As someone who genuinely enjoyed the first Hell House I was surprised when a sequel was coming out by the same director. I was curious at how Cognetti would manage to expand on his found footage universe. Would the series take a dive and become a repetitive snore fest like the Paranormal Activity franchise or would it try and innovate and be something new? Unfortunately, by the halfway mark I knew I was in store for the former. Hell House II feels like an attempt to capture the same lightning in a bottle that it’s predecessor managed to but doesn’t have nearly the same polish or sense of intrigue. There are a few nice moments scattered throughout but by and large the movie feels uninspired and pales in comparison to what came before.

The movie picks up 8 years after the tragedy of Hell House and follows investigative journalist, Jessica, and a ragtag team of assistants as they try and discover the secrets of the Abaddon Hotel and the tragedies associated with it. Just as you’d assume creepy stuff happens, random specters are sighted, and things get eerie quick. Unfortunately, most of the scares don’t land because there’s no reason to care for any of the characters.

The first movie works because it gives the audience time to know and understand the characters and their relationships with/among each other. I got their personalities and formed a bond with them, so watching the horrifying events happen to them evoked a level of sympathy. This is mainly due to how authentic and natural the cast comes off. I genuinely felt like I was watching a group of friends get entangled with something beyond them and not some actors trying to emulate that.

The main cast in this movie doesn’t manage to evoke those or similar feelings. The story splits Jessica’s group into two near the very beginning and never brings them back together so a large swath of potentials interactions are forgone. The people we do follow barely get anytime to to mingle before things start going bump in the night so they immediately rush into survival mode. As a result, they all just come off feeling like tropes as opposed to fleshed out characters worth caring for. Interactions between them come off like throwaway moments meant to pad the run-time and/or exposition dumps that are supposed to serve a stand-in for real characterization and storytelling. Everyone’s motivations feel forced and/or undeveloped and it makes sympathizing for their circumstances that much harder. For example, the movie needs Jessica to come off as feverish in her aspirations and willing to do whatever it takes to get the information she needs. This would help make sense of her refusals to back down in spite of the circumstances understandable as opposed to inconceivable. The story never gives Geurt the chance to convey this trait. Instead of feeling realized with intention and drive, she comes off like an NPC in a detective game who’s pre-programmed to make awful decisions because that’s what “real” journalism ,aka the story, requires. This displacement between what the character needs to emote to feel real versus their apparent motivation is present in most of the main cast outside of Ingleman. No one feels grounded or relatable.

I think the movie would have benefited immensely from more time to breathe with all the characters. Getting to know them more intimately would have helped understand their driving factors and would’ve helped me get over their incredibly, inconceivable, stupid decisions. Context changes the way decisions are perceived and this movie lacks that for its characters. It’s a shame because I think the few good scares in the movie suffer a lot as a result. In theory and partly in practice they work. It’s just their execution in relation to the characters feels detached and doesn’t stick in the mind after initial watch. That’s arguably the most important part of a scare. It’s ability to haunt you after having seen it.

Furthermore, while the purpose of the first movie is clear – a “real” documentary of a tragedy – this movie never makes it clear who is presenting the story of the Abaddon Hotel and why the audience should care. Video clips from the beginning of the movie recount the stories of individuals who entered the hotel and disappeared, but they just feel like disconnected scares that tell the audience very little new information. By the end of the movie the purpose of the documentary is no less clear. The story makes sense in a narrative context, but it doesn’t fit the style by which it’s told. I feel like the movie would’ve been more interesting as a straight up supernatural horror film as opposed to a found-footage style film. Granted, that would mess up the whole found-footage trilogy Cognetti was going for , but I think the franchise would’ve been better off as a result. It certainly wouldn’t feel as jarring. I just couldn’t stop thinking about why someone would cut and edit a piece like this and who they would show it to , so I could never get into the movie’s “purpose” as a documentary.

All this being said, I do enjoy the way the movie ends. Key revelations are made that connect the mythos of the first and second movie in a way that excuses some of story issues I’ve outlined. There’s a connective tissue that’s given life which fully gets to breathe in the final part of the trilogy. Without the foundation of the ending here, the third part of the franchise wouldn’t work as well , and that’s a movie I really enjoy. Does that mean I give Hell House LLC II a pass? No. Not even close. Just because it works in the context of a trilogy doesn’t give it an excuse for being boring and mostly uneventful in end of itself. It’s not a movie I would watch as a solo billing and even when I find myself in the mood for a franchise re-watch, I usually skip all the way to the end for this one.

REPORT CARD

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .