I couldn't find this on the boards so I thought I'd start this thread.

Last night I watched this and at least I feel like I come out of the deal being a little more aware of what I don't want to see in the making of a movie.

I felt like the characters, the directing... Well, everything came up flat. It seemed to me so very different from the first one which I really enjoyed. This one seemed like they were writing it as a psycho-thriller and even a crime kind of show, with the murders being repeated over and over again, and I kept thinking, "Ok, here we go again." But it wasn't fazing me.

What really bothered me though was at the end, where we have Sam Reid's sister, Jenna, turning out to be the psycho behind it all. The way it was written, it turned out to be completely contrived and serving only to complete the plot; however... And this is a big HOWEVER:

I think that her character and what she was could have really been the factor that might have made this a great film. How? Well, obviously it's the fact that "When you fuck with nature, it fucks you back." My take on it was that when Jenna was "saved" in the fire and was supposed to die, she became a demon, because she was brought back and therefore shouldn't exist, at least not in this timeline.

The above premise is excellent, but they didn't do that in the film. Instead they've got this ambiguous Jenna at the end, now Sam's daughter somehow, and she's still as psycho as ever, and his "not saving" her, hasn't done a bit of good. Why? Is it still the damn curse of screwing with nature in the first place? Could be, but that, is not handled in the film at all.

Instead of working with character and phenomena, this film serves up the bleeding genre of cut-ya-up and also, lest we forget, a guy in a bathtub, on his way to another jump in reality. That too, got old and I thought: Can't they switch it up a little?

The feeling I got from this film was that it was made on the cheap and made in a hurry.

Sandra