Lol I don't finalize my thoughts on a film until I've heard kermodes take. He sees what is there and what isn't there and can articulate it all masterfully.
I don't always agree with him, but even when I disagree he articulates his opinion so well that I understand where he is coming from, even when I am approaching the same material from a different direction.
Remember when Cary Fukunaga wrote the script for "It: Chapter One" and then New Line forced him to drop because they didn't like his vision? They still used most of his work though, with gaps filled in by Gary Dauberman. The same Gary Dauberman who wrote the script for "It: Chapter Two". Now you know why you liked the first movie. You're all welcome.
The cartoony CGI really took me out of this one. Pennywise balanced a real, gritty performance with these incredibly animalistic transformations in the first film that always stuck with me because of how much thought had gone into his character. My favorite parts were when the camera just sort of caught him. No fanfares, just straight chills. That’s why his appearance at the start of chapter 2 really impressed me. Sadly the other 2 hours and 50 minutes couldn’t live up to that moment. I wish they had skipped the flashbacks entirely and let the film stand on its own.
The purpose of the opening scene lies with the concept hinted at in chapter 1 that each cycle of Pennywise is in someways triggered or "announced" by a horrific event. There's that idea that Pennywise is both being drawn to and influencing the evil in the town. In the novel there are characters who go through some horrific events only to then meet their end at the hands of IT tragically. Also, its a depiction of hate crime which is very real so if that makes people uncomfortable to see, then on some level the scene has worked.
Well, the producers/ director could have represented evil in a better way. That overgrown monster or the scene at the end of the movie was exactly the SAME as the first movie. I have seen better horror movies - i.e. THE EXORCIST
@@ManubibiWalsh Have you seen Pride (2014)? The way that film portrays the risk of violence, the measures people took to minimise risk and actual violence towards homosexuals in the 1980s really struck me. Seems so foreign to me now that people had to hide like that. I understand homophobia is still a huge problem but we've come such a long way. (imo of course, sorry if I sound ignorant)
I am all for progress, and gays shouldn't be attacked for being gay. Having said that, over my dead body does 2% of the population set policy or hold the narrative. Edit: I keep hearing the term lbgt rights, can you explain what rights I, as a straight man have that you as a gay don't?
I have to say, in both IT chapter one and two, the most disturbing deaths occur in the opening scene, leaving the rest of the tonally inconsistent violence to kind of pale in comparison.
It did get a little long in the tooth. The jump scares really became repetitive after like the 3rd one. The performances were pretty solid (few moments of overacting but nothing too extreme). Also the ending was laugh-out-loud ridiculous for all the wrong reasons. The visuals of it were so goofy. Also could have used more of Bill Skarsgard's Pennywise. He's great
Man, The EXORCIST is a LOT better than this version of the original "IT". I mean, this movie did not cut it for me. Overgrown monster is NOT my thing anymore.
@@raulcitraro this is the first time ive had to sit and watch one of these big horror movies, and man the loud noises and obvious jump scares got tiresome after the first one. is it actually possible to be scared by this movie when its just bludgeoning you over the head with things screaming towards the camera? The only thing that saved me from napping through it was that some of the character stuff and some of the visuals were mildly interesting
@@bee-nf5bj A REALLY bad film! Don't understand why the producers/ directors can't come up w/ an original and credible idea. The sequel or part two plot is exactly the same as part one but with the kids all grown up, and the "IT" or whatever alien it is, is an UPGRADED version of the first monster 27 years ago...GIVE ME A BREAK!!
This is a fair review. There’s much to enjoy in Chapter Two (the first half an hour/forty five minutes is superb) but it never successfully coheres the way Chapter One did. I felt the humour worked perfectly nicely and was a highlight for me. At no point did I feel a gag undermined a scare, for the simple fact that both films kill their scares stone dead before we get to a gag. Every scare in the film consists of effectively built tension followed by a punchline that is just a silly looking CGI creature jumping out and making a lot of noise. More practical effects with the various ghouls and monsters might have made for a more frightening experience - for example the physical performance of the actress playing Mrs Kersh was a hundred times more creepy and unsettling than the daft cartoon that is meant to be the payoff in that sequence.
The monster Kersh turned into was so disappointing, especially after how well the scene was built up. I have no idea why they couldn’t have done something practical, like the woman in the tub in The Shining. It would’ve worked so much better. Either way, I still really enjoyed the movie. The positives outweighed the negatives.
I still don't get that bit. It's almost more like the movie is just trying to freak us out with oddball weirdness than attempt genuine horror at times.
A very well argued review. I have seen it twice now and whilst I have my gripes with the movie , there's plenty in there that I really enjoyed and got me on an emotional level which is ultimately what i'm looking for.
I was touched by Richie's arc. A worthy addition to the narrative, and King approved, rightly so. The set pieces were, for me, the low points of the film. They weren't bad, but they could have been halved in number, because I was just so much more compelled by the relationships between the adult losers. That, and I found the excess CG quite grating.
What about the overuse of CGI? There's no corporeal threat when there's no 'weight', i.e. you can't have body horror without a body, but that's what the film attempted. And the fact the last 30 minutes of the film is a boss fight from Dark Souls?
I thought that too. Take the scene with the old lady. Much creepier it was when she was in the background, peering around a corner, moving weirdly, and so forth (put me in very much in mind of Exorcist III). When she comes storming back out, it's like Bev's being attacked by Shrek.
I wasn't terribly bothered by the vfx. The scares, for me at least, came from the emotional attacks in each instance of a ghoul charging at our leads. Theres a certain perversion in how "it" uses their trauma and shame against them. I felt the same way while reading Pet Semetary, and even Carrie.
I watched it at a double bill event and came away loving Chapter 2 more than the first. The casting was incredible, they all felt like the same characters. I didn't feel like they needed to be re-established because I already knew them.
Leigh Sherval Same feelings here. I watched Chapter 1 a few hours before I went to see Chapter 2, and my immediate feelings after watching Chapter 2 were "I can't wait to go and see this again." I really enjoyed IT (IT stuck to the source material, while still taking some chances, I have to give respect to everyone involved with the project).
Bro, of course, they did not need to re-establish the characters because this was a repetition of the first Chapter w/ an upgraded monster, "IT". I have seen better horror films, i.e. "IT FOLLOWS.
I'm going to see this cos I love Bill Hader, chap is super talented, sincere and hilarious, and on a personal note, I really appreciate his utter openness re his anxiety and how he manages it.
@@rhyslloyd3200 for me the only other adult actor who brought anything interesting was James Ransome but even then Hader was light years ahead in the entertainment category. McAvoy and Chastain I found very flat.
Chocolabtastic Smith ....I agree...and also the fact people find these films ultimately scary. ...I know its all about opinions ...but I just find them too glossy to be scary...and this goes for most modern mainstream horror in my opinion I haven't actually seen IT 2....but I struggle to get the enthusiasm to be honest
preciousbodilyfluid1 they didn’t do it that well at all, like what signifies that that’s his first kill again and that he hasn’t been killing since the kids left we don’t really get any hints that it’s his return besides the blood letters which was so stupid in your face
I’m pretty sure Adrian Mellon is the zombie that hands adult Richie his obituary before Pennywise starts taunting him about his ‘dirty little secret’, so there’s quite a bit of subtext there when you think about it.
Drama undercut by gags. Yes, this really stood out. I kept thinking of the MCU and how earnest heroism was always kept from the viewer by the constant humour. Alot of potentially real horror was diluted this way in IT 2. Thankfully it wasn't quite as frequent as the MCU equivalent, but it did hurt the film.
"Last Jedi" had that, times x100, which in my opinion destroyed the movie and turned it into a parody. Kermode didn't say anything in his review for that though.
5 лет назад+1
Even though I enjoyed Chapter 2 over the first movie, one of the things that bothered me is that some of the jokes were completely out of place, like when Eddie is attacked by the leper and then by Henry.
It felt to me like they'd focus grouped the film, seen too many shocked faces afterwards, then reshot with too many gags. The Eddie/ Henry scene stood out for me too. A good horror film should build, really get under your skin... This one just kept hitting the reset button.
Can we talk about the strange addition of ‘Angel of the morning’ in the Eddie horror scene? It wasn’t set up or anything. It felt like a mistake in the editors timeline.
Fantastic review as always. I Enjoyed it but completely understand the general negative response, as for me it is Structured and edited in a chaotic way. It constantly disrupts the experience. Still, with the impressive directing, acting performances and character arcs, it’s a solid horror film IMO.
Just watched the film. I really enjoyed it personally. Everyone plays their part perfectly and Skarsgard's portrayal of Pennywise is just as great as it was in the first film. And at points it's genuinely hilarious. But it's way too long and not even remotely scary and I would say that Chapter One is a better film because of this (even though I didn't find that film scary either). But I'm already looking forward to picking the film up on Blu Ray when it comes out in the new year.
