It: Chapter Two (2019)

[Robert Lynch]

Great recap between the adults and child actors.

Edited September 12, 2019 by Robert Lynch

[Racj82]

11 hours ago, Robert Lynch said:

I admit I laughed when one of the couple's kid silently whispered, "It's Mike from Stranger Things!" That made my day. Did nobody noticed The Lost Boys poster and how the carnival kind of resembled Santa Cruz a bit?

Yes I noticed. Lost Boys in randomly big again for some reason. Not to long ago SNL had a sketch riffing on the sweaty saxophone player in the movie, Jordan Peele's US filmed where they did the carnival segments in Lost boys and had a little shout out in the movie, lastly there is talk of a new series based on the movie (naturally some characters would be gender swapped which is happening a lot more often these days).

[Morrigan2575]

12 hours ago, Racj82 said:

Yes I noticed. Lost Boys in randomly big again for some reason. Not to long ago SNL had a sketch riffing on the sweaty saxophone player in the movie, Jordan Peele's US filmed where they did the carnival segments in Lost boys and had a little shout out in the movie, lastly there is talk of a new series based on the movie (naturally some characters would be gender swapped which is happening a lot more often these days).

I believe the CW had a Lost Boys Pilot but, didn't pick up it, i think they left it on the table for the next Pilot Season.  Of course they're now looking at a Dark Shadows Reboot (guess CW loves their Soapy Vampire shows).  Not that I'm complaining, i'd watch both Lost Boys and Dark Shadows (if they were any good)

[Robert Lynch]

I must say I was surprised the hate crime was put into the beginning. I wasn't expecting that. Is it funny Xavier Dolan showed up again as a zombie at one point to tease Hader's character? I think he is a gay filmmaker in real life. Correct?

[Racj82]

2 hours ago, Robert Lynch said:

I must say I was surprised the hate crime was put into the beginning. I wasn't expecting that. Is it funny Xavier Dolan showed up again as a zombie at one point to tease Hader's character? I think he is a gay filmmaker in real life. Correct?

Im glad they kept the hate crime in.

Specifically because it shows how evil Derry is beyond just Pennywise. It spreads much deeper than that.

But, more importantly, I keep seeing people calling bullshit on Richie still not coming to terms with his sexuality or being able to express it to friends after all this time and that's not realistic. I'm like HEY IDIOTS. The opening scene shows you why people are afraid to come out.

[Jediknight]

8 hours ago, Racj82 said:

 The opening scene shows you why people are afraid to come out.

In a movie series about an evil entity taking the form of a killer clown, and murdering children, the most disturbing scene in all of it, was Adrian's murder.  Because Pennywise had nothing to do with that.  That was all humanity and the hatred some people have, and it woke Pennywise up.  It's something that's happened far too many times.

I liked it, not as good as Chapter One, but still good.  No shock that the cast was fantastic.  Did anybody honestly expect James McAvoy or Bill Hader to give a bad performance?

Had some nice "Hell yeah" moments.  Bill's response of "It beat the Devil", Eddie throwing the weapon at Pennywise, Bev kicking the door back into her father, and Eddie damaging Pennywise before the final confrontation.

And you had to love that Pennywise still ultimately terrified of the Losers Club.  Yeah, he wanted to destroy them, and kept trying to scare them, but he was still terrified of them deep down.  It took no time for Pennywise to get out of there when Eddie started choking him, and it didn't take much for them to make Pennywise small.  He's been afraid of them since they went into the Well House and Bev stabbed him, and he's been terrified of them since they beat the shit out of him.

[Robert Lynch]

It is also based on a real life hate crime that happened from 1984 in Bangor, Maine.

I am pretty sure it was a director's decision to modulate the voices and de-age the child actors themselves. I would think the child actors were acting the hell out of those parts that made them famous. Funny thing is the behind the scenes with the child actors shows how much they've grown over the years. Especially Finn Wolfhard. I hope they keep the wardrobe. LOL.

[Was-MArsenault]

We got two passes in the mail the other day from a local movie theater, and we're considering using them to go see the movie.

[Robert Lynch]

On 9/13/2019 at 1:06 PM, MikaelaArsenault said:

We got two passes in the mail the other day from a local movie theater, and we're considering using them to go see the movie.

It's a long movie. Make sure you take a long bathroom before seeing the film. It's a good movie, but it is very long.

[Silver Raven]

On 9/7/2019 at 4:11 PM, calliope1975 said:

I think the Henry Bowers stuff could have been cut.

Exactly.  It added nothing. Also, Bowers had to be pushing 60, he was awfully spry. Especially after having been stuck in a mental hospital for 40 years.

[Black Knight]

I saw this on Friday night. I was a bit confused by the Beverly/Mrs. Kersh scene, because I had seen it or something very like it before. It couldn't have been a replay from the first movie, could it? Was there maybe a scene in a film or TV show that was very similar? I did watch Castle Rock last year...but that was before this movie came out, could that series really have done a homage when the movie wasn't even out yet?

I don't typically watch extended trailers, and I wouldn't have done so for this movie.

[Robert Lynch]

That's Teach Grant as adult Henry Bowers! He has a very recognizable face because of all the shows I seen him in like Almost Human and Fringe. 

[Robert Lynch]

Info on Joan Gregson who plays Mrs. Kersh

God bless this woman and she did a nude scene in her mid-80s.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Robert Lynch

[Silver Raven]

6 hours ago, Black Knight said:

I saw this on Friday night. I was a bit confused by the Beverly/Mrs. Kersh scene, because I had seen it or something very like it before. It couldn't have been a replay from the first movie, could it? Was there maybe a scene in a film or TV show that was very similar? I did watch Castle Rock last year...but that was before this movie came out, could that series really have done a homage when the movie wasn't even out yet?

I don't typically watch extended trailers, and I wouldn't have done so for this movie.

The scene was used as a preview several months ago.

[ihavenoidea]

On 9/15/2019 at 4:14 PM, Black Knight said:

I saw this on Friday night. I was a bit confused by the Beverly/Mrs. Kersh scene, because I had seen it or something very like it before. It couldn't have been a replay from the first movie, could it? Was there maybe a scene in a film or TV show that was very similar? I did watch Castle Rock last year...but that was before this movie came out, could that series really have done a homage when the movie wasn't even out yet?

I don't typically watch extended trailers, and I wouldn't have done so for this movie.

Did you see the 1990 mini series? Because Beverly goes to her old home and talks to an old lady, same sorta tea scene too.

[Black Knight]

20 hours ago, ihavenoidea said:

Did you see the 1990 mini series? Because Beverly goes to her old home and talks to an old lady, same sorta tea scene too.

I did see the 1990 miniseries, both as a kid and then rewatched a few years ago on account of the movie coming out. So that indeed might be it. Thank you!

[DrSpaceman]

Saw this movie over the weekend with my son

I have not read the book or seen the first movie, but found this one pretty enjoyable.  Though I did not find it particularly scary.  Had scary scenes but nothing particularly memorable or horrifying. 

Loved Hader as always. 

Seems like a mash up of a scary Stand by Me follow up and Stranger Things, though I realize this predates both those I believe and its mixing eras to say that. 

thought the writing in the flesh on the stomach was pretty funny.  "NOoooooo........don't ruin my fabulous new gratuitous abs I am showing off!!!!"

[Robert Lynch]

Port Hope is really amazing. Someday we will see those locations soon. Canada has some nice scenery.

[ihavenoidea]

Has anyone else noticed there's a large amount of people who seem to be super into the clown? Am I the only one who really has no interest in that part at all and mostly enjoyed the book/miniseries/both new movies because of the friendship between the 7 losers? Like for me those little side excursions of us watching Pennywise killing those two random kids took away time they could have used to develop the adult losers bond more.  Yet when I read other reviews/thoughts, people seemed to love those two scenes the most.

[Robert Lynch]

For Finn Wolfhard to suggest Bill Hader to play his adult Richie part is just too awesome for word. 

[shireenbamfatheon]

On 9/19/2019 at 4:21 PM, DrSpaceman said:

Saw this movie over the weekend with my son

I have not read the book or seen the first movie, but found this one pretty enjoyable.  Though I did not find it particularly scary.  Had scary scenes but nothing particularly memorable or horrifying. 

