IT is basically about a "thing" that haunts a little town in Maine called Derry. The "thing" or IT feeds on people every 27 years then goes into hibernation until it's next feeding time. A group of children called The Loser's Club bind together to defeat IT when they're suspicious about the amount of people - specifically children going missing. 27 years later, when they think they have defeated IT and most of The Losers Club have grown up and moved away from the small town of Derry, it comes back and they join together to *hopefully* defeat it one last time. 

When writing my review, I did a poll on Instagram on whether or not I should do a review of the 1990's Miniseries adaptation AND the 2017 Movie adaptation or just the 2017 Movie adaptation and most of you wanted a review on all three. So here we go!

Book

I LOVED THE BOOK! I loved the book so much, to the point where I read the last page of the book, processed everything I have read for a good five or so minutes, then flipped back to the front page and starting reading it again. 

There were little to no negative aspects that I could really admit. Stephen King's IT is my FAVOURITE Stephen King novel I've ever read. Possibly my favourite novel in general. 

The book is just so creepy and disturbing but it also had elements of growth; overcoming your fear, trusting yourself, trusting everyone around you, etc. It was an generally amazing read. 

What I loved most was the characters. Gosh, do I love The Loser's Club. I found I related to each of them in different ways. I also loved the dynamic between The Loser's Club in general. I felt like character-wise, individually they were great, but they were much better as a whole.

I also found that the bullies, Henry Bowers and his gang were a million times more terrifying in the book than in the adaptations. I felt like neither adaptations did the group justice. Specifically Patrick Hockstetter; I won't go into specifics but in both adaptations, he's either not mentioned or not as terrifying as Henry but he's definitely a terrifying one and I'm not sure whether or not I'm relieved or disappointed that he's not as prominent in the adaptations than I think he should be. 

I also loved Georgie and Bill's relationship. It was so genuine; I could picture brothers acting the way that Georgie and Bill did. Bill would look out for Georgie, Georgie would do the same. Bill liked to toughen Georgie up when he felt he needed to. But at the end of the day, they made jokes and had their laughs. Personally, I loved their relationship so much, I really wished Georgie and Bill's *genuine* (hence the word "genuine" which you will only get if you've seen either of the adaptations) relationship lasted way longer than just one chapter. 

I also love Eddie and Richie's relationship. Richie in general was a hilarious character that provided comic relief but his little punches and insults towards Eddie made me literally laugh out loud! 

My favourite character in general was Bill. Theres multiple reasons why and I'm sure you're tired of hearing why I love each of the characters so I'll keep it simple: "He thrusts his fists against the post and still insists he sees the ghost." If you've read IT, you'd know that Bill was taught this phrase by his mother to contain his stuttering when it goes out of proportion. This phrase specifically is mentioned multiple times and with my growing obsession with IT specifically, it's a phrase I started subconsciously whispering. It's just something that has stuck and sometimes becomes a new compulsion alongside knocking on wood. 

Before I stop talking about characters I love - I want to mention when people think of IT, they think of the basic Pennywise Clown. But do not be fooled, IT uses Pennywise to lure children which he hungers most because they are easier to scare than adults - because clowns can be terrifying and friendly. IT refers to fear as "salting his steak" meaning that IT can transform into anything its victim is most terrified of or thinks of the most to make them tastier. For example, if his victim misses someone who is deceased, he can easily become that person or when he senses his victim is terrified of something, he shape shifts into that person/thing to lure his victim. In the book, he transforms into multiple things besides a clown such as a leper, flying leeches, a giant statue etc. Shapeshifting is only one of IT's powers. Theres so much more he can do such as brainwashing, creating illusions - specifically of scents, he can read his victims minds, etc. And I think that is what makes IT the most terrifying. 

I'll give you one quick example that you would probably never know unless you read the book. Before Georgie's encounter with Pennywise in the sewer, when Bill is making Georgie's boat, he asks Georgie to get him some Paraffin Wax to protect the boat from sinking while Georgie sails it in the rain. Little does Georgie know, the wax is in the cellar; the room in the house where Georgie is most terrified of. What is IT's favourite thing? Fear. When Georgie is in the cellar, he admits he smells something. But what? He can't put his finger on what It is, but he knows It's terrifying and he knows It's after him. 

This is a very important detail of IT's capability that only the readers will know, as you don't get Georgie's thought process in the movie or the miniseries.

The ending itself was okay. That specific scene was a little uncomfortable but otherwise, was okay. I could settle for the ending its given. Although, would I be a real Stephen King fan if I believed that the grown Loser's Club defeated it the second time? Definitely not. I heard from many people that Mr. Gray or Pennywise or IT make special appearances in many works by Stephen King that were published after IT and I believe it. I started diving into Dreamcatcher and theres a distinct feeling Pennywise is close. I won't go into details but The Loser's Club definitely didn't defeat IT.

