Stephen King's "IT" Part I and Part II

[Vapor]

As a non book reader, I saw it last night and whilst I did enjoy it, I came out feeling maybe a little disappointed - that it's not as good as the first certainly but that it wasn't bad, wasn't great but was just "fine".

The cast is good and has good chemistry. Bill Hader is the stand out of the Losers for me, man that guy needs to be in more things.
Adult Mike, like his child counterpart, again doesn't really feel like a character more just a plot device and I found his cover up of the failed ritual a bit odd.
The exception is maybe adult Bowers who feels shoehorned in and like something out of a cheap 90s slasher including his escaping of the institute. I also found it odd how his kid zombie friend was driving the car for him. I thought all the zombies and weird stuff were just visions not actual physical things?

I also thought Derry was more of a character in the first film.. there was more of a general creepiness in the town (and maybe film) whereas here it feels quite clean/glossy/beautiful in comparison.

Didn't notice the run time, it flew by quite quickly but I did feel that there were perhaps too many flashbacks to the kids, to the point that it lost focus on or didnt develop the adults enough. Whilst it was a nice moment, the bit with the clubhouse felt like it was too long/too much.

I found the whole "need to do a ritual" thing a bit odd and not sure why.. it's almost like it felt poorly/differently handled to the rest of the film. And it perhaps could have being explained a little better/clearer. The reveal of the failed ritual felt shoehorned and Mike's reasons for hiding this just felt off too.

The ending too didn't quite hit the mark for me.. I have a vague idea of what's involved in the ending of the book so I know it's kinda hinted at and they probably did the best they could have done but I just wish someone (or something) had actually just come out and said/explained its an inter-dimensional being and that it feeds on fear and whatnot rather than just hinting at and beating about the bush.

Skarsgard does a fantastic job again. Like the first film, the best bits feature Pennywise and I felt like there wasn't enough of him in this one. The horror (or film itself even) is at its best when Pennywise is just creeping about in the background (such as the old lady scuttling about her kitchen in the background) or just standing there looking creepy (hiding in the balloons in the opening) or having a one on one with a character (the bleachers and fun house scenes). With the exception of a couple bits (such as Paul Bunyon and the 3 doors/dog - which was a funny callback) when he turns in to a big cgi thing it's just kinda silly and loses all effect.. and I'm sure it's unintentional but when that giant naked lady pops out, it's just laughable. Again with the exception of a few key scenes here, I think the horror and jump scares were done better in the first film.

Overall the cast is good and there are some good moments throughout the film but it's not quite as tight as the first and relies a little too much on flashbacks, 6/10.

Oh and I don't know if this was just me but I hated the way that all the characters, when talking about Pennywise, would put emphasis on the word "it" as if that was its name. Should be talking about "it" not "It".. it just felt odd.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Well, calling it "It" is what they do in the book. In fact, there's maybe one instance where a character calls It "Pennywise". "It" more or less is It's name.

 

[Marvolo]

Yeah Pennywise is just one of its personas. Not Its true name.

 

[BobJM]

Finally saw this movie. Pretty lackluster overall and a general step down from the first installment (which, to be fair, I wasn't a fan of either).

I will say, however, that the opening scene with the hate crime really shook me. So out-of-nowhere and truly violent & shocking that it's the one thing that has been sticking in my head after viewing. Not sure where it fits in the narrative (maybe very loosely with Richie's fear of coming out, or just as simple as an re-introduction to Pennywise), but it was truly disturbing and has me still reeling.

I wish I had seen more press or more conversation on this after it came out...maybe people are too uncomfortable to address it?

 

[Schlosser85]

The hate crime is straight out of the book and supposedly Stephen King based it on a real hate crime in his hometown that made a big impression on him, but yea it feels a little gratuitously thrown in there.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Killing of Charlie Howard - Wikipedia

And I thought it was very important to include it, showing that the true evil of people is what gives Pennywise his power.

 

[Schlosser85]

Killing of Charlie Howard - Wikipedia

And I thought it was very important to include it, showing that the true evil of people is what gives Pennywise his power.

One of the murderers released after 22 months

They really did copy it right down to little details like his asthma though, basically everything was straight up as it really happened except for Pennywise finishing him off.

 

[ironwez20]

They did a poor job explaining that the town is influenced by IT and when something horrible happens IT awakens and people kinda brush it under the rug.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Killing of Charlie Howard - Wikipedia

And I thought it was very important to include it, showing that the true evil of people is what gives Pennywise his power.

The issue is they never connect it to Pennywise. The scene just comes off gratuitous with no story or character value. The exact opposite of the opening of the first film, which has a direct impact on the story and characters. Also why does he release the balloons? Who is that for?

One of the big issues with the second film is it craps the bed on Derry and what it truly is.

 

[Spider-Fan]

They did a poor job explaining that the town is influenced by IT and when something horrible happens IT awakens and people kinda brush it under the rug.

They sort of touch on that in the first movie though.

 

[Arachnerd]

The first one did a good job on emphasizing Pennywise's influence on Derry. It was seeping in almost every scene with the adults.

Chapter Two, on the other hand, made Derry look like a ghost town half the time.

