I loved the old woman in the first movie, and the not knowing/mystery part of a dark character is always a great aspect. I don't like delving deeper into characters like that because they rarely meet expectations. I especially didn't like the serial killer/abused son twist. It just didn't measure up to the kind of horror the character presented in the first film, imo.
share[deleted]
What did you love about the old woman in the first one though? Once you get past the novelty of her appearing in all of the photos, there's nothing to the character. Why introduce an evil character and then not explain what it is?
shareI'm glad they delved into the "old woman"' back story; it makes sense that "she" was really a man because why would "she" want to possess a boy instead of a girl?
shareI'm glad they delved into the "old woman"' back story; it makes sense that "she" was really a man because why would "she" want to possess a boy instead of a girl?
I was content just knowing a evil spirit wanted to posses a child. I think when you're that desperate to return to the land of the living by any means it doesn't really matter that much if it's a boy. Dalton happened to be the only kid nearby that astral projects.
Koalas are telepathic. Plus, they control the weather.
It was just stupid and really didn't make any sense. Maybe I missed something, but it didn't explain why the "bride in black" went for Josh in the first place and the whole plot could have been done without it and just been the insane mother going after him for no reason out than "for the lulz".
"I'll go,because I am Cinema!" - Ben (Man Bites Dog)
Maybe he was the only little boy that happened to visit his hospital room before he died. He wanted that boys life because he got to be a "real" boy unlike Parker. So when he died later that day or soon after, Josh was his last memory. He was in the elevator with Josh's mother. So he now became obsessed with their lives.
We live by the Sun, we feel by the Moon
Actually it does explain this by the boy meeting Parker in the hospital and then Parker riding the elevator with the mother when he was dead.
shareExactly. Plus would make sense that he'd want to possess a young boy so that he could relive his childhood and get what was taken from him by his own mother.
share[deleted]
James Wan and his terrible twists. Why he hasn't been the victim of a M. Night Shyamalan style backlash is beyond me. His first two movies even use the exact same twist, edited in the exact same way. It was embarrassing to watch.
The guy seems incapable of telling a coherent well-developed story without feeling the need to pull the rug out from under the audience and surprise us with some unexpected turn of events.
I thought it was a decent story. I actually enjoyed this film over the first one, simply because the last third of Chapter 1 was ludicrous and hokey, in my opinion.
This one retained the dark/creepy tone quite well, and managed to have an intriguing storyline in the process.
I don't get why so many reacted negatively to this film, yet loved the first one. I honestly didn't get what was so good about Insidious in the first place, to be honest.
Nriks...I agree with you here when it comes to James Wan and his so called twists, but its only in his lame horror flicks hes failing, cause in the thriller department he havent failed yet. Death Sentence and first SAW movie is both really awsome and well made.
~If the realistic details fails, the movie fails~
yeah, i'd prefer she stayed as a mysterious evil woman as well
shareI also agree with the original post. The first movie was scary to me because the ghosts were just strange and mysterious. I didn't like having the back story explained. It even kind of ruins the first movie for me now. I kind of wish I hadn't seen this one.
shareI like the back story because it gives reason as to why this old woman/man is haunting Josh.
I feel the opposite where I didn't like what they did with Red Face at all in the first one. When they showed any more than his eyes it ruined him for me. The hooves, and him crawling on the wall in the house, etc. took away any scariness to him.
With the Bride in Black story, it doesn't take away any of the scariness of Parker's ghost because that's something that would be scary in real life and as a ghost.
If this was mentioned, I apologize. But in an earlier response someone said they never explained why the BIB / Parker chose Josh. They did explain that. I believe it was Elyise that said Parker wanted to re-live the childhood he never had.
My feet have wings, barf bag.
I know. It got too complicated with that backstory.
shareThe movie is just bad all around. I can't believe people are picking out one or two points they didn't like or felt that were bad. The whole movie is just badly written, directed, acted, just one big mess.
When I began watching I vaguely remembered demons from the first movie. Here it turns out it's the ghost of a serial killer haunting these people. A guy who was abused by his mother as a child. And the whole backstory is transported and written so badly, it's like the director and writer are taking child abuse lightly.
I understand the filmmakers and actors have to work, but if you're paid as much money for a script and actually have the time to write something, wouldn't you want to turn in something better?