Film Review: “IT Chapter Two” (2019)

3 1/2 out of 5

Warning: Mild Spoilers

When the first “IT” came out in 2017 I was genuinely concerned that I wouldn’t be able to handle seeing cute kids being brutalized. My daughter had been born about seven months earlier and my son was two and half, maybe not the ages of the kids in the movie but the change that parenthood had brought to me had altered my sensibilities. That fear was eased by the climax of the opening scene when evil clown Pennywise turns into a silly CGI monster with a mouth full of shark teeth when he attacks little Georgie Denbrough. What followed was a competent mainstream horror film that followed the structure of a Nightmare On Elm Street film with the visual style and color palette from the Conjuring universe.
Because the stakes were low in Chapter One my expectations were low here. In the intervening years I had read the book and knew roughly what to expect, and in that regard I have to praise this film for utilizing so much of the behemoth text when Ch 1 simplified and streamlined everything.
On the whole I enjoyed myself. I also had the same issues I had with the first entry, specifically the odd tonal shifts which are magnified here. At points this film can’t tell whether it wants to be a comedy or horror, as well as quickly breaking into saccharine shmaltz faster than Spielberg ever could. I guess these are hallmarks of Director Andy Muschietti that will pop up in his future work (which will probably be superhero movies, let’s be honest) and I’d imagine that it will work better outside of the horror genre.
As for this film you won’t be surprised by anything you see. The formula from the first (get main character alone/spooky clown turns into CG monster/character gets away) is repeated about a dozen times over almost two hours. The standout scenes are the ones featuring new kids in modern times: the girl under the bleachers and the boy in the funhouse. These have set ups and (bloody) payoffs unlike those with the main cast which imbues then with actual tension. If you know that the Losers can’t die (a large part of these moments occur in 1989, a time in which we already know that our characters survive) then the copious scares built around them have no inherent anxiety. Don’t get me wrong these scenes are fun they just have no stakes.
Adult Ritchie gets attacked by a Paul Bunyan statue and lives, Bev faces the old naked lady and lives, each Loser gets ambushed by Pennywise and lives. If we believed that any of them could die at any moment then we as the audience might feel that. As it is the film is a haunted house attraction full of loud noises and things springing out at you but ultimately nothing more than that, and in an era of films like Hereditary that feeling is too light.
What works are the performances and the general wacky quality. If you enjoy the middle era of Nightmare On Elm Street when Freddy became a jokester and the reason to watch the films was to see his hijinxs offing intentionally annoying teens then you'll love this. Pennywise is very much a modern iteration of Freddy, and following that impulse is the right thing to do. Pennywise is who you want to see, who’s tricks you’re really here for. If you wanted a coming-of-age drama where adults look back at their childhood that’s meaningful and ripe with emotional resonance then look no further than the 1,200 page novel that inspired this.
The biggest misstep this film makes is not following the course it took with the first film by simplifying the story and condensing it into something more tangible and coherent. A lot of this plot meanders and much of it could've been pared down. I've read that Andy Muschietti wants to release a supercut of both films with additional deleted scenes added back in, and if they re-cut it all to be closer to the books structure it might smooth out some of the awkwardness here even if it would be six hours long.
I feel like Warner Brothers had reservations when IT came out in 2017. They made the right changes but they ended up making a film that didn't really beg a sequel. And here's the sequel and it's fine but not much better than "just fine".
I walked out after the almost three hour runtime surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did. It's an easy to digest horror spectacle that doesn't dwell too long on any one thing. Everyone brings their all to it and Bill Hader really shines. If you like these kinds of movies then you've probably already seen it; if you're not into this things then there isn't anything I feel compelled to say and try to sway you.
Part of me wants to take this and part one and put them in a box in my brain and file it all away but I can't help but wonder what comes next. I'm sure there will be more Stephen King adaptations coming and as a fan of the man I'm ready for that. I don't know the total budget to box office ratio yet but it's high. IT 1&2 are blockbuster films that have raked in a boatload of money and I can't imagine that Warner Bros and New Line are going to let such a magnetic villain like Pennywise (and the millions he'll pull in) go, and because of that I can't fully determine how I feel yet.
More than anything these days I feel less like horror movies are amazing or horrible, I feel like they're for people who are new to the genre and I think this set of films are perfect for people that want that introduction without taking a big risk. They'll probably float higher down here then me, and even though it's disappointing it could be worse.