IT 2

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

IT 2

Postby so sorry on Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:34 pm



Sufficiently creepy.
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15731
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: IT 2

Postby caruso_stalker217 on Sun Jul 28, 2019 2:00 am

165 minute running time?

I CAME.
Image
User avatar
caruso_stalker217
TOO AGED FOR THIS MALARKEY
 
Posts: 9919
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Oregon, US of A


Re: IT 2

Postby caruso_stalker217 on Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:45 am

IT: CHAPTER TWO? More like SHIT: CRAPPER POO.
Image
User avatar
caruso_stalker217
TOO AGED FOR THIS MALARKEY
 
Posts: 9919
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Oregon, US of A

Re: IT 2

Postby Ribbons on Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:42 pm

Is that your review?
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13969
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: IT 2

Postby caruso_stalker217 on Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:26 pm

Ribbons wrote:Is that your review?


More or less. It wasn't DREAMCATCHER bad, but it was definitely a misguided mess.

The one thing that saves(?) it is that most of the stuff that is supposed to be funny (which is a lot of it) actually is funny. Unfortunately, most of the stuff that's supposed to be taken seriously(?) is not good.

Bill Hader and James Ransone carry the film. The whole cast is good, but the script doesn't seem to know what to do with the other characters. I felt kind of bad for Jessica Chastain because she's a really good actor and she has fuck-all to do here.

A significant portion of the film is devoted to trying to come up with reasons to keep the characters from leaving. So you have Bill, who is the one who made everyone promise to come back, continually having to be motivated to stay and fight.

It was nice that Mike got an expanded role after being shortchanged in the first film, but then they basically shit the bed with his character and turn him into an incompetent dumbass.

Some brighter spots were the scenes with the kid Losers. Despite the not entirely successful attempt to de-age some of them, it was nice seeing those actors again and they still play well off each other. Their scenes are mostly filler and an excuse to put Bill Skarsgård in more scenes (he also has little to work with here).

The ending is an absolute clusterfuck. It's like they went halfway with the weirdness from the book and then chickened out and we're left with something every bit as ridiculous as Night Court and Jon-Boy pushing over a big crab puppet, except more expensive and (arguably) more embarrassing. They would have been better off doing the confrontation from the novel with the metaphysical mental battle shit rather than (spoiler) a giant crab beast with Pennywise's head that eventually gets...taunted to death? (spoiler?)

So I really don't know how to rate this thing. The opening scene was really well done and gets the closest to one of the major themes of the book which is that the town itself is a bad place, poisoned and (in the novel) must ultimately be destroyed along with It. The film does not explore this aspect of the story at all, so the killing of Adrian Mellon seems weirdly detached from everything else. The killing of Georgie in the first film set all the events in motion, provided Bill's motivation, and explored his character in an interesting way. You don't get anything like that here.

The town is so underutilized in this film that there are, in fact, no people actually living there. Everyone is apparently hanging out at the carnival festival thing because any time the Losers are out walking the streets or where ever the town is just fucking empty. Even the inn that they're staying at has no other guests and apparently no employees. The only time a citizen of Derry appears is when one of the main cast is in a scene by themselves and needs somebody to talk and interact with.

This thing is a goddamn mess. Three hours long (though, honesty, it didn't feel that long) and with barely a shred of story or plot to hold the fucker together. Again, the film's saving grace (if it has one) is that it actually is a pretty good comedy. The scene in the bathroom with Eddie and Henry Bowers was honestly fucking funny. Richie's nonsense like doing a Pennywise impression to scare his friends and then joking about how he "used to dance and stuff" was funny.

And the scene with the (spoilers) Pomeranian was like some Shane Black level "Bet you didn't think THAT was gonna pay off" shit.

Unfortunately, I wasn't going into this thing hoping for a comedy. I wasn't even going in expecting a great horror film, because the first one wasn't even that. I was hoping for a good character-focused film with the acting and the feelings and the zip zop boopity bop. There was a little bit of that, but there was a lot of nonsense too. And too much bed-shitting for this thing to be anything more than an interesting freakshow of a tonal goat fuck.

Loved that Henry Bowers was still rocking a mullet and sleeveless shirt, though. That was on par with Powers Booth having a framed picture of the Yellow Bastard in SIN CITY 2.
Image
User avatar
caruso_stalker217
TOO AGED FOR THIS MALARKEY
 
Posts: 9919
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Oregon, US of A

Re: IT 2

Postby so sorry on Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:12 am

I liked your first review better.
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15731
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: IT 2

Postby TheBaxter on Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:40 pm

so.... better than The Dark Tower, then.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19227
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: IT 2

Postby caruso_stalker217 on Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:14 pm

so sorry wrote:I liked your first review better.


