It Chapter Two (2019) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,791 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
I expected more after the first movie ....
tyjchurchill9 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
It's been a while since I've read the book or seen the first movie; so I apologize if I get some things wrong.

TLDR; The film drags on in the middle by splitting up the crew and subjecting them to meaningless jump scares. This means little character interaction (which is part of what the first movie had going for it). By the time you get to the final confrontation with Pennywise, you're just tired of the jump scares and want it to be over because you're not really rooting for the losers. And if you are, it's mostly because of what was established in the first film.

Pros:
  • The film starts off great. Somehow the scene at the bridge manages to match the iconic opening scene of the first.
  • Skarsgård is an amazing Pennywise and is creepy as hell.
  • Stan's speech in Richie's second flashback is great and actually funny.
  • Casting is, for the most part, really good. I think it was hard for some of the adult actors to find a balance between being recognizable while still showing how they've matured over time. Adult Richie is too kid-like while Bev is too mature to the point of being unrecognizable.


Cons:
  • Bowers is half-assed. Literally just used for three jump scares and nothing else. Either imply that he died and leave him out or fully use him like he is in the book as the epitome of the corruption in Derry.
  • The final form of Pennywise is unsatisfying. It's literally a clown torso on some sort of arachnid body. They needed to go full arachnid alien like it is in the book. I think this part is just difficult to translate from the book though.
  • Stan's letter at the end cheapens his death. Instead of him literally being unable to handle his fear of IT, his suicide is portrayed as a sacrifice to save the others.
  • There's next to no character development and very little meaningful interaction between characters. I blame this mostly on the middle 90 minutes where they all split up. It's totally different from the first film where they are actually a team.
  • Speaking of which, this part where they all go their separate ways to find their "tokens" is so contrived. The story literally loses all its steam due to this and makes it feel way too long.
  • All of the monster scenes except the ones with Pennywise have terrible CGI. They might be gross and/or startling but you can see them coming and they don't contribute much.
  • About 1/3 to 1/2 of the jokes just kinda fell flat.
  • The constant jump scenes and long running time just make this movie exhausting to watch. It was just a constant cycle of "pan to character, give a little backstory, jump scare, repeat".
507 out of 650 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Call me "old fashioned," but CGI monster overkill does nothing for me
daniellemobsby7 September 2019
I really, realllly wanted to like this film. As a huge fan of the original mini-series (and EVERYTHING Tim Curry), I knew I'd have a challenge going into both Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 with an open mind. I had to separate. I didn't have as high of expectations as I did for Chapter 1 as Part 2 of the mini series was much weaker than the Part 1 anyway as well as Stephen King's It (Book).

The actors were great. Even the first few jump scares were decent, and then it just became overkill. And not scary whatsoever. All of the CGI monsters look ridiculous and completely take you out of the moment. I grew up watching 80s/90s horror (AND LOVING IT). The baddies were REAL and TERRIFYING. For example, Mrs. Massey, the bloated bathtub corpse in The Shining. That was a real, completely horrifying image that has stayed with me 30 years after I First saw the movie. I don't understand the obsession with CGI when there's no need for it.

Sadly, this movie was just a drawn out bore.
718 out of 937 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
cheesy movie, dumb ending
katjagymnast1000-198-1621058 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a big baby when it comes to scary movies and even I can say I wasn't scared. The jump scares were alright but the CGI monsters just made the movie feel immature. Also....Pennywise is a flesh eating clown with hypnotic powers.....and they bullied him to death to defeat him. It was just such a corny scene watching pennywise shrink as they say mean things to him lmao
389 out of 510 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Erm... No. Just... No. CGI fest and bad writing all the way!
mgferraresso27 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Only "God" knows how I wanted to love this film.

As a big fan of the (masterpiece) book, I was eager for part II. I liked the first part. I didnt LOVE IT, but it was a good adaption.

