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. (2019-09-13)

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. (2020-06-23)

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. (2019-09-05)

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% (2019-09-14)

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)? (2019-09-05)