MovieChat Forums > Sinister 2 (2015) Discussion > Completely ruined the mythology.

Completely ruined the mythology.


Whether you enjoyed this film or not, there is no denying how cheap and terribly made it is compared to the first. An absolute perfect example of a cash grab. The first is a genuinely good film, I remember coming out thinking it was one of the best horrors in a while.

I was literally angry after coming out of this one. Bagul was basically a background character, might as well not include him and make it a children of the corn film. The thing that made the first creepy was the fact the kids barely spoke. You found out it was them killing the families at the end and even when Hawkes character walked around his house the ghost kids were just running round him. The kids in this speaking and interacting made it comical!

andddd finally the acting was cringe worthy. the old deputy guy must have thought he was in a comedy with his constant exaggerated facial expressions.

Shame when a sequel ruins great groundwork laid by a film.

reply

[deleted]

How was the ending ridiculous

reply

[deleted]

Yep, this movie was bad. I loved the first one, it is one of my favourite horror films.
Ending was just ridiculous. Script was horrible absolutely horrible.

This film should never have been made.

reply

[deleted]

It's part of a franchise, of course it's a cash grab.



reply

In the first film when never see what the daughter was experiencing, we only see what Ethan Hawke's character was experiencing.

In this film we see that that the siblings are played against each other, or that one of the children are made to hate their parents and that that is the mechanism for committing the murders. So I didn't have a problem that Bagul was in the background because this movie was focused on telling us the motivation of the children.

reply

I think it's the latter: the demon is exploiting the children's weaknesses and insecurities to get them to off their families.

He clearly doesn't have complete control, otherwise there'd be no point using Dylan to get to Zach.

Courtney probably left her husband only after Dylan was abused, possibly meaning she favored him. Zach had some resentment built up and the ghost children used that to their advantage.

I'm assuming that all the ghost children were either abused or neglected in some way, built up some anger toward their parents and siblings, and Baghuul used those feelings to corrupt them.

The Children of the Corn-looking ringleader was definitely *beep* in the head, so much so that you could practically see jizz oozing from his ears.

reply

They had to take this film into a different direction. There is no mystery now.





Best line in DC Comics:
http://i.imgur.com/XL5ZBKS.png

reply

The first one was cool until the ghost kids. Now this movie had kids the entire time which made it trash.


"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

reply

The first film did the same thing though... when the daughter brings him his coffee and he closes the door on her... he makes her feel ignored and unvalued... this is her impetus to turn on him later.




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

reply

I also think they were showing the kids going against each other. In the first film the dad barely is giving the kids attention because he is obsessed. What interactions we do see with the kids is the son is having night terrors that got worse so that represents the son that kept getting the nightmares in the second one. The daughter isn't getting as much attention and is stronger and that represents the other twin. I think if there are mulitple children which in all families there almost always seems to be 2 kids. Bagul uses this to his advantage. In the first film both children did art on the murders. This was showing what also must have been going on between the children in the first film. Bagul doesn't take the stronger one, he takes the weaker one. The one that fights him and refuses gets to die and the other one goes with him because they were to weak to resist.

Side Note: The kids were watching the films in dad's office in the first film. That's why the projector kept turning on. Then they would hear dad and run off.

reply

“Side note:...”
This changes everything!
I watched the first when it was released,
But only watched the sequel yesterday
So I totally forgot about that

reply

IMO it did no disservice to the first one.

Indeed, it is quite different and so delivers a different piece of work, but I for one am glad it did not just repeat the same same. Here it shows us more from the Children's point of view and how they are manipulated into killing their family... essentially by giving them a new family.... I think it was clever that the previous children's souls were used for this, and also how the children all seem to share some form of parents neglect.

It had good scares and innovative kills, but I do agree that the ghost-Kids were not as scary as they could have been, and too there are some odd discrepancies here and there. Like how the hell did a wee kid build the crosses, and why run away from a kid like that. A karate kick from a grownup should be enough..... of course, I am sure the explanation is that the kid at that point has supernatural powers flowing through him, but it could have been told better.

In short, I think it adds to the mythos. I am glad how different it is. And I like the angle the second story took. However, some of the ideas were not executed well... but that too could be said about the first.

reply