Opiniones de usuarios

Grave Encounters wasn't all that original a found footage horror but, The Vicious Brothers did have some clever fun with the conventions and made an entertaining and spooky tale of a crew of a paranormal investigation show coming up against something they can't handle at an abandoned insane asylum. Sadly, all that cleverness and tongue in cheek creepy fun is gone for this uninspired sequel. Encounters 2 takes The Blair Witch 2 route and makes it a film about the film. Sadly the film also makes some of that sequels same mistakes. This time we have movie fan and amateur filmmaker, Alex Wright getting cryptic e-mails from a mysterious benefactor known only as Death Awaits. These messages hint that Grave Encounters was not just a movie, in fact it was quite real and the actors are all really missing. So, Alex grabs his camera and friends/crew and sets off to investigate. Bad idea. First problem is that this flick keeps the found footage motif yet, never at any time does it give us the vibe that it is actual footage and not just a movie. The film then tediously takes over 40 minutes to finally get our characters into the asylum, after a very "Catfish" first act, and once we're there, we are treated to a retread of Grave Encounters part 1 that also blatantly lifts scenes directly from previous found footage flicks like Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity. At least the previous flick did so with some cleverness. Maybe it's because The Vicious Brothers hand the directing reigns to John Poliquin who gives us a film that is populated with pretentious and annoying characters and comes across as very set up and phony instead of spooky and scary. But, he directs from their script so they share blame for what is obviously a sequel thrown together to take quick advantage of the minor attention the first film received. And it shows. Not only is the film lifeless and scare-less but, completely devoid of the cleverness and sly humor that garnered the first flick it's reputation. But, worst still, the final act descends into complete silliness when it introduces a character from the first flick into the mix and just falls apart. Add to that the flick is overlong at an hour and forty minutes and takes itself way too seriously. The Vicious Brothers knew they were having fun and let the audience in on it. Director Poliquin is trying to make a straight horror when the convoluted script desperately wants to wink at it's audience like the first film did. The recent Paranormal Activity 4 was accused by many as a lazy cash grab but, that film was at least still entertaining and gave us likable characters and had a nice sense of humor to give it some fun. Grave Encounters 2 doesn't even try. Disappointing follow-up especially considering The Vicious Brothers showed such potential in their first feature.

The first Grave Encounters was a decent enough found footage horror flick that had just enough humor and jump scenes to make it a somewhat likable watch. This sequel follows a young filmmaker who is convinced the events depicted in the first Grave Encounters are real. He sets out with his crew in tow to make a documentary detailing his findings.

The problem with Grave Encounters 2 is it has lost any cool or fun factor from the original. This is a pretty much a bland rehashing with new, boring characters in the same, now boring setting of a closed down hospital.

The first Grave Encounters was a reminder that you can sometimes find something to like in a low budget, no name of a movie streaming on Netflix. Grave Encounters 2 is a reminder that most the low budget, no name movies streaming on Netflix suck.

This sequel takes everything that was decent about the first one and craps all over it.

Literally, it spends an hour and a half sucking itself off with the whole "The first movie was real!" nonsense. Plus, this time around, we've got weed-smoking college kids who laugh loud and scream even louder. The effects are better, but when all they do is show giant moronic zombies chasing after the camera with that clichéd distorted movement thing that made Kayako from The Grudge so creepy (but of course, it doesn't really work here), who cares? It's got the whole half-assed package of jump scares (complete with sudden loud noises edited into the footage) and none of the cleverness of the original (yes, the original at least had SOME clever ideas and stuff, but not that much). The movie is a chore to sit through, and you'll probably find yourself constantly checking the runtime to see how much longer you have to wait for the credits.

Give it a pass, or just watch the first one again. Or not. I guess it all depends on how productive you'd like to be during a quiet afternoon.

