Yeah lol, those films are usuelly like that. I just think a film like this is better left with un answered questions for a while. Like I said doing one after the first film would be more creative and hard to do, along with still having some un-answered questions to keep you thinking. I guess we will just have to wait for that one though.

You're absolutely right. A paranormal film, that relies so much on the unknown is better left with some unanswered questions. While it's interesting to know how it all started, it wasn't exactly a driving force for the fist film (yes Katie's history of hauntings comes into play). I would have much rather them go with a sequel, because now that Katie is possessed and on the loose, what happens? That's the story I want to see.

About to head to my screening!

I'm not going to read this review, simply because I want the movie to be as new as possible to me when I see it, but I do want to add something here.

Here's the problem with a sequel: there were several endings to the first movie. Depending on which ending people saw, it would have a totally different effect on what would be expected/needed for the sequel.

For instance (***SPOILERS**** in case someone hasn't seen the first): Dark mentions it would've been interesting to see Katie on the loose and such. However, if you were one of the people that watched the "alternate" ending, you see that Katie is dead. This is the ending I liked much more to conclude the film. It provided better closure to the film and really wrapped it up nicely in all areas as well as providing a much better payoff for all that tension that was built up. So in this case, where do you go with a sequel? How do you explain her being alive in a sequel to those that saw the alternate ending.

And from what I understand, several places got different endings. For instance, another ending (which is said to be the original-original ending) was that police come and they end up shooting Katie...again, she's dead.

Then you have people that saw the theatrical ending in the US where she's still alive and such. So...you can see the problem of continuity that would present itself when making a sequel to this type of movie.

I think the new ending was put in to creep people out, but also lead to a second film. Paramount isnt thinking about the other ones, most people only saw the theater ending so it would work.

I think the original ending was because of the original intent, how people are haunted and possessed etc...Its a story based like that, the lack of credits and what not all made it too real.

I don't want to spoil it , but its nothing like the first one because it's a lot different, the story is interesting, and its really freaky that is fun to watch.

See that's part of what I thought was almost genius about the first one. There was all this building up like something was going to happen then they'd cut it off and just repeat without anything really bad happening. Then each cycle they just ramped it up a slight bit more. Things were expected, yes that was the beauty of it though. You knew what was coming or what to expect at least, but they wouldn't give it to you. They just drug it out, building that suspense and tension. Till finally at the end you got that payoff that they had been building you too.

Yeah, this one is very much the same in that regard JL. They do a whole lot of building up, and I have to say that the 'security camera' system view they use is even more scary. It really feels like you're just sitting there in front of flipping security cameras, but the tension comes from knowing something is going to happen in them. Just as you think it will, you'll jump to a different view, with different lighting. It's interesting and really worked.