It: Chapter Two

Everything that didn't work in the first film can be answered here. Which is fine. Of course, I get along better with adult protagonists than I do with children. However, the entire tale of the cursed town of Derry is such terrible bullshit that there's nothing to save it. While it's nice that King rode the Lovecraft wave, transposing his classic far-space fears to the sewers of a small town in Maine is simply a mistake. In addition, the idea that I would have to wait 2 years between films is even more nonsense, which also represents the decline in interest. (23/06/2020)

In telling a dramatic story and portraying characters in a less coherent manner than in the first installment, It: Chapter Two is rather more B-movie improvisation (the weakest quarter of the film is made up of looking for personal artifacts). On the other hand, the plot is denser and contains more monsters, though they are absurdly incorporated or stolen from somewhere else (the spider head from The Thing finally got more space). Sometimes I enjoyed it, sometimes it was boring, and on the whole I kind of don’t care that I won’t be seeing the third part. (13/09/2019)

Maximum satisfaction. Just like last time. One thing in particular surprised me though – I had expected that the second film couldn't do without the first one; but now the first one can't do without the second one either. So cunning is the second chapter of It, in which the present intertwines with the past, and which itself intertwines with the last film and fills in a lot of what was left open. I think that unless you remember the first film well, or better yet you see both in quick succession, you will (mistakenly) think that Bowers is unnecessary, that there's not enough of Pennywise, and that the adult characters don't work. None of this is true if you yourself have the kind of relationship with them that the filmmakers are quite rightly counting on. And the much-maligned humor? It doesn't harm the atmosphere at all; just consider that the characters are using it mainly as a shield against fear. I'm really happy with it and I think that despite all the changes compared to the novel, it couldn't have turned out better._____ P.S. Stephen King's performance is fantastic._____ P.P.S. Was it just me when I saw Jack Nicholson during the reference to The Shining, or was he really there (digitally, somehow)? (05/09/2019)

It: Chapter Two was supposed to be a sure-thing 4-star horror film this year. But the creators said NO! Sod it! Was there anyone aware of what the strengths of the first one were that made it so well received? Obviously not. So I will tell the creators. The performance of Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise the Clown. But in the second one, “IT” in its unmodified clown form appears in only about thirty seconds in total (in a three-hour movie!!!). That’s not much time for Bill to do anything. All the other appearances of IT are a stupid and surprisingly poor digital mess without any acting. A digital mess isn’t scary! Then there is the chemistry between the characters. It worked perfectly for the children versions. It had that Amblin’s atmosphere of childhood adventures, where the viewer wants to be part of the gang, even if they would have to face unpleasant things. In the second one? Zero chemistry. A heavenly cast that isn’t used at all. Bill, Eddie and Beverly are useless, Richie holds up a bit, but he fell from a different film (a comedy, actually), the rest are just there. And thirdly, the well drawn relationships between the characters, which in the second chapter is non-existent. They don’t speak like people, they just throw one-liners because there’s no time for anything in this special-effect circus (which is a paradox in a three-hour film!!!). The film has no main theme that the words from the characters could address. Everything moves boringly and linearly at a striking pace to the mandatory final underground. The three-hour run is really indefensible. Especially the last hour, that is monotonous and repetitive to death. When I realised that I will have to put up at least five times (it didn’t get to the black guy) with the obligatory wheel of “a character goes somewhere in Derry, they remember an incident from their childhood that happened there – IT scares them in a flashback – and back to the present, where IT scares them again”, I felt like getting up and get a snack at the McDonald’s next door, sure that I wouldn’t miss anything. And the worst is that I didn’t miss anything – this in fact happened. But damn it! If it was at least a good horror film. But in this respect, they wanted to make a blockbuster out of It and every single potentially scary scene is ruined by some stupid joke. In short, the disappointment of the year. Thank goodness King’s book was split in two films, so we got at least one solid piece, and we can pretend that this one doesn’t exist. (04/09/2019)

If Stephen King's book is a culinary specialty, then It Chapter 2 is a patchwork stew made from the same ingredients. It doesn't taste particularly bad, but it's far from a tasty experience. While the first It movie was a solid start to a story about growing up with a reasonably decent level of scary horror, the second part is more like a horror comedy that is not even taken seriously by its creators, who feel the need to systematically disparage all of its more serious and scary moments with comedic interludes and other alienating means (film quotes, inappropriately chosen music). The schematic story suffers from a number of theatrical shortcomings, the horror scenes are often funny or even a parody, and the clown itself is more of a laugh than anything scary. It amounts to simple, average genre routine that recycles motifs of nostalgic childhood and friendly fellowship from its predecessor, replaces tension building with jump scares and digital spooks, and unfortunately, despite a few solid acting performances and a few remarkable scenes, fails to provide anything else worthy of praise. Again, the question arises as to whether it might instead be worthwhile to film It as a narrative series which, unlike a film, could be truly uncompromising, broader in terms of story and more inventive in working with tension and the psychology of fear. (05/09/2019)