Do you have a video playback issues?
Please disable AdBlocker in your browser for our website.
Due to a high volume of active users and service overload, we had to decrease the quality of video streaming. Premium users remains with the highest video quality available. Sorry for the inconvinience it may cause. Donate to keep project running.
After experiencing what they think are a series of 'break-ins', a family sets up security cameras around their home, only to realize that the events unfolding before them are more sinister than they seem.
To put it simply, if you've seen the first film, then you've seen this film. There's nothing new offered here, so there's not much of a point in bothering with it.
...reaffirms familiar scare tactics...taps into a certain kind of eeriness implicit in the threat to suburban domesticity, which was precisely what made "Poltergeist" so frightening back in the day.
Even knowing what's likely to come -- the doors opening on their own, the skeptical characters scoffing at metaphysical explanations, the unheeded warnings from paranormally gifted guests -- doesn't make it any less nailbiting to watch.
It's simultaneously a lot more expensive and a lot cheaper.
October 25, 2010
Digital Spy
While the meagre rationing of shocks is undoubtedly frustrating for the bulk of the movie, this allows the final act plenty of room to crank the fear factor up to 11.
This demon is more like a lousy roommate, turning the lights on, leaving the cabinets open and making loud noises in the kitchen while everybody's trying to sleep.
April 28, 2015
Chicago Reader
Like Oren Peli, who created the first film, director Tod Williams keeps the dialogue So-Cal dumb and colorless, which must be part of the scare plan but makes both these movies hard to sit through.