It was definitely better written.
Image
User avatar
caruso_stalker217
TOO AGED FOR THIS MALARKEY
 
Posts: 9919
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Oregon, US of A

Re: IT 2

Postby caruso_stalker217 on Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:11 pm

TheBaxter wrote:so.... better than The Dark Tower, then.


It takes a lot of work to make a movie that shitty.
Image
User avatar
caruso_stalker217
TOO AGED FOR THIS MALARKEY
 
Posts: 9919
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Oregon, US of A

Re: IT 2

Postby TheBaxter on Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:51 am

caruso_stalker217 wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:so.... better than The Dark Tower, then.


IT 2 takes a lot of work to make a movie that shitty.


ftfy
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19227
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: IT 2

Postby caruso_stalker217 on Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:08 am

TheBaxter wrote:
caruso_stalker217 wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:so.... better than The Dark Tower, then.


IT 2 takes a lot of work to make a movie that shitty.


ftfy


Baha!
Image
User avatar
caruso_stalker217
TOO AGED FOR THIS MALARKEY
 
Posts: 9919
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Oregon, US of A

Re: IT 2

Postby TheBaxter on Mon Sep 30, 2019 1:12 am

i finally got to see this, and i think caruso's review is pretty much spot on. on a disappointment scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not disappointing at all, and 10 being the final season of Game of Thrones, i'd put this at about an 8. i'll just add a few thoughts of my own.

the first film had great atmosphere and some effectively creepy scenes. this film dumps the atmosphere, and replaces the creepy scenes with silly CGI creatures. stuff like the little old lady monster, or the fortune cookie monsters, are just too goofy-looking to be creepy or scary at all, if they're even supposed to be. i wasn't always sure how much of the humor was intentional... for example, was the guy yelling "Adrian" at the beginning supposed to sound like Rocky Balboa? 'cos that's a pretty strange place for a joke.

where the first film nailed the opening scene with georgie and the sewer, this one really missed the boat (pun intended) on stan uris's death which is almost an equally iconic scene from the book. i mean, that scene pretty much gave the book it's title (or at least it's title font). didn't care for the retconning of his "suicide" note at the end either.

i think the structure of the book really created difficulties the film couldn't overcome. the meat of the story is in the kid's part, and the adult part is mostly them just slowly remembering stuff from when they were kids, and then going back to fight It again. not much plot there to drive a film. i assume that's why they added in a whole bunch of new flashbacks to the kids, but the end result feels like a bunch of deleted scenes from the first film strung together with awkward scenes of their adult versions. since the kids' part of the story was already (mostly) told in the first film, they needed something else to drive the events of the film forward, which gets us to...

The Ritual of Chud... so, in order to give the characters something to actually do during the film's runtime, now they need to go around and each find some personal "token" from their past to use as part of this ritual. i can certainly understand why they invented this new addition to the ritual, it provides an excuse for new scenes with the kids, and probably seemed more interesting than just watching a bunch of grown-ups slowly remembering stuff we already saw in the last film. but it just didn't work. also, the ritual itself... it doesn't really make any sense, but the book version doesn't either. but why didn't any of the characters realize the obvious? "the Indians came up with this ritual to kill IT. IT is still alive. the Indians aren't. that doesn't really say much for their ritual, does it?"

and then there's Henry Bowers. he just randomly pops up every once in a while in this film, and his inclusion seems pointless. he never feels like a real threat and barely does any damage.... at least in the book, he almost kills Mike and takes him out of the final fight. also, the movie drops a couple of the other characters that IT tries to use to stop the Losers, like Bev's husband and Bill's wife. why drop them but still keep Henry? at least with the others, it would make it more clear how IT is scared of the Losers and resorts to using these other people to defend itself from them. but since it's just Henry, it feels random.

i did enjoy the in-joke about Bill's books having terrible endings. even King's cameo uses that joke, so at least he's a good sport about it. i kinda wish they'd gone all meta, and after the ritual of chud, the director yelled cut, the actors all get up and go back to their trailers, and the director calls in Stephen King and demand he write a new ending for the film because "this one's even worse than the book." sadly, that scene will only ever live in my dreams.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19227
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: IT 2

Postby caruso_stalker217 on Mon Sep 30, 2019 2:12 am

TheBaxter wrote:where the first film nailed the opening scene with georgie and the sewer, this one really missed the boat (pun intended) on stan uris's death which is almost an equally iconic scene from the book. i mean, that scene pretty much gave the book it's title (or at least it's title font). didn't care for the retconning of his "suicide" note at the end either.


