Jump to content
rllmuk
Stigweard

IT - Chapter 2

Recommended Posts

Yeah, that’s looking damn good. It seems there’s a few new bits mixed in with book content as per part 1 which is fine with me. 

Some good casting choices for the adults too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully they have managed to make this one scary, as while the first part was pretty decent, it really wasn't scary at all. 

 

Though to be honest you can make that same complaint with almost all recent horror films. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Charliemouse said:

Hopefully they have managed to make this one scary, as while the first part was pretty decent, it really wasn't scary at all. 

 

Though to be honest you can make that same complaint with almost all recent horror films. 

When was the last time you saw anything scary though? I just think you get to a certain age, probably in your early teens, then nothing is scary after that.

 

Saying that, I think they did a great job with Pennywise and managed to make it creepy and weird enough, the scene with Georgie at the start was great and the whole look and sound design of the film was great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, JPL said:

When was the last time you saw anything scary though? I just think you get to a certain age, probably in your early teens, then nothing is scary after that.

 

Saying that, I think they did a great job with Pennywise and managed to make it creepy and weird enough, the scene with Georgie at the start was great and the whole look and sound design of the film was great.

 

Hereditary scared the shit out of me. As did Conjuring 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kerraig UK said:

 

Hereditary scared the shit out of me. As did Conjuring 2.

Fair enough, but as much as I like them (well Hereditary anyway), I don’t think I’ve been scared by a film since I was a kid. I can still appreciate the craft though and I love horror, so maybe I appreciate the genre for different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't find Hereditary scary at all. Creepy and unnerving, but not scary. Then again, I really felt like the 2nd half let it down anyway. The last film to actually scary me was Paranormal Activity. I think the setting on an empty cinema, with the found footage aspect making it seem real really got to me. 

 

IT chapter 1 was just a really good popcorn horror, with some good jump scares. This looks more more of the same  which is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.slashfilm.com/it-chapter-two-runtime/#more-568897

 

Quote

Stephen King’s It is a long book – 1,138-pages long, to be precise. As a result, any adaptation that wants to attempt to capture the breadth of what King created is going to be a bit lengthy. Rather than try to cram everything into one movie, the 2017 It film adaptation took only a fraction of what King wrote – but still ended up clocking in at 135 minutes. Now, It Chapter Two will continue, and conclude the story. And if you thought the first film was long, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

 

According to director Andy Muschietti, the original cut of the sequel ran about 4 hours long – a runtime that was then whittled down but not by a lot. “You cannot deliver a 4-hour movie because people will start to feel uncomfortable – no matter what they see – but we ended up having a movie that is 2 hours and 45 minutes, and the pacing is very good,” Muschietti told Digital Spy.

 

But those of you who would sit through an even longer cut are in luck. Muschietti’s producing partner Barbara Muschietti confirmed that a director’s cut will eventually be released. “We will put out a director’s cut because this time it definitely merits it,” she said. “We have some amazing scenes that didn’t make it into the movie. You have to make choices sometimes and some things cannot be in this theatrical release but are definitely worthy of people seeing them at a later date.”

 

I’m all-in on this. If Avengers: Endgame can run 181 minutes, there’s no reason It Chapter Two can’t run 165. I’m of the opinion that no movie is too long – if it’s working. If the movie you’re watching has excellent pacing, a long runtime can breeze on by (see: Zodiac). If the pacing sucks, however, well…you’re in for a long slog (see: too many modern-day movies to count). Based on the first film’s pacing, I have a good feeling about the sequel, lengthy runtime be damned. Here’s hoping I won’t regret that.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that although Pennywise was creepy, it wasn't really a scary film. It suffered the modern blight of jump scares every 5 mins. A more established horror director wouldn't have fallen into this trap and would have likely increased the genuine scares. Hopefully he has learned a few new tricks for this second part. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched this tonight... hmmm.

 

 

On the plus side, the casting of the adults is good, it’s just a shame the plot splits them up regularly throughout the film. The first hour ticks along nicely, Bill Hader is the best of the new cast and the fleeting flashbacks to the likeable kids are welcome.

 

Midway through the film starts throwing way too many CGI monsters around, which are much more laughable than scary. Only remotely creepy part is the funhouse and even that is a stretch. Rest of the time it’s more a horror comedy with very little emphasis on horror. Didn’t find the first part scary either but it is at least a little more unsettling.

 

The end is slightly better than the TV movie but not much. In keeping with the rest of the film the finale goes on way to long, and is unintentionally comical. The last two minutes are touching but I think much of that is relief the thing is finally drawing to a close.

 

There’s also a wonky sub-plot with Bowers, that is pointless, besides giving Eddie a moment of rare bravery, which doesn’t matter because he dies anyway, and not even heroically.

 

 

On the whole, pretty disappointing. For an almost three hour runtime the good moments needed to far outweigh the bad, but sadly they don’t. Shame, had high hopes after chapter one.

