the actors in this movie act like this movie is their breakthrough role and the tend to overact...alot...and it is very annoying i can't stand it...the first movie was good and these movie makers had to just mess it up...they tried to remake the first one and they just *beep* it up...i give it negative 2 stars...
shareyep, it sure does. But with an Iraqi vet winning formula like that, who'd have thought it'd blow quite THIS much? (Answer: me.)
shareWow, just wow.
First off the story has Jake being too old. The first movie came out in 99 which means this should be 8 years later.
He was what 5 or 6 in the first movie? So he should have only been in his early teens. This movie had him in his late 20s (or at least that is the age of the person playing him so I'm assuming that is the age range they were aiming for. Either way he was an adult, that would put this movie about 20 years after the first one.
I hate when they do that with movies. Without having one take place either in the past or one in the future.
Although that is only a small part of what is wrong with this movie.
I entirely agree that this movie sucked big time. The whole thing with Jake was so lame -- I hate it when they try to tie in a sequel with the original in a stupid way that doesn't make any sense. Since I didn't really remember the original movie, I sat through it again after "The Homecoming" played on SciFi, and in the original, which came out in 1999, Jake was 5 years old. Which would have made him 13 in this movie, and I don't think that weird, scarred eyed cynical blind guy passing out the orange juice was anywhere near 13. Better if they had just disregarded the first movie entirely and not included any characters from it. But even so, the sequel would've still sucked. The character and relationship development had none of the resonance that was there in the first movie.
shareDid they ever actually give a date for the first movie? Sure it came out in 99, but that doesn't mean it was set in 99. Of course the easy way to know would be to see when GOB released their cover of "Paint it Black".
sharethe only thing that made the "grand premiere" of this worthwhile is that once it ended, they played the original. i'm not sure how i managed to sit at home and watch this on a saturday night. it took so long to get to the point of this movie, it's just so many random flashbacks of different people and ghostly appearances that seemingly have nothing to do with the movie. oh wait, they didn't have anything to do with the movie. the cinematography wasn't awful, the makeup was average, the actors... you're dead on about the overacting.
shareI gave it a 1 but negative two would've worked.
The Jake Whitzky age thing is only a start. The ending made the whole thing pointless. Iraq is too touchy a subject to just blithely use as a plot point in an awful movie.
Did the Sci Fi channel produce this? Because I think they're on track to keep Roger Corman (who I love) company with the most ludicrous scripts ever written.
hey bailey, I don't think they did blithely use it - I thought it was exceedingly liberal in its production and that seemed quite intentional and direct to me.
It was pretty bad, but to their credit, I just had to watch the whole thing. I agree with the other poster, was good to see the original right after.
Path. Follow path. Gate. Open gate, through gate, close gate. Last ferry 6.30, so run, run, run.
I couldn't even finish it.
sharepinmv, good point. I did want to finish it so that's something. It wasn't godawful it was just god, awful.
shareLOL@bailey ;)
Path. Follow path. Gate. Open gate, through gate, close gate. Last ferry 6.30, so run, run, run.
Wow, am i the only one who enjoyed the movie for what it was. I'm sure if it was called something other than Stir of Echoes, everyone would of thought it was a fairly decent film. All the flack about this reminds me of Halloween 3. It didn't have Micheal Myers in it so it sucked because it was a "sequal" but would of been good as a stand alone film. Enjoy the movie for what its worth.
share[deleted]
i already knew this movie would be crap the moment it started.....
HOW you may ask....
van explodes completely, 30 sec later a girl comes out of it, unscratched yet everyone in the van was carbonized and well cooked nice and crispy....
only for the Van to explode (again) and burn the girl.........DRAMA???????
HAHAHAHAHAHA garbage.
I can almost hear them thinking: Let's take a creepy movie and put the Iraq War in!
But then its made by the sweet folks at Scifi who have never turned out a decent movie that wasn't based on somebody else's work, like Dune.
[deleted]
Just finished watching it. It was horrible. Although I thought the main plot was ok the story was very lame. It wasn't scary at all. The director and cinematographer were pretty bad too.
shareDid Rob Lowe show any skin in this or have any sex scenes?
shareThis movie was awful. The kid who was trying to get Lowe's attention confuses me and I'm still not sure why this ghost picked him. Because of the irony (of the Iraq situation)? I wouldn't think ghosts would use such abstract things for who to approach that can see them.
shareI didnt mind the Iraq War tie in, per se, but the girl did throw me as well. But it is far from a horrible movie.
shareIt wasn't that bad up until the last 10 minutes. I think they could have come up with a better ending for it. first hour and twenty minutes-7 stars, last ten minutes-3 stars
share