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. (09/13/2019)

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 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. (09/10/2019)

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)

The anticipated It: Chapter Two didn't live up to the high expectations, according to the reviews, and didn't surpass the first part, but it is still an outstanding horror experience that comes out as a clear winner thanks to this year's weak competition. The film may be three hours long, but it passes by quite quickly, is entertaining enough, has drive and enough horror attractions to keep your attention, something that can't be said for the new Tarantino film, which has a similar running time, but only the last 10 minutes are interesting. Pennywise could have been in the scene more times, but I enjoyed other forms, and one there was one scare that gave me a heart attack. It's not that scary, but I felt uncomfortable with all the scenes. The best sequence is definitely when the group starts looking for their tokens. I had a great time with the film, it looks expensive, the humor works at times, the references are amusing and everyone involved plays it to the hilt. James McAvoy rules! 80%! (09/12/2019)