In the other hand, the second part is... Slow. I didnt feel the "chemistry" between the adult version of the Losers Club. Dont get me wrong, the acting is good, but... Something's off.

I didnt get the insinuations about Ritchie's sexual orientation (why? And it wasnt in the book either), and the way they chose to kill Pennywise. That was SHAMEFUL. Ultra-simple solution and it made me feel dumb... SIGH.

Oh! Last but not least: THE CGI FEST. I really dont like CGI in horror flicks. I dont think it is IMPOSSIBLE to use it, not at all, but God... What a CGI MONSTER FEST... I think Muschietti has a great future and a director, but there's a lot to learn...

IT Part II is a let down. Sadly.
122 out of 155 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
BAD JOKE. JUMP SCARE. REPEAT
zander-9528430 September 2019
Agh.. WOAH! agh.. WOAH! agh.. WOAH! agh.. WOAH! The beginning 30-40 mins was a decent setup, well shot and the dinner scene was somewhat funny. Then it all goes down hill from there.
136 out of 174 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Was this a comedy or a scary movie???
rburgz14 October 2019
Why they tried to add so much humor is beyond me. It ruined the entire movie.

Now the guy that plays Pennywise did a great job. Except for the CGI Pennywise (that was out of his hands).When he played the character with no CGI I was blown away.
68 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Failed attempt at horror and comedy
sophiakhan-666155 October 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Firstly, those people giving this a 9 and 10....what did they put in your popcorn?! Did you see a different movie?! Should you be allowed to leave reviews if your taste in movies is that bad?! Some poor sod might read your review and go see this movie...do you not feel any guilt!

This was AWFUL! Its not even worth constructing proper sentences for so I'll leave these points here:

1. The terrible acting. It was awful. The actors were either bored or overacting (Bill, Mike, Richie). Seriously terrible.

2. What on earth was the need to make this a 3 hour movie?! It was so unnecessarily dragged out and incredibly boring

3. The story had no story. Mike tells them there's an Indian ritual they must collect artefacts for which separates them all for 2 hours of the movie but then it turns out there was no ritual...WHAT?! What was the point of that?! Ben threw into the fire something he'd held dear in his wallet for 27 years for...no.....reason??

4. Seperating the characters like that and filling the scenes with flashbacks made sure there was no character development

5. Erm what happened to Bills wife? Bev is kissing all the guys but is still married. They turned Bev's character into a gold digging floozy by having her kiss Bill then choose the wealthy and better looking Ben for his boat?!

6. What in the name of all that is Mike Myers was that terrible CGI about?! The old granny scene in the original was scary as she was a creepy old lady not a 15 foot naked zombie like monster

7. Speaking of zombies...Bowers zombie friend drives cars and breaks him out of an asylum? If zombies can do that, why did Pennywise need Bowers?

8. Speaking of Bowers...what was the point of him in all his over acting melodrama? He did nothing. Except to prove you can be stabbed in the heart and walk away absolutely fine

9. Stanley's suicide notes to each and every one of them that he wrote and posted before killing himself?! The act was supposed to have been done out of pure fear...not as a human sacrifice

10. The grand finale. After spending 2 hours looking for tokens and Mike carrying around a badly built dustbin made in a beginner's pottery class, turns out all you had to do was hurt Pennywises feelings by calling him a clown and he will turn into a baby? I have no words....really

People do yourselves a favour, avoid this at all costs
30 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
IT ends with a big balloon.
tomholland20164 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
"For 27 years, I dreamt of you. I craved you. I've missed you!"

Pros:

  • The casting director very much shines in the spotlight here. If there is a category for Best Casting Director in the Academy Award, I am all in to bet that It: Chapter Two's will not just get nominated, but win very big. The casting director deserves a standing ovation for choosing the right actors for the right characters that resemble a lot with the younger-selves from the predecessor.


