im sorry but i dont see this film as better than the first. I love the film but still prefer the original over it. the opening 20 minutes of the first are priceless this feels like a retread basically. Also the villain is more or less a faceless psychopath who you feel no sympathy for at all (at least Curt Duncan was likeable (not always but somewhat.))
Also its got practically the same ending as the first (Jill in distress ends up being saved by Clifford)
So... do you just simply disregard the original's boring middle and so-so ending? Overall, the sequel is much better - good opening, decent middle that doesn't put me to sleep, and a satisfying and unnerving ending. Nostalgia is a dangerous thing, buddy.
shareI don't think this is better or worse than the original. I see them both as equals. I would agree that you did get to know more about Curt Duncan in the original and it did a great job at giving us a glimpse into his mind by trying to show us how he tries to function in a normal society. But Landis's ventriloquist speech in this one was meaningful and insightful and I did feel sorry for him when he was booed off stage. He seemed like a lonely person. While the original gave us a glimpse at the killer's psychology in a slightly better way, I think both films did a great job at making their killers more than just a faceless villain.
I've been waiting for you, Ben.
[deleted]
The original's opener is good, but the rest of the movie is terrible. Even the ending is just eh.
The sequel has a clever opener, a decently paced middle and a very tense, very creepy ending (the guy painted to look like the wall is downright frightening).
Why do we need to feel sympathy for the killers?
Your taste is awful.
The addition of decent nudity, Jill Schoelen and a slightly more even tone and pacing make this one slightly better than the original.
It's pretty neck-and-neck but Jill Schoelen + breasts is a tie-breaker!