MovieChat Forums > Sinister 2 (2015) Discussion > Garbage Film...

Garbage Film...

posted 9 years ago by preykousis
79 replies | jump to latest

I'm sorry, I had to verify my account just to post this, but I believe this was the worst film I have seen in years.

Now I never saw the first Sinister, but my friend gave me the rundown of what little story it had, so I was prepared in that area. Due to heavy thunderstorms causing leaks in several screens, we had no choice but to see this so we thought what the hell, but I have to say I was falling asleep through most of it, and it didn't even provide any jump scares or suspense.

We counted more than 10 people walking out at different points, we stopped counting after 10, but 6 left at once at one point. Luckily for us the ticket was free, but god I don't even see how this movie even has the rating it has on here.

I could go on and on listing all the reasons it was a flop piece of trash, but I've wasted enough time as it is on this, and just wanted to warn others away from it...

EDIT: I have since watched the original film, and guess what? I liked it, and these aren't my type of films these days, but Sinister was good, leaps and bounds better than Sinister 2 ;D

[–] ThoseLittleRabbits 9 years ago

i don't understand why people bother watching part 2 without seeing the first film, and then complain about what they just saw...

i've got feelings too, ya know - inbetweeners

[–] preykousis 9 years ago

As above, it was literally the only film left available, and we didn't want to head back home without seeing something, it would be wasteful. My friend had seen the first, and he said it was better than that, but still "crap". I do intend to watch Sinister just for my own comparisons as it does seem to have much better ratings overall... with that being said, with a story as simple as this, pretty much anyone could walk in and follow it, it wasn't exactly a complex story to follow lol

[–] ThoseLittleRabbits 9 years ago

if you watch the second before the first, it ruins the twists and suspense that the first offers. especially if you don't watch the trailers of the first

i've got feelings too, ya know - inbetweeners

[–] preykousis 9 years ago

That may be true, but it still doesn't affect my opinion on this instalment, and honestly, I have never seen that many people walk out of a cinema screening in the 18 years I've been going.

[–] ThoseLittleRabbits 9 years ago

ok all i'm saying is that it might affect your opinion on the first. i understand why people dont like the second.

i've got feelings too, ya know - inbetweeners

[–] preykousis 9 years ago

Okay, just finished watching the first one, and I thought it was leaps and bounds better than this. Another example of a cash cow sequel it seems XD

[–] Joy_Ride_74 9 years ago

Well, I saw the first one. Seen it dozens of times and I LOVE it! However, I wasn't pleased with the sequel. What ruined it for me was small things like, how did former deputy "So & So" KNOW that Baghuul was behind the murders and disappearance of the children? Did he speak with Prof. Jonas, and Jonas explained everything to him that he told Elliot in the first one? I don't recall hearing that in this second one. Also, Baghuul was way too "active" in this one. In the first one, he remains a mystery and only appeared in the home videos. In this second one, he randomly pops up at that burned down church, and even made himself visible to So & So. From my understanding, (from seeing the first one) Baghuul only haunts you if you SEE him in those films. He never just appeared to random people. Another thing is, sure...we get the whole concept with, "He gets the kids," but let's say a married couple moves into one of the homes where the murders took place and they do NOT have children? I know it's Hollywood, and Hollywood will always make it where children ARE involved, but if we're going to have sequels that are different from the first movie, then I would have much rather seen the whole movie be about former deputy So & So piecing everything together to achieve what Elliot tried to do in the first one.....WITHOUT this mom on the run storyline.

[–] macedoniall 9 years ago

Well for the him haunting So and So question. It could be anything he is in, be it pictures or movies (which are just pictures in the basic sense.) So and So did have a picture of Bhguul that Ethan Hawk took from the the first film, I just thought that was how he was being followed be Bhguul.

I will not fear, fear is the mind killer

[–] mel2000 8 years ago

The professor in the sequel went into great detail explaining the legend of Bughuul.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] j-reuterer 8 years ago

I watched the first and loved it. And i agree this film is absolute garbage,

Zero genuinely scary moments only the cheapest of cheap jump scares.
WAY overexposed children and baghoul or however you spell him.
Catastrophic actors for ALL the children, the 5 ghost ones AND the 2 twins.
And ending that barely makes any sense at all.
The "movies" are extremely rushed and switch way to fast to the killings (which feel extremely forced trying to top the killings in the first one)

Im not going to keep going, if you liked it you will disagree anyway but this movie is at least in my opinion Garbage.

[–] wrightmichelle-49366 9 years ago

I am weary to watch the 2nd one...this only confirms my fear of this film bombing... I won't be going to the theatre for it. Watch the 1st one though. It was awesome! Just pretend the 2nd one didn't happen..

[–] vnsgarcia 8 years ago

I think you mean leery, not weary.

[–] chaosroach 8 years ago

No, he means wary.

Comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable

[–] vnsgarcia 8 years ago

apparently you are the expert.

[–] tucoify 8 years ago

Apparently you desperately need to have the last word, as most 13 year old girls do. Which is, for biggest parts, the group of ppl appreciating a crappy excuse for a "horror flick like this. nuff said

[–] vnsgarcia 8 years ago

I'm not 13, nor a last word freak. I didn't even watch the film. You however are clearly am instigator. Blocked.