I thought about this a bit as well. The beginning of the film is pretty poorly paced. I thought they should have taken more time getting the adults to Derry. Like Bill's wife didn't even need to be in this thing at all, but they toss her in one scene and make her kind of a dick for no reason and then we never see her again. And then the stuff with Stan happened so abruptly that I wasn't even sure what they were going for. Was I supposed to feel sad? The music seemed to be leaning that way. And then they botched the iconic title drop in that scene by shooting it in a way where its mostly obscured with steam and barely readable.

That moment in the book (and the miniseries) was presented as horrific and shocking. The note at the end trying to give it some deeper meaning really backfired in my opinion. One, it doesn't actually make any sense. And two, in the book Stan's actions are driven by absolute fucking terror. He understands the situation better than anyone (as I recall he knows that the turtle is dead or can't help them and also that It is pregnant I think?), believes that they'll all be horribly killed and decides to take the easy way out because he just can't face going back.

Of course, this being a sequel we already know Stan so I understand wanting to give the whole thing more weight. But then they probably should have given it actual weight instead of glossing over it in about 30 seconds and then throwing some feel-good narration on the end that makes no sense.

TheBaxter wrote:and then there's Henry Bowers. he just randomly pops up every once in a while in this film, and his inclusion seems pointless. he never feels like a real threat and barely does any damage.... at least in the book, he almost kills Mike and takes him out of the final fight. also, the movie drops a couple of the other characters that IT tries to use to stop the Losers, like Bev's husband and Bill's wife. why drop them but still keep Henry? at least with the others, it would make it more clear how IT is scared of the Losers and resorts to using these other people to defend itself from them. but since it's just Henry, it feels random.


This is another major problem that comes from keeping elements of the book that had an impact on the story and then completely neutering it for the film.

This was something that once again was done more faithfully in the terrible miniseries and which was super glossed over in this film. Why exactly does Pennywise need Henry in this version? We can imagine for the same reason as the book, only the reason isn't stated here.

The miniseries kept the dialogue from the book where It explains to Henry that he can get to the Losers whether "they believe, half-believe, or don't believe at all." It is an acknowledgment that while the Losers are less powerful against Pennywise as adults because they lack the imaginations they had as children, the same weakness applies to Pennywise as it will be less effective against them. It might not even be able to kill them at all, which is why It needs Henry as a sort of contingency plan. In the book (and miniseries) Henry IS able to take out Mike, which weakens the Losers even further. In the film here he is completely ineffective and is basically used as comic relief (which, admittedly, works pretty well).

There's really no reason to include him here at all except, well, SOMETHING has to fucking happen in the film.
Image
User avatar
caruso_stalker217
TOO AGED FOR THIS MALARKEY
 
Posts: 9919
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Oregon, US of A

Re: IT 2

Postby TheBaxter on Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:03 pm

i think, to a certain extent, this film was a victim of the first one's success. it wouldn't have felt nearly as disappointing if the first one hadn't been so good. but not just quality-wise, i think the box office success also led in some ways to the things that hurt this film. for one, the standard sequel-itis, that feeling that they need to "go bigger", along with having a bigger budget to work with, led to an overreliance on all the over-the-top CGI crap that only detracted from the atmosphere the first film had established. if the first film hadn't done so well, they would've probably had a more limited budget, which would have necessitated cutting some of that silly stuff out, or using a less-is-more approach to those scenes which probably would have made them more effective. also the casting, as good as actors like james mcavoy and jessica chastain can be, their recognizability kills a bit of the illusion that they are grown-up versions of the kid actors who were much less recognizable or famous. that lack of familiar faces in the original made it that much easier to buy those actors as just those kids without any of the baggage of their fame. those certainly aren't the biggest or the only issues with the film, but it's at least part of what detracted from it.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19227
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: IT 2

Postby Ribbons on Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:55 pm

As someone who's never read the novel, my take on IT 2 was perhaps a little more charitable than the two of youse's. I thought the beginning and ending were strong, despite some initial pacing issues. The middle was fucking weird, though; there's no getting around that. The attempts at comedy were awkward and confusing (including the now-infamous "Angel in the Morning" needledrop), the structure was listless and plot-less, and the flashbacks to the young Losers were mostly unnecessary and marred by bad CGI on the faces of the children who had aged too much in-between films. I also have to say that McAvoy's portrayal of Bill at times veered into Nicolas Cage-ian territories of camp performance art, particularly when he's screaming at that kid on the skateboard.