  • Empathy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife liked it, I didn't.

 

Spoiler

Crap jump scares and iffy CGI creatures aplenty. They had a potentially great villain in Pennywise but he's far less effective when everything happening around his appearances is turned up to eleven. The comedy rarely lands either, with the notable exception of the "overdue" line.

 

I also felt like I was watching a ridiculous boss fight by the end. Tiresome, overlong and disappointing. It could've been so much more.

 

I was left wondering about Eddie's wife, too- from her perspective he gets a mysterious phone call, crashes his car, drives off to his childhood home and never comes back.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Empathy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, glb said:

Watched this tonight... hmmm.

 

  Hide contents

On the plus side, the casting of the adults is good, it’s just a shame the plot splits them up regularly throughout the film. The first hour ticks along nicely, Bill Hader is the best of the new cast and the fleeting flashbacks to the likeable kids are welcome.

 

Midway through the film starts throwing way too many CGI monsters around, which are much more laughable than scary. Only remotely creepy part is the funhouse and even that is a stretch. Rest of the time it’s more a horror comedy with very little emphasis on horror. Didn’t find the first part scary either but it is at least a little more unsettling.

 

The end is slightly better than the TV movie but not much. In keeping with the rest of the film the finale goes on way to long, and is unintentionally comical. The last two minutes are touching but I think much of that is relief the thing is finally drawing to a close.

 

There’s also a wonky sub-plot with Bowers, that is pointless, besides giving Eddie a moment of rare bravery, which doesn’t matter because he dies anyway, and not even heroically.

 

 

On the whole, pretty disappointing. For an almost three hour runtime the good moments needed to far outweigh the bad, but sadly they don’t. Shame, had high hopes after chapter one.

Quote

 

 

Regarding the length it definitely sounds like the book, the ideas are great but King is such a self indulgent writer. It sounds like the film is maybe too faithful and like the book could have done with some trimming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved the first film. I like this.

 

Sometimes with 3-hour movies you can see the dilemma facing the director, especially when adapting vast source material. But with this, it’s glaringly obvious sections don’t land and you‘d lose nothing by cutting them. It’s a shame because they drag down the good stuff and it becomes kinda boring.

 

On top of that there’s so much cgi shit going on that eg. the fortune cookie and Kersh residence segments - the original TV movie were more disturbing because less is sometimes more.

 

I don’t think the flashbacks were worth it either. Even the clubhouse. They didn’t bring any fresh scares to the table and just padded out the run time unnecessarily. 

 

I liked the ending a lot - but it also suffers from bloat and dodgy cgi.

 

Maybe this will work better in the rumoured mini-series cut. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed it as well while agreeing it could stand to lose about 30 minutes with a tighter edit.  I would have trimmed the :

Spoiler

Bowers storyline entirely

 

I know they made a big deal of it in the book, but to my mind it did not really bring anything significant to the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Waggo said:

I enjoyed it as well while agreeing it could stand to lose about 30 minutes with a tighter edit.  I would have trimmed the :

  Reveal hidden contents

Bowers storyline entirely

 

I know they made a big deal of it in the book, but to my mind it did not really bring anything significant to the film.

 

 

I agree but Bowers inclusion does lead to a couple of decent scenes - it’s just he and the bullies were never fleshed out so carry no menace or emotional depth.


I think the following were a waste of time:

The leper flashback in the Pharmacy should’ve just been adult Eddie.

The bit where they’re arguing over the fortune cookies was laughable.

Ben being buried alive, Bev in the toilet, Bill in his own basement. None of these sequences worked or were scary enough. Bad CGI and cheesy lines. Low point of the movie as they derailed the momentum of fighting Pennywise. The CGI money should’ve been spent on a final Lovecraftian form.

Stan’s letter wasn’t needed at all.

Bill and the funfair seemed underbaked and added after test audience responses. The scene with him and the storm drain was dumb and messy. So I’d cut that and get him to the fairground a quicker way. ie. When he’s cycling down his old street he sees the kid in a yellow raincoat and thinking it’s Georgie - follows him to the fair, realises it’s a different kid but Pennywise taunt him “This one, Bill?” or some shit, so Bill follows him into the house of mirrors. That bypasses 15 minutes of film time to get to the same point. Say he had Georgie’s boat all along because no one cares about a fetch quest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this last night and pretty much agree with the comments already expressed. A bit of a disappointment after the first one. I also thought the style of direction and the musical score seemed quite different in tone from the first movie; and not necessarily in a good way. If I hadn't known better I'd have thought it was a completely different team who made this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So.... having read the book back in 1986, I actually think that the 2 movies are (just about) as good a job as can be made, of what I always thought was an unfilmable story. I loathed the tv miniseries adaptation, but I thought the first movie was superb, whilst chapter 2 was merely good.

