It: Chapter Two

Thought this was fairly terrible. Comically bad and overused cgi. The rightly drew gales of laughter at my screening. The inclusion of flashbacks added very little, while bloating the film and necessitating the awkward use of Cg and dubbing to hide the fact the actors had clearly gone through a growth spurt and their voices had deepened. The acting was mostly fine I thought the actors they got for Stan and Eddie nailed but I just don't buy that bean pole Bill, who was the tallest of the losers grew up to be 5ft 7 James McAvoy. The scares were generic jump scares or outright repeats of the ones from chapter 1.

For the sake of balance, I would like to remind everyone that Empire gave this 5 stars.

5.

Stars.

First of all, I really enjoyed the movie a lot and felt it was a decent sequel to the exceptionally good first movie. I'd say for me it's a solid 7.5/10, but I'd consider the first one pretty much a 10/10 for being an almost perfectly crafted film in that coming-of-age/horror genre cross.

So, IT Chapter 2 is a very decent follow up but definitely has some faults. It's definitely far too long. I don't at all mind a lengthy run-time, and it passes by relatively well, but there's so much bloat and poor use of time, as well as a lot of inconsistency. The first half of the film is actually quite excellent, but the second half and in particular, the final act, starts to show some major cracks as it heads towards the conclusion. Seems apt given the in-joke about not being able to write an ending. The CGI is also a bit too cartoon-like and tends to suck the tension out of some scenes, giving away to Sam Raimi style horror-comedy. Some characters are both excellently portrayed and scripted while others are weak to downright poor. Jessica Chastain for example, decent performance but the script just didn't bring Bev alive and true-to-her-past-self the way it did for say, Frankie or Eddie.

Overall though I liked it a lot, there's tons of great stuff in there and it was nice to see the kids back again for a sizeable run-time to help bridge the gap and make everything feel organic. I would say it's a must see for fans of the first movie, it's not as big-hearted, tightly produced or as memorable but it's a very respectable sequel.

Finally, I can't take anyone seriously who claims it to be a 1 star dud. I would accept 2-star, while I still wouldn't agree with it at all I could easily see why someone could argue that position and I'd probably agree with a great deal of the likely expansive criticism even if it didn't sour my enjoyment to the same extent. But 1 star is ridicuously harsh and unfair. Such a rating should be reserved for trash devoid of any redeeming features that utterly, completely fails on every possible level to achieve any of its intended aims. IT Chapter Two is not that movie.

Also, anyone who really loves the vibe of Stranger Things and IT Chapter One would probably enjoy this movie.

Surprised at all the negativity. It really is just the book that makes the second part of the story such a mess. This was very much in keeping with the first film. The character stuff is good but 90% of the 'scary' stuff is loud, obnoxious, over-played, excessive and not scary in the slightest. The 'Just call me angel' moment was utterly bizarre.

The stuff where you actually get to see Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise without CGI, much like the first film, is the closest it gets to scary.

First film was a 6/10. This is a 5.5/10.


Found out after that they CGI de-aged the kids. I thought they looked weird in some shots.

Pretty much agree with all that ^

The original 90's mini series is better, despite how dated it is.

Why do film makers insist on putting stupid laughs (or attempts at laughs that often fall flat on their face) in everything these days. Can a horror film not just be, oh I don't know, horrific?

homerun_homer wrote: »

I didn't love IT Chapter 1, the CG killed most of the tense leading up to a scare, and I felt it was never as creepy as the opening Georgie set-piece. Bill as Pennywise is quite good but I felt he was underused and then quickly replaced by an awful mouth of teeth, and running after kids ain't his fort I would rate the first 6/10.

Chapter 2 is god awful. There was much unintended laughter in my screening, the giant gollum lady with 2 extra mouths in her neck (WTF?), the leper attack and particularly when 'Just Call Me Angel' came on out of nowhere and with no context in that part.

