5/10
Slightly better than the first movie... which isn't saying much
19 September 2016
A young woman takes a job on the night shift in a small curio museum. When her coworkers' bodies begin piling up, the prime suspect is one of the displays, a hideous doll which is purported to be possessed.

Very loosely based on a real story (relocated from early 20th century Florida to contemporary Britain), the original "Robert" was a tedious movie, paced at the speed of evolution, with characters who behaved idiotically and cheaper effects than the worst of the Charles Band killer-doll flicks. This time around, the pace is a little better (though it still takes far too long to get going), the characters are slightly more likable (a returning cast member steps up their game and the rest of the performances are decent) and the effects are... well, about the same. Frankly, it's a case of been there, done that, seen it - and much better. But sadly, I've also seen much worse. The biggest problem with these films is that suspense isn't handled well, it's draaaaagged out to the point of boredom and the payoff generally sucks.

It's sort of a shame that this trilogy (a third film is slated to be released next year) has been so painfully mediocre, cuz it's kind of disrespectful to the real Robert, who deserves a more faithful telling of his bizarre tale. Still, this sequel's a few rungs above the original, so perhaps the third film might actually be good.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed