MovieChat Forums > See No Evil 2 (2014) Discussion > It's better than the first

It's better than the first

posted 10 years ago by Mark24711
11 replies | jump to latest

The first was a fun, decent slasher but I think this one definitely steps it up. Goodnight looks a lot cooler and more sinister, the characters are a lot more likeable, the set is better/more atmospheric and it's better shot.

I saw a lot of complaints about continuous running through halls, but it was good to see a few chase scenes and it kept me entertained throughout. Another complaint about the movie was the lack of blood/gore, but at least 3 (if not 4) of the death scenes seemed pretty bloody to me. Would definitely recommend watching.

[–] seth-gonzalez00 10 years ago

Agree with you on every level !!!!

[–] Skullomania 10 years ago

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and this one is dismal compared to the first in mine. This is a by the numbers and was pretty boring for me.

When I seen Katherine Issabel and Danielle Harris's names in the intro credits I thought maybe I was in for a film like 'Hatchet' with excessive gore and a sense of humour, instead I got a dullfest. Shame, a missed opportunity 😞

John Hancock

[–] seth-gonzalez00 10 years ago

It wasn't dull at all. Its way better than the original . ! I don't how you could say that its dull . just because it doesn't have excessive gore and guts doesn't mean that the movie is sorry . it does feature some gore like about 3/4 deaths that's all. It doesn't have to be ANOTHER HATCHET . weve seen enough of those . in my opinion. the kills were kinda creative only about 4. In my opinion.

[–] Skullomania 10 years ago

Seth like I said this is just my opinion, the original had I dunno, a little spark that kept me watching. I didn't feel this with this film. I didn't want a hatchet remake or anything (I was just using that as an example), it's just that's the bar I set my expectations at and was sadly disappointed, I wanted this film to be good I really did but sorry, nah, not for me.

John Hancock

[–] CptCannabis 10 years ago

if only they could've taken the kills from the original, and put them in the sequel. it was really lacking some good gore, i'm satisfied with what we got and i liked the movie a lot, but i'd be lying if i said i wasn't a little disappointed with the kills.

[–] seth-gonzalez00 10 years ago

How did the blonde girl die ?

[–] seth-gonzalez00 10 years ago

Skull , your right with your opinion and I'm right with mine . I'm sorry if you didn't like this film , but I really enjoyed every minute of it ! There's a few oohs ! & omg ! That really didn't just happen . I loved this film . everything seemed right to me . I didn't have no complaint .with the exception of the deaths only about 3/ 4 seemed bloody the rest was like halfblood only .

[–] Skullomania 10 years ago

Seth that's the main thing, if you enjoyed it, result.

I could no doubt post films I love that you'd hate, welcome to planet Earth.

I can't wait for See no Evil 3 :D

John Hancock

[–] ScorpionTDC 10 years ago

I liked it a bit more than 1, but not by a whole bunch. I'd give both 5/10s

Death Awaits (Horror forum)
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Death_Awaits/index/

[–] Nike316 10 years ago

I disagree. The first movie was like a Hell Dimension of inner demons come to life for a disturbed being, and his mother. The sequel was more of a wrong place/wrong time kind of horror, and a waste of a good lead. Danielle Harris is a vet. I wanted to see her get the "H20" treatment, or at least a performance as good as her Halloween days. Instead she was just a name above the other victims, not really a stand out. Her death was the biggest, really because of her history, and because the others weren't much anyway. They got off easy, compared to the first "See No Evil".

[–] RadiatedPenguin 10 years ago

The first had better kills.

None of the kills in this were impressive.