  • You will feel the emotional impact of The Losers' Club as a whole. The fear that feeds their souls, the memories that hunt them & the hopeless feeling that manipulates their strength all leave a strong impression to wonder within & about.


  • The various & disparate forms of IT should give a blast of excitement to the audience. This is the most entertaining part of the movie where you get to watch new other-worldly creatures lingering within the shadows or the old monsters are back to haunt them with a peek-a-boo! It is gross, weird and definitely strange.


  • The heartwarming story of The Losers' Club friendship is the beautiful gem you will find in no other horror movies this year. The connection they have is so strong and palpable,


  • An excellent set of transition techniques that jump from one place to another, giving that ominous vibe and at the same time feels like an adventure.


Cons:

  • Albeit the creatures are entertaining to watch, however it lacks the manifestation of the scary rituals that should follow. This is the main problem with the IT movies, it is not terrifying nor scary enough to make you have a nightmare. Even sometimes it is laughable due to its unprecedented nature of the creatures' features.


  • The real form of IT is upsetting and disappointing. I can strongly say that the majority will love IT's true form from the 1990 Television Mini-Series in comparison to the remake because that looks scarier, deadlier & more realistic.


  • It is super slow and draggy that it doesn't need to be at almost 3 hours mark. 2 hours should be the best run time for this movie like IT Chapter One. It has nothing much to talk about especially during the first hour. Reunion, get together, a few jumpscare parts. That's all there is to it.


  • The second act of the movie (halfway) feels as if you are watching 5 to 6 different short films instead. Because it has that slow-burning nature, the scenes feel disjointed from one another. It spends around 45 minutes to an hour to look at every members of The Losers' Club being haunted by Pennywise.


Verdict: IT CHAPTER TWO is certainly fresh and enjoyable. Hopes up not, its extremely slow-going story may make the audience bore enough to put you into sleep mode. IT CHAPTER TWO walks you into a journey of the insidious Derry town albeit its lack of formidable creatures.
415 out of 592 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Thus movie is a disgrace...
gcarpiceci26 September 2019
...it is a disgrace because it is a gross betrayal of the original book. IT - the book - is a psychological thriller about friendship, about relationships, it is about the deep fears we have as kids and which grow with us until we are adults; it is about how we learn fighting and ultimately defeating these fears. IT - the movie, this movie - is a cheap zombie movie stuffed with special effects and CGI with the sole purpose of jump-scaring the audience. There is no narrative, no storytelling, nothing more than a random - and awfully long - sequence of third league horror vignettes. Shame on this movie!
34 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Tim Curry in a clown costume is more terrifying than any CGI monster
Darkside-Reviewer6 October 2019
I personally didn't enjoy IT 2017 so I didn't have much hope for part 2 but I was expecting them to at least tone down the CGI instead they went overkill with it no imagination used here just in your face flashy CGI effects that look fake and plastic the only thing frightening about this movie is that sadly because it made money at the box office more Stephen King books are going to get remakes and it won't be long before we get an all CGI Maximum Overdrive movie remake.

There are more scenes with Pennywise transforming and creating twisted ways to mess with the returning losers club members but sadly they are all done with CGI and are all standard copy and paste scenes from the original mini series and when the movie finally gets to it's climax the makers of this "Horror Movie" think by simply making Pennywise bigger it instills more fear into the audience when really all it does is scream CGI and all the suspence is watered down to bigger pixels on screen than there where before "Terrifying"

The only and I do mean only saving grace this movie has is the cast they all do a great job on screen especially considering they have to pretend to be scared and flee in terror from a green screen it's not the actors fault this movie was a big let down.

I recommend watching the original IT mini series if you haven't already seen it Tim Curry's performance as Pennywise is the reason why people who grew up in the 90s have a fear of clowns because a great actor in the right role can make all the difference in a movie Tim Curry will always be Pennywise no matter how many remakes are made just like Judy Garland will always be Dorothy in The Wizard of OZ there performance makes the movie so memorable and it can't be re-created no matter how much CGI you use.
86 out of 119 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
I really wanted to love!
raquel_pompey13 September 2019
Okay so saw the first remake of it was absolutely in love. I went and saw the second one today and didn't feel any where near close to what I felt for the first one. It was super long but that isn't even what upset me. It was just lacking in delivery. Pennywise was hardly in the movie. He was in it but they spent so much time soul searching the past of the characters that the real present stuff went lacking. Needless to say the first remake is an all time favorite. This one, I definitely should've waited until it came out on DVD. Just being honest. The first one was to good for this to be part 2.
96 out of 134 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
If you're scared of CGI and don't want to get invested in the main characters, this is just for you..
martinaskoe6 September 2019
Well, this was a waste.. This movie is just a long run of jumpscares (all the f'ing time), not at all scary CGI monsters and reusing of the same jokes and "scares". I don't think the director has used a single practical effect in this picture.

There is no tension or character-investing in this movie, and the director manages to make the cast (who works with What they have been giving) look terrible in their acting. It is not scary, just very, very annoying and does not live up to either the book, the mini-tv series or part 1 of the reboot from 2017 (even though it also was an CGI orgy).

If you like a horror movie, where you don't need a build of tension or the director sticking to a plot or giving the audience a decent payout, but just adds a lot of jumpscares for almost 3 hours - You will love this.. But hey, it's just my opinion..
214 out of 322 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
True Friendship With Awful Story
ymyuseda6 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Rating 5.6/10 I honestly can't believe these reviews. This movie truly disappointed me. To director Andy Muschietti you should put more scenes about the clown, because i seen the scenes is just little bit. That is exactly what the screenwriter and director did to this failed abortain. This is not horror film. Terrifying, it is not. Scary it is not. There is nothing scary about this movie. There was so much wasted potential here. Consequently i found the movie too long and lost me some part of it. It just doesn't feel like anything great or memorable. Good bye clown and good bye Eddie.
390 out of 600 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Kudos to the Casting Director
CaptainNegative9 September 2019
I really loved Chapter One when I first saw it and I think Chapter Two is a solid conclusion to the Losers' Club saga. The casting is phenomenal and despite it's nearly three hour running time it didn't feel anywhere near that long, which is (in my opinion) one of the best compliments someone can pay an especially long film. Ultimately I enjoyed Chapter One a little bit more, but really it just comes down to preference.
158 out of 236 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Pathetic at least
prototypecmv4 October 2019
Warning: Spoilers
'IT chapter 2' is a film based on the Steven King's novels, that was released on screen in order to express the horror that the evil clown exposed in the old town of Derry. The direction is poor, seems like they didn't even try to make it scary or post the image that this story was supposed to show. I remember a scene in the theater where I would laugh to those small babyheaded spiders. The cast looked like they were bored every minute of it, being there just for the title of the film and the publicity it had gained. They did not make any try to act, just reading words and acting accordingly like anybody could do it. The story had some interest but it was all sunk with the terrible acting and directing and at some point took the downroad for good as it seemed like they made it something up to fill it up as they were running out of time. There were many points during the film where I was annoyed, even bored, ready to sleep on my chair, the duration of the film was inexcusable like there were added extra nonsense minutes to it. To sum it up, 'IT chapter 2' is a movie for young kids aged 10 - 14 because they would be the only ones to appreciate it. I would not recommend it for anyone over that age plus I would not pay to watch it again. It was a really bad try, I would add, pathetic at least.
53 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Much longer than Chapter One but half the enjoyment
Darthfrodo586 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
After seeing Chapter One I expected so much more, unfortunately IT didn't deliver. The film starts out with an overly graphic bashing scene that tries hard to be topical but instead seems to be there just to dare you to criticize it's honesty. And things just go downhill from there. The Loser's Club of the first film reunites 27 years later to have another go at defeating Pennywise, but where the kids were charming and you wanted to root for them, the adults all go separate ways to have their own jump scene moments through an overly long two hour middle section of the film. The film bogs because it keeps showing flashbacks to when they were kids instead of building the characters as adults. The effect is that you never really care about them as adults, they're just an excuse to show CGI monsters that never really scare you on any level. The pacing of the film is so roughshod that it never lets any suspense build as it jumps from one scene to the next, while you keep checking your watch wondering how much more of this you'll have to endure. The middle becomes a bit of a horror film mish mash with an homage to John Carpenter's The Thing (verbatim quote and all) a little bit of Toy Story erector spider, a dash of Poltergeist's Native American mumbo jumbo added in with a couple of million years old space entity tossed in in case you needed something to understand what they're up against. James McAvoy's character is jokingly referred to as an author whose book endings suck (a nod to the book) and unfortunately this film doesn't improve on the novel. It's just an overly long series of vignettes that tie to Chapter One in an unsatisfying way.
242 out of 371 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Not your average horror movie
jtindahouse4 September 2019
Very early on in 'It Chapter Two' there is some wink wink dialogue about an author writing a great book, but messing up the ending. Anyone who is familiar with the 'It' book or original mini-series will know the ending was not well liked. Here now though they had a chance to rectify things, and I can assure you they did. Not just in terms of the ending, but the entire second entry is actually a fantastically made film and in my opinion superior to part one.

