IT CHAPTER TWO (2019)
Well boys and girls, here were are with the conclusion to Stephen King's It. Again. The ending to the original TV movie is one of those memories many viewers share similar feelings about. The adult actors aren't as good, the pacing is off, and the internal logic of the story quickly falls apart. Particularly during the final battle with unspeakable horror, and that whole shoe-string budget spider set piece. It sets a clear template on what to avoid, with all the pitfalls mapped out. Surely nothing can go wrong this time, right? But in their efforts to reproduce the elements that worked in part one, it seems as though they've spent all their time shoe-horning in extra childhood scenes. In a strange turn of events all the important elements have been overlooked.
It's a long, bloated adventure, instead of a lean thrill ride. Are we supposed to feel the rush of returning to face past traumas, or just the long lasting effects of Pennywise being in hibernation? The adult cast are mostly fine but some of them feel out of place. Even when they're not constantly being compared to the younger actors. It jumps back and forth constantly with flashbacks, to remind everyone which adults look nothing like their former selves. The structure of the movie itself fights against these people having friendships or making connections, and constantly splits up the gang. Why bother reigniting the old times when they can be sent out on a treasure hunt? A totem quest to find things that represent personal stakes, instead of writing some in.
There's no real chemistry between Bev (Jessica Chastain) and Ben (Jay Ryan.) The latter in particular lacks screen presence, and that's only when their supposed romance is even focused on. Richie (Bill Hader) and Eddie (James Ransone) have the closest to what you might call actual friendship, and even then it's weirdly rushed and glossed over at times. Some sequences involving Bill (James McAvoy) try to reaffirm the thematic meat of the story, as he's forced to face his past failures. But these elements are never given enough breathing room despite the monolithic running time. There's no space for human drama when the makers are desperate to get to the next flashback or CGI monster.
Bill's misadventure in a house of mirrors is symbolic of the overall problem; this is more of a ride than a real movie. Pennywise (Bill Skarsgård) does something spooky, in the past and the present, then the scene ends so things can move on. It's plodding and badly paced, and most of the visual effects are not great. Crazy old folks and moving statues just look like cartoon characters, and the whole thing often starts to feel like a misjudged comedy. Which could be fine, dark comedy in horror is a thing. But it's not the tone this was ever going for. Eddie's encounter with the leper from part one includes pop music. A random throwback to 1982's The Thing makes no sense before it becomes farcical. And it's still basically a giant spider at the end.
Some attempts are made to either make this a serious story, or at least an interesting one. The town of Derry is still filled with negative energy, as a chilling opening shock sequence shows. Mike (Isaiah Mustafa) is still researching the cause of all this, resulting in some neat extra-terrestrial suggestions. Pennywise still has the ability to be creepy, as shown in various bursts of violence. But the entire thing seems like a mixture of random moments, most of which don't hit the same mark. It should have been easy to avoid the soap opera trappings of the original two part miniseries. But while it may have been corny at times, at least it had brevity and low budget charm on its side.
If you're just looking for a slew of digitally created spectacle scenes this might hold more appeal. But if you want a real horror film with proper characterisation and thematic weight, this isn't that. It should have been about guilt, trauma, or trying to escape the past. But instead it's just about a bunch of wacky monster running amok. There's some fun to be had, but it's too little too late in most instances. Cramming so much into the narrative is bold in some ways. In other ways it's just a patience test once the patterns of the story structure become obvious. Eventually just a dull slog, and a whole lot of wasted potential.
2/5
BONUS REVIEW
CANDYMAN (2020)
This next part-sequel part-remake on the other hand hits more than it misses. Although it still manages to take a few wild swings along the way. It's a story full of interesting ideas, but perhaps less of them would have resulted in more focus. Is it about the repeating cycles of violence in society? Is Candyman himself a single supernatural figure, or a recurring piece of folklore? Or is he still the ghost of Daniel Robitaille (Tony Todd)? Perhaps this just a much belated follow up to the original Clive Barker story, another example of old brands being recycled. Or perhaps it's too close to becoming a silly B-movie about an artist getting revenge on his critics.
This is at least a measured, well paced, well shot thriller. The music occasionally nods towards the original Philip Glass score, keeping some connective tissue. But the new themes by Robert Aiki Aubrey Lowe are appropriately cold and unsettling. There are a lot of eerie reflective surfaces and there a lot of harsh architectural designs. Anthony (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) is an artist struggling to find new inspiration, before he falls into a rabbit hole of urban legends and grisly murders. His performance as someone struggling with creativity, and later his sanity, holds this all together. Particularly during scenes when he fails to hide his glee as the deaths make him, and his paintings, more famous.
The uneven elements come in the way it mixes old and new, some to great success and others less so. Helen (Virginia Madsen) from Candyman 1992 is discussed several times. But later it's suggested that a Candyman type figure existed in the 1970s and in many other periods. Are they all victims of fate, and did Helen never research them? How does her own story fit into this pattern? How does Anthony's bee sting mutation figure into all this? The connection between his fairly comfortable life and all those people speaking into mirrors to summon ghosts isn't clear enough. Third act reveals do shed some light on all of this, but certain elements still feel rather abrupt. There's plenty of food for thought, but there's often no time to explore it effectively. Still, it's as well crafted movie in other areas that can't be discounted.
3/5
