holds over us as kids and how we try to overcome them as adults. It's a great read and I highly recommend the book to anyone who loves a good scare and can tolerate reading 1300 pages.

The only thing I'll agree about in this review is that the ending is incredibly cheesy (it is in the book as well) and the adult actors were incredibly miscast and awful. I only saw part 1 as a kid and it terrified me but then I hate clowns and always have. When I finally saw part 2 I was sorely disappointed by how cheesy and awful it was. It was a letdown to the book.

RakortheTerrible said: 'The reason for this squicky-ness is because 1) Bev was sexually abused by her own father, thus, warping her with sex at a young age. 2) This was also a crucial character defining and bonding moment for The Loser's Club because this moment symbolizes their everlasting friend towards each other and their transcendence into adulthood.'

True enough. The bile I tasted in my mouth just now confirms it.

How much of this is actually explained (or explained clearly enough) in the movie? Because I'm sure it's not going to make a whole lot of sense if all of that is left out.

actually Beverly was never sexually abused by her father. Her father was just extremely over protective. At one point during the book, he tells her to pull her pants and underpants down so he can check to see if she's "intact"
Plus she had sex with them in order to clear their minds and strengthen their bond together.
Also did you read the book? I'm not trying to cause offense but some of the stuff you said was pretty inaccurate. The creatures that attacked Patrick were described as "leeches with wings"
Otherwise a lot of the stuff you say is correct. Thanks for clarifying!

Sorry if what I said was inaccurate, I don't mean to spread disinformation, it's just that that I read the story so long ago, and I tend to be forgetful at times and miss important details. Still, I'm glad you're here to correct me when I'm wrong. (Everybody here, please read this guy's post and vote him up. Thank you.)

On Beverly's father, I think I must have mixed him up with her asshole husband, Tom. Maybe.

Also I remember the bit with the winged leeches. In fact, It was actually a big swarm of these monsters that came out of a freezer. I remember the passage being very descriptive (Stephen King writes how one of the mosquito/wasp-like leech actually flies underneath Patrick's shirt, and how another sucks the blood out of his eye. Talk about attention to detail that you might not usually get when watching a movie!). They attacked Patrick while in the middle of his "favorite hobby", so in that case he got what he deserved. (Patrick's hobby was stuffing living, breathing animals like kittens and puppies in a freezer, and regularly checking on them until they died of starvation and frostbites. Like I said, Patrick was very sick the head. Even the racist Henry Bowers was disgusted with his actions, ironically.

Yeah, see, when Beverly's dad said that to her in the book I was like "WTF MAN?!? She's 11! Why in the HELL would she have had sex?!"

And then not that much later in the book, she does... with six guys... in a row...

~________~ I loved IT but that part made no sense no matter which way you slice it. It was just plain wrong and another manifestation of Stephen King's sexualised-kiddies fetish.

Yeah, the sex thing was weird...I never thought it was what needed to happen...they get lost in the sewers after they kill it and start to bicker, and SOMEHOW Bev knows the solution is for a bunch of 12-year old kids to have sex? And since she's the only girl out of 7 kids, she has to have sex with 6 boys in a row? Umm...I thought It was a cool book (I'll NEVER see the mini-series because a cheesey TV mini-series or movie can never capture a book) but that was just weird.

RakortheTerrible: thanks for explaining some of those things. The trouble with Stephen King movies in general is that they leave out some really significant parts of the book, but cling onto parts that the movie could have easily done without. That's also why the characters in the movie are so one dimensional. In the books, he spends more time on character development than the movies do.

The world is fully aware that Stephen King needs a better editor, but when you're adapting a book to film, knowing what to leave out and what to keep in is even more important.

ya but the book is like 1230 pages i think.
They may have had 3 hours but it takes way more than that to read the book

They tend to do this a whole ton...His books seem to be ridiculously literary, which is weird because they don't feel that way...

They don't explain the creature because it's supposed to be like the Elder Gods...completely alien to us. The book was great, despite needing some editing. The film....aheh.

Actually, the real problem with King movies not just the fact they tend to leave a chunk of good details out (like many other book adaptions), but these adaptions always tend to conspicuously be full of some the worst actors, bad special effects, and just plain NARM. (Langoliers anyone? Dreamcatcher?) Though, there are some notable exceptions like the Green Mile, Carrie, and The Shining (although, that's mostly Kubrick's genius, not King's).

