All Hallows' Eve 2

I liked Art in the first one, but I didn't need him to be in the sequel for it to be good. In fact, I do appreciate that he isn't in it, because I don't want to see him become a cash cow that gets milked whenever someone wants to make a buck.

That said, the reason Art worked in the first one is that he tied the stories together. I felt that, overall, the shorts didn't connect, at least not for me. I didn't mind most of them, but they were too short to make an impact. Just when you start getting into them, they end. I think fewer shorts, each getting more time to develop, would have made this better.

I also didn't feel any connection to the woman watching the films. I liked Katie Maguire in the first one. The woman in this one is forgettable.

Overall, fun, but not great.

My quick rating - 4,7/10. Another horror flick in the anthology format. If you are unfamiliar, these are short stories bundled together into one film, usually bound by an underlying central theme. This one, as the first one was (and also the "VHS" movies) is centered around a mysterious videotape appearing and the contents of it. That plot is nothing more then fodder to bring the stories on. This one had a few good shorts, some average, and the rest garbage. Pretty typical of anthology flicks. Not going to break them all down, that will be up to you but the first "All Hallows Eve" was definitely better and also had a much creepier encompassing story to it. Make sure on this Halloween to save some trick or treat candy for sweet tooth ;)

Has the feel of an indie straight-to-tv movie, and yeah, there's plenty to criticize. From bad acting to cheesy attempts at scares, this one's far from perfect, and falls a quite a bit short of its predecessor. But that doesn't mean it's not a good, Halloween-themed thrill ride.

The over-arching plot starts off basic. They rush the first few segments, and rush the breaks with the main arch in between.

The first segment is actually really, REALLY cool. It's short, but kinda shocking, and leaves the audience going "whoa." And as a bonus, there's a bit of a John Carpenter's "The Thing" element to one certain part. It's fun, shouldn't disappoint.

The second segment feels like a production of Spirit Halloween. Has an interesting premise, some cool aspects with the kids, but has a cheap execution. Very rushed, feels like an early Peter Jackson short. Not to say it's bad, but it's far from great.

Third segment is interesting. It's rushed as well, very short, and hardly any context is provided. Yet, somehow you're able to piece together what is happening, and create your own theories what led the father and son to this point. Acting's not bad. Nothing shocking on screen, but it feels like a campfire story told in 3 minutes by a scout leader to a bunch of wide-eyed cub scouts. And when the scout leader is asked by the scouts to explain everything, the scout leader takes a pull from his flask and tells them to shut the hell up and figure it out themselves.

By the 4th segment, we're only a third of the way through the movie. Starting to feel like the "ABC's of Death," only with more scares, thought, creativity, budget, and talent. And less rushing. Still, this segment isn't half bad either, despite trying to hard to be clever.

By the 5th segment, you may be wondering how many freaking segments there are. And this segment is just stupid. Maybe it could have been better, but, and I hate to sound like a broken record, it's WAAAAY too rushed. Feels like filler.

6th segment (holy crap, is that Pam from "The Office?!?" Wait, no it isn't) tries to tug on your heartstrings a bit. There's more context, time to think. Throw in a disturbed kid, a parent in mourning, cliche drawings of a child, it becomes real easy to predict. Kid's a great actor though. Characters do earn some sympathy points. And she gets the "Mother of the Year" award.

7th segment, well, it catches the spirit of Halloween no doubt. Despite it apparently being made on someone's mid-2010's smartphone using random people around a Californian neighborhood for actors. It's weird, not bad, but not great.

8th segment tries to be with modern tech. It's ok, some freaky imagery, but otherwise it's a bit weak. And the guy really needs some decor in his apartment.

That's......pretty much it. Some lows, some highs. 1st and 3rd segments were my favorite. The main story arch is entirely forgettable. Whole thing worth a watch, nonetheless.

In most every way this one was better than the first... except for one big part. The lack of the character Art the clown left this one as much more of a compilation of short films and not so much an anthology. While I'm sure they wanted to do something different with this one, Art was not only a wildly creepy addition but was also the connecting factor and cohesion throughout.

The actual over arching storyline between the shorts took a huge backseat and was very lacking which was unfortunate. Plus the pumpkin man severely paled in comparison to Art, but it didn't seem like they even tried tbh. In general it just felt a bit lazy.

Now, in every OTHER way this one was better than the first. The picture quality, the stories, the acting, the level of engagement and intrigue... all better. Because of this it kind of evens itself out to its predecessor landing pretty middle of the road. 5.5 rounding down to a 5. Would recommend.

For sure, it could be said this entry lacks that which made the first something more special. Is it using old shorts from YouTube? Maybe. Is it the lack of a proper foreground story? Probably.

But nonetheless, it's a fine combination of horror shorts - obviously some lesser than others but that's a very subjective opinion. None of the shorts are overly gory and the ones which stand out stand out VERY well and it's quite clear why they should be featured in this movie. The cinematography and acting is surprisingly solid throughout all shorts and the effects aren't too shabby either.

All in all, it's not a terrible waste of an hour and thirty minutes of your life - but I wouldn't plan a movie night around it.