Currently reading the book and it's definitely way more scary than the movie. One thing that bugged me about the first IT movie as well as this one is that IT just shows up and pranks the Losers before disappearing again, like it's more michievous than evil. But in the book, IT actually tries to kill the kids during their individual encounters. IT doesn't just show Mike his parents burning to scare him before ditching him, he actually transfers into a massive monstrous bird and tries to eat him.

As a horror movie, I don't think this one rates well. But it's the characters that set the two chapters apart from other horror movies. The coming of age part was done very well, and the dynamic between the Losers, as kids and adults, was the main draw for me. Still, I hope we get an eventual Netflix 10-episode series that leans more into the horror aspect, but still devotes enough time to characterization and interpersonal relationships.

[Robert Lynch]

On 9/22/2019 at 7:10 PM, shireenbamfatheon said:

Currently reading the book and it's definitely way more scary than the movie. One thing that bugged me about the first IT movie as well as this one is that IT just shows up and pranks the Losers before disappearing again, like it's more michievous than evil. But in the book, IT actually tries to kill the kids during their individual encounters. IT doesn't just show Mike his parents burning to scare him before ditching him, he actually transfers into a massive monstrous bird and tries to eat him.

As a horror movie, I don't think this one rates well. But it's the characters that set the two chapters apart from other horror movies. The coming of age part was done very well, and the dynamic between the Losers, as kids and adults, was the main draw for me. Still, I hope we get an eventual Netflix 10-episode series that leans more into the horror aspect, but still devotes enough time to characterization and interpersonal relationships.

I would not consider this horror at all and I seen every horror movie there is. I must admit, I recognized every Canadian actor there. It was just a who's who type for me. 

[Anela]

I finally saw this. I was a bit antsy in my seat, because it was too long for me, but I sat all the way through it. My dad didn't nap, either. 

Movies rarely scare me, but I'm glad that I went, because I needed the escapism for a few hours. 

[Miss Bones]

This is a duplicate thread.  Shouldn't it be deleted?

[GoldenGirl90]

‘It: Chapter Two’ screenwriter details potential Pennywise spin-off and deleted scenes “supercut”

I can see them shooting a movie that details the origins of It, titled “It Begins,” or something, just not sure how big of a market there is for that on the big screen... maybe they could do a Netflix series or TV series instead? Anyway, it sounds like the “supercut” version is already a done deal, but they haven’t shot the new scenes yet. 

[ihavenoidea]

On 11/24/2019 at 12:58 AM, GoldenGirl90 said:

‘It: Chapter Two’ screenwriter details potential Pennywise spin-off and deleted scenes “supercut”

I can see them shooting a movie that details the origins of It, titled “It Begins,” or something, just not sure how big of a market there is for that on the big screen... maybe they could do a Netflix series or TV series instead? Anyway, it sounds like the “supercut” version is already a done deal, but they haven’t shot the new scenes yet. 

I know there are a lot of people obsessed with the clown, but I don't see how this would work.  To me the appeal of It is the Losers Club. The 7 kids/adults are what make the book/movies.  I'm here for the supercut though.

[BetterButter]

[rmontro]

The main thing I took out of this movie is wow Bill does not care at all about that bike.  Every time he stops somewhere, he just throws it on its side on the pavement.  After he stops at the fairground he just slams it on the ground and I don't think we ever see it again. 

Even if I'm wrong on that, someone would have surely stolen it.  No bike locks, nothing.  Hopefully it found its way back to Stephen King and he could sell it again.

[paramitch]

So I finally saw this. I saw part 1, but was mixed on the idea of splitting it into two movies, so I finally caught it because I did want to see how it all ended. It was pretty much what I expected -- I didn't think it was a bad movie, but while I thought the first one was great, I thought this one was just okay.

I loved some stuff -- the casting of the adults/kids (Bill Hader!), Silver, the improvement of King's final fight (oh man, SO MUCH BETTER than the stupid spider), and I definitely liked the rewritten final ending (and was definitely a fan of them losing all the stuff about Audra, Bill screwing Bev, and the less said about Bev in the sewers as a kid, the better.). I really liked that the films doubled down on Bev as a sexual abuse victim, and I loved that Bev's fight with her abusive husband is blocked so that it eerily echoes that final confrontation with her father.

