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.

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

The Krishna died of a broken finger? I mean, is that a homicide?

Miami Blues (1990) (SPOILERS) If the ‘90s crime movie formally set out its stall in 1992 with Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs , another movie very quietly got in there first at the beginning of the decade. Miami Blues picked up admiring reviews but went otherwise unnoticed on release, and even now remains under-recognised. The tale of “blithe psychopath” Federick J. Frenger, Jr., the girl whose heart he breaks and the detetive sergeant on his trail, director George Armitage’s adaptation of Charles Willeford’s novel wears a pitch black sense of humour and manages the difficult juggling act of being genuinely touching with it. It’s a little gem of a movie, perfectly formed and concisely told, one that more than deserves to rub shoulders with the better-known entries in its genre. One of the defining characteristics of Willeford’s work, it has been suggested , is that it doesn’t really fit into the crime genre; he comes from an angle of character rather than plot or h

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

You tampered with the universe, my friend.

The Music of Chance (1993) (SPOILERS) You won’t find many adaptations of Paul Auster’s novels. Original screenplays, yes, a couple of which he has directed himself. Terry Gilliam has occasionally mentioned Mr. Vertigo as in development. It was in development in 1995 too, when Philip Haas and Auster intended to bring it to the screen. Which means Auster presumably approved of Haas’ work on The Music of Chance (he also cameos). That would be understandable, as it makes for a fine, ambiguous movie, pregnant with meaning yet offering no unequivocal answers, and one that makes several key departures from the book yet crucially maintains a mesmerising, slow-burn lure.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red (2022) (SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc . can be given an insi