I loved it, I actually thought it was better than Chapter I. It was more scary definitely but also managed to keep it's humour. I thought the casting was amazing. Eventhough it was almost 3 hours long, it flew by and I was sad when it ended. Oh I never knew Stephen king was going to be in it either so that was a surprise 9.5/10

My other big issue with this film was the retcons to the first film, like it was a mistake to make it so that Ben basically took Mike's role from the book but the way they tried to retcon that by making Mike the history buff just felt strange. I also hated a lot of the kids' scenes since they really should have been in the first film, them suddenly having the clubhouse when it was never mentioned in the first film was problematic. I think the only flashbacks that were worth it (aside from the ending which actually choked me up quite a bit, and the start which was necessary.) were Richie's since they introduced an element to his character that put a whole different spin on how he interacted with others.

The whole Ritual of Chud thing in the book wasn't great but it kinda made sense that it was a thing they'd try since they did it as children so there's a history to it but the way it's introduced in this film is just bad and hackneyed. I liked that they didn't try to shoehorn too much of the cosmic stuff from the books though since I always thought those parts were badly written and pretentious, the way they defeat Pennywise in the film is much better than it was in the book. I also liked how they handled the spider and how they made it essentially just another form of fear instead of IT's true form like in the books, making it a literal spider Pennywise was pretty inspired too since I thought the book (and the miniseries) both suffered horribly in the second half since they didn't make enough use of Pennywise and the creators definitely learned from those mistakes here.

While FAR too much CGI was used, I've got to say that the Restaurant scene and the Spider-Stanley scenes were pretty great. That being said, the weird old woman didn't need to be CGI'd and they definitely could have done something practical with the Pomeranian although that bit was still pretty good as is.

I do think these films are better than the books because they jettisoned a lot of Stephen King being overly Stephen King-ish that ended up dragging down parts of the books. Keeping elements such as the turtle as background cameos works better than trying to explain the ins and outs of the multiverse and the films, despite a bloated second part, definitely felt lighter and better put together than the book. I love the book but it has it's issues.

I also wish that more time was devoted to developing the Losers as adults instead of rehashing the same scares for each Loser.

I didn't realize any of this lmao. :skull: My friend even mentioned that Richie might be gay because of the E + R carving on the gravestone but I didn't see it, I just thought of it as a friendship thing. With these other moments, it kinda does clue/hint to that I guess :joker:

And omg Eddie dying had me shook </3 One of my fave characters. Also another note that I agree with people saying here... I love the characterization / character development that Stephen King adds, especially for a movie, and the humor thrown in a bunch :clap1:

Richie was 100% gay, it was heavily implied quite a few times but the most obvious part was in the arcade and then the R + E carving

Did it annoy anyone that the homophobic bullies got away with the attack at the start of the movie? 3 hours and they didn't give us a scene of Pennywise killing them?

The scene with the little girl under the bleachers D:

Also @ the bullies getting away without being attacked/killed by Pennywise, I think it was good to keep Pennywise villainous and that would’ve been a hero moment. Maybe the film should’ve had revenge on them in some other way tho

Yeah the bleachers scene was sad, she was so cute and her mom just ignored her and then when she said she gets bullied :(

One of the main criticisms I have seen of the movie is not enough Pennywise, they could have cut a few other scenes a little shorter and had him stalking the bullies. Just hated that nothing was said at all.

The way Pennywise stared at her for so long and the look in his eyes was terrifying.

Yeah, I think if he had killed those homophobic pricks, it would've made him look heroic which is the last thing he is.

I wonder what happened to Don at the beginning. After his boyfriend is killed, we don't see him again.

For a second I thought she was going to leave and survive :(

I think it would have felt out of place for Pennywise to kill the homophobes. There's an pattern for all the victims bar Patrick Hockstetter that they are ultimately innocent and good people. Their role in both the book and the film is to cement that Derry is a bit backwards.

There's been something I've thought about that really bother me actually and it's mostly to do with Bev. I disliked that they pretty much glazed over her backstory (and her success) and robbed her of a lot of the personality she had in the first film. I think Jessica Chastain did the best she could but it was sad that such a standout character in the first film was so underwritten here.

That being said, the more I think about the film's ending, the more I think it's a massive improvement over the book's. I did quite like how, in the book, IT's death results in the destruction of Derry since IT was Derry in effect but I always hated how the Losers forgot each other and how Bill essentially got away scot free with cheating on Audra. Like, I understand that it's a commentary on childhood friends growing apart and moving on but I thought the film handled it better in that just the house on Neibolt street collapsed instead.

I've also got mixed feelings on Stanley's letter in the end. I liked that he got a hero moment but it's unfortunate and quite wrong that it came at the expense of romanticising his suicide.