Something that I didn't really like was the time the book was placed in. Understandably, IT I believe was published in the 80's. Although, I'll mention later that I didn't think the late 50's was the right time to start the children's first encounter with IT.

There was also one weird scene, which, if you've read the book, you know what I'm talking about. Referring back to how IT loves to taunt children because of how easy it is to scare them, Beverly, the only female in The Loser's Club and the member who's fear revolves around her sexuality, mainly caused by her abusive father who molests her, brings out the idea that The Loser's Club - as children - should have a group orgy to release their innocence and make it less likely IT would victimize them. Weird concept, I know. I personally thought this was a little weird and unsettling to read. The idea of releasing innocence to protect the pack from IT makes sense, but in that way.. wasn't really my cup of tea. Regardless, it's a Stephen King novel and there's going to be a lot of twist, turns and uncomfortable moments.

Overall, I love the writing; I love the way IT was written. I also love how there was side stories you don't get from either adaptations. With the 2017 Movie, you can see all the "missing" people on Ben's wall mid-movie but I love how in the book, you really get to see how IT lured them. It's quite interesting.

2017 Movie 

The 2017 Movie adaptation is just as amazing as the book! There were so many elements to the movie that I loved. 

For starters, I love that they're doing the movie(s) in multiple parts. IT is a huge book; more than 1,100 pages long. Trying to shove that all into one movie I don't/didn't think was a good idea because there's important elements that will be missed.

I love that they did one part for The Loser's Club as kids and a part (announced late September 2017) - possibly more of them as adults.

And if you're bummed out because you love The Loser's Club as kids just as I do, don't be alarmed; the hilarious group of friends return in flashbacks by their adult selves in the later movies.

Personally, I thought the casting crew did an amazing job on picking people for their roles. I felt like each actor and actress suited their characters so well! And just like the book, I loved Richie and his relationship as it brought such comic relief. I really liked the fact that they picked Finn Wolfhard to play Richie because I felt like with his already 80's vibe from Stranger Things and his hilariously strange and crude humour fit the role of Richie best! Honestly, I can't decide if every show/movie Finn is in makes him look like a great actor, or Finn makes every show/movie amazing.

To add onto the comic relief before we get into the creepy-ish parts, let's talk about Pennywise's dance during the scene after he abducts Beverly and traps her in the sewer. That part gave me some parts confusion, some parts entertainment. But what I do love is the endless amounts of memes and edits that involve that little Pennywise dance. I mean, come on, he has to live up to his "Pennywise the Dancing Clown" name, right?

Moving onto the creepier aspects of the 2017 adaptation, I'd like to also mention how freaking creepy Georgie was in that scene where Pennywise used *dead* Georgie as a puppet to taunt Bill. I think Bill was on the safe side on that scene; as for myself - I'm happy I used the bathroom prior to entering the theatre. Just the way Georgie's face slowly turned almost demonic before Pennywise smacked him onto the water and ran off to try and catch Bill was terrifying. And Jackson Robert Scott played Georgie very well as I'm a little creeped out over that kid and the way he says, "You'll Float Too."

And in relation to Georgie, Pennywise was also amazing and creepy in this film versus the miniseries in my opinion. For an introduction to Pennywise, Tim Curry was great to play the role. As a modernized Pennywise, Bill Skarsgard was perfect for the part and will be terrorizing a new generation as a creepy clown.

I also really liked the way Bill Skarsgard did Pennywise's creepy smile. If you haven't seen videos yet - where have you been - theres an interview of Bill Skarsgard with Conan O'Brien where he shows off his infamous Pennywise smile without the costume and it is just as creepy.

I am quite disappointed in the portrayal of Henry Bower's gang like I mentioned earlier. Henry seemed to be the most terrifying of the bunch, but if you read the book, Patrick Hockstetter is definitely was more terrifying and I'll admit that his life ended a little quicker than I would have hoped.

I was also quite disappointed in the lack of origin explanation the movie gave for IT. Sure there were key points of IT's origin that were mentioned here and there, but there wasn't the whole origin of the macro-verse IT's had stemmed from and how it relates to Maturin let alone we don't see him confronting Bill in The Ritual of Chud. Personally, I'm hoping it will some how take place in flashbacks of the adult versions of The Loser's Club in part two!

Adding onto confusion and disappointment within the movie, I didn't understand why Denbrough's had no idea Georgie was dead. I guess it made sense that they didn't want false hope but I thought this part should have stuck with the book and the miniseries in which they just accepted Georgie was dead.

