Villmark 2

I gave this film a two, and considering the photography, lighting and set design/location are all pure tens, that speaks volumes for the rest of this film.

The script and editing is on the level of something you'd expect from a kindergarten child, the acting is horrendous most of the time and the entire film is completely disjointed. The plot, where there is one, suffers from lack of logic, and the characters behave in a way no human ever would.

It has everything you'd expect from the worst of Jean Rollin, except the humor and playfulness. It's just not good.

I'd love to edit this film down to about five-six minutes and use that footage for a music video, but the film as it is is just junk.

The music incidentally is distracting as all hell.

I usually am extremely fond of Norwegian movies because they are detailed and the acting is very good no matter if they are in Norwegian or English. Their plots are complex, but are very logical...THIS film only reflects SOME of those qualities.

The characters are solid and very well acted for a horror film, but aspects of the characters are not clearly defined and aspects of their personal details are NEVER related to their part of the film. A good example is Frank's persistent cough which is emphasized throughout the film, but never relates to anything in the plot.

The biggest failing of the storyline is that NOTHING is ever explained! The place was abandoned for years and yet it is never explained why there are still patients and staff still there? The reappearing nurse has a functioning crow's beak growing out of her forehead and it is never explained. The janitor is simply a caretaker yet he performs surgery and yet that is never explained.

The film ends with two questions: 1. What the hell just happened. And 2. Why the hell did I watch it to the end!

FYI if you can't suspend disbelief for an hour or two (as evident in the low ratings), don't bother watching horror movies. This was very well done. The pace is perfect. It keeps you guessing just enough, but not so much that you lose interest 30 minutes in. It's like, Is everyone seeing ghosts? Or going insane? Is it hallucinations? Is that person up to something? I dunno if I trust her. Wtf is that?? Who is that supposed to be! It's good enough I didn't catch myself perusing memes during it. For one, abandoned insane asylum? Yea alright. Two, gorgeous scenes and a beautiful giant building falling apart? Uh, ya. In the absolute middle of nowhere mountain forest with an old bomb siren and creepy caretaker? I'm in. Cliché, maybe. But again, relax and pretend you're in for the ride and not to pick it apart. Maybe it's been done a bunch before, but that's because it works. There are locations, people and situations that are just inherently scary. Look past it and enjoy yourself.

It's a decent watch. People seem to be giving it bad reviews because it's not as good as the first or its like another film... Who cares. Just watch it for what it is

This movie takes quite a while to get going and when it finally wraps up, you're left with more questions than answers. It's about a team of people who go into an old asylum building to assess it for hazardous materials. Or something. A sort of librarian goes with them to grab any records that might be worth keeping. They end up being the worst hide and seek players ever in a cat and mouse game between them and an unknown adversary. The kinds of decisions most of these characters make throughout the course of the movie will leave you with little sympathy for them. I found myself hoping they would die - especially the team leader. I did find it scary, creepy, and suspenseful, and I thought it was well shot and performed. I would have liked more of an explanation for what was happening and why, but if the intention was for us to be just as in the dark as the people in the movie, I sort of get it. But I didn't like it. I've seen other reviewers saying that this ripped off Session 9, and I can see why they said that, but I wasn't thinking of Session 9 while watching this. Session 9 was definitely better, though. See that instead.