I thoroughly enjoyed the first Grave Encounters. I think it's one of the best of the found footage movies I've ever seen. Granted, none of the actors were in danger of an Oscar nomination, but the characters were believable and got you involved in the story, the clichés were kept to a minimum, and most importantly, the atmosphere and the scares worked, and they held up to repeated viewings. Grave Encounters 2 should be renamed Grave Disappointment, imho. I spent the first twenty minutes having to double-check to make sure I had the right movie, and once the story actually got started, it seemed to me the movie couldn't make up its mind as to what it was trying to be. Parts of it felt like a spoof of the original, and parts felt like a shot-for-shot remake. There were blatant rip-offs of REC and Evil Dead 2, among others. The lead couldn't seem to make up his mind whether he was channeling Lance Preston's character from the first movie, or the kid from Terminator 2. The other characters were wooden or clichés, with a scream queen who made you want to scream every time she was in a scene. The one original element to the story line was another rip-off, this time of 1408. And the ending was absolutely pathetic, and unfortunately, strongly hinted at yet another travesty of a sequel.

As good as "Grave Encounters" was, "Grave Encounters 2" was that bad. It was a complete joke. You know a movie is bad when you're saying to yourself, "Won't they just hurry up and get killed so this nightmare can be over?" Every aspect of the film was a miserable failure.

The story. "Grave Encounters" is an actual movie in the movie! Some film students decide to go to the location of "Grave Encounters" in order to "find out the truth." And the main character, Alex (Richard Harmon), is being directed by e-mails from a mysterious person named "Death Awaits".

They used some absurd reason to drum up a part two. "Oh, lets go back to the creepy psych ward because it's all true and we have to prove it." So lame.

The script. Cheap. Should've been flushed. The dialog in there was so sophomoric.

The acting. Terrible. Part of the lure of the first "Grave Encounters" was the believability of it. Each character made sense and each character played their role well. In this movie these characters made zero sense and they put on like they were trying to be clichés.

The directing. I'm going to blame this on directing because I don't know who else to blame. Once you've realized that you are no longer in Kansas Dorothy shouldn't the cameras be the least of your worries? Do you really need to continue to film EVERYTHING! And that's one of the serious drawbacks of found footage films. There comes a point when it doesn't even follow human behavior to keep filming things.

The entire production. It was virtually a re-shoot of the first GE with a few little tweaks that were more harmful than helpful. There was nothing new (worth being in the movie), nothing fresh, nothing redeemable. It was lazy and pretty much like the majority of sequels: stale and uninspired.

I think the fact it's a sequel really hurt the movie, but then again the movie wouldn't exist without the first one. First off you must know going into this I knew what to expect, a "found footage" horror film sequel. Though I enjoy both types of movie those two combined just doesn't sound too great (except REC1 and REC2.. REC3 was an abomination). I got what I expected and was alright with it.

The Bad: Normally movies in this category if not always have acting rated a C (normal) which is fine. I'll give the acting here a C-, it wasn't on par but not bad enough to make the movie experience dreadful The plot really struggled to connect with the first movie, and the movie's own plot was good but poorly executed. The characters were not likable and showed no growth but I think I could say that for every 'found footage' film. Some of the scares were the same from the first movie which took away from the surprise factor. I could foresee a lot of what was going to happen just based of the first movie but I guess when you're basically recreating the same film that happens. The characters make stupid choices which always bothers me though

The Good: It wasn't terrible? Some of the scares were creepy nothing to dramatic. In the end I got what I expected, an alright found footage film and a probably 'worse than the first' sequel.

Conclusion: If you're bored yeah I'd suggest it.

Who should watch it: Grave Encounters Fan? Sure. Found footage fans? Sure. Horror fans? Maybe. None of the above? No.

