I was very wary about this movie, perhaps mainly because I was wary about the franchise as a whole.
The original Ghostbusters from 1984 is an undoubtable bona fide comedy classic. The sequel,…I saw it once and don’t remember much from it. While I have yet to see the 2016 female reboot, the 2021 sequel Ghostbusters: Afterlife showed that, with adding some new characters, the franchise still had a little bit of,…well, life. Still, with the film being pushed back from it’s original December release (albeit due to the SAG strike) still had me less than eager to see this. Thankfully, this franchise still has not yet frozen over.
Being born in the late 80s, the only real chance I had at watching a Ghostbusters film was the female remake back in 2016. Since I missed out on that one, Ghostbusters: Afterlife ended up being the first of the franchise that I’ve seen on the big screen.
Another reality set in as I was watching the franchise’s latest entry: we may be in a world now where audiences care more for fan service than plot. That is not to say the story of this film is not intriguing or confusing, but that telling a story is taking a back seat to fan service.
It was film critic Gene Siskel who normally would ask “Is this movie as interesting as the same actors having lunch together?” Had he lived to see The Goldfinch, the answer would be a short and direct no. With actors like Ansel Elgort, Nicole Kidman, Oakes Fegley, Finn Wolfhard, Sarah Paulson, and Luke Wilson, it can be safetly assumed that the making of this film would almost be riveting (not to mention some of those behind the camera). Oh how I wish these people were in a different movie.
Alas, that is not the case, and we are stuck with The Goldfinch, based off the 2014 Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Donna Tart (unread by me). The film starts in the aftermath of a (fictional) terrorist attack at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, leaving few survivors. One of which is 13 year old Theo (young talented Oakes Fegley), whose mother was killed in the attack. He is taken in briefly by an upper class family, the Barbour, and finds a somewhat newer mother figure in Mrs. Barbour (Nicole Kidman).We learn that one of the other victims in the attack was an acquaintance of a antiques dealer named Hobie (Jeffrey Wright), who takes young Theo under his wing as the young soul is more than intrigued by “old things” (not to mention Hobie’s adopted daughter Pippa, who also survived the attack and was catching Theo’s eye before the explosion). It is soon discovered by the audience that Theo has stolen a priceless artwork from the rubble, known as The Goldfinch.
He is soon taken away from his deadbeat dad (Luke Wilson) and his girlfriend Xandra (Sarah Paulson) to live with in the outskirts of Las Vegas. Though both seem loving, it does not take much to see that these two only want Theo for the money that his mother left him. The only light in Theo’s young life is his new friend Boris (Finn Wolfhard of Stranger Things and the IT films), a Russian immigrant (though he mentions he is from many places).
There is a lot (to say the least) jumping around in this
movie, as we fast forward to an adult Theo (Ansel Elgort), who now deals in
antiques, and finds pieces of his past childhood experiences, which were mostly
nothing short of bad, as certain people of the past have died (and in tragic
ways). It is melodrama cranked to the max. I forgot to mention how, when he
first moved in with the Harbour family, Mrs. Harbour introduced him to a
prescription drug that helped with the affects of the aftermath of the attack
(PTSD I guess). This starts Theo into a drug habit that escalates even more
when he meets Boris (whose own home life is chaotic with his father). The end
of the film shows a crime caper of sorts, which legit makes no sense.
I am sure this film had all the best of intentions (and I am sure the book is great), but the translation from page to screen is not merely lost: it vanishes. There was a lot of source material to work from (I found out the book is in the 700-800 page range), but the film still drags on for too long. Sure, the run time is long (two and a half hours), but even films at that length don’t always seem to drag as much (the first film to come to mind that had about that same length of runtime is The Dark Knight, which never dragged on). The Goldfinch had me checking my watch constantly, and that started about 20 or 30 minutes into the film.
Parents, the film is rated R mainly for language and drug
use. There is no sexuality (though it is inferred that some characters have
slept with each other). High School and above.
The film is directed by John Crowley, who was at the helm of 2015’s criminally under seen gem Brooklyn. He is clearly a talented filmmaker, but even the best of them have flops. The one bit of light for The Goldfinch is (somewhat poetically) that the man behind the lighting (i.e., the cinematographer) is the legendary Roger Deakins, meaning the film is indeed wonderful to look at.
Toward the end of the film, one character mentions how some good can come from bad. It will be sometime before I discover what good has come from seeing this film.
I have often stated that, for one reason or another, I have yet to read a single Stephen King book, meaning I am not always sure if the films are entirely faithful to the material (thought it is wildly known that Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining was not, resulting in King vocally hating the film). It is true that most (if not all) film adapations will differ from the original source, so I feel compelled to judge the film as a whole rather than just how well the film was accurate or not. Whether or not IT Chapter Two is in the loyal category or not, the end result is still rather disappointing, especially since the first IT film two years ago was one of the better horror films of recent memory (I even went to declare it as the best film of 2017).
The film (directed by Andy Muschietti, who also directed the first film) opens twenty seven years after the events of the first film (2016, so modern day in some form), we see the return of the terrifying Pennywise (once again, played radiantly by Bill Skarsgard). We see that only one member of the Loser’s Club, Mike (Isaiah Mustafa) has decided to stay in the town of Derry, Maine (in flashbacks, he is played by Chosen Jacobs). He begins to call the remaining members back.
As expected, a lot has changed in twenty seven years, which
is shown through a good number of flashbacks (where all the child actors from
the original return). When last seen, young Bill (Jaeden Martell) was the
leader and getting over his stuttering problem (let alone the death of his
little brother Georgie). Now as an adult, Bill (James McAvoy) is a writer who
seems to have problems coming up with good endings. Young Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor)
was last overweight yet still kind hearted. Now, the adult Ben (Jay Ryan) has
clearly been working out, yet his heart is the same as ever (and still turned
toward the one person who signed his yearbook twenty seven years ago). Ever the
comic relief, young Richie (Finn Wolfhard) has grown up to be a comedian
(played by Bill Hader). There is still the hypochondriac Eddie (James Ransone,
who looks the most like his younger self when played by Jack Dylan Grazer), Stanley
(Wyatt Oleff as a child, and Andy Bean as an adult), and, finally, Beverly (Sophia
Lillis as a child and Jessica Chastain as an adult).
One of the shocking parts to me (which I believe was in the book) was that it takes the characters a good amount of time to remember the events of the past (with the exception of Mike, who, due to staying in Derry, has remembered everything). I guess it would make sense that, due to the oddities of Derry (“I’m kind of used to it by now”, Bill says), memories may have faded in time (all of us have faded memories as well). However, some seem to take a long time for the characters to remember (it does not seem to cross Bill’s mind for sometime that he once had a little brother).
It is said that, in order to defeat IT, each member must retrieve a piece of their past, which must be done by themselves. This results in the flashbacks to the parts of that summer when the kids were not on speaking terms (after Eddie broke his arm and Bill punched Richie in the face). While the first film showed how we have to face our fears, the second film dives deeper, as it shows we sometimes do all we can to bury our fears and insecurities in the past. Facing our past mistakes can be scary in itself (think of Moses).
While I know there are parts of the story that needed to be told, the film still runs too long. There are some moments that are well done, but don’t really drive the story at all. One main scene I can think of is with a little girl who discovers Pennywise under the bleachers of a local baseball game. The scene is well done and affective, but what does it add to the story? We already knew that Pennywise was taking bloodcurdling to the next level.
Another one of the flaws of the film was the return of a certain character from the first one. While I won’t give it away (and the new actor looked like this character would in the future so well I was borderline flabbergasted), I will say how this character manages to escape predicaments and interact with the other characters is too bizarre to take into account.
As was the case with the first film, the cast is practically
pitch perfect. Everyone fits their roles like a glove (I read that, when the
child stars were asked who they would like to play their roles as adults, both
Finn Wolfhard and Sophia Lillis picked the performers who would eventually play
them). We also get two nice cameos that I for one was not expecting at all.
Parents, it should not take much thought to know that this
is not a film for children. The movie deserves its R rating, though if your
kids did see the first film, they would probably be okay here.
One thing the sequel has more of is CGI, which tends to dampen the scares down a bit (though there are still a good amount of “jump scares” to go around). While the CGI is not bad in a sense, the very idea of seeing Pennywise in his true form takes away some of the imaginative properties we had going into the theater. There is a point in the film where Mike talks about how, sometimes, we tend to keep the memories we like and not the bad ones. That being said, I plan to remember the greatness of the first film and not a lot from the second film.
Nothing else to say 