Funny enough, Stephen King himself actually had the idea to do a film adaption of his own work. Since no one at the time was making a decent or accurate adaption of his work, he felt that would "just have to do it himself"... AND YET EVEN HE COULDN'T AVOID THE NARM! The movie in question was Maximum Overdrive, based on his story "Trucks". Welp, at least it's a pretty fun "brainless" movie in Jame's opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=4kcfentFKko

Yeah, probably today it would shapeshift into a cosplayer, or Steve Jobs ("came here float with an ipod!")

Also, the book explains the reason for the Losers' Club being the only good people in the town - It was sort of the driving force behind the town. It used it as a sort of laboratory for growing cruel, apathetic people which gave it strength (and they also tended to forget about the murders and disasters It caused).

see it's these explanations that prove King is not a great writer. Having the clown end up as a "big scary prehistoric monster" is fucking ridiculous. It sounds like the reveal an 8 year old would make in his first fantasy essay.

King's explanations are weak as hell, extremely anti-climactic and just badly done.

King is not ALL bad. shawshank, the green mile, the stand and the dark tower are excellent books/shorts. But outside of that the man has big problems with character development, plot changes and pacing.

even his writing style isn't very elegant or well done in comparison to someone like lovecraft or tolkien even.
To go more recent Cormac McCarthy has a much cleaner, better writing style and his plots don't have holes and make SENSE. The answers you gave sound like they're made up on the spot (i know they're not, but i did have to check just to make sure you weren't joking).

King is a mediocre to bad writer, with a few truly excellent stories thrown in.

>Having the clown end up as a "big scary prehistoric monster" is fucking ridiculous. It sounds like the reveal an 8 year old would make in his first fantasy essay.

CORRECTION! It was a "big scary prehistoric monster... FROM OUTER SPACE!!!"

Aside from that, if it is the kind of thing an 8-year old would dream up (albeit, a pretty damn imaginative 8 year old[who probably sucks at drawing though]), then it correlates to the story even better, making the plot thread much stronger. The reason being that this monster was a remnant of a "lost childhood adventure" for the main characters.
One of the themes that explore the concept of fear in this book has to do with childhood, namely the fact that everything was much scarier when you were a child (like this movie here, because it is indeed quite narmy! :p).
The Losers experienced the kind of "nostalgic adventure" that you or I would have had back when we were 8 and were on the school playground. The twist here is that the monster was real, and this "nostalgia" twisted our perceptions of life. The place and time the characters lived through as kids, this small town during the 1950's, had a truly ugly underbelly, literally and metaphorically.

Metaphorically because if there is one era that has gotten the "nostalgic" treatment so much to the point of corniness, it has to be the 1950's. You can see it in the Norman Rockwell paintings, jukeboxes, greatest hit albums, and the 5&diners, and yet, this "happy", "milder" 1950's was also a time of racial and gender discrimination. Literally because there is a monster lurking in the smelly sewers who is manipulating people into being apathetic, pretending that they live a happy existence with no conflict, while turning a blind eye to the violent murders, while feeding on their children as the adults blame "the black people." With that in mind, I found it beautifully and tearfully poetic at the end when It was finally killed. When It died, so did the town afterward, because a huge flood happened in the following years, and Derry became an abandoned ghost town. The nostalgia has died, but so has the many evils that it beheld.
In addition, the monster may have been over-the-top, but it had depth for a "big scary prehistoric monster". It was not some monster that just rampaged through town eating kids, the creature had "intellect beyond our maximum intellect", and a physiology beyond our comprehension. This creature was not just a "doer", but a "thinker". The creature knows observes us, understands our languages, knows our deepest fears, manipulates us into doing things to further its agenda, etc.

it's also because they wanted to draw in huge ratings...and the generation that drew the highest TV ratings ever were the Baby Boomers...and what was the generation that this movie was representing? ':B-)

In tribute to Lovecraft, the creature's true form(The "Deadlights") is incomprehensible and can drive you crazy just thinking about it or looking at it. If noticed you from the movie, when It turns Henry Bower's hair white, well, that was the movie's way of showing that Henry Bowers had looked straight into the deadlights, and went mad from the revelation.

Speaking of Lovecraft, you seem to criticize King for "having the clown end up as a "big scary prehistoric monster", commenting that it was "amateurish like an 8 year old", and later, name-dropping Lovecraft citing King as "inferior" to him.

Wait a sec! Wasn't Lovecraft that writer who came up with the critically acclaimed, documentary-esque short story, "The Call of Cthulu"?

From what I recalled, the monster in that story was revealed to be a "big scary prehistoric monster". Not just that, but it too, was an extraterrestrial, and it had bat-wings and a "Dr. Zoidberg" mouth to boot!

