***SPOILER THREAD*** It Chapter Two | September 6, 2019 | Warner Bros./New Line ***SPOILER THREAD***

[MOVIEGUY]

Random tangent, I've seen stuff saying the humor in the movie undercuts the horror by removing the tension with a joke... but the humor was the movie's most effective stuff and the tension wasn't really there to begin with. I think they're doing a favor by at least trying to add some humor to the horror scenes, because they're not scary, and if they're not scary they might as well be SOMETHING. Say what you will about the door/pomeranian scene, again, not scary, but it was probably the most genuinely entertained I was the whole movie.

 

As far as why the horror doesn't work, in some cases (fortune cookie eyeballs) the situations are too over the top and hokey to be scary, and you might think maybe it's not supposed to be scary-scary, maybe they're going for some grotesque, freaky Sam Raimi-esque imagery but it's not that either. It's just.., a dud. That's it. It's boring. In the case of artifact quest when a bunch of the big "BOO!" moments happen, everything's too repetitive to be remotely scary. They'll have their little flashback, the clown will show up and fuck with them then they'll run off and be fine. Once you've established that it's hard to feel any fear when you know pretty much exactly how the scene will play out (that combined with the aforementioned hokey and over-top-ness of these scenes). And when you're at a 10PM showing of a 3 hour movie you really start to feel that runtime, it kinda feels like a big waste of time and I'm just sitting there thinking "Will this god damn clown just eat some more kids already so I can go home?"

Edited September 11, 2019 by MOVIEGUY

[Krissykins]

2 hours ago, MOVIEGUY said:

Random tangent, I've seen stuff saying the humor in the movie undercuts the horror by removing the tension with a joke... 

Yeh I seen a tweet getting a lot of heat for saying if there’s comedy, it’s not horror. 

 

Which is officially nonsense. 

[Krissykins]

The Richie/Eddie revelation has really stuck with me since Friday. The bridge scene at the end made me tear up in the cinema. A a gay guy, it was so well done. 

[AndyK]

6 hours ago, Krissykins said:

The Richie/Eddie revelation has really stuck with me since Friday. The bridge scene at the end made me tear up in the cinema. A a gay guy, it was so well done. 

Did I miss something, what happened?

 

I thought the gay couple getting beat up at the start was a bit random, I thought the bullies were going to get their come uppence but nothing happened to them.

[75Live]

37 minutes ago, AndyK said:

Did I miss something, what happened?

 

I thought the gay couple getting beat up at the start was a bit random, I thought the bullies were going to get their come uppence but nothing happened to them.

 

That beginning part with the beating of the gay couple was to show why Richie never came out as being gay until the end of the movie.  It was one of his fears that IT used on him when he was younger and as an adult.  It was his "dirty secret" that Pennywise was referring to.  That was the main purpose of having that beginning scene in the film.  Foreshadowing basically 

 

The carving his initials and Eddie's into the kissing bridge was kind of his coming out moment 

Edited September 10, 2019 by 75Live

[JB33]

11 hours ago, Krissykins said:

The Richie/Eddie revelation has really stuck with me since Friday. The bridge scene at the end made me tear up in the cinema. A a gay guy, it was so well done. 

The bridge scene was a real gut punch. One of the most horrifying scenes in the movie actually.

[filmlover]

10 hours ago, 75Live said:

 

That beginning part with the beating of the gay couple was to show why Richie never came out as being gay until the end of the movie.  It was one of his fears that IT used on him when he was younger and as an adult.  It was his "dirty secret" that Pennywise was referring to.  That was the main purpose of having that beginning scene in the film.  Foreshadowing basically 

The homophobic attack at the beginning was from the book (it wasn't included in the miniseries) and was actually inspired by a real life hate crime. In addition to foreshadowing for Richie, it also comes across as King reinforcing the notion that true evil, like IT, comes in many forms (and also that fictional terror could never compete with real life terror - we've never heard of the discovery of evil killer shapeshifting clowns, but we unfortunately still hear about hate crimes like this on a consistent basis over 30+ years after the book was published).

[expensiveho]

On 9/9/2019 at 10:19 PM, MOVIEGUY said:

I AGREE, I'm sick and tired of all these horror movies not brutally dismembering and killing these bratty, useless kids and thank god the It series is here to correct that. SOMEBODY NEEDS TO SAY IT BY GOD. Enough with all this "only teens and young adults can meet their gruesome end, no kids" nonsense. I say that little punk Danny had what was coming to him and it should've been him instead of Scatman Crothers, riding his little scooter around thinking he was the shit.

Honestly this is why I loved the movie. 

 

It wasn't scared of going there. The homophobic attack was gruesome and visceral (I saw some warnings on Twitter and still was a bit triggered by it), it didn't try to soften it for audiences. That plus the violent husband, the rape references and the kids being killed felt brutal but they also didn't look like just shock value. 

-

 

As someone that didn't read the book, I thought this was way better than "Chapter I" and my only complaint is that the scares are indeed a bit repetitive. 