I came to this film with very mixed feelings . GRAVE ENCOUNTERS wasn't only the best lost footage horror film I'd probably ever seen but also the best full length horror film I'd seen over the last few years and caused me to jump out of my seat several times . Any anticipation I had in looking forward to the sequel was tamed in the knowledge that the original directors The Vicious Brothers had been replaced by John Poliquin and on top of that lost footage film isn't a sub-genre that has much scope so decided to watch it with expectations rather low

Just as well because even in sequel terms CLOSE ENCOUNTERS 2 is a massive let down . What I found strange is the meta-fictional quality the way the film starts in which the original film is now a DVD movie unleashed upon the public . In other words it has now become a film within a film which isn't really what the original film was about . Is it post modernist in this approach ? Maybe but for a few seconds I honestly thought I wasn't watching GRAVE ENCOUNTERS 2 but rather a montage of youtube reviews of the original film which is bizarre to say the least . No doubt this was the makers intention but I don't really think this worked

The post modernism - or should that be post post modernism - continues well in to the first half of the film as we're introduced to a bunch of a film students who want to go and film at the location of the first movie and before we get there we have to endure lots of footage of the students own attempt to make horror movies . Again it doesn't come of very well and isn't nearly as clever as it thinks it is as characters knowlingly refer to other lost footage movies . It lacks the wit Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson could have brought to it and it tries a little too hard to to appear spontaneous and amateur , though that said it's a difficult thing to get right so I shouldn't judge too harshly . When we do get to the second half it's just more of the same with night vision , people splitting up , loud noises and jump scares . I don't know if it was because I saw GRAVE ENCOUNTERS recently but the scares and unearthly horrors seen here weren't as effective as they were in the original probably down me knowing what was coming next . It also probably illustrates that once you've seen one of these movies you've seen them all . In that case maybe I should be charitable and say this sequel isn't so much bad , just very predictable while the original is something of a standout

Not going to bore you, so let me be frank.

I really enjoyed it. Watch this film with no expectations in regards to the first and you will to. The problem is people expect way to much from these fairly low budget films. This film does its job, make you feel uneasy and some good scares. It makes me laugh when critics on here are like 'It was so boring, not scary at all, a waste of time' lol I bet you at some point in the movie they were like "s*&t!" lol.

Just stop trying so hard to hate and enjoy. I rate this a high 6/10, gave the first one 7/10.

Follow me on twitter and we can exchange film opinions and recommendations: FilmGeek89

Wow. Where to begin... I actually enjoyed the 1st film a lot but this was just awful. I was instantly annoyed w/ the two main characters. Not only was their acting terrible but everything else about them was horrible also. Trevors voice almost made me turn it off right away. He sounds like a tool version of the handicapped kid from Breaking Bad. There are no scares whatsoever and when they do try for scares it's just the same stuff as part one. It also takes about 40min for anything to get going in the movie. Such a let down. It is perfect for the viewers around the age of 12. I've never written about a movie on here before but this one totally needed to be written to help prevent anyone from viewing this garbage. Please do not make this a trilogy.

Found footage films aren't for everyone. Horror sequels are usually terrible at best.

This film, Grave Encounters 2, proved to me that a good found footage sequel can happen. The directing, writing, and constant (barely a dull damn moment) scares is what pulled this one along.

The acting is, well, better than most found footage films, but it's still shite compared to the first film.

You barely give a damn about any of these new characters. It's not that they're not like-able, but it's just that the film moves in such a fast pace that you don't even have time to get to know them. Personally, I didn't mind that fact in this flick. I wanted more pure ghost chaos in lieu of character development anyway.

Unlike most found footage flicks, this one throws the stereotypical "campy" approach out the window. By doing this, this film may be able to grasp the attention of the horror buffs that usually have no patience for the average found footage flick.

As a horror flick fanatic, I highly recommend this.

I haven't seen the first film, so I had no idea it was a found footage film. The first thing you need to even start liking such a movie is to have a liking for the found footage genre. If you don't, you won't enjoy it, no matter how good the movie is. Having seen all four Paranormal Activity films and one or two other found footage films, I was prepared for what was coming, so I didn't expect a good acting to begin with. I knew it was going to be shabby and sound amateurish, because a found footage film is supposed to be like that. Professional performances would be a drawback for this genre, as it is intended to be make-belief. That being said, you can't really complain about "bad acting" in this movie. After all, it is a plus.

