2001 Maniacs 2 - Es ist angerichtet

Train wreck of a film and before the hate mail starts - no budget is no excuse - I could have done a hell of a lot more with 400 grand (any takers :) The film looked like it was shot on video (HD is fine but needs to be graded properly) thrown together in about a week or so and featured some truly diabolical performances.

The only saving grace and giggle this crap got out of me was from the fabulous Lin Shaye (who was slumming here) and Bill Mosely please get your agents to read the scripts before doing the films - YOU deserve so much better than this - sheesh - and I enjoyed the first one. It's independent efforts like this one that are going to sink the indie horror scene not re-invigorate it. Unfortunately due to the offensive nature of most scenes it'll probably make a good return on investment and there'll probably be a third but for God's sake at least work with a script that doesn't seem like it was written on the back of a piece of toilet paper, and hire an editor who can grade your picture properly.

A wasted opportunity.

As I really enjoyed Tim Sullivan's 2005 remake '2001 Maniacs', I foolishly thought this would have the same fun set pieces and wacky script.

However it is devoid of any real gore, the acting is wooden, and the script so poorly written. I was forced to hit the fast forward, which is something I rarely do.

The real shame is that does have actors like Lin Shaye and Bill Moseley going to waste. It's easy to maybe cite a reduced budget or external factors, but it's hard to make excuses for this turkey.

I'd avoid unless your a real masochist.

Well, I just watched this last night and let me preface this by saying I love the first one. The first had original deaths, was funny and the production value was wonderful as is the acting. Well, the new one doesn't hit on any of these.

The acting--Bill Moesley, as always, did a wonderful job. He made Mayor Buckman his own and you could almost forget that Robert Englund played him previously (scheduling conflicts wouldn't allow him to reprise the role). Lin Shaye was also very funny. The rest of the Maniacs did a decent job but where the acting lacked was the actors that get killed off. Not good at all.

Deaths--As I said, the previous film had some great kills, and, as weird as it is to say, they were fun. The ones in this film, not so much. I can't say much more about them as I don't want to give anything way but I think you may be disappointed. Now, I did see the rated version so that may have something to do w/it. However, in order to see the unrated I'd have to buy it and I'm not sure I want to do that.

Production value--I know they only spent 2 weeks shooting this and First Look is on board as apposed to Lions Gate who did the first so I have a feeling that they didn't have much money to work with. That being said, the audio for the entire film sounded as if it was ADR. The voices didn't seem natural and in one scene in particular it sounded as if the actor did his lines over the phone. It was very distracting.

All in all, I was pretty let down. I try not to get to excited about films because I set the bar high but I did w/this anyway and it certainly didn't meet expectations. I'd say 2.5 stars out of 5.

This review is for rated version of the movie because that's the one I watched.

I am a fan of 2005 Tim Sullivan's movie "2001 Maniacs". I have watched it with great pleasure both back in 2006 and today once again to prepare for the sequel. But I have to say now that the sequel is below any skeptical expectations.

Main characters don't make you care about their fates at all unlike the characters from the previous movie. Bill Moseley is no replace for Robert Englund, he tries hard but still isn't convincing and interesting enough.

Poor acting with a few exceptions (Lin Shaye) and very weak plot are what you're going to see in this movie. The movie looks cheap and reminds me of some C or even D class horror movies: not funny jokes (including toilet humor), excessive use of swearing (unnecessary in a lot of scenes), predictable plot and complete nonsense in many scenes. Some of the situations the script puts for example Granny Boone into are very frustrating to my mind. I don't want her to do what she had to do, it looked very unnecessary and out of character.

What I liked about the movie is lots of word play hinting - that was at least entertaining. The second highlight was a number of a really hot, handsome guys showing some private parts. That was a total guilty pleasure for me.

I don't recommend you watching this movie unless you want to ruin your good impressions based on the 2005 film. But if you're into hot looking guys or girls and just want to stare at them rent this movie.

First off, the viewer should be aware that the movie they are about to watch is not going to be anything even remotely resembling a "good" horror flick. It's more or less a "just for fun" piece, the bulk of its appeal being in all the hot young skin (of either gender) being shown all over the place. Lots of yummy eye candy if you're up for that sort of thing, but there's no real quality to it. This is a film that you can tell was thrown together by people who were more interested in having fun making a movie than they were in making a high-quality movie.

That might sound like a criticism to some, but it isn't. There's nothing wrong with getting a crew together to throw something like this together once in awhile - I'd love to have been on the crew of this flick, in fact. :-) But the fun they surely must have had making it doesn't quite entirely translate into an equally enjoyable viewing experience. It is fun, that's for sure, and if you have time to waste and are not in the mood for serious or deep, "meaningful" horror, this is a good flick to watch. So little attention is paid to the actual plot & dialog, that it's really more the type of flick to have playing on background TVs in dance clubs and the like - what appeal is present is almost entirely visual.

The 5 stars are only because I don't honestly think they were trying to make a great movie - and they didn't. It's a good thing, though - that means they didn't take themselves too seriously, which you can tell when you watch it, which is why the silliness and craziness isn't as annoying as it is when more "serious" movie makers try similar tactics. It's a trashy, low-budget, low-quality "just for fun" eye candy flick. Nothing wrong with that, so long as you know what you're getting. I enjoyed it, might even watch it again sometime.