Where it gets weird is that I'm a longtime reader of the book -- it's one of my favorites by King, I've read it several times, and I think it's got some really beautiful writing and characterization. I have issues with it (that's for a separate post, except for what I address here), but I think it's great, and I do think the story of the adults is important. I just wonder if that aspect shouldn't have been integrated into part 1 more? Except that I really love part 1 the way it is.

I just felt like part 2 falls a little flat  on several fronts:

• Jessica Chastain. Look, she's a dependably good actor, and she wasn't bad here, but for me she lacked all the spark and courage Sofia Lillis brought to the part. I mean, to a shocking degree. Chastain just felt so flat to me as Bev here. She looked the part but the energy was all wrong.
• Mike. I agree with @Racj82 that oh, man, did they shortchange poor Mike, although Isaiah Mustafah was terrific and the spitting image of Chosen Jacobs. Mike is the entire storyteller and caretaker of the story in the book and here we learn SO little about him (in part 1 and 2). Worst of all for me here, the film cuts how much Mike sacrificed for all of them by consciously choosing to stay in Derry, how lonely he was, how much he had sacrificed. And worse, they made him seem just kind of off-balance and made the most important talks with Bill alone. Gah.
• Ben. See above. Ben is a lovely character in the book, and while he never quite forgot Bev when he grew up, there's more to him than that one postcard. (Although I freely admit that little baby Ben and the postcard in Part 1 made me cry.)
• The incredibly huge drawn-out fight scenes. They were practically Marvel-esque. Just so boring and most of them weren't remotely interesting for me.
• Character/bonding moments sacrificed for the stupid big fights. There was so much rich character stuff that could have been seamlessly included to add some richness to the Losers getting back together.
• Henry Bowers -- seriously not needed. I agree with those who felt it added very little to the story.
• I missed the destruction of It leading to the destruction of some of Derry -- I wish both films had made it clearer that the town itself is complicit with It at this point -- they are toxically codependent. And that before the big childhood fight with It, their innate toxicity was amplified by It. So all those confrontations later led to amnesia (Bev's dad, Eddie's Mom, etc., had very little memory of those big confrontations and life went on as normal).

On 9/8/2019 at 12:03 PM, Luckylyn said:

One thing the movie made clear was that although all except one left Derry that Derry had never left them.  Bill married a woman who resembles Bev and struggles to write happy endings because Georgie never got a happy ending.  Eddie and Bev married people who recreated the abusive dynamics they had with their parents.   Ben as an adult lived a life of loneliness similar to what his life was like before he bonded with the Losers. The book is better at conveying how alone Ben is.  Richie hides behind humor and avoids being vulnerable.  I think Mike and Ben were the most underwritten app n the film.  Ben’s whole arch is simply loving Bev.  Mike’s purpose is to provide exposition and bring the group together.

Eddie/Richie subtext was there in the novel and fans have been debating it since the novel was released.  It’s interesting that the actor who played Eddie in the tv miniseries wanted to make Eddie/Richie overt but I’m not surprised the team behind the miniseries weren’t willing to tackle it in 1990.  My interpretation was that Richie was a bisexual because he shows attraction for both Bev and mainly Eddie.   I do think Eddie and Richie had mutual but unconsummated feelings for each other.  The current movie is explicit about Richie’s feelings but Eddie’s remain ambiguous.

That's a lovely point about what the Losers brought from IT/Derry into adulthood. Beautifully put. I wish it had done a better job with Mike and Ben, but I agree that some of this is there if we look.

I really don't agree that the Eddie/Richie subtext is there in the book. I honestly think King is horrible on this front -- he's incredibly awkward when writing about homosexuality (or was at the time of IT), and while I don't think he's homophobic as a person (he's definitely an ally on social media, and his takedown of JKRowling in support of trans women was glorious).

I just think he doesn't know how to write about non-heterosexual relationships in a way that doesn't feel forced. The opening scene with Adrian and his partner is pretty awful in the book (incredibly stereotypical, tropes everywhere).

So I feel like the revelation that Richie is gay and that there was an unspoken thing between Richie/Eddie is something the screenwriter/filmmaker did, not King -- and I absolutely love it. In the book, Eddie is just tied to his grotesque caricature mom/wife duo (both really grotesquely and insultingly written by King, who tends toward being incredibly fatphobic and gross when it's the women who are overweight and not sweet little boys).

On 9/8/2019 at 4:33 PM, shireenbamfatheon said:

I've loved James Ransone as an actor ever since I saw him in Generation Kill so I was excited when he was cast as Eddie. He was wonderful here and his and Richie's dynamic was the highlight of the movie. Finding out that Richie was in love with Eddie after the latter died? Heartbreaking. And not gonna lie, I'm disappointed about the 'bury the gays' trope employed here, though as I understand it, the lgbt aspects were a lot more subtextual in the book?

On one hand, I'm very happy that Bev managed to escape the cycle of abuse and found a good man to love, but I'd have preferred her just dedicating some time to therapy and self-care after forty years of abuse instead of moving on to another man so soon. But again, I'm sure it's a lot more believable in the book where both characters are probably given more depth and things to do.

I was thrilled to realize it was Ransone as Eddie, since he was fantastic in both GENERATION KILL and THE WIRE. Terrific job here as always. Although I don't really agree that Eddie really falls under the "Bury your gays" trope, because it's not explicit that he's gay -- I would have been much angrier if Richie (whom we know is gay here) had died.

I agree with you on Bev. She and Ben are just shoved together into a "BE HAPPY NOW KISS!" happy ending and it's so forced. It really didn't work for me here.

On 9/9/2019 at 4:20 PM, shireenbamfatheon said:

I just saw a compilation of all the "subtextual" clues in the books, and now I understand what you mean. Richie's literally holding on to the popsicle while Eddie starts sucking on it. Then there's Eddie stroking Richie's cheek before dying, Richie kissing his cheek, and the "but he knew well why" line. No wonder so many people believe the book characters are coded as LGBT.
If this was always King's intention, I wish he'd been more overt about it. If he could have six 13-year-olds run a train on a 13-year-old girl, he could do this too.

I will never believe an Eddie/Richie ship was King's intention. King's mind at that point didn't work that way. I love the book, so I'm not putting him down, but the opening scene with Adrian and It was pretty much King's ability to write gay men at that point. No subtlety at all (the movie did a much better job). 

On 9/12/2019 at 8:43 PM, Racj82 said:

But, more importantly, I keep seeing people calling bullshit on Richie still not coming to terms with his sexuality or being able to express it to friends after all this time and that's not realistic. I'm like HEY IDIOTS. The opening scene shows you why people are afraid to come out.

I realized I was pan and demisexual over the past few years and I'm still not out to some close family and friends. It's not as easy as people think it is, and there are plenty of people who still react badly and in judgment. I did wish Richie had come out to his fellow Losers, simply because we know they would have accepted it and welcomed the knowledge, and given him the support he needed.

On 9/20/2019 at 10:00 PM, Robert Lynch said:

For Finn Wolfhard to suggest Bill Hader to play his adult Richie part is just too awesome for word. 

I loved that so much. Same with Sophia choosing Jessica. Just really cool that it worked out that way (and Chastain ended up directly recommending McAvoy).

On 9/22/2019 at 4:10 PM, shireenbamfatheon said:

Currently reading the book and it's definitely way more scary than the movie. One thing that bugged me about the first IT movie as well as this one is that IT just shows up and pranks the Losers before disappearing again, like it's more michievous than evil. But in the book, IT actually tries to kill the kids during their individual encounters. IT doesn't just show Mike his parents burning to scare him before ditching him, he actually transfers into a massive monstrous bird and tries to eat him.

I really feel like both movies let Mike down. They made him an orphan, took out his incredible father (who was a wonderful character), and the fire at the Black Spot is so horrifying and a riveting moment. I didn't mind them taking out the giant bird because it could have come off as laughable on film. But Mike just got so hosed by all his character development in both films.

On 6/14/2020 at 4:13 PM, rmontro said:

The main thing I took out of this movie is wow Bill does not care at all about that bike.  Every time he stops somewhere, he just throws it on its side on the pavement.  After he stops at the fairground he just slams it on the ground and I don't think we ever see it again. 

While I was moved by Bill finding Silver and riding it away joyfully, I laughed out loud that immediately after, he dumped the bike in the street to run off. (Everyone kept doing this in BOTH movies -- they didn't pull off the street, on multiple occasions, several characters, like Bill, just dumped the bikes in the STREET (visibly) and ran off. Just a weird immersion-breaker for me.

