There are two types of people who awake with an uneasy feeling on Friday the 13th: the superstitious, and those who just can’t stomach the release of another horror sequel, remake, or (in this case), sequel to a remake. But for fans of The Grudge, the day will be a lucky one.

“The Grudge 2,” director Takashi Shimizu’s sequel to his 2004 film The Grudge (itself a remake of his original Japanese version Ju-On) picks up where the last film left off, with The Grudge star Karen Davis (Sarah Michelle Gellar) in the hospital and her sister (Amber Tamblyn) newly in Tokyo. Karen’s sister, Aubrey, steps into her sister’s world of horror and quickly becomes the protagonist in a topsy-turvy continuation of the first film. The horrific child with huge eyes and the pale waif with a curtain of black hair continue to torment the innocent by appearing unpleasantly under desks and in reflections. In addition to disturbing Aubrey, the ghastly pair extend their reach to other unfortunate victims, affecting multiple families.

The film is notable for its ability to tie the families’ stories together and provide an intriguing and complex narrative to complement the gratuitously scary imagery. While not groundbreaking, fans of The Grudge will likely be satisfied with new developments in the story. The film is designed to scare, but while some imagery is truly nightmarish, it is not as morally unsettling or blatantly violent as, say, Kill Bill or other films of the hack-and-dismember nature (Shimizu’s brand of scariness seems more innocent). There are definitely, however, haunting images and unexpected moments designed to keep the audience from getting too comfortable.

Some viewers might find this sequel to be a little cheesier and more Americanized than its predecessor, with more depiction of high-school drama and less tendency to take itself seriously. Perhaps under the assumption that most viewers will expect what in the last film was unexpected, Shimizu seems to enjoy the freedom of simply entertaining without pressure to create something wholly unexpected. Seemingly unconcerned with disturbing audiences and more concerned with satisfying those haunted-house junkies who like a good scare, some viewers might find themselves laughing with the absurdity of how far they can jump out of their seats.

Parents should know that this film has haunting and unexpected flashes of very scary (although not usually violent) images. There are moments of disturbing violence, such as a woman pouring sizzling hot oil from a frying pan on a man’s head and then hitting him with the pan. There is also some school bullying that results in some scary moments, and there are images one character drowning and another falling onto the pavement from the top of a skyscraper.

In the film, the sisters’ relationship is depicted as strained. Families who see this film should talk about the factors that lead to the two sisters not being “on speaking terms,” and why Aubrey got angry with her sister. They might also discuss Aubrey’s regret that she didn’t reconcile with Karen, as well as Aubrey’s relationship with her mother. One girl is bullied at school with disheartening consequences; families should also discuss bullying and ways to handle mocking and peer pressure. Two children in one family are adjusting to their father’s girlfriend moving into the home — parents might discuss with their children why the young son acts quiet and moody, and how the older sister is supportive and caring for her younger brother.

Families who enjoy this film will also enjoy The Grudge and might like to see its original Japanese version, Ju-On. Some other films of the same genre include The Ring and The Ring Two, directed by Gore Verbinski (who also directed the first two Pirates of the Caribbean films and is currently filming the third, Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End.

Fans of the original The Wicker Man appreciate the film for many reasons: Its dichotomy of paganism and Christianity, its skillful use of Celtic folk music, its eerie and overbearing ambience. Although some might find it slow, disturbing, and at times absurd, it is redeemed by a general sense that the actors and filmmakers felt a genuine passion about setting a mood, posing philosophical questions, and making the audience feel and think. Somehow, with the mystery and horror meant to achieve a higher goal than just shock and alarm, so it’s not a total enigma — on some levels, anyway — why some consider the 1973 film a “classic.”

A classic remake, on the other hand, tends to be an oxymoron. Unless classic is used as a sarcastic term, and remake in the most derogatory sense of the word, which, in the case of director Neil LaBute’s version seems entirely appropriate.

While the original relies on an impending sense of doom to carry viewers to the chilling end, the remake piles on a steady steam of violence, flashes of very disturbing and shocking images, and outbursts of nonsensical emotion to give the film weight. The gimmicky horror-flick conventions ultimately drag the film to a screeching halt when it becomes clear that no deeper meaning will be found and no redemption attained. Most bizarre, however, is the film’s attempt at humor. Comic relief to break the tension in the action/horror genre is not uncommon — take, for example, Lake Placid, Anaconda, and to recent extremes Snakes on a Plane — but this film’s almost slapstick stunts, most courtesy of star Nicholas Cage, have no continuity or context. Most of the concepts presented — such as human sacrifice, betrayal, murder of one’s own family members, and mutilation — have no place alongside desperate attempts to garner laughter at the absurdity of life.

Ultimately, even as the film leaves viewers with a terrible and horrific final scene, the audience leaves questioning not the meanings of evil and murder in our society but the validity of a film that puts such concepts on display with no greater purpose or goal.

Parents should know that this film has many highly disturbing images and presents upsetting concepts such as human sacrifice and torture. In one scene, a car blows up with a mother and daughter inside, and in another a young girl is tied to a tree with the implication that she is to be killed as a sacrificial offering. The individual relationships in this film are meant to shock and awe, such as a woman deceiving her ex-fiance to his death and a daughter lighting the fire that is used to kill her father.Many images are as shocking as they are memorable, and impressionable children and adults alike may be left with highly unpleasant images in their mind.

Some main themes of the film include a female-dominant society (in this case, unfortunately tied to the negativity of the film) and betrayal of loved ones. Families should discuss the meaning of community, and what makes some communities healthy and some oppressive. Families should also talk about different cultures and societies, and what makes our societies and others prosper or fail.

Families who enjoyed this film might also enjoy 1973’s Soylent Green, and the original Wicker Man of the same year.

It’s like deja vu, says the main character, only of something I haven’t done yet.

Wow, get out of my head, Wendy! We are barely minutes into “Final Destination 3” and already we, the audience, are sharing her feeling. We have been here before, too. Instead, it was called “Final Destination” and then “Final Destination 2”.

If you have not had the pleasure of the prior “FDs”, there really is no reason to start now.

However, if you have seen either of the first two in the series and are looking for more, then you know exactly what is in store for you. Attractive young things narrowly avert a fatal accident due to someone’s premonition -– thanks, Wendy! — and then they spend the duration of the movie being killed off in graphic, squelchy deaths. This time around, lives are ended with props including nail guns, tanning beds, falling objects, weight-training equipment, and, yes, that initial roller-coaster debacle.

Finally, for the real FD connoisseur, 3 is more in the spirit of the original than 2, as director James Wong has opted to place back the fig-leaf of plot and character development that 2 ignored for the sake of more elaborately drawn-out gore. Is it a worthy trade-off? Most of the audience seemed not to care a whit about the characters despite many scenes of Wendy’s tear-stained cheeks.

Since nobody appears to be putting the “final” in “Final Destination”, maybe the director of FD 4 will skip dialogue all together and use the money saved to stage even lengthier scenes of decapitations and dismemberment. “FD4: Attractive Co-Ed Mimes in Danger”, Wendy, doesn’t that just give you deja vu all over again?

Parents should know that these movies are thin excuses to demonstrate random, cartoon-like violence and extremely gory special effects. There is near constant peril and almost every character with a spoken line ends up brutally killed in a range of creative accidents. The stereotypically shallow girls are burnt to death on malfunctioning tanning beds, a lecherous guy has his head partially pureed by a fan, someone is peppered by nails to the head, and the list goes on. A character shoots pigeons with a nail gun, several people die in an explicit premonition about a roller coaster accident, and there are very few carnage-free scenes. One character is more concerned with being embarrassed in death and refers to particularly graphic form of impalement. Add in the nudity, the near constant expletives, some “friendly” name-calling with graphic profanity, and this movie is rendered inappropriate for sensitive viewers of any age.

Families might want to talk about desensitization and what is shocking about these movies, if anything. They also might want to talk about how different characters react to their impending demise and how laughing at death might help some people feel power over the inevitable. Finally, the repeated references to feeling a loss of control might provoke an interesting discussion about how people often fear what they cannot control.

Families that like this movie might want to see the others in the series, or they might wish to use the time to discuss safety protocols for almost any activity imaginable.

Thanks to guest critic AME.