The film is exceptionally long for a horror movie at nearly three hours. The thing is though I can't see it having the same impact if it were much shorter. There was a lot of layers to fit in. This isn't your average "fast-food" horror like the 'Conjuring' universe films. This is as much a drama in a lot of ways as it is a horror. The first half of the film especially. A long time is taken reintroducing us to the characters, showing us where they are with their lives now and building up their résumés again. Then in the second half of the film (and yes I'm talking about almost an entire 90 minutes) the film kicks into hyper-drive with non-stop, in your face horror - and it is a sight to behold.

The cast were again all perfectly selected. Bill Hader in particular steals the show. He is given some great one-liners to work with, much the same as Finn Wolfhard was, and he nails every one of them. There is also a great Stephen King cameo. This isn't just a case of blink and you'll miss him, he is given an entire scene with some hilarious dialogue. I wasn't sure whether 'It Chapter Two' would be able to stick the landing and give the story the ending that it deserves, but it certainly did. I had a great time with this movie and I think any lover of the genre will as well.
314 out of 495 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
I was bored through most of it
scottnjoy6 September 2019
I couldn't wait for it to end.

CGI was horrible at times.

Wait for it to come out on video. At least you can pause it and take a break.
377 out of 598 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Disappointing
dperlis8 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The first IT movie scared the bejeepers out of me. I mean what is scarier than a psychotic clown? Unfortunately in Chapter 2 unless you have Arachnophobia this movie will do nothing for you in terms of thrills. I feel that one of the reasons the first movie was so good is because of Skarsgaard's amazing acting as Pennywise. This movie is just CG heavy and very little acting.

**Spoiler** Also on an unrelated note the homophobic hate crime at the beginning did absolutely nothing to add to the film and left my thinking "why was that necessary?"
42 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
"It Chapter Two": Too Long for Too Little
hunter-friesen15 September 2019
In 1913, Henry Ford introduced the assembly line to the Ford Motor Company. He made a ton of money and was hailed as a leading innovator. Now just a hundred years later, director Andy Musciehtti brings that same assembly line principle to It Chapter Two as he serves up his scary products in the exact fashion as the one before.

This sequel to the highest-grossing horror movie of all time (unadjusted) takes place 27 years later in the same town of Derry, Maine. The rambunctious kids are all adults now and have gone on their separate paths to some form of success. Unfortunately, the good fortune for each is put to an end by the return of Pennywise, who seeks more victims for his twisted games. Being the only ones that have stopped the evil force, the adults must come together again to put an end to this bloody mess.

Director Andy Muschietti returns behind the camera after the record-breaking success he earned from 2017's "It". For the second time around, Muschietti goes even bigger and bolder than before, both in terms of the horror set pieces and the length.

When it comes to giving audiences what they came to see, Muschietti delivers on adding even more blood, gore, and creepiness. Pennywise's indescribable powers get even more creative as his prey are stalked and slaughtered with unnerving brutality.

The biggest fault that plagued the previous film was its recycling of cheap jump scares that were meant to artificially hold your attention. That same problem is even more glaring in the sequel as any scary moments are just startling moments where something pops out at the screen. The more they happen, the more predictable and boring they are to watch.

A runtime is never indicative of quality by itself, every movie should earn its length through skill and craftsmanship. And at 170 minutes, "It Chapter Two" falls way short of earning its record-breaking runtime. Instead of the horror being a slow burn, it's more of a slow churn as the recycled jump scares quickly lose their minuscule luster and make this already long film feel even longer.

Screenwriter Gary Dauberman takes up the impossible task of adapting Stephen King, a challenge that has killed the careers of countless adapters before him.

Dauberman tries his best to break away from the ridiculousness within King's novel, but his efforts end up backfiring on him and make the film even more awkward as some elements are left in and some left out. The story wants you to take it pretty seriously, but keeping in the weird elements make that almost an impossible task.

Muschietti didn't do much to justify the excessive length, but Dauberman should shoulder more of the blame with his uneven pacing. The film starts great with the together and playing off each other with a fun and brisk pace. Then, against all logic, Dauberman has them split up for ninety minutes, severely slowing things to a crawl and forcing the jump scares to keep you awake.

The highest regards should go to casting director Rich Delia as he has brilliantly put together a group of adult actors that uncannily look like their younger counterparts. Unfortunately, good looks are the only quality some actors possess here.

James McAvoy does fine as Bill. The most evident acting trait he shows off is his struggle to hide his Scottish accent with a less than convincing New England one.

Having a rocky 2019, to say the least, Jessica Chastain follows up the bomb that was "Dark Phoenix" with another subpar performance. She doesn't shine as brightly as Sophia Lillis' younger Beverly despite being the more acclaimed actress with a lot more screen time.

The standout performances come from the two Bills in the cast, Hader and Skarsgård. Hader plays adult Richie and fairs the best in the cast at toeing the line between drama and comedy.

Skarsgård as Pennywise is a sight to see but unfortunately doesn't get seen for long stretches. Between him and Heath Ledger's Joker, future performances for clowns now have an insanely high bar to reach.

With over five hours of material between two films, the "It" series has come to a less than satisfying close with "It Chapter Two". There are some things to admire Muschietti and co. for doing or trying to do. But for every great Bill Skarsgård moment (which is all of them), there were just as many moments of wasted potential due to unoriginal filmmaking. Overall, between its highs and lows, "It Chapter Two" makes for a semi-enjoyable time. Just make sure to bring a seat cushion.
60 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
You'll float to the exit door
jasonaulds-974268 September 2019
Everything special from chapter one an both of the originals completely removed for cheap not scary cgi effects, lost it's way for the all mighty Hollywood blockbuster dollar
120 out of 183 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Meh
Emus795 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
IT chapter 2 isn't a very good movie, but itisn't terrible either. I am a big fan of both the book and the mini-series, so I may have gone in a bit biased. But where I really liked chapter 1, I just didn't feel it for chapter 2.

The acting is great, but somehow I wasn't invested in any of the characters. They were just that: characters.

I was pleasantly surprised the movie opened with the Adrian Melon scene. This scene is one that makes the story of IT (and many other stories of mr. King) so great: besides the obvious evil of Pennywise, there are also "real" threats, like homophobic villagers.

