Halloween 2019: September 24th

IT: Chapter Two (2019)

I figured the first “IT” would be popular. Stephen King's novel is among his most highly regarded and was a bestseller. The original television mini-series was, in its own way, iconic. The movie was obviously capitalizing on the success of “Stranger Things” with its nostalgic, “kids-on-bikes” vibe. But I also figured the public's interest in killer clown shenanigans had peaked by that point. Boy, was I wrong. Andy Muschietti's “IT,” of course, became the highest grossing horror film in cinema history, at least without adjusting for inflation. A sequel was already a foregone conclusion, as this was always planned as a two-part adaptation, but clearly the demand for “IT: Chapter Two” was overwhelming. While the box office receipts for the second “IT” have been typically massive, the general reaction has been much more mixed. After about a two week delay, I am finally able to judge for myself.

Twenty-seven years ago, the Losers Club – Bill, Eddie, Ben, Mike, Richie, Bev, and Stan – banished the malevolent, child-eating entity under the streets of Derry, Maine. They made a vow that, should It ever return, they would come back to kill it once and for all. The killings have started again and Mike, who stayed behind as the town librarian, recruits everyone to return to Derry. The shock is too much for Stan, who commits suicide, leaving the now adult Losers one short. As they explore the town, preparing to face It down once and for all, they rediscover the traumatic memory of their youthful summer.

I wouldn’t say I loved 2017’s “IT” but it definitely exceeded my expectation and was a surprisingly well-acted and fun horror show. I liked it just enough to be disappointed in “IT: Chapter Two.” A large chunk of the movie is devoted to the adult Losers tracking down “tokens” from their childhood, which triggers old, previously unseen memories and modern day encounters with It. This leads to a seriously episodic structure. It feels a little like the filmmakers wanted to utilize some of the unused incidents from King’s book but didn’t know how to build a straight-forward narrative around them. This also leads to a bloated runtime, as the film’s first half sags with too many attacks. The tone is also weirdly uncertain. There’s too much sarcasm and too many quibs in “Chapter Two,” as if Trashmouth himself took over the screenplay at random intervals. This is most obvious in a bizarre, comedic episode involving a Pomeranian inserted into the otherwise serious last act.

The first “IT” successfully captured a funhouse atmosphere of horror, tossing big loud scares at the audience that left them with a smile. The sequel doubles down on this, throwing more gangly CGI monsters around than you can count. Occasionally, this approach is successful. Three of the sequel’s best scenes are taken directly from the novel. The joy of the Losers reconvening at a Chinese restaurant transforms to seasick tension when grotesque surprises crawl out of the fortune cookies. Bill’s joyful reunion with Silver and the subsequent encounter with a bunch of little hands mines a similar dynamic. Adult Richie’s fight with a pissed-off Paul Bunyan statue is well done. Giving the statue a frayed fiberglass smile was a cool design choice. Having the proceeding meeting with Pennywise go Technicolored for no reason was cool too. Another of the sequel’s best scenes - Pennywise luring a little girl under the bleachers at a ball game - was invented for the film. It’s actually better executed than the similar scene with Georgie in the first film, as you believe the girl would find Pennywise friendly instead of scary in this scenario.

Usually though, I was left wondering why the screenwriters decided to make-up some goofy bullshit instead of utilizing more good stuff from King’s book. Beverly meeting It in the form of an old witch - one of the book’s creepiest scenes - is overdone here and that’s before a tri-mouthed, creaky-boned, witch woman shows up. Eddie meeting the Leper again goes on and on and ends with an utterly baffling needle drop. Ben’s flashback banks on making the adorable, lovable Sophia Lillis a figure of fear which just doesn’t wash. Pennywise’s increasing goofy facial expressions engineer laughter, instead of fear. The sequel ditches the fascinating cosmic weirdness of King’s last act for increasingly over-the-top CGI nightmares, like a drawn-out homage to “The Thing.” Overall, “IT: Chapter Two’s” scares are too proud of themselves. That smugness is also evident in King’s painfully meta cameo and a random shout-out to “The Shining.”

My fears that Muschietti and his team didn’t actually understand King’s text is confirmed with “Chapter Two.” In the book, Pennywise isn’t just a spooky clown or a succession of freakier monsters. It’s a symbol of the hateful heart beating underneath Derry and every small town. This is why he hangs out in the sewers, why a horrifying hate crime awakens It in the modern day, why the town dies when the monster finally dies. Muschietti recreates that hate crime but, with the movie so disconnected from the book’s themes, it feels tasteless. Instead of these profound statements, “IT: Chapter Two” becomes an unsightly sentimental story of self-forgiveness, of overcoming fear, and dumbass love triangles. The film literalizes the moral of “fears are small when confronted head-on,” creating a somehow more underwhelming climax than the 1990’s version. Though the Teutonic journey into the Earth is nicely handled, by largely ditching King’s cosmic weirdness, It goes from an unknowably ancient evil entity, an intrinsic force of the universe, to just another movie monster. A monster that looks like a giant spider because the human mind can’t grasp the enormity of its true form is scary. A giant spider with a clown head is just goofy.

But, yes, the film is excellently cast. The adult versions of the Losers could not be more on-point. James McAvoy is well utilized as the strong leader type as our grown-up Bill. Bill Hader is hilarious and surprisingly melancholy as Richie, even if his jokes are disruptive sometimes. James Ransone is similarly ideal as our grown-up Eddie, maintaining his childhood neurosis. While the subplot involving her abusive husband goes absolutely nowhere - the related subplot concerning Bill’s wife is similarly abbreviated, wasting Jess Weixler in one scene - Jessica Chastain certainly is strong and likable as adult Beverly. Even Isaiah Mustafa, otherwise known as the Old Spice guy, is pretty good as Mike. And it sure is nice to see all the kids again, Finn Wolfhard and Lillis especially. They are both going to be huge stars.

While I reasonably enjoyed the first “IT,” the sequel is one of those adaptations that just make me want to go back and re-read the book. While the cast is great and Muschietti has a strong visual sense, “IT: Chapter Two” represents pretty much everything wrong with modern studio horror: Loud, superficial, too long, and obsessed with CGI tomfoolery. There’s already been talks of a possible third film which seems like a terrible idea on the surface but a prequel, exploring the history of Derry more, maybe has potential. But a new creative team should be assembled. Also, this is a nitpick, but the subtitle is dumb. “IT: The Book” has way more than just two chapters. [5/10]

Count Dracula (1971)
Nachts, wenn Dracula erwacht

I've spoken before about how Halloween is often a time for me to fill some blind spots in my horror nerd education. So here goes: I've never seen a Jess Franco movie before. The hugely prolific Spanish director made well over a hundred films in genres such as spy movies, erotica, spaghetti combat, giallo, poliziotteschi, and even hardcore pornography. Yet it seems horror was his favorite, as he worked in it the most often. Franco is one of those directors considered a genius by some and one of the worst directors of all time by others. That's a reputation that certainly deserves a closer look. Among Franco's most well regarded films is 1970's “Count Dracula.” Which has about a dozen different titles but that's the one I'll be going with tonight.

Made as the popularity of Hammer's “Dracula” series was just beginning to wain, Franco's “Dracula” earned some novelty by supposedly being one of the most faithful adaptations of Bram Stoker's novel. And this is certainly kind of true. The first twenty minutes of the film follows Stoker's novel pretty closely, featuring Jonathan Harker's trip to Borgo Pass, the strange coachman and his encounter with the wolves, Dracula feeding his brides a baby, and Harker discovering the count in his crypt. After that, the film differs considerably. It includes many usually excised elements, such as Quincey Morris, Dracula's gypsy servants, Dracula growing younger as he feeds more, his climatic flee back to Transylvania, and vampire Lucy's nighttime activities hunting children. Yet it combines some characters, cuts others, removes many events, and invents others wholesale.

Over the years, I've read a lot about Jess Franco's directional style. I've seen it referred to interchangeably as stylish or tacky. Having now watched a Franco film, I can say that both adjectives seem fair. Franco sure does seem fond of his crash-zooms. Over the course of the film, characters being surprised, shocked, or scared are emphasized by fast zooms on their faces. This particular habit peaks during a hilariously goofy sequence. While hunting for Dracula, Van Helsing and Quincey are menaced by a room full of animated taxidermied animals. Franco conveys this by zooming in on the faces of the dead animals while they unconvincingly shake and discordant noises and hisses fill in the soundtrack. This also points towards the film's low budget, which keeps this version of “Dracula” largely confined to interior shots and not so much sweeping images of foggy castles.

However, “Count Dracula” does have its effective moments. That early sequence of the disguised Dracula warding off the wolves works for me. As does a scene of Dracula luring Lucy to her window, so that he may enter and bite her neck. Probably the creepiest moment in the movie occurs soon afterwards. We see the sickly Lucy collapse, followed by Quincey entering the room, and then hear his anguished wails from off-screen. However, Franco's pacing is exceedingly slow, many sequences going without music or being largely devoted to people just wandering around locations. The film apparently wanted to replicate the feeling of reading a long novel and not just the events that take place in its pages.

Lending further legitimacy to “Count Dracula” is its cast. While Christopher Lee's involvement with many of Hammer's “Dracula” movies seemed begrudging at best, here he seems excited to play a more accurate version of Stoker's count. An early scene has him monologuing about the proud military history of the Transylvanian people. Multiple scenes of Lee intimidating people from the shadows show the pure power and screen presence Lee was capable of. (And the man certainly knew how to rock a mustache.) Sadly, the rest of “Count Dracula's” cast is kind of wasted. Klaus Kinski should've been an amazing Renfield but the character is confined to an asylum the entire time, Kinski never speaking and simply making wild facial expressions while being restrained. Herbert Lom makes for a decent Van Helsing but he often has little to do besides delivering exposition. Otherwise, Maria Rohm as Mina or Soledad Miranda as Lucy aren't much more than pretty faces.

While it certainly features many variations from the book, Franco's “Count Dracula” probably still stands as one of the more faithful adaptations of Stoker's novel. The version that seems to be the most faithful is the BBC mini-series version starring Louis Jordon, also known as “Count Dracula.” And even that made some pretty notable changes. At this point, it's fair to say that those that want Dracula represented 100% as Stoker intended should probably just - duh - read the novel. While this “Count Dracula” has its moments, including a fiery Chris Lee performance, there's a whole lot of tedium you have to wade through to get to them. [5/10]

Tales from the Cryptkeeper: The Weeping Woman

In season two, “Tales from the Cryptkeeper” decided to do something the original “Tales from the Crypt” never did: It sequelized one of its previous episodes. “The Weeping Woman” sees the return of Camille and Mildred, the teenage girls/amateur paranormal investigators from season one's “Fare Tonight.” Having recently earned her driver's license, Mildred drives Camille out to a small town on the coast. Mildred claims to have given up the spook life, deciding to collect teddy bears instead. After their car breaks down in the middle of the storm, the two girls are forced to take shelter in an old hotel... Which happens to be haunted by the spectre of a wailing, feminine ghost.

Sadly, “The Weeping Woman” is not as much fun as “Fare Tonight.” Downplaying both girls' affection for the supernatural makes sense from a dramatic level. After all, more conflict between friends should make for a more interesting story, right? But Mildred and Camille are a lot less cute when bickering and I really miss their horror nerd enthusiasm. In general, the sleuthing and situations in “The Weeping Woman” aren't as much fun. However, the episode does earn points for having a truly intimidating antagonist. The shrieking spectre is relentless in her pursuit of Camille, tearing up the building around her in the process. She is never played for laughs, making it likely that this episode might've frightened some kids back in 1995. Though never spooky, there's some mild atmosphere in this episode, whenever we hear the crying of the little ghost girl that accompanies the main woman. Refreshingly, “The Weeping Woman” doesn't seem to contain any preachy moral lesson like most episodes of “Tales from the Cryptkeeper.”

Also, I'm increasingly uncertain if I find the Vaultkeeper's slapstick or the Old Witch's obnoxious puns – as opposed to the Cryptkeeper's awesome puns – more irritating. Those two are really dragging down the host segments this season. [6/10]

Forever Knight: Forward Into the Past

Season two continues to more explicitly tie Nick's vampire past in with his cop present. In “Forward Into the Past,” we learn that, in 1950s England, he was friends with a woman named Katherine and her secretary Madelyn. After Katherine's husband was murdered, there was an attempt on her life. Nick had to reveal his vampire powers to protect the woman and then helped them slip away to new identities. Now, forty years later, Madelyn has been discovered dead, after being tortured to death. Nick must now locate Katherine before a decades old crime plot threatens her life as well.

“Forward Into the Past” is not the most compelling episode of “Forever Knight.” I'll be totally honest with you guys. I found the crime plot of this particular episode so dull, that I actually slept through a good chunk of it. As far as I can, some prominent member of society is responsible for the killing, causing Nick to put the pressure on the guy, against the police chief's wishes. What is more interesting about this episode is the friendship Nick formed with the women in the past, even if the vampire's increasingly common tendency to reveal his true idea nature to people is starting to bug me. My favorite part of this episode is Aristotle, a vampire specializing in providing the undead with new identities when they have to leave town suddenly. That's a cool bit of world building in an otherwise dull episode. [5/10]