That's right folks, a sequel to last year's found footage flick "V/H/S".  I had a lot of problems with the last film but enjoyed it to be quite honest, if only for the raunch and violence factor.  I am rather excited for this one, due to the slew of directors involved (The Raid: Redemption and the Blair Witch Project makers are both involved).

I struggled to get through V/H/S. I thought it was extremely boring, but I read a good review of the sequel yesterday so I most likely will check it out.

I literally hated the original, and barely got through it.

IMO, it was absolutely terrible film making on display in every way imaginable.

I'll have to check this out. While the first one was very messy, it was largely enjoyable.

I was really disappointed with the first one, except for the Halloween party/Devil worship segment which I thought was really inventive and well made. So far, everything I've seen and read about this one looks like an improvement, so I'll definitely check it out.

I stall can't believe they decided to tell one of the stories through skype in a film called vhs! Duh!

I only liked the vampire sex girl segment of the original. That short was amazing. And I guess the halloween party one was okay too. All the others sucked. Even Ti West failed to deliver... I may or may not check out the sequel...

~Zack~

Quoted from Zack Even Ti West failed to deliver...~Zack~

Ti West has failed with everything he's spewed out of his ass, as far as I'm concerned.

Quoted from Dreamscale Ti West has failed with everything he's spewed out of his ass, as far as I'm concerned.

The Roost is fantastic and I really enjoyed House of the Devil. Haven't got around to seeing The Innkeepers, but I've heard great things.

~Zack~

Oh man...all horrible. Complete wastes of the entire runtime when it's all said and done, IMO.  TERRIBLE!!!

I'm gonna have to agree with Jeff though not nearly to the same extent. I can't think of a better example of the emperor's new clothes right now than Ti West.

As a director in general, I think he's pretty shoddy but as a horror director, he's an out and out failure. I don't even think of this as my opinion; I think it's fact. You can't make a 90+ minute mumblecore film (The Innkeepers) and call it a horror movie just because it ends with maybe three minutes of a girl getting chased by a ghost. You just can't.

House of the Devil wasn't as bad a situation but I just don't see the tension or atmosphere that fans of the film say is there. The Innkeepers gets points over this one because at least it had people talking to each other. Just a limp dead fish of a horror movie, this one.

In both films, however, the payoff is just flat out inadequate. It's bad enough that the endings would've been generic in the 80s but what's worse is that both of them wrap up in like two minutes. If you wanna build tension for 90 minutes, it better be worth it. I'm honestly flabbergasted how horror fans could be satisfied by the payoff to either of these films. It's like going to a comedy, waiting until the end to hear three jokes, then leaving the theater thinking the whole thing was hilarious.

I've sat through many a slow burn, some so slow, it feels like they're going backwards. These are not issues I expected to have with Ti West's films. But the dude really has to up the eventfulness in his material. It seems like he's trying to capture the atmosphere of telling scary stories in the dark with nothing but a flashlight or watching horror movies alone at night and scaring yourself when you hear a floorboard pop upstairs. Admirable, I guess, but it's not working at all.

The Innkeepers reminds me more of Clerks than any horror movie I've ever seen. Some people think it's Ti West's best work. Something's not right here.

James, I agree 100%.  Exactly, in fact, although I preferred House to Innkeepers by a long shot.

If peeps want to think he's cool for some reason on jump on the non existent bandwagon, go for it, but seriously, the dude makes terrible movies that are so fucking dull and slow, and have very low payoffs.

I'm all for Ti West. I think he's got a great eye and a unique feel.

That said, I'd probably be totally in support of a definition of "horror" that excludes West's films (except The Roost, which is definitely horror). For me, the appeal isn't really the horror elements, but the overall tone -- James, you mention a silly scary story and scaring yourself when you hear the floorboard creak; I think that fits with me and I think that's what I like. Not that I'd like this in all horror, or maybe even any other horror, but as Ti West exists in filmmaking today, I appreciate the niche he fills.

Jeff, I can totally see how you'd hate Ti West but I don't buy the "complete waste" idea. Technically and visually -- and I'm talking in terms of creativity here, not in terms of professional polish -- his films are head and shoulders above their like-budgeted contemporaries (and that's true for The Roost as well). Filmmaking is visual and for the same reason that I don't think you can say Michael Bay flicks are a complete waste, I don't think you can say it with Ti West either -- visual creativity and uniqueness are worth something in themselves, for film. In my opinion.

Ti West shoots his own films, right?

He should stick to shooting flicks, not writing them.

The problem I have is this...

As I commented back on House of the Devil, I was digging it.  I really was.  But as slow and plodding with so much nothingness going on as it was, I assumed the last third and fourth would rock.  But, it didn't...at all.  In fact, it was a huge letdown in every way.

Same deal with Innkeepers, only I wasn't digging it, as it was just way too plodding and slow.  The "finale" here, if you really want to call it that, was lame at best, and boring and really dumb at worst.

A movie (and script) excels for me when it delivers.  If it doesn't deliver when it's all said and done, it's a failure, and if a certain someone continues to fail with everything he's done, I can't see it any other way.

Hmm, that's interesting! Is there no merit to a film which fails as a whole but constructs a memorable sequence or act?

I'm thinking here of anything from a film like Pirates of the Carribbean 3, which to me is absolute unbearable garbage but has a few key moments of inspired greatness, to a film like MI:III, which to me was garbage but contained a middle 20 minutes in there of brilliant tension and pace, to a film like Hanna, which I thought had a brilliant first and second act and then completely fell apart in the end (this might go for, say, Knight and Day as well, though perhaps with a word less strong than "brilliant").

Or, in another way, what about films like Wolf, or Bad Santa, or maybe Skyfall, that are wildly uneven but intermittently excellent?

Or, what of films that have a great gimmick/hook but otherwise suck? Avatar's 3D, Domino's cross processing, Cabin in the Woods' great meta-premise?

Is there no way for a film to "succeed" or not be a failure without being the complete package?

Quoted from Heretic Hmm, that's interesting! Is there no merit to a film which fails as a whole but constructs a memorable sequence or act? I'm thinking here of anything from a film like Pirates of the Carribbean 3, which to me is absolute unbearable garbage but has a few key moments of inspired greatness, to a film like MI:III, which to me was garbage but contained a middle 20 minutes in there of brilliant tension and pace, to a film like Hanna, which I thought had a brilliant first and second act and then completely fell apart in the end (this might go for, say, Knight and Day as well, though perhaps with a word less strong than "brilliant"). Or, in another way, what about films like Wolf, or Bad Santa, or maybe Skyfall, that are wildly uneven but intermittently excellent? Or, what of films that have a great gimmick/hook but otherwise suck? Avatar's 3D, Domino's cross processing, Cabin in the Woods' great meta-premise? Is there no way for a film to "succeed" or not be a failure without being the complete package?

I'll quote your whole post, Chris.

No, I'm with you on alot of what you said and even your examples.

I think everything and all examples are individual's opinions and choices to show what they're saying.  IMO, nothing is perfect and nothing is sacred.  MY favorite of all time favorite films are not without fault, but...

...back to old Ti.

Hmmm...

OK, see if this makes sense.

You know the loads and loads of horror films that use "cheap" or "false" jump scares to make audiences jump and scream?  Most writer types hate them...and with good reason.  But they work to a certain degree, and that degree is the promise that those jump scares will also turn into "real" scares at some point.

If they never deliver...anything...all those moments that may have potentially worked when they hit, fall apart as BS.

Or how about this?

The toughass bully dude in grade school who always pushes peeps around and threatens everyone, but when it comes time to deliver, he gets his ass beat up by a little nerdy dude who knows some jitz.

Does that make any sense?

Yeah. I'd totally buy that. So there's a sense that the whole film builds to something that doesn't exist. Like if James Bond decided to just...not go after the villain in the third act.

I think for me, I just enjoy the journey so much that the small payoff doesn't really bother me. James' comparison to Clerks is probably apt -- in much the same way I can sit and watch 30 minutes of Clerks without needing to see the start or end, I can do so with a Ti West film. Or Jackie Brown, which Tarantino wanted to be a film where you can "hang out with the characters"...that's a paraphrase at best, but y'know. I can see why people might not feel the same way though, for sure.