In filmmaker Scott Derrickson’s original ‘Sinister’, this writer’s critical impressions toward the sub-par psychological yarn was rather blunt if not consistent with the steady diet of formulaic fightfests. The following passage pretty much sums up the cinematic sentiments from the movie’s critique:

'At best Sinister is a lukewarm twitchy tale that routinely teases the audience with the obligatory guessing game of whether or not the conjured up evil-minded spookiness is imagined…cheapened scare tactics, an ambiguous monstrous myth, transparent characterizations and a mixed bag of a supernatu... read the rest.

What's the most dangerous? The dark force or the evil father.

The first film was good, I enjoyed it, but not scary. So a sequel was expected and it failed to live up to the standards of the original. I would say, it was a decent horror film, with more story and drama than the creepy atmosphere. One character retained from the previous and the core theme remained, but tried a different method of narration. Something like 'Goodnight Mommy' with two brothers and mystery events surrounding them.

It definitely lacks what a horror film required the most, and predictable too. But the story wis... read the rest.

Modern horror sequels are often failures. I thought that as the first film wasn't great that I wouldn't be as disappointed if this film turned out to be bad. I was wrong, Compared to this, the first instalment was a masterpiece and this made me realise how it was successful at achieving its goals sometimes.

'Sinister 2' was quite scary in places. No doubt, the cinema playing the film super loud helped elevate the jump scares though. The creepy depictions of murder in the first film were crazily overdone in this.

The screenplay was terrible. The main story was stale and predictable and the... read the rest.