And 'meta' meaning, applying a concept on itself. For instance, searching for 'Google' with Google, or buying garbage bags to dispose of garbage bags.
This movie does this as well! In the beginning of the movie, we have film critics rating their own movie(concept), plus this is a movie about a movie-maker, making a movie. In fact, the critics compare Grave Encounters with the Blair Witch, some other 'found footage' classics, and then, and I quote, 'that other one on the moon', referring to Apollo 18, which wasn't received well. Pretty ballsy, distantiating itself a bit from the 'rotten egg' of the bunch in the movie itself. Funny thing is that the IMDb rating of Apollo 18 at this time is 0.2 points higher...
I was even wondering if the critics comments on the first movie were from actual (you-tube) reviewers.
So far, this 'meta' approach, rekindling of the 'what footage is real' feeling and sharp attitude of the movie took me by pleasant surprise.
For the rest of the movie, I have very mixed feeling. I'll sum them up: for starters, knowledge of the previous movie is almost required for this movie to work. Second, the first half of the movie is an unsuccessful character development 'filler'. Yes, they are teens and party all day. In the end, I still knew nothing about them, nor did it make me care.
As the actor's list on IMDb suggests, we see a returning cast member. Will he get out this time? Watch the movie and find out.
We get an exact repeat of the first setting, which some will consider cheap. But also, this movie is therefore more aggressive, since the suspense is sadly somewhat lifted. Using the same settings, we already know what is waiting for us.
We get the supposed movie developer of the first movie, stating that the first movie was real, but some (imo unrealistic) special effects were added to the footage, after which everything got published - and they were SO close to gold with that one. We even saw some previous critics pausing the original movie and discussing the poor special effects. I - so - wanted them to take a more realistic 'found footage' turn, but alas, we soon see the same crappy special effects needlessly appearing in this movie as well. Quite fast and in an implausible way. What a missed opportunity.
We get a security guard thrown in, like the psychic medium in the first movie, but for - what feels like - padding. His attitude and presence is never really explained.
Perhaps my biggest issue is the plot - the (now sentient?) ghost presence wants to make another movie, is aware of you-tube, is able to read you-tube, reads you-tube for critic info, makes accounts and sends emails and calls (which provider would it choose?), and even ends up holding the camera and starts taping, I kid you not.
Really?
Also, it has already shown to have internet access and has its own cameras taping ghosts. Why would it need someone else to tape it? It doesn't have the right .mp4 codecs? Again, this could have been resolved so much better: New plot: the original movie maker wants a second movie, sends those mysterious emails to a naive critic to go to the haunted house and start filming, risking their safety for profitable footage. Brilliant and realistic. Again, so close to gold... the movie even 'corrects' itself later on to go for my plot.
With inner mechanics revealed, the disspellment of the suspense and mystery, and the rationalizing and unrealistic intelligence, this movie lost a lot and needs a total reboot if it wants a sequel.
My recommendation: This movie is clumsy in some parts, brilliant in others. Go watch the first. If you decide you want more of the same (and I did), go see the second.
0 out of 1 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends