On the Russian screens out the second part of the film adaptation of the famous novel by Stephen King. The first film appeared in 2017, became the champion rolled picture rated R and is one of the most successful horror of all time.
Viewers great liking to the story of "Losers' Club" - children of outsiders from the town of Derry, who had to overcome a terrible monster, appears in the guise of a clown Pennivayza.
As in the book, in the continuation of the action is transferred to the 27 years to come, that is, today. And grown-up characters have to go back to his hometown to give the final battle revived evil.
After the success of the first film director Andy Musketti obviously they are given more freedom and opportunity. Therefore, the second part came out bigger, and in the cast - very often the stars. But that's what made the picture more controversial. It has several important drawbacks. However, the advantages also missing.
First problem: the longer - it does not mean better
The duration of the first part was 2 hours and 15 minutes. The second film for half an hour longer. This is partly justified. Tape 2017 was quite linear story where the events unfolded sequentially.
In the continuation of the authors must first submit a grown-up characters who strangely forgotten almost everything that happened to them. Then, using flashbacks to force them to relive the past. And this should be enough time yet and a new story.
But the trouble is that the viewer did not go 27 years and a maximum of two years, and memories of the events are still fresh. And so the scene from the past sometimes seem superfluous. Especially that some of them are taken directly from the first picture.
And in those flashbacks, to learn about later events, not very good feel for the characters. Even if the audience does not read the book, it just show that they all survived and grew, so that there is no real danger to children.
As for the events that unfold in our days, it is possible that the filmmakers were held hostage over volume and detail of the original Stephen King.
Musketti just trying to maximize the talk about themselves heroes, their relationships, about the origin of Pennivayza, strange cult of Indians and many other things.
But nearly three-hour timekeeping does not bring little or no benefit, but only reduces the pace of the narrative. Instead of developing the characters in the action, they allow for too long discussing the same fears and understand themselves.
For philosophical fiction like "Blade Runner 2049" such a slow pace was acceptable. But for the horror it is detrimental, between the terrible scenes of fear is already forgotten and sometimes becomes boring.
Problem two: the star cast only prevents the film
That continued to be accurately shoot, it became clear soon after the first part. And then there was all the great fear. Young actors have played surprisingly well, among them felt chemistry and teamwork in the frame looked awesome. And that's why many doubted whether the adult actors will be able to convey the depth of relationships and emotions that the children showed.
The answer was ambiguous. On the one hand, the authors did quite reasonable: the main roles were invited stars of the first magnitude. The talent James McAvoy and Jessica Chastain can not be doubted, so the role of Bill and Beverly were in good hands.
Comedian Bill Hader in recent years conquered all his series "Barry"And the best candidate for the role of joker Richie is hard to imagine. The rest of the actors at certain moments may look a little weaker, but perfectly fit a portrait.
Of course, besides Jay Ryan, but there is still the original. His Ben, who suffered as a child of excess weight lost with age and become handsome. And, again, the image of the selected well. It would seem that such a composition can not simply play bad. But there was another problem.
Heroes no longer create a sense of team.
Due to the fact that the actors experienced in general scenes pulls attention to himself, she lost herself chemistry. Now it solo outputs of specific characters, rather than the overall operation. And in the case of McAvoy's still more complicated: it is most of the time generally appears separately from the other characters.
It is difficult to tell if the problem was inconsistency filming schedules or the director decided to give more time to the most popular artist. But it seems that all the characters removed independently of each other, and then supplemented by common action scenes.
In general, this is the norm for modern film and TV series: it is easy to notice that in many projects where there several central characters, the characters often are divided into groups of two or three people and show apart.
But the problem is that throughout the film characters' It 2 "is repeated, that the main thing - to stay together and to be a team. A viewer sees only the individual actors.
However, all of the above - just nit-picking to the tape. They, of course, spoil the viewing experience. Yet the advantages of a painting more.
The advantage of one: this is a good development of psychological and social problems
The first part of the new film adaptation of "It" presented a somewhat different perspective on the story by Stephen King. In the version of Andy Musketti chief evil shows itself not Pennivayz and people: violent teenagers attacking weak, parents, baiting their own children, indifferent passers-by, who did not want to see crime.
This realism makes the idea of the classic horror film more social and lively, bringing the film more in the genre of psychological thriller. In this respect, continued successfully develops the theme.
Children have long grown up, live in different cities. And at the beginning of the story throws up the first important idea: we all want to remember only the good childhood. This topic is particularly relevant today with the fashionable craze for nostalgia.
Bad memories are erased, leaving room only enjoyable moments and people. However, this is what makes heroes repeat their mistakes.
Again Musketti shows examples like peeped in life: the characters are married to those who like their abusive parents, and can not get rid of the complexes of childhood, even if valid people.
And when they get to their places of origin, all problems of the past are piled on with renewed vigor. In the film, it is justified by the action of mystical forces. In life, it is simply a return to the traumatic memories. Again, all the creepy creatures can be regarded as a manifestation of the supernatural evil, but simply a reflection of the fears of everyone.
That is why the ending of the belt is slightly different from the original book. It is more realistic and offers a way out of the situation: that is not the victory over evil, and refuse to be afraid.
And by the way, on the theme of the finale in the film repeatedly joking. No wonder Bill is done not just a writer but also a writer, who does not work out the ending of his works. At exactly the same and is often accused of Stephen King. He never hid the fact that associate themselves with this character. And the more funny looks cameo King horror film.
The advantage of the second: the scale of the horror grows
But those who in the first part liked best special effects and tricks Pennivayza, continued exactly will like.
Bill Skarsgard here give even more time. And sometimes a feeling that the authors have gone in the footsteps of the founders of the "It" in 1990. Then the actor playing scary clown Tim Curry only allowed to improvise and fool around on the court.
Here antics and insane movements in Pennivayza becomes even greater. Plus they peppered excellent special effects: it is clear that the budget has left not only on the actors. Clown is reincarnated in a variety of strange creatures, with the picture is constantly on the verge of funny and scary.
Screamer, as before, do not just appear on a regular basis: they are dumped in batches for 3-4 consecutive. And it creates an interesting effect: the viewer is looking to relax, and he throw up another surge.
In this case, all the classics of horror on the spot: room with mirrors, rivers of blood, disgusting insects, tentacles, twisted limbs. In general, all that is so fond fans of the genre.
By the end it all goes not quite the right philosophy. But special effects the scale is growing, and so we can even forgive the authors excessive pathos.
Bottom line: it's still one of the best horror films of the year
Horror genre is experiencing a rebirth. But for the most part this is due to the author's unusual projects like "Reincarnation" and "we». But the classic horror movies with scary monsters and Screamer increasingly fail to recall at least the next "Slender Man."
In this sense, "It's 2", as the first part, successfully kept apart. It seems that the tape tells about important topics and central actors act out the great drama, but the story does not go away in absolute allegory, as in "solstice».
There fairly simple pugalok and talent director and the budget does not disturb the picture dark, helping the viewer to enjoy the view to the fullest. Therefore, "It is 2" - still a good horror that will leave a good impression.
see also😱😱😱
- 13 little-known horror films that deserve view
- 60 best horror films of the XXI century
- Why do we like to watch a scary movie and whether it is normal
- 22 horror movie based on real events and popular legends
- 14 series, that will make you really scared