Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

BuzzJack Music Forum _ Movies _ IT Chapter Two

Posted by: Jαsє Jul 28 2019, 10:48 AM



In the sleepy town of Derry, the evil clown Pennywise returns 27 years later to torment the grown-up members of the Losers' Club, who have long since drifted apart from one another.

Bill Skarsgård returns as Pennywise along with James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain, Bill Hader, Isaiah Mustafa, Jay Ryan, James Ransone, and Andy Bean, who portray the adult versions of The Losers Club. Jaeden Lieberher, Sophia Lillis, Finn Wolfhard, Chosen Jacobs, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Jack Dylan Grazer, and Wyatt Oleff return from the first film as the younger Losers.

Its been confirmed that the film is currently coming in at a whopping 2 hours and 45 minutes ohmy.gif Director Andy Muschietti shed some light on its runtime:

QUOTE
"A movie is very different when you're writing the script and you're building a story compared to what the final product is. At the beginning, when you're writing and building the beats of the story, everything that you put in there seems very essential to the story. However, when you have the movie finally edited and it's 4 hours long, you realise that some of the events and some of the beats can be easily lifted but the essence of the story remains intact. You cannot deliver a 4-hour movie because people will start to feel uncomfortable – no matter what they see – but we ended up having a movie that is 2 hours and 45 minutes, and the pacing is very good. Nobody who's seen the movie has had any complaint."


My most hyped film of 2019 and I can't bloody wait!!

Posted by: Rooney Jul 28 2019, 02:25 PM

Yep excited for this, the book was excellent and I loved the first film. Hoping this does well again!

Posted by: BridgeCow Jul 28 2019, 06:47 PM

SO hyped about this being so long omg

Posted by: Jαsє Jul 28 2019, 06:52 PM

It's SO rare to get a horror/supernatural film which goes over 2 hours so I'm shook but in a VERY good way!

Posted by: Spiceboy Aug 13 2019, 09:29 AM

I cannot wait for this the first one was SO good!!

Posted by: jotiko Aug 22 2019, 02:14 AM

l love jessica chastain movie so exciting for this movie

Posted by: Jαsє Aug 23 2019, 02:52 PM

Seeing it on Sunday 8th. Just booked my ticket wub.gif

Posted by: Jαsє Sep 3 2019, 05:58 PM

Currently 78% on Rotten Tomatoes. The first one has 86%!

Posted by: Jack Sep 6 2019, 11:13 PM

Absolutely f***ing terrible. Opening scene was openly homophobic?!?!

I'm furious

Posted by: 365 Sep 6 2019, 11:23 PM

I thought it was a mess too and the opening scene did NOT work.

Posted by: Jack Sep 6 2019, 11:28 PM

Honestly one of the worst movies I've ever seen - I'm shocked its getting ANY good reviews. I hope it ends up getting a lot of backlash soon.

I loved the first film too, I'm in shock!

Posted by: Jonjo Sep 6 2019, 11:48 PM

I thought it was really good. Nowhere near as good as the first, but the only issue I had with it was that it was about 25-30 mins too long and thus resulted in one "scare" too many that it got to the point where I was a bit "eh" by the big finale. I thought the older cast had their characters down perfectly and I loved that they still included the kids in some way!

But going back to my problem with the movie, I'm getting bored of movies being overly long for the sake of being long and being seen as "artistic" when it's really, quite pretentious and insufferable at times. This, The Lion King & Once Upon A Time In Hollywood all from this year alone really could've been much better and more solid had they not just had individual scenes drag on and on. Ugh. Such a pet peeve lately. Only Avengers kept my interest for so long this year and that's mainly coz the pacing was cleverly done (pretty slow, but important, first half driving to a thrill seeking, adrenaline fueled 2nd half). Just single shots and scenes were dragged out for a lot longer than needed in those movies. Bleh.

As for the opening scene, I believe it was kept in due to it being in the novel in which King wrote it based on an actual event that happened in his town when he was writing the book, hate crime still very much existing today and therefore it's still very relevant. I believe they have referenced that as to why it's been kept in the film a few times in the press etc.. I'll see if I can find one (but gahhh. I'm sad it didn't work for you and you hated the movie so much sad.gif )

Posted by: Jonjo Sep 6 2019, 11:51 PM

Here's a segment of this https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/it-chapter-2-opening-scene-andy-muschetti-jessica-chastain-release-date-trailer-a9079891.html:

QUOTE
The sequel to horror film It is almost here and warnings are being issued ahead of the release due to its depiction of a hate crime.

In a new interview, director Andy Muschetti explained the reason behind his decision to include the terrifyingly brutal scene that adapts the moment from Stephen King’s novel, in which a gay couple is attacked by a group of teenagers in Derry, Maine.

It’s a standalone sequence that ends distressingly and doesn’t get referred to again in the film. But, Muschetti was adamant he had to include the moment in the follow-up.

“It was very important to me because it is of relevance,” he told Variety. “I probably wouldn’t have included it if it wasn’t in the book, but it was very important for Stephen King. When he wrote it, he was talking about the evil in the human community. He was talking about how dark humans can get in a small American town.

“For me, it was important to include it because it’s something that we’re still suffering. Hate crimes are still happening. No matter how evolved we think society is going, there seems to be a winding back, especially in this day and age where these old values seem to be emerging from the darkness.”

The inclusion of the moment in the novel was inspired by real events that saw a gay man named Charlie Howard killed by a group of teenagers in the author's hometown of Bangor in 1984."
I was surprised that Pennywise ended up not eating one of the bad guys though but I assume that was just to emphasize just how evil he is. It was a very shocking scene, even for today though.

Posted by: Jack Sep 6 2019, 11:55 PM

Im personally not interested if it was in the book, for me, it was done so disrespectfully and a shock tactic. Especially as where we are as a community now, I had straight lads laughing at it and it was just very cruel.the way they did it.

I am getting a lot of I'm sensitive comments etc which I expected, which is a shame! I thought showing a gay couple getting beaten to death and having homophobic slurs at them, whilst the group of lads get nothing wrong with them would be justified to be annoyed at?! But no, it's in the book, so it's fine!

This isn't a dig at you Jonjo, I know you mean well, moreso other people justifying it.

Posted by: Jonjo Sep 7 2019, 12:50 AM

I know it isn't, no worries. And if you feel that way, then you have every right to. It's so much more than "being sensitive" and it's mainly those reactions that piss me off the most, especially as I assume those that are saying it are more than likely not going to get why you're so upset and angry about that scene.

For me, I didn't see it as that. But I was probs just being too blind and ignorant to it all at the time. I did feel so uncomfortable though the longer the scene played out and then when I realised things weren't going to go the way I had envisioned (the part in spoiler tags in my last post) I did feel pretty stunned by it.

Posted by: Jαsє Sep 7 2019, 12:55 AM

Down to 66% on RT.

Posted by: 365 Sep 7 2019, 12:58 AM

I hated when it would burst into song during a scary moment?

Posted by: Jack Sep 7 2019, 09:37 AM

Aside from that scene, I thought it was really terrible in other ways;

- it had characters die who didn't really have a purpose in the film (the little girl and boy), there was no mention, it was weird

- Bill Harder was irritating as f***. No one in a horror film when something as bad and as terrifying as what was happening to them would respond in such a comedic way, almost seeing it as a joke. The humour was pedestrian and something that a 15 year old boy would find funny do of course the locals in the cinema went WILD for it.

- It relied so heavily on jump scares, the first film felt so tense, this would just have things jump out at you and there didn't feel like a great character development

- The film could have been condensed in half, it felt like it was being long for the sake of being long and it didn't work. Even if it was condensed, it still would have been awful but still

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef Sep 7 2019, 09:52 AM

QUOTE(Jack @ Sep 7 2019, 12:28 AM) *
Honestly one of the worst movies I've ever seen - I'm shocked its getting ANY good reviews. I hope it ends up getting a lot of backlash soon.

I loved the first film too, I'm in shock!



It sounded awful. I actually hated the first film, didn't find it scary, and thought it was cheesy and trashy.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef Sep 7 2019, 09:54 AM

QUOTE(Jack @ Sep 7 2019, 12:55 AM) *
Im personally not interested if it was in the book, for me, it was done so disrespectfully and a shock tactic. Especially as where we are as a community now, I had straight lads laughing at it and it was just very cruel.the way they did it.

