IT Chapter Two might be the strangest film I’ve ever seen in wide-release.
Andy Muschietti’s followup to his 2017 IT adaptation clocks in at 2 hours and 50 minutes of runtime, which keeps the audience entertained for every second of it. It had intriguing moments of horror and effects that improved upon the first film’s. The makeup artists decided to go for extensive makeup slightly enhanced by CGI instead of full-on CGI monstrosities for most of the effects, which seemingly positively influenced the acting as well, giving the actors real visions to react to and interact with.
Here’s why it’s – or It’s – weird. One of the jaw-dropping moments is during an inexplicable scene where Eddie, the adult version of the hypochondriac kid from the first film, confronts It in the form of a leper that terrorized him in his youth. As Eddie chokes the leper, screaming obscenities at it, it vomits black liquid on his face in slow motion as the chorus of the Juice Newton song “Angel of the Morning” blasts for only a few seconds. This song isn’t referenced at any point in either films and feels out of place. It almost seems like it was left there by mistake, somehow a reference to an imaginary or unannounced deleted scene about Eddie’s attachment to the song and its soothing powers. Somehow, despite how silly it is and how much I connect to Eddie’s story and his strength in overcoming his fears, I feel like it somehow might have worked for me. It’s always fun to be surprised in a tense scene, although it seemed uncalled for.
In another strange scene, Mike is explaining to Bill how he has come to discover a method for defeating It during a spiritual journey he took with a Native American tribe. The editing and effects during this scene are indescribable and disorienting, camera effects I’ve never seen in a blockbuster movie before, which are made more unnerving when it’s revealed Mike has inexplicably drugged Bill in order for him to understand his experience. It’s glamour lineup even includes a giant Paul Bunyan statue (thanks to Stephen King) and a pomeranian (thanks to Gary Dauberman). I still can’t figure out why Muschietti and the editors decided to include such odd moments, but I’m grateful to be confused sitting in the theater seeing a sequel to one of the highest grossing horror films of all time.
A standout performance came from Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise the Dancing Clown. His portrayal in the 2017 film was irritatingly creepy and manic in a way that was clearly to disturb the audience as opposed to the characters in the narrative. This didn’t work in the world as it made it unbelievable that any child would be convinced to fall into his traps, as Pennywise supposedly uses a fake kindness to do so. The change between 2017 and 2019 is clear in a particularly memorable scene where Pennywise is about to lose the attention of a young girl he’s lured under the bleachers at a baseball game. He realizes her insecurity surrounding her facial birthmark and accuses her of leaving in fear of his appearance, which he cries that everyone judges him for. She feels sympathy for him, approaching him before he eats her offscreen. This reminded me of the subtlety of Tim Curry’s performance in the 1990 miniseries in which he expressed Pennywise’s tendency to feast upon children’s trauma and lack of confidence rather than only hunting and frightening them, which I think is a much more believable and disturbing portrayal of perhaps the most terrifying monster in fiction. Pennywise was written here as much more of an aware and tormenting figure, possessing the ability to behave like a normal clown rather than a hungry animal, which was refreshing and definitely boosted my opinion of the movie as a whole.
Despite how fun and interesting many of the choices made are, and Pennywise’s improvements, it lacked the same charm and complexities that the kids had when portraying the characters. Partly, this can be blamed on the acting that felt lacking at times, an exception being James Ransone as Eddie. He gave a unique performance that felt most in tone with him as a kid rather than a completely new take on the character, balancing humor with raw emotions. Although the performances from most of the adults were wooden, I felt like mostly the writing was to blame.
The movie took preference for scariness and action over vital characterization, leaving me feeling somewhat disappointed when emotional culmination for each character came during the climax. In the opening, a gay couple are victims of a hate crime as they’re leaving a fair in Derry. After we have already watched them beaten in a torturously long and gruesome scene, the attackers throw one of the men off of a bridge into flowing water below, where the surviving boyfriend watches the other get his heart graphically torn out by Pennywise, which was a distasteful choice that placed shock value over nuance that would have allowed for a more moving, subtle scene. Although these queer characters are portrayed as heroes and the violence against them is condemned, it still felt like a cheap scare to include such a gratuitious punch of violence as the end of an already horrific experience. Couldn’t we have simply seen Pennywise reach towards the victim, disappearing as balloons floated by, rather than giant ridiculous teeth rip into him in front of his boyfriend?
The plot concerning Richie Tozier’s sexuality and the way that It preys on his insecurities surrounding it at times felt cheap, almost shoved into the film, especially after the almost appalling opening scene. While I liked the inclusion of this subplot and felt like it was a valuable and moving idea, the execution made me wish they’d decided to either give it the gravity it deserved or cut it entirely. Beverly Marsh’s struggles with her abusive husband only are shown in one brief scene, and she hardly speaks to her friends about her own issues, lacking the same charm and caring nature that Beverly had as a child, and the other Losers still have, that can’t be explained by maturing and years of distance. Overall, their characters came off as cold and one-dimensional when the kids in the first film gave intriguing performances and had more human, complex characterizations. Actually, almost all of the Loser Club’s fears are caricatures of their childhood experiences, hardly expanding on them into what they should/could have been, which Stephen King’s book seemingly did perfectly. In concept, the adult versions of the kids confronting the trauma that has followed them all of their lives and is being rerooted decades later is fascinating and promising. However, there was just something just felt like it wasn’t there and it should have been, almost but not yet satisfying. I’m not one to constantly compare movie adaptations to book versions. Doing that is unfair and mostly just a waste of time. Still, you’d think in an almost exhaustingly long runtime they could have afforded more time given to the characters people love to relate to.
Overall, I decided that the story of IT must be a very daunting one to adapt onscreen, which makes me want to give some leeway and forgiveness to the creators of this adaptation. Both the miniseries from the 90s and the recent films seemed to fall short of expectations. Some of the scares that come off as deeply upsetting and horrifying in writing come off as slightly tacky or goofy onscreen. However, there seemed to be no excuse at times for the way that the film was lacking, and seemingly much more was shot that deserved to take place in the final product rather than some filler that we received. Because of that, unsurprisingly this movie had the primary goal of selling tickets, but still made lots of interesting choices that will hopefully inspire some changes to the current state of horror movies.
