Boogeyman 2

Pretty Good Sequel. Its more enjoyable than the first one. It's always fun to see Tobin Bell in a horror film. Some of the kills was very creative. It had it all for a slasher flick gd kills,sex scene & a nice plot twist. The acting was terrible. The blood & gore make up effects was pretty good especially for a low budget slasher flick. 5/10

I was actually surprised at how much fun I had watching this flick. Some of these direct to DVD time killers are better than what's being thrown at us in the theaters. I'm still struggling with trying to watch the first bore-fest but this little gem got me hooked right away. This is a straight up slasher with some supernatural flavor used more as a decoy than for major thrills. If you like these films then get yourself a copy and you will definitely enjoy yourself. They spent less money this time but the addition of Tobin Bell (Today's Vincent Price) is perfect. I recommend this one for fans of the slasher genre, Mr. Bell, and cheesy little DVD. Check Tobin out in Buried Alive also.

I absolutely hated the original BOOGEYMAN, which I still consider to be one of the very worst movies I've ever sat through, so it was with some reluctance that I sat down to watch this sequel when I saw it was on television. Thankfully, it's an unconnected sequel and an entirely different kind of movie. It's not a brilliant film by any means, but it works as a solid low budget horror and is a lot more effective than a lot of dross out there.

To be honest, this film doesn't have to do a lot to succeed. It's set in an asylum, and history has shown us that asylum-set horror films are usually very effective at conjuring up a spooky atmosphere. It's a slasher film, quickly adopting the usual template – about ten minutes waiting around until a gruesome death, then a face-off between sole survivor and killer at the climax – but as I haven't watched any slashers in a while I didn't mind that at all. Sure, the cast are a bunch of unknowns and their acting is only moderately effective, but it could be a lot worse.

Director Jeff Betancourt cut his teeth as an editor on the likes of THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE, so he knows his stuff and does a good job. Plus, the film provides work for two veteran actors – Tobin Bell, best known as Jigsaw in the SAW franchise, and Renee O'Connor, best known for her portrayal of Gabrielle in '90s TV series XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS. The mention of SAW brings me to another point: this film's deaths. They're as gruesome as anything you'll witness in those bloody horror films, and actually seem to have been modelled on the type of nasty, in-your-face torture found in the SAWs. Bodily dismemberment, self harm, and explosion are the order of the day. Okay, so this film does have one of the most obvious 'twist' endings ever – one of those ones you'll guess right at the very beginning – but don't let that put you off. BOOGEYMAN 2 is a horror effort that offers chills and gore in equal amount.

Have you seen the first "Boogeyman" movie? I have. It was one of those movies that you watch once and don't really ever think about again. However, I liked the idea behind it and I'm a big fan of supernatural horror movies so, when I heard there was a "Boogeyman 2" I thought I'd check it out.

This is not the movie I expected. In fact, I feel quite deceived. More on that later.

After a quite tense opening sequence where Laura (Renee O'Connor) first encounters the Boogeyman as a child, the movie moves onto the main storyline. Whereas the first movie was a man confronting his childhood demons in his family home, this movie is set in hospital where the main character also attempts to overcome her childhood fears. As well as finding herself in the worst staffed hospital of all time, one of Laura's doctors is none other than Jigsaw himself (the wonderful Tobin Bell, who is as creepy here as in the "Saw" movies). Things aren't looking good for her.

Once each of her fellow patients has revealed their fears in various non-too-subtle ways ("I'm not changing the light in your closet because I'M SCARED OF THE DARK!" "I'm not shaking your hand because I'M SCARED OF GERMS!" etc), they all begin to be killed by the evil Boogeyman who (surprise...surprise) uses their fears against them. I actually quite liked some of the deaths here which were suitably graphic and disturbing - I'm sure a lot of ketchup must have been used in the making of this movie.

However, I ultimately felt deceived by "Boogeyman 2".

The makers actually trick you in a very naughty way - kinda like going to watch a "Nightmare On Elm Street" sequel only to discover that Freddie is no longer the evil spirit of a child murderer but is now an evil robot from the future. You'd say "Huh? This isn't anything like the first movie. I wanted to see a supernatural horror movie, not another Terminator clone!". You'll see exactly what I mean if you've seen "Boogeyman" and then watch "Boogeyman 2" (unfortunately, I can't be any more specific as it would be a spoiler). In fact, "Boogeyman 2" has so little to do with the first "Boogeyman" that I'm surprised they even share the same name. It also features one completely unnecessary scene of graphic nudity - whether this is a good thing or not depends upon whether you're still in high school. I left high school a while ago and found myself wondering why the scene needed to exist at all. Oh well.

In summary then, this is a very average little horror movie. I can't say I was particularly scared by any of it but it was nicely acted and had some cool death scenes (some of which reminded me a little bit of "Saw" if truth be told - no wonder Tobin Bell turned up!).

If you like watching teens running around dark corridors before losing their vital organs (and your DVD collection consists of movies such as "Halloween: Resurrection" and "Jason X"), then it's probably worth a rental. However, if you really enjoyed the first movie and want more of the same (or, like me, you're just looking for a good supernatural horror movie), I'm willing to bet that you'll be disappointed with "Boogeyman 2".

I guess that the producers really had learned their lesson with part 1, the use of CGI was a complete letdown in part 1 but here we have a real boogeyman. It is even so that the boogeyman is more a real killer which gives us the fact that we are in the era of the slashers. The start of the movie learns us that two children witness the killing of both parents. The boy was already afraid and guessed that it was the boogeyman due the fact that the killer was never captured. For that reason they watched the children closely in psychiatry. Next stop, 10 years later. The boy tells his sister that he has to go. His sister is back in therapy but suddenly one after one people in her neighborhood get killed. She suspect the boogeyman is back in business. Once the killings start it's old school slasher style. I have seen the 93 minutes version in stead of the European version and I can say that the unrated version isn't afraid by showing the killings. It's mostly done in a bloody way or sometimes even in a gory way. The fact that the effects used are without CGI makes it all worth watching. It is also funny to see Tobin Bell as Dr Mitchell. I guess the director made an ode to SAW by putting in a device to rip open a chest. Anyway, Bell is excellent as all others who are really believable. You can guess easily who's the killer but the plot change gives it all worth watching. And for the ones wandering if all elements are in it to say it's a slasher, yes, Chrissy Griffith does show her milky ways in close up a few times. Sadly, part 3 was back to the imagination of the boogeyman in CGI, but the red stuff made it second best.