Doesn't Get The Adults Right (Or The Ending In General)

Rating: 3/10 (3 November 2019)

The first part of this "It" mini-franchise had something. It may not have been a perfect film by any means, but it did utilize a great cast of child actors and achieve a sort of cultural-zeitgeist "Stranger Things"-esque appeal. When it comes time to bring in the adults and execute the ending of Stephen King's iconic story, however, "Chapter Two" fails miserably in a number of key areas.
For a basic overview, "It Chapter Two" sees the Loser's Club reunited in Derry 27 years after It was presumed dead. Mike Hanlon (Isaiah Mustafa), now the town librarian, has called them all back because the evil Pennywise (Bill Skarsgard) has sprung upon Derry once again. So, Bill (James McAvoy), Richie (Bill Hader), Eddie (James Ransone), Ben (Jay Ryan), and Beverly (Jessica Chastain) return to their childhood abode to try and finish It off this time around.
There are three major problems with this second part that make it a pretty abject failure...
First and foremost, director Andy Muschietti (and presumably writer Gary Dauberman) do not grasp why, as audience members, we should care about the adult Losers. It's easy to root for a group of young kids chumming around together and then trying to stop a ferocious evil. The reason we care about the adults, however, is because 27 years later they are each dealing with relatable "adult problems" (abuse, addiction, job failure, etc.). King expertly captures this in the novel, whereas this film pays it lip service (and even paltry lip service at that). Here, the only reason we are given to care about the Losers is that "they were once kids". It is very telling that the best parts of "Chapter 2" is when it flashes back to the "kid scenes".
Secondly, the scenes involving the adult Losers having their own "voyage of discovery" just don't make any sense. It was almost more of an excuse to create hideous CGI monsters than it served the plot whatsoever. For example, Bev's meeting with an old woman living in her apartment was legitimately creepy...until it turns into a giant hulking monster straight out of a fantasy piece. In these moments, the filmmakers seemed to forget that "It's" horror is as much psychological as visceral.
Finally, the ending is severely disappointing for fans (like myself) of the King novel. Not focusing on spouses robs the movie of the books' incredible coda, while the final battle with Pennywise/It is almost laughable. To even call it an adaptation of the book's ending is a stretch. While I realize that some of the narrative "punch" would always be taken away by splitting the story into the "kid half" and "adult half", even then this ending doesn't elicit even the slightest emotion or any sense of gravitas.
It seems like what may have happened over the course of these two movies is that the filmmakers were so focused on the mechanics of adapting King's brilliant (yet rather unwieldy) story that they sort of lost track of the ideas behind what made it all work in the first place. This wasn't on display nearly as much in the first part, as that installment was just so much fun, but in this one that failure is as plain as day. Putting the kids in the 80s was a great narrative choice, but other than that almost all the other changes are for the worst.
Perhaps the worst thing I can say about this big-budget production? If forced, I'd still have to call the 1990 TV miniseries "It" adaptation my favorite. While that production certainly had warts of its own, it much more accurately captured both the physical and psychological horror of King's original intent. Besides some great child acting performances, this two-film duo doesn't accomplish either of those things.