Mirrors 2 (2010 Video) User Reviews

Movies may be more boring than they appear in the mirror

[paul_haakonsen · 4/10 · 5 October 2010]

Well, having just sat through this sequel to the otherwise fairly nice movie "Mirrors" from 2008, this movie was somewhat of a disappointing follow-up.

First of all, I wonder if any of the people behind this movie ever saw "Stir of Echoes" (the movie with Kevin Bacon)? Because "Mirrors 2" seems like an outright copy of that movie, just set in a different setting.

This movie isn't all bad, don't get me wrong. I think the acting was actually fair enough, although it is no award-winning performances, but people did well enough with what they had. However, the movie is lacking depths for the characters, because you never get to immerse yourself fully into the characters.

And also the effects were good enough. And the apparition of Eleanor in the mirror was just disturbing enough to make her (at least) somewhat creepy to look at.

The storyline and plot is not well-thought through. As I mentioned above, it seems to be a replica of "Stir of Echoes". Despite that, then the story moved on at a good enough pace, although it was predictable and there weren't any surprise twists or moments that made you go 'wow'.

Now that I have seen it, I somewhat sit here with a feeling of 'this is the type of sequel that never really should have seen the light of day'. This was like brewing soup off of an already cooked-out broth. Very weak storyline and an overall pointless movie.

If you like the first movie "Mirrors", then I bet you will be disappointed with this sequel. But if you haven't seen the first movie, then you might just like this one. However, for a night's worth of scared entertainment, your money is better spent on "Geoul Sokeuro" (aka. "Into the Mirror") a Korean horror movie from 2003. It outshines "Mirrors 2" by a light-years, and it is also better than the original "Mirrors" movie.

Okay sequel more bloody then first but not creepy or scary!

[atinder · 5/10 · 6 October 2010]

I was disappointed with Mirrors (2008) , the trailer made it look a lot more creepy then it was, that movie did have one or two creepy scenes and the acting was great for that movie and they had one really good death in that movie, i gave that movie an 5 out of 10 and I am going to give the same to Mirrors 2.

This is a stand alone movie there is no connection to the first movie at all as they basically repeated the formula from the first movie but added different plot.

What l liked about this movie, is that it did have some really good creative kills in this movie , this movie is more Bloody/Gory then the first however it not as creepy as the first and its not scary at all.

The acting was not great at all but just Okay, they could done much,much,much better with the acting.

I will watch this movie again but i won't be buying the movie on DVD. it's worth a rental at least.

Standard scary movie entertainment

[Vomitron_G · 6/10 · 12 June 2012]

"Mirrors 2" is pretty okay as a stand-alone feature, but it pales in comparison with Alexandre Aja's first film (which on its term was a re-make of an Asain film). This time, the film isn't exactly what the first one was about. Instead they turned it into a 'vengeful ghost' story. Not bad, really, but pretty standard stuff. Nevertheless, we get a couple of bloody death scenes, a bit of nice atmosphere, a dash of mystery (which isn't too hard to figure out) and some okay performances (though no Oscar worthy material, naturally). The over-all end result is just about decent enough. You could do a lot worse with other stuff that's being cranked out on DVD nowadays, especially when it comes to (loose) sequels. Teaming up "Mirrors 2" as a double bill with something like "White Noise 2: The Light" wouldn't be a bad way to spend a straight-to-DVD horror sequel night with your girlfriend.

Worth a look at least once

[raisleygordon · 13 May 2011]

"Mirrors 2" isn't exactly in the same league as its predecessor. Unlike the Kiefer Sutherland story, there's more or less no suspense. Not because its predictable (which it isn't), but simply because it's a sequel. Actually, this isn't a sequel. It's a rehash of the first one, except there's no mystery this time. I found this "sequel" fairly enjoyable, and I recommend to anyone not expecting too much out of it. Compared to the previous story, this one is a pale imitation, which is easy to see why it went straight to DVD. A worthy rental, but it's not worth spending 20 some dollars on.

**1/2 out of ****

Truly Terrible

[rosscosjunk · 1/10 · 4 October 2010]

For one the first movie wasn't very good (so your expectations are low anyway). BUT this movie is WAY worse. The dialogue is terrible and at times the acting is almost laughable. Nick Stahl has been in some decent movies, but in this he looks like he's just come out of rehab and took this part for a quick buck. He clearly didn't read the script or watch the first movie, which makes me think he didn't care as long as he got the work.