Edited July 30, 2022 by paramitch
forgot a big point

[starri]

3 hours ago, paramitch said:

I really don't agree that the Eddie/Richie subtext is there in the book. I honestly think King is horrible on this front -- he's incredibly awkward when writing about homosexuality (or was at the time of IT), and while I don't think he's homophobic as a person (he's definitely an ally on social media, and his takedown of JKRowling in support of trans women was glorious).

He's not homophobic at all.  Back in the 70s and 80s, he wasn't any worse than a lot of people, as depressing as that can be to remember.  His daughter (who identifies as non-binary) is married to a woman, and after they came out, you can notice how he wrote about the topic start to shift.

I can't speculate as to what his intentions were in the novel, but the film didn't invent it out of whole cloth.

[paramitch]

11 hours ago, starri said:

He's not homophobic at all.  Back in the 70s and 80s, he wasn't any worse than a lot of people, as depressing as that can be to remember.  His daughter (who identifies as non-binary) is married to a woman, and after they came out, you can notice how he wrote about the topic start to shift.

I can't speculate as to what his intentions were in the novel, but the film didn't invent it out of whole cloth.

Just to clarify -- I did say that in the post.

But to repeat: I do not think King is actually or consciously homophobic. But I do think he has tended to be incredibly awkward and uncomfortable when writing male homosexual relationships and characters (which is extremely rare for him to include at all), and those he does write are usually coded as villains -- Patrick Hockstetter (and Henry Bowers) in It, the Kid in the expanded The Stand, the "dog-man" in The Shining, plus (strongly implied as gay) villainous characters in The Green Mile, Hearts in Atlantis, etc.

This article enunciates my take pretty well:

"...making the more prominent Richie (and perhaps Eddie) queer is still significant. It reads like an attempt to correct not just the horrifying hate crime in It, but also to an unfortunate homophobic undercurrent that runs through several of King’s novels. When the author has mentioned or depicted queer sex, it is almost always linked to psychopathy, a likely unintentional subtext that nevertheless refelcts dangerous stereotypes about queer people."

And here:

"There’s certainly something admirable about It Chapter Two’s attempts to queer the story for a more progressive 2019 audience, but no matter how noble its intentions, the end result falls flat. If the love between Richie and Eddie were more clearly defined — or even if Richie displayed any relationship to his own queerness beyond his fear of being outed — then this might feel like more meaningful queer representation. As it stands, the “R+E” revelation is a surprise, but an empty one that doesn’t ultimately do much to balance the scarcity of queer characters in King’s work, or to undercut the violence associated with his depictions of sex between men."

I agree with the article here -- I loved that Richie in the film is gay -- it makes tremendous sense for the character, it gives an added complexity to his often cruel jokes in both book and film, and Hader acted the hell out of it. I still don't think it went far enough. Why, at the end, in the quarry with the other Losers, didn't Richie admit to his feelings, which added so much to the depth of his loss and reaction (in what was absolutely the safest space he will ever find)? It just felt a little pallid to me and odd. I'm not saying Richie (or anyone) has to be out -- God knows it's not easy to do so -- but a hint of a glimpse at his other life (a call from a past boyfriend, something) would have made it seem more real.

Anyway. I don't think King himself is a homophobe. But I think his writing (especially that writing accomplished, like It, when he was self-admittedly high through almost all of the writing process) betrays some subconscious issues with it on his part.

Sorry for the wall of text -- hope that helps.

I do love the character of Dayna (an openly bi woman) in The Stand (although of course

Spoiler

she almost immediately dies, in a classic Bury Your Gays moment)

and there's another relationship that he wrote fairly sensitively that isn't mentioned often but that I think is absolutely coded as queer, in The Long Walk, between Ray and Pete (although yet again, it's presented as an unhealthy expression of Pete's own self-hatred and desire to self-destruct).

I do think all this demonstrates is that King has been acclimating himself with these concepts over the decades as time has gone on. As I said in my previous post, he's very definitely been a total public ally, and his delight over the It Chapter 2 filmmakers making Richie unquestionably gay is awesome.

Thanks for the discussion!

Edited July 31, 2022 by paramitch
fixed quote