Review: “Sinister 2” Does Nothing To Build Off Its Predecessor

 

 
Overview
 

Direction
5.0


 
Acting
4.0


 
Plot
4.0


 
Execution
3.0


 
Total Score
4.0


User Rating
no ratings yet

 


0
Posted December 7, 2015 by

 
Full Article
 
 

For me, the first ‘Sinister’ was a pleasant surprise because I stumbled upon it during one of those long nights of Netflix searching. I wanted a horror movie that would add something new to the genre, or at least offer a different approach to the tired cliches the genre has thrived on since its inception. What I got was an eerie film that built up a strong murder/mystery and didn’t let up until the ending credits. I was hoping to get more of the same from the second installment but was ultimately let down.

Courtney Collins (Sossamon) and her two young boys, Daniel and Zach (played by Dartanian and Robert Daniel Sloan – 2/3rds of real-life triplets), have escaped the clutches of her husband and the father to the boys, Clint, and are now trying to hide out from anyone who can get them. With the help of a private detective, Ex-Deputy So & So (Ransone), they will try to keep the abusive Clint away from the children while also being forced to fight murderous ghosts who are trying to poison the mind of the boys.

Villain

What bothered me about ‘Sinister 2’ is it did nothing to build upon the first film. In the first ‘Sinister’, we are trying to figure out who is killing all of these families and the final reveal is quite unexpected for an otherwise reality-grounded film. Unfortunately, Derrickson and Cargill decided they didn’t need to come up with a new villain (or villains) to tell this story; sticking to the exact same script as the first. What this does is turns this film into an almost elongated “deleted scene” of the first movie while offering little to no scares as well as convoluted storylines that slow down the pacing of the film. That’s not entirely the fault of director Ciarán Foy or the fault of Derrickson and Cargill. I’m not sure how you could have made a sequel to the first one and made it interesting and that’s why it shouldn’t have happened in the first place. 

While I just watched and enjoyed Ransone in the film ‘Tangerine‘, in this movie his acting is over-the-top and distracting. His facial features are fun to watch though because after every line he gives a look that almost asks the question, “Are you buying any of this?” His character “So & So” was carried over from the first film and they try to make him a main feature in this and that doesn’t end up panning out. Sossamon delivers a ‘Sossamon’ performance: she’s likable. Unfortunately, like Ransone’s character, there isn’t much room for her character to move around and become fully-fleshed out so we are stuck watching them almost run in circles, much like the film’s plot.

The one pleasant surprise, however, was the performances the Sloan brother’s turned in. Their characters were complex, tortured, and yet still had to keep the appearance of being child-like. Both brothers excelled at creating a moody atmosphere in all of their scenes that almost made up for the entire film. They should have stuck with them as the main centerpieces and done away with pretty much everything else.

Just like I’ve done with ‘Godfather 3’, this is a sequel I will pretend doesn’t exist as it distracts from how good the first movie was. I was bummed that Derrickson revisited this interesting world he created only to offer nothing new or exciting. Now I just have to keep my fingers crossed they don’t try to turn it into a trilogy. I’m sure the inevitable ‘prequel’ is probably already in the works, however.

 


DavidRyanM

 


0 Comments



Be the first to comment!


Leave a Response


(required)