2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams

This movie is just inexplicably awful. I watched the first one. I thoroughly enjoyed the first one. I absolutely LOVE campy "B" movie horror films, with whacky over the top acting and violence. This movie had none of that. Zero. Ziltch. Nada.

I'm not some "fanboy" speaking out against a sequel that didn't match his preconceived notions of what a proper sequel should be. I'm speaking out against a terrible terrible movie, that has 20 something positive reviews which are obvious plants by people involved in the production. There's no possible way anyone, no matter how die hard a horror/camp fan could rate this a 10. It's a mockery.

Starting off, this entire movie takes place in a field with tents. That's the entire set...an empty field with tents. There's no old southern feeling town, there's no old southern people. No, it's tent's set up in a field. That's the ENTIRE MOVIE SET.

Secondly, almost all of the sound is dubbed in. They apparently didn't have the budget for an actual sound crew, so all spoken bits and sound effects are dubbed over the video. This doesn't come off as cheeky, campy, original, funny, etc. It comes off as cheap and irritating. The dialogue, volume, and emotion doesn't match the physical acting. It's pathetic.

Third, the plot. There is no plot. They took the fantastic premise of the original movie, and meshed it with some ridiculous mockumentary of "A simple life", that Paris Hilton reality show from 5 years ago. They took an RV of horrible actors pretending to be this reality show, and they crashed into a random field, and happened to meet 10 or so southern weirdos. With tents. There were maybe 3 or so returning actors, which was somewhat amusing, but overall the horrible dubbing ruined it all. Scenes just randomly lead into the next with no lead up. There is NO direction whatsoever.

Fourth. The so called "gore". The budget is so shoe-string that almost all of the gore is actually shown off-camera. That's right, a horror movie, with a terrible plot and budget, terrible acting, no set budget, absolutely nothing to offer but that "shock value" gore...DOESN'T HAVE GORE.

Fifth and last. Boobs. Yes there are some boobs. But they're not the boobs that you want. Some are very nice, yes. I love boobs. They make bad movies watchable at times. Not this time. A few of the boobs are bad boob jobs. The especially nice boobs don't get near enough time to shine.

Finally, this movie is an insult. I don't mind low budget horror. I personally try to find those "B" and "C" movie gems that are out there. This movie takes a solid dump on anyone who would ever pony up the money to purchase it. I can't believe that they got a couple of established actors to work in this crap. There is literally no redeeming point in this movie. It didn't deliver on any point. The humor, while attempting to be "shocking" is shoved down your throat, it's obvious and tedious. Avoid at all costs.

This movie is terrible. Nothing like the first. If you haven't seen either...watch the first, and avoid, NEVER NEVER WATCH THIS ONE. I want to say more terrible things about this movie, but I'll just be wasting space. Just please believe me that I love this genre of movies, and that this one does not deserve a viewing.

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.

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.

2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is bad. Very bad. It lacks the originality of its source material, the 1960s Herschell Gordon Lewis film 2000 Maniacs, and is crippled by largely poor production values.

This sequel takes the maniacs out of the South, as a lack of victims forces them to go on the road to Iowa. There, they encounter a pair of Paris Hilton / Nicole Richie clones and their reality TV entourage. Carnage follows.

Perhaps the most glaring problem of the film is its death scenes. Although they shed plenty of blood, at least in the unrated edition, they are not particularly creative. Only one of the killings is at all original or entertaining. In a franchise that prides itself on outlandish deaths, this is a fatal flaw.

Furthermore, due to the extremely low budget, the movie lacks in some of the basic areas of film making. The sound quality is terrible, so that I had to turn my television up to top volume just to make out the dialogue, some of which is clearly dubbed. Aside from Bill Moseley and Lin Shaye, the acting is bargain basement variety. Even more damning for an unrated horror film, one of the deaths-a hanging-occurs off screen, one suspects because the filmmakers could not afford the safety equipment or stunt person to safely simulate it.

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.