It: Chapter Two

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%. (12/31/2021)

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. (09/04/2019)

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)? (09/05/2019)

The second chapter showed in full view how hard it is to pack in a feature film all the 1000 pages of a novel that is so multi-layered in terms of ideas and space-time. The first one smartly stuck to the perspective of the kids and presented It as the manifestation of the natural fears that reside in the soul of every child. The second one had to portray what the adult versions of the heroes had taken from the confrontation of their past demons, and also to bridge their motivations and memories into the tightly connected shells of their characters, and it doesn’t do a bad job at it. It’s mostly a tale about returns; a return to childhood to revive lost memories (which in the middle they have to literally look for), a return to the roots of their characters and their fears, which the hated clown will again incarnate through an almost childish perspective (therefore the criticised CGI monsters), and a return to the old rituals that are supposed to defeat evil, but are in fact only a pretext for that simple return and to be released from its grip and the grip from the past. The film manages to capture all this without offending the fans of the book, as its spirit and the relationships between the characters are relatively well portrayed. To intertwine the past and the present, Muschietti uses imaginative smooth transitions and conversational planes regularly interspersed with digging into more or less fertile horror soil. The main weakness when compared to the novel (which is simply unattainable) is that, whereas in King’s book all the switches between the several characters doesn’t exhaust the reader, but actually increases the tension and the level of information, in the film things become repetitive and the constantly recurring CGI scares loose their power. This is also applies to the long climax, which can never hold your full attention. However, if we consider the scope of the material the screenwriter and the director attempted to cover, the result was ultimately successful. Some of the horror moments are truly good (for instance, the opening scene at the bridge) and it’s a pity that most of it is so accessible and fun – they shouldn’t have spared on realistic violence, and since the film is already R-rated, someone could have though of making Jessica Chastain take off her bra. In any case, as an adaptation of a great book, this is solid work, but I should warn you, if you didn’t like the first one much, don’t expect to love this one at all. 70% (09/14/2019)

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. (09/13/2019)