It: Capítulo 2

Menos cohesionada que la primera a la hora de contar una historia dramática y retratar a los personajes, más de serie B (la búsqueda de artefactos personales es el cuarto más flojo de la película). Por otro lado, más densa en acontecimientos, con más monstruos, aunque incorporados sin sentido o robados de alguna parte (la cabeza de araña al menos tuvo por fin más espacio). Me entretuve en algunas partes, me aburrí en otras, y en general como que no me interesa la tercera. (13.09.2019)

Si el libro de King fuera una especialidad culinaria, la película It: Capítulo 2 estaría un guiso hecho con los mismos ingredientes. No sabe mal, pero está lejos de ser una experiencia gastronómica. Si bien la primera parte de It fue una historia sólida sobre la adolescencia con un plano de terror razonablemente aterrador, la segunda parte se parece más a una comedia de terror, que incluso sus creadores no se toman en serio y necesitan que todos sus momentos más serios e inquietantes sean derribados constantemente por escenas cómicas y por otros medios alienantes (citas de películas, música elegida de manera inapropiada). La historia esquemática sufre de una serie de defectos dramaturgos, las escenas de terror suelen ser divertidas de parodiar y el estímulo en sí mismo es más una risa que un horror. Es una rutina de género promedio que recicla motivos nostálgicos de la infancia y compañerismo amistoso después de su predecesora, reemplaza el aumento de tensión con resoplidos, sobresaltos y zumbidos digitales y aparte de las actuaciones sólidas y algunas escenas notablemente realizadas, desafortunadamente no hay nada más digno de elogiar. Nuevamente, por lo tanto, surge la pregunta de si no valdría la pena procesar It más en forma de serie que, a diferencia de las películas, podría ser verdaderamente intransigente, más narrativa e inventiva al trabajar con la tensión y la psicología del miedo. (05.09.2019)

The anticipated It: Chapter Two didn't live up to the high expectations, according to the reviews, and didn't surpass the first part, but it is still an outstanding horror experience that comes out as a clear winner thanks to this year's weak competition. The film may be three hours long, but it passes by quite quickly, is entertaining enough, has drive and enough horror attractions to keep your attention, something that can't be said for the new Tarantino film, which has a similar running time, but only the last 10 minutes are interesting. Pennywise could have been in the scene more times, but I enjoyed other forms, and one there was one scare that gave me a heart attack. It's not that scary, but I felt uncomfortable with all the scenes. The best sequence is definitely when the group starts looking for their tokens. I had a great time with the film, it looks expensive, the humor works at times, the references are amusing and everyone involved plays it to the hilt. James McAvoy rules! 80%! (12.09.2019)

The problem with the second part of It lies in the fact that the director wants to make it in the same way as the first part. The adults, however, cannot work as well as kids in the similar world, because that world was created with kids in mind. The mysterious and fantasy atmosphere stems from the fact that we perceived the world exactly the same when we were kids. That’s why the first It and Stranger Things turned out so well and are so popular. In It: Chapter Two, there’s no reason to believe the craziness on the screen; it just seems like the screenwriter got high and wrote down anything that came to his mind. (06.12.2019)

It: Chapter Two was supposed to be a sure-thing 4-star horror film this year. But the creators said NO! Sod it! Was there anyone aware of what the strengths of the first one were that made it so well received? Obviously not. So I will tell the creators. The performance of Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise the Clown. But in the second one, “IT” in its unmodified clown form appears in only about thirty seconds in total (in a three-hour movie!!!). That’s not much time for Bill to do anything. All the other appearances of IT are a stupid and surprisingly poor digital mess without any acting. A digital mess isn’t scary! Then there is the chemistry between the characters. It worked perfectly for the children versions. It had that Amblin’s atmosphere of childhood adventures, where the viewer wants to be part of the gang, even if they would have to face unpleasant things. In the second one? Zero chemistry. A heavenly cast that isn’t used at all. Bill, Eddie and Beverly are useless, Richie holds up a bit, but he fell from a different film (a comedy, actually), the rest are just there. And thirdly, the well drawn relationships between the characters, which in the second chapter is non-existent. They don’t speak like people, they just throw one-liners because there’s no time for anything in this special-effect circus (which is a paradox in a three-hour film!!!). The film has no main theme that the words from the characters could address. Everything moves boringly and linearly at a striking pace to the mandatory final underground. The three-hour run is really indefensible. Especially the last hour, that is monotonous and repetitive to death. When I realised that I will have to put up at least five times (it didn’t get to the black guy) with the obligatory wheel of “a character goes somewhere in Derry, they remember an incident from their childhood that happened there – IT scares them in a flashback – and back to the present, where IT scares them again”, I felt like getting up and get a snack at the McDonald’s next door, sure that I wouldn’t miss anything. And the worst is that I didn’t miss anything – this in fact happened. But damn it! If it was at least a good horror film. But in this respect, they wanted to make a blockbuster out of It and every single potentially scary scene is ruined by some stupid joke. In short, the disappointment of the year. Thank goodness King’s book was split in two films, so we got at least one solid piece, and we can pretend that this one doesn’t exist. (04.09.2019)