I am getting a lot of I'm sensitive comments etc which I expected, which is a shame! I thought showing a gay couple getting beaten to death and having homophobic slurs at them, whilst the group of lads get nothing wrong with them would be justified to be annoyed at?! But no, it's in the book, so it's fine!

This isn't a dig at you Jonjo, I know you mean well, moreso other people justifying it.


What were they thinking with that in 2019 with the fat right mobilising and the alt right and Trumo and Boris in command (for now)!!!

Posted by: blacksquare Sep 7 2019, 11:54 AM

Well, how disappointing. The film was too long and unfocused.

I don't understand the opening scene at all — it was more of a problematic detriment than anything. That scene could be removed and nothing would change. Neither character had any impact on the story, and it didn't add any further context to the town or Pennywise. Shock value at the expense of two gay characters.

Neither film has been strictly loyal to the books — I disagree with that argument.

Posted by: Jack Sep 7 2019, 01:34 PM

I agree, and people saying "it's just a movie!!1!". A lot of Twitter gays defending it too, eye roll.

Posted by: Spiceboy Sep 9 2019, 01:04 PM

See I completely disagree. It is my favourite book of all time (tied with A time to kill by John Grisham) and I think the film is fantastically loyal to the book. Stephen King's books are very dark and this illustrates how dark the stories are. The cries of homophobia are a bit ridiculous in my personal opinion, the film is supposed to be scary, uncomfortable, pushing the boundaries just like the book.

To clear it up slightly though:
It was established in movie 1 that pennywise is awoken by huge events that happen in Derry. It is attracted to the fear and violence and ugly of humanity as well as that which it creates.
The attack on Adrian is the awakening of Pennywise and the signal for Mike to call the other losers and for their return to Derry.
Adrian is the first kill. There are subsequent afterwards, but his was the first.
It’s also important because Adrian is older. His boyfriend is able to see Pennywise which lays the point for the other adults to be able to see It etc.
It sets a darker more adult tone for part 2 to separate from part 1.
It’s the death of childhood. Innocence.
It’s a visceral adolescent awakening.

I think if people have read the book this makes alot more sense to them, my boyfriend was a bit like huh over that part of the film too.

The people crying out that Stephen King and the filmmaker are homophobic though really annoys me. They show it as the great evil that awakens Pennywise, so they are actually saying how horrific it is not encouraging it like so many people are crying out about. That is being too sensitive and that comes from someone who suffered years of horrendous homophobic bullying.

Posted by: 365 Sep 9 2019, 01:07 PM

I don't know why people are so defensive of it being in the book. Movies are a different medium, and it just didn't work.

There is little to no LGBT representation in mainstream Hollywood movies, so the fact the only notable one of recent times is that of two unknown characters getting violently gay-bashed before eaten is just disappointing. If the surviving character had been given more of a role so we could see out his pain or give the audience some sort of catharsis, the way all the other characters had from their pain, loss and fear - it might have worked, but it felt far too throwaway to work.

And I think in the book it does make a bit more sense, but I don't think the way they translated it onto screen worked in the slightest.

Posted by: Jack Sep 9 2019, 01:17 PM

Yeah, it being in the book really isn't a solid defence imo. The way it was portrayed was disgusting, a lot of people in the cinema were clapping along and they will go away thinking that kind of thing is okay. As someone who has personally suffered a homophobic attack, very similar to the one portrayed in the movie, it's very triggering and unnecessary in my opinion.

As blacksquare mentioned, if they had cut that part of the movie out - nothing would have changed. The characters weren't mentioned later on, there was no real stance on it being bad that they were homophobic or anything like that. It just felt like it was shoehorned into the movie for a shock value and a very cruel one at that. I'm sure in the book it makes more sense, but that was written in the 80's and it didn't translate well at all to the big screen.

Maybe it wasn't intended to cause offence or be homophobic, but I find it hard to believe they rewatched it and thought it was okay the way it was portrayed.

Posted by: Spiceboy Sep 9 2019, 06:13 PM

QUOTE(Jack @ Sep 9 2019, 02:17 PM) *
Yeah, it being in the book really isn't a solid defence imo. The way it was portrayed was disgusting, a lot of people in the cinema were clapping along and they will go away thinking that kind of thing is okay. As someone who has personally suffered a homophobic attack, very similar to the one portrayed in the movie, it's very triggering and unnecessary in my opinion.