If your watching it for the shocks, you won't find any in this which actually "work" (not unless your of an extremely sensitive disposition at least). A character doing "insane things" in a mirror while a "normal" person at the other side of it "isn't" can only work SO MANY TIMES (like once) before your completely bored and used to the whole thing.

No story. No plot. No believable characters. No dialogue. No scares. No decent effects. No decent nudity (at least get REAL looking women, not plastic surgeon modelling wanna be actress rejects). Not worth renting.

At the end of this movie one of the characters screams. I knew EXACTLY how he felt. I imagined he'd just watched the movie himself and was sharing my pain.

dull, boring, and quite annoying

[frozenmosquito · 2/10 · 25 March 2013]

I have seen a good deal of movies and have never before felt an urge like this to write a review up on here. Im spending time writing this short little review so that anyone who considered watching this movie thinks twice before spending his own invaluable time like I did.

The first Mirrors movie was great and I genuinely enjoyed it. It was a fairly new concept, a good thought out plot accompanied by some great effects and some good acting. The follow up... sigh*

Mirrors 2 is truly terrible, a masterpiece of a crap horror movie. It seems to me the director is a man who despises the horror genre. There is absolutely no thought put into this movie. The acting is stone cold awful with zero emotion. The plot is a nanometer thick, and the writing horrific (not in a good way). At some points some of the characters seem to be plotting something of their own agenda when in reality they turn out to have no special role in the movie at all and die in the next scene. The effects of the movie were awkward, and actually made the movie less scary. I actually lol'd at one point. I can't believe the sequel was made 2 years after the original. Judging by the effects, the original seems at least 5 years older.

The movie holds no true horror - just brainless gore, one scene after the other. Without spoiling anything this movie has many plot holes and logical problems that will leave the even slightly intelligent ones of us annoyed.

This movie might be scary only through its unpleasantness to some people who tend to never watch horror. To those of us however who genuinely enjoy horror movies (good movies in general), this movie will just be dull, boring, and fairly annoying. Don't waste your time and look up another movie to watch. If you have not yet seen the first Mirrors and have somehow stumbled onto the sequel, I do recommend taking a peak at the first one. In any case, I guarantee you will find a better watch.

A disappointment and a complete waste of time

[brainstew89 · 3/10 · 24 October 2010]

I'm JUST done watching this film and I'm actually infuriated by a review earlier that said this movie's got all the spooks, scares, etc that you'd expect from a horror film and that its even better than the first one.

This was a disaster, with pretty bad acting coupled with an unoriginal and pointless plot which made this an excruciating one hour or so to watch. Nick Stahl seems to be stepping down the ladder by doing a role in such a poor script.

The first part was miles better although not a great film either. So if you have absolutely nothing in the world you could do instead, including picking your nose, watch it. Actually no, not even then.

Underrated Horror Movie

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 7 November 2010]

While driving on the road with his fiancée Kayla (Jennifer Sipes), Max Matheson (Nick Stahl) has a serious car accident and they both die. However, Max is resuscitated and one year later he is an emotionally disturbed man with the guilty complex for the murder of his beloved fiancée and under psychological treatment with Dr. Beaumont (Ann Mckenzie). When his father Jack Matheson (William Katt) reopens the Mayflower Department Store in New Orleans, his security guard Henry Schow (Evan Jones) has an accident and Jack invites Max to be his replacement to help in his cure. Max accepts the job and his father introduces him to the store manager Keller Landreaux (Lawrence Turner); the buyer Jenna McCarty (Christy Romano); and the vice-president of operations Ryan Parker (Jon Michael Davis). Max has visions of a dead woman and he foresees the death of Jenna and Ryan in the mirror. Sooner Max finds that he has the ability to see Eleanor Reigns (Stephanie Honoré Sanchez), an employee that is missing, and he contacts her sister Elizabeth Reigns (Emmanuelle Vaugiér) to know details of her disappearance. He finds that Jenna, Ryan and Keller were responsible for a tragedy and now the spirit of Eleanor is seeking revenge.

