The Grudge 2 Reviews

Page 1 of 583
Super Reviewer
February 15, 2007
A much better film than its predecessor - the premise is intriguing, the scares are more inventive, and the characters are better developed. It's not great, but as far as creepy atmospheric haunted house stories go, The Grudge 2 gets the job done.
Super Reviewer
September 24, 2011
Super Reviewer
½ August 18, 2011
The Grudge 2 is yet another sequel to a terrible remake. Where to begin? Like in the first Grudge, the film is plagued with cheap scares, and relies on their special effect to create its "horror", well that doesn't work. If you've read my reviews on horror films, I've stated numerous times that its atmosphere, not special effects that helps create an effective, chilling horror film. The Grudge 2 like its predecessor has the elements absent from the story, and you get a cheap, unscary horror film that tries to scare you by having cheaply done jump scares. If done properly, you can get away with it and still have a great horror film. But with these remakes, they rely on exclusively on that to create the tension. I like atmosphere in my horror films, not cheap jump scares camouflaged with great special effects. The Grudge 2 fails to deliver genuine scares and above all, a great story. Not only that, but the film lacks any good acting. I hate remakes with the exception of a few, and the reason why they are terrible is that the filmmakers try duplicate the original while creating something refreshing that will appeal to the new brain dead audience that think films like this is actual horror. Well, it's not. A terrible film with awful acting, story and minimalistic scares make this a pointless sequel to a remake of a very good Japanese horror film. A shame. I just hope one day, Hollywood gets a reality check and realize how shitty these films are. Avoid if you love true horror.
Super Reviewer
½ March 8, 2007
I thought this sequel horror film is more creepy and spooky where the cursed spirit Kayako has been released to a new country. But I like the first one the best. I wished Sarah Michelle Gellar's character should stay alive in this sequel.
After Sarah Michelle Gellar's cameo, the movie focuses on her sister, but gives her nothing to do. What seems like a totally separate storyline inside an apartment building is more distracting than involving. The scares become very routine and there are so many characters here, that the viewer cannot become attached to any of them.
The movie does, however, kick it up in the final twenty minutes or so. And the ending is a lot darker and much more mean spirited than the original, and for that, it has to earn some points for not taking the safe way out.
Super Reviewer
½ January 21, 2010
I couldn't sleep at night for a month! This was so freaking scary. I suggest you to watch at daytime. Even though one of my friend thought it was lame and not so scary. But I think it was!
Super Reviewer
December 13, 2009
Very boring Movie. The Prequel was not better either.
Super Reviewer
½ October 1, 2009
What is it about a pale looking Japanese woman that?s so damn scary? This is a much better film than the first (The remake). Without wasting too much time on the reasons why, this film sticks to giving the audience big scares and unlike most American horrors, it declares that there is no stopping evil spirits and you?re next, no matter what you do. Very refreshing and original! The separate intertwined storeys set in two time-lines was a welcome idea. That said, the spooky pale Japanese woman has now had her time and this should be the end of it. Don't forget to watch the original Japanese versions though, plus Japanese films like, Ring, The Eye and any Takeshi Miike films!
Super Reviewer
½ August 28, 2009
There are one or two genuinely freaky moments in The Grudge 2. They almost boarder on scary. Unfortunately, they are ruined by a few terrible actors that almost have you laughing. The main ghosts also become repetitive and this is the same stuff from The Grudge, which was all taken from the Japanese version. It's confusing narrative does nothing but create headaches, and it offers no surprises, as anyone familiar with the franchise knows where it is headed. You can't really feel connected to these characters and after an awesome cruel breakfast scene, everything seems tame.
Super Reviewer
½ May 2, 2007
The second US version of the Grudge films doesn't do anything different than the first except splitting the plot into three branches, of which the Chicago family doesn't seem to have much in common with the Japanese curse at first. Before the constant switching between Japan and the US gets too tiresome you can already figure out the connection, just another wasted opportunity to bring some fresh wind into the franchise. SM Gellar isn't long enough in the movie for you to say "Buffy!", and everything else just feels like a deja-vu. Sure, there are a few nice scares and exciting scenes, always shortly before the ghosts strike again, but most of the flat characters are acting so dumb that you feel like yelling "Take them already" anyway. A stupid film and pretty much a waste of time.
Super Reviewer
½ June 11, 2009
whether i saw this or not i know without a doubt its just as dumb as the first.... and from the cover i see that the super-scary meowing kid is back!
Super Reviewer
February 28, 2009
I am such a wuss when it comes to scary movies, I wasn't really paying attention because I was home alone when I watched it, so maybe I might have a different opinion if I had actually watched it.
Super Reviewer
½ July 27, 2008
Well the first one wasn't a good horror movie but it was at least watchable, The sequel is just unbearable
Super Reviewer
July 8, 2007
I loved this movie! There were so many great scenes of the ghosts getting people, inspired from various Ju-On movie sequences. It's nice they included the schoolgirl story, which seemed absent from the first Grudge film.

Most of the ghost appearances are the mother ghost Kayako with her long black hair. There weren't enough scenes with the little boy ghost Toshio and his black cat; probably because they got a different actor to play him. Even the famous killer ghost daddy Takeo makes an appearance.

Sarah Michelle Gellar appears in this movie as Karen, only to be killed off. I hate it when movie sequels do that. (She chose to act in "The Return" instead, a terrible movie).

Karen's sister Aubrey (Amber Tamblyn) is sent to Japan to visit Karen in the hospital, but that doesn't last very long. Karen soon dies, and Aubrey is left to investigate the burned-out shell of the Grudge house from the first film. Aubrey is assisted by a reporter, in uncovering the root of the evil curse; we get some wacky flashbacks of Kayako as a child, being force-fed the psychic pains of villagers who came to relieve their evil attachments.

The main thrust of this movie is to get the ghosts out of the haunted house in Japan, to America. This is accomplished by having Americans go into the haunted house and bringing the ghostly curse back home with them. The curse spreads to an aparment building in Chicago, where two families are destroyed.

There's lots of jump-points, and weird death scenes when the ghosts get their victims, who simply disappear into thin air.

This movie switches between at least three different timelines throughout. It's a bit confusing, but they're easy enough to piece together once you've seen the entire movie. They cheated a bit by changing some of the details when they're shown a second time around.

I really liked this movie; probably more than the original Grudge flick.
Super Reviewer
½ June 29, 2008
I hated this movie. There is no explanation how the curse gets from the three girls in Japan to Karen to Chicago. The story flits from story to story with no logic -- as if the only point was showing us another scary Curse death.
Super Reviewer
March 11, 2007
I do like all these different versions of the Ju On storyline, because each one adds something different. However, some of the effects were rather funny or just not in keeping with the rest of the tone (the girl getting engulfed in Kayako's hair, for example). It's a shame, because I believe that if they were careful they could've produced a rather effectively creepy film - there were aspects and parts of the film where they did achieve this, but it was let down by others.
Super Reviewer
November 27, 2007
SH*T! Ghosts dont have faces! This movie just gave a ghost a face and freakin creeped the hell outta me!! I had to sleep with the lights on for days after watching this!!
Super Reviewer
September 29, 2007
saw this i thought it was pointless had jumpy parts and sarah michelle gellars appearence were first 10 minutes in the beginning before dying
Super Reviewer
½ June 22, 2007
Not as good as the first one. It's Just basically more of the same, but second time round you know what to expect, some scenes were nearly identical to the first. Leaves too many loose ends as well, better off just watching the first. At least that feels more complete than this. Not scary at all.
Super Reviewer
½ June 11, 2007
Creepy moments abound but the film goes almost nowhere.
Page 1 of 583