Brahms: The Boy II ⭐️⭐️
Without the doll, this movie is nothing. A creepy doll design in this movie is pretty all it has going for it. Even the actor, Christoopher Convery who plays Jude was weirded out by Brahms:
“When I first met Brahms, he was so creepy,” recalled Convery. “He had silicone skin, and in the first movie, he was made out of porcelain skin. It’s kind of like he got an upgrade. And then his eyes were so glassy and lifelike. It was so creepy.”
The Boy II’s Christopher Convery recalls his first meeting with Brahms
The only thing worse than a creepy doll, is one inexplicably buried in the woods. Who would bury a doll anyway? And his clothes buried with it just kind of adds to the strangeness.
… you have been warned, SPOILERS ahead …
Brahms is the Best Part of the Movie
Let’s start with the good: Brahms. That’s it. Brahms is the high point of this movie. He doesn’t even do anything and he’s creepy. Actually, he opens his mouth at one point in the movie and a bunch of flying creatures emerge. That’s just one stupid jumpscare movie, but will admit it jolted me. Might also have been the loud music.
What’s with the name and why do I keep wanting to add an ‘a’ to it? Brahams. Like it’s a ham mixed with a doll (that might actually have made this more farcical like Thankskilling). Why not spelled Broms?
Just don’t think too hard on this movie and you’ll be safe.
Stupid Decisions in horror films are the norm, but this is ridiculous
If you’re having problems adapting in the city, having troubles with reality, where do you move? Out to some creepy house in the middle of nowhere with a doll buried in the woods nearby? Yeah, that makes perfect sense — and yet it is exactly what happens here.
Suspending your disbelief is required in horror, but also suspending any sort of logic is necessary when watching.
Instead of making this mediocre sequel, why not an adaptation of another story?
Heck, just throw a dart at any top bestselling horror novel and adapt that. You’d be doing better than this movie. I don’t understand these studios. About the only one that seems to have any common filmmaking business sense is Blumhouse and they are still very hit and miss.
Where are the good screenplays? They simply have to be out there.
Summary
I was all in on this one, regardless if it was good or bad simply because it was widely released. Have zero desire to see the original movie this was based on, but maybe if it comes to a streaming channel we subscribe to I’ll attempt to watch it. Some of the other reviews I read, say the first one was OK.
Reviews by Others
Here’s what others think of Brahms: The Boy II.
Recommended
- jmunney’s blog: “…it makes me optimistic that The Boy could become a long-running low-budget horror series”
- Logan Coleman Film Reviews (7/10): “…I haven’t seen the original film, but this would be a good creepy jump scare horror movie for newbies. I appreciated the gothic atmosphere. The costume design was good. I am going against most other film critics.”
Not Recommended (or on the fence)
- An Idiot And His Films (2/10): “It’s just a cheap cash in on a movie which nobody cared about or even remembered to begin with.”
- B & S About Movies: “…engages in world building and trying to place a reason for all the madness, but in my opinion, the unanswered nature of the first film was a much more horrific experience.”
- Dyl’s Movie Stuff (3/10): “…took everything that I thought worked in the first movie, threw it out, and left us with the generic, boring, unscary, creepy doll movie we thought we were getting the first time.”
- Edward’s Film Reviews (1.5/4): “…is a horror film that doesn’t offer much that heavily relies on cliches. The repetitiveness of many scenes make the film seen longer than it should be. Quite honestly, this a forgettable film that doesn’t evoke much emotion or a reaction to the film.”
- Eliah De Castro: “…is a mass of dead energy, with its cheap jumpscares so frequent it could be compared to the explosions in a Michael Bay film.”
- Halloween Year Round / Dave Pierdomenico: “It just reeks of a cheap cash grab. And what’s most unfortunate is Katie Holmes gives a pretty decent performance, as does the young Christopher Convery. Their talents of acting deserve a much better script than this one!”
- Keith Noakes / KeithLovesMovies (18%): “…is a laughably dull and irritatingly-derivative effort takes the original film in an even more ridiculous direction.”
- In Their Own League (2.5/5): “Many interesting tangents–from the gaslighting of women to the perversion of innocent youth by malevolent forces, both real and supernatural–are touched upon, but never satisfyingly explored.”
- Mark Hobin / Fast Film Review: “…is so thoroughly generic, mundane, banal, mediocre, uninteresting that to write a longer review would essentially be a creative exercise in using a thesaurus. Sadly the narrative is a complete zero.”
- Mirza Baig: “…is a misguided horror sequel which disregards its original and overdoes it with poor scares.”
- Moore Reviews / Tom Moore (1/5): “It’s the kind of horror sequel that no one wants as it doesn’t even respect the solid elements of the original. It’s devoid of fun scares, interesting characters, unique ideas, and is simply not worth anyone’s time.”
- Movie Minutes / Jordan Peterson: “Now personally I don’t like to whip out the phrase “cash grab” because every movie is on some level an attempt to make money. That said, if ever a movie qualified for the title, it’s Brahms: The Boy II.”
- Nightmare on Film Street: “…is a strange follow-up. Everything that made the first movie so successful is fundamentally undone in this ill-conceived sequel.”
- Often Off Topic (2/5): “Let’s take a vacation to a house in the middle of the woods next door to a creepy mansion. We won’t Google it first, either. Also – if my daughter ever found a doll like Brahms buried in the woods? You can bet your ass I would set it on fire the second I saw it.”
- Olivia Hill / Moviebabble: “…completely abandons the outcome of the first film and dumps an unnecessary story on an audience who never asked for a sequel in the first place.”
- Startled Sloth Reviews: “…is a tax evasion project, a money laundering scheme, or both. I swear, that’s the only explanation for how something this lazy and careless gets made in the first place.”
- Surgeons of Horror: “The scares are absent. The thrill factor is non-existent. And my interest waned before the half hour mark, as I had no care or interest in what happened to the characters.”
- Ten Stars or Less (1/10): “I only went to watch this (in a theatre all to myself) because I needed to know how bad it was.”
- The Grump Of Horror (1/5): “While the film is well made generally, there’s nothing here to grip onto.”
- The Reviewer’s Unite / Matt Vetrano: “Skip this movie and wait for a GOOD horror movie to come out this year. They can’t hide forever, darn it!” (Ed. The Invisible Man has cometh!)
- The Velvet Cinephile: “…never justifies its existence.”
Did I miss your review? Use the comments to tell me about your movie-related/review blog and I’ll follow. I like following movie-related blogs and pull quoting from my reading list as well as other new blogs shared, liked and discovered.
Happy movie watching!
Movies, Movies, Movies 