[–] terrencepatrix 8 years ago

So you just go around to message boards of movies you don't watch to correct peoples grammar? Well aren't you a fun person.

[–] vnsgarcia 8 years ago

Lol don't presume to know why I stopped by this thread. You look foolish. Blocked

[–] terrencepatrix 8 years ago

What a loser...

[–] droidX 9 years ago

Wrong again, fuzz fetcher.

[–] preykousis 9 years ago

I'm sorry, opinions cannot be wrong, this is simply mine, and those of whom walked out ;D

[–] panda-boy942 9 years ago

Which one was the garbage film?

[–] bb007_86 9 years ago

At least this is a horror movie that actually tries to tell a story and has some emotion involved. I found myself caring about what happens to the family as I watched it all unfold.

[–] preykousis 9 years ago

No arguments there, the acting wasn't half bad at all, and it did show emotion. However, its very slow pace made it feel like dragging your testicles through broken glass.

As for the "horror" movie classification, I don't think it even fits the bill. I mean the snuff reels were very 'weak', all of stuff we have seen on TV over the years and even documentaries like the rat one. This meant there was no shocking aspect to provide the horror feeling, and it seemed to rely on jump scares, despite about 4 people in our cinema falling for them (those we could see in front).

I mean people we're laughing throughout the movie at the humour here and there, and gasped when one of the boys called a certain someone a *beep* other than that, I don't see this as anything but a failed 'suspense' movie rather than a horror :)

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mel2000 8 years ago

The original didn't have a plot. S2 had a plot with a beginning, middle and end where each scene served to move the plot along. The pacing was far better, unlike S1, which moved from scene to scene in a jack-in-the-box fashion. S1 also contained extraneous characters like the fat sheriff and the battling wife who served no real purpose to the story.

My biggest problem with S1 was the cheap scares. Conveniently investigate rooms without turning on lights. Create a kid who conveniently suffers from "night terrors" (to provide a cheap and literal jack-in-the-box scare). Ghosts popping up to scare the audience instead of the movie characters. Made absolutely no sense when you think about it. Insulting.

[–] gasmaskproductionsbooks 9 years ago

I didn't really care for it either... I didn't hate it, but I think the first one was way better. It was too predictable, too many jump scares. The CGI looked fake. The gore and swearing was unnecessary and over-the-top, and this time around the snuff reels were trying too hard to be shocking so that it just wasn't scary (except for the Christmas Morning one, it was really creepy). Also the dead kids were more annoying than scary. How did the deputy know where the abusive dad lived? Why is the camera a 16mm instead of super 8 like the last Sinister? How did a little kid figure out a torture method from the middle ages to have rats eat his family? Why aren't the dead kids from the first Sinister in the second Sinister?

Sinister relied more on the mood, music, atmosphere and corrupted nostalgia to be scary, whereas Sinister 2 tries too hard and just comes across as typical.

"The 21st century is all flash but no substance." ~ Smog City

[–] preykousis 9 years ago

I can easily back this up. The CGI was indeed very low budget from the looks of things, but hey one can get past that with a good story, which this lacked.

That also reminds me about those kids, they indeed never even came across as scary, and their make-up looked very poor when demonised. Even worse, every time Dylan said "Hi insert kids name here*" literally everyone either laughed or chuckled, I mean no one was taking it seriously at all XD

[–] gasmaskproductionsbooks 9 years ago

Same here, when I was in the theater, everyone was laughing at those kids. They weren't even dressed or acting like the eras they were from, they all looked and spoke like 21st century kids. The makeup was terrible, I think some of it was CGI as well.

"The 21st century is all flash but no substance." ~ Smog City

[–] knytrune 9 years ago

I think they're all 21st century kids. The most recent murder before this one is the church murder whose kid looks more old-fashioned than the other kids. The first sinister film has murders dating back to the 60's while this one doesn't seem to date long. Even the camera is a 16mm Bolex which, while older than Super 8 is way easier to find than Super 8 cameras in the 21st century than in 1945 where it was a luxury item. I'd assume that Deputy So & So breaking the chain might have reset the curse in some way or that somebody might have broken the Super 8 camera mid-murder spree before (which might be Deputy So & So's doing as well).

Judging from how everyone acts, So & So might have been involved in more than one of Bughuul's curse murders before this one. The kids in this film might be those that he missed.

[–] gasmaskproductionsbooks 9 years ago

I have no idea. I heard that the Christmas girl murder was supposed to be used in the first film and take place in the 1950's, but that it was cut to fit a specific time frame - yet the Christmas girl and her family don't dress like or look like the common fashions of the Fifties. You could be right, it would definitely fit the story.

"The 21st century is all flash but no substance." ~ Smog City

[–] PotatoMonsters 9 years ago

That's like eating sausage without anything on it and complaining on the vendor O.o

[–] preykousis 9 years ago

Well since, I watched the first film, and it was miles better, it made this look even WORSE than I originally thought x'D

[–] michaeldhulme 9 years ago

The first film was really good so if you haven't seen it I'd recommend taking a look. This however I totally agree with, it was an absolute let down and was not scary in any way. I think there was maybe one very mild jump scare which is not worth the price of admission.