They've done it again. They've ruined the beauty of the original by a sequel. Whatever scared us witless in last year's incredible low-budget masterwork is just ten times louder this time, insulting our intelligence. Yes, there are some clever plots elements here, but I'm still working on why a demon would get a kick out of dangling a toddler in mid-air. As the events are temporally parallel to the first movie, Katie makes a few visits to her sister's home here, but she's haunting even before going wacko - making the the spillover from the original the sequel's only entertaining moments.
Mo says:
路過的，打扰了～
ReplyDeleteAgree. I don’t know it there really necessary to make a sequel just based on great success and huge box-office of first movie when there is no good plot on the hand ,by another director ,and no idea available except repeating and repeating nice original ? More important I think it must be some rules to keep privilege of making sequel just for first filmmaker or anybody whom is approved by him/her in order to prevent of such ruining of original work in this way.Agree?
ReplyDeleteOf course. In studio pocket's terms, any box-office success is strong enough reason for a sequel. Directors may think otherwise.
ReplyDeleteSpielberg always says he hates sequels. I don't know what deal Spielberg had cut with the studios (or with his executive producer and buddy, George Lucas), but I had read somewhere he mandated under no condition is anybody allowed to make a sequel to "Indiana Jones" ... unless he directs the sequel himself.
Thank God for that. This probably happened after the "Jaws 2" travesty.