"Mirrors 2" is an underrated horror movie, with a flawed but good story and reasonable acting. The greatest flaw in the plot is the lack of explanation why Eleanor attacks Jack Matheson that is absolutely innocent. The gorgeous and sexy Emmanuelle Vaugiér has difficulties to perform a dramatic role and keeps her ironical face most of the time. But the special effects are excellent and considering that this is a straight-to-video film, the result is above average. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Espelhos do Medo 2" ("Mirrors of the Fear 2")

BAD movie in every way possible, SAVE YOUR TIME

[iruon_itauol · 1/10 · 4 October 2010]

OK this movie was really really bad. I decided to give it a shot, since i liked the first movie. I mean those mirror images can be really creepy!

Well in this movie they are NOT. The scenes with the mirror images where not scary and it even made me laugh a few times. This also had to do with the acting, which was the baddest acting I've seen in a movie for a long time. The 2 main characters are both terrible. Especially the woman Elizabeth (Emanuelle Vaugier, baddest actress ever.. On top of that the film was evolving around an unoriginal and boring plot, the script was bad, the dialogues where awful and also the direction and editing was really bad. You will notice the scenes when u see them and will think What? Completely messed up....

Funny thing was i enjoyed the last 15 min or so. Think it has to do with that it involved the only 2 characters who did a decent job with the acting. (Stephanie Honore and Lawrence Turner)

Skip this movie if you can. It is a real borefest and i almost fell asleep.

Better then expected.

[muckrules · 7/10 · 27 November 2010]

I really dug this film. It is a film that is not for the squeamish Im telling you. The movie stars Nick Stahl who will probably best be remembered as the second John Conner in Terminator 3, or the "Yellow Bastard" Roark Jr. from Sin City. This is a intense little horror thriller. That feeds on suspense and the viewers ...empathy. With its situational awkwardness and bloody gory scenes. It is under the radar because its a straight to video release. I actually think it is a far superior movie then the first film. A better story and less money behind it. I truly believe this film is a hidden gem. Less can be more. Sometimes independent films are better then... mainstream releases because every dollar counts and that they need to be used wisely. What is more important to a mature audience story or mainstream actors and special effects.

Wish I could get back that 1.5 hours!!!

[programgod · 1/10 · 15 February 2016]

I know that sequels are usually crap, but seriously this one takes the cake. So bad, in fact, that it inspired me to create an account here and put in my two cents. This movie has got to be hands down the worst I have ever seen, and I have seen some crappy movies. The storyline did not even follow the original. In fact, the ONLY thing it had in common with the first is the Mayflower store. The fist one had an excellent storyline, good plot development and great acting. This movie had nothing. I would like to find the writers of this sequel and give them a good high five to the face. Don't waste your time with this movie!! And to top it all off, THEY Didn't EVEN REFERENCE THE FIRST ONE AND WHAT HAPPENED TO KIEFER!!! Even the few (VERY FEW) gory parts were sub-par and made no sense.

Worthy followup, what Aja's movie should have been!

[MovieMaddis · 9/10 · 4 October 2010]

This follow up to the somewhat disappointing 2008 film, Mirrors, is in my opinion a worthy successor and in many ways better than the first. Out of the gate, the kills are very good and in higher quantity. There are beheadings, disembowelments, and lots of creative use of the mirrors to ramp up the tension. I liked the backstory, though a little familiar (think Stir of Echoes), and thought Nick Stahl gave a credible performance as the disturbed protagonist. The CGI is tasteful despite the movie's premise, not overused. The special effects and makeup were spot on. I would definitely suggest giving it a try, there are far worse films out there, and if you liked the first one or the original Japanese film it was based off of, then you are sure to enjoy the sequel. This is what Aja's film should have looked like to begin with.

Best

Maddis

Decent direct to video sequel; gives the viewer what it wants.

[Hellmant · 6/10 · 22 October 2010]

'MIRRORS 2': Three Stars (Out of Five)

Sequel to director Alexandre Aja's 2008 remake, starring Kiefer Sutherland, of the 2003 Korean horror film 'IN TO THE MIRROR'. This sequel centers around the same concept of the first film, visions of murders seen in the reflection of mirrors by a night security guard, but features different characters and an all new cast. This time the night security guard is played by Nick Stahl. It's directed by Victor Garcia (who's directed other such direct to video horror sequels as 'RETURN TO HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL' and the upcoming 'HELLRAISER: REVELATIONS') and written by Matt Venne (who also wrote direct to video horror sequel 'WHITE NOISE 2: THE LIGHT').

