This was scarier than the first. I was totally underwhelmed by the first. I just think every aspect of this is better, not sure about the ghost kids but the rest was good. Feel free to argue with me in the replies.
shareThe few, the proud... the dissenters. This was *way* scarier than the first, which I liked a lot. The trailers spoil the flashlight sequence a bit, but it's still terrifying when it happens. Much like Insidious, they perhaps use too many jump-cut scares, but at least they're all effective. And those home movies are much more brutal this time around.
This joins the ranks of Friday the Thirteenth part 2, Dawn of the Dead (1978) and The Devil's Rejects as one of those rare sequels that is significantly scarier than the original.
___________
Has anybody seen Sam Lowry?
"We few, we lucky few, we band of brothers"
That flashlight scene was terrifying, my heart was in my throat! Definetely one of the best scenes in the film
I agree. It felt darker, more serious too. The Super 8 scenes were horrible, the alligator one took me by surprise!
sharePeople like you are what is wrong with horror movies today.
What's best in life ?
Ahh. Finally a reaction from someone who thinks the 1st is better for its "broody" atmosphere and minimalism. The type of person who, when you ask their favourite film say "well, you might not have heard of it.."
shareThe first is better because it has a coherent plot, decent writing and actual scares. This devolved Baghuul into a clown and made the ghost children unintentionally funny. And why exactly would a good atmosphere and minimalism be bad? I guess you're the type of person when asked what their favorite film would say "I know a lot of people don't like it but..."
sharePeople like you are what's wrong with the internet these days.
shareIt was gorier than the first film. Different kettle of fish than being "scarier".
The first film had suspense and mystery to it. This one, there were no surprises or anything. The first film had an innocent child unexpectedly wind up the killer. This one had a POS acting like a POS, and a scared kid acting like he was being blackmailed -- both less effective than the first film, with which it is inconsistent. The first film didn't have talking ghosts going around moving shower curtains because they thought it would look scary and acting like indie filmmakers competing with each other. The first used the ghosts to much greater effect than having them get into arguments and act like kids with bad makeup.
The first one was a useless horror film.
The scares were so predictable that I could see when every one was gonna happen.
WEAK horror film.
This sequel wasn't much better but at least the scares weren't as predictable.
I enjoyed this one more.
There absolutely nothing effective about the first one.
What was unpredictable in the second film? The only supposed surprise in the film, since it did not add to revelations of the first film at all, was the fact that they were grooming the one brother vs the other, and I've not yet met someone who didn't see that one coming. Considering the second film did not build at all upon the first film, I seriously fail to see how the second could logically be less predictable.
shareLike I said (For the 3rd time now)....The scares were less predictable.
In the first film I could literally see where each jump scare was coming.
In the second, I could not.
Also, the little kid ghosts in the first one were really corny and ineffective.
In the sequel, they weren't scary but they were interesting at least.
This one felt a lot more "sinister" too.
The murder videos were more effective than they were in the first.
Again, I'm not saying it's a better film.
To be honest, I don't think either of them are decent horror films.
But the sequel was more effective and enjoyable to me.
For the third time, I still don't get how the scares are less predictable. We know and can predict who's going to attack whom and when (i.e. the boy after they move). Having the Bogeyman suddenly appear in the background, etc, for what South Park would refer to as "The Startling" is the same as the first. Having the videos go from idyllic family activities to scenes of entire families getting murdered? Of course we knew something bad was going to happen (since it is a horror film), but it was only relatively fresh the first time we saw a video in the first film. The means of death in the videos? I didn't find them any more original.
I cannot dispute your subjective experience of the movie - if you found it scarier, you did. I just cannot see it as the basis as an objective assessment of the two films.
The scares were less predictable because I couldn't predict when they were coming like I could with the first, it's pretty simple lol.
It's not important that you agree with me.
It's not an "objective assessment of the two films" it's obviously just my subjective opinion.
I found the first one to be laughable and full of eye rolling moments.
It felt like a horror film for someone who's never seen a horror film before (no offense)
I watched the sequel out of boredom and found it to be surprisingly effective.
Although, like the first one it did rely on jump scares but in this one they actually worked (I couldn't see em coming)
The jump scares in this one were just as obvious as the first, if that's what you're talking about. I didn't hate this one, either, I just think the first was better. "Less is more" is often the right way to go with horror. The most memorable scare in the first one for most people was probably the lawnmower scene. That's probably the most effective of any of the home movies in either of the two. The build-up, the tension, and that sound make it a really good scare. Pretty much everyone jumped when they saw that.
Compare that to something like the alligator tape. There's nothing to be scared by. It's CGI alligators, fine, I don't care about the CGI part. It's just not scary, there's no tension. They even re-use that sound effect I mentioned, and it's just not the same.
I'll admit that if you look at horror films from a perspective of how good the kills were, I can understand it. I just don't think this is one of the films where that applies. It's not a slasher, it's trying to have depth, but it misses out on what made the first one good. The home movies were obviously the most interesting part, and they're just not presented in a scary light at all. They're just there to say "look how gross this is".
What's all this shouting? We'll have no trouble here
The jump scares in this one were just as obvious as the first
The first one was a useless horror film.
Which scares? All I'm encountering is a couple of startles and those 'scream'-movie like cinematics are getting real old, real fast.
shareThey are still "scares" lol. Effective or not.
Again, I didn't particularly like either of the Sinister films.
I thought the first one was crap and the 2nd was forgettable BUT more effective than the first one at least.
I call it a 'startle'. If I sneak up to you in a supermarket and use an airhorn near your ears. You will jump up and react violently too.
Are you scared at that moment? No. Are you startled? Probably quite a lot.
finally someone who nailed it.atmosphere and mystic with some shocking murder scenes made the first better than the second who went for more gore and mindless horror cliches.
shareThe ghost children were unintentionally funny in the first film. All the build-up with the eerie home movies just for that crap.
shareAlthough slow at the start, I agree this is the better movie. I don't get the hype with either movie unless fans are adults who were once terrified of the boogeyman. We did get more answers with this movie. He goes after the wicked kids, the ones more likely to do his bidding.
shareObjectively wrong opinion, sorry.
share