I've been reading Stephen King's books since I was in 6th grade. I've always been impressed his ability to make me scared. I've always appreciated his ability to scare the shit out of me, and then console me with a sense of hope. People always talk about King's dark imagination. They rarely discuss the fact that the man values hope and love and positivity. He presents evil. But he allows the evil to be overcome.
I consider It (1986) to be his opus. It was a work that terrified me as a boy. It was a work whose beauty I marveled at upon a second reading two years ago. It may even be one of my favorite novels, period.
I own the 1990 miniseries and have watched it multiple times. Hell, I've seen almost all of the adaptations of King's work. It is a flawed work that still manages to scare me, even as I chuckle at the ridiculousness of the big final showdown.
I said all that to say this: I think Andy Muschietti and his team have done perhaps the best job of translating the heart and soul of King's work to the screen. Other filmmakers have adapted King's work, but they often overlook or overrule the heart at the center of the horror. Muschietti seems to understand that King's horror HAS to be balanced with humor and a romanticist's idealism. Evil is real, King says, but we can fight it. We can win.
2017's It was one of my favorite films of the year. Muschietti captured the spirit of the novel in ways that honored King's original work and also recontextualized its themes. The hype was real for the second installment.
So how does the second chapter hold up?
I. What Is It?
This is the story of The Losers. They stood tall against an ancient evil when they were kids. The return of that evil brings them all back home. Do they have what it takes to stand tall again? Can they defeat a being of pure fear?II. Astoundingly Beautiful
This movie is gorgeous. Checco Varese's photography is balanced, rich, and a feast for the eyes. Paired with Muschietti's gift for visuals and set pieces, It Chapter 2 is a solidly-constructed piece of film. The transitions are interesting: watch the way stars in the night sky become a missing puzzle-piece, or the way a reflecting adult morphs into his younger self. The ways the images and scenes blend together makes the present feel porous: the present is beset by the past, informed and enhanced by it. It all feels like a fever dream.
Benjamin Wallfisch's score is eerie and instantly iconic. The sound design is lush and specific.
The art direction is stuffed with wonderful details that bring the world of Derry, Maine to life.
Andy Muschietti is head boy in a new class of horror genre directors that are as concerned with the beauty of their films as they are with scaring you. And that is wonderful.
- It continues and expands the story of the first film.Benjamin Wallfisch's score is eerie and instantly iconic. The sound design is lush and specific.
The art direction is stuffed with wonderful details that bring the world of Derry, Maine to life.
Andy Muschietti is head boy in a new class of horror genre directors that are as concerned with the beauty of their films as they are with scaring you. And that is wonderful.
III. Crackerjack Cast
This thing is perfectly cast. And it's no stunt: yes, these adult actors look like their younger selfs, but are also able to sell the sense of history and pathos needed to make it all work. James McAvoy and Jessica Chastain take characters that are seemingly underwritten and make them shine; Bill Hader steals every second of screen time he has; Isaiah Mustafa plays a man marinaded in small-town madness for twenty-seven years quite well; James Ransone's Eddie Kaspbrak is on the razor's edge.
The first film featured incredible performances from its young stars. The second chapter is buoyed by affecting, committed acting.
And Bill Skarsgard proves again what a treasure he is. His performance is nothing short of iconic. He snarls and whimpers and salivates and utterly transforms himself into this ugly thing. It's a shame that the Academy Awards never seem to honor genre films like this, because his performance is statue-worthy.
The first film featured incredible performances from its young stars. The second chapter is buoyed by affecting, committed acting.
And Bill Skarsgard proves again what a treasure he is. His performance is nothing short of iconic. He snarls and whimpers and salivates and utterly transforms himself into this ugly thing. It's a shame that the Academy Awards never seem to honor genre films like this, because his performance is statue-worthy.
IV. Horror Epic
This is no mere horror film. It isn't simply here to scare you. It isn't content to make you jump in your seat. It's about repressed trauma. It's about years-long grief and the redeeming power of love and friendship. There are people who will critique the film for not being "scary" enough. I thought that it was scary plenty. It's scary because it's about real things. Pennywise is no mere slasher. He is fear. He exploits trauma and hate. A scary clown is scary. A clown that lures a little girl under the bleachers by playing on her experience with bullies, drawing her ever near with a sob-story of his own subjugation, is downright terrifying.
I have always hated nihilism in horror films. There's a sense of pointlessness to watching a film where everyone is doomed to be fodder for the beasties. This movie insists on hope. It tells you the only way to defeat fear is to belittle it and laugh in its face. You'll find how weak it really is. And you'll crush its fucking heart.