 

[ironwez20]

They sort of touch on that in the first movie though.

not as good as it should of been though

 

[Spider-Fan]

not as good as it should of been though

Eh, matter of opinion. I thought it was very clear in the first movie, and thus they didn't really need to focus on it too much in the second one. At least not to restate what we already know. Though the movie is sort of guilty of doing that anyway

 

[ironwez20]

Eh, matter of opinion. I thought it was very clear in the first movie, and thus they didn't really need to focus on it too much in the second one. At least not to restate what we already know. Though the movie is sort of guilty of doing that anyway

honestly I think the second movie just wasn’t good overall lol. But I never liked the adult parts of the story either anyway lol

 

[Erik20]

IT Chapter 2....definitely not as good as the first, overlong, self-indulgent, meandering and could have benefitted from a tighter cut. Also the most affecting scenes usually involved the kids. The adults just don’t have the same effect or sense of bonding. Best Pennywise scenes were the bleachers and the funhouse. Some other horror moments are unintentionally (?) comical and overall Pennywise feels more fatuous and less scary than Chapter 1. Mike still feels the most underdeveloped and like a plot device. Dem ending feels tho.

Watched this last week and enjoyed it as a none book reader but the movie had huge problems also. Skarsgard nailed it again as Pennywise, yet isn’t really given enough to do throughout. The few moments he can shine are the best in the movie though and the ones that stick with you afterwards.

The cast are all top notch and their chemistry is strong, but there were too many flashbacks to their time as kids. And the de-aging CGI used and whatever the hell they did to their voices was just weird. The finale was also a let down funnily proving the meta joke used throughout as accurate. I think if they had cut down on the flashbacks the movie would have flowed much better.

7/10

I just saw the movie, this is also pretty much what I thought.

The movie has way too many flashbacks, so you never really get used to the adult versions. Maybe they should've changed the 27 years rule if they wanted to make another movie with the kids...

I've watched both movies back to back, and you can really notice the difference in quality. (Maybe that was a mistake) Chapter two kind of feels like a weird tribute to the first movie. It's just fine, certainly not as good as the first one. Especially all of the scenes with older Bowers seem silly instead of scary.

It would be interesting to see what they would do in a Chapter 3 movie, where they don't have to follow the book and can make up their own story (if that's actually happening)

 

[Marvolo]

Anymore IT films would have to be prequels. Not a Chapter 3.

 

[:eek:]

 

[Art Vandelay]

So I finally attempted to watch the movie after initially following the production early on. What I saw was such a bastardization of the novel and it's characters that I had to stop watching, after only 40 minutes in. This seems like a series that would be enjoyed by people who haven't read the book, but I can't imagine enjoying it if you have.

 

[The Joker]

I've read the book. I enjoyed the hell out of these movies.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Also read the book...
I prefer the 1990 version, even though it’s cheesier and the acting, budget, and even directing is worse.
I like these two movies but was pretty disappointed in part 2.

I also wasn’t nearly as impressed with Skarsgard as everyone else. Team Curry all the way. Iconic.

 

[Marvolo]

So I finally attempted to watch the movie after initially following the production early on. What I saw was such a bastardization of the novel and it's characters that I had to stop watching, after only 40 minutes in. This seems like a series that would be enjoyed by people who haven't read the book, but I can't imagine enjoying it if you have.

The book is the book and the movie is the movie. I dont need the film to be enslaved to the source material.

Part 1 was a great adaption, and the child actors were really good. The monster It was genuinely creep. Part 2 was 80% a pointless fetch quest, 10% unnecessary flashbacks, and 10% underwhelming climax.

 

[Fincher]

I love the book. Part 1 is in my top ten movies, and I liked Part 2. Granted, I don't consider how much movies live up to source material when grading them, but even if I did that would still be true. They're not like The Shining where the spirit of the novel was gutted. They just take some liberties, and in the first one at least I felt the changes were mostly about playing to the strengths of film as a medium, rather than copying the book beat for beat and ending up inferior due to the appeal being lost in translation. Also, I didn't think the book was perfect to begin with. It's not like I was bothered by losing the creepy orgy, for example.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I've read the book. I enjoyed the hell out of these movies.

Doesn't surprise me....

By the way, how was the big destruction of Derry you were guaranteeing we would see a few months back?

 

[Art Vandelay]

The book is the book and the movie is the movie. I dont need the film to be enslaved to the source material. Part 2 was 80% a pointless fetch quest, 10% unnecessary flashbacks, and 10% underwhelming climax.

This might not have been the case had they. followed. the. book.

I don't need slavish devotion to the source material, but I would like to see some faithfulness. These movies only bare a passing resemblance. And as a fan of the book I hate seeing what they did to these characters.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I love the book. Part 1 is in my top ten movies, and I liked Part 2. Granted, I don't consider how much movies live up to source material when grading them, but even if I did that would still be true. They're not like The Shining where the spirit of the novel was gutted. They just take some liberties, and in the first one at least I felt the changes were mostly about playing to the strengths of film as a medium, rather than copying the book beat for beat and ending up inferior due to the appeal being lost in translation. Also, I didn't think the book was perfect to begin with. It's not like I was bothered by losing the creepy orgy, for example.

The book isn't perfect, no. But these movies are "It" in name only. I don't see how you can love the book, and not be annoyed at how they ruined Mike, for example. Of all of the adult versions of these characters, he was my favorite. He's calm, rational, and well spoken. In the movie, he's a stamering mess who is constantly being second guessed by the other Losers. That he's badly portrayed by Isaiah Mustafa doesn't help.

It might have helped if the movies were actually scary, but they're not. They're comedy movies with the odd bit of horror haphazardly throw in, and bad ones, at that.

I'm sorry for the ranting, but this movie just pissed me off.