So, here’s the thing. I have words about this movie. I’ll start with the good because there’s a couple of things I was extremely happy to see. I could tell right off the bat that this was the same director and editor. I didn’t even have to look, it was that obvious to me. McG is a really funny guy, and I know comedy is subjective, but he’s kind of a tongue-in-cheek writer. He knows what the audience is thinking, and he isn’t afraid to embrace the ridiculous parts of the film. Now, it didn’t have the same writer, since the first one was written by a different guy, but the writing is still somewhat similar. I think the only difference in writing is the balance. Where the first film was able to convey both horror and comedy in a very balanced manner, I think this film leaned much more heavily on the comedic side, and it is funny. There was more than one moment in this flick where it reminded me of the older Charlie’s Angels films that McG also directed. Also, when it comes to the editing, I dug it. The editing alone really helps convey the tone of comedy the movie is going for, since the editor had a wonderful sense of comedic timing. So, even though I didn’t love this movie, these two things alone helped it feel like it still fit.

Unfortunately, I probably have more negative things to talk about in this movie than positive. First, the cinematographer has changed. Just how I could tell it was the same director and editor, I could tell they changed the cinematographer. One of the best and most alluring parts of that first film were the color palette choices. I talked about this a lot with my review of the original film, and I even did something I almost never do, and I used visual examples to show what I was talking about. I loved what they were able to do with just themes of color. Blues and whites, yellows and reds, as well as with greens, and how the characters blended into those things. There was just so much thought put into the color, and this sequel was so bland. It was just a basic white balance, nothing unique anymore. It was boring, honestly, and that’s only where my complaints begin.

The next thing you’ll have a hard time avoiding is the fact that none of this movie makes any logical sense. First, the movie claims to take place just two years after the events of the first film, but did everyone have an insane growth spurt? Nobody looks the same. Cole looks like an entirely different actor. You can sort of tell Melanie is the same actress, but she also looks particularly grown up, and that’s because, from what I understand, the actual dates of filming the first and second movie was a five-year gap, not two. The actor who played Cole was 19 years old when he made this movie, and it was supposed to take place two years after he was playing a 12-year-old in the first movie. Come on!

Secondly, we’ll just say these enemies have returned from the dead to finish the job they set out to do, as the plot suggests. Why on God’s green earth would they go after the same kid that bested them the first time around? Why not go after a different innocent? That’s all the curse requires. Thirdly…gahh! It’s the worst decision the movie makes overall, and I can’t even talk about it, since it would spoil some major plot points, but just know that I HATED it.

What this film ultimately feels like is a cash grab because there’s not a lot in the movie that feels very original or needed. They rehash a lot of the events of the first, and the plot is basically a remake of The Babysitter, which is upsetting. If you don’t have enough material, then why even bother making a sequel? For cheap laughs? I’m not easily disappointed in films; not even remakes, which people always crap on these days. However, every once in a while, it happens, and it happened here.

My score is 7 out of 10 (6.8/10) because I'll give credit where it's due, and 7 out of 10 for me, means average. I rated the first one 8.6/10 because I adored a lot of the work that went into making it special.