Stephen King’s “It” made its debut as a novel in 1986, but it was borne out of its author’s nostalgia for his late-1950s childhood.

The irony here is that “It” became a part of the childhoods of those of us who grew up in the late 1980s, so King’s ’50s nostalgia became a part of our ’80s nostalgia, not just through the novel, but also through the 1990 network TV miniseries, back when that actually meant something.

Which makes it a bold but totally appropriate choice to update the setting of “It” from 1957-58 to 1988-89, the final years of a decade marked by its own fears of “stranger danger,” as well as its own ignorant misconceptions (one of the child characters repeats the prevalent myths of that era about AIDS infections).

Because what makes “It” a story that just about any generation can relate to is how cringe-worthy it is in accurately capturing the trials of early adolescence, when boys and girls alike all too often walk a gauntlet of ruthless bullying from their peers and resentful indifference from far too many adults whom they should be able to turn to and trust.

I watched the ABC miniseries of “It” when I was in high school, and I enjoyed it for what it was. With a cast whose luminaries included Richard Thomas, Annette O’Toole, John Ritter, Harry Anderson, Tim Reid and Olivia Hussey, it was practically a time capsule of the year in which it was made. Even back then, I recognized that it was limited by the broadcast standards of its time.

When it came to capturing a broader breadth of the novel’s nuances, as well as rendering the fears manifested by “It” more vividly, I had no doubt that the movie would surpass the miniseries, and I was right. When it came to equaling the performances of the child actors in the miniseries (particularly the since-departed Jonathan Brandis) or the legendary Tim Curry as Pennywise, I was a bit more worried.

I shouldn’t have been. I have no idea who might be cast as the adult versions of these kids, in the sequel that this film’s box office has already guaranteed, but I’m having a hard time imagining who could rival the authenticity and heart that the child actors in this film brought to bear in their roles. With Finn Wolfhard, it’s no surprise (between “It” and “Stranger Things,” he might as well just bill himself a professional ’80s reenactor), but all these kids came across as 1) completely real, 2) genuine friends and 3) actually scared out of their wits.

Which brings us to Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise. Unlike Curry, Skarsgård's performance is hugely supplemented by computer-generated imagery (CGI), which I also worried might prove a crutch and a hindrance on the overall fear factor, but “It” gets it right by using the CGI to enhance what’s already deeply creepy about Skarsgård, from his unnaturally babyish face to his gangly, rubber-limbed movements. Unlike Curry, who was already well into middle age by the time he donned his infamous clown shoes, Skarsgård fully lives up to the name “Pennywise the Dancing Clown,” flailing his limbs like a wind-up toy that’s been put together wrong.

While the audience might groan at how willing the characters are to follow some obviously sinister signs, the film earns full points for eliciting its scares in inventive ways, including a slideshow sequence that I wish hadn’t already been partly spoiled by the trailers.

“It” director Andy Muschietti not only plans to deliver the rest of the novel as a sequel, but has also expressed interest in remaking King's “Pet Sematary” for the screen. Based on what I’ve seen here, he's already earned my money for both outings.

Kirk Boxleitner is a reporter with The Leader. He covers county government, education and sports. He also is a Navy veteran who worked in radio. He can recite passages from favorite movies, and we enjoyed his movie reviews from the Port Townsend Film Festival so much, we asked him to do a weekly movie column.