|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Jul 25, 2020 21:44:35 GMT
Been sitting on my shelve since late December. Only finally watched it last night. Why the long wait? I really don't know. Anyway, this movie has its ups and downs. Wasn't expecting the movie to begin with a hate-crime. For a moment, I though I was watching a different movie. A few of the scary moments come off as a bit goofy, honestly. Also, some of the CGI is a bit distracting. That said, it's 165 minute running time flows by at a pretty decent pace. Aided largely by a pretty solid cast. Most surprising is Bill Hader, who really comes through in the dramatic moments. He also gets the best line in the movie - After killing Henry Bowers in a library - "That was long overdue." Also in response to a head growing spider like legs, he utters "You gotta be fucking kidding me!". 6.5 out of 10
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 25, 2020 21:58:48 GMT
One of the most frustratingly messy movies I have ever seen. It feels like a parody of a sequel that was suppose to be made but wasn't. The tone is all over the place, the directing ranges from good to terrible, the characters are poorly fleshed out, the cgi is way more in your face than the first movie and it becomes extremely distracting. The best scene is when Jessica Chastain visits the old women and even that scene ruins itself by having her transform into a big cgi monster. That kind of sums up the whole movie. A series of good scenes and ideas that keep caving in on themselves.
5.5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 25, 2020 22:42:19 GMT
It’s too long.
The budget was too big.
The adults would have been interesting enough on their own but they felt the need to include a lot of kid scenes to draw back the same crowd.
The opening scene was rather pointless. I get it to some degree but lining the evilness of the town with homophobia and the return of Pennywise seems to ignore decades of homophobia.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 25, 2020 22:54:05 GMT
It’s too long. The budget was too big. The adults would have been interesting enough on their own but they felt the need to include a lot of kid scenes to draw back the same crowd. The opening scene was rather pointless. I get it to some degree but lining the evilness of the town with homophobia and the return of Pennywise seems to ignore decades of homophobia. I don't think that makes it ignore decades of homophobia. Pennywise only reappears once every 30 years or so and the movie wanted to address that subject right off the bat. Open homosexuality in Dairy might have been more recent than everywhere else, because that town is sort of backwards. |
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jul 25, 2020 23:01:39 GMT
For a second I thought you were talking about a movie similar to Hot Shots Part Deux like another parody film.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Jul 25, 2020 23:11:55 GMT
It’s decent enough. Gets repetitive but never boring. Love the adult cast in this, and Pennywise was just as creepy as he was in the first. Need to watch it again though (only saw it when it came out). I would give it a 7.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 25, 2020 23:18:00 GMT
It’s too long. The budget was too big. The adults would have been interesting enough on their own but they felt the need to include a lot of kid scenes to draw back the same crowd. The opening scene was rather pointless. I get it to some degree but lining the evilness of the town with homophobia and the return of Pennywise seems to ignore decades of homophobia. I don't think that makes it ignore decades of homophobia. Pennywise only reappears once every 30 years or so and the movie wanted to address that subject right off the bat. Open homosexuality in Dairy might have been more recent than everywhere else, because that town is sort of backwards. The book links the evil in Derry with the return to Pennywise and they sorta do that in the movie. However they set it up so sloppily because they did indeeed want to make a message about homophobia in and of itself. It’s certainly a noble gesture but it also felt tacky unless you learned the connections. They could have done it one if two ways. Inform the audience of Pennywise’s influence of the crime or inform the audience that the crime itself was a sign he was back. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 25, 2020 23:33:00 GMT