One of my favourite scare scenes of the movie was the projector scene. You see a lot of the first few clips of that scene in trailers. But trust me, if you think the trailer clips of the scene are terrifying, it  gets worse. I don't want to ruined too much of that scene in particular, just in case you lovelies were interested in watching it. There's definitely a huge scare around it and trust me, it is terrifying.

I also loved the use of Bill's stuttering phrase being used. Although it wasn't a lot, it was used more than the miniseries which is what I really hoped for.

Fun fact about the IT movie was that the Nebolt St. house was filmed not too far from my school which I thought was really cool. I have never seen it in person and I'm not sure I plan to since I've heard it looks nothing like how it looks like in the movie, but I do think the movie and Andy Muschietti did a great job of portraying the Nebolt St. house in a creepy way.

Adding onto interesting facts, this adaptaion of the book is based around the late 80's when The Loser's Club are children. Meaning that around 27 or 28 years later - depending on which year of feeding and if Andy Muschietti relates in time frame to the book or the miniseries, IT's return will be around 2016/2017 which I think will be very interesting to see the difference and possibly the growth and modernization of how the older version of The Loser's Club will defeat IT. That is what I'm interested in the most.

Overall, I loved the 2017 adaptation more than the 1990 miniseries. It was steady paced, there were no scenes that were slower than others - it kept me on the edge of my chair the whole time, the scares were predicted in a sense of timing but unpredictable in a sense where you would never know what would pop up which was a nice twist, Acting was great, hilarious to add onto terror. I genuinely loved this adaptation and I don't regret watching more than once.. or three times. Definitely recommend watching and IT deserves all the praise.

I also thought it was a bit of a bore. The Loser's Club wasn't really entertaining on their own; I thought Pennywise brought the most entertainment into the miniseries than The Loser's Club and/or Henry Bower's crew did.

Going back to the other mediums, how I thought Richie was great comic relief. Well in the miniseries, I didn't really like Richie. I thought his character was a little too annoying for my liking and his relationship with Eddie was a bore.

Although, I did like a few of The Loser's Club cast as children - specifically Beverly, Bill and Mike, I loved the cast as adults way more. Which by the way, if you've seen the miniseries, what is up with older Bill's ponytail? Super weird!

I think the low budget and the limitations was what bummed me out the most about the miniseries. From what I have heard, since the miniseries was featured on televison, they had a lot of limits when it came to deaths and what not. I also heard that the miniseries had a lot lower budget which prevented them from making such in depth deaths - trust me, I've seen a ton of classic horror movies from the 80's that were gory and was expecting the same with this movie. I wasn't a huge fan of the POV of Pennywise when he was doing his killings as well.

Anyways, besides those few aspects, there were also a lot of positives that I really liked about the miniseries.

For starters, I've seen IT broadly as a kid out of curiosity and there were scenes that were pretty terrifying. For example, the scene where the kids are looking through the photo album and Pennywise shows up and tries to attack them, was the only scene I would specifically remember from the miniseries because it terrified me. Just the fact that Pennywise showed up out of nowhere in the photo, saw that the children were looking at him and ran up to the viewers almost like the photo turned into a video was terrifying.  

I also thought the shower scene with Eddie was a little creepy and since then, shower drains continue to scare me. I'm terrified that something or something will pop right out of it.

If I were to compare Tim Curry as Pennywise with other classic horror icons, I would definitely say Pennywise is definitely on a few of the top creepiest. Personally, I just wish the budget was a little higher; with that, the miniseries would have definitely been better.

One of the scenes I loved that both adaptations incorporated but obviously this adaptation did first was that they obviously replaced the weird orgy scene with helping Beverly clean up the blood - her fear made by IT - together.

If you haven't seen either of the adaptations, referring back to how IT changes into your worst fear, and Beverly fears her sexuality and growing up because of her father, IT becomes Beverly's fear of blood - ladies will get it - which explodes from the sink.

This scene does appear in the book but in a way more terrifying way. Although, I love how this used this scene though and in a way, replaced it with the orgy scene at the end of the book.

Overall, the miniseries was good, but could have been better with a higher budget and possibly less of limitations from being shown through television. The casting was okay - loved some characters, disliked the others, and kind of wished it stuck to more of the book so to say as it didn't really mention much of the other kids whom it had taken - other than the bicycle girl at the beginning.

There wasn't much of the deaths IT has made in the previously decades and felt like the miniseries was mostly based on The Loser's Club and Georgie.

But regardless, Tim Curry played a creepy debut as Pennywise and the original IT will always be a staple of fear for clowns. Generally as a horror movie, I'd say it's creepy. As a Stephen King fan, I'd say it isn't creepy enough.