Stahl plays Max Matheson a new night security guard at Mayflower Department Store (the same building from the first film) who takes the job where his father (played by William Katt) works after the former guard quits due to self inflicted injuries. Max has recently suffered the loss of a loved one in a traumatic accident and is still severely troubled by it. Soon after he starts working Max begins seeing images of a missing girl in the Store's mirrors as well as fellow co-workers causing themselves grotesque bodily harm. As these visions continue to become real Max tries to use his powers to prevent them and solve the mystery of the haunted girl.

I never saw the original Korean film but I did like Aja's remake (which is all Aja seems to do). I do think it's probably his weakest film though. While this sequel is not as good as Aja's film it is a satisfying continuation. The mirror death scenes are haunting, the murder mystery and characters are somewhat intriguing and the acting is decent. For a direct to video sequel I found it pretty impressive. Not a great horror film but it gives the viewer what it wants.

Watch our review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlah-RpxRPU

A mirror image of the first one, with just as sour an aftertaste.

[seankeach · 2/10 · 30 May 2011]

Having already seen 'Mirrors', I could not enter into 'Mirrors 2' without some degree of hesitancy. Was I really willing to subject myself to what was bound to be blatant misappropriation of film equipment for a second time? Perhaps I was being naïve then, when I decided to watch it anyway. "What questionable antics must the team behind this movie engage in for it to be more abominable than the disastrously substandard 'Mirrors' before it?", I thought to myself as I hit 'play' button with a tentative prod.

The movie starts off, and regularly intervenes with, a psychologist discussing mental health issues with the main character, using Freud's pseudo-scientific explanations for mental illness, which sums up this whole movie if I'm honest. Compared to the logically void and seemingly parodic plot of the first movie, the sequel at least made some feigned attempts at what could be a coherent and passable storyline. Even so, the plot is still weak and prone to extensive clichés, leaving us with a story that is as predictable, if not more so, than upcoming calendar dates.

This is, of course, the movie's hubris, as what might first appear to be your cookie-cutter horror techniques, soon become an endless knell of poorly executed and overused horror archetypes that abandon the viewer in a decidedly calculable experience that removes all effect the cheap shock-moments and persistently low-grade gore might have had. The shock- moments were notably lessened by the fact that you could see their approach from a mile off, due to the dependably occurring application of camera-panning to and from mirrors, just before something appears in them. It is, after all, very hard to be surprised by something you know is about to happen. Impossible, perhaps, would be a better word.

Aside from the abhorrent plot, this movie seems to have inherited many of the downfalls its predecessor claimed ownership of. The acting throughout was sub-par and, once again, the script was more pertaining to the level of a ten year old's English assignment than it was a professionally executed endeavour. One actor whose sheer theatrical incompetence must not go unnoticed is a certain Emmanuelle Vaugier, who played the part of Elizabeth Reigns, the resident eye-candy who filled up the "woman with problem who needs a man to help her solve it" position that was in such dire need of occupancy. I'd like to say that her apparently terrible performance could be assigned causality due to the lackluster script, or perhaps the undeniably bland role she was given, but even taking all of that into consideration, I feel there is no excuse for the less than half-hearted realisation of her character. I'd like to say that even one of the characters gave a convincing and inspirational performance; however I am not graced with such an opportunity, nor do I wish to lie to you. Even Christy Carlson Romano's senseless and unnecessary breast exposure could not provide a superficial saving grace for this poorly executed movie.

To conclude, I'd like to make the point that whilst this movie is not necessarily worse than the first movie (which is a remarkably formidable achievement in itself), it is most certainly as shoddy. I daresay I struggled to find any good points about this movie, except maybe for the singular assertion that if you are someone who enjoys obnoxiously regurgitated horror maxims interlaced with bursts of depressingly foreseeable shock moments, then perhaps you might find this movie even somewhat bearable. For the general population however, of whom I still have a slight inkling of faith in, this is one to avoid as much as the first one was. For a sequel that merely mirrored the mistakes of its forerunner, this gets a reflectively familiar two out of ten.

Bad, utterly bad. Not worth watching.

[lilyandwhiterose · 1/10 · 6 December 2010]

The plot follows the first movie; main character gets visions of people dying every time he looks at a mirror and must solve the whys before everyone around him dies.

I stopped watching this sequel halfway. Unlike the first movie, which at least gave Kiefer Sutherland breathing space in between each deaths to investigate and understand exactly what the hell was going on, there was too much senseless gore and too many deaths at a rapid pace in between for the main character (Max Matheson played by Nick Stahl) to understand just WHAT and WHY all of this was happening in Mirror 2.

Stahl's acting is commendable in this movie, and that's the only positive aspect about this film.

If you want horror involving mirrors and reflections and glass, teamed with a solid plot and in-depth characterisation, better to stick to Mirrors than this sequel. Honestly.

Pointless Straight to DVD follow-up, which wallows in mediocrity

[callanvass · 4/10 · 2 September 2013]

I saw this a couple years ago on DVD, and I don't remember that much about it. I enjoyed the remake of Mirrors. It was creepy and well done for the most part, so instead of doing what they should have done, and that's delve for a good script to make a theatrical follow-up, they decided to get lazy and go for the quick buck with this STD film. We actually do have an interesting lead in this film. Nick Stahl is not the problem. His complex show was riveting to watch, and I enjoyed it. My problem was the script that he had to deal with. It lacks boo scares, and the proper suspense to truly deliver. If you don't have a good script, it doesn't matter how good you are in my opinion.

Final Thoughts: Watch the remake instead, and thank me later. It lacks suspense, and is instantly forgettable. It's never boring, but it's extremely mediocre. If you decide to watch it, don't expect a whole lot

4/10

Terrible!

[T-Moor · 2/10 · 12 September 2011]

Terrible movie, at times I wanted to stop watching it, but decided to watch it until the end. I think that they should have started a movie from telling a little bit about this mysterious girl. One more thing was unclear, why she did not start taking on her vengeance from the guy who killed her?

Dialogues are really stupid, two policemen were really bad in their acting. Even the main character was wooden.

Well, don't even waste your time on this terrible movie. There's nothing in common with the first Mirrors. They could have called this movie anything but mirrors, since visions appear on any glassy surface.

My vote: 2 out of 10

Its not art.... but the gravid screens of drawn out gore and malicious energy from the ghost was well worth the slow moments

[pmarshall_1 · 7/10 · 4 October 2010]

I really really really liked the drawn out kill... it adds an element of tension i have not felt since the good old days of 70's kitch mayhem for mayhem days this could of been much more "love the kill" style more story and a deeper cast could make it sing Horror! as it is it still has much fun with a friend and a bowl, THC friendly and the best screen is with the woman in the shower her head was flaky looking but her death throes were the best ever man do i like my movies sick, personally this was art compared to the human centipede very few movies make me twinge but this one had that knack i've even watched "three men and a hammer" and that was real. anyway you've been warned

Better than the original and thats not saying much

[rivertam26 · 5/10 · 4 September 2012]

In all of it's mediocrity mirrors 2 fares better than it's predecessor. At least this time there's a story we can follow well enough. Even though it's completely clichéd and pretty much the plot of Shutter the original and the remake with a touch of Mirrors added in. I'm not sure what divulge exactly but I guess I can say it's a ghost revenge movie. Something bad happened involving a missing girl and her spirit comes back to take revenge against the people responsible. it's all fairly generic and fright free but there are a few genuine chills and some good death sequences. The film is pretty gory with shotty cinematography and by the numbers direction. The performances from Nick Stahl slumming it and Emmanuel Vaugier are solid enough for the material and maybe a little too good for it to be honest. The film is mildly inventive as far as genre films go. It just kinda feels like you've seen this all before and it's because you have... 2.5/5

Like a totally different film...