I don't think that makes it ignore decades of homophobia. Pennywise only reappears once every 30 years or so and the movie wanted to address that subject right off the bat. Open homosexuality in Dairy might have been more recent than everywhere else, because that town is sort of backwards. The book links the evil in Derry with the return to Pennywise and they sorta do that in the movie. However they set it up so sloppily because they did indeeed want to make a message about homophobia in and of itself. It’s certainly a noble gesture but it also felt tacky unless you learned the connections. They could have done it one if two ways. Inform the audience of Pennywise’s influence of the crime or inform the audience that the crime itself was a sign he was back. In the first movie it felt to me that it is implying that Dairy has always been problematic (like society itself) and Pennywise represents the evil in society in a broader context anyway. That is the only way the themes are even effective imo. I suppose you could say the evil stopped in Dairy because they "killed" Pennywise in the first movie, but they really didn't. I just went with it in Part 2, though I agree it feels a bit forced. |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jul 25, 2020 23:40:44 GMT
Perhaps one of the dumbest movies ever, considering the whole point of splitting the book in two was to avoid a 3 hour long movie with a glut of flashbacks. Whoops.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 25, 2020 23:45:30 GMT
Perhaps one of the dumbest movies ever, considering the whole point of splitting the book in two was to avoid a 3 hour long movie with a glut of flashbacks. Whoops. I don't remember that many flashbacks tbh. I mean, at most the flashbacks take up 30 minutes of a 3-hour movie. That would still make a full version at least 4 hours long. I get your complaint though. The movie is definitely dumb, but my issue with it isn't the flashbacks. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 25, 2020 23:51:45 GMT
Perhaps one of the dumbest movies ever, considering the whole point of splitting the book in two was to avoid a 3 hour long movie with a glut of flashbacks. Whoops. I think what pissed me off most is that it almost seemed to use the in-joke about Stephen King's (I mean Bill's) book endings sucking as a way to not put in effort. Like the movie itself being stupid is suppose to be meta or something. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 25, 2020 23:59:53 GMT
5/10. It's well acted but honestly I didn't find it that scary. The first movie had more than its fair share of creepy moments. But this was mostly just gross.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jul 26, 2020 0:14:31 GMT
I liked it. It was an uphill climb to match the first one, i think mostly cuz its just far more believable to see kids in the situation rather than adults. I really liked it tho. The actors were spot on in comparison to their childhood counterparts, pennywise felt goofier this time around, but i loved the interactions he had with the random kids in the film, especially the little girl under the bleachers. It really showed how manipulative and vicious a creature he is.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 26, 2020 0:44:08 GMT
Perhaps one of the dumbest movies ever, considering the whole point of splitting the book in two was to avoid a 3 hour long movie with a glut of flashbacks. Whoops. I don't remember that many flashbacks tbh. I mean, at most the flashbacks take up 30 minutes of a 3-hour movie. That would still make a full version at least 4 hours long. I get your complaint though. The movie is definitely dumb, but my issue with it isn't the flashbacks. To me going back and spending time with those kids is a waste of time in this already long movie. I get that that would be a hook but then they could have cut something else. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 26, 2020 0:47:39 GMT
I don't remember that many flashbacks tbh. I mean, at most the flashbacks take up 30 minutes of a 3-hour movie. That would still make a full version at least 4 hours long. I get your complaint though. The movie is definitely dumb, but my issue with it isn't the flashbacks. To me going back and spending time with those kids is a waste of time in this already long movie. I get that that would be a hook but then they could have cut something else. I agree, but that is the least of the movie's problems for me. I wasn't annoyed by the flashback scenes as much I was by a lot of other stuff about the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 26, 2020 0:47:55 GMT
The book links the evil in Derry with the return to Pennywise and they sorta do that in the movie. However they set it up so sloppily because they did indeeed want to make a message about homophobia in and of itself. It’s certainly a noble gesture but it also felt tacky unless you learned the connections. They could have done it one if two ways. Inform the audience of Pennywise’s influence of the crime or inform the audience that the crime itself was a sign he was back. In the first movie it felt to me that it is implying that Dairy has always been problematic (like society itself) and Pennywise represents the evil in society in a broader context anyway. That is the only way the themes are even effective imo. I suppose you could say the evil stopped in Dairy because they "killed" Pennywise in the first movie, but they really didn't. I just went with it in Part 2, though I agree it feels a bit forced. It may be a chicken or egg thing but one influences the other whereas the scene, which does mirror the book to some degree, still feels like a scene basically showing a gay guy getting beaten up and then eaten by a clown. I do wish there was some way to have avoided splitting the films chronologically, but that would have been difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 26, 2020 0:53:29 GMT
