Skip to main content

Everyone wants a happy ending and everyone wants closure but that's not the way life works out.

It Chapter Two
(2019)

(SPOILERS) An exercise in stultifying repetitiveness, It Chapter Two does its very best to undo all the goodwill engendered by the previous instalment. It may simply be that adopting a linear approach to the novel’s interweaving timelines has scuppered the sequel’s chances of doing anything the first film hasn’t. Oh, except getting rid of Pennywise for good, which you’d be hard-pressed to discern as substantially different to the CGI-infused confrontation in the first part, Native American ritual aside.

So the jokes about Stephen King’s original ending, which include both a Peter Bogdanovich cameo and one by Stephen himself, fail to pay off in any kind of “We got it right this time” way (essentially, the Losers mock Pennywise to death). Although, to be honest, I’m unclear whichending/ aspect thereof they’re referencing – the unfilmable kids’ orgy, the final ending, or the giant space turtle. Or maybe just endings being a King bugbear full stop (in which case, it’s either quite sporting of him to mock himself, or he’s a shameless publicity whore). Indeed, I’d even argue the effect of an attempt to improve it is an adverse one; the lack of anything as supremely whacky as a creator space turtle rather underlines how drably literal and unadorned Andre Muschietti’s sequel is.

There’s the occasional shot here that feels inspired – the one we saw in the trailers of Pennywise aloft on a myriad balloons – but three hours of stir-and-repeat “scare” sequences in which the kids and their adult versions are not-that-inventively threatened gets tiring very quickly, particularly in the same successive form of having learned nothing from the past and being sucked in once again (the most irritating in this regard is Bill doing the classic horror plot no-no of running off on his own, ending up in the funfair hall of mirrors).

Beverly’s visit to her old home actually doesvaguely muster a genuinely creepy vibe – albeit spoiled in one of the early extended trailers – even if it owes a massive debt to In the Mouth of Madness. Even there, however, any shock value quickly dissipates in the face of Muschietti’s devotion to rendering of the objects of the Losers’ horror via CGI. I even began to wonder if the director was getting a bit bored with it all, hence the shamelessly rubbish The Thing homage (if that felt naff, I admittedly did like the oddball needledrop during Eddie’s apparition scenario in the pharmacy basement, but it seemed to come from a completely director, as if Sam Raimi had dropped by the editing room).

I have a feeling Chapter Two would have been considerably less monotonous if Bill Skarsgård had managed to create an actually iconic villain. Obviously, he’s got to live up to Tim Curry’s incarnation, who managed to impact a generation, regardless of how good the mini-series actually was overall. Skarsgård may deliver a few decent tics, but he fails to instil either fear or embody a character you enjoy for their malignancy (à la Freddy, or Hannibal Lecter). The knowledge that any Pennywise scene will very quickly devolve into an approximation of him by way of pixels further lets the air out of his big red balloon.

So much so, any Chapter Two sequences that genuinely work tend to be ones where he’s barely involved. The opening hate crime is entirely compelling untilhe shows up, as is the Chinese restaurant sequence (up until the fortune cookies start spitting out weird creatures, as if the effects team have got all mixed up with The Mist). And the fairly brief appearances by Henry Bowers – to the extent that he almost seems to be an ineffectual afterthought – carry a genuine air of menace.

The new ensemble play the adult versions of the Losers serviceably, but crucially, none of them are as memorable as their younger selves. Bill Hader and James Ransome come across best, but then Muschietti will throw in a flashback to Finn Wolfhard and Jack Dylan Grazer bantering and you’re under no illusions as to who’s coming out tops. Jessica Chastain (too resourcefully steely), James McAvoy (too theatrically stuttery) and Isaiah Mustafa (too tied down to being the exposition machine) are just “okay”. The depressing theme of being unable to escape one’s past, being dragged back down into one’s emotional history, no matter what cosmetic changes one has made – ideally, Jerry O’Connell would have played adult Ben – might have had some juice, but the picture’s far too rudimentary in tone and approach to engage effectively on that level.

Perhaps if Muschietti and screenwriter Gary Dauberman hadn’t decided the unparalleled success of the first film entitled them to a more-is-more approach, we’d have ended up with something considerably more economical and so more effective. But I’m doubtful. The slimmer It Chapter Two might have been, the more it would likely have reminded us of how little there really was left to work with, once Chapter One was done and dusted. Filling it out at least encourages the passing illusion that there’s substance here – and accordingly, merit. The picture might be worth revisiting in an extended cut,if that cut manages to embrace the same structural approach as King’s novel. Until that happens, It Chapter Two will remain a stiff.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979)
Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991)
(SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008)
(SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanleywas well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley, our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“too syrupy”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog. 

Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has cause to be, as does any re…

Doctor, eh? You’re not in the best of shape yourself, though, are you?

Doctor Who  Season 26 – Worst to Best
I’m not a big Seventh Doctor fan. For me, Doctor Who pretty much ended with Season 23 (and not because it was awful: see here). Yes, there have been a few nu-Who reprieves (mostly notably Matt Smith’s first season), but the McCoy era flaunted an abundance of sins, from a lead who wasn’t up to snuff, to a script-editor messaging his social conscience wrapped in a breeze block (or bilge bag), to production values that made any given earlier era look absurdly lavish in comparison. And then there was the “masterplan” (which at least lends Season 24 a rather innocuous and relatively inoffensive quality by contrast).

Nevertheless, on the occasions I do return to the era, I’m always minded to give it a fair shake. And while that resolve inevitably crumbles within minutes, under the duress of cold harsh reality, it has, at times, led to a positive reappraisal (The Happiness Patrol, and, to an extent, perhaps unfathomably, Time and the Rani). So we’ll see ho…