Like all sequels, it just doesn't weigh up to the charm of the original. I personally found the first film alot more intense and the horror element felt so much more well done in the first movie, this movie just fell short with the scares. overall, not the worst horror movie i've seen but the original wins hands down.
sharePersonally I think both are amazing but the 2nd one is slightly better.
shareFor me the first movie was one of the better horror movies of the decade and I gave it 8/10. The sequel was good for the first 30 minutes but went downhill from there and I gave it 4/10. The scariest bits for me are the ones when you don't see the demon or ghost and you have to use your imagination. The nun that looked like Marilyn Manson did nothing for me and after seeing the crooked man I basically just waited the movie to be over. Which was easier said than done since the movie was twice the length it had any right to be.
shareI liked both very much. If I had to choose, I'd probably take the first by a small margin. Personally I thought there were some things the sequel did better and some things it did slightly worse. Both solid though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiog10FEGA4
I actually like the second one better.
shareI like the first one a little better too but they're both pretty good.
Both movies at least take the time to develop sympathetic characters and tell a real story; they're not just a series of jump scares. That's why, for me, they're a cut above most films in the genre. Most of the time when I watch a scary movie I hate all the characters, but here I actually like them. They're well written and acted and not just disposable victims.
The first one was far better. I was disappointed with the second one.
shareThe first one terrified me. This one didn't do much for me.
shareBoth great. 2nd one more scary for me. The Camera Work and Valak in scenes were legit Terrifying and I really dont get scared in horrors anymore but this got me.
share