The running time is excruciating, and so much could have been cut. We didn't need an average of 10 minutes per character having a flashback to a past attack (never alluded to or referenced in chapter 1) and then a current attack, Henry Bowers could have been left on cutting room floor until extended DVD, and the end battle was way too long. When did they have this underground shelter in the first movie as kids? I don't think any film or tv adaptation would make the Ritual of Chud work. The film kept making jokes about bad endings without trying to better itself properly.

Funnily enough, for all the rave reviews people gave Finn Wolfhard in the first film, I found him very annoying, but I liked Bill Hader's version of him. The gay subplot wasn't hinted at in the first film with the character, so the inclusion of it just felt tacked on. Pennywise is such an inept killer and the film misses having a significant kill among the gang to keep the tension. He had young Ben in a locker with him and still didn't kill him? That's just daft.

I'd love to see a serialized mini-series just take the idea of IT and not try to stick so close to the source material. Give the world some actual horror rules around IT's power and seeming omnipotence. In these films he's everywhere at once and yet not aware of certain goings on. Currently if I was given the choice of the old version of the adaptation or this one, I'll stick with the old one. It may be cheesy but Tim Curry kills in the roll.

I think the thing with Ben in the locker was part of Pennywise's "torment" of the losers club.

It's in the book apparently, he seems to love playing mind games with them.
Why this is, I don't know. Best to ask Stephen King.

I didn't mind the film. Enjoyable evening trip to the pictures. The opening scene was pretty brutal and tough to stomach

DrPhilG wrote: »

IT claims that fear makes the victims taste better. He refers to it as "salting the meat".

Hence the preference for kids, easier to scare. But he tortures and terrifies them for a while first partly because he is sadistic and partly because he likes his meals scared shltless.

And yet we repeatedly see It lure kids in with a false sense of security. Maybe, and I'm reaching here, Stephen King was just on a vast quantity of cocaine and some of his writing is a little inconsistent.

Just saw it last night. Overall, I enjoyed it but it could have been a lot better. First hour or so flew by, and was the best part of it, but the tone got a bit uneven then: too much comedy and it did drag somewhat at the end. I also thought there was too much bad CGI, and that there weren't many memorable scares. The most unsettling part for me was ; other than that, I can't recall being genuinely scared (I don't count cheap jump scares...quiet, quiet, AAAARGGHHHH! :rolleyes: Lazy directing). I also didn't find Pennywise in any way scary in either of the 2 movies, and to be honest I found the actor's performance embarrassing, and a really bad choice to go that way with the character. I didn't feel any dread at all when Pennywise showed up (Tim Curry was much more unsettling in the TV version). Large chunks of the movie reminded me of a kid's version of a Nightmare On Elm Street, but I remember watching the original of that, and saying "oh f*ck" any time Freddy showed up. Pennywise had none of that menace. .

Ward J. Littell wrote: »

I agree with a lot of this. I found the first hour or so really enjoyable. Went pear shaped though after that.

I will also say that it was a fantastic looking movie; a lot of effort went into the sets, and the look and feel of the movie was superb. Shame about the CGI then. I liked all the cast too, especially Ritchie and Eddie (Ziggy Sobotka from The Wire!). I still only give it 3 out of 5 stars overall though, but that's pretty good by my standards

Been a long time since I've been as disappointed in a sequel!

I went to see this last night, as it is due to leave the cinema soon. I enjoyed it overall. Only gripes for me were an overuse of Bill Hader's comedy. Put it this way, I am not a fan of Evil Dead when it went funny. I felt it was half an hour too long. Most of the denouement was unnecessary. Also i was surprised at how crappy some of the CGI looked...a bit like that puppet out of Tales From The Crypt. Also I still don"t see anyone other than Amy Adams playing an adult Bev. I didn't know your eyes changed colour as you got older. That was the same for the James McAvoy character. I'd give it 7/10. On a par with the first film

El Duda wrote: »

Nothing but critisism... 7/10?!

Yes. The criticism is the 3 points I've subtracted