Skip to main content

The End of It


Andy Muschietti’s 2017 adaptation of Stephen King’s It ended with the Losers’ Club promising to come back in twenty-seven years if the titular monster they defeated ever returned. It was a smart idea to divide the book, which is spread across two timelines, into two movies. The updated setting of the late 1980s for the first film to correspond with a modern era for the sequel really worked to that movies’ advantage -not just in connecting to the nostalgia of the target demographic, but in how the culture and aesthetic of that era complimented the plot (it fit right in with the epidemic of child disappearances around that time for example). However in spite of the ending, the movie didn’t feel like one half of a whole, which was the intent. It was good enough to stand alone as a coming-of-age horror movie with a beginning, middle, and end. It Chapter Two, for being based in the same novel, has to prove its own necessity.
What puts it at a disadvantage from the get-go is that even before the 2017 movie, most of what people remember about It, be it the book or the 1990 miniseries, is from the childrens’ portion of the story: the now iconic death of Georgie Denbrough, the torrent of blood from Beverly’s sink, that one incredibly uncomfortable scene in the sewer near the end, the kids overcoming their fears and beating Pennywise. Because what makes It resonate so well as a story is concentrated in the protagonists being kids; vulnerable, powerless, and afraid when confronted and endangered by their worst fears, only to ultimately come together to overpower them. It Chapter Two can’t replicate that with an adult cast, not easily at least, and it’s what keeps this sequel from living up to its predecessor.
Most of the scares the adult Losers’ Club are faced with are merely extensions or reprisals of their childhood terrors, the film not taking into account much that adults develop very different fears from when they were children. Sure the lifelong trauma stemming from Beverly’s (Jessica Chastain) history with abuse and the death of his brother still haunting Bill (James McAvoy) have a believable permanence, but the movie doesn’t do anything interesting with them. The basis for everyone’s fears has remained rooted in their childhood and the town of Derry, and their lives haven’t yielded fresh meat for Pennywise (Bill SkarsgÃ¥rd) since. It seems especially pointless for Bill from a narrative sense given the completion of his emotional journey and closure for Georgie in the climax of the previous film. Some of this can be excused by the movies’ strong theme of reconciling the past, and the plot requiring each character to produce a personal token from that summer in order to defeat It, but centring so much in the past nonetheless prevents the movie from making any sort of independent, meaningful comment. And from a cinematic standpoint, it mostly just reminds us of that first film.
Consequently, It Chapter Two incorporates quite a few flashbacks with the cast of the preceding film reprising their roles, each of which are strong scenes that elevate the movie and make me wish they had been in the last (or at least filmed then) so as to avoid the distracting digital de-aging effects on what are now rapidly growing teenagers (poor Finn Wolfhard and Jeremy Ray Taylor are hit worst by this –looking almost plastic in their appearances). They’re certainly a welcome offset to a couple incredibly irrelevant plot diversions in the present, such as a scene with a little girl at a baseball game that adds up to nothing and a whole subplot involving the adult bully Henry Bowers (Teach Grant) that simply pads the runtime. Equally superfluous is a brutal homophobic attack up front ending in a gay man being killed by Pennywise that eliminates the books’ sole consolation of the attackers being indicted for it. The gay subject matter elsewhere in the film is generally handled better.
Losing his status as a bizarre queer icon aside, Pennywise is still only about half as scary as Muschietti and SkarsgÃ¥rd believe, embodying far more the demon clown cliché than the palpable, predatory killer the John Wayne Gacy inspired character was meant to. Its SkarsgÃ¥rd’s subtleties that are the most effective things about this monster: his grin, his cadence, that creepy thing he does with his eyes. But even still it doesn’t take long to be numbed to Pennywise. Once again, the more creative manifestations of It are better, but few of these scares match up to the best horrors from the first movie. It may have had a shaky tone, but there were a couple truly memorable, terrifying moments (the library basement, the projector, the opening scene). The best scare of this movie is that one partially glimpsed in the trailer. A part of this may be due to a higher concentration of CGI-rendered creations (which hurts the climax a bit), yet some of the visual effects are very good, such as an approximation of young Beverly and a hallucinatory sequence between Beverly and Ben in the third act.
And if there is a saving grace to the film, it might be the cast. All of them really look the part as older versions of the previously established characters (especially James Ransone as Eddie), and while James McAvoy and his unconvincing stutter might be the weak link, everyone else is pretty solid. Jessica Chastain brings her usual dedication, overcoming some weak material in her characters’ arc (specifically some gratuitous domestic violence at the beginning), but the real standout is Bill Hader as Richie. Hader has proven himself exceptionally good with dark and serious material before (principally on HBO’s Barry), yet still manages to astonish as both the movies’ terrific comic relief and its most soulful performance.
Stephen King makes an appearance in this movie. It’s a surprisingly long cameo where he identifies Bill (who’s a famous author), and makes a curmudgeonly remark about how his endings suck–a meta reference to a criticism King has often received throughout his career. The ending to It doesn’t suck, in fact it imparts a resonant sense of equilibrium not common in a lot of horror. For its earnestness though, it’s sadly not earned. And thus is the pattern of this movie. Taken alone, there are a handful of great moments, scenes and emotions that hit exactly right. But there’s no question It Chapter Two doesn’t have the bite of its predecessor, and the uphill battle is hindered further by starkly poorer writing, muted creativity, and a preoccupation with nostalgia for another movie. One exchange sums up the consequent effect perfectly: “Shouldn’t we be running?” Beverly asks upon seeing a creepy apparition; nonchalantly Bill responds, “I’m kinda getting used to it.”


Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...