quackitysbeanie

it 2 was an ok movie. nothing more, nothing less. that acting and casting were amazing but that’s as far as my compliments for this film go. now, this doesn’t not infer the film was bad, per se, but rather than it didn’t live up to my expectations. for the next following posts i will list my complaints:
          	
          	im going to leave my complaints here;
          	
          	1) i hated how mike and Stan's characters were handled. although not incredibly important in the first film, in this one they genuinely seemed like  the director forgot about them and just slotted them in with incoherent and unsatisfactory stories, i.e Stan's death.
          	
          	2) WHY MAKE RICHIE GAY? now I have absolutely nothing against the lgbt community (i, myself, am a part of it) but the story with Richie and eddies relationship just seemed like fan-service. the first director of part one seemed keen on adding obvious hints towards a homosexual relationship between the two, but once Andy muschietti came into the picture, he removed it all, then deciding to add it into the next movie. but why do this? his decision turns what could be a genuinely touching and well written homosexual relationship into something so...bland and queer-baity. the fact that I,myself am a reddie shipper makes this all the more frustrating as I really wanted to enjoy the fact it was added but just couldn't due to the poor execution of the decision

quackitysbeanie

it 2 was an ok movie. nothing more, nothing less. that acting and casting were amazing but that’s as far as my compliments for this film go. now, this doesn’t not infer the film was bad, per se, but rather than it didn’t live up to my expectations. for the next following posts i will list my complaints:
          
          im going to leave my complaints here;
          
          1) i hated how mike and Stan's characters were handled. although not incredibly important in the first film, in this one they genuinely seemed like  the director forgot about them and just slotted them in with incoherent and unsatisfactory stories, i.e Stan's death.
          
          2) WHY MAKE RICHIE GAY? now I have absolutely nothing against the lgbt community (i, myself, am a part of it) but the story with Richie and eddies relationship just seemed like fan-service. the first director of part one seemed keen on adding obvious hints towards a homosexual relationship between the two, but once Andy muschietti came into the picture, he removed it all, then deciding to add it into the next movie. but why do this? his decision turns what could be a genuinely touching and well written homosexual relationship into something so...bland and queer-baity. the fact that I,myself am a reddie shipper makes this all the more frustrating as I really wanted to enjoy the fact it was added but just couldn't due to the poor execution of the decision

quackitysbeanie

3) this is personal opinion but, i think that this film has horrible issues with pacing. they spent too much time on the losers finding their ‘tokens’ but made it in a way that was boring and dragged out. 
          
          4) ben having his yearbook page thingy makes no sense plot wise?? like, he has forgotten everything from derry due to pennywise’s influence but still had that and knew what it meant? also, i hated the representation of their relationship. much like with richie and eddie, they turned what could’ve been a cute healthy romance into something rushed and forced.

quackitysbeanie

5) this is really just a nitpick, but they changed one of my favourite scenes from the book (the one with bill and the skateboarding kid) into something so ANNOYING! i hate bill in all scenes but especially that one! i wish they had handled it better! 
          
          6) the scene with adrien and his boyfriend was jarring unnecessary. their story genuinely wasn’t needed in the film and was honestly triggering! they could’ve replaced what happened to adrien with any other of the murders and would’ve had the same affect on the story and would’ve been less hard to watch. 
          
          7) henry’s story was boring and wasn’t needed. i know it was in the book, but even then it was unimportant so why add it into the film if it will just drag it out and make it more uncomfortable to watch?