Simon Wells Pennywise is awoken from his slumber every 27 years by a terrible act of violence (the black spot, the iron works explosion etc) and it’s the attack on Adrian which signifies his awakening in the 1980s (novel), which in the film is the 2010s
Considering that they chose to do a ‘kill your gays’ ending, though, it feels in poor taste. (Yes, I know it’s a gory horror movie, so just bear with me while I explain.)I know Eddie dies in the original, but adding the tragic romance element to him just felt like the narrative technically condemned destroying loving gay couples, but wouldn’t let them live itself. Ideas have moved on since the book; I’d have loved to see the film move on with them. As it was, I felt that a film that still had 80s ideas about how to handle its own gay characters was on doubtful ground giving itself anti-homophobic airs. What counted as sympathetic to gay characters in the 80s had a much lower bar to clear back then, and since the movie itself moved the story’s time frame, I don’t think it works not to update your standards as well. Which means gay characters doing more than tragically dying so we can feel sad about them instead of having to see them having actual love lives. Adaptations are allowed to change things, and that’s a change I would have really loved to see.
The first half of the film was quite good, with a gruesome opening that announces the presence/return of It. But the second half was basically a mess of over-the-top CGI monsters that became less and less scary as it went on. CGI is fine in smaller doses, but there were scenes where real puppetry would have looked far more realistic and therefore scarier. The last 10 min were ok too. Overall, not as good as the first chapter, far too long, and far too reliant on CGI.
Amazing review! You described exactely the problems I had with it. Absolutely loved the first film. But I think if they left out a lot of the flashback scenes, it would've worked better. Like they did in the first film. Purely focus on the kids or the adults so that you can emotionally connect to the characters. I've read the book and I know it also constantly skips between two time era's, but what works in a book, doesn't always work on screen. I still liked Chapter 2 a lot, but I came out a bit confused about how to feel, while the first one left me with an adrenaline-fueled and excited feeling.
Mark: starts the review by expertly breaking down the relevance and nuance of the opening sequence. Other guy: Yeah, but like it was hard to watch and not relevant to the plot. No one is denying the absolute grueling terror of that first scene, but it has a point, to disregard it is disregarding an artist's intention.
KaijYT to put the sequence above reproach is disregarding the artist’s intention, if you can’t question it then what’s the point of making art? Just because the sequence has a purpose (although you’d expect it to be picked up again if it was actually important to the plot, so Mayo’s not wrong), doesn’t mean that another sequence couldn’t have served the same purpose.
@@no_genius the sequence is how it is because its relates to richie sexuality and that's why they didn't just go for something else, it's almost like they killed two birds with one stone in a very loose sense to me
This is why I'm fascinated by Mark's comments on horror... the movie felt absolutely schizophrenic in its tonal shifts. Although there are plenty of solid set pieces, they're undercut by the bizarre humor - which isn't handled very well, frankly. With the insane length of the film, this became increasingly frustrating. It was like the movie kept teasing the viewer, where one one hand it said, "I'm dark and want to scare you," and then obliterated that tension with "See how silly I am?" Terribly disappointed.
I was one of the lucky (??) ones who never got to see Tim Curry's IT as a child and, as a result, neither Tim Curry nor clowns scare me. Most of the people I know who have seen the original hate clowns! So, I went in to the first movie with a completely open mind, not knowing to expect other than a demon clown hides in a storm drain and eats some kids. I was completely blown away and really enjoyed the horror elements woven in to a story that was basically about a group of young outsiders - there was so much I could relate to! I thought Skarsgard's portrayal of Pennywise was captivating and terrifying, but I'm so conflicted about him as well. Like, I LOVE his portrayal so much that I've ended up finding him rather sweet, in an odd sort of way. Hence, I was hyped for the sequel, and went and watched it at my local IMAX on the second day of its run. I was...conflicted, to say the least. I mean, it's a great movie - I felt it was scarier than the first, and had a more horror-based theme running throughout - but it lacked the heart and personality of the first film. All of the actors involved gave it 100%, and Skarsgard was again amazing as Pennywise, but there was just something not quite right about it. One big takeaway is that they should have filmed the whole thing all at the same time - there's clearly some CGI-trickery in the flashbacks moments, and a few times it seemed like the younger voices were either overdubbed or altered in some way to make the actors sound like they did when they made the first movie. I'm going to see it again, for sure.
This is why I am so disappointed with this movie. They had everything going for them, everything needed to make a truly epic, inspiring and terrifying conclusion, and they forgot about the most important aspect of the movie, the story.
I really enjoyed it and I thought the tone was well established and consistent, I feel like for the horror parts to continue to be horrific it needs those jokes and parts of levity for the sake of contrast and a dynamic story. If we just see horror after horror after horror, each moment loses its meaning, like how transformers films just throw scene after scene of action sequences to the point you can't remember any of them when you walk out of the cinema. It also continues the sense of humour the first film had and in my opinion was integral to my enjoyment of it and the emotional connection to the characters. I love each character, especially their individual humours and how they interact with one another and it's far more human for humour to be the response of horror, it's the polar opposite and given Penny-wise feeds off of fear, an appropriate form of addressing this conflict.
I think people expected to much from Gary Dauberman and don't remember he was the writer of Annabelle and The Nun. The first one works because he only worked on a script From other guys. You wait for "Are you afraid of the dark?" Sure it has a Lot of jumpscares without an original story.
IT should have been a mini series, just as its predecessor was. The first film was a huge hit, granted, but it lacked the depth of the TV version from the 90s (which itself was very clunky in parts) and really ended up being an excuse for fancy special effects. Won't bother with this sequel though it'll probably make even more dough at the box office.
I agree. But I'm only speaking as a huge fan of the book. Derry itself was a MASSIVE character full of a rich arc and history that could have been beautifully portrayed in a good number of episodes. But I got no real sense of that at all in chapter 2. It lacked depth for me.
The mini series isn’t very good. Go back and watch. It hasn’t aged well. While the movie versions are not perfect, they do a better job of showing King’s vision. Part 1-8/10, Part 2-7/10.
I agree with Mark in terms of pacing and length. To me, even though it was a rollicking, enthralling and emotional time, there were scenes that would've benefited from some tighter editing. For example, when Bev goes to re-visit where she used to live. What I would've done is put up a shot of the "Marsh" tag on the door then have Bev hear voices coming from inside that belong to her and her father from long ago. Trigger the memory, let it unfold. THEN she can knock in the present, Mrs. Kersh answers (and have her sound inviting instead of foreboding so as to catch people off guard), Bev's invited in and she explores the newly made-up residence without it feeling like a slog. Keep things separate so it flows smoother and doesn't feel like a slog.
Massive let down.loved the first film but an overuse of cgi and a lack of pennywise made it a chore.the running time didnt bother me but when an adult horror film is about as menacing as the goosebumps film then something went very wrong.
For me the humour absolutely made sense. In the first film, a lot of the audience were laughing during horror scenes, this time was the same but felt better placed with the added humour. Not a huge fan of IT but in both films there were scenes that were very funny, struggling to understand if this is intentional or not?
Spot on Mark. Agreed with everything. There's definitely some interesting things here but it lost its resonance this time around without the younger cast at the centre of it
Interesting thing: I saw both in crowded auditoriums, both in the same cinema. Part 1, the crowd was very lively but totally engaged, jumping, gasping, laughing, really on this ride. Part 2, apart from about two jump-scares, the crowd was checking their phones, making remarks to each other, and way less engaged. That’s really telling; there were less genuine scares, less tension, and less heart, and the audience just didn’t get caught up in the same way.
Honestly I did enjoy this movie a lot and thought it was a fun 3 hours (and I didn't really feel them pass, they just went by) and overall I found it to be a good horror flick especially in the midst of so many average to bad releases (Midsommar is an exception, not the rule, in horror). But I see Mark's criticism, and clearly he didn't take this movie lightly, which is great. I see so many people either over-glorifying it or just laughing at it and I can't agree with either, and to be fair I don't completely agree with Mark either, but I agree with him the most out of everyone I've heard reviewing this piece. One thing is completely subjective but definitely true for me: the horror was real for me. I had real reactions in the theatre, which I never did before. I don't know whether it was my state of mind yesterday, but I absolutely was absorbed in the terror and I loved every second of it. Also too many things are well done in this for me to take seriously any other review. You have respect for the work even when you don't like something, and that's why I respect you.
Having watched the both movies now, I just think genuine scares were a stretch too far for the director. Good scares are incredibly hard to engineer, and I think that while the first film was good, and the second film was decent, neither of those movies actually hit the mark in terms of scares.