Not that I find Lovecraft bad or anything. I consider him just as good as his successor King, and I would put them both in the same tier of "good".

Again, as it's been explained time and again, the appearance of a "big scary prehistoric monster" is no more what "IT" looks like than the clown throughout the film. The "BSPM" is just what the human psyche can accept.

It doesn't make the payoff any less silly.

I put it to you, GeekGuy: if this creature can appear in any form, why not simply appear in the form of the scariest thing imaginable? Each of the characters would see something different, as mental image of the embodiment of terror differs from person to person.

Unless every person in Derry, Maine, has a fear of giant animatronic prehistoric crustaceans, the form It chose is not that effective in scaring people.

IT isn't weak or immature. IT is just something beyond prehistoric you moron...It's from beyond our comprehension! Read H. P. Lovecraft and Stephen King...especially H. P. Lovecraft, I think Lovecraft is better than Shakespeare or any other writer in History. Sure i'm going to be bashed like hell...but don't forget Lovecraft tells us the truth about the universe.

...Or, what HE considers to be the truth about the universe. In a universe in a book. A book that's easily classified as FICTION.

On this, I disagree. I actually find King's work similar to Tolken in that they use excessive amounts of detail in their stories. I dislike both of them for it, because I find that most of what they add doesn't actually add to the story. Its inconsequential and distracting.

Other than that, they are very different writers and hard to compare, since they wrote for different reasons and had vastly different genres. Tolken's driving force was making a sandbox to play with the languages he created. So while, yes, his story is great, he had a lot of time to wind a bunch of smaller stories into a big arc. He had complete control over everything in his universe and needed them for his little language game. King doesn't do that, and I don't think it can be considered a fault against him. It's just his style.

And to call him a mediocre writer but then admit he has a few "truly excellent stories" doesn't really work. Mediocre writers don't write excellent stories. More likely, he's an excellent writer who's written way too much and rushed through a lot of bad work because his publisher said so.

.......but why would it? that is why i do not like eldritch monsters much. you can't use the excuse of incomprehensibility. there has to be a purpose if the creature is actively going around.

point is, the it is a poorly conceived creature.

**In short, It lures you into its lair, promising fun and laughter, then It takes on the form of your worst and deepest psychological fear, and it feeds on you at your highest moment of sheer terror.**

See, now THAT sounds legitimately scary! But I guess that didn't come across in the movie? That's a shame…and they could've then made the balloons=scary thing actually work. I.e. The main characters have seen It try to lure them with fun, bright things (balloons), so after a while, those things start to take on a really sinister feel, and It starts using the balloons to mock the characters. Like It's saying, "Ok, so you've caught on to what I'm doing, but you can't resist me forever. I WILL get you sooner or later."

I don't know, I've never read the book or seen the movie, so I'm just guessing here.

Also, I'd like to see a Behind the Scenes on this one! Would be fun to see him drinking and messing up the lines :P

I can understand where you're coming from in regard to this movie, NC. Compared to the book, it's lacking. The book's much darker and embodies a truer horror theme.

One good example why the book is miles better were the bullies' motivation. The reason that the leader of the gang (Henry Bowers) goes to such lengths to terrorize the other kids (the Losers Club) the way he does is because he was being manipulated by It to the point of madness. This dude was sadistic and crazy in the book! He actually commits violence against the kids, kills, and he was racist and sexist too. All of Henry's followers, except one, was also very violent.

All in all, it would've helped the case for the movie if they included more things from the book.

the book explains all the complaints you just said. Read it. It's exceptionally good.

This must be the worst movie I've ever seen a review of. And that's saying something. Mostly because IT seems so overrated.

Thank you for this great review.

He was going to cut his name in his belly

To be fair to the movie, a bunch of it relied on knowledge of the book. When It turned into a rottweiler, the book had explained that the prison guard was particularly afraid of them in advance. Also, he dramatically dropped a roll of quarters because the book described that, because guards weren't allowed to use billy clubs to beat people, rolls of quarters would do just fine. Yeah, it was a bad move on the movie's part to not go into it, but at least there IS an explanation.

Also, one thing you never addressed is that It feeds on fear, and is repulsed by courage. That's why listing the names of birds worked on the mummy.

Also, the movie's ending was disappointing. Bill's wife never should have come out of her zombified state, and she didn't in the book. Also, the ending was slightly more ambiguous. It had tons of eggs in the cave, and the kids stomped all they could of them, and when they left, they said something like "I...think we got all of them." :-D

>Also, the movie's ending was disappointing. >Bill's wife never should have come out of her >zombified state, and she didn't in the book.

I disagree. Doesn't Bill put his wife on the handlebars of the antique bike (which was either one he'd had as a kid, or was the same model) and ride her down the steep hill in Derry (which always scared her when they were kids together) which causes her to come out of the coma?

I got an idea for another drinking game. Take a drink every time NC disappoints you.

I bet you'll never take a drink.

Great job and nice new "spin" on the review NC!

Unless you're Douchey McNitpic

We must never speak HIS name ever again, for if we do, or if we even remember him, HE will come back like Maleficient did in Kingdom Hearts 2, (this also explains how HE was able to servive the Critics attack on HIM after the first set of Top 11 Nostalgia Critic F*ck Ups).

>avatar
>I got an idea for another drinking game. Take a >drink every time NC disappoints you.

>I bet you'll never take a drink.

I would have alcohol poisoning before I got through "Last Action Hero."

So I'd take at least one: Rocky IV

The scene that got me was Tim Curry sitting on the library banister and pumping his arm, tilting his head and going huAH huAH huAH! I was laughing so hard I cried for 5 minutes! :D

What about a shota tentacle joke at 10:30? This movie's full of weird almost-sex things.

oh critic if you hate this movie just wait till the dark tower ser comes out and oh yes the it clown comes back again in the last book/ movie as Dandelo hahahaha have fun with that one. oh and just in case you didnt know around this time king was still drinking and useing drugs oh and smoking. probly explans alot.
bty i love the dt ser and cant wait to see them!
cant wait to show this at fanimecon 2011

Anyone who thinks that IT should come and eat Justin BEAVER say "I"

In the Words of Nick from Left 4 Dead 2 "KILL EVERY CLOWN YOU SEE!"

Shut up, I hear a bitch...

I kind of find some unfair criticism towards Stephen King. It's not like Nostalgia Critic show is not full of cliches too. You could drink yourself to death, thanks to his various cliches.

NC's cliches aren't annoying, aren't disappointing, aren't as recurring, and you don't have to read 500 pages of build-up just to be slapped in the face with ANOTHER one.

First: King isn't cliché
Second: You are cliché

or at 19:22 where the ballon comes out her skirt

YAYY!!!! HE FINALLY DID IT!!!!

Fresh Prince is on! Quick, to the IT cave!

And critic, go eat some peanuts or something.

It was entertaining to see you drunk. That vitameatavegamin bit made my day. And no, as far as i can tell there is no float fetish...yet

I agree with Fanofyou. You are very funny when drunk and I hope to see you like this every so often in a review. You being drunk made many of the jokes in the review, although my favorite jokes were probably the bit with Dr. Smith and the part where the clown just looked awkwardly at the kid in the showers, before Bugs popped up. Nicely done.

I also loved that bit at the end. All the camera changes made me laugh out loud. Anyway, I'm loving Nostalgiaween and I can't wait to see what the final review of the month will bring.

Rule 36: If it exists, there is a sexual fetish for it.

that's why I said "yet"

that's Rule 34, duh

whoops :D

I was totally gonna mention the "I love Lucy" Vitameatavegamin bit. Killed me. XD I'm shocked no one mentioned it! I guess most people are just too young to remember "I love Lucy".

Great review as always!

BALLOONS! =(

[color=purple]Tim Curry is a [b]pimp[/b][/color]

this movie freaked me out when i was little

Ah yes, the movie that made me grown fearing clowns... and distrust Tim Curry...

strange, cause all the good clowns did that to me. And I fucking love Tim Curry.

If you thought Beverly kissing almost all the dudes seemed odd, you should see what she does in the book, Doug. :eyebrow:

P.S Did you raid some of AskThatGuy's alcohol? Uh oh...

Great Episode. I laughed.

FAIL

When all those balloons are coming out of the refrigerator, look at John Ritter. He's like the only one with the right reaction!

Also, in the library, there's a poster on the wall of "The Glowing." I guess Stephen King couldn't DIRECTLY advertise The Shining in this movie.

This movie made my childhood full of nightmare for several years. :sigh:

Oh It.... I still love Tim Curry, despite all the horribly bad things he's made (which Doug has so nicely pointed out to me.) Great review, and I love Nostalgia-ween!

Awesome, as always. Love ya, Doug! =)

Awesome. "It" never made me scared of clowns when I was little. It just kinda made me scared of Tim Curry. -_-

I was scared of clowns BEFORE I saw "It"...it just didn't help things.

Same here. I think in my case it was primarily the result of the plush clown toy from "Poltergeist" that pushed clowns from 'fun' to 'get the fuhk away from me you painted freak'.