The most annoying thing about this movie however is that it takes too long for the good part to start, but when it does you're in for a half-scary half-laughable ride. The movie was a success at conveying the sinister nature of the ghosts beautifully. The shaky camera was a little over the top for my taste. It actually gave me a headache. They didn't have to pull the wall-cameras off to capture everything on their shoulders. That would have been the solution for too many unnecessary shaky shots.

I liked the role the cop played in the movie. I liked the sudden deaths. Some of them were too violent for a ghost story, but I'd rather see it as an attempt at being scarier. The last 20 minutes was a drag. They should have cut the inessential scenes. For a found footage film, I think it was above average. It had its moments, its thrills, and its flaws, like any other horror movie. Keep your expectations low, because making a satisfying horror movie is a real challenge these days. I haven't seen any good horror movies in 2012 or in 2011 for that matter. The horror movie industry is dying and that's a bitter truth we horror movie fans have to face.

Never in my life did i think that i would encounter such a vile, boring, pointless film about absolutely nothing of value. My anus is bleeding.

3/10

Well this is when making a sequel to a decent movie goes wrong. The idea was there. How they go about searching for the truth behind "The Grave Encounters" was there. How the rest was executed was a "grave" disaster. It starts off in its own, but still in a "been there done that" way, then turns into the first movie, only to go downhill quick. Before too long your wondering why am I still watching this as it is not believable or even fathomable in an imaginary type way. I understand they had to do something different to end the movie than the first, but they should have gone back to the drawing boards once they screened this movie and seen how ridiculous it looked and sounded. The reasoning for the 3 of 10 rating is, it starts out good, and has decent special effects for a low budget movie. 3 of 10-WAIT FOR TV

The first grave encounters was a great horror movie, great atmosphere keeps you shaking to see what happens next. This one made me think that it's a joke. The movie should be left without a sequel, cause this movie just doesn't fit in with the first one at all. The plot holes, the constant screaming, terrible acting, stupid character decisions and very cheap special effects, just don't let you enjoy the movie. Over all the idea may be good, but this is just... If you like horror movies give this a pass and go waste time with better movies. Leave this one behind and go watch the first one if you want a horrifying experience, just don't waste your time.

Grave Encounters 2 does what it's set out to do. Scare you and frighten you. However the quantity and quality of what scares you seems to have gone down from the first film.

The Good: Very solid plot build up and great connection to the first film, characters were realistic, the scares were good, the same haunting anticipation was there in the first, great atmosphere, originality, A good mind boggle.

The Bad: Not NEARLY as scary as the first, it does well but doesn't hold a light to the first one in my opinion. Not directed by "The Vicious Brothers", The intensity just not there in comparison to the first unfortunately. The film clearly tries too hard to connect to the first I found, a good mind boggle. I mention that as a positive but I also feel it works against its effective atmosphere in comparison to the first one.

My Criticism: I believe if they worked more on making the film terrify you then trying to establish the story and connect the dots to the first one it would have come out way more sharp. The vicious brothers don't need said director who did this film to direct it since they did so well with the first one. It is that way in which I personally believe it fell short of the original. HOWEVER it is still greatly entertaining horror that should make you feel scared at a few parts for sure!

The Verdict: Still a great sequel worthy of your time and will give you some good scares. Just don't expect to be as tense and as terrified as you probably were with the first. Very solid 7.5/10

I was surprised by how much I enjoyed GRAVE ENCOUNTERS 2, mainly because I thought the first one wasn't all that great and how often are sequels superior? However, this turns out to be just that, a funny, realistic and above all entertaining little found footage movie that tackles its genre with gusto and aplomb.

The first half of the film is all set up as the writers work really, really hard to convince us that this is all real. There's more self-referencing here than in SCREAM and I think the guys portray the Youtube generation pretty well; certainly I was entertained by it. Sure, the characters are lousy and one-dimensional, but watch it through half-closed eyes and you can almost believe it. It's like the CATFISH of found footage films in a way.

Once things return to that old abandoned hospital, it once again becomes more predictable, with cast members offed by CGI ghosties. Still, the scare scenes are effective if over the top, and I really liked that whole sequence with the creature coming in through the window. Yeah, the ending is pretty bad, what with the whole riff on EVIL DEAD 2 and everything, but up to that point I was engrossed and above all enjoying myself. It's everything you need from a good B-movie, really.

I wasn't expecting much from this movie. I saw the first movie "Grave Encounters" and loved it. There were scenes in that movie that genuinely creeped me out and I was excited to see what they would do this time around.

John Poliquin directs the sequel, written by the original writers 'The Vicious Brothers'. Alex Wright, a film student is convinced that the first movie was in fact real and decides to visit the hospital where the film was shot to investigate for himself and shoot a documentary. How this happens though seemed improbable to me. Alex is busy shooting a student movie when he receives a mysterious video showing one of the actors from the grave encounters movie. It doesn't take much to convince him to drop everything including filming of his movie to fly to Vancouver Canada with a crew to visit the hospital.

It takes an exhausting 35 minutes before Alex and his crew actually reach the creepy hospital and it doesn't take long before things go wrong and they become trapped in the building.. The action starts to pick up a little then but I found the scares were too similar to the first movie. I got the feeling at times that the film was parodying itself. The characters often view scenes from the film and comment on "the lame CGI affects". And we are constantly reminded of the first film. For me though that had the effect of taking me out of the film a little.

I recommend the movie to fans of the first. I would have liked to see some more creative scares. There are no scenes that stick out for me and it lacked the level of tension that the first movie had.

I couldn't wait to see this film as I loved the first, so I had high hopes for the sequel.....and I wasn't disappointed. This was brilliant as it used the first movie and made fun of it to the advantage of this one. It was tongue and cheek and as you watch you're left thinking that this film isn't going to be as good as the original, and how are they going to tie them together, but then you find out how and it takes on a whole other element. This sequel is just as good as the first, and in fact it may be better in some ways. The story is set years after the first and it explains more of the original, and there's a nice little surprise halfway through. I highly recommend this film, and I give it a 9 out of 10.

Some particular acts are just hard to follow - even if the original wasn't the best to begin with. Grave Encounters (2011) was an independent horror film that gained traction after having an interesting premise which was having a setting in an abandoned asylum. It did have a number of issues like hardly likable characters and continuity errors but on an entertainment level, it did have quite a bit of smaller thrills. For one, its production design looked great and the mythology behind the asylum had a creepy factor that made it hard to resist. Surprisingly, it warranted this sequel which has a couple of areas that felt like it could've went somewhere. However, the entirety of the story is much less believable.

One key aspect that this sequel does maintain is continuity with the original. Thankfully, the script doesn't rehash everything but it's not enough either. Now, viewers are introduced to a different group of filmmakers. What's the age range of these filmmakers - cliché #1, teenagers. Naive, unlikable and annoying teenagers. The "leader", if you want to call him that, Alex Wright (Richard Harmon) is a vlogger who reviewed the original Grave Encounters (2011) film and began doing research on it. Soon he learns that the actual footage might be real and decides that he should go to the same asylum to confirm his hunch. This particular plot line is certainly no longer original, but what makes it even less effective is the build up to that particular plot point.

The first third of the film spends its time getting its audience familiar with the characters before even getting to the asylum. And by familiar, I mean understanding that none of these individuals are likable, have any type of development and act in some of the most despicable ways. The rest of the cast that joins Alex Wright are by no means more interesting than one another. There's one character named Trevor Thompson (Dylan Playfair) who is by far the most obnoxious and dimwitted of the group. Right from the beginning, Trevor is portrayed as nothing else but a dummy. That's a great way to introduce our main cast. Richard Harmon as Alex Wright is nothing close to likable. He's just a geeky wannabe film director who goes looking for trouble. Does he do anything for anyone else in the running time? Nope. Yeah, our protagonist everyone.

The only plus there is for casting is having Lance Preston (Sean Rogerson) return. Even though from the first film he didn't give much charm, his character has far more than the rest in this movie. However, the real missed opportunity to this sequel was having the teenagers be even more prepared for the asylum. There were actual parts that showed the teenagers devising a couple tricks to make sure they knew how to exit if necessary, but it wasn't for long. Once set up, the play out isn't any different from the original, if not worse. You think if these kids really wanted to be prepared, they would've done nothing that was done in the original film. Plus, they have no excuse because in this particular universe, the main characters also saw the movie. This means they saw 100% of what the real audience (us) saw.

Horror wise, there's nothing to be creeped out about now. The mythology behind the asylum is dropped which is a big reason to why this claim is made. To begin with, the asylum was already explained in the original so there's nothing the audience hasn't seen. Next is the lack of tension, for this entry, the new director wastes no time diving into its blatant jump scares and recycled ghouls. There's only one scene where something new is done and that's some specter having an agenda. This is only revealed much later on. The violence is probably on the same level as the last but it's not effective enough to create any scares. However, like the original there are a few twists. Unfortunately the twists aren't as effective either because of their lack of physical knowledge. Music was again absent 99% of the time due to its genre but again, with this kind of story, it doesn't help.

There are some points in the running time that are done differently from that of the original but that's not saying a whole lot. The characters are even less likable than the last batch and the tension barely exists. It could've gone somewhere but its poorly written script did not permit that.

Well. Let me start off by saying that 'Grave Encounters' is and will probably always be my favourite found-footage horror movie for the following 3 reasons. 1.) It wasn't overly jumpy. 2.) It wasn't an original plot but it turned into a bloody brilliant one. And 3.) It was scary. Grave Encounters made me want to stop watching because it scared me so much.

Grave Encounters 2 however is a far different story. I wanted to stop watching because it was so boring and rubbish. It started off okay. They were in college, they want to know if it is real, they make some crappy film blah blah. This was okay and kept me watching. When they first enter the asylum the original crew went into I was hoping for the atmosphere the first one created. Whilst watching the first one I felt the air go cold as they entered the asylum. In this one I felt nothing. I just thought 'Oh look. It hasn't got better security even though a film was made from it'. The first scene in the asylum was okay. I guess. But then it just turned to crap.

For some reason they brought their friend; an annoying, loud blonde girl with them. She gave them away about 50 times by breathing like Sandra Bullock in Gravity. Seriously. I would have just threw her into a wall of knives. She still wouldn't have been quite, even in death.

Then instead of the first one, 98% of the scare factor of the movie came from unecassary, clichéd, over the top and consistently used jump scares. This ruined the movie. It could just never create any form of atmosphere as 0.2 seconds of it building up something would pop up or some rubbish like that. The other 2% was from a certain scene, can not say what, involving nurses. That was the best scene of the movie. And the only good scene as well.

And finally the profanity, sexual content and crude humour. This is when everybody knew that they didn't want to make a sequel. They wanted to make money from teens buying tickets to see the film and buying the DVD. There is one scene where a guy is seen jerking off over a porn video, which we see and then a dude walks in on him and says 'there is wet pussy out there for you'. What the hell?! Then in the asylum loads of crude jokes are made and they say the f word countless times. It is over profanic. It is actually sickening. I am a teen myself and even I didn't want to hear that much swearing for such unecassary reasons. And I enjoyed Wolf Of Wall Street. It was just terrible.

To sum up: DON'T GET IT. IT IS HORRIBLE, BORING, OVERLY JUMPY AND FULL OF Unnecessary SEXUAL JOKES/CONTENT. The best scene is the end credits.

The 4 stars come because 1.) You can't rate 0 and 2.) 2 for the beginning and 1 for the nurse scene.