[amy-jane-1 · 7/10 · 17 October 2010]

Firstly let me say I hated the first one, there was no real storyline, there were too many souls in the mirrors and no reason for them doing what they did. However, this was like a completely different film apart from the mirrors part, it had a beginning, a middle and an end, everything was wrapped up, you wasn't left with empty plot holes. It was also a lot more moving in the story and the reason behind why? there was a few bloody scenes, I wouldn't say worse than the first one but maybe in par with. Give it a watch, you will be surprised, I was, I only put it on because I was bored and didn't have anything else to watch. Glad I did because it was worth the run time.

very generic

[sjalkarjadottir · 4/10 · 28 January 2018]

The story does not really connect to the first movie .. except making use of the theme and the location. The first incident is never really mentioned (though one might think such a huge event might have cast its shadow on the mall big time)

Acting is .. average. Not particularly bad (except for the police guys, who are quite bad) .. effects are alright, but look significantly cheaper than those of part 1 .. and also much less creative.

Story-wise it is as generic as it can get - literally. The story really is so generic that one can predict almost every scene with pinpoint accuracy if one is familiar with common horror movie tropes.

This movie feels very, very much like an average "straight to BR/DVD-sequel" .. and while not feeling like a total waste of time, it might merely act as a filler in a video night .. leaving no impression. No suspense, no investment into the character. An episode of the cooking show "Hells Kitchen" is scarier...

Not recommended .. and totally forgettable.

Screening

[BGonzalez05 · 8/10 · 5 October 2010]

I went to see a screening of the movie. Mind you, I didn't see the first Mirrors. I spoke to one of the movie watchers, and she said the first one was okay, but that this one made more sense. If you like the Saw and detective movies in general, I would recommend this. I scare easily especially because I believe and have seen ghosts, so there are a few spooks as well as blood scenes. Then it becomes more like a detective show/movie, which I personally like. If you're a female and watch Lifetime Movies, I have a strong feeling you'll like this, too. There's a naked scene, which men will like. By the way, I met Christy Romano in person, and she is so cool and sweet. I even made her laugh!

"When I look into a mirror. I don't know what's real anymore?"

[lost-in-limbo · 6/10 · 28 October 2011]

In some ways I prefer this sequel over the original remake. I wasn't all that keen on the Korean film either, but I found the concept of a parallel universe within the mirror an interesting angle (mirrors trapping dead souls). In some ways this sequel is much closer to the Korean film than of Alexandra Aja's original remake. The story is old hat (vengeful ghost tale), making it fairly predictable in its revelations and the jolts are over-the-top in the gore stakes (some making you cringe), but I found it to be Nick Stahl's brooding performance and the unnerving edginess of the mirror world that kept me compelled. A recovering addict due to a terrible past event takes up a job as a night time security guard at his father's department store. From the very first shift he begins to have strange visions, where he sees a women's reflection in the store's many mirrors. Soon enough freak accidents begin occurring, maybe because of her and he finds himself trying to figure just who is this young lady he keeps on seeing in the mirrors. For most part it's atmospherically cold and sterile, where the narrative runs like a murder mystery involving the supernatural and building upon a tragic central character battling his own demons while seeking the truth. Formulaic in pattern, but some set-pieces to do standout and a vivid William Katt also shows up in a small part as Stahl's father.

"Everything happens for a reason."

Good Concept...Bad Execution

[pzct · 5/10 · 4 May 2020]

I know most of you aren't familiar with this movie but let me explain. Have you ever feared she. You look in the mirror and saw you reflection moving without you moving? Well, this movie exists. The first one was pretty solid...but this...no. Okay CGI, Questionable logics which was...WHY THE HELL CAN THE MAIN GUY SEE WHO DIES AND HOW IN THE MIRROR!? THAT WASN'T A THING IN THE FIRST MOVIE! Guys, thus movie was trying to do something interesting but it had a bad execution. And the actors aren't really much likeable

One of the worst movie ever watched it

[rivelo · 1/10 · 5 September 2016]

This movie is soon cheap , terrible acting, the plot honestly???????? , 1) the guy is gonna propose his GF on a car at night while driving in the rain LoL OMG Im shocked !!! hope the writers read this .... and the whole movie effects are low super low quality who wrote this movie?? 12 years old boy? what a hell , brainless people got a job and they ruined it. don't know what else to write JUST SIMPLE IS BAD

By submitting this review you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your review will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Reviews that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.