To me, the movie was mixed bag. Some thing worked incredibly well (the acting was top notch, the chemistry between adult Losers was great, some of the scenes were really creative and there was a lot of decent build ups for scary scenes) but there were times when the movie really missed the target. My biggest problem with the movie was too much reliance on really cheap looking CGI monsters, lame jump scares and special effects; the scene where Richie is running away from possesed Paul Bunyan statue was downright embarassing to watch. Not to mention that there are unresolved subplots (what happened to Bowers? He escapes from the mental hospital, stabs Eddie in the face and... that's it.) and I felt Pennywise was underused to the point I forgot he's in the movie. Still... it's a fun mainstream horror movie, just a bit too much of everything for my taste.
I feel as if Mark will instantly have something negative to say if the film runs for nearly three hours. It Chapter Two never felt its length and I had a blast watching it.
Mark's description is spot on. I'd suggest the Leper scene with the completely absurd 'Angel of the Morning' moment sums up the tonal madness of this mess of a movie.
The source material almost is 😛 But I personally don't think they should have made it a movie but instead another series, albeit longer than the original.
If you don't have the patience for it, don't watch it. There are many finalies that are long. People marathon Netflix shows that add up to 8+ hours all the time. Don't understand why this is such a shock..especially when you consider two narratives are being shown.
@@CreepingBrutus I have enough patience for a film of this length. I just don't believe that this particular film deserves it. Yes, the source material is huge. I've read the book. Yet they spent so much time filling the film with stuff I felt didn't need to be there. So yup, don't go judging my attention span mate. You've gone off on a tangent there.
They should of done this as another mini-series, But instead of 2 parts an 7/8 parter for Netflix or something I did say this when it was first announced way back in 2016
Beverley revisiting the house she grew up in was why I watch so many films, to get theses rare moments when reality melts away and I’m not even aware that I am sitting in a cinema. Although It’s made it onto my laminated card of memorable films I still went for a mental stroll on occasion.
It could have been reduced to forty five minutes. They get phoned, meet in Derry, reunion scene, discover pennywise is killing kids, so they go to the house and kick his ass. 45 minutes, like an x files episode. The 3 hour runtime was unbearable.
I definitely agree that the opening is very harrowing, as it should be. Whilst it is difficult to watch, it is very true to the source material. Pennywise awakens every 27 years to feed and his awakening is triggered by a terrible and violent event. Not to try and justify it’s violence in anyway, only to point out that what has happened to this gay couple is terrible and it is terrible enough to summon a great evil. It wasn’t a throw away sequence of violence for the sake of it.
I watched this film a few weeks ago and had to leave before the end because I was going to get a parking fine, I didn't feel like I missed much though. As Mark says, the story felt overly formulaic and repetitive and while there was some funny moments and scares, I felt like I wasn't invested in the film and its characters after the 3rd person had there 'origin' moment. A shame because the first film was really really well-made!
Agreed. I thought the first film relied too heavily on jump scares, sound effects and special effects as well as an over the top performance from Skarsgard.
Watched last night in a cinema full of noisy teenagers who all shouted 'urgh' at the gay kiss, laughed every time young Ben was on screen and didn't turn their phones off. Anyway...liked the film, well-acted and looked amazing, scary parts and funny parts. Heart was broken during the funhouse scene, was routing for that boy. Overall, felt like I was in the cinema for 10 hours.
I saw It 2 last night, I also watched It 1 the night before. I hadn't watched either before and I hadn't read the book. I found it useful that the 2nd film referred so often back to the 1st. I also enjoyed the fact that the childish humor from the 1st film was used by the adult cast in the 2nd. It's classic behaviour that if you havn't seen a group of people for years you usualy go back to how you communicate when you were much younger, at least that's my experience. I didn't feel that the film was too long although I wasn't scared in the way that I was when I first watched Jaw's, the shining or the Omen when they first came out. My only issue with the 1st film was that some of it just didn't make sense to me. How did Beverly and the body parts somehow levitate in the underground lair and how did the Boys just manage to pull Beverly down when they found her? Of course the answer link so many films now is Aliens but, that's really unsatisfactory. Bottom line, I do enjoys Mark's reviews and I did like both films. I particularly liked the restaurant scene in the begining of the 2nd film. 👌
I'm with you. What I enjoyed of Tim Curry's performance was that it actually went between charming and scary, whereas Skarsgard's was constant full on "Childcatcher" mode; I could imagine a child wanting to get close to the charming Currywise, before falling into the trap, but every single one would surely bolt from the new iteration.
@@spennybullen2178 Right, exactly. As a kid I was terrified of Curry's It. Even when I watch that 90s version now its still creepy because it had that weird kids entertainer vibe whereas Skarsgard was just too over the top for me. I found him comical at times if I'm honest.
Aman Red . I think the new pennywise is closer too the pennywise from the book . They probably should have made him a little less scary looking in “ bait mode” .
Man I think he explained why I was unsatisfied with this installment. It didn't weave the adult story cohesively enough and ended up losing depth in the process.
In 1984 in Bangor, Maine, Charlie Howard and his boyfriend Roy were chased down by a bunch of youths and attacked. Despite his pleas he couldn't swim, they threw Charlie off the State Street Bridge into the river. His boyfriend escaped and pulled an alarm. Charlie's body was found the next morning. This is King's art imitating life - holding up a mirror to the world in a small way. This horrific event occurred and it was much more scary than any clown.
Mark, your review is spot on. It felt like it was becoming too much like the TV movie after a while. Not scary enough and too bogged down by its need to be for a larger, more commercial audience. I'm dreading the Shining sequel for this reason
It would always be problematical to do justice to King's story as a movie. Because the story takes place over a long period of time in the lives of the characters, it cannot help but play out like a soap opera comprised of episodes. Mark is right about that. I just hope this version doesn't suffer as badly from that as the earlier TV version did. I also agree with Mark that the 'coming of age' aspect of the first half of the story was a real joy to watch. The actress who played Beverley as a youngster in the first half was exceptionally good, whereas the child who played the character in the TV version was as wooden as a child in a school play. Another problem is the classic problem of a monster only being scary when you don't know what it really is. The big 'reveal' just didn't work in the TV version (it never does - even in 'Alien' the monster was scary only when you saw bits of it fleetingly, but then you zoom out and reveal the whole thing and, Oh, it's a bloke in a suit. The great thing in a book is that the reader has only their own imagination which will always only vaguely render an image of a thing and keep it scary, whereas a movie has to reveal a thing). At the end of IT you can't help but think, 'Oh, so is that all IT was?'. The other problem with 'IT' is that the way in which the losers gang defeated IT in the novel is un-filmable (not technically, but morally, it would turn the thing into a porno). Anyone who has read the book will know what I mean. That said, I still want to see it. And I'm keeping my fingers crossed...
I think going into IT chapter 1 or 2 and expecting a scary horror film is just going to lead to some amount of letdown. But if you look at it as a story with an actual plot and many horror elements you will enjoy it more. The first chapter is better but its not like its that scary of a movie, its a great story with horror elements. I thoroughly enjoyed the second chapter and felt it brought alot to round the story up and be more accurate to the source material.
Just got home from watching this movie. It definitely has its moments but... (SPOILERS!) Too many jump scares (and very predictable jump scares) the first film relied on being creepy and had very few jump scare moments. The comedy is too much at times (particularly the drawn out dog sequence which put all tension on hold) and the kid humour mom jokes (which work in the first movie and are really funny but here we are supposed to believe that these grown ups are still as childish as before) there’s a joke that Richie pulls in the clubhouse that is just ridiculous and incredibly unbelievable. Too much fan service and forced nostalgia. The first movie came out just two years ago but how some scenes play out in this film you would’ve thought that this was a follow up to a much older movie in that there is an attempt to reference moments from the previous movie every 5 minutes. The movie is too long. Parts of this flick just drag out unnecessarily and I found myself about 2 hours in thinking ‘okay I don’t really care anymore.’ Also as a nitpick I really don’t like the cameo from King. He just comes across as smug and unbearable. The whole scene is more than a subtle wink to the camera. He outright tells the audience ‘Look it’s me the famous writer! Everyone hates my ending.’ Overall I liked chapter 2 but honestly I’m not sure if I’ll ever watch it again (mostly due to it being too long). The acting is good at times and there really are some very good moments in here but I was very happy when it was over and didn’t enjoy this even nearly as close as part one. 7/10
I watched it today. I do agree with Mark Kermode that it was too long and couldn't sustain the feel throughout. I thought the first couple of acts were quite good actually, and I did like how the film interspersed the stories of the characters as kids and as adults (and the kids put in star performances again). However, the last act was a real downer for me, a lot of set pieces but without any real tension and the very final part of the fight with Pennywise was incredibly corny and unbelievable. The film certainly could have done with firmer editing, and sadly to re-use an oft-stated joke from the film, the ending sucked - it went on way too long and could have been cut back by 10 minutes or more. I loved the cameo by Stephen King though!
