Main content

A Quiet Place Part II review – Nerve-racking, intense and pleasingly scary

Radio 1's film critic Ali Plumb reviews the latest releases.

A Quiet Place Part II - ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Set after the brutal events of 2018’s A Quiet Place, this horror-thriller follow-up sees Evelyn (Emily Blunt) and her two children (Millicent Simmonds and Noah Jupe) desperate for safe harbour. They turn to their isolated and guarded neighbour Emmett (Cillian Murphy), a hike away from their one-time farmstead home in rural New York state. The ruthless, bloodthirsty, kill-you-as-soon-as-they-can-hear-you aliens of the first film of course still roam the earth, blind but blessed with perfect hearing, meaning this long journey will be as dangerous and potentially deadly as ever.

Disclaimer: Third party video may contain adverts + violent scenes

Pros:

Just as nerve-racking, intense and pleasingly scary as the first film, this is hold-your-breath, don’t-touch-the-popcorn, seriously-everyone-be-quiet stuff that keeps your blood pumping throughout its respectably taut 97 minute runtime. The scares, the shocks, the thrills of the whole “Don’t say a word” horrific parlour game concept still land, and while after the past 16 months you may not want your first trip to the movies to be one where you feel anxious and claustrophobic, the rollercoaster endorphin rush more than makes up for it. And let’s not forget, this is a film that was meant to come out in cinemas in March 2020, and there’s something about finally - at long, long, long last - actually being able to see it (and in an actual cinema, no less) that adds to the experience and makes every jolt of adrenaline even more powerful.

Again, it’s the same here as the first one, but let it be said once again: Emily Blunt is a fantastic actress and a brilliant big screen presence. When she’s scared, you’re petrified; when she’s angry, you’re furious. You just feel what she feels, only more so, and that’s part of her magic. The stress and strain every parent feels worrying for the safety of their children is cranked up to 11 and then pulls the dial right off the speaker, and it’s in no small part thanks to Emily Blunt’s gifts. But! (And this is a big ‘But!’) I must say she’s very closely rivalled on that front by Millicent Simmonds, who holds up so much of this film, pushing the plot forward and essentially stealing the whole movie. She is magnificent and I would love to see her in many, many more things. She shares that same empathy superpower, so important in a horror-thriller like this one, where whatever happens to her really, really matters to you. She’s outstanding, I’ll leave it at that.

It’d be easy to waffle on about the intriguing, inherently cinematic idea at the heart of both films, to talk about family, to talk about the basic human instinct to survive at any cost and so on. I’m honestly and truly trying not to. I’m also trying not to mention that there’s still plenty of room to explore this post-apocalyptic world - how’re things going in colder climates, how is it on island nations, what is it like in deserts, up mountains, in no-doubt abandoned cities and so on - or that the silence in of itself still packs a punch, and is a perfect reminder of cinema’s strength compared to the comparative ease of pressing play at home on your TV with the distractions of possibly putting the kettle on or dealing with whatever the dog seems to be up to. So, having not (ahem) done that, let me say this one final key ‘pro’: The opening flashback, pre-devastation sequence is brilliant. It’s in the trailers - and I don’t want to give away any more than that - but I don’t think I’ll ever see someone going to the shops or watching a baseball game on the big screen again and be more concerned about every single little thing they do. And that car scene! Just armrest-tearingly tense. In a good way.

Cons:

Yes, yes, it is more of the same, but that ‘same’ is still very good. That being said, it isn’t all that ‘fresh’ and there’s no brand new exciting idea that rejigs how you think about the whole nightmarish premise. It’s a part 2 and not a sequel, so to speak, continuing the tale of the Abbott family and showing further examples of foot-and-leg based injury with only a couple of novel alternative ways to survive thrown in. In short, if you’re expecting a totally distinct and redeveloped adventure, don’t: this is a movie that wants to be played back to back with its predecessor – and I’m honestly all for it.

There are some logic leaps in the script that are distracting and beyond comprehension. Why on earth does [character name redacted] go ahead and [activity redacted]? Still thinking about the film days later, you might be able to fill in some gaps as to why certain characters behave in certain ways, but in the moment, you may well struggle to wrap your head around why oh why oh why otherwise sensible people - in a very dangerous world - do the nonsensical things they do. Perhaps this matters more to me than it should, but when the rest of the script feels so well thought out, it’s a real shame.

Oh, and another oblique reference to another thing that’ll only make sense after you’ve seen the film: the final scenes rely on a character knowing a lot about a particular technology - kind of - and it’s hard to conceive of why they might have that knowledge. What an awful sentence, I quite agree, but trust me, once you’ve seen the film you’ll know exactly what I mean.

Three word review: Silent, violent ‘sequel’

Still wondering what else to watch?

Radio 1's film critic Ali Plumb has put together his top 21st century films and there is something for everyone's mood.