Theatrical A Quiet Place: Part II (2020) (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

In New York, venues that hold under 500 people can remain open, but must halve capacity so as to maximize the distance between patrons. In theory, this is for auditorium size rather than entire multiplex, so if the room holds 200 people, they can only sell 100 tickets. Restaurants can only fill half their tables. Etc. I don’t think the limits will matter much for very long because I don’t think that many people are going to want to go out, and it seems inevitable that more drastic closings are only a matter of time. Once you wrap your head around the idea that less people out at once is safer, the halfway measures seem like just that. It also seems deeply unfair to the people at the bottom of the economic food chain who staff the theaters to have to come to work and face the general public with everything that entails when everyone else is being told to stay home if they can. If the theaters close, there might be a way to get those guys some unemployment or leave coverage. If they stay open, the workers will be stuck working for something that really is a luxury and not a need and that doesn’t seem right considering the big picture.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

It also seems deeply unfair to the people at the bottom of the economic food chain who staff the theaters to have to come to work and face the general public with everything that entails when everyone else is being told to stay home if they can. If the theaters close, there might be a way to get those guys some unemployment or leave coverage. If they stay open, the workers will be stuck working for something that really is a luxury and not a need and that doesn’t seem right considering the big picture.

Given that the health risk for most people under 50 is really low, I would imagine that most of the theater workers would rather have a full paycheck than unemployment.

But I think the lack of new inventory and the lack of audiences will cause a lot of the cinema chains to shut down voluntarily, rather than needing a government mandate to do so.

 

[benbess]

Saw this last night in imax. Effective use of sound to create jump scares, but otherwise I didn't think it was nearly as good as the first one. It's a larger cast than the first one, but the relative lack of diversity among the main characters was something of a drawback for me. Unless I missed it, there seemed to be no explanation for why there were sometimes electric lights more than a year after the collapse of civilization. It's still entertaining enough as a sequel, but I'm glad I have A-list for movies like this, because otherwise I'd be thinking: "I spent $14 for this?" For 2 dollars it was a good distraction to see a movie that I was curious about, but feel was over-hyped in the reviews. My rating: B-

 

[Johnny Angell]

I'm glad I have A-list for movies like this, because otherwise I'd be thinking: "I spent $14 for this?" For 2 dollars it was a good distraction to see a movie that I was curious about, but feel was over-hyped in the reviews. My rating: B-

It’s been so long since I’ve had A-list, weren’t the movies free after your monthly dues?

 

[benbess]

It’s been so long since I’ve had A-list, weren’t the movies free after your monthly dues?

It's about $20 a month, and I usually see ten or eleven movies in that time. So I was just dividing the monthly rate by my average number of movies in a month to get a price per movie of about two bucks.

 

[Malcolm R]

Unless I missed it, there seemed to be no explanation for why there were sometimes electric lights more than a year after the collapse of civilization.

There wasn't really much logic to the first one, either. I still can't get past the obviously machine-planted acres and acres of corn that would have been planted well after the monsters arrived. Somehow they managed to run all those tractors and other machines for days to plant all that corn without attracting the creatures?

 

[Johnny Angell]

There wasn't really much logic to the first one, either. I still can't get past the obviously machine-planted acres and acres of corn that would have been planted well after the monsters arrived. Somehow they managed to run all those tractors and other machines for days to plant all that corn without attracting the creatures?

I think I’m the kind of viewer that these movies are made for. I just don’t care about logic lapses like these as long as the movie entertains. But YMMV.

 

[Doug Wallen]

Saw this today and enjoyed it.

 

[Sam Posten]

I liked it a lot. I thought the ending was a bit abrupt tho.

 

[Jim*Tod]

I saw it in IMAX today. By and large entertaining though as another poster mentioned there are some lapses in logic. I guess my question is still just what the creatures want.... so far their primary interest seems to be in eating people. Or are they just killing them? I suppose we will find out in part three.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I thought it was an effective continuation of and expansion on the first film. The opening sequence set on "Day 1" was an effective way of John Krasinski an onscreen presence in the sequel. After the title card, it picked up basically moments after where the first movie ended. That was a bit awkward, since the son had grown about a foot between the two films.

The first movie was set in the Hudson Valley and shot in the Hudson Valley. Except for a handful of scenes that revisited locations from the first movie, this sequel was shot mostly in western New York, in the greater Buffalo area -- with Lake Erie filling in for the Atlantic Ocean. The effect is mostly seamless, but it does give the sequel a slightly more Rustbelt industrial feel than the first movie.

The decision to make Millicent Simmonds's Deaf teenager the protagonist of the sequel was a smart one; Simmonds brings both a fierceness and a remarkably gentle quality to the role. Her Deafness both gave her the tools to defeat the aliens and made her exceptionally vulnerable to the aliens, since she couldn't hear them coming.

At the same time, the other characters aren't given short shrift; the characters played by Emily Blunt, Cillian Murphy, and Noah Jupe all get their moments to shine too.