The best thing is throughout the film I found myself scanning each frame trying to see where It is because he could be anyone and anywhere and that is terrifying. Also the only horror I've watched for a long time where I leave the cinema and I keep looking over my shoulder just incase. Takes a pretty creepy movie to that for me.
Personally I do not get much of the hate for this film. I was hooked from Start to finish. I enjoyed it as a film, a sequel and an adaptation. The humour made sense to me considering the personalities in the first film and I think the cast were stellar. The run time was justified for me as I think I without the padding out of some scenes some of the characters would have felt a bit under characterised. I don't think it is perfect but I feel like it was a good sequel to an ace first film.
For me, personally speaking, the film ultimately left me with EXACTLY the same feeling/s that the original film did! 😊 And that was, at the end, I just sort of had to shrug my shoulders and go, "Meh, it WAS enjoyable! It WAS fun and good entertainment for a while, but only up until a certain point..." I think they say here that like the original, it ("*It*"!!!) IS quite a long film. And for me, it felt like I was getting fatigued whilst I was watching it! Which I also felt about the original too. I enjoyed the story but yeah, I got fatigued watching it, so it was too long for me! I can handle long films, just not ones that tire me out. And not because I couldn't follow what was going on, but because I was bored with the parts of 'nothingness' going on in the lead up to the next shock or part of the story, or the finale. I basically got bored and then tired with "*It*"... I enjoyed the original moreso as a kid (from about 14 to 20yrs old is when it appealed to me (when I had the most time to watch films - College time!!!). I can imagine liking "*It*" more if I was a teen again!!! 😊 LoL! Being 42, I _already_ feel too old and cynical even now! 😊 😂 Anyway, I'm rambling on as usual!
I think Mark was being faaar too kind in this review. The film was a tonal shambles and as a result, didn't work for me on any level. Just a series of semi-tense set pieces punctuated by gags which deflated any sense of horror after each event
To me, the homophonic attack was to show the audience that Pennywise was now going after adults, which is something I don’t think we ever seen or heard about in Chapter One, other than Ben talking about the death rates in Derry.
Wow, summed it up beautifully. I loved Mama and IT but Chapter Two didn't resonate with me at all. Was a convoluted mess and the overarching tone felt wrong.
Chapter 2 is not the same film as chapter 1, tells a different story which takes much more of a build up, and one of its problems is in trying to replicate the pace of the first film. I agree IT 2 is disjointed, but Muscietti (sp?) has already explained that the original cut was almost 4 hours long. He wasn't talking about the full unedited film, he meant what they had left after they had already cut the fat. So he had to cut further and that's likely why it feels so disconnected. It's heavily cut and scenes that might create a smooth dramatic segue were probably snipped out for runtime. There will be a directors cut featuring the full four hours and will probably be much more cohesive. For example, (spoiler) how quickly Henry Bowers disappears. It hardly seemed worth his introduction. I'd bet that there's more of a build up to his attack and demise in the long version. Take Snyder's 'Batman vs Superman' for example. The theatrical release was awful imo, but if you watch the extended version it flows much better, and doesn't actually seem longer because it is much more cohesive and the characters arcs make more sense. Same will probably be true of IT 2 full version.
How can you say that the movie ignores the theme of 'remembering' when a huge chunk of the movie was dedicated to each individual character going on a journey that leads them to remembering a run in they had with IT? Bev's entire arc was predicated on her not remembering and then remembering.
Re: Stephen KIng and his own trauma- apparently as a child he witnessed his mate getting hit and killed by a train, but the trauma of this blanked his memory. Obviously this story has been linked to Stand By Me.
I loved the film , personally. Not quite as much as part 1 but not a mile from it either. I think the key to it as that it's a character-driven, fantasy adventure with some horrific moments rather than a horror film. And in that respect, I thought it worked really well. Does it meander a lot? Sure, but I enjoyed spending time with the characters so even that wasn't that much of a problem. And, yeah, it was way funnier than most comedy movies too.
I agree with Mark. I was looking forward to seeing this as I really enjoyed the first film. I felt the actors didn't have that much to work with dialogue wise to the point that it seemed the film was aiming itself at a teen market. The opening homophobic attack was quite hard hitting and tonally out of place with the rest of the film. If it had carried through with this tone the film would have been grittier. I don't think there should have been any flashbacks to the characters as their younger selves - it was as if the filmmakers were labouring the point "Hey remember this character from the first film, look how they are experiencing something similar that happened to them before." And also the ending is weak but it also is in the book too so that's not the films fault.
To be fair, I appreciated the constant "lampshading" throughout the film where there's a running joke about Mike not being able to write good endings, capped off with Stephen King's own cameo appearance.
Very balanced review - and much fairer than I was willing to be after leaving the cinema tonight. I thought the homophonic attack proved to be so irrelevant it came off gratuitous. The film peaked when Beverly went back to her roots, but I felt nothing for the rest of the individual set-ups. I struggled to care for the characters in the way the filmmakers clearly wanted me to, but I don't think there was enough finesse to warrant it. As Mark said, the gags ended dark and interesting corridors and, often, they came off like something a schoolboy had written. Add to all this the appalling write-up of Mike, and the countless clichés (the abusive husband/the underwater kiss/the "I love you man" at the end) and it becomes a real slog.
Fabulous review from Mark, I have many of the same feelings about it as him. But I thought it was a brilliant time, in many ways on a par with the first chapter. I think it is a strength rather than a weakness that there is so much humour in the film. I thought the past and the present strands of the storyline intertwined beautifully and gave the film lots of tender moments that brought a lump to my throat. I think this was also a coming of age story, the adult characters almost regressed to children again once the returned to Derry. The film was a little flabby at times, but I still had fun with the flabby bits. Simon saying that the homophobic attack in the opening scenes of the film is unjustified is ridiculous. It is a massive plot point as Mark suggested, it did indeed show that the picture postcard town was not so picture postcard. I can only think that Simon is being all PC about it, he didn't seem too concerned with children being murdered Are honomophobic attacks ok? of course not, are children being murdered by an intergalactic shape shifting monster ok? I think that's a no as well....
Good review on the whole...saw it in 4DX and it it didn’t seem anything like the time it actually was...loved it, thought it tied together very well with the first just didn’t understand how Henry turned up in an asylum after his epic fall down the well in #1 I assumed he was dead (haven’t read the book!).
This review is why I keep returning to this reviewer. He is splendid, insightful, entertaining and intellectual. His opinion matters to me.
I feel exactly the same
Lol I don't finalize my thoughts on a film until I've heard kermodes take. He sees what is there and what isn't there and can articulate it all masterfully.
Kermode is a British icon for film
I don't always agree with him, but even when I disagree he articulates his opinion so well that I understand where he is coming from, even when I am approaching the same material from a different direction.
Remember when Cary Fukunaga wrote the script for "It: Chapter One" and then New Line forced him to drop because they didn't like his vision? They still used most of his work though, with gaps filled in by Gary Dauberman. The same Gary Dauberman who wrote the script for "It: Chapter Two". Now you know why you liked the first movie.
You're all welcome.
That's not fair. Chapter Two is a more ambitious than the first one, this cannot be denied.
@@bluefilmsltd ambitious, as in more loud and bigger obnoxious set pieces then you are right
@@BilboB What makes the set pieces more 'obnoxious'?
The cartoony CGI really took me out of this one. Pennywise balanced a real, gritty performance with these incredibly animalistic transformations in the first film that always stuck with me because of how much thought had gone into his character.
My favorite parts were when the camera just sort of caught him. No fanfares, just straight chills. That’s why his appearance at the start of chapter 2 really impressed me. Sadly the other 2 hours and 50 minutes couldn’t live up to that moment. I wish they had skipped the flashbacks entirely and let the film stand on its own.
You can tell Mark has a phd in horror film, he knows the genre really well and I'll take that any day over most other youtube film critics.
The purpose of the opening scene lies with the concept hinted at in chapter 1 that each cycle of Pennywise is in someways triggered or "announced" by a horrific event. There's that idea that Pennywise is both being drawn to and influencing the evil in the town. In the novel there are characters who go through some horrific events only to then meet their end at the hands of IT tragically. Also, its a depiction of hate crime which is very real so if that makes people uncomfortable to see, then on some level the scene has worked.
Well, the producers/ director could have represented evil in a better way. That overgrown monster or the scene at the end of the movie was exactly the SAME as the first movie. I have seen better horror movies - i.e. THE EXORCIST
Yeah....but no
@@ManubibiWalsh Have you seen Pride (2014)? The way that film portrays the risk of violence, the measures people took to minimise risk and actual violence towards homosexuals in the 1980s really struck me. Seems so foreign to me now that people had to hide like that. I understand homophobia is still a huge problem but we've come such a long way. (imo of course, sorry if I sound ignorant)
I am all for progress, and gays shouldn't be attacked for being gay. Having said that, over my dead body does 2% of the population set policy or hold the narrative. Edit: I keep hearing the term lbgt rights, can you explain what rights I, as a straight man have that you as a gay don't?
I have to say, in both IT chapter one and two, the most disturbing deaths occur in the opening scene, leaving the rest of the tonally inconsistent violence to kind of pale in comparison.
It did get a little long in the tooth. The jump scares really became repetitive after like the 3rd one. The performances were pretty solid (few moments of overacting but nothing too extreme). Also the ending was laugh-out-loud ridiculous for all the wrong reasons. The visuals of it were so goofy. Also could have used more of Bill Skarsgard's Pennywise. He's great
3:36..... The Exorcist gets a mention 🙂
Man, The EXORCIST is a LOT better than this version of the original "IT". I mean, this movie did not cut it for me. Overgrown monster is NOT my thing anymore.
Standard.
@@raulcitraro this is the first time ive had to sit and watch one of these big horror movies, and man the loud noises and obvious jump scares got tiresome after the first one. is it actually possible to be scared by this movie when its just bludgeoning you over the head with things screaming towards the camera? The only thing that saved me from napping through it was that some of the character stuff and some of the visuals were mildly interesting
@@bee-nf5bj
A REALLY bad film! Don't understand why the producers/ directors can't come up w/ an original and credible idea. The sequel or part two plot is exactly the same as part one but with the kids all grown up, and the "IT" or whatever alien it is, is an UPGRADED version of the first monster 27 years ago...GIVE ME A BREAK!!
Well spotted mate ,and well worth pointing out
This is a fair review. There’s much to enjoy in Chapter Two (the first half an hour/forty five minutes is superb) but it never successfully coheres the way Chapter One did. I felt the humour worked perfectly nicely and was a highlight for me. At no point did I feel a gag undermined a scare, for the simple fact that both films kill their scares stone dead before we get to a gag. Every scare in the film consists of effectively built tension followed by a punchline that is just a silly looking CGI creature jumping out and making a lot of noise. More practical effects with the various ghouls and monsters might have made for a more frightening experience - for example the physical performance of the actress playing Mrs Kersh was a hundred times more creepy and unsettling than the daft cartoon that is meant to be the payoff in that sequence.
God that scene was intense. I had short Heeredetary flashback when she was walking by in the background
The monster Kersh turned into was so disappointing, especially after how well the scene was built up. I have no idea why they couldn’t have done something practical, like the woman in the tub in The Shining. It would’ve worked so much better.
Either way, I still really enjoyed the movie. The positives outweighed the negatives.
Once "Angel of the Mornimg" started playing i was done. The movie didnt seem to take its scares seriously.
Yeah that was downright bizarre.
I still don't get that bit. It's almost more like the movie is just trying to freak us out with oddball weirdness than attempt genuine horror at times.
That made me laugh for a whole five minutes it was so random!
That’s the point. This entire story is so weird, it is not trying to be dreadful horror. It’s more of a monster movie and character study.
@@MonyXChan it was still godawful.
A very well argued review. I have seen it twice now and whilst I have my gripes with the movie , there's plenty in there that I really enjoyed and got me on an emotional level which is ultimately what i'm looking for.
I was touched by Richie's arc. A worthy addition to the narrative, and King approved, rightly so.
The set pieces were, for me, the low points of the film. They weren't bad, but they could have been halved in number, because I was just so much more compelled by the relationships between the adult losers. That, and I found the excess CG quite grating.
C G I is becoming a curse.
What about the overuse of CGI? There's no corporeal threat when there's no 'weight', i.e. you can't have body horror without a body, but that's what the film attempted.
And the fact the last 30 minutes of the film is a boss fight from Dark Souls?
I thought that too. Take the scene with the old lady. Much creepier it was when she was in the background, peering around a corner, moving weirdly, and so forth (put me in very much in mind of Exorcist III). When she comes storming back out, it's like Bev's being attacked by Shrek.
I wasn't terribly bothered by the vfx. The scares, for me at least, came from the emotional attacks in each instance of a ghoul charging at our leads. Theres a certain perversion in how "it" uses their trauma and shame against them.
I felt the same way while reading Pet Semetary, and even Carrie.
Mark Kermode is the best film reviewer IMHO.
I watched it at a double bill event and came away loving Chapter 2 more than the first. The casting was incredible, they all felt like the same characters. I didn't feel like they needed to be re-established because I already knew them.
Agreed. I think it sagged in the middle but overall it was a great experience
Leigh Sherval
Same feelings here. I watched Chapter 1 a few hours before I went to see Chapter 2, and my immediate feelings after watching Chapter 2 were "I can't wait to go and see this again." I really enjoyed IT (IT stuck to the source material, while still taking some chances, I have to give respect to everyone involved with the project).
Bro, of course, they did not need to re-establish the characters because this was a repetition of the first Chapter w/ an upgraded monster, "IT". I have seen better horror films, i.e. "IT FOLLOWS.
@@raulcitraro bro, it's from the same book, and a common complaint is that the new actors don't get time to bed in... Time that is not needed
I'm going to see this cos I love Bill Hader, chap is super talented, sincere and hilarious, and on a personal note, I really appreciate his utter openness re his anxiety and how he manages it.
You wont be disappointed with his performance. He was superb.
@@themarzipanster2190 aw brilliant. Love him in Barry. He's working on his own movie too. V exciting times ahead for him.
Barry is superb. I always find him very watchable regardless of what hes in.
He steals the show.
@@rhyslloyd3200 for me the only other adult actor who brought anything interesting was James Ransome but even then Hader was light years ahead in the entertainment category. McAvoy and Chastain I found very flat.
The scariest thing about the first movie was the parenting.
Lol
Chocolabtastic Smith ....I agree...and also the fact people find these films ultimately scary. ...I know its all about opinions ...but I just find them too glossy to be scary...and this goes for most modern mainstream horror in my opinion
I haven't actually seen IT 2....but I struggle to get the enthusiasm to be honest
PurushaDesa great point ...and your right regarding the goonies...I actually found that scarier hehe (watching as a youngster)
Chocolabtastic Smith the scariest thing in 1 & 2 was the CGI 😱🤮
Fantastic review, you can see how much Mark loves horror in this
The Adrian Mellon attack at the start is intrinsic to the plot. It signifies that IT has awakened.
preciousbodilyfluid1 they didn’t do it that well at all, like what signifies that that’s his first kill again and that he hasn’t been killing since the kids left we don’t really get any hints that it’s his return besides the blood letters which was so stupid in your face
I’m pretty sure Adrian Mellon is the zombie that hands adult Richie his obituary before Pennywise starts taunting him about his ‘dirty little secret’, so there’s quite a bit of subtext there when you think about it.
Sounds like Mark enjoyed part one more and thinks this is a disappointing ending.
Don't we all? I'm talking as someone who LOVED this movie, but the ending... it wasn't that great to me as well.
Drama undercut by gags. Yes, this really stood out. I kept thinking of the MCU and how earnest heroism was always kept from the viewer by the constant humour. Alot of potentially real horror was diluted this way in IT 2. Thankfully it wasn't quite as frequent as the MCU equivalent, but it did hurt the film.
"Last Jedi" had that, times x100, which in my opinion destroyed the movie and turned it into a parody. Kermode didn't say anything in his review for that though.
Even though I enjoyed Chapter 2 over the first movie, one of the things that bothered me is that some of the jokes were completely out of place, like when Eddie is attacked by the leper and then by Henry.
It felt to me like they'd focus grouped the film, seen too many shocked faces afterwards, then reshot with too many gags. The Eddie/ Henry scene stood out for me too. A good horror film should build, really get under your skin... This one just kept hitting the reset button.
Spot on review...sums up exactly how i felt about the film.
Can we talk about the strange addition of ‘Angel of the morning’ in the Eddie horror scene? It wasn’t set up or anything. It felt like a mistake in the editors timeline.
It felt like they realized it wasn't scary and then tried to make it a comedic scene in editing
Kermodes best review in some time. His thoughts are clear and his love for horror shines through
Maybe the adult portion of the book just isn't as captivating as the child portion and that's the way it's always going to be.
Fantastic review as always. I Enjoyed it but completely understand the general negative response, as for me it is Structured and edited in a chaotic way. It constantly disrupts the experience.
Still, with the impressive directing, acting performances and character arcs, it’s a solid horror film IMO.
Just watched the film. I really enjoyed it personally. Everyone plays their part perfectly and Skarsgard's portrayal of Pennywise is just as great as it was in the first film. And at points it's genuinely hilarious. But it's way too long and not even remotely scary and I would say that Chapter One is a better film because of this (even though I didn't find that film scary either). But I'm already looking forward to picking the film up on Blu Ray when it comes out in the new year.
The homophobic attack is a crucial moment in the novel
Why?
Simon Wells Pennywise is awoken from his slumber every 27 years by a terrible act of violence (the black spot, the iron works explosion etc) and it’s the attack on Adrian which signifies his awakening in the 1980s (novel), which in the film is the 2010s
@@skepticalbadger exactly. Thanks for saying that.
It took 3 minutes for them to do it too.
Considering that they chose to do a ‘kill your gays’ ending, though, it feels in poor taste. (Yes, I know it’s a gory horror movie, so just bear with me while I explain.)I know Eddie dies in the original, but adding the tragic romance element to him just felt like the narrative technically condemned destroying loving gay couples, but wouldn’t let them live itself. Ideas have moved on since the book; I’d have loved to see the film move on with them. As it was, I felt that a film that still had 80s ideas about how to handle its own gay characters was on doubtful ground giving itself anti-homophobic airs. What counted as sympathetic to gay characters in the 80s had a much lower bar to clear back then, and since the movie itself moved the story’s time frame, I don’t think it works not to update your standards as well. Which means gay characters doing more than tragically dying so we can feel sad about them instead of having to see them having actual love lives. Adaptations are allowed to change things, and that’s a change I would have really loved to see.
The first half of the film was quite good, with a gruesome opening that announces the presence/return of It. But the second half was basically a mess of over-the-top CGI monsters that became less and less scary as it went on. CGI is fine in smaller doses, but there were scenes where real puppetry would have looked far more realistic and therefore scarier. The last 10 min were ok too. Overall, not as good as the first chapter, far too long, and far too reliant on CGI.
Agree. Practical effects would have been scarier.
Amazing review! You described exactely the problems I had with it. Absolutely loved the first film. But I think if they left out a lot of the flashback scenes, it would've worked better. Like they did in the first film. Purely focus on the kids or the adults so that you can emotionally connect to the characters.
I've read the book and I know it also constantly skips between two time era's, but what works in a book, doesn't always work on screen. I still liked Chapter 2 a lot, but I came out a bit confused about how to feel, while the first one left me with an adrenaline-fueled and excited feeling.
I enjoyed it, yes it wasn't really scary, but it was still very entertaining. I really enjoyed the arcs of the characters, especially Richie's
I can't wait for Mark's review of The Lighthouse.
I still can't watch IT and that is solely based on Tim Currys performance in the 1990s miniseries.
Hiya Georgie!
Mark: starts the review by expertly breaking down the relevance and nuance of the opening sequence.
Other guy: Yeah, but like it was hard to watch and not relevant to the plot.
No one is denying the absolute grueling terror of that first scene, but it has a point, to disregard it is disregarding an artist's intention.
KaijYT to put the sequence above reproach is disregarding the artist’s intention, if you can’t question it then what’s the point of making art?
Just because the sequence has a purpose (although you’d expect it to be picked up again if it was actually important to the plot, so Mayo’s not wrong), doesn’t mean that another sequence couldn’t have served the same purpose.
@@no_genius the sequence is how it is because its relates to richie sexuality and that's why they didn't just go for something else, it's almost like they killed two birds with one stone in a very loose sense to me
Why can't I find interesting literary discussions like this?
This is why I'm fascinated by Mark's comments on horror... the movie felt absolutely schizophrenic in its tonal shifts. Although there are plenty of solid set pieces, they're undercut by the bizarre humor - which isn't handled very well, frankly. With the insane length of the film, this became increasingly frustrating. It was like the movie kept teasing the viewer, where one one hand it said, "I'm dark and want to scare you," and then obliterated that tension with "See how silly I am?" Terribly disappointed.
I was one of the lucky (??) ones who never got to see Tim Curry's IT as a child and, as a result, neither Tim Curry nor clowns scare me. Most of the people I know who have seen the original hate clowns! So, I went in to the first movie with a completely open mind, not knowing to expect other than a demon clown hides in a storm drain and eats some kids. I was completely blown away and really enjoyed the horror elements woven in to a story that was basically about a group of young outsiders - there was so much I could relate to! I thought Skarsgard's portrayal of Pennywise was captivating and terrifying, but I'm so conflicted about him as well. Like, I LOVE his portrayal so much that I've ended up finding him rather sweet, in an odd sort of way.
Hence, I was hyped for the sequel, and went and watched it at my local IMAX on the second day of its run. I was...conflicted, to say the least. I mean, it's a great movie - I felt it was scarier than the first, and had a more horror-based theme running throughout - but it lacked the heart and personality of the first film. All of the actors involved gave it 100%, and Skarsgard was again amazing as Pennywise, but there was just something not quite right about it.
One big takeaway is that they should have filmed the whole thing all at the same time - there's clearly some CGI-trickery in the flashbacks moments, and a few times it seemed like the younger voices were either overdubbed or altered in some way to make the actors sound like they did when they made the first movie.
I'm going to see it again, for sure.
Best reviewer working today. This is a perfect example of why.
I can't help feeling that sometimes Simon mayo is thinking "ok, let's wrap this up"
This is why I am so disappointed with this movie. They had everything going for them, everything needed to make a truly epic, inspiring and terrifying conclusion, and they forgot about the most important aspect of the movie, the story.
I really enjoyed it and I thought the tone was well established and consistent, I feel like for the horror parts to continue to be horrific it needs those jokes and parts of levity for the sake of contrast and a dynamic story. If we just see horror after horror after horror, each moment loses its meaning, like how transformers films just throw scene after scene of action sequences to the point you can't remember any of them when you walk out of the cinema. It also continues the sense of humour the first film had and in my opinion was integral to my enjoyment of it and the emotional connection to the characters. I love each character, especially their individual humours and how they interact with one another and it's far more human for humour to be the response of horror, it's the polar opposite and given Penny-wise feeds off of fear, an appropriate form of addressing this conflict.
As much as people also think it’s very safe for gays, there is still bashing going on.
I think people expected to much from Gary Dauberman and don't remember he was the writer of Annabelle and The Nun. The first one works because he only worked on a script From other guys. You wait for "Are you afraid of the dark?" Sure it has a Lot of jumpscares without an original story.
IT should have been a mini series, just as its predecessor was. The first film was a huge hit, granted, but it lacked the depth of the TV version from the 90s (which itself was very clunky in parts) and really ended up being an excuse for fancy special effects.
Won't bother with this sequel though it'll probably make even more dough at the box office.
I agree. But I'm only speaking as a huge fan of the book.
Derry itself was a MASSIVE character full of a rich arc and history that could have been beautifully portrayed in a good number of episodes.
But I got no real sense of that at all in chapter 2. It lacked depth for me.
The mini series isn’t very good. Go back and watch. It hasn’t aged well. While the movie versions are not perfect, they do a better job of showing King’s vision. Part 1-8/10, Part 2-7/10.
I agree with Mark in terms of pacing and length. To me, even though it was a rollicking, enthralling and emotional time, there were scenes that would've benefited from some tighter editing. For example, when Bev goes to re-visit where she used to live. What I would've done is put up a shot of the "Marsh" tag on the door then have Bev hear voices coming from inside that belong to her and her father from long ago. Trigger the memory, let it unfold. THEN she can knock in the present, Mrs. Kersh answers (and have her sound inviting instead of foreboding so as to catch people off guard), Bev's invited in and she explores the newly made-up residence without it feeling like a slog. Keep things separate so it flows smoother and doesn't feel like a slog.
Massive let down.loved the first film but an overuse of cgi and a lack of pennywise made it a chore.the running time didnt bother me but when an adult horror film is about as menacing as the goosebumps film then something went very wrong.
So, when we getting that 1080p upload so i can examine marks quiff.
480p just dosent cut it folks.
That quiff. He is Mr. Fredricksen from Up.
At least the audio doesnt suck this week!
For me the humour absolutely made sense. In the first film, a lot of the audience were laughing during horror scenes, this time was the same but felt better placed with the added humour. Not a huge fan of IT but in both films there were scenes that were very funny, struggling to understand if this is intentional or not?
Finally got round to seeing chapter 2 last night and I absolutely agree with this review.
Spot on Mark. Agreed with everything. There's definitely some interesting things here but it lost its resonance this time around without the younger cast at the centre of it
Interesting thing: I saw both in crowded auditoriums, both in the same cinema. Part 1, the crowd was very lively but totally engaged, jumping, gasping, laughing, really on this ride. Part 2, apart from about two jump-scares, the crowd was checking their phones, making remarks to each other, and way less engaged. That’s really telling; there were less genuine scares, less tension, and less heart, and the audience just didn’t get caught up in the same way.
ADD crowd.
Nah, I know people with ADD. This was just not loving the movie.
Honestly I did enjoy this movie a lot and thought it was a fun 3 hours (and I didn't really feel them pass, they just went by) and overall I found it to be a good horror flick especially in the midst of so many average to bad releases (Midsommar is an exception, not the rule, in horror).
But I see Mark's criticism, and clearly he didn't take this movie lightly, which is great. I see so many people either over-glorifying it or just laughing at it and I can't agree with either, and to be fair I don't completely agree with Mark either, but I agree with him the most out of everyone I've heard reviewing this piece.
One thing is completely subjective but definitely true for me: the horror was real for me. I had real reactions in the theatre, which I never did before. I don't know whether it was my state of mind yesterday, but I absolutely was absorbed in the terror and I loved every second of it.
Also too many things are well done in this for me to take seriously any other review. You have respect for the work even when you don't like something, and that's why I respect you.
Having watched the both movies now, I just think genuine scares were a stretch too far for the director. Good scares are incredibly hard to engineer, and I think that while the first film was good, and the second film was decent, neither of those movies actually hit the mark in terms of scares.
To me, the movie was mixed bag. Some thing worked incredibly well (the acting was top notch, the chemistry between adult Losers was great, some of the scenes were really creative and there was a lot of decent build ups for scary scenes) but there were times when the movie really missed the target.
My biggest problem with the movie was too much reliance on really cheap looking CGI monsters, lame jump scares and special effects; the scene where Richie is running away from possesed Paul Bunyan statue was downright embarassing to watch. Not to mention that there are unresolved subplots (what happened to Bowers? He escapes from the mental hospital, stabs Eddie in the face and... that's it.) and I felt Pennywise was underused to the point I forgot he's in the movie.
Still... it's a fun mainstream horror movie, just a bit too much of everything for my taste.
Vid Šteh
Did you not see the scene where Bowers was killed by Richie after Bowers tried to kill Mike?
I feel as if Mark will instantly have something negative to say if the film runs for nearly three hours. It Chapter Two never felt its length and I had a blast watching it.
Blue velvet, amazing film
I was disappointed. Had good moments but did just feel like set piece after set piece.
Mark's description is spot on. I'd suggest the Leper scene with the completely absurd 'Angel of the Morning' moment sums up the tonal madness of this mess of a movie.
This film should not be 3 hours. It's not the LOTR saga.
The source material almost is 😛
But I personally don't think they should have made it a movie but instead another series, albeit longer than the original.
If you don't have the patience for it, don't watch it. There are many finalies that are long. People marathon Netflix shows that add up to 8+ hours all the time. Don't understand why this is such a shock..especially when you consider two narratives are being shown.
Josh B but....it’s too long, the film felt bloated.
@@CreepingBrutus I have enough patience for a film of this length. I just don't believe that this particular film deserves it. Yes, the source material is huge. I've read the book. Yet they spent so much time filling the film with stuff I felt didn't need to be there.
So yup, don't go judging my attention span mate. You've gone off on a tangent there.
@Niŋin turdl已 True. Some more deservedly than others!
They should of done this as another mini-series, But instead of 2 parts an 7/8 parter for Netflix or something
I did say this when it was first announced way back in 2016
Beverley revisiting the house she grew up in was why I watch so many films, to get theses rare moments when reality melts away and I’m not even aware that I am sitting in a cinema.
Although It’s made it onto my laminated card of memorable films I still went for a mental stroll on occasion.
Off topic: I really, really, really, really, really can’t wait for Mark’s review of Joker
It could have been reduced to forty five minutes. They get phoned, meet in Derry, reunion scene, discover pennywise is killing kids, so they go to the house and kick his ass. 45 minutes, like an x files episode. The 3 hour runtime was unbearable.
I definitely agree that the opening is very harrowing, as it should be.
Whilst it is difficult to watch, it is very true to the source material. Pennywise awakens every 27 years to feed and his awakening is triggered by a terrible and violent event.
Not to try and justify it’s violence in anyway, only to point out that what has happened to this gay couple is terrible and it is terrible enough to summon a great evil. It wasn’t a throw away sequence of violence for the sake of it.
Well the first the film was tonally all over the place and it had the same director..so it makes sense.
I watched this film a few weeks ago and had to leave before the end because I was going to get a parking fine, I didn't feel like I missed much though. As Mark says, the story felt overly formulaic and repetitive and while there was some funny moments and scares, I felt like I wasn't invested in the film and its characters after the 3rd person had there 'origin' moment. A shame because the first film was really really well-made!
“A series of well orchestrated set pieces” That’s actually what I fell was a drag on the first movie
Agreed. I thought the first film relied too heavily on jump scares, sound effects and special effects as well as an over the top performance from Skarsgard.
The second half of IT2 is basically the same as the second half of IT1 but the kids are adults, am I wrong?
Watched last night in a cinema full of noisy teenagers who all shouted 'urgh' at the gay kiss, laughed every time young Ben was on screen and didn't turn their phones off. Anyway...liked the film, well-acted and looked amazing, scary parts and funny parts. Heart was broken during the funhouse scene, was routing for that boy. Overall, felt like I was in the cinema for 10 hours.
RXdoll Teenagers. Something I always dread about going to see a horror flick at the cinema, for the type of reasons stated.
I saw It 2 last night, I also watched It 1 the night before. I hadn't watched either before and I hadn't read the book.
I found it useful that the 2nd film referred so often back to the 1st. I also enjoyed the fact that the childish humor from the 1st film was used by the adult cast in the 2nd. It's classic behaviour that if you havn't seen a group of people for years you usualy go back to how you communicate when you were much younger, at least that's my experience. I didn't feel that the film was too long although I wasn't scared in the way that I was when I first watched Jaw's, the shining or the Omen when they first came out.
My only issue with the 1st film was that some of it just didn't make sense to me. How did Beverly and the body parts somehow levitate in the underground lair and how did the Boys just manage to pull Beverly down when they found her? Of course the answer link so many films now is Aliens but, that's really unsatisfactory.
Bottom line, I do enjoys Mark's reviews and I did like both films. I particularly liked the restaurant scene in the begining of the 2nd film. 👌
I could have listened to this for even longer
Apart from the last 20 minutes, the movie bored the arse off me. Took a lot to get through it.
Ryan Jonestown Massaker . I loved it but that’s because I read the book and knew what was going too happen half the time . Lol
I must be in a minority but I always thought that Tim Curry's performmance of It was much Creepier than Skarsgard.
I'm with you. What I enjoyed of Tim Curry's performance was that it actually went between charming and scary, whereas Skarsgard's was constant full on "Childcatcher" mode; I could imagine a child wanting to get close to the charming Currywise, before falling into the trap, but every single one would surely bolt from the new iteration.
@@spennybullen2178 Right, exactly. As a kid I was terrified of Curry's It. Even when I watch that 90s version now its still creepy because it had that weird kids entertainer vibe whereas Skarsgard was just too over the top for me. I found him comical at times if I'm honest.
😂😂😂😂😂
@@hannahgibbons7436 And that means?? Lol
Aman Red . I think the new pennywise is closer too the pennywise from the book .
They probably should have made him a little less scary looking in “ bait mode” .
Man I think he explained why I was unsatisfied with this installment.
It didn't weave the adult story cohesively enough and ended up losing depth in the process.
In 1984 in Bangor, Maine, Charlie Howard and his boyfriend Roy were chased down by a bunch of youths and attacked. Despite his pleas he couldn't swim, they threw Charlie off the State Street Bridge into the river. His boyfriend escaped and pulled an alarm. Charlie's body was found the next morning. This is King's art imitating life - holding up a mirror to the world in a small way. This horrific event occurred and it was much more scary than any clown.
Mark, your review is spot on. It felt like it was becoming too much like the TV movie after a while. Not scary enough and too bogged down by its need to be for a larger, more commercial audience. I'm dreading the Shining sequel for this reason
It would always be problematical to do justice to King's story as a movie. Because the story takes place over a long period of time in the lives of the characters, it cannot help but play out like a soap opera comprised of episodes. Mark is right about that. I just hope this version doesn't suffer as badly from that as the earlier TV version did. I also agree with Mark that the 'coming of age' aspect of the first half of the story was a real joy to watch. The actress who played Beverley as a youngster in the first half was exceptionally good, whereas the child who played the character in the TV version was as wooden as a child in a school play. Another problem is the classic problem of a monster only being scary when you don't know what it really is. The big 'reveal' just didn't work in the TV version (it never does - even in 'Alien' the monster was scary only when you saw bits of it fleetingly, but then you zoom out and reveal the whole thing and, Oh, it's a bloke in a suit. The great thing in a book is that the reader has only their own imagination which will always only vaguely render an image of a thing and keep it scary, whereas a movie has to reveal a thing). At the end of IT you can't help but think, 'Oh, so is that all IT was?'. The other problem with 'IT' is that the way in which the losers gang defeated IT in the novel is un-filmable (not technically, but morally, it would turn the thing into a porno). Anyone who has read the book will know what I mean. That said, I still want to see it. And I'm keeping my fingers crossed...