I agree that the sequel was hobbled by the first, both because it had already used up the most compelling material and because the success of Chapter One probably put pressure on the filmmakers to copy the formula. The kids running around being terrorized by Pennywise bordered on repetitive as it was, but at least most of those sequences were in the first act. Making that the entire middle of your second movie after the story has already kicked off completely stops any narrative momentum in its tracks. Also, it becomes increasingly unclear if Pennywise has plans to kill the adult Losers or if he's just fucking around because he's bored. I have no idea what to make of the complete lack of townspeople in Derry; I want to say that Muschietti and Co. were doing a thing, but it just felt like they'd blown their casting budget on the adult leads and had them wander around empty sets. That said, this confusing middle part wasn't without its moments. The extended scene with Bev and the old lady was creepy and mostly effective. Though there are plenty of big, loud funhouse thrills and jump scares in this franchise, it also excels at creepy smaller touches, like a gaze held a few seconds too long, or a character shuffling past the frame in the background. I also approved of the reveal that Richie was Dumbledore and seemed to have unrequited feelings for Eddie. I understand that this wasn't part of the book, but I think it nicely complements the theme of repressed memories and identity.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13969
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: IT 2

Postby Fievel on Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:05 pm

They done fucked this movie up.

They should have filmed the Part 2 kids' scenes when they shot Part 1. Script (or outline at least) should have been written for Part 2 to show the studio suits the importance of filming the kids during Part 1. MAN those kids looked weird!!

The story of It isn't funny. The book may have had some laughs, but they were standard kid-banter laughs. Angel of the Morning was worthy of a walkout if I wasn't too lazy/cheap. I was expecting some serious horror after what I thought was a near-perfect Part 1. The much hyped "most blood ever" scene wasn't even the scene I was expecting from the book. What they showed was a weak horror movie scene that would have been perfectly in place of an Elm Street film in the mid-80s.

As has been mentioned, the beginning showed so much promise. The assault was perfectly difficult to watch. I thought that was a sign of things to come. Then we got to see Henry Bowers and I was expecting more. Then we met Beverly's husband and I was awaiting that horror. Nope, glossed over and missing from the end.

I want to see Bill Hader do drama. He was so damn good. His crying/wailing/screaming for Eddie got me misty as fuck.

I realize you can't fit an entire book on the screen. But when adapting a horror novel.....shouldn't the horror aspect remain?

I look forward to watching both parts back-to-back to see if my disappointment in Part 2 changes.
Achievement Unlocked: TOTAL DOMINATION (Win a Werewolf Game without losing a single player on your team)
User avatar
Fievel
Mouse Of The House
 
Posts: 12148
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:07 pm
Location: White Lake, MI

Re: IT 2

Postby TheBaxter on Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:26 pm

i suspect watching part 1 and part 2 back-to-back is only going to make part 2 seem worse.
i figured i'd be buying part 2 on dvd since i already bought part 1, but now i think i'd rather just pretend they really did kill Pennywise in part 1 and view it as a single self-contained shortened version of the story.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19227
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: IT 2

Postby Fievel on Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:49 am

TheBaxter wrote:i suspect watching part 1 and part 2 back-to-back is only going to make part 2 seem worse.
i figured i'd be buying part 2 on dvd since i already bought part 1, but now i think i'd rather just pretend they really did kill Pennywise in part 1 and view it as a single self-contained shortened version of the story.


I agree with you, but am holding on to a false grain of hope that it will be better. I never bought Part 1 knowing damn well that there would be the eventual "complete story" disc release. Maybe I should have....
Achievement Unlocked: TOTAL DOMINATION (Win a Werewolf Game without losing a single player on your team)
User avatar
Fievel
Mouse Of The House
 
Posts: 12148
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:07 pm
Location: White Lake, MI

Re: IT 2

Postby Ribbons on Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:44 am

I deliberately avoided watching the first one before I went to see Chapter Two because I was afraid they wouldn't compare favorably. Having actually seen the film kind of reinforces that opinion.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13969
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am


Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron