With a $100,000 budget and a simple found-footage premise, writer-directors Chris Lofing and Travis Cluff gave Blumhouse one of their biggest financial successes with 2015’s The Gallows. Although the film was met with negative critical response, the $43 million it grossed ensured that a sequel would eventually be on its way. So, with Lofing and Cluff reuniting with Blumhouse to bring Charlie the Hangman back another time, The Gallows makes a return this Halloween with Act II and it’s actually debatable if it outdoes the first one.
For me, the original is a good found footage film filled with a cool atmosphere, a nice use in perspective with the found footage storytelling, and an eerie antagonist with a grisly backstory in Charlie, but also really awful and annoying characters. With Act II, I was instantly surprised by two main components of the film. The first is that the film’s protagonist Auna Rue (Ema Horvath), an aspiring actress, didn’t completely suck. Horvath actually gives a good performance and makes you like Auna way more than Ryan (Ryan Shoos), the class asshole, from the original.
The second surprise is that Act II isn’t a found-footage movie. A big part of me actually liking this change as is that found-footage has lost its allure over the years. More importantly, filming like a found-footage movie wouldn’t really make sense for the story they’re telling, and it kind of shows how Lofing and Cluff were given more of a budget and had more confidence behind them from Blumhouse. It’s kind of weird at first because the first one is so well-known for being a found-footage movie, but you quickly get over it once things get going.
With this bigger budget, Lofing and Cluff definitely put more thought into Auna’s story and what a return for Charlie could be. Rather than keep things in a high school auditorium, Charlie has expanded his influence and Auna learns this the hard way when she picks up the titular book the play is based on. Auna definitely fits the mold for the struggling artist character that’s been seen in films like Whiplash and Cam as she hopes to become a better actress through reading a monologue in the book. She also hopes to gain more subscribers on her YouTube channel by using the book to participate in an online challenge that essentially puts her under Charlie’s spell. I actually like how Act II decides to modernize and take a tech approach to Charlie’s influence as Auna’s slow-growing insanity is interesting to see.
When she initially does the monologue, she looks as if she’s possessed and from there, her obsession with the book actually makes things pretty scary at times. Over time, you can see how heavy Charlie’s influence is weighing on Auna and there are some nice hallucinatory moments that build up Charlie’s presence without him having to be there. Not to mention, Lofing and Cluff utilize the environment well by hiding Charlie in the background and creating a creepy atmosphere. Every time Auna or her sister Lisa (Brittany Falardeau) were in their mannequin filled living room, it always made things a little bit creepier.
The story, as a whole, is fine. Frankly, there’s just a lot going on and the film does drag from how everything is shoved into the film to basically service the film’s final twist. While I did enjoy a nice cameo from the first film and there’s a scene about suicide prevention that I think is a little effective and admirable, a lot of the side characters don’t leave much impact. Auna’s whole relationship with Cade (Chris Milligan) is kind of dumb and doesn’t play a strong role like Reese (Reese Mishler) and Pfeifer’s (Pfeifer Brown) did in the original. Her issues with her family aren’t that strong and her arc to rise above these issues doesn’t really hit. Not to mention, the dialogue can be really cliché and there are definitely some unintentionally funny/cringe-worthy moments that really take you out of the film.
In terms of the ending, I’m really mixed about it. While I won’t spoil it, I can definitely say that Lofing and Cluff definitely swung for fences with Act II. Part of me enjoys the ending because of how odd it is and how it creates a stronger presence for Charlie’s influence that could be interesting to see unfold in a third act. However, there’s also a part of me that feels left hanging because of how random and even slightly confusing the ending is.
With my debate as to which Gallows is better, I think Act II ever so slightly edges out the original because of the stronger and more likable protagonist and the admiration I have for Lofing and Cluff just going for it with a bigger budget. Either way, though, they are two really solid horror flicks that you could be watching as a Gallows double-feature this holiday. Perhaps, like me, you’ll find yourself wondering if an “Act III” could ever arise.