I think going into IT chapter 1 or 2 and expecting a scary horror film is just going to lead to some amount of letdown. But if you look at it as a story with an actual plot and many horror elements you will enjoy it more. The first chapter is better but its not like its that scary of a movie, its a great story with horror elements. I thoroughly enjoyed the second chapter and felt it brought alot to round the story up and be more accurate to the source material.
Remember the bit in the book where they beat Pennywise by calling him a clown? Me neither.
Just got home from watching this movie. It definitely has its moments but... (SPOILERS!)
Too many jump scares (and very predictable jump scares) the first film relied on being creepy and had very few jump scare moments.
The comedy is too much at times (particularly the drawn out dog sequence which put all tension on hold) and the kid humour mom jokes (which work in the first movie and are really funny but here we are supposed to believe that these grown ups are still as childish as before) there’s a joke that Richie pulls in the clubhouse that is just ridiculous and incredibly unbelievable.
Too much fan service and forced nostalgia. The first movie came out just two years ago but how some scenes play out in this film you would’ve thought that this was a follow up to a much older movie in that there is an attempt to reference moments from the previous movie every 5 minutes.
The movie is too long. Parts of this flick just drag out unnecessarily and I found myself about 2 hours in thinking ‘okay I don’t really care anymore.’
Also as a nitpick I really don’t like the cameo from King. He just comes across as smug and unbearable. The whole scene is more than a subtle wink to the camera. He outright tells the audience ‘Look it’s me the famous writer! Everyone hates my ending.’
Overall I liked chapter 2 but honestly I’m not sure if I’ll ever watch it again (mostly due to it being too long). The acting is good at times and there really are some very good moments in here but I was very happy when it was over and didn’t enjoy this even nearly as close as part one. 7/10
I watched it today. I do agree with Mark Kermode that it was too long and couldn't sustain the feel throughout. I thought the first couple of acts were quite good actually, and I did like how the film interspersed the stories of the characters as kids and as adults (and the kids put in star performances again). However, the last act was a real downer for me, a lot of set pieces but without any real tension and the very final part of the fight with Pennywise was incredibly corny and unbelievable. The film certainly could have done with firmer editing, and sadly to re-use an oft-stated joke from the film, the ending sucked - it went on way too long and could have been cut back by 10 minutes or more.
I loved the cameo by Stephen King though!
The best thing is throughout the film I found myself scanning each frame trying to see where It is because he could be anyone and anywhere and that is terrifying. Also the only horror I've watched for a long time where I leave the cinema and I keep looking over my shoulder just incase. Takes a pretty creepy movie to that for me.
I'm excited to hear Mark's take on the new Joker movie
Personally I do not get much of the hate for this film. I was hooked from Start to finish. I enjoyed it as a film, a sequel and an adaptation. The humour made sense to me considering the personalities in the first film and I think the cast were stellar. The run time was justified for me as I think I without the padding out of some scenes some of the characters would have felt a bit under characterised. I don't think it is perfect but I feel like it was a good sequel to an ace first film.
For me, personally speaking, the film ultimately left me with EXACTLY the same feeling/s that the original film did! 😊
And that was, at the end, I just sort of had to shrug my shoulders and go, "Meh, it WAS enjoyable! It WAS fun and good entertainment for a while, but only up until a certain point..."
I think they say here that like the original, it ("*It*"!!!) IS quite a long film. And for me, it felt like I was getting fatigued whilst I was watching it! Which I also felt about the original too.
I enjoyed the story but yeah, I got fatigued watching it, so it was too long for me!
I can handle long films, just not ones that tire me out. And not because I couldn't follow what was going on, but because I was bored with the parts of 'nothingness' going on in the lead up to the next shock or part of the story, or the finale.
I basically got bored and then tired with "*It*"...
I enjoyed the original moreso as a kid (from about 14 to 20yrs old is when it appealed to me (when I had the most time to watch films - College time!!!). I can imagine liking "*It*" more if I was a teen again!!! 😊 LoL!
Being 42, I _already_ feel too old and cynical even now! 😊 😂
Anyway, I'm rambling on as usual!
"Gross opening"
He totally did that with the pun intended.
Excellent assessment.
I think Mark was being faaar too kind in this review. The film was a tonal shambles and as a result, didn't work for me on any level. Just a series of semi-tense set pieces punctuated by gags which deflated any sense of horror after each event
Agree with this review - especially his problem with the annoying jokes and quips at the end of each scary scene.
To me, the homophonic attack was to show the audience that Pennywise was now going after adults, which is something I don’t think we ever seen or heard about in Chapter One, other than Ben talking about the death rates in Derry.
Wow, summed it up beautifully. I loved Mama and IT but Chapter Two didn't resonate with me at all.
Was a convoluted mess and the overarching tone felt wrong.
Chapter 2 is not the same film as chapter 1, tells a different story which takes much more of a build up, and one of its problems is in trying to replicate the pace of the first film. I agree IT 2 is disjointed, but Muscietti (sp?) has already explained that the original cut was almost 4 hours long. He wasn't talking about the full unedited film, he meant what they had left after they had already cut the fat. So he had to cut further and that's likely why it feels so disconnected. It's heavily cut and scenes that might create a smooth dramatic segue were probably snipped out for runtime. There will be a directors cut featuring the full four hours and will probably be much more cohesive. For example, (spoiler) how quickly Henry Bowers disappears. It hardly seemed worth his introduction. I'd bet that there's more of a build up to his attack and demise in the long version. Take Snyder's 'Batman vs Superman' for example. The theatrical release was awful imo, but if you watch the extended version it flows much better, and doesn't actually seem longer because it is much more cohesive and the characters arcs make more sense. Same will probably be true of IT 2 full version.
How can you say that the movie ignores the theme of 'remembering' when a huge chunk of the movie was dedicated to each individual character going on a journey that leads them to remembering a run in they had with IT? Bev's entire arc was predicated on her not remembering and then remembering.
Re: Stephen KIng and his own trauma- apparently as a child he witnessed his mate getting hit and killed by a train, but the trauma of this blanked his memory. Obviously this story has been linked to Stand By Me.
I loved the film , personally. Not quite as much as part 1 but not a mile from it either. I think the key to it as that it's a character-driven, fantasy adventure with some horrific moments rather than a horror film. And in that respect, I thought it worked really well. Does it meander a lot? Sure, but I enjoyed spending time with the characters so even that wasn't that much of a problem. And, yeah, it was way funnier than most comedy movies too.
I agree with Mark. I was looking forward to seeing this as I really enjoyed the first film. I felt the actors didn't have that much to work with dialogue wise to the point that it seemed the film was aiming itself at a teen market. The opening homophobic attack was quite hard hitting and tonally out of place with the rest of the film. If it had carried through with this tone the film would have been grittier. I don't think there should have been any flashbacks to the characters as their younger selves - it was as if the filmmakers were labouring the point "Hey remember this character from the first film, look how they are experiencing something similar that happened to them before." And also the ending is weak but it also is in the book too so that's not the films fault.
To be fair, I appreciated the constant "lampshading" throughout the film where there's a running joke about Mike not being able to write good endings, capped off with Stephen King's own cameo appearance.
Very balanced review - and much fairer than I was willing to be after leaving the cinema tonight. I thought the homophonic attack proved to be so irrelevant it came off gratuitous. The film peaked when Beverly went back to her roots, but I felt nothing for the rest of the individual set-ups. I struggled to care for the characters in the way the filmmakers clearly wanted me to, but I don't think there was enough finesse to warrant it. As Mark said, the gags ended dark and interesting corridors and, often, they came off like something a schoolboy had written. Add to all this the appalling write-up of Mike, and the countless clichés (the abusive husband/the underwater kiss/the "I love you man" at the end) and it becomes a real slog.
Simon Mayo always looks bored to tears doing this programme.
Fabulous review from Mark, I have many of the same feelings about it as him. But I thought it was a brilliant time, in many ways on a par with the first chapter. I think it is a strength rather than a weakness that there is so much humour in the film. I thought the past and the present strands of the storyline intertwined beautifully and gave the film lots of tender moments that brought a lump to my throat. I think this was also a coming of age story, the adult characters almost regressed to children again once the returned to Derry. The film was a little flabby at times, but I still had fun with the flabby bits. Simon saying that the homophobic attack in the opening scenes of the film is unjustified is ridiculous. It is a massive plot point as Mark suggested, it did indeed show that the picture postcard town was not so picture postcard. I can only think that Simon is being all PC about it, he didn't seem too concerned with children being murdered Are honomophobic attacks ok?
of course not, are children being murdered by an intergalactic shape shifting monster ok? I think that's a no as well....
Boring, you got to be kidding.!!
Nothing boring about this wonderful movie !
Good review on the whole...saw it in 4DX and it it didn’t seem anything like the time it actually was...loved it, thought it tied together very well with the first just didn’t understand how Henry turned up in an asylum after his epic fall down the well in #1 I assumed he was dead (haven’t read the book!).
Cracking review!!