Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueMANOS Returns is the follow up film to the cult favorite Manos: The Hands of Fate, created by Jackey Neyman Jones who portrayed Debbie from the original film.MANOS Returns is the follow up film to the cult favorite Manos: The Hands of Fate, created by Jackey Neyman Jones who portrayed Debbie from the original film.MANOS Returns is the follow up film to the cult favorite Manos: The Hands of Fate, created by Jackey Neyman Jones who portrayed Debbie from the original film.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Diane Adelson
- Maggie
- (as Diane Mahree Rystad)
Emily Howard
- Bride #6
- (as Emily Watson)
Avis à la une
This movie put me to sleep in a matter of minutes. The plot is bland and the same as the first Manos, the writing is below mediocre and the acting is terrible. The movie cuts are slow and boring and half the characters seem just as clueless as the writers. I will admit however, this one was better than the first which isn't saying much. What the writer's main goal here is beyond me but I will say this: if your value your time do not waste it on this movie.
This is a completely amateur production. Literally. Nobody involved in the process of making this movie has any idea how to act or direct. That's fair, in a sense, since nobody in the original did either, but that does not justify this movies existence
Yes, there are some references to the original that made me laugh, but every single aspect of this movie is bad. It's free on prime, but I feel horribly sorry for anybody who actually spent money on the Kickstarter.
It's awful, but what can you expect? I only watched it because I was astonished to see that it actually existed. And to the other reviewer who said this took the concept of the original and flushed it out: you're joking, right? This is the exact same concept as the original, but with worse acting (yes, I know), and a few extra plot points that also don't go anywhere.
The only reason to watch this movie is to say you did, but why would you want to? If you read this and are going to watch it anyway; respect. I made the same mistake.
Yes, there are some references to the original that made me laugh, but every single aspect of this movie is bad. It's free on prime, but I feel horribly sorry for anybody who actually spent money on the Kickstarter.
It's awful, but what can you expect? I only watched it because I was astonished to see that it actually existed. And to the other reviewer who said this took the concept of the original and flushed it out: you're joking, right? This is the exact same concept as the original, but with worse acting (yes, I know), and a few extra plot points that also don't go anywhere.
The only reason to watch this movie is to say you did, but why would you want to? If you read this and are going to watch it anyway; respect. I made the same mistake.
This is one of the "self aware" movies that tries to come across as "tongue-in-cheek" as a nod to the source material. Beyond callbacks to the original, this movie does not provide much. Shout out to the late Tom Neyman.
This is one of of those films, like the second BirdDemic, that knows that the reason the first film got any acclaim was because of how unintentionally bad it was. Where the first film got a cult following because it was bad, but you know the director was trying the first time, but just delivered something terrible, but so funny it found a cult following. This film tries to be bad/funny and doesn't succeed. Because it tries. It tries to be bad and funny and incoherent. That isn't what made the original the cult film what it is. Being aware of the terribleness is cool. Trying to replicate that into a purposefully funny and bad film will not get you that acclaim again in anyway. It just delivers a boring slog of a retread without any self awareness or humor. The more it tries to replicate and bring humor to it, the worse it got. It would have been better if it found a way to play the original plot totally straight and treated this like a real horror sequel. The comedy would have come from that. Treat this like a real sequel to a 'real' horror film and give us some horror. The comedy would have written itself by just doing that, and the horror moments would have hit hard. Instead it's just a bad attempt to make a bad movie to capitalize on the cult following of the original. It could have been something, but the f'd it up.
The original Manos is widely considered as one of the worst movies of all time. Its famous only because of the creative minds at Mystery Science Theater 3000. But not even those comedic geniuses could make this turkey watchable.
The acting, if one could call at that, it's so amateurish that it's beyond cringe worthy. The three original members of the original Manos who are also in this sequel should be given medals for having to go go through something like this twice.
I actually felt sorry for those people that had to work in this thing, but not as sorry as I was for myself because I wasted over an hour of my life watching this dreck. Don't bother.
The acting, if one could call at that, it's so amateurish that it's beyond cringe worthy. The three original members of the original Manos who are also in this sequel should be given medals for having to go go through something like this twice.
I actually felt sorry for those people that had to work in this thing, but not as sorry as I was for myself because I wasted over an hour of my life watching this dreck. Don't bother.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesReleased 52 years after the original, Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966), marking one of the longest sequel gaps in history.
- Crédits fousDedicated to Tom Neyman November 23 1935 - November 12 2016 The Master is with us always
- ConnexionsFeatured in Late Night Double Feature: Manos Returns/Manos: The Rise of Torgo (2021)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Manos Returns?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 19 000 $US (estimé)
- Durée
- 1h 7min(67 min)
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.78 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant