Are You Scared 2 (2009 Video) User Reviews

Messy, Sadistic, Stupid and Annoying

[claudio_carvalho · 3/10 · 26 April 2009]

Dallas (Tristan Wright), Andrew (Chad Guerrero), his girlfriend Taryn (Andrea Monier) and Reese (Kathy Gardiner) compose the DNA Team in an Internet game where the objective is to find treasures in hidden caches. While searching the last treasure to beat the record of the game, they are chased by two psychopaths controlled by the sick owner of an underground site that is filming their movements and they have to fight to survive.

The direct-to-video "Are You Scared 2" is a messy, sadistic, stupid and annoying movie that uses all the clichés of the genre. The story begins without any development of characters or explanation of the silly GPS game. The dialogs are terrible, and the character Reese is irritating. Most of the situations are ridiculous, like for example Andrew deciding to return to the control room, or kissing his girlfriend while having a psychopath on their tail. The edition is awful, with scrambled images and unusual camera angles. I am just scared with the possibility of a sequel of this crap. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Armadilhas Mortais 2" ("Mortal Traps 2")

One of the worst of the year and easily one of the most incoherent

[dbborroughs · 1/10 · 3 March 2009]

Messy film about a bunch of people using GPS to find a hidden treasure as part of game. They are unaware that they have been set up by a killer who is filming there every move. One of the worst films I've seen in quite awhile. Its construction as a series of video feeds really doesn't work since results in a these oddly connected series of scenes from unnatural angles. It would help if there were a real sense of a story, but its not really there. Its more a plot synopsis that looks to have been written illegibly on a torn envelope so the resulting film is utterly incoherent except in the broadest of terms. Its stupid people in peril. I'd like to say that the gore effects are good, but I have stress nothing else in this film is.

The worst movie I ever seen

[nobuhiko999 · 1/10 · 15 July 2021]

This film is at the low level of an independent film made by high school students. There is almost no story, just a bunch of meaningless images strung together.

BTW, as I am one of the geocachers, I was curious about the coordinates shown in the movie, and each time I looked up where the coordinates were on Google Maps. However, this film has almost nothing to do with geocaching. I'm pretty sure that there was no geocacher on the film production team.

Do NOT see this movie, it's sheer awfulness will blind you.

[xbox_freak109 · 1/10 · 12 May 2009]

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.

Do not bother

[klang4678 · 2/10 · 16 September 2014]

I am very open minded when it comes to scary movies; screamers, cerebral,, gory, supernatural, etc...they all have their place and I enjoy them all if done well.

I was so bored with this one, I started playing computer games.

It looks like it was poorly and very quickly put together to make a quick buck

There was nothing I liked about it and the only thing that was scary was the acting

I was pretty disappointed that Tony Todd was in this movie......the reason is because he's a great actor and his movie roles are usually fierce and commanding. Its almost like he's given up by being in this movie..

Kathy Gardiner is the worse actor in the movie.

[chrisbuckscholar · 2/10 · 4 August 2013]

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!

Are You Scared 2?

[Scarecrow-88 · 3/10 · 24 August 2012]

"Welcome, contestants, to the world's most dangerous game."

Criminally dull Saw variation, Are You Scared 2?, a sequel of sorts to a film that didn't deserve one to begin with, has Tony Todd stuck inside a little room watching screens, monitoring four backpacking college students participating in a game in the hopes of attaining money they can spend in Miami. The four young adults are in for a surprise as Todd has sadistic killers carving up those unfortunate victims who happen to follow a map to his large building in the middle of nowhere (a former Wildlife Reserve Headquarters, now abandoned, the perfect kill factory for sick puppies like Todd and his partners-in-slay).

What this film has going for it (the only thing, really) is Tony Todd who can convey menace in his sleep, with effortless ease and the director shoots him up close often (if you ever wanted to see lots of cigarette smoke steam from out of Todd's mouth, this film is for you). The photography is ugly and claustrophobic, at times the camera is shaky and most often in the faces or just below their chins looking up at them, the characters follow a type of GPS tracker (provided by Todd along with flashlights), leading them to their destination, but they need to hurry because the killers are on their tail. They are the "blue dots" on the tracker, their pursuers are the "red dots". The tracker will signify how close the killers are in proximity of them. The building is booby-trapped, murky, with lots of doors and rooms, easy to get lost in as Todd fools with the lights often to disorient the contestants. Add the killers to the mix and the contestants are up against it. While it might seem according to the synopsis to be a rather taut, exciting "hunting humans" thriller, it isn't really. Todd spends almost all of his screen time (well, not almost, all) in a little room with his screens, wine, cigarettes, and camera controls, sometimes amused, sometimes rather troubled, most times studiously watching his rats in a maze trying to get out. There's a ton of traveling throughout a building, going from one room to another, looking for the much coveted exit. The GPS tracker, though, seemingly a helpful device is actually a hindrance. When you see giraffes turn up as the hunted kids run around on the outside hoping to find their vehicles, a religious nutso who feels compelled to kill, a giant in a skull mask with a penchant for cutting into the flesh of lovelies, and Todd chatting with his pet turtle, you kind of know what you are in for. Not as entertaining as all that, however, as my description is deceiving. This has bad quick editing, a camera that wants to make us disoriented but just causes aggravation and nausea, and plenty of a couple's syrupy romance tested and enduring all of the nightmarish events transpiring. Worse yet, it takes quite a while before the four get to the damn building and even then, there's precious lacking of thrills. While the directors love to shoot bloody wounds, the camera rarely stays still long enough to have any sort of impact on the viewer. Skip it and do yourself a favor.

Don't see this movie

[bullitfinger131 · 1/10 · 14 February 2009]

This movie got to be the worst movie i seen. The acting sucks. At first I thought it would bed good. ANd I didn't even get the ending. This movie just sucks. If you want to see this movie do yourself a favor a don't see it. There is a reason I gave it a 1 out of 10. I don't like it because they made stuff look oblivious that it isn't real. I love scary movies but this 1 sucks so much I can't even believe it. It was a waste of a hour and a half of my life. Kung Fu Panda is better than this movie. Its funny how bad this movie is. I only saw this movie because it was Friday the 13th and I wanted to watch a scary movie. But I wish I din't see this movie. And good thing I only rented it. Whatever you do don't see this movie.

Even worse than you might imagine....

[innocuous · 2/10 · 25 May 2010]

A director really has to work hard to make a movie this bad. I really can't blame Tony Todd, as this was probably a chance to make a few dollars for two or three days of work. Thankfully, he had to interact with only one of the other actors.

Everything the other reviewers have written is absolutely true. These kids basically wander around in a (relatively) small building, completely oblivious to the fact that they can go look out a window to see where they are. And how lost can you get when there are stairwells with exit signs all over?

I actually know something about geocaching, and I'm guessing that the director might be a geocacher himself. How do I know? Because virtually all of the geocachers are tall and good-looking, and their girl friends have big boobs. This is not true in the real world. (Bring on the flamers....)

The giraffes were a nice touch, though.

Not recommended.

an insult to the film industry

[leaaisginger · 1/10 · 25 September 2010]

The first film was poor, i watched it purely because i hoped for something like saw , that would be amusing and slightly clever to pass the time. However I got a sensationally awful film and prayed to god that nothing so poor would be ever made again.

This one,shocks and insults my more than the first.At first, I thought it was a home movie spoof of the film or something some kids had made.It looks like a home movie at times, with appalling acting, shocking score and awful scripting.I don't know whos acting is worse- the girls or the lads.

Honistly, shocking and awfully craptacular- if you've already watched it- write to the director and demand the 93 mins of your life back.

Slightly better than an atrocious original

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 4/10 · 31 October 2012]

Attempting to find a special cache for a scavenger-hunt game, a group of friends stumble upon the sinister truth about the targeted cache being owned by a sinister madman who tortures and films his victims, forcing them to fight back to survive.

This was a marginally better effort than the original, but with that one being so bad it's not a great sign for this one. The main factor in this one is the incredibly lame and pretty stupid exploits of the controller's game, which makes no sense at all as to how it got so far along without being stumbled onto since it's a fairly complex system for such an innocent-looking game, the characters' utter stupidity in the situation leading them further and deeper into trouble for no reason other than to continue the movie, and a twist in the last half that comes from nowhere and makes so little sense that there's no reason for it's inclusion. As well, the fact that nothing is ever given about what's going on with the different participants within, why they're there or what the overall purpose of the game is supposed to be as there's hardly anything given about the purpose of it all. While those issues, along with it's obvious low-budget look and feel that shows itself at the worst times, provide the film's flaws there's some fun to be had in here regardless. The stalking in the building are pretty tense at times, the killers have a great look about them in their masks and though cheap, it's plenty bloody. Still, this one has a lot of problems for it.

Rated R: Graphic Language, Graphic Violence and Nudity.

terrible sequel.

[poolandrews · 2/10 · 30 November 2009]

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.

What the hell did I just watch ... And why did I watch it?

[larawoolley · 1/10 · 16 August 2012]

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.

Too bad

[jadeelee88 · 4/10 · 1 March 2009]

Okay first of all the beginning was good with all the blood etc.. The premise of the movie was okay having a team search for a hidden cache but the only problem was that there was too much confusion .. Bringing in religious banter and a Wildlife reserve and a dude sitting with cameras etc etc etc ruined it.. John you needed to stick with one concept and it would of been fantastic because gaming and adventures are in nowadays.. It was like a treasure hunt but a very dangerous one.. The black dude was into animals and hunting and survival of the fittest.. He was talking about the turtle and how animals do things by instinct with their own gps systems .. What bothers me is that for such big shot adventurers they sure did some lame things and weren't very smart throughout the whole movie.. Sunshine coming in bright through a glass window and you having a crowbar ? I was thinking why not just smash the window.. and to walk up 4 stories and think you are going down? A person knows when they are huffing and puffing and walking up.. Don't use a machine a killer gives you duh and for hot shot treasure hunters they did everything wrong..The movie could of been so awesome but too much talking from the main character that was annoying..not enough scary moments and too much confusion as i said in the beginning.. The characters were not likable and when they died it was good to get rid of them..a whiny girl first and then traitors .. None of them were friends .. just greedy creeps so nobody cares when they got killed.. Im upset because John you could of had a very good hit on your hands but you ruined it so badly

Bad, real bad.

[michelem703 · 1/10 · 5 April 2023]

This movie is bad. The writer was phoning it in with this one. The first one was ok and that is why I wanted to watch the second one. How horribly wrong this second one was. The acting was bad. I get these kids are new to the game but it was just bad, please go to acting school and dont quit your day job. The person who was directing was also phoning it in. The fast forward button was used for a good portion of it. Still, I can not get that 45 minutes of my life back. Do yourself a favor and just leave this movie on the shelf. Don't spend money or your precious time on it. You have been warned.