I was very disappointed in the fact the storyline of Beverly's husband was completely cut, and the storyline of Henry Bowers was butchered. The fact that the Losers weren't only fighting Pennywise, but also had to dodge attacks from real people (so more rational fears if you will) was what made the book and the mini-series better than this flick.

All in all, it was an "okay" movie. Not great, not terrible, just "meh".
268 out of 425 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Disappointing
repulsivefox5 September 2019
I was very excited to see this film, have been since 2017, when I saw the first one. Unfortunately, this one was a huge mess.

I love the way the first IT didn't want to be JUST a horror movie, but rather took time to build up a story, emotional connection. That is what made it so different from all the other horror movies that are being made nowadays. HOWEVER, this was completely thrown out the window in the second one. Considering how incredibly long this movie is, 90% of it was just buildup for jumpscares, jumpscares themselves and weird CGI.

The worst thing for me was that there were too many things going on, jumping all over the place. And most of it was just for shock value, nothing important to the story.

What I did love was the casting, it was absolutely brilliant, especially Eddie.

I guess this is once again a classic case of - bigger budget does not mean better movie, as well as more CGI does not mean better movie.
306 out of 503 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I think some maybe even most people are treating this as if it were a straight up sequel when they really shouldn't.
mjjenkins-405384 September 2019
Although Stephen King's IT novel is more of back and forth from adult to kid and back and forth from adult to kid and so on, IT : Chapter 2 should be looked at like it's the 2nd half of one big story, which is exactly what it is rather than a sequel. It's really not a sequel. Just like the 2nd half or "adult half" of the 1990 TV Miniseries/movie is not a sequel, it's just the 2nd half of one big story/movie. Let's face it, unless they're the Godfather Part 2, Aliens, Terminator 2 : Judgement Day, The Dark Knight, The Empire Strikes Back, and maybe a couple of other big time hit sequels, the sequel almost always gets hated on, critiqued to death, disregarded as "unoriginal", "same old same old", "not very creative", treated like the "intruder", etc etc....it's the same for 90% of remakes..but people need to realize and understand that IT : Chapter 2 is not a sequel and that IT : Chapter 1 and IT : Chapter aren't remakes to the 1990 TV minseries/movie either.

Secondly, almost every negative review on Rotten Tomatoes or YouTube or on the Internet somewhere (and I'm pretty sure they'll make their way onto here sooner or later as well) have complaints about the runtime of 2 hours and 49 minutes and that it's "too long" and blah blah blah. I don't see how you can make this whole story put to film not be at least 5+ hours long (Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 combined)..at the VERY least. The novel is over 1,100 pages long ! 1,138 pages to be exact. "IT" should have been a 10-15 1 hour episode series on Netflix to be done properly, to be honest..but if you go the cinema route with it (and they did, obviously), between Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, it has to be, at the very least, 5 hours or so if the Director or Writers want to be even remotely faithful to King's novel and make fans of King and the novel at least somewhat satisfied. And you also have 7 protagonists..SEVEN..6 of which are main protagonists. That's A LOT character developing and character story arcs that have to be told and take place unless you want a lazily and poorly directed and written film with terrible story telling and bad or no/next to no character development.

This film delivers great character development and great character and story arcs for all of the main protagonists/characters of the film. This film is really entertaining overall. There are pacing issues but those really seem minor when you step back and look at this film as a whole. This film was really good on it's own and holds up very well on it's own. Yes, it relied on Chapter 1 some, obviously, because Chapter 1 is part of the overall story (Again, it's NOT a sequel. I'm really talking about how well Chapter 2 is made when saying "it's really good on it's own) but when you put Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 together and make it one big story/film like it should be, it's AWESOME. Pennywise is also at his most serious and gruesome in this one. This one doesn't cut away just as someone or a helpless kid is about to get bitten or eaten until after you see and hear plenty enough, if you know what I mean. More gore in this one. It definitely earns every bit of it's R rating. Bill Hader, Jessica Chastain, Bill Skarsgard, and James Mcavoy are excellent, especially Hader and Skarsgard. Nobody was bad though..everyone was, at least, good. The CGI was also much better in this one..of course it would be though because it had a much bigger budget to work with than Chapter 1 did.

My biggest con..and it's the same as my biggest con for Chapter 1. Too many ill timed funny jokes. 2 or 3 jokes when it's the right time for them are great and it works. It lightens things up even if just for a few seconds and during the RIGHT times. And this film has a few well timed funny moments as well, don't get me wrong. But the funny/comedy/jokes at the wrong times, especially in a horror movie, just suck, to put it simply. It ruins scenes especially scenes that are supposed to be or should be horrifying and terrifying and scary and making you nervous and tense and scared and such. And unfortunately, this film has those ill timed/placed jokes as well.

Overall though, this film is great..especially when you look at as whole with Chapter 1.
406 out of 682 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Was this intended a comedy?
MirkoS8 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Look, I don't mind being entertained at the movies, but there does come the expectation with such an adaptation of one of the best and most beloved horror novels ever written that it accord some respect while remaining true to the source material.

My main problem with this film lies in its tonal inconsistency. I could never tell if it was attempting to set a somber, foreboding, menacing feeling, or if it was trying to create an atmosphere conducive towards a lighthearted, hilarious jump-scare filled marathon. In one moment it hangs heavy in emotional gravitas (the opening scene is especially brutal and difficult to watch, and Stanley's suicide is also fairly dark), and the next, it's so ludicrously over the top and in your face in its execution of its "horror" elements that it produces a jarring sense of tonal discord. What exactly is this film attempting to be? The horror was so absurdly explicitly comedic in its execution (not helped by questionable effects work) that I must assume that was the intent. Yet in taking such a directorial approach, it effectively nullified the entire foundation that the movie required to establish and help foment the dreadful tension, atmosphere, and tone necessitated by the narrative (and of which made the book so stellar), and further relegated all the work by the actors and all other aspects of the film that had helped establish it up to that point void. If it wasn't intentional, then it does nothing so well as to exemplify how the filmmakers hold a fundamental misunderstanding of what actual horror really entails.

"IT Chapter Two" spends much of its runtime plodding through a mindless, rote, predictable checklist of the characters recovering their artifacts from their youths, to the same tired, mindless, rote, predictable jump scares thrown at you one after the other which you can see coming from a million miles off which further robbed them of all their potency. How am I supposed to care at all about the protagonists' emotional plights (which are portrayed in a serious light) when their antagonist and its supposedly evil forms who are responsible for them are utterly stripped of their malevolence and are portrayed in such a formulaic, repetitive, explicit, and laughably juvenile manner? Yes, I know "IT" manifests itself also as a Pennywise who does utilize a childlike humor to lure his prey in, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the only way nor that the entity wasn't terrifying in all the revelations of its truest forms. They were terrifying in the novel, and here they're a downright riot. A little subtlety, suggestion, imagination, minimalism and unpredictability goes a long way and would've done this film wonders, as that's where the real core of any effective horror resides. It would've not only have helped maintain tonal consistency, it would've made it genuinely unsettling. My theatre was howling at every turn, and I'm completely left at a loss as to whether that was what the director intended.

As is, this film suffers an identity crisis. It is inconsistent, predictable, ludicrously (and unintentionally?) hilarious, redundant, overly drawn out to the point of boredom, and worst of all, a downright insult to King, who I'm shocked made the cameo he did in tacit approval of this screen adaptation abomination of his finest work. The glaring tonal juxtaposition and abysmal execution robbed me of all interest in witnessing The Losers' Club finally confront this ultimate evil terrorizing a small Maine town every 27 years, because in the end, it wasn't an ultimate evil at all......it was a goddamn mockery of one.

And due to that, I walked out. Truly, truly awful.
121 out of 193 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed