Well here we are, going back to the asylum. Again. Only this is the first sequel amongst the asylum horror films that I've done. After the first film gained a bit of a cult following and, to be fair, isn't that bad, I guess it was inevitable that it would generate a sequel.
And just like 'Grave Encounters', and for that matter 'Episode 50' and 'The Paranormal Activity', 'Grave Encounters 2' follows a group of people who go to investigate whether or not the place is haunted. Only here, this group of students are investigating whether or not the first film was real or not, as the first film is literally a film in this one. So it's going into 'The Human Centipede 2' territory.
To be honest, I did actually like the fact that they referred to the first film as literally a film, the meta aspect of the film. I liked how the film references online reviewers, how it references the film crew, how they used actors from the first film to play themselves, how it references the first film in general. It's, I don't now, a fresh take on things. Though there are some downsides to this, namely one of the video bloggers saying they thought the film was "real" and main character Alex (Richard Harmon) citing the actors of the first film having not been in anything since 'Grave Encounters' as one of the reasons why people thought the first film was real. I just thought that the film was set a couple of months after the release of the first film, so it's more than likely that they just hadn't been in anything else yet. Then again if you really do believe that 'Grave Encounters' was a snuff film, why on Earth would you willingly go to the place where Lance (Sean Rogerson) and his crew were trapped, hunted down, and killed? Don't you think the same thing will happen to you? Oh yeah, IT DOES.
The plot meanwhile, is pretty decent, it's okay I suppose. The first thirty odd minutes sets up the characters motivations and the interactions with people or things in relation to the first film before going to the institution where the first film was filmed, and it is pretty good that they did go back to the same institution rather than a different one. Then the film goes into the same pattern as the first film but it doesn't exactly become tiring. Unfortunately, there is then a point when the film nukes the fridge when...a certain something happens. Look at the spoiler section.Thankfully it does recover a little but not enough.
The characters themselves, well, let's just say that they aren't the best people in the world. To be honest, I pretty much wanted these characters to die (And seeing bad things happen to these people is what actually entertains me. Is that bad?) except for Jennifer Parker (Leanne Lapp), mainly because she can be an actual likable character when she peeks through the blandness, and Tessa (Stephanie Bennett), mainly because she's a lesbian. Oh and she is probably the most...vibrant character should I say. The guys though are cocky, dicks, wooden, or plainly unlikable, especially when Trevor (Dylan Playfair) acts tough in the face of a security guard. It takes far too long to feel attached to the main bulk of characters.
The acting, is pretty good. I don't really recall anyone who was truly awful in this. While the characters do have a tendency to annoy you, the actors and actresses do perform as best as they can. It's more the way the characters are written rather than anyone being bad at acting. Let's take Trevor for instance, again he doesn't respect authority and generally acts a dick (Despite the fact that he's the one who thinks it's only a movie, like most people would), and yet there's a scene where he pours his heart and soul into the camera. But when he's literally putting his balls in someones face, you spend the rest of the time hating him. Then there's Richard Harmon, who can give some very solid performances, the problem is his character keeps flipping emotions. One second he's caring, the next he's creepy, the next he's concerned, the next he doesn't really care.
You know how I liked the fact that 'Grave Encounters' didn't use CGI? How it actually generated tension and made use of make-up to make the threat look real? Yeah this film is mainly CGI. Which...okay when they go Ghostface, that's okay, but other things like video cameras moving by themselves, look so obviously fake. Oh, they still use make-up, but the CGI is used more in this film, which makes the threats look fake. Though when the Tall Man is giving chase, the camera looking back to him did result in a scare (At least for me as I wasn't expecting him to be that close), and they did successfully creep me out with the scene set in the kids ward. Because kids are fucking creepy. I do have to admit that I did love the scene where the infamous window opens itself.
But, for the most part, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Oh it has its flaws like the first 'Grave Encounters', but, to be honest, it's not worse than 'Grave Encounters', but it's not better. It has its moments and can deliver a few chills, but for the most part it's not really much of an improvement on the first one. Oh right, the nuking the fridge thing, yeah that does kind of ruin the film for me, so that might be the breaking point for most viewers. Overall it's okayish.
Spoiler Section
That nuking the fridge moment. It's Lance (Sean Rogerson) from the first movie. He's back! Granted I will admit having actors from the first film, in particular Rogerson, was really good and he was fantastic in this, in fact he is the best character in this, primarily because I really did like him from the first film. But, really? Sean/Lance (As they do refer to him by his actual name) survived ten years in this asylum? Oh yeah, the film was filmed in 2002 not 2011, in this version anyway.
And that's what really annoys me about the return of Lance. He has lived off rats, which as we see in this film and the first are very rare (We see three in total across both films), managing to avoid the ghosts (Somehow) in an building which is trying to kill him? And he managed to cut most of the hair off very stylish. Also yeah, give the lobotomised guy who has been living in an asylum for ten years by himself while being hunted by ghosts a very sharp object, I'm sure he won't go crazy and kill you with it. What? He doesn't. He uses a pipe instead. At least I assume it was a pipe.
That, and his character just spouts exposition. He knows how institution shifts and therefore how to navigate it, which ruins the feeling of entrapment. At least when we see the group initially flee the institution we see them suddenly transport back there, but it did feel like the hospital was changing in order to separate and trap the people inside (Especially since it can happen in a blink of an eye). Now 'Grave Encounters 2' says it's just random. Not really scary now.
And that's what the return of Lance does, it strips away any feeling of it being scary. Lance now has a place of salvation, he has a theory of getting out, he can navigate the ever-shifting hospital, Hell, even the ghosts stop being visible and virtually stop all together, only appearing to hold cameras. It tries to recover when it's revealed Lance is now working with the institution, which is then ruined when a whirling temporal portal from 'The Evil Dead 2' turns up. For virtually no reason other than to save the main characters. Or because it now wants Alex to release the footage and attract people to the hospital (Lance couldn't do this because...?). Oh, and the bashing in a head with the camera death, I thought was a pretty good addition. It showed how Alex has truly snapped and has fallen for the institutions charm, how he is now a servant and will tell people not to go looking for the hospital while also giving out the co-ordinates.
Basically the last act is the weakest part of the film, and, as I said, will test your enjoyment.
No comments:
Post a Comment