Among the most anticipated films by the "mass" public in the world of cinema there was certainly IT - Chapter II, the final segment of the reinterpretation of the homonymous masterpiece by Stephen King by the Argentine director Andrés "Andy" Muschietti.
Let's start from the assumption that those who have read (like me) and loved King's novel live seraphic with the knowledge that we will never see on screen anything that can even get near the famous novel: it's true, this often happens for every film transposition originated from bestsellers, but for IT it's an even more affirmed discourse, given the complexity and the bulk of the work, but (above all) given the presence of much more devastating scenes than any sequence proposed in the derivative cinematographic works.
Starting, instead, from the end, if a horror movie (or presumed one) gets to make you laugh and get you out of the room indifferent and not "disturbed" there is something wrong with it.
And in fact, to say it all, in IT 2 there are many things that are not good at all.
Muschietti sins of excessive complacency towards himself and makes a film on the edge of ridicule: I cannot decide where to start from, and trust me it's difficult because in this film there are too many things that are wrong, so much banal and unlikely to arouse laughter among the public. The technical and directorial execution is not disputable (and God forbid, with all that budget) but Muschietti's direction has no soul. Blanda, insipid and austere: in almost three hours of film (THREE HOURS) there is not a single sequence, a single machine pass, a single roundup or shot that makes you awaken, now from torpor, now from laughter, and arouse in you attention or particular appreciation for the cinematographic "eye" by which the director has decided to tell his story.
Here, another problem, the story: Muschiett's IT does not convey the minimum of malice or ruthlessness that transpires, instead, from the novel, it's rather a psychopathic self-centered clown with personality disorders who enjoys becoming now an horny mummy who tries to make out with Eddie Kaspbrak, now a Pomeranian dog (yes!), and that enjoys, repeatedly and always according to the same reiterated scheme, to blow up helpless young children and turn them into blood-hydrants for pure personal quirk.
Third problem: SPECIAL EFFECTS. Here I really do not know where to start, a shameless and almost criminally liable use of CGI (which is however badly done). Thanks to the magical art of computer graphics, IT has lot of fun switching from one embarrassing creature (and to the limit of the comic) to another: first a mummy with a two meter tongue that begins to vomit on Eddie Kaspbrak on an improbable Dirty-Dancing-style music , then a nice old lady who after a few seconds of total paralysis (which would have made me run away as fast as I can) decides to bake some cookies for the poor Beverly Marsh completely naked (of course, right?). Stuff worthy of the best (or worst) comedies.
(Few) Strength points: good actorial play and a always hilarious Richie Tozier whose caustic humor always tears a smile (but will never make you laugh like IT becoming a pomeranian dog).
Big Love for the short but fantastic (especially for the "aficionados") cameo of the Master Stephen King, even if, if I had been in him, rather than making the appearance I would have sued Muschietti and the artistic crew, requesting the sentence to forced labor and the radiation from the world of cinema.
In conclusion: an embarrassing film, in the full sense of the word, a film that does not scare and that makes you laugh very much. Well, actually, the only thing this movie makes you want to do is to look for Muschietti and ask him to refund you your ticket.
Let's start from the assumption that those who have read (like me) and loved King's novel live seraphic with the knowledge that we will never see on screen anything that can even get near the famous novel: it's true, this often happens for every film transposition originated from bestsellers, but for IT it's an even more affirmed discourse, given the complexity and the bulk of the work, but (above all) given the presence of much more devastating scenes than any sequence proposed in the derivative cinematographic works.
Starting, instead, from the end, if a horror movie (or presumed one) gets to make you laugh and get you out of the room indifferent and not "disturbed" there is something wrong with it.
And in fact, to say it all, in IT 2 there are many things that are not good at all.
Muschietti sins of excessive complacency towards himself and makes a film on the edge of ridicule: I cannot decide where to start from, and trust me it's difficult because in this film there are too many things that are wrong, so much banal and unlikely to arouse laughter among the public. The technical and directorial execution is not disputable (and God forbid, with all that budget) but Muschietti's direction has no soul. Blanda, insipid and austere: in almost three hours of film (THREE HOURS) there is not a single sequence, a single machine pass, a single roundup or shot that makes you awaken, now from torpor, now from laughter, and arouse in you attention or particular appreciation for the cinematographic "eye" by which the director has decided to tell his story.
Here, another problem, the story: Muschiett's IT does not convey the minimum of malice or ruthlessness that transpires, instead, from the novel, it's rather a psychopathic self-centered clown with personality disorders who enjoys becoming now an horny mummy who tries to make out with Eddie Kaspbrak, now a Pomeranian dog (yes!), and that enjoys, repeatedly and always according to the same reiterated scheme, to blow up helpless young children and turn them into blood-hydrants for pure personal quirk.
Third problem: SPECIAL EFFECTS. Here I really do not know where to start, a shameless and almost criminally liable use of CGI (which is however badly done). Thanks to the magical art of computer graphics, IT has lot of fun switching from one embarrassing creature (and to the limit of the comic) to another: first a mummy with a two meter tongue that begins to vomit on Eddie Kaspbrak on an improbable Dirty-Dancing-style music , then a nice old lady who after a few seconds of total paralysis (which would have made me run away as fast as I can) decides to bake some cookies for the poor Beverly Marsh completely naked (of course, right?). Stuff worthy of the best (or worst) comedies.
(Few) Strength points: good actorial play and a always hilarious Richie Tozier whose caustic humor always tears a smile (but will never make you laugh like IT becoming a pomeranian dog).
Big Love for the short but fantastic (especially for the "aficionados") cameo of the Master Stephen King, even if, if I had been in him, rather than making the appearance I would have sued Muschietti and the artistic crew, requesting the sentence to forced labor and the radiation from the world of cinema.
In conclusion: an embarrassing film, in the full sense of the word, a film that does not scare and that makes you laugh very much. Well, actually, the only thing this movie makes you want to do is to look for Muschietti and ask him to refund you your ticket.