Personally, I’m looking forward to the 4 hour director’s cut of chapter 2, but I think anyone hoping for deleted turtle scenes is due to be disappointed (although I’d have loved more cosmic ‘out there’ shit).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m looking forward to the 2 hour reduced cut.

 

Thinking back, there were barely any decent Pennywise moments in ChapterTwo. Skarsgaard didn’t particularly stand out like he did in part one. 

 

Also, I'm kind of surprised at the negative reaction to the discimination scene at the very beginning. Simon Mayo said he didn't feel it was justified, elsewhere some folks are up in arms about it. I mean... it was in the book, and it's meant to be fucking horrible. If anything, the films needed to show more of that side of Derry.

  • Empathy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No issues with length bar my aching back. 

 

I tooook enjoyed this and felt it did a very good in particular with the end encounter with It. Which not that good an ending in book. 

 

I'm down for the directors cut too. 

 

Hader stole the movie though. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much agree with y’all - good but not great. It felt unfocused - you could have easily lost all the scenes with the escaped mental patient and lost nothing from the story, for example. And yes, there definitely wasn’t enough Pennywise for my money - and that’s saying something given they had 3 hours to fill. 

 

But it did have some fun scares, it was well acted for the most part and, possibly trading on the good will garnered from the first film, I enjoyed revisiting Derry well enough that I didn’t even feel the length (as a bishop said to a vicar). Given how brilliantly the kid actors carried the first part I though Jessica Chastain in particular really earned her keep in making me believe she was that same character. 

 

James McAvoy though? It was like he was in another movie. This guy, man... you never go full retard, that’s the rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel like this thread is being exceedingly generous, thought this was awful. Barely enough actual content to fill 90 minutes, let alone a film the same length as Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. Tired, shallow, repetitive and indulgent, the threat of an even longer cut smacks of a director being allowed to let the success of the first film (which I enjoyed) get to his head.

 

Also it’s probably worth remembering that Cary Fukunaga was attached to the first part for much of its pre-production. This feels much dumber & clumsier all round with the cast being the only saving grace, not that they’re given much to work with.

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree, @CarloOos. I'm a bit of a King superfan, and thought the biggest problem would be the focus on scares to the detriment of the characters, but

 I actually liked the way they adapted the story. All the problems were with the utter lack of creepiness or fear. 

 

Book vs film thoughts:

Spoiler


Moving the dates forward 30 years created a bit of a problem, cos you couldn't have the classic movie monsters be part of the kids' consciousness. They are inherently frightening, the audience also has a history with them, and finding scary replacements was something the production totally failed at. 

 

They made Pennywise himself intimidating, especially in the first film, but that made them reliant on him, and the shape-shifting lessened. 

 

I also think they leaned-in to the clownish aspect of Pennywise, which is fine, but it was there to contrast with the grimness of the murders. Stan's story was butchered, and he was the mouthpiece of kids being revolted by child murder. That meant the whole standpipe/drowned kids horror of senseless death was left behind becuase it was (presumably) too much of a bummer. 

 

Ditto the darkness of the bullies' stories. They were victims of abuse and neglect, like The Losers, but a mirror version where they turned their pain into violence. Leaving out Hockstetter's sexual psychopathy and death by leeches (the most horrible death in the book, for me) just emphasised how they wanted to avoid dealing with any real trauma. 

 

The film even goes to great lengths to explicitly state that Bev's dad didn't want to have sex with her, whereas it was implicit in the book that this was just a matter of time. 

 

It's hard to make a film about childhood trauma and abuse then sideline incest and child violence. The book's a warning about how neglect inside the home leaves kids vulnerable to predators in the real world, and nerfing Mike's experiences with racism, Stan's experience with religious authodoxy, Bill's experience with parental neglect and Bev's experience with sexual abuse weakens the whole structure. 

 

It's not a disaster by any means, and I'm completely fine with a lot of omissions. Particularly the gang bang (o_0) but also I'm surprisingly not arsed about them leaving out the turtle, or the meaning behind the dead lights. I also thought the ritual of Chud was very well presented and expanded on. 

 

 

All in all, the motivation behind the film, the adaptation and the script were ok. Unfortunately, the production and direction were tame, and the fear and shock were totally missing.

 

Like (Snyder's) Watchmen's squid, they made the classic mistake of thinking you could alter something seemingly trivial without unravelling the whole mythos. Great stories depend on such keystones; pulling them out is like Jenga, and in IT's case removing the structure I talk about in spoilers made them biff it, sorry. Disappointed in all this, but not for the reasons I expected. 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muschietti is just shit at horror, I don't believe he's shown much real grasp on creating fear or tension in any of his movies. Also, they clearly intended for this to be a big mainstream popcorn horror flick (see part 1's insane opening weekend in the US justifying their approach) so they can't really delve too deeply into the really horrifying stuff. 

 

I'd be surprised if the box office for part 2 comes close to 1 though. Feels like there's been way less hype and lukewarm word of mouth.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.