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

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

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

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

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.

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

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.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.