As blacksquare mentioned, if they had cut that part of the movie out - nothing would have changed. The characters weren't mentioned later on, there was no real stance on it being bad that they were homophobic or anything like that. It just felt like it was shoehorned into the movie for a shock value and a very cruel one at that. I'm sure in the book it makes more sense, but that was written in the 80's and it didn't translate well at all to the big screen.

Maybe it wasn't intended to cause offence or be homophobic, but I find it hard to believe they rewatched it and thought it was okay the way it was portrayed.



People cheering is just weird as hell I’m not surprised you’re so upset by it. There was none of that in my screening just a few gasps. I think it was left in because it is actually a key part of the story it’s how IT / Pennywise wakes up it is the great evil that awakens him, it pretty important really. But I do agree it wasn’t explained very clearly as my husband was a bit confused himself and I had to explain it to him at the end. As someone who is a huge fan of the book I felt like it reflected the story and makes you realise just how evil a place Derry is because the evil of Pennywise lives there, the story is actually really dark and twisted and this reflects that.

Posted by: Jack Sep 9 2019, 06:21 PM

I would've been here for it more if it had been explained well or portrayed better, I think the director did a really bad job of it imo

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef Sep 9 2019, 07:03 PM

Why were people cheering and clapping to it??

Posted by: Jack Sep 9 2019, 07:05 PM

A group of straight lads - admittedly not everyone was but some were laughing at it.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef Sep 9 2019, 07:14 PM

Toxic alt right "lads". The current political climate has emboldened them

Posted by: Jαsє Sep 9 2019, 07:27 PM

QUOTE(Jack @ Sep 9 2019, 02:17 PM) *
a lot of people in the cinema were clapping along


f***ing vile. I'd have walked out. I wouldn't have wanted to share the same space with disgusting pieces of trash like that.

Posted by: dandy* Sep 9 2019, 08:51 PM

That is really grim. Disgusting behaviour. So saddening to read sad.gif

Posted by: Steve201 Sep 9 2019, 10:07 PM

People actually clapped and cheered two gay people getting beaten up in a horror film??? That's a disgrace!

I find that really weird and offensive and hard to believe.

Haven't seen the second part yet but loved the original in 1990 and it didn't show this scene in that? It started with a child going missing.

I think it would have been important to include and symbolises how evil people can be. It also shows that this does happen in real life and it can't be shyed away from and the fight against homophobia has to continue!

Posted by: Jack Sep 9 2019, 10:14 PM

I mean, I don't have any reason to lie?! laugh.gif

It was a group of lads around 15-17 - they were loud throughout the film and they did get told off by other people, one of them threw a empty plastic bottle at someone else. It always happens, usually within newly released horror films - people don't know how to behave.

It would have been important, but for the millionth time, I don't think it was portrayed or translated well. I don't really think you can comment if you haven't actually seen it tbh!

Posted by: Steve201 Sep 9 2019, 10:27 PM

Yeh true, I'm desperate to see it and now to see what it was like.

I understand the context better now you've described it. Doesn't make it right but lads that age are generally awful and just there to be an annoyance. I still woulda told them where to go if they laughed at something disgusting like that.

Again it wasn't shown in the original movie as well.

Posted by: f Sep 10 2019, 09:01 AM

that's f***ing disgusting. clapping and laughing... what the actual shit?! this has clearly backfired. i haven't seen the movie yet but this scene alone is putting me off watching it

Posted by: 365 Sep 10 2019, 11:33 PM

I have always found horror audiences to be THE WORST kinds of audiences - I've had so many horror experiences tainted by them. I'm always relived when it's an 18 because it keeps out more those kinds of loud, obnoxious types. That's another reason I think it don't work as it just gives those kinds of annoying teen audiences something to laugh through. It didn't happen at my screening but I can fully imagine it happening from past experiences.

I read some pieces that said if the movie had simply stayed with one of those two characters and explored and flashed him out it would have made the opening scene a bit more forgivable, which is similar to what I said previously.

