It: Chapter Two

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)

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)

The reason that the book It was so exceptional was that it linked the past and the present and their simultaneous build-up, which is logically missing in the movies. A miniseries would be the right medium for an adaptation. But if I have to evaluate how the adult Losers did the second time around, it wasn’t so bad. That the cast is excellent is obvious from the outset in the restaurant scene, where everyone thinks back to their young selves. The problem begins with the approaching climax and the compromises in relation to the book (they make a mush out of it), but they make sense from a visual point of view. The change in the origin of the evil that the clown represents is probably the most painful. And the spider should look like a spider – it’s scarier that way. But the biggest problem is the length, because even though the movie is dreadfully long, a couple more minutes would have been fine… It should have been a miniseries. (10/09/2019)

Negative feedback after the premiere led me to the decision not to spoil the positive impression of the first part and instead avoid the sequel. I should have stuck with that choice because the result exceeded my worst expectations. It and Chapter 2 are like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It is incomprehensible how the success of the first part caused Muschietti to lose all his sanity. The first film was not flawless by any means, but it was a dignified and sympathetic adaptation of brilliant source material. Chapter 2 looks and functions like an overpriced low-budget B-movie with an absurd runtime, cringe-worthy dialogues, terrible visual effects, glaring directorial clumsiness, and unremarkable acting, even considering the talented cast. (Jessica was indeed perfect for the role of Beverly, but her presence did not help the film.) The director lost control of the film, failing to capture even a hint of atmosphere and impressiveness. It's sad to say, but Stephen King is used to similar endings regarding his stories. Overall impression: 20%. (31/12/2021)

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)