|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on May 31, 2021 3:55:16 GMT
Anyone watched this yet?
I really liked it. A really fun summer thriller. 7.5/10, close to an 8.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on May 31, 2021 4:50:07 GMT
I'd give it a weak 8. The original was an 8.5 for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 12, 2021 13:53:21 GMT
9/10
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Sept 12, 2021 13:58:28 GMT
Not as good as the first but still very enjoyable and suspenseful. I really liked the addition of Cillian Murphy's character. 7.5/10, while the first gets an 8.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Sept 12, 2021 14:44:30 GMT
A lot of people have said it's better than the original, which I'm very skeptical about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Sept 12, 2021 16:02:01 GMT
A lot of people have said it's better than the original, which I'm very skeptical about. Have you watched it? |
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Sept 12, 2021 16:06:41 GMT
A lot of people have said it's better than the original, which I'm very skeptical about. Have you watched it? No, hence my use of the term "skeptical".
|
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Sept 12, 2021 16:09:44 GMT
No, hence my use of the term "skeptical". It was sarcasm for yet another person judging something before watching it. |
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Sept 12, 2021 16:14:14 GMT
No, hence my use of the term "skeptical". It was sarcasm for yet another person judging something before watching it. You're obviously looking for a fight, well you're not gonna find one with me. Goodbye.
|
|
|
|
Post by onethreetwo on Sept 12, 2021 16:22:59 GMT
Pretty good. As good as the original, which was just pretty good for me as well. I think 7/10 is fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 12, 2021 20:00:23 GMT
I don't even like the first movie, but this is worse. I think the movie is lazy. The first doesn't work for me, but it does at least do something original. I can't think of anything original or particularly creative about the sequel. The first half is okay, but the second half is below average.
5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 12, 2021 20:05:46 GMT
A lot of people have said it's better than the original, which I'm very skeptical about. It isn't. It is a dumbed down and generic version of the first movie imo. The movie is highly predictable and plays like a checklist of clichés. This can work if a movie has good style and you are able to become invested in what the characters are doing, but here I wasn't. That was my issue with the first movie too, I just don't care about the characters or what they are doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Sept 12, 2021 20:44:30 GMT
3/10 Found it rather dull.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Sept 12, 2021 21:12:28 GMT
I don't even like the first movie, but this is worse. I think the movie is lazy. The first doesn't work for me, but it does at least do something original. I can't think of anything original or particularly creative about the sequel. The first half is okay, but the second half is below average. 5/10 I take it you haven't seen the "Hush" episode of Buffy. I don't think this one is any more original, but it is a bit less frustratingly dumb. During the first I was constantly asking questions ("why the fuck are you having a baby right now when it's literally the loudest thing you can do?", "Why don't they just stay at the waterfall?", "How did it take until now to discover these things' logical and self-evident weakness?"). |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 12, 2021 21:29:32 GMT
I don't even like the first movie, but this is worse. I think the movie is lazy. The first doesn't work for me, but it does at least do something original. I can't think of anything original or particularly creative about the sequel. The first half is okay, but the second half is below average. 5/10 I take it you haven't seen the "Hush" episode of Buffy. I don't think this one is any more original, but it is a bit less frustratingly dumb. During the first I was constantly asking questions ("why the fuck are you having a baby right now when it's literally the loudest thing you can do?", "Why don't they just stay at the waterfall?", "How did it take until now to discover these things' logical and self-evident weakness?"). I won't argue with that too much I guess. I don't often use the word dumb, but the first has many things that I just couldn't swallow. The difference is that the first has better dramatic tension and is sometimes creepy and the concept of the sound stuff was original as far as I knew at the time. I have never seen any episodes of Buffy. One of the issues I had with the movie is how closely it follows Signs. The second is lazy in that it just really feels like it only exists for money. The first feels passionate to me, even though I have most of the same issues you have. The sequel feels like a generic blockbuster. With the waterfall, how convenient would it be to live next to a waterfall? What would they do in winter? If I was in the same situation I wouldn't be living outside by the waterfall. I think the town stuff at the end is dumber than anything in the original. They are really fucking stupid risking all those people's lives on what is basically a bad bet. Let's all act as if there aren't creatures that attack by noise and bet on that they won't find a way to the island, like exactly what ends up happening. The family risking the baby in the original is less ridiculous. At least that has a moral aspect to why they won't just suffocate the baby, assuming it was an accident that she got pregnant. I don't think it was meant to be seen as an accident based on how the movie starts though. The baby stuff drove me nuts, but not as much as the island "haven" in the sequel. I also think the stuff with the gang of people on the dock was really stupid. Those people are morons. They put themselves in the worst situation imaginable and then exactly what I suspected would happen happened. I think the sequel just drew my attention more to the stuff that didn't make sense more than the first, because I was less invested this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 12, 2021 22:43:31 GMT
"why the fuck are you having a baby right now when it's literally the loudest thing you can do?", "Why don't they just stay at the waterfall?", "How did it take until now to discover these things' logical and self-evident weakness?" 1) This has been asked in regards to other post-apocalyptic stories as well. The answer is always that people want to re-build the world and this is a good way to do it. Not to mention that wanting a new child in general is a feeling you get. As we see in both movies, the Abbotts are very smart and resourceful. They knew they could bring a child into this world with all the proper measures. 2) This was already answered above me. 3) Their priority has been to get away from these creatures. Also, their weakness is only evident once Regan's device is activated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Sept 12, 2021 23:06:57 GMT
"why the fuck are you having a baby right now when it's literally the loudest thing you can do?", "Why don't they just stay at the waterfall?", "How did it take until now to discover these things' logical and self-evident weakness?" 1) This has been asked in regards to other post-apocalyptic stories as well. The answer is always that people want to re-build the world and this is a good way to do it. Not to mention that wanting a new child in general is a feeling you get. As we see in both movies, the Abbotts are very smart and resourceful. They knew they could bring a child into this world with all the proper measures. 2) This was already answered above me. 3) Their priority has been to get away from these creatures. Also, their weakness is only evident once Regan's device is activated. Trying to rebuild a world invaded by flesh eating sound obsessed monsters by having a child is so not a good way to do it. Much like the Mission Impossible films and the ridiculous masks and other ridiculous side stories, I may choose to ignore new parenting during a monster movie for the action and spectacle but ultimately it ruins the final product. |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Sept 13, 2021 1:17:24 GMT
1) This has been asked in regards to other post-apocalyptic stories as well. The answer is always that people want to re-build the world and this is a good way to do it. Not to mention that wanting a new child in general is a feeling you get. As we see in both movies, the Abbotts are very smart and resourceful. They knew they could bring a child into this world with all the proper measures. 2) This was already answered above me. 3) Their priority has been to get away from these creatures. Also, their weakness is only evident once Regan's device is activated. Trying to rebuild a world invaded by flesh eating sound obsessed monsters by having a child is so not a good way to do it. Much like the Mission Impossible films and the ridiculous masks and other ridiculous side stories, I may choose to ignore new parenting during a monster movie for the action and spectacle but ultimately it ruins the final product. Yeah. Also a little strange to use apocalyptic movies with completely different scenarios as an excuse. I mean, it's probably safer to not have a loud ass baby during a zombie apocalypse either, but at least you don't have to whisper just so distant zombies won't hear you. Moviemouth answered why they don't live at the waterfall for a couple months out of the year. And I don't know how those creatures being effected by high frequencies wouldn't be anyone's literal first guess. It took happenstance with an 8 year old girl to figure it out? Get out of here. |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 13, 2021 6:46:14 GMT
It took happenstance with an 8 year old girl to figure it out? But Regan is a teenager.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 13, 2021 11:18:29 GMT
I don't even like the first movie, but this is worse. I think the movie is lazy. The first doesn't work for me, but it does at least do something original. I can't think of anything original or particularly creative about the sequel. The first half is okay, but the second half is below average. 5/10 I take it you haven't seen the "Hush" episode of Buffy. I don't think this one is any more original, but it is a bit less frustratingly dumb. During the first I was constantly asking questions ("why the fuck are you having a baby right now when it's literally the loudest thing you can do?", "Why don't they just stay at the waterfall?", "How did it take until now to discover these things' logical and self-evident weakness?"). It just occurred to me that the sequel implies that it isn't that the monsters can't hear the characters because of the waterfall, it is that they hate water. Still dumb either way to take the unnecessary risk of yelling for fun. That doesn't change your point, it is just something I realized right now and think is neat. Unless the water thing is mentioned in the original and I just don't remember.
|
|