Its funny because I said that exact same thing to my Dad like 6 months ago. Haha glad to know I'm not the only person afraid of Tim Curry. Though I must say, He has very nice legs and looks better in a corset then I do. o_O

I've been afraid of him since before I even saw the movie, trust me do not watch his Shakespere TV show.... it scared me for life.....

But the only way I can see him now and not hide for cover is in Rocky Horror.

Try Tim Curry in Criminal Minds.

He is ebul.

Y'know why a lot of people hated this movie? Because people FUCKING HATE CLOWNS. The concept of killer clowns (or klowns!) isn't original, but dammit if it isn't terrifying.

You really should read the books though, because they actually are quite good. Sure, the movies may seem to be stereotypical. But that's not Stephen King's fault, he's actually a good writer. Movies based on his books just suck.

Great review though otherwise. Seeing you drunk was good for a laugh.

I agree. Some of his books do suck (like Thinner) but nowhere is his great book/crappy movie divide more evident than in Carrie. The book was powerful and it merged different writing styles and points of view seamlessly. The movie, while Sissy Spacek was great, was just another campy horrow flick.

Green Mile?

Actually is books look like they are full of clichés because humans can also be extremely predictable. And is books are better than the films so: Suck it!!!
PS: You didn't even read one of is books didn't you...

Well, I've read most of his works and yes, they are full of cliches. Some are good in spite of that. Others are absolute dross in part because of that factor.

I dont think he was drunk, he was just pretending.

He didnt act drunk

If you were a seven year old kid with an immense fear of clowns, as I was when I first saw this, then I think being terrified of It for several years would be a normal reaction.

Yeah, I think the whole reason it IS so scary to so many people is the number of people who have a fear of clowns.

I remember when I was a small kid being accosted by a large clown and his high-pitched henchman who threatened to cut me in half with a clothesline. Damn near pooped my pants.


I mean, how was I supposed to know it was a magic trick?

Thanks for this review bro, nice way to start my b-day off 10/20 a star was born
:music: ago :music:

i'm really surprised you didn't make a reference to DWs review! ^-^ love it, as always, your awesome, bye.

If you want a rant against Christianity, read Under the Dome. Awesome book, too. It's strange though how his recent books have been so anti-religion while The Stand sometimes felt like a lecture from a priest.

Well, if you look at his work throughout his career, King has always been a mixed bag in that regard.

For every "Under the Dome" there is something like "The Dark Tower" series which has a more nuanced (and at times, outright positive view of Christianity).

He seems to switch positions on the issue with each book. Keeps him fresh, I think.

Besides....I really liked "The Stand".

I loved "The Stand" too, I was just noting the differences. But that was another book with a disappointing payoff. They spend so much time building up to Randall Flagg and then he turns into wuss before the good guys even get to him.

Sadly, I have to agree with you on that score.

Flagg did indeed end up pulling a Col. Autumn (or rather vice-versa, since King did it first).

"I loved "The Stand" too, I was just noting the differences. But that was another book with a disappointing payoff. They spend so much time building up to Randall Flagg and then he turns into wuss before the good guys even get to him."

If you think that's bad, then you're really going to hate the seventh Dark Tower book.

The Stand ended in the right way...and The Dark Tower ended how should have been.

If "The Stand" was a lecture from a priest, "Under the Dome" reads like a long-winded forum rant by a high schooler with a victim complex.

Maybe Stephen King's recent books bashing religion are the reason Seth MacFarlane dedicated an episode of Family Guy to him. I don't know how many of you know this, but Seth MacFarlane is an atheist.

It doesn't bother me, though. Unlike Seth, I respect other people's religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

Well, I always thought clowns were sadistic morons. Now Tim Curry proved me right. :sigh:

If you think It was ass-numbingly long, I encourage you to watch The Stand.

Christopher Walken should have been the clown.

he could have gone RAWR! RAWR! RAWR!

That would have been awesome!! Just for that, I think they should do a remake of this movie with Christopher Walken.

im gonna be sad when october ends now :/

What was up with that red balloon?

filled with blood.

You're dueing it wrong.

That is, if its mass per unit of volume is equal to or lighter than that of water.

lol robot chicken

I have before me a hand high glass of a beverage. Let us see how low it can go by the time this review is over. Spewing the drink all over the computer screen while laughing does not count as a drink.

After Review:
I have before me a now less than half filled hand high glass of a beverage. I'm glad I wasn't drinking when you started shooting at Dr. Smith.

Oh my god I loved this movie it. Its so funny and this review is so mad funny so I started to laugh cry about 5 seconds XD