Their back with the next most pointless sequel in a history of sequels. Once again the film follows a group of people, this time a family with a baby and a dog, in which things go bump in the night and something intense happens by the end. In this family the mother is actually the sister of the character from the last film and this film is a prequel/sequel. So the events of this one begin before the events of the first one take place. But the reality is that if you've seen the first one, you've basically seen this one, except now there is a dog and a baby. And of course they still pretend like it was a real event.
I personally hate these films. So why did I see it? For the heck of it because I got to for free. But I'm always so bored in these movies. It takes over half the movie for anything to happen and by the time something does I'm too bored to even think about being scared. Probably 85-90% of the movie is watching the mundane events of life (much like watching a home movie) until something (actually quite predictable) happens. That is not my idea of a good movie. If I want to watch a home movie, I'll do that. When I go to the theater I want to see something that takes me out of my life. I want to escape the mundane, not revel in it. Many people are scared by these movies but really they are not that frightening. Not really. Unless you're scared easily but then just about anything could scare you. In reality these movies are terrible. They aren't quality. It's just the new Blair Witch. And documentary style film just doesn't work. Not with the way story needs to be. And if good film = good story. Then documentary style film = bad film because the story always seems to fall flat.
But I think that Roger Ebert puts it quite well in his review:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101022/REVIEWS/101029991
No comments:
Post a Comment