Ugh, I always feel like I'm talking **** about this film but I did really like it, I swear :laugh:

Same. I wish that happened. :(

It was an excellent scene, I liked how they wrote it to demonstrate how the times have changed to make kids less trusting and harder for him to kill. It was a horrific scene though.

'You're meant to say three' Although I knew it was coming it still made me jump.

Just to pick up your point on Bev, as the only female character I have to admit that the fact that her only storyline was men, be that the love triangle, her husband and her abusive father, was slightly disappointing and annoying. It's something that female characters suffer from alot.

**although this is improving thankfully in film/TV in general

I agree. I love the look on Pennywise's face when the girl doesn't believe him. ''If you're my friend why are you hiding in the dark? You're not my friend, you're scary'' As soon as she's about to leave and you're certain of her survival, all of that is thrown away when he reverts to his manipulative ways.

I was expecting the jump scare, although I wasn't expecting that long pause. I love that that was added in. The look on his face was something else.

Richie on the bench and the statue

I think that's also an issue in the book but I think I remember it being more about the cycle of abuse rather then her existence revolving around men. I do wish they did more to develop the characters as adults. Bev literally just got one scene with her husband and a line about her job and then the rest of the film her role consisted of making googly eyes with Ben and Bill. It's quite the disservice not only to the character but to Jessica Chastain and Sophia Lillis too.

I also disliked that Audra got sidelined in the film too, I could understand them cutting down the abusive husband's role since his presence in Derry in the book was basically just to be another threat and they already had Bowers for that but they could have really done with another major female character and Audra's a pretty good character in the books although Stephen King did end up fridging her in part.

That one was really well done despite the CGI-ness of it all, mainly because it's a good twist on the book's version of that scene, which, if I remember right, just has the statue chasing Richie around. Making the statue more monstrous was a good touch to make a rather silly scene in the book more effective here.

Yeah i didn't read the book so I didn't have that to compare it with, I've only recently started reading Stephen Kings stuff, not sure I love how he deals with women characters in general. All I got from the film was that Audra was a bit annoying and looked kind of like Bev

Going back to Stephen King though and how he writes about women, have you read Sleeping Beauties? Not sure if he's had a bit of an ephiny or if it's his sons influence in that book but it's all about how men treat women and is not a bad reflection of r/l

Yeah, he's not known for being great at writing female characters if I remember right.

Audra's a lot better in the book and the whole thing about Bill feeling guilty about faking his illness is something that's been put in place of his original storyline that involved Audra heavily.

I've not read Sleeping Beauties, no, I might have to though. I have a very love/hate relationship with the books of his that I've read though. I do love IT but it's so very flawed in parts and plus there's parts that are just straight up wrong.

I did read about that one part in the first chapter (that thankfully any adaptations left out), about Bev having sex with all the Losers. that's just wrong on so many levels

I think the co-writer of that section was cocaine. Reading about someone being railroaded is bad enough, but why did it have to go into details about their sizes and how they each felt when they were bloody twelve?!

I didn't read it but yeah that is pretty warped. Stephen Kings argument was "Oh it's a book about children being murdered and everyone is outraged by the sex part".......... It's absolutely not that at all. The child murders were bad, they were depicted as being bad. As far as I've heard that weird child sex orgy was supposed to be some sort of coming of age marvellous moment........the implication was that Bev was a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of her father and this ****ing gang bang at age 12 was some how empowering? I mean..... it's pretty sick and I would imagine something that victims of paedophilia/sexual abuse would find really distasteful and offensive (and anyone who hasn't ltb but even more so victims

In the book her father explicitly never actually abused her - there was a moment where he* demanded to know if Bev had been slutting around, and wanted to see if she was "intact".

When she was an adult IT took the form of ZombieDad and he creeped her out by saying he wanted to abuse her, but never did.

Her mum was also alive in the book, unlike both film versions. At one point she asked Bev if her dad had ever touched her, but he hadn't and the question confused her.

* at the time he was either really drunk, crazed by anger, influenced by IT, or actually a form of IT

It's utterly grotesque and ultimately needless, their confrontation with IT as children in the books is completely philosophical for the most part and the reasoning for the sex scene is flimsy at best. He could have easily wrote it so that they find their way out of the sewers through the after effects of their battle with IT.

It's just... Ugh. It's something that completely taints the story for me. I pretty much have to pretend that chapter doesn't exist. It's just wrong.

Not good with endings eh? maybe a dig at himself there? :laugh:

Weeeell, the reasoning was their magical connection was broken because IT was out of action, so I can see that it needed to be temporarily rebonded long enough for them to escape. That's sound. But the way it was resolved as clearly not.

The same thing could have been achieved by the blood pact thing they did with the broken glass tbh.

Exactly, there's so many ways he could have gone about achieving the same result without tainting the story like that.