It Chapter Two

I saw it yesterday, and I agree with a lot of the comments here. There were some parts that were very well done, but on the whole it was only ok-to-good, not great.

Things that were great:

  1. The opening scene. By far the most gut-wrenchingly visceral.
  2. The repeated joke about King not being able to write endings. I about lost it when King himself delivered it. Good for him for having a sense of humor about the whole thing.
  3. The casting.

On the one hand, I appreciated the self-deprecating humor and lampshade hanging. On the other, it’s probably not a good sign when the character representing the author at the beginning of the movie based on the author’s book has writer’s block about writing an actual good ending to the in-film movie he’s writing and is castigated by the director and his wife and every other character about not being able to write good endings.

If you are referring to the murder of Adrian Mellon, that was one of the very first scenes in the book. It did introduce readers to a modern iteration of Pennywise.

I thought it was very good, better than Chapter One. They handled the multiple characters really, really well.

The one thing I didn’t like - apologies if this is supposed to be an open spoiler thread but:

The Henry Bowers character was pointless. He threatens the Losers twice; the first time he fails to stab a man half his size to death, and the second he gets his ass kicked. At no point is he really much of a threat, and the movie should have either not had him at all or significantly upped the ante on how dangerous he was.

I think Chapter 1 was great, and Chapter 2 was good. If you liked the first one you’ll enjoy the second one.

I can agree with most of not all of the criticisms regarding the movie’s length. It definitely could’ve used some stronger editing. But, still a good flick with a great cast.

HOWEVER, what was up with the soundtrack suddenly blaring Angel of the Morning by the Pretenders during Eddie’s fight with the leper? That was jarring AF.

I loved the first movie. I liked the second movie, but only because the first one was so good. In general, I thought there was a real dip in the quality of the story telling, the scares were a lot more “jump” and a lot less psychological. The adult characters are nowhere near as developed and in many ways didn’t tie back to their childhood selves. I was disappointed with the movie.

I agree with everything you’ve got here. I think they really missed some opportunities to continue with the build up of creeping dread and evil.

I thought the movie did pretty well managing what is, essentially, an unfilmable ending. I loved everything with the Turtle in the book, but realized that probably will not work in the movie. I did not love the changes, but recognized that describing a monster as “so alien it makes your brain hurt to look at it” is not something easily achieved, regardless of how far CGI has come. I was happy that the fight with Tom was not drawn out, and that Henry’s escort back to Derry was way creepy. I still would have liked it to have been in Christine though.

We loved the reveal:

We loved Richie being gay, mostly because it brought it full circle. He was teased and bullied and not able to be comfortable in his own skin, and now he could be. That was a nice wrap-up. Also, after Adrian’s murder I felt it was important. The scene with the little girl under the bleacher and the boy in the mirror house were pretty heartbreaking. I freaking hate glass mazes/mirror houses.

I left the theatre during Adrian Mellon’s murder. I knew it would be brutal and just could not manage it. Eddie was a hell of a lot funnier in the movie, and why did he just keep getting puked on? Poor Eddie. I read a ridiculous review that completely missed the point that Pennywise/It is not just feeling off the children, it is feeding off their fear, so a fast, quick death is not as desirable as playing and toying with the kid first.

I enjoyed it but I definitely felt it’s length. Not sure what they could cut though.

It has been a long time since I read it, the reveal that Ritchie is gay was not in the book right?.

I also thought it was interesting how they turned around Stan Uris’ suicide. In the book it was an act of fear. In this an act of defiance.

I read review after review that said it was not scary. Some went as far as to say it isn’t even a horror film. I have no idea what they are talking about. It had plenty of scares.

I never saw Part 1, but I’ve read the book. Why Part 2? Did Part 1 not cover the whole story? Or have they added something to the story?

The first Movie was the story of the children (in the 50s in the book; in the 80s in the movies). The current movie is the Adults 27 years later with some pieces that fill in the blanks of the kids’ story. Rather than Intercut the stories they told it this way which I think works better for a movie.

So they’re not Boomers?! That makes a big difference! The novel was all about Boomers, like Hearts in Atlantis was about Boomers!

It translates okay. They updated all the music and other time-specific stuff, but I didn’t notice a big difference for the most part. Derry is kind of the little town that time forgot.

I loved it. I think Bill Skarsgård did a good a job as Tim Curry playing Pennywise the Clown. I think the movie flew by pretty fast considering how long it was.

Also I’d like to point one thing out:

The scene with the spider with a baby’s head is a homage to the movie The Thing (the 1982 film). One of the characters even uses the same line as a character in The Thing did in response to seeing it: “You gotta be f… kidding.”

I haven’t seen the movie, but your spoilered description sounds like a character from Toy Story (in addition to being a homage to the John Carpenter movie image) –

Babyface, the baby-doll head on ‘spider’ legs. Images:“Toy+Story”&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZ9af1-9PkAhUBXKwKHdx0DjwQsAR6BAgGEAE&biw=994&bih=835

That would have turned the Adult portion into a period piece which I think would have been distracting.

What this does bring to mind is the book made a big deal about how the Losers went on to great financial and career success (other than Mike). It implied this was part of the Magic of them forgetting (maybe giving them an incentive to stay away). The movie hints at their success but doesn’t do much with it or even mention it directly.

I meant to bring this up before . . . a lot of negative reviews I’ve read mention the poor quality of the special effects. On the one hand, I was able to identify which scenes were being referred to as they happened, yet it seems to me it was a deliberate choice. For instance,

Henry Bowers’s dead buddy (Belch?). That was some old school, Creepshow style make-up, but I took it as the way *It *would imagine a human would imagine a reanimated corpse. Does that makes sense? Same with, for instance, the leper. It was nowhere as realistic as it could have been, had the director been going for realism. It’s been planted in the mind of someone reliving a horrifying childhood memory and looks like what a child would imagine a rotting leper to look like.

Did anyone else see it that way? Did everyone else think / realize that’s how we’re meant to take it, and I’m just . . .slow?:o

So, I found out I was going to see IT chapter two, so I rented IT chapter one beforehand and watched them both within 24 hours of each other.

I think I liked the first one better. The second one was just too long. Too much stuff crammed in there. I think I would have preferred it if all or most of the 80’s stuff was in the first movie, but maybe that would have just made the first movie too long. I don’t know. I just know the second movie was too long.


I did find it odd that, if you connect the dots, it’s pretty obvious Richie was gay and in love with Eddie. I however, did not pick up on that AT ALL in the first movie. And I don’t know why they played that so low key. Yes, nobody was coming out in the 80s so that makes sense, but if it weren’t for the carving I don’t think I would have picked it up even in the second movie. Seems like an odd choice to be that low key in something that takes place in 2019. Oh well, I guess people are in the closet today and he’s just one of them. Seemed kind of odd tho.

Also, what was the deal with one of the gay couple using an inhaler? Why would you have 2 characters use an inhaler in the same movie if it didn’t serve a plot point? I was like “is that supposed to be Eddie?,” even though he wasn’t being called Eddie.

Did anybody think something bad was going to happen in the end when they were swimming in the lake? I’ve been taught that horror doesn’t end till the credits roll in a horror movie, but that whole “looking for the glasses” thing seemed creepily done and more than just a reason for Ben and Beverly to kiss.

Also, I wish Amy Adams had played Beverly and not Jessica Chastain. She is just closer in both mannerisms and looks.

Why does Pennywise suck so much at killing people?

If Pennywise is a real, physical manifestation, he should have no problems making mincemeat out of anyone, children and adults alike. Yet, even in direct conflict, people seem to have about a 90% survival rate against him, at least on-screen.

Is that why he possessed Henry? Because Henry is a more effective killer than Pennywise?

Not sure if I’m understanding this. He *doesn’t *have a problem making mincemeat out of people, he just likes to play with his food first :stuck_out_tongue: I think he even said at one point the smell of their fear made them that much more delicious. As for the group being able to defeat him - twice!- I think we’re just meant to go along with the concept that their imaginations, love for one anther, yada yada yada allowed good to triumph over evil.

Wasnt about love - it was about them conquering their fear - apparently by bullying.