sort of entertaining, but fairly bad

Rating: 5/10 (10 December 2013)

The first one was a good horror. Nobody can say the opposite of that. Not a masterpiece, but a solid horror at least. Obviously we want something of about the same caliber for the sequel.
Where the first one had genuine story telling, this one had just bland development with pieces and themes from a bunch of other thriller-horrors. Where the first had drive and emotion, this one had just some more flat action. Where the first one had good structure and tension, this one is slightly random/uneven and with slowdowns in rhythm. Where the first one had good scares, this one is just some more of that PG13 Hollywood mainstream horror.
This is basically a lazy continuation of the first, with no real motive or at least a failed attempt at building from the original and recreating a piece that is as challenging and that keeps the same quality formula while expanding on other possible notions of the Insidious realm. It's just leaning on the first, bringing uninteresting, predictable explanations to a film that didn't need any. Parasitic, feeding off the originality of the first without bringing anything itself.
There's absolutely nothing notorious or memorable about it, and most if not all scenes are a letdown. There isn't a section or concept in the 100 minutes that remotely push the boundaries of the series or offer authentic thought or artistic vision.
Check it out yourself if you liked the first, but the people on here calling it a "masterpiece" or whatever need to stop whatever they're doing wrong in life in general...seems very dangerous, whatever it is.