I liked it a lot. I thought the ending was a bit abrupt tho.

That was my main criticism. One of the things that really drove the first movie was the mystery of exactly what's transpired and what the rules are. The culmination of the first movie felt like a revelation, with both the characters and the audience understanding something that they hadn't at the beginning of the film. This one is a lot more straightforward: Reagan knows what she needs to do, and she goes about doing it. The journey to complete that was really well-rendered and involving, but completing an objective is less compelling than solving a mystery.

I couldn't help but think that the abruptness of the ending was designed to leave room for a Part III somewhere down the road. A movie where humanity really goes on the offense and claws back some semblance of civilization would be more interesting than yet another survival movie.

I guess my question is still just what the creatures want.... so far their primary interest seems to be in eating people. Or are they just killing them? I suppose we will find out in part three.

I believe there was exposition in the first movie where John Krasinski's character had concluded that the aliens were not sentient; they were apex predators that operated purely on instinct. It's notable that they arrived in the opening scene on what appeared to be asteroids rather than any sort of ship.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Yeah, it was done well in terms of making you appreciate the visuals and audio that only a true high-tech movie theater could provide (saw it at an AMC Dolby Cinema theater), but seemed like only half a movie, which was a disappointment, when it ended, it almost, almost felt Shyamalan-esque in that respect.

Keeping that baby quiet just seems like a hopeless task for the duration of a few years in that situation...

 

[TJPC]

I thought they had solved the mystery of the aliens in the first movie and found the ultimate weapon to kill them all, so I could not see what would happen in part 2 unless it was a prequel.

 

[Sam Posten]

 

[Tino]

Terrific sequel. Just a notch below the first. Well worth seeing in IMAX if you can.

 

[Malcolm R]

Paramount has scheduled the next sequel for March 31, 2023

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Paramount has scheduled the next sequel for March 31, 2023

From what I understand, the next one is a spinoff rather than a sequel. Same world, but a new story with new characters in a new place rather than a continuation of the same story.

 

[Malcolm R]

From what I understand, the next one is a spinoff rather than a sequel. Same world, but a new story with new characters in a new place rather than a continuation of the same story.

Ah, gonna try the old "Halloween III" switcheroo are they? Didn't work so well back then.

 

[Joe Wong]

Liked it, but I rank it a tad below the first (which I thought was very well done). Biggest logic problem for me is the decision by the daughter to just (initially) go it alone. As Adam said, she is the most vulnerable, since she doesn't know when a loud sound has been made. I understand she's still a "child", but problematic nonetheless (for me).

Opening is fantastic, ending is abrupt (as alluded to earlier). It's going to be interesting to see, if there's a 3rd entry with the Abbotts, how expansive it will be in terms of world building. The 1st was intimate and self-contained. Once you introduce the wider world, it invites more curiosity (and potentially more threads/themes to cover and conclude satisfactorily).

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I'm in the minority, but I didn't like the first movie. It required too many leaps of logic/faith, as the characters behaved in relentlessly stupid ways even though we were meant to believe that family was among the one percent of humans who survived the alien invasion.

Despite my disdain for the original, I went into the sequel with a (fairly) open mind. I've liked sequels to movies I didn't care for, so hope springs and all that.

I did enjoy "Place II" more than its predecessor, but it still comes with a lot of self-inflicted wounds.

POTENTIAL SPOILERS AHEAD! I DON'T THINK THEY ARE BUT I GET YELLED AT FOR SPOILERS SO READER BEWARE!

On the positive side, the prologue/flashback works exceedingly well. Even though we know what'll happen, Krasinski stages the attack in a terrific way that packs a real punch.

On the negative side, the movie uses up all its visceral impact in that opening scene. After that, we find little more than a minimal, dull "plot" and generic jump scares.

The decision to separate family members doesn't work, especially because it ignores some parties for far too long. We lose track of characters for extended stretches, and this makes the thin narrative even less interesting than would otherwise be the case.

Most of "Place 2" just feels like never-ending shots of people walking. They walk here. They walk there. They walk everywhere.

Little tension results, especially because the film just doesn't develop any of this material well. If it'd concentrated solely on the journey taken by Regan and Emmitt - and involved everyone - then the story would've gone somewhere.

Instead, "Place 2" finds contrived reasons to keep everyone apart. Why? I have no idea. This just feels like a cheap way to give us cheap scares in a few different settings, and none of it makes a ton of sense.

Hoo boy, does "Place 2" love its jump scares! And its slow slow slow zooms - the camera seems stuck in first gear, a technique that gets old very quickly.

"Place 2" does move at a fairly brisk pace, so I can't complain about that. I just feel like the movie comes comprised of scenes without real connection and it lacks substantial narrative depth or meaning.

Maybe "Place 3" will work better, but "Place 2" doesn't do much for me - at least not after that excellent opening segment.