Spring Deals Automotive HPC Children of Blood and Bone New-season heels nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Stream your favorites. Amazon music Unlimited. Learn more. GNO for Samsung S9 Fire TV Stick: $29.99. Offer ends 3/26/18 Grocery Handmade Personalized Jewelry Home and Garden Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon MMM MMM MMM  Echo Fire tablets: Designed for entertainment Kindle Paperwhite AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Shop Now TG18SW_gno

on December 31, 2013
The original movie "Insidious", was fairly good (4 out of 5 star rating), and had an unusual theme, which was what made it worth watching, at least once. Insidious 2 is a lame ripoff, trying to ride on the coattails of success from the first movie, without making any effort to be worthy on it's own merit. The over-used Jump Scares of quiet passages of conversation or quietly peering about in the creepy house, looking for the lame-looking Ghosts, followed by the predictable LOUD bang or boom noise to unnerve you, got old very fast. And the constant close-ups of the horrified women, with their staring eyes wide open, and their mouths hanging wide open, every time one of them appeared frightened by some unknown scare, just out of sight of the camera, was also over-used to the point of being laughable. Then, there were the several times that women or one of the kids was doing the fake crying act, but NO tears, which has become standard, and acceptable in today's Hollywood productions. Then, there are the predictable, stereotypical Hollywood characters, of the woman victim, the white male, unstable killer, who is abusive towards the woman, and the token black, positive, role model, Business Professional, in this case, a Psychologist ( usually a Police Chief, or Investigator, Medical Professional, or Case Worker,...who is there to provide support for the mentally/physically abused white female lead character.)

Then, there are the Scares: The over-used routine of the poorly made up Ghosts (pasty looking white people, wearing tattered white sheets. Then, there was the possessed kid doing the silent, Zombie-like finger-pointing act at the dark closet, or the dark-empty room, or down the empty hallway. Then the fake looking Ghosts doing the same Zombie-like, silent pointing act. This too, as a spooky effect, lost it's credibility as a spooky effect, just from being over-used. Then here were the Ghost people. First, there were too many of them, that all looked alike, and second,....they just looked like regular people with white make-up on their faces, and the give-away red around the eyeballs, which reminded you that they were just regular people, made up to look like Ghosts. Wearing low budget tattered white sheets, some wearing the sheets over their heads. No CGI Special Effects here.

If this movie hadn't had such poor Directing, which regurgitated over-used special effects, that have become standard in all the recent el-Cheapo horror sequels, and hadn't tried to give itself credibility, by constantly relying on flashbacks from the first movie, and had used better effects for spookiness, instead of fake-looking Ghost people, and loud Jump-scare noises, and Hollywood Politically-Correct character role stereotyping.....maybe it might have had a chance to be better. This had all the appearances of a last minute production, slapped together, to try to ride what was left of the success of the first movie. As a long time fan of well made Horror Movies, I rate this pathetic production at ONE star rating out of five possible stars
66 comments| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on September 14, 2013
First of all, let me just say that The Conjuring, Insidious, and Insidious Chapter 2 are all very effective and well-done horror movies. James Wan is on a roll, and honestly, so is Patrick Wilson because he is the common denominator in all 3 of these movies. Quite frankly, in my opinion, it is thanks to these movies that have successfully breathed life back into the horror genre. This is refreshing after sitting around for the last decade and a half watching campy, slasher, gory, and extremely bloody so-called scary movies that have left me nothing but disappointed and anything but scared. I was wondering when Hollywood was going to realize that tons of blood splatter is just like any other over-used effect; there's nothing really that special about it. I'm not sitting on the edge of my seat wondering what's going to happen next if I can already expect a masked killer, a home invasion, tons of teen sex and drug use, contraptions of torture, or a documentary-style horror film that looks like someone just grabbed a video camera, took it into a dark backyard or the woods, cut on the night-vision, and relied on heavy breathing and running away from unseen forces to move the audience. All of that is lazy, mundane, and it shows lack of creativity as well as originality. I am sick to death of that crap. As a horror movie buff, I thought it was virtually impossible to make a scary movie these days, or at least try to make a movie that pushes the envelope a little bit...dare to be different if you will! I know there isn't much that many of us can say we haven't seen before, but how it's executed is what's important in my book.

This movie starts right at the end of the first one (smart move). The audience is thrust right back into the evil that is STILL following the Lamberts from the first film (another smart move). If you want to keep me interested in something; please don't ignore the film's predecessors just to make money. Those films still have merit, and have laid the foundation for what comes next. Anyway, it's clear that there's still a murder to be solved (another smart move), and there's something seriously off about Josh. The film also includes more interaction with the Lambert children this time around. The dead spirits are more aggressive, so it's clear they aren't there to mess around.

This movie also didn't drag around for the first 40 minutes like the first film did. However, what I loved most about this movie is that it answers all your questions about the previous film (gigantic smart move). Nothing from the first movie is what it seems. I'm so glad this movie didn't start off with an entirely different entity before they expounded on what the first one was in its entirety. I wanted to know the story. I had already figured out the ending from the first film that some overlooked because they were so focused on the music and the look of the red-faced demon. The fact of the matter is that the target never was the little boy; the target was the dad all along. The child was just being held hostage and used to lure the dad back into the Further so the dead spirit that almost had him while he was a child could successfully take his body which was originally intended. The boy was the bait. Don't get me wrong, the red-faced demon with the hooves was going to take the boy's body too; he just wasn't the primary focus. Red face was just ensuring Dalton stayed out long enough to be possessed as well. I don't think some people got that; it was a win/win situation for both entities who wished to live again. Knowing that, it all makes perfect sense.

I don't want to give too much of this movie away, but you will be surprised to see what this thing is that has been following Josh since his childhood which just shows how tenacious and persistent these entities can be. It also gives you more insight into how deep Josh's gift of astral projection really runs. Josh and Dalton's out-of-body experiences play an interesting role in this movie, and adds something a little different into the mix instead of a typical family battling the paranormal. I appreciate that! Dalton proves to be quite useful and clever in this one, and he handles his gift like a seasoned pro. I had to mention Ty Simpkins because he did great in both films.

This movie is just like The Conjuring in the sense that there is something for everybody and it plays on your worst fears:
Afraid of the closet...check!
Afraid of the dark...check!
Afraid of the things that go bump in the night...check!
Afraid of ghosts, possession, and dead demonic spirits...check!
Afraid of harm coming to your children...check!
Afraid of being a prisoner in your own body and your home...check!

My suggestion is that you have to see this movie at least once.
66 comments| 122 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on January 6, 2014
I can't overstate how surprised I am to see that this film received a five star rating from 73 people.
In fact I was so surprised that I almost felt I should have paid more attention to the film and given it a fair chance-
but I simply couldn't- I found it that boring.
"Insidious" , the first movie, I liked very much. It was genuinely scary, creepy, creative and well acted by the entire cast.
Perhaps- ironically- therein lies the problem.
This sequel is nothing more than a rehash of the previous film with less provocation
for the "scary" or suspenseful scenes. The sequence of ghostly apparitions and
"horrified" looks on the actors faces are gratuitous and disjointed as far as the
plot goes.
The film was weak and pretentious, capitalizing- and overdoing-the same type of
eerie scenes as the first film. Being pretentious, the directors felt all they needed to do was simply retell the same story since it was successful the first time around,
even incorporating, verbatim, the same sentences (uh... "I don't think that so and so is the problem here"... and "it's not the house that's haunted... its so and so) as the previous film without a solid provocation for these stilted, reused phrases.
In other words, one is left with the feeling of

"Yeah, we got it.
We know it's not the house that's haunted
We saw it already".


What's worse is that a sequel this poorly executed can sometimes, as a byproduct of ones disdain for the film, cast a negative view on the integrity of the actors who chose to engage in such a bad representation of what was, previously, a good film.

So in conclusion, if you are curious enough to see it as I was then go for it.
But if you are truly a discerning fan of horror movies as I consider myself to be
I would not advise that you spend your money on this film.
I feel it was that bad.
I rented it through pay per view and, halfway through the silly and
predicable plot, I left to log onto the computer and simply listened to the rest of the
dialogue in the back round.
All sequels ,like Anne Rice's " The Vampire Lestat", should be able to stand
completely alone on their own merit in order to be successful.
This sequel fails miserably in that respect and, again, was so bad that it even
infected the way I feel about the first movie.

Avoid it if you can.
33 comments| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on January 4, 2014
Insidious and The Conjuring are in my assessment two of the best horror films to come along in quite some time,.In fact The Conjuring might very well be one of the 10 best horror films ever made. It had me feeling convinced that James Wan may very well be the new master of horror, it's that good in my opinion. 'Saw' was not everyone's cup of tea, but for a directorial debut it was a very impressive first outing. Insidious is generally considered to be a very good if not -superb horror movie.The vast majority of viewers considered it one of the better horror movies they had seen in awhile, I know I did. It had plenty of good freights, lots of truly horrific moments, plenty of creepy chills, and everything we always hope for but never quite get in most horror movies that have come along this past 20 years.

I'm convinced The Conjuring is perhaps the third best Horror movie since the Exorcist and perhaps the Shining. I can't think of one better except those. If someone can think of one let me know. But what happened here with Insidious II? It felt totally derivative and predictable of a lot of poorly written and poorly executed horror film sequels. Since Wan is in charge you should expect more mastery, craftsmanship, originality and a carefully constructed script and execution. Instead what I see here is a cheap shot script that simply doesn't have the unique and intelligent qualities that chapter one did- Saw or The Conjuring. It instead seems to swerve into lazy scripted ideas and less than magical movie making this time. It's not as if Insidious Ch. 1 doesn't have a few little weaknesses, it does, but they are hard to notice. This reminds me of too many first efforts that had mediocre part II's. A good example is actually The Exorcist, Exorcist II, which was a disaster, and Exorcist III, which was not as bad as II but nowhere near as good as I. In my opinion Wan's Insidious ch. II is in about the same territory as Blatty's Exorcist III. Pretty good, but basically an average horror movie. Insidious was a way above average horror film, and Conjuring is I think as close to a horror masterpiece as I have ever seen. So with that kind of opinion about Wan's most recent films, you'd have to wonder why I was not all that impressed with Insidious II. Speaking simply, it's just an average horror film that is fine on it's own merits but simply does not live up at all to the original. Not an epic fail at all, but an epic fail for a master film maker like James Wan.
22 comments| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on April 19, 2017
I try to watch movie but region attention this disc has been coded for region B only and will not play in the this machine please eject this disc and play and region B player. I was find out it What Blu-ray and DVD Region Codes Are
Region Codes are pieces of data that are embedded into Blu-Ray and DVD Discs to act as a restriction. This data, or region code, is read by the player and if it doesn’t recognize the region code as compatible or local, the disc will not play. Since region codes are specific to certain geographical locations, a disc can typically only be read and played by a Blu-Ray or DVD Player that was manufactured and/or intended for use in that same specific region.
In other words, if a disc is inserted into a player that originated from another region, it will not play because the region code does not match that of the player. Usually this doesn’t pose a problem to the average user, but it may for someone who has purchased discs from a foreign website or while visiting another country. For example, if you live in the UK and purchased a few DVD discs while on vacation in the United States, those discs are not going to be playable in your DVD Player back in the UK – since the discs have been embedded with a region code for the US, they are only able to play on a North American DVD System. It’s the same situation for nearly all areas of the world; playback depends on the region code which the disc was embedded with and the region where the player was manufactured.
11 comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on January 2, 2014
We rented this hoping it would be as good as the 1st Insidious, but were disappointed. When I watched the 1st one I saw things out of the corner of my eyes for days....thats a good show. This did not even scare me..not once. I suppose if you are bored and just want to watch a kind of scary show go for it as I have seen a lot worse but don't be disappointed that it is not as good as the first one.
33 comments| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on December 11, 2013
When the first Insidious came out, I was very impressed that a PG-13 rated movie was able to scare me so effectively. I watch many horror movies and rarely am I impressed by one but I was very much so by the first. Naturally, I was quite happy to learn that a second was being made and wasted no time in seeing it. I will state up front that I didn't find is as scary as the first, the jump scares and jarring loud noises just didn't seem quite as well done. However, I really enjoyed the storyline. The focus isn't so much on the activity of the ghosts as it is the motivation. Its not about what they do but why they are doing it. We learn about Josh and his history and in doing so, many of the questions from the first film are resolved, even if those questions didn't actually feel unresolved in the first. The story in Chapter 2 is well done and the effortless way it weaves itself into the story from the first is a testament to the wonderful writing ability of Leigh Whannell, who I personally believe is one of the best horror movie writers of our day. James Wan returns as director and his unique visual style is on display throughout the movie. I do see some growth in his directing from the first to the second and attribute that to his having directed The Conjuring which, while still a paranormal horror movie, was grounded in a more realistic reality. Patrick Wilson does a wonderful job playing both his characters and it is nice to see Ty Simpkins (Dalton) have a more substantial role this time around and it appears as though he is growing into quite the young actor. I didn't find Rose Byrne's (Renai) performance to be as great this time, her character was just a static carry over from the first. One thing I did find distracting, but not detrimental, was the dubbing of "old" Elise's voice over "young" Elise's scene. Again, it wasn't detrimental to the movie, just a bit distracting at first. Overall, very good movie though I anticipate hard core fans of the original will be divided about this sequel since some of the novelty and a good deal of the scares have disappeared.
11 comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on December 26, 2013
took all day to watch this movie. I believe the move would have been decent, but the utter freezing of frames and then nothing for hours is quite unsatisfactory. Amazon definitely needs to increase its bandwidth if it is going to charge people to watch movies.
33 comments| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on January 16, 2014
I will say that I liked this Insidious better than the first one. The first one I found to be very hokey and disappointing. Why would I watch this one? I was bored and I figured I'd watch it just to watch it. I am running out of inexpensive flicks to watch. I think this was worth my few dollars to rent. TLDR for below: I didn't hate it. I would say watch it if you're running out of other scare films to watch.

What I didn't like:
*Over-used scare tactics - how many times do I have to see a scare film with people terrified of flickering lights, clothes in a closet or a toy rolling around on the floor? These things occur in my house often. I am pretty darned sure my house is not haunted.
*The story was still "hole-ridden" in that there were things that didn't make sense. I know it's fiction, but fiction can still have its own physics and rules with far fewer swiss cheese story. I'll leave out specifics for less spoilers.
*I would have liked more back-story on the main antagonist. There seems to be more than one, but I'm not sure. The ending clearly indicates another movie, but this one didn't do a lot of explaining of the current antagonist. Nor why the previous antagonist was involved. Part of the hole-ridden story I guess.

What I did like:
*I did think the story and acting improved from the first movie. I like Rose Byrne in these movies. She makes it feel less cheesy. I empathize easily with her and feel most of her actions make sense. Both kudos to her acting and maybe a bit of the story for her character.
*It was interesting to have the movie start almost immediately where it ended from the previous movie. I'm not a huge move-watcher, so maybe this is done a lot, but it isn't something I have come across in the thriller/scare films I watch.
*I actually liked the ending. The first film kind of ticked me off with the ending. The whole last 20 minutes or so seemed out of place. This one felt a little better. At least it wasn't worse than the first. Some people compared this to The Conjuring saying that The Conjuring was as bad or worse. I actually think The Conjuring was better. Go watch that first if you haven't!
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
"Insidious" ended with a gloriously creepy cliffhanger -- Josh Lambert was possessed by an evil ghost who had been stalking him since childhood. And it murdered Elise.

And as the subtitle suggests, "Insidious Chapter 2" is less a sequel and more a continuation of the story that was left unfinished. The first movie was a bit like a modern version of "Poltergeist," but this one is more of a supernatural version of "Psycho" -- and while chillingly spooky, it leaves a number of loose threads hanging that are never really addressed. Come on, where is Darth Maul demon?

Many years ago, Josh Lambert was haunted by a spirit, and Elise was called in to somehow deal with the situation. Now the police are investigating her murder, and Renai (Rose Byrne) is trying to get back into normal life now that her son has been returned to her. But weird things keep happening around her, including the piano and/or baby toys playing by themselves, and more weird visions of a creepy white-clad woman.

And Josh (Patrick Wilson) seems strangely unconcerned about what's going on -- possibly because he's not actually Josh. And, well, because he's hearing voices commanding him to kill the Lambert family in order to stay alive.

Meanwhile, Lorraine (Barbara Hershey) suspects that something supernatural is still up, so she accompanies Specs and Tucker (Leigh Whannell and Angus Sampson) as they try to contact Elise. Thanks to a dice-using medium named Carl (Steve Coulter), they head to a hospital where Lorraine used to work -- and they soon discover that a bizarre ICU case many years ago may be connected to the current supernatural events. But to save Josh -- and stop a crazed serial killer ghost -- someone will have to venture into the Further again.

"Insidious Chapter 2" is pretty appropriately named, as it forms a complete self-contained story with the first "Insidious." This time around, James Wan abandons the throw-in-everything-creepy-I-can-think-of approach in favor of a more focused plot about hidden dead bodies, a ghostly killer, and his creepy grinning psychotic mother who controls him even in death. Think an even more sexually-screwed-up version of "Psycho," but with ghosts.

That, ironically, is the movie's biggest weak point. The movie is not a sequel, but a second part -- and yet there are big aspects of the first movie that go unaddressed. For instance, the Darth Maul demon is left completely unaddressed, even though Dalton ventures back into the grotesque shadow-world of the Further -- you would expect it to be waiting for him. It feels like James Wan selected certain supernatural bits of "Insidious" and sculpted a narrative around them.

However, Wan has lost none of his skill in creating creaking, eerie, pale-lit atmosphere, and slowly sinking his audience into a quagmire of nightmarishness. However, there's a bit more investigative mystery in this one, with Lorraine and Elise's sidekicks investigating the source of the current spookery -- murder, castration and a hidden room filled with corpses.

But a lot of the spookiness also relies on Patrick Wilson, who gives a very nice, subtle performance as Not-Josh for most of the movie -- there's nothing OBVIOUSLY wrong with him, but the chilly flatness when he speaks about anything serious is a dead giveaway. But he also depicts the crazy creepy killer during a bathroom scene where Not-Josh weeps and whines at his undead mommy as she commands him to kill the Lambert family.

Rose Byrne is basically doing the same thing as in "Insidious": wandering around witnessing spooky stuff, and gradually figuring out what's going on. So much of the plot relies on Hershey and Ty Simpkins, who provide solid performances as a strong-willed matriarch and a boy who discovers that he can use the powers that endangered him to help his father. And while Lin Shaye's character is dead, she's not gone -- and she's still a powerful, charismatic presence.

"Insidious: Chapter 2" suffers from some dangling plot threads, but it is still creepy and bizarre, with an excellent performance by the underrated Patrick Wilson. If you've seen "Insidious," see this to complete the story.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse