It: Chapter Two (2019)

It's still Andy Muschietti in the director's chair here, but the writing duties have now fallen to Gary Dauberman alone for this continuation of the tale that pits the Losers Club against a supernatural entity that often takes the form of a clown named Pennywise. Is that a good thing? Many people probably think not. I'm in the minority, and I think Dauberman does a fantastic job of filling this hefty 169-minute runtime with excellent scares and moments of dark surrealism.

In some of the most perfect casting to be committed to film, the youngsters from the first film are now shown in their adult forms, but also reappear in a number of flashbacks that tie events of the past and present together. Here is where I will credit both actors portraying them. You have Bill (Jaeden Martell/James McAvoy), Beverly (Sophia Lillis/Jessica Chastain), Richie (Finn Wolfhard/Bill Hader), Mike (Chosen Jacobs/Isaiah Mustafa), Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor/Jay Ryan), Stanley (Wyatt Oleff/Andy Bean), and Eddie (Jack Dylan Grazer/James Ransome). And against this steadfast group is the constant source of terror that is It AKA Pennywise (Bill Skarsgård being as brilliant here as he was in the first part of the story). There are other characters who come in and out of the narrative, some just as important as any of our leads, but the heart of the film remains a group of close friends helping one another to battle their greatest fears.

Perhaps it was inevitable that this would pale in comparison to the successful first instalment, especially when many people would agree that the story of the adults just isn't as engaging or entertaining as the story of their childhood experience, but Muschietti and Dauberman work together to try their hardest at making this work as well as it can. Making liberal use of the child actors is one way that they help themselves. Continuing to let Skarsgård steal pretty much every scene he is in is another.

As far as I can tell, nobody likes this film as much as I do. People like it, and there are individual moments that they can point to as highlights, but the runtime and tone seems to have put many off. You can certainly feel the runtime, but I would still argue that it's not necessarily bloated, considering the many extra treats littered throughout. As for the tone, it's a bit lighter at times than the tone of the first film, but I don't think it ever strays too far away from some proper horror for too long. This is never going to be incorrectly labelled as a horror comedy, despite some of the levity and one-liners. It just shows adults using laughter as an essential release valve from an enormous build-up of stress and fear. I guess that some viewers were disappointed by moments that they thought were too silly to be scary, but I also enjoyed that aspect of the whole thing. This is a film that never forgets that the thing taking on the guise of Pennywise is much more than that, and every form it takes is designed to put victims into a "more succulent" state of fear. Yes, some moments are quite bizarre, and illustrated by suitably wild special effects, but they're all part and parcel of the shape-shifting horror that wouldn't be out of place in any Lovecraft tale.

While not as uniform as the first instalment, the acting here is generally top notch. One or two minor quibbles aside, mainly stemming from the writing more than the performances, everyone does great work, and there is a particular joy in watching the adults feel like such a natural development from the children that already made such a strong impression in the previous film.

Arguably even more visually impressive, and arguably even more ambitious, this is a horror movie that benefits from those involved believing that they can now fully embrace the disorderly and manic nature of the beast depicted. I love that about it. I love that it shows how to make your fears small and manageable. I love that there is as much time given to the ideals of friendship and hope as is given to the darkness and danger. I might be overcompensating slightly, considering how many others consider it the lesser work, but I consider this equal to the first film. There are different strengths and weaknesses, but the whole thing works perfectly to deliver a satisfactory ending without spending too much time repeating the exact same scares that we got the first time around.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Shudder Saturday: V/H/S/85 (2023)

Although it has had a number of wobbles here and there, the V/H/S series has become an enduring, and largely satisfying, horror anthology series. Others may disagree, but that's my opinion and this is my space for sharing my opinions on movies. I appreciate the commitment to the aesthetic, I have loved some of the wilder tales, and some of the imagery has been up there with the weirdest and wildest in the horror genre. So I was looking forward to this latest instalment, V/H/S/85.

I'm not even sure to begin with this review. I suppose I should simply say that I REALLY disliked this. It is easily the worst in the series, taking that position previously held by V/H/S: Viral, and the worst part is that very few of the stories have that sense of glee present in the rest of the series. Although two "punchlines" worked well enough to make me smirk.

There's a wraparound tale, helmed by David Bruckner, about a life-form being observed in a lab. The first of the main tales, directed by Mike P. Nelson, then shows us a group of people fooling around by a lake. All is well and good until it isn't, and this was my favourite tale, especially when it connected and was given a proper resolution later in the film. Then it's on to Gigi Saul Guerrero's tale of people trying to escape the devastating effects of an earthquake that has caused carnage in Mexico. Natrasha Kermani then brings us a retro-tech tale that delivers some gore while also mocking pretentious performance art. We then get Nelson returning, his second segment as enjoyable as it is disappointingly brief. I would rather have had more of this than the time wasted with a couple of other tales, including the next one, a twisted serial killer gorefest directed by Scott Derrickson that has a young man being able to record dreams that prophecise the future.

As well as the directors just mentioned also writing their segments, with the exception of Bruckner and Kermani, who are given story credits, writing comes from C. Robert Cargill, Zoe Cooper, and Evan Dickson. I cannot muster the enthusiasm to specify exactly who is responsible for each segment, so everyone can share the blame and the small amount of praise in equal measure. 

As for the cast, most of them do perfectly fine within the limitations of the style, although the only people who stand out are those involved in the segments helmed by Mike P. Nelson, thanks to the fact that they are given a decent amount of time to show their interactions with one another, making them more realistic and fleshed out, before things start to tilt into the crazy horror.

I don't want to give anything away, the aim of each tale is still to deliver a fun surprise at the end, and some people may find the whole thing much more satisfying than I did, but I am struggling to think of anyone who will really enjoy this. Even if you find it passable, which I didn't, then I suspect you will still find that it suffers greatlin in comparison to almost every preceding instalment in this series. I'll still watch another one if the series continues, and I still love the VHS aesthetic, but I hope it is a marked improvement after this disappointing nadir.

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

The Black Phone (2022)

Based on the short story by Joe Hill, The Black Phone is a tale, not entirely unlike some other Hill stories, that feels VERY much like something his dad would write. You get a nice feeling of Americana from the past (it's set in the late 1970s), you get one main character imbued with some magical power, there are horrible bullies, a parent who likes the bottle more than anything else, and the main villain constantly tries to act as if he is working in service of a higher power. I can't see anyone who liked It, or the stories in Different Seasons, finding too much to dislike here.

Ethan Hawke plays 'The Grabber', a masked kidnapper of children who has been reducing the population of a small part of Denver. He meets his match when he grabs young Finney (Mason Thames), but he doesn't realise just how much help Finney is going to have when it comes to staying alive. Finney has a sister, Gwen (Madeleine McGraw), who has been having scarily accurate dreams, which means she may be able to locate her brother. And Finney also has the titular phone, attached to the wall of the relatively bare room he is trapped in. It occasionally rings, something that 'The Grabber' puts down to static electricity, but Finney soon becomes the first person in some time to hear voices through the receiver. Those voices are the previous victims of 'The Grabber', and they have some advice to offer Finney.

Directed by Scott Derrickson, someone who has been delivering solid entertainment for about two decades now (with his last feature being the first Doctor Strange movie), The Black Phone is a supernatural-tinged thriller that works as well as it does thanks to those involved not looking to give themselves any kind of get-out clause. The thriller aspect is solid, and there are moments of tension in between the more predictable plot beats, but the supernatural aspect is equally solid, and it's never dropped in favour of some attempt to tidy everything up in the final scenes. 

The script, written by Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill, effectively delivers all of the information required within the first 20-30 minutes to then really focus on the tension for the remainder of the movie. There are some obvious points made that will be referred back to, but there are also some more subtle details. The 103-minute runtime speeds by, but underpinning the basic thrills and chills is a pleasantly unexpected comment, deliberate or not, about giving victims a voice, and keeping their names more relevant and recognisable than the name of their abuser. You get to learn the names of a number of kids as the movie plays out. You don't learn the real name of Hawke's character, unless I missed one quick mention of it anywhere.

While he's not onscreen for that long, Hawke is excellent, and chilling, in his role. His character casts such a long shadow that I never really felt his lack of physical absence to be a problem (although I have seen some mention that they were surprised by how few main scenes he was in). Thames is the one who carries most of the film, giving a performance that marks him out as someone to keep an eye on. The same goes for McGraw, who makes a strong impression as the feisty and gifted Gwen. The other child actors, most often seen depicting their characters as The Talking Dead, also do well. James Ransone is a highlight, playing a coked-up armchair detective who ends up closer to the truth than the people who are officially on the case. The only person who didn't work in their role was Jeremy Davies, stuck with portraying the drunken father who has to deliver some unnecessary clunky backstory that I initially through was going to set up some extended Hill/King cinematic universe.

I really liked this. It's a simple premise that is executed pretty perfectly (it probably helped that most of the film is set in one room, allowing Derrickson and co. to optimise the use of the budget elsewhere), it doesn't run overlong, and it doesn't feel as if the ending is setting up a sequel. None of those things should be so rare in modern cinema, but watching a film getting everything just right serves as a reminder of how rare they are.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews