Sinister 2 movie review: baloney Boogeyman

Get new reviews in your email in-box or in an app by becoming a paid Substack subscriber or Patreon patron.

Sinister 2 red light

Disjointed, incohesive, and psychologically ridiculous. And actually repulsive on multiple levels in ways that the first film was not.
I’m “biast” (pro): nothing

I’m “biast” (con): nothing

(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)

The only good thing about Sinister was Ethan Hawke’s portrayal of a writer having what looked like a mental breakdown, to the degree that it was easy to suspect that perhaps he was the perpetrator of the family murder he was investigating for a true-crime book. Before that film was half over, however, such a potentially intriguing scenario was rendered impossible, and Sinister became yet another by-the-numbers demon-haunted funhouse. And here’s Sinister 2, which doesn’t have anything so minimally compelling going for it.

Another family has been targeted for ritual killings by the devil Bhughul, which is just a fancy name for the Boogeyman, and he’s precisely as generic as that sounds. This time it’s Courtney (Shannyn Sossamon: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, The Rules of Attraction), on the run from an abusive husband with her two grade-school sons (Robert Daniel Sloan and Dartanian Sloan), one of whom is being seduced by Bhughul into family homicide. Though not if the unnamed sheriff’s deputy from Sinister (James Ransone: Broken City, The Next Three Days) has anything to do with it: he is on the trail of Bhughul and trying to stop the killings.

Where returning screenwriters Scott Derrickson (Deliver Us from Evil, The Exorcism of Emily Rose) and C. Robert Cargill take their concept of possessed children making snuff films of the murders of their parents and siblings descends into the repulsive this time. The “home movies” are far more graphic and gruesome. The appearance of Courtney’s abusive husband (Lea Coco: J. Edgar), drawn back into the demon-targeted family, appears to suggest that some people deserve to die at the hands of a demon, which even if you believe that undercuts the urgency of the premise and throws doubt on everything: are we supposed to be rooting for the jerk husband’s terrible murder, and if so, who else who was killed deserved it? Worst of all, particularly for fans of the genre and those who understand the difference between fantasy and reality, there’s a subtle undercurrent that hints that horror movies themselves are manifestations of actual evil.

Now, I don’t believe that any of these issues are deliberate constructions of the film but rather emergent properties of a story that is disjointed and incohesive. In trying to ram together very different stories — one about a demon, and one about an abused family — Sinister 2 ends up psychologically ridiculous.

We can also blame new director Ciarán Foy, whose ideas about what is scary onscreen are dull and aimless. Foy is yet another indie filmmaker — he made the flawed but promising Citadel — seduced by Hollywood, who then is either forced to or happily agrees to throw away what made his indie work interesting. Perhaps Bhughul, who persuades innocents to commit awful crimes, is a metaphor for Hollywood.

See also my #WhereAreTheWomen rating of Sinister 2 for its representation of girls and women.

share and enjoy
If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll measure. If you’re not a spammer or a troll, your comment will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately.
notify of
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
Fri, Aug 21, 2015 8:29pm

“Dartanian”. There’s a hell of a name to lumber a kid with. “My parents liked classic adventure stories, but couldn’t spell.”

As for the film: there often seems to be an audience for Same Old Horror Story, especially if there’s a veneer of Deep Thinking painted on.

reply to  RogerBW
Sat, Aug 22, 2015 1:43am

They’re not horror movies any more, they’re glorifications of sadism designed to upset the soul as much as possible; in other words a pornography of evil.

reply to  Joe
Sat, Aug 22, 2015 8:40am

I can’t agree. Most modern horror films are designed not to upset anything, but rather to be entirely predictable – just like most modern rom-coms, actioners, and film in general.

David C-D
David C-D
reply to  RogerBW
Sat, Aug 22, 2015 2:12pm

Are predictable and upsetting really at odds here? I watched the first half of Saw a few years back. Even the parts that were predictable I still found upsetting. Presumably I’m not the target audience though.

[ETA] Perhaps you were just making a pun in which case I’m overthinking this.

reply to  RogerBW
Sat, Aug 22, 2015 2:05pm

❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖last tuesday I purchased another Alfa Romeo since I been bringin in 9211$ this previous 5 weeks furthermore, ten thousand last munth . without an inquiry it is the best-work I’ve had . I really began nine months/back and very quickly was making more than 69$, every hour . you could check here..……..

—————►►►► __________________________________________________________________________ ➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽➽v➽➽➽➽GOOTO THIS SITE AND CLICK NEXT LINK IN IT FOR WORK

Sat, Aug 22, 2015 4:37pm

I saw the trailer and thought “is this a Slenderman movie?” I’d never seen the original, so there’s that.

Joe Schmoe
Joe Schmoe
Wed, Feb 10, 2016 7:25am

This is an example of a shoddy follow up to a good offbeat horror movie. The first one was a great horror movie that scared the heck out of me. This was just riding its coat tails