You know you have a problem when the opening scene is the most well-crafted scene in the film and it almost spells out who the killer is for those of you with your brain in second gear. There is no mystery here. It's just another entry in the "torture porn" genre trying to disguise itself as a psychological thriller.
Haunted by her brutal past memories, Laura now has a long-term fear of the Boogeyman. After the death of her parents at the age of eight, Laura hasn't been able to shake off the idea that the Boogeyman was responsible for her parent's death. Convinced she saw it happen, she still has visions of the Boogeyman (who supposedly lives on fear) a decade later and voluntarily checks herself into a mental facility crowded with phobia-induced patients. A seemingly perfect feeding zone for the Boogeyman.
Although I didn't care for the first one, I could admire its spooky atmosphere and its creepy tone. It never solely relied on blood spatter or decapitation for thrills (which isn't a bad thing when done right). Don't get me wrong, I like my horror movies gory. However, a stylish atmosphere is what makes horror movies surreal and Boogeyman 2 bypasses any attempts at conjuring a sleek atmosphere. It substitutes ambiance with gore and the result is, unfortunately, less frightening and less original than the first.
While the acting was pretty convincing (with the exception of a couple of one-dimensional characters), the screaming wasn't. It is almost as if these actors were intended to be in a drama and were inadvertently placed in a DTV horror sequel. Tobin Bell (most known for his satanic role in the Saw franchise) rarely appears in the film and is obviously just there to leak star power, a cheap way of attracting audiences familiar to his work.
Article comments
1 - Brad Schader
"most known for his satanic role in the Saw franchise"
This confuses me and makes me question the entire review to be honest. I saw (no pun intended) nothing Satanic in the Saw series and it makes me wonder if you have seen them at all. It also then makes me wonder if you saw this movie also because you call this "tortue porn" as well and saw is not that either.
2 - Bill Fields
While I agree that relying solely on gore instead of atmosphere can be problematic, I question where this critic is placing the blame. I think the director is more responsible for creating atmosphere on the screen than the screenwriter. Also, it is the producers who believe the franchise is "worthy of a trilogy" -- not the writer that they hire to write their sequel. The critic who wrote this review would benefit from a better of understanding of the movie making process and seems to be placing blame carelessly.
3 - Derek Fleek
Thanks for reading everyone.
Brad, I don't understand the fact that you feel nothing satanic was presented in the Saw franchise. The Saw franchise is the exact definition of sadistic torture porn from my point of view. And this movie is nothing more than another film centering on torture and lacking in atmosphere.
Bill, I can see where the producers are equally to blame for hiring the screenwriter here, but it is the screenwriter who is responsible for coming up with the brainy idea of making a sequel. I blame him for coming up with the idea and the producers are to blame equally for the fact that they agreed to it. I did fail to mention this in my review.
Hopefully that will clear things up.