Insidious: Chapter 2 2013

Bilge Ebiri, New York Magazine/Vulture: Insidious: Chapter 2 may be somewhat uneven, but at a certain point near the end, I realized I hadn't taken any notes during the second half. For all its weirdness, the film had utterly transported me. Read more

Jeannette Catsoulis, New York Times: A mess from start to finish -- though, judging by the ending, this story won't be over any time soon -- Insidious: Chapter 2 is the kind of lazy, halfhearted product that gives scary movies a bad name. Read more

Sara Stewart, New York Post: This is one of the more pointless follow-ups ever, just an assortment of scary-movie tropes randomly doled out, with unavoidable jolts at regular intervals. Read more

Soren Anderson, Seattle Times: Been there, seen that. Read more

Scott Foundas, Variety: A modestly scaled and highly pleasurable sequel to Wan's low-budget 2011 smash that should have genre fans begging for thirds. Read more

Jesse Hassenger, AV Club: Characters in Whannell/Wan screenplays speak with the first-draft expository bluntness of a cheap '50s thriller, letting the characters step on some of the best reveals. Read more

Barbara VanDenburgh, Arizona Republic: All the standard spooks pop up: creepy baby toys, a piano that plays itself, a lady in white roaming the house, predictable jump-scares galore. Read more

Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune: Wan is getting better and better at figuring out what to do with the camera, and maneuvering actors within a shot for maximum suspense, while letting his design collaborators do the rest. Read more

Chris Nashawaty, Entertainment Weekly: The problem is, Wan is reaching into the same old grab bag of shock scares, creaky-door sound effects, and ominous baby monitor voices he used in the far better original Insidious. Read more

William Goss, Film.com: An increasing amount of metaphysical backtracking dilutes the few simple jolts that do work this time around. Read more

Wesley Morris, Grantland: Most of [Wan's] peers shoot a bunch of scenes and let the editor make a smoothie. Wan no longer relies on visual gibberish. He has become a classicist in that sense. Read more

Justin Lowe, Hollywood Reporter: Chronic mediocrity continues to haunt this series exploring the terrors of demonic possession. Read more

Robert Abele, Los Angeles Times: This busy-yet-dull sequel feels like Wan robotically flexing his manipulation of fright-film signposts, an exercise more silly than sinister. Read more

Rafer Guzman, Newsday: [The film] might have been wackily entertaining if the whole thing weren't so sluggishly paced, poorly lit and dispiritingly unoriginal. Read more

Joe Neumaier, New York Daily News: Comes upon a few quirky solutions and movie-ripoff scares before settling into a kind of coma. Read more

Michael Sragow, Orange County Register: This sequel to the horror hit about a boy lost in the demon-infested netherworld called The Further adds the element of time travel to its paranormal expeditions -- and sinks in its own murk. Read more

James Berardinelli, ReelViews: Insidious: Chapter 2 is not only unnecessary but it commits the cardinal sin of devaluing its predecessor. Read more

Peter Hartlaub, San Francisco Chronicle: If Insidious 2 exists solely because Insidious 1 made a ton of money, then at least credit Wan for making quality control a priority. Read more

Sandy Cohen, Associated Press: Insidious: Chapter 2 picks up where the first story ended, but the sequel has enough scares, laughs and a story of its own to stand alone. Read more

Ian Buckwalter, The Atlantic: Though there's some admirably clever plotting to interweave the film's second half with events in the original, it's simply not as scary. Read more

Liam Lacey, Globe and Mail: Insidious: Chapter 2 follows the further misfortunes of the Lambert family with diminishing insidious rewards. Read more

Bruce Demara, Toronto Star: If there is a fundamental flaw in Chapter 2, it's that it will make absolutely no sense unless you've seen the first one. Read more

Alonso Duralde, TheWrap: If you're a fan of the post-Poltergeist shocks and scares offered up by the first Insidious, then you'll be thrilled to hear that Chapter 2 manages to jolt and unsettle without merely repeating itself. Read more

Nigel Floyd, Time Out: For all but the most forgiving horror fans, this is a lazy, stupid and incoherent failure. Read more

Claudia Puig, USA Today: Yes, of course it's the sequel to 2010's Insidious, but it seems cobbled together from outtakes. Read more

Nick Schager, Village Voice: Most of Chapter 2 is unintentionally hilarious. Read more

Michael O'Sullivan, Washington Post: Considering how creatively bankrupt and stylistically profligate this second installment of the franchise is, the new movie should really be called Insidious: Chapter 11. Read more