This was supposed to be scary?


I don't get it, was this movie even supposed to be scary? Because if so, what film school did the creators for it flunk out of? There was not one scary thing to the whole movie, unless you want to count the fact that people got paid to make it. What's everybody else think?

reply

I agree with the OP... Where did any of the creators think this movie would go over well, and the only scary thing was that people got paid to make this... Not even the acting was convincing! I think one way to improve it would be one... the ghosts just looked like people with latex and make-up from a halloween shop. And when did the house become a living thing?! The whole "evil idol" statue thing was reeeealy far fetched. Although I did find it humourous how they dipossed of it. "Oh we'll just toss it down a drain where it will drift off and become somebody elses' problem. La dee da :D" Furthermore... Victor Garcia (director) and William Massa (writter) should have their creative licsences revoked.

reply

Well, if you want to be fair, you'll recall Watson told them in the first movie "The house is alive, we're all gonna die", because it was ransacked with the never-resting spirits of the deranged staff and its victims, and they were all tangled together into that darkness thing. Here they kind of tried for the good vs. evil thing, the patients want them to defeat the spirit that keeps the doctor in command...EXCEPT, for the fact that aside from the lead inmate in pajama pants, anytime a ghost comes across one of the people, they wind up dying. And some of this is attributed to Vannacutt and his staff...well most of it actually, but the first one, dude in the wall, he's a patient, what does he do? Reach into the guy's stomach and pull everything out. Now granted, that was a villain, so maybe that's why, but that lead ghost was the ONLY one they encountered throughout the house without dying immediately afterwards. The first movie was not scary but it was creepy because we ALL get freaked out at the idea of an insane doctor like that and they do exist, this movie took the only element of horror away in explaining that Vannacutt wasn't evil, the statue is...what the hell? And why, if the ghosts know the statue makes him evil, do they all crowd Vannacutt in the end to make him suffer since it's not his fault but the statue's?

reply

I agree, I didn't get that either. Also, Vannacutt looked nothing like himself in this movie.

"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit me!"- Hudson in Aliens.

reply

Also, Vannacutt looked nothing like himself in this movie.


No he didn't, he looked more like Stephen Price from the first movie, what's up with that?

reply

Dr. Vannacutt killed professor Hammer. He was the only ghost who killed a good guy. Bad guy Desmond killed Richard, the professor's assistant. The other two good guys survived.

And why, if the ghosts know the statue makes him evil, do they all crowd Vannacutt in the end to make him suffer since it's not his fault but the statue's?
That's an odd scene. But all the ghosts turned into dust after surrounding Dr. Vannacutt. Not even sure if they killed him.

reply

Sadly, yes this was intended to be scary. I'm guessing Garcia was high during most of the filming of this.

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
Groucho

reply

Do you expect every horror movie to be scary or every comedy to be funny? Sur this wasn't a great movie and it didn't have half the creepy atmosphere the first one had, but these threads are so dumb lol. Family Guy needs a message board cutaway about someone who always starts a thread that shows up on every board.

"They're all dead.....they just don't know it yet." - Eric Draven

reply