In the first movie it felt to me that it is implying that Dairy has always been problematic (like society itself) and Pennywise represents the evil in society in a broader context anyway. That is the only way the themes are even effective imo. I suppose you could say the evil stopped in Dairy because they "killed" Pennywise in the first movie, but they really didn't. I just went with it in Part 2, though I agree it feels a bit forced. It may be a chicken or egg thing but one influences the other whereas the scene, which does mirror the book to some degree, still feels like a scene basically showing a gay guy getting beaten up and then eaten by a clown. I do wish there was some way to have avoided splitting the films chronologically, but that would have been difficult. I get it. I personally found the scene mostly effective though. I was happy they split it into 2 movies, but I think they just got lazy when they got around to part 2. I think they bloated it way too much for one thing. There is no reason the movie had to be more than 2 hours long, there is no reason it needed a whole bunch of OTT cgi scenes, there was no need for all the self referential humor etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jul 26, 2020 11:18:08 GMT
IT CHAPTER 1 had moments of humour, but they mostly came from the heroes' casual conversations or PENNYWISE (a supernatural child-killing clown) dicking around with his victims. The comedy in IT CHAPTER 2 is increased to campy levels, especially with how the heroes react to the threat. They do often seem afraid, but it's mostly "You gotta be kidding me" faces (they even say that sentence once or twice) and almost 4th-wall-breaking observations. It's not wrong to make a stand-alone movie like that, but this is supposed to be a sequel. It feels like it's part of the EVIL DEAD franchise instead. There's even a moment where a character (who actually looks like Bruce Campbell from a certain angle) doesn't display the pain of his huge injury and instead tells the others that he has seen someone from their past. How does he manage to recognize that person after 27 years, while being injured? Who knows. The movie still manages to be intense enough to be entertaining, and the performances are all very good, but the pacing is off. During the middle section, there's no real plot progression. It consists of each hero remembering a bad experience from their childhood, while they're dealing with PENNYWISE in the present. That kind of chronological narrative structure would work if this was (again) a stand-alone movie, but we already spent an entire movie with this gang as pre-teens. We know everything we need to know. These flashbacks are pointless. Wasn't the point of showing only the kids in the 1st movie to show only the adults in the 2nd movie, in order to fix the pacing issues caused by the flashbacks in the (very average) 1990 mini-series? If you needed to show more scenes from the past, why not that certain controversial moment from the book? Not that I want to see it, but I would respect the ballsy move to film it. I'm sure more screentime could've been spent on other things, like showing the parents' reactions to the news that their children have been murdered? Oh, and what about BILL DENBROUGH (one of the heroes) and his marital problems? That went nowhere. In every incarnation of this story, the love triangle between him and his friends BEVERLY MARSH and BEN HANSCOM has been underdeveloped and ultimately hasn't added anything. 6/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.
|
|
|
|
Post by shannondegroot on Jul 26, 2020 12:37:15 GMT
The new It movies were not good.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 26, 2020 14:15:21 GMT
It may be a chicken or egg thing but one influences the other whereas the scene, which does mirror the book to some degree, still feels like a scene basically showing a gay guy getting beaten up and then eaten by a clown. I do wish there was some way to have avoided splitting the films chronologically, but that would have been difficult. I get it. I personally found the scene mostly effective though. I was happy they split it into 2 movies, but I think they just got lazy when they got around to part 2. I think they bloated it way too much for one thing. There is no reason the movie had to be more than 2 hours long, there is no reason it needed a whole bunch of OTT cgi scenes, there was no need for all the self referential humor etc. It would need to be two movies but they should have introduced the adults in the first one. They were trying to intersperse the two anyway in the second one. |
|
