MovieChat Forums > Grave Encounters 2 (2012) Discussion > Better than the first film.

Better than the first film.

posted 10 years ago by woodward94
10 replies | jump to latest

I actually think the sequel was a lot better than the first film, for many reasons. There was actually some sort of clarification and explaination (the doctor, how the two worlds have merged together etc). I also think there was a lot of potential when they brought in the young girl ghost, that actually brought a lot of chills to my spine!!

However, there was an empty hole in the film for me, as to why the parents of the dead film students haven't reported their kids as missing. Alex's Grave Encounters 2 tapes were clearly a successful movie, after you see him in his interview at the end... So why on god's earth haven't the dead kid's parents batted an eye lid? They see their children die and get killed in a supposedly 'fake' film, but surely they're wondering where they actually are?

I really hope they provide more clarification on this in Grave Encounters 3, if they produced it from a different point of view (such as the parents and survivors stories). There is a lot of potential in my opinion.

He had a voice that could make a wolverine purr and suits so fine they made Sinatra look like a hobo.

[–] IrinaOma 10 years ago

I don't agree. The plot didn't add nothing new. The characters were annoying and stupid. Not to mention disgusting acting

[–] SEAL412 9 years ago

I had issues with the original cast, but I found the second one incredibly unlikable.

Although people dislike the girls in both films, Sasha and Jennifer, and I found them to be the least jarring characters. I didn't like the protagonist in the second film even though Sean turned into Rickety Cricket in it.

[–] yusef-ghanima 9 years ago

both are crap

i mostly will not be able to answer your reply, since marissa mayer hacked my email, no notification

[–] nathan_94 9 years ago

The first is amazing, so no.

[–] nyawaiting 8 years ago

😅
true

[–] jmbwithcats 9 years ago

Being that even the writer and directors agree the first film was better, due to some pacing issues, and pandering a bit too much to a younger audience, think the first 22 minutes, the party, fart joke, etc... part 2 is nowhere near as good as part 1.

www.jmberman.com
Online Mews, Reviews, Poetry, Music, and Ideas

[–] Dan_Garten 9 years ago

Yeah.

[–] quwazymodo 8 years ago

Some point in the 2nd film it was mentioned how the families of the casts were settled outside of the court or somewhere along the lines.

The producer said how they got settled very nicely financially so that's probably no further questions asked.

Also since they said they are officially missing rather than dead. If that's true, the production company won't be held liable for "death" of their actors

[–] chnosanpdro 8 years ago

I feel the same way. Protagonist of the first one has a d0uchey vibe like he's a know it all that keeps explaining stuff like he's an expert. I get that that's part of the humor but made him look like an a55. plus there's nothing much to see on the first one rather than people fumbling in the dark. at least there's more to see in the sequel. But both are quite forgettable.

[–] regexfan 8 years ago

No way! The second one tries too hard to be "better" than the first one that in the end it just fell flat. I know it's a movie, but the first one is a lot more realistic, which had some people on Youtube wondering if the whole thing was real. The second one is not realistic at all, it looks like a (sh*tty) Hollywood movie with lots of cgi's or special effects or whatever it is called.