Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

c b The idea of them geo-caching and having Tony Todd (AKA the Candyman) in the movie was a good idea but once they got to the house all intelligence disappeared. Well, actually it was stupid to cast Kathy Gardiner in the movie. Her acting was HORRIBLE!!! EVERYTHING she said sounded like she was reading. One of the maniacs was especially annoying with his mumbling and gibberish talking. With movies like the Blair Witch, which was also a low budget movie, You can make a good scary movie with a low budget and a lot of creativity. But basically just like everybody else said. This movie was terrible. I did like the giraffe and wild animals in the movie. Not worth spending any more words one it. This Movie Sucked!

larawoolley OK, so I really didn't want to believe the negative reviews on this film ... But ... This film is all kinds of terrible. The story line could have been solid if it was more thought out; it's a clever idea, and I like these types of films but this one was so wrong. It reminded me of a mixture between Saw, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Battle Royale (all favourite films of mine) so on that basis I thought that I'd enjoy this. Now, I didn't know that this was a sequel to another film - On the Horror channel it was titled "Tracked" so after reading the synopsis of the first film I did grasp a better understanding of what was going on. Script and filming wise, to be honest, it isn't very good. It's not the worst, but it's not good either. There isn't much explanation of what's going on, of who is who, why things are happening. The scenes also happen too quickly for me - not enough explanation between scenes if you know what I mean. This wouldn't be a negative point for me if the torture/killing scenes were good, but they weren't; they were cringe worthy and very few and far between. In fact there isn't much of it at all, which is really disappointing. This leads me on to the acting; Irritating, badly and obviously acted, awkward and unlikable. I became annoyed with the characters very quickly and found myself fast-forwarding to parts of the film where things were happening - OK, if I'm honest, I was fast-forwarding to parts where the characters were being killed off - which there wasn't enough of!! - but there was something satisfying about watching that. Overall I wouldn't recommend this film, it's wasted my time (albeit not much of my time seeing as I fast-forwarded a lot of it). I didn't enjoy it, it was painful to watch and it's such a shame that it came out this way. It could have been so much better. Also the 'special' effects were terrible. Oh this film is so bad. Please don't watch it.

Paul Andrews Are You Scared 2 starts as internet gamers 'Team DNA' who comprise of four teen friends Dallas (Tristan Wright), Andrew (Chad Guerrero), Reese (Kathy Gardiner) & Taryn (Andrea Monier) are heading towards a world record as they find some sort of hidden cache. With millions of subscribers all around the world their real life hunts for hidden cases are popular viewing on the internet, to break the record Team DNA need to find & recover a cache case hidden by rival team 'Ultimate Doom' & use a portable GPS tracker to locate it in a large abandoned mansion in the middle of a wildlife reserve. However Team DNA walk right into a trap set up by a mysterious controller (Tony Todd) who capture the four friends & pits them against a sadistic killer which he them records & streams on-line for anyone with enough money to watch the slow torture & killing of Team DNA one-by-one...Written & directed by the pairing of John Lands & Russell Appling I presume that this wasn't originally intended to be a direct sequel to the surprisingly decent Are You Scared? (2006) as it was shot under the title's Tracked & Geohunt, I would suspect that Lionsgate picked the film up & decided to market it as sequel even though the two have little in common & this feels more like a teen slasher than a Saw (2004) style killer trap film & quite frankly it sucks. Basically these annoying teens turn up at this abandoned house for very dubious reasons which they then can't seem to get out of while a couple of guy's try to kill them while Tony Todd watches on drinking tea, watering his plants & talking to tortoises. There's never any background given to the killers who to be fair only kill a couple of people, in the fact the amount of bad guy's that get killed equals the amount of of teen victims. There's some head scratching scenes like when these teens seem to be trapped inside this house but there are clearly unprotected windows that they could smash & simply climb out of, it's incredibly boring & at 90 odd minutes in length it feels more 90 hours as it drags on towards a predictable & tame ending. None of the events in Are You Scared are thought through & it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense with paper thin character's, terrible dialogue, awful 'computer graphics' & a game that is no more complex than these teens having to find a way out of this house. The film tries to say something about our fascination with death & that the internet has made it easier to fuel our fantasies but it has zero impact as it's lost in a crappy script that just sucks & bores.The main thing I want to know is where did the '?' go from the title? I mean the first film Are You Scared? was grammatically correct but Are You Scared 2 misses the '?' for some reason, maybe someone forgot or was so stupid they didn't know you put a question mark at the end of a question. There's not much gore here, there's a bit of blood splatter, a knife wound or two, an impalement & that's about it. Annoyingly shot like a home film there's no style or atmosphere & it looks cheap from start to finish.With a supposed budget of about $750,000 I'd like to ask where all the money went? Maybe on Tony Todd's embarrassing cameo in which he gets to talk absolute nonsense & never leave the same room. Apparently filmed in Baton Rouge in Louisiana. The acting is poor with half the credited cast members of the production crew with the first victim played by the wardrobe supervisor while the 'hulking brute' was played by the special effects guy & production designer.Are You Scared 2 is a rubbish no budget horror film that plays like a terrible teen slasher with a low body count, no nudity, no humour & supposed satire that fails miserably. One to avoid, even fans of the original should steer well clear of this.

xbox_freak109 If you want to watch a great movie, with a solid plot and great acting, this is not the movie. Go watch psycho, or maybe the Texas chainsaw massacre. The only reason me and my friends watched this is because this movie has become a joke between us, after we saw the first. It's crappyness is legendary at my school. But we couldn't even watch 30 minutes of this one, so we ended up just watching a clockwork orange. It was the best idea of the year. The acting was worse then the first, and I don't even know why they bothered to make a 2nd. There were massive plot holes, and the entire movie was completely horrible. I laughed at half the death scenes in the first movie, but this time I just cried(In disgust). Save yourself the money, and avoid this movie at all costs.