I’ve only been reading Stephen King regularly since 2013 or so, and in that time I’ve read almost 50 of his books (and still have around 20 left). I think I’ve read his books in every way that it is currently possible to read a book. I’ve read them as hardbacks. I’ve read them as paperbacks. I’ve read them on two different Kindles. I’ve read them on two different iPhones. I’ve listened to audiobooks of them on CD and from Audible. Short of clay tablets or smoke signals, I think that covers everything.
And IT is still my favorite. I wrote about my love of the book and explained why It is about much more than simply an evil clown terrifying children in my review of that film in September of 2017, so I’m not going to go into that again (I also explained who the characters are). Feel free to read that previous post of mine, though (insert shameless self-promotion here). The new movie is primarily concerned with the characters as adults, and while Chapter Two is bigger and more ambitious than It’s predecessor, It is not necessarily better.
Images: Warner Bros.
That’s not to say that It’s bad, though. I liked Chapter Two quite a bit, although I will readily admit that It is clunky at times, and at nearly three hours It does seem overlong. But let’s take a second to reflect on the miracle of this movie’s existence. It: Chapter Two is the second part of an adaptation of a book that is more than 30 years old and more than 1,000 pages long. It’s an R-rated, three-hour long extravaganza of brutal and unrelenting horror. And much like Its predecessor, It’s looking like another major box-office hit. That kind of thing doesn’t happen very often.
The elephant in the room regarding this movie was the question of who would play the adult versions of the Losers, as they call themselves. And, just like the previous movie, the casting in Chapter Two is excellent. It’s almost uncanny how closely the actors who play the Losers as adults resemble their younger counterparts. The actors who play Eddie in particular bear a striking resemblance, it’s enough to make one wonder if the actors are related in real life (which they’re not, so far as I know). James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain and Bill Hader are the biggest names in the new cast, and they’re all terrific, but the rest of the grown-up Losers are great as well.
And they have to be, since the adult Losers don’t get as much characterization as their younger selves did in the first movie. The new movie mostly relies on what we know of these people from their portrayal in the previous movie. This isn’t too surprising, given how much story the new movie needs to get through, but it is a bit disappointing that Chapter Two doesn’t do much to flesh out the characters a bit more. The new movie does imply that Richie is gay, which seemed a bit odd to me since there was no hint of that in the previous movie, or in the book that I remember. It’s not bad, it just feels a bit out of place.
The storytelling in the new movie is cluttered. The Losers employ a ritual called the Ritual of Chud to help defeat It, and the specifics of this ritual and how it works are explained very quickly and somewhat confusingly. Viewers who haven’t read the book might be a bit baffled by the whole ritual thing. Heck, I love the book and still thought that aspect of the story as shown in the movie was hard to understand. There are some changes to the overall plot, such as the absence of Beverly’s husband and Bill’s wife in the climactic events and the massive earthquake that rips apart the town of Derry after It is defeated, but these omissions didn’t bother me, as they would have made an already lengthy film even longer.
There are also frequent flashbacks to the Losers as kids, played by the same terrific young actors who played them in the first movie. I am of two minds about these scenes. On the one hand, they make the movie quite a bit longer and the pacing might have been somewhat better without them. On the other hand, it’s really great to see the young actors again and be reminded of how great they were, and it helps build the camaraderie in the group.
These scenes also add a lot more scares to the movie, and let’s face it, if you see a scary movie there had better be some scares. Intertwining the flashbacks with the present-day Losers is also reminiscent of how Stephen King structured the book in a non-linear fashion, frequently jumping back and forth between past and present. So while the flashbacks do disrupt the pacing a bit, ultimately I think that the pros outweigh the cons.
There is also quite a bit of humor, some of which is pretty funny, but the attempts at humor don’t always mesh with the horror. Army of Darkness this ain’t. But is the movie scary?
You bet it is.
Pennywise the Dancing Clown is still one of Stephen King’s most terrifying creations, and Bill Skarsgard’s portrayal of the demonic bastard is every bit as bone-chilling as it was previously. Pennywise delights in tormenting his victims and is a being of pure, unadulterated malevolence. Pennywise does not possess a shred of pity and neither does returning director Andy Muschietti, who once again puts his actors through a brutal gauntlet of horror. Filming this movie must have been…intense. I can only imagine what it must have been like for Jessica Chastain to film the scene where Beverly almost drowns in a bathroom stall filling with blood.
One minor complaint is that there’s an excessive amount of swearing in this movie. I’m not a prude when it comes to profanity, but sometimes movies have so much swearing that the impact is lost. It Chapter Two does unfortunately cross that line where the swearing starts to seem a little ridiculous. This isn’t a huge issue, but it did get old after a while.
It: Chapter Two is not a perfect movie by any means. The storytelling is clunky, the pacing is uneven, and the tone fluctuates. But the actors are all very good, the production and creature designs are convincing and scary, and the movie delivers the visceral thrills. Stephen King’s IT is a story that I ultimately find very moving, and the fact that these two films are able to capture even a small amount of that magic is something to be celebrated. I like both IT films quite a bit, warts and all. The two movies are probably as good an adaptation of King’s mammoth novel as is possible to make. King’s twisted but timeless story appears poised to scare the bejesus out of readers and viewers for generations to come, which in a weird way makes me very happy.