AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Loui Blair It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

Michael_Elliott Sometimes They Come Back...Again (1996) * (out of 4) A man (Michael Gross) returns to his hometown with his daughter (Hilary Swank) after the death of his mother. Once there he sees a teenager who looks like the same man who murdered his sister thirty-years earlier and now he's after the daughter. SOMETIMES THEY COME BACK...AGAIN is a pretty poorly produced sequel that ended up going direct-to-video and it's easy seeing why. What the producers have basically done is take the original Stephen King story and just use the basic concept of it and then add some new stuff of their own. This new stuff includes the teenage killer being a Satanist and this here leads to all sorts of stuff dealing with a cult and their needing to scarifies the daughter. I don't mind when someone adds something but if you're going to do it then you really need to improve the original idea or at least do something interesting. That doesn't happen here and we're basically left with a cheap version of the original film with a few more horror elements thrown in. I'm really not sure what the point of adding the horror elements were as everything is fairly tame, the deaths unmemorable and the special effects are at times laughable. Even worse is the voice alteration that they gave the main bad guy. I'm not sure if someone thought this was scary but it was more laughable than anything else. I've always liked Gross but he's pretty forgettable and way too boring here. It was somewhat fun seeing future Oscar-winner Swank here and especially in a rather weird sex scene. The rest of the supporting cast range from decent to boring. In the end, this sequel is clearly just a cheap excuse to try and milk some money from a fairly popular film.

Cujo108 Direct-to-video sequel is actually more of a re-adaptation of Stephen King's original story. Michael Gross plays a psychiatrist who goes back to his hometown following his mother's death. Accompanying him is his teenage daughter, Michelle (a young Hilary Swank). Gross soon realizes that they're being targeted by the men who sacrificed his sister in a satanic ritual 27 years earlier, only they're no longer human.In some ways, this is better than the first film. For one, it features an overall darker tone. It doesn't get all sappy either, and the idea to have the gang return as demons instead of ghosts works well, also tying into a ritual from the original story that the first adaptation omitted. I preferred the father/daughter dynamic over the family one, and the addition of side characters, Maria and Jules, was certainly welcome.On the other hand, even as demons, Alexis Arquette and company didn't come off quite as menacing as the gang from the previous flick. I think that had to do with some lame one-liners. There's also the fact that I recognized one of the gang, Glen Beaudin, from the silly 90's TV series, "Superhuman Samurai Syber Squad", so it's hard to take him too seriously as a threat. The priest character is way over the top as well, and the annoying lawnmower idiot couldn't get off my screen fast enough.Still, this is a fun take on the King tale, and we get some interesting imagery such as death by flying tarot cards and Swank getting it on with a demonized Arquette. It's far from great, but it makes a nice companion to the first, as both have their qualities and misfires.

atinder I Have seen the first more then once i say, i have not it seen for a while and I wasn't to keen on it and i gave the first movie 4 out of 10 This movie,I did see the trailer for both again and for even more, i must say trailer for again was very well made as it made the movie look good.This as not real connection to first movie expect for evil kids to come back but no longer kids as they demons now. It's took time for it to get going as it was kept showing flashback and here and there to get the back story for first 45 of mins of the movie.It's kind of annoyed me a little as was keep going back and forward and some of the scenes really dull and boring.I did like the idea of how they Were brought back was cool idea but it could been done so much better. I thought death scenes were some-What descent and nothing to bad, there were some bloody deaths in movie but not too gory. Some of the effect in this movie was descent and really well made and some effect were poor at times as well. The acting in this movie was really good from everyone in the cast. I going give this 5 out of 10 (I found this a just a little bit more fun the first movie).

lordzedd-3 As you may already be aware of that I am a fan of the first movie, but I got to admit that this second installment is even better then the first in several ways. First, the demon punks are even cooler then the zombie punks. Alexis Arquette who plays Tony Reno knows how to have fun while being evil, that's always cool. The demonic effects are cool. Now my complaint, they talk about how Jon kills the three punks electrocuting them, they even show it in the trailer, but why did they cut it out of the movie? I for a party of one think that is kind of important to the plot, that would be like cutting the train wreck from the first movie. Maybe they can put it back in some anniversary edition DVD or something. If you're reading this and own a DVD company, you might want to consider it. But other then that, I give Sometimes they come back again 9 STARS.