There are people who will blanche at the 169-minute run time. But, if I'm being honest, dear reader, I would have stayed in the theater another half hour at least. Yes, it's long. But I was having so much fun with the characters and their struggles, that I didn't mind the length at all. Here's to an extended BluRay cut, huh?
I would also like to tip my hat to Dauberman and Muschietti for packing in as much as they did. The novel is 1100 pages of epic horror. In two films, those men managed to get as much of King's vision on the screen as humanly possible. We got the Adrian Melon scene; we got Henry Bowers; we even got a nod to the original problematic ritual of Chud that captures King's intention without getting... fucking weird.
Is the book "better?" Yeah, but that's because I made the book my own private movie. As far as film adaptations go, Muschietti has threaded the needle of capturing the heart and soul of King's epic. The movie is undoubtedly Muschietti's. And it's wonderful. I appreciate that I can experience both visions, and love them both evenly.
I have always hated nihilism in horror films. There's a sense of pointlessness to watching a film where everyone is doomed to be fodder for the beasties. This movie insists on hope. It tells you the only way to defeat fear is to belittle it and laugh in its face. You'll find how weak it really is. And you'll crush its fucking heart.
There are people who will blanche at the 169-minute run time. But, if I'm being honest, dear reader, I would have stayed in the theater another half hour at least. Yes, it's long. But I was having so much fun with the characters and their struggles, that I didn't mind the length at all. Here's to an extended BluRay cut, huh?
I would also like to tip my hat to Dauberman and Muschietti for packing in as much as they did. The novel is 1100 pages of epic horror. In two films, those men managed to get as much of King's vision on the screen as humanly possible. We got the Adrian Melon scene; we got Henry Bowers; we even got a nod to the original problematic ritual of Chud that captures King's intention without getting... fucking weird.
Is the book "better?" Yeah, but that's because I made the book my own private movie. As far as film adaptations go, Muschietti has threaded the needle of capturing the heart and soul of King's epic. The movie is undoubtedly Muschietti's. And it's wonderful. I appreciate that I can experience both visions, and love them both evenly.
V. Wonky Script
I'm not going to lie: Dauberman's script is a bit wonky. There are some ham-handed lines in there. But, with a talented cast, and Muschietti's sure-hand, the film works.
VI. The One Thing I Can't Pardon...
If you want to avoid spoilers, you should breeze over this portion of the review.
.
.
.
SPOILERS:
Alright, in the novel, Stan Uris commits suicide after he receives Mike's call. Stan can't go back. His trauma overcomes him. It is one of the shattering tragedies of the novel. The film attempts to ennoble Stan's death by playing it like some form of calculated sacrifice. And that shit doesn't sit well with me at all. That is a betrayal of one of the most heart-breaking arcs in the source material. Muschietti wants to have his cake and eat it, too, here, and I am not down for that.
.
.
.
END SPOILERS
.
.
.
SPOILERS:
Alright, in the novel, Stan Uris commits suicide after he receives Mike's call. Stan can't go back. His trauma overcomes him. It is one of the shattering tragedies of the novel. The film attempts to ennoble Stan's death by playing it like some form of calculated sacrifice. And that shit doesn't sit well with me at all. That is a betrayal of one of the most heart-breaking arcs in the source material. Muschietti wants to have his cake and eat it, too, here, and I am not down for that.
.
.
.
END SPOILERS
Why You Should See It
- It captures King's ideas and themes in new and wondrous ways without betraying the author's intent.
- It is a staggeringly beautiful and surreal film.
- It will rattle you, it will make you laugh, and it may even bring a tear to your eye.
Why You Shouldn't See It
- It is a bit long, and a bit messy. But I like its shaggy-dog charm.
In Conclusion
Miscellany
- Bill Hader was approached to play Ritchie Tozier on Finn Wolfhard's, who played young Ritchie, recommendation. Hader said it was difficult for him to act scared because his natural reaction when he's scared is to nervously smile.- Skarsgard has admitted to having nightmares of Pennywise after filming completed.
- The filmmakers had to deploy digital de-aging techniques to off-set how much the original actors had aged since the first film.
- Combined, both of these films are over an hour longer than the original 1990 mini-series.
- The man himself, Stephen King, makes a cameo as the owner of an antiques store in Derry. He even ribs himself for being bad at writing endings, a major critique of his works.
- Brandon Crane, who played Young Ben in the mini-series, can be seen as one of the suits at Ben's firm in the film.
Comments
Post a Comment