Posted by: Rooney Sep 11 2019, 10:47 PM

I really enjoyed this. Not as good as part 1, but the 2nd half of the story is never as good in the book or in the TV adaptation.

The beginning part is not homophobic in my opinion. I agree it's a really important part of the book. Pennywise lives and breeds off of fear, hatred and discrimination. The horrific attack woke Pennywise up, he could smell the fear and went for it. I saw it in a packed cinema and everyone was pretty normal from what I could see.

My biggest concern was the flashback scenes with the kids, there was some heavy editing facially and with their voices and it just felt a little unnatural. Bill Hader is great in this, definitely the highlight of the film for me. I'm not a fan of massively long films but the runtime flew by imo, there was some choppy editing going on but as a piece of film it flowed naturally.

Posted by: Jack Sep 11 2019, 11:00 PM

Bill Hader was horrendous! Cliche jokes that sounded like they were written by a 15 year old! Each to their own I guess.

Posted by: Steve201 Sep 11 2019, 11:07 PM

😂 We understand you didn't like it Jack!

Posted by: Rooney Sep 11 2019, 11:14 PM

QUOTE(Jack @ Sep 12 2019, 12:00 AM) *
Bill Hader was horrendous! Cliche jokes that sounded like they were written by a 15 year old! Each to their own I guess.


He was fantastic, him and Skarsgard definitely the highlights in terms of the acting. I really enjoyed the jokes Hader made, sure some of them were toilet humour but he has impecable timing, as you would expect from a comedy actor. Was just more interesting that he could switch it up between comedic, serious and then convey a character who was obviously scared (and afraid himself of what other people would think about him) and used humour to deal with it. Still, wish Pennywise got a bit more screentime as Bill Skarsgard is great as the clown!

Posted by: Jonjo Sep 11 2019, 11:46 PM

As good as Bill was, I actually thought James Ransone was the highlight (of the adults). I wish they'd utilised Jessica better. I feel Beverley was under used and kinda wasted in a love triangle, which was a shame. But overall I thought they all played their parts really well.

They really, REALLY didn't use Pennywise enough. Bill is SO good at playing him. He's by FAR the best thing in these films!

Posted by: Steve201 Sep 12 2019, 09:20 AM

Which IT film was better then this one or the old one from 1990?

Posted by: Mikal Sep 13 2019, 08:49 AM

I am struggling to find anything positive about this film?

The moment the old woman came out like a CGI monster from a video game I knew where it was headed. Pennywise was UNDER used, I know he's shape shifting to these various goblins and such but he was barely in it

It was also wayyy too long, people were leaving the cinema about 2 hours in. Horror only works well imo when it's 1h30 or so.

Posted by: Spiceboy Sep 16 2019, 11:40 AM

QUOTE(Mikal @ Sep 13 2019, 09:49 AM) *
I am struggling to find anything positive about this film?

The moment the old woman came out like a CGI monster from a video game I knew where it was headed. Pennywise was UNDER used, I know he's shape shifting to these various goblins and such but he was barely in it

It was also wayyy too long, people were leaving the cinema about 2 hours in. Horror only works well imo when it's 1h30 or so.



I feel like way more people need to have read the book before seeing the film...

Posted by: Steve201 Sep 16 2019, 08:01 PM

I'm reading it now.

Posted by: Mikal Sep 17 2019, 08:56 AM

QUOTE(Spiceboy @ Sep 16 2019, 12:40 PM) *
I feel like way more people need to have read the book before seeing the film...


Absolutely, and it probably works better in the book form, I can still dislike the film having not read the book?! CGI to me is not scary at all and as soon as a monster reveals itself the effect wears thin. I have no doubt that my imagination would provide much scarier imagery had I read the book first.

Posted by: Steve201 Sep 17 2019, 08:31 PM

Yeh def agree with this - CGI has made all films shite imo!

Posted by: 365 Sep 24 2019, 10:24 PM

QUOTE(Spiceboy @ Sep 16 2019, 12:40 PM) *
I feel like way more people need to have read the book before seeing the film...


I've finished the book now and the film just wasn't a good adaptation

Posted by: Steve201 Sep 26 2019, 09:04 PM

Haha!!

Powered by Invision Power Board
© Invision Power Services