[harlequinade]

I find the comments about humor messing up the tension in the movie ridiculous. Only two characters do it - Eddie, who always been neurotic and sarcastic and Richie who is literally shown to use humor as defense mechanism throughout his life and even making a career out of his tendency to tell jokes all the time

[dudalb]

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 9:18 AM, harlequinade said:

I find the comments about humor messing up the tension in the movie ridiculous. Only two characters do it - Eddie, who always been neurotic and sarcastic and Richie who is literally shown to use humor as defense mechanism throughout his life and even making a career out of his tendency to tell jokes all the time

Agreed. This whole idea that humor an  horror don't mix is stupid.

And I  hate this laying down of arbitery rules for genre films anyway.

Of course if it badly done it does hurts the film, but you can say that about everything.

And lets' face it, everybody's favorite line from the first film was the "And Now I have To Kill This Fucking CLown" monologue.

Edited September 12, 2019 by dudalb

[harlequinade]

For me "Can he see us?" and "I know your moves, you little bitch" win in this one lol But Ransone's line about Bowers' mullet was hilarious too

[cheesypoofs]

On 9/11/2019 at 12:18 PM, harlequinade said:

I find the comments about humor messing up the tension in the movie ridiculous. Only two characters do it - Eddie, who always been neurotic and sarcastic and Richie who is literally shown to use humor as defense mechanism throughout his life and even making a career out of his tendency to tell jokes all the time

Agreed. I honestly thought that there was more humor in the first one than in this one.

[NamakFiskKa]

The first half of this movie >> whole IT ch 1

 

More scares and The Loser club just being Losers is wut I wanted/liked about the first movie

Edited September 13, 2019 by NamakFiskKa

[Spidey Freak]

King killing Eddie just to fuck me up every time the second half of the book gets adapted. 

[75Live]

Well I haven't seen the complaints about too much comedy in this film, however, if there are complaints, I don't get it. I know I said my one "negative", if you want to call it that was the Eddie/Bowers scene, however it wasn't that silly because it was comedic, that scene just felt off.

 

I love the comedy in this film and I think it was one of the highlights of the movie.

[baumer]

Adrian Mellon getting killed at the beginning wasn't random.  Yes it was a homophobic hate crime but it was one of the events that gets Mike to call the adult losers again.  No there was no comeuppance in the movie, but there was in the book.  Some of the guys go to Shawshank, some go to Juniper and I think one of them got 6 months or something.  There was a very detailed part in the book that one of gang members reported seeing Pennywise and so does Adrian's boyfriend.  This part never is part of the trial because the police chief in charge makes sure of it.  He doesn't want these guys getting a lighter sentence because two separate parties reported seeing a derelict clown under the bridge.  The police chief is also the father of one of the girls who goes missing and he is also the guy, who 27 years earlier, had his dad be the first one to discover Georgie's mutilated body.  All of this stuff doesn't need to be in the movie of course, but it's small but intricate details like that, that make the book so thrilling for me.

 

Richie wasn't gay in the book, he in fact was married, several times I think.  So that was just done for the movie.

 

Beverly also didn't see anyone's death happening in the book, also written for the movie.  

 

The cool thing about Stan's death, and you see it so briefly, is that he writes the word IT in is own blood on the bathroom wall after he slit is wrist.  And the way it looked in the bathroom is the way the word IT is written on the book cover and on the some of the posters.  

 

In the book, Henry and Hockstetter get out of Juniper in a 58 red and white Plymouth Fury.  That is Christine.  I really wanted them to have this in the movie.

 

There is no shared universe with with Nightmare on Elm Street and IT.  They just had the movie playing to show that it was 1989.  There's also no shared universe with Lethal Weapon and IT or Lost Boys and IT.

 

Beverly basically marries her father.  In the book her husband regularly beats her if she "Steps out of line".  He also gets sexually aroused when he does so, hence him taking off his shirt in the movie after he hits her with the belt.  In the book, Bev decides that she isn't going to take it anymore and it's implied that she gets the strength to leave Tom because of her memories and pact with the Losers.  Tom does show up later in the book, as does Bill's wife, Audra.

 

In the book, Henry's dad is not a policeman, but a farmer, and he beats Henry a lot.  So when Henry does kill him, it's not a big deal.  His dad kind of deserved it.  

[sabrecmc]

I enjoyed this, though it was a bit overlong and took some time to get going.  But, some great performances.  Hader was fantastic.  McAvoy was actually the weak link, I thought?  He didn't seem to have Bill's presence, the way it is described in the book.  The scenes with the kids still were the highlights, but that was true of the book, too.  It was actually funnier than really scary to me, but I'm okay with that b/c I haven't really seen a horror movie that is actually scary (other than jumpscares, I guess).  Most are unintentionally funny, at least to me, so the fact that this one seemed to understand a bit of its own ridiculousness was good.  Like, one of the better scenes was with the Pomerainian, I thought, and that really worked well for me b/c the characters reacted like people who were just *done* with this BS, which I think at that point you would be. 

 

Anyway, I liked it. It wasn't great, and there were some missteps, but overall, I enjoyed it quite a lot.  Looking forward to the 6 hour director's cut, lol.