IMDb रेटिंग
5.0/10
4.4 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ें"ChromeSkull" is the sequel to the 2009 horror hit "Laid to Rest." It brings back ChromeSkull, who barely escaped death in the first movie and is hell-bent on continuing where he left off...... सभी पढ़ें"ChromeSkull" is the sequel to the 2009 horror hit "Laid to Rest." It brings back ChromeSkull, who barely escaped death in the first movie and is hell-bent on continuing where he left off... and forging a new path of terror and destruction."ChromeSkull" is the sequel to the 2009 horror hit "Laid to Rest." It brings back ChromeSkull, who barely escaped death in the first movie and is hell-bent on continuing where he left off... and forging a new path of terror and destruction.
- पुरस्कार
- कुल 1 नामांकन
Christopher Allen Nelson
- Max
- (as Christopher Nelson)
Aimee-Lynn Chadwick
- Allie
- (as Aimee Lynn Chadwick)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
I watched this movie just because Danielle Harris is in it. I wasn't very impressed with the first one, because acting was terrible and the whole movie didn't have the right "groove". So I didn't expect very much from this one. But I was pleasantly surprised. The acting was on a much higher level, the script is well written and it opens many questions, which hopefully will be answered in the next one. The killings are technically better made and the whole movie has that intense feeling. So this is one o the best slasher movies made in the last few years and I'm now waiting to see what will they do in the next one. At the end I want to apologize the makers for not seeing the movie in theater. I had to download it because I'm from a country where horror genre isn't very popular for our distributors.
Short and sweet, with no spoilers.
As noted in other reviews, the movie picks up where part one ended, but quickly goes another direction, as we find out Chromeskull has an entire team of people working for him. Again, as many reviews note, this is hard to believe, and a bit of a personal letdown, but I won't trash it like others. At the end of the day, I don't judge movies on whether they are realistic, as I take what I'm fed and go from there. Most serial killer/slasher flicks are unrealistic, so why wrestle with a plot over its "this could never happen" facets?
I put this movie in the "JUST O.K." boat. I came for the blood and gore, not superb storyline or acting, and in this respect it was fine. Due to working on intercharacter relationships, however, some of the intensity was lost, as well as the consistency of "kills," if that makes sense.
***NOTE: So I like blood and guts horror. Sue me.
But I digress.
Personally, I feel like the storyline tried to do too much for a formulaic slasher flick. I liked the original, as it wasn't about notable actors or personal relationships other than the people involved. With Brian Austin Green's inclusion, part 2 felt a bit contrived, as if attempting to find validation for the script. Besides the fact that he doesn't play a convincing maniacal killer, the beauty of part 1 is that the story doesn't rely on anything but sheer slashing. BAG was completely unnecessary and could have been played by any old chump and it wouldn't have mattered to me. Though, any time I see Danielle Harris, I'm happy.
Anyway...beyond this bit of beef, it was ok. The pace is different, since we already know what Chromeface does, and the story takes precedent over kills. At the end of the day, there just wasn't enough "meat" to take it from "just ok" to "good."
The production was on par with part 1. Shot on professional equipment, decent acting (but for BAG), editing, etc...all about the same as the original. Special fx remained decent as well.
All in all, if you watched the first one and enjoyed it, you'll be ok with the sequel (I hear there's another one in development...with BAG. Ugh), just don't expect quite as much. Not a total let down, but I think the writer just tried to do too much.
Notes on Parental Contact:
For those who call this a terrible movie because the story is fake or the acting isn't Oscar worthy, why would you expect this to begin with? It's a straight-up slasher flick for the modern horror buff. Yes...they tried to add some "Saw"-like elements, but come on...what movie doesn't borrow from another these days.
So, if you watched the first, then you should see the second. Just know it's lost a bit of umph. Still worth the watch, just take what you're fed and go with it.
As noted in other reviews, the movie picks up where part one ended, but quickly goes another direction, as we find out Chromeskull has an entire team of people working for him. Again, as many reviews note, this is hard to believe, and a bit of a personal letdown, but I won't trash it like others. At the end of the day, I don't judge movies on whether they are realistic, as I take what I'm fed and go from there. Most serial killer/slasher flicks are unrealistic, so why wrestle with a plot over its "this could never happen" facets?
I put this movie in the "JUST O.K." boat. I came for the blood and gore, not superb storyline or acting, and in this respect it was fine. Due to working on intercharacter relationships, however, some of the intensity was lost, as well as the consistency of "kills," if that makes sense.
***NOTE: So I like blood and guts horror. Sue me.
But I digress.
Personally, I feel like the storyline tried to do too much for a formulaic slasher flick. I liked the original, as it wasn't about notable actors or personal relationships other than the people involved. With Brian Austin Green's inclusion, part 2 felt a bit contrived, as if attempting to find validation for the script. Besides the fact that he doesn't play a convincing maniacal killer, the beauty of part 1 is that the story doesn't rely on anything but sheer slashing. BAG was completely unnecessary and could have been played by any old chump and it wouldn't have mattered to me. Though, any time I see Danielle Harris, I'm happy.
Anyway...beyond this bit of beef, it was ok. The pace is different, since we already know what Chromeface does, and the story takes precedent over kills. At the end of the day, there just wasn't enough "meat" to take it from "just ok" to "good."
The production was on par with part 1. Shot on professional equipment, decent acting (but for BAG), editing, etc...all about the same as the original. Special fx remained decent as well.
All in all, if you watched the first one and enjoyed it, you'll be ok with the sequel (I hear there's another one in development...with BAG. Ugh), just don't expect quite as much. Not a total let down, but I think the writer just tried to do too much.
Notes on Parental Contact:
- There is a fair amount of profanity. At least as much as part 1, if not more.
- I would not call this a scary movie, but there are several scenes that could be described as "intense."
- Brief partial nudity but sex and sexual content is not a prevailing theme.
- Violence and gore is what most people would call "severe." As noted above, there are fewer killings in part 2 but the ones we do see are no less gory than the first. If you're a gorehound like me, it's fine. Lots of blood & violence with a smattering of gore for good measure.
For those who call this a terrible movie because the story is fake or the acting isn't Oscar worthy, why would you expect this to begin with? It's a straight-up slasher flick for the modern horror buff. Yes...they tried to add some "Saw"-like elements, but come on...what movie doesn't borrow from another these days.
So, if you watched the first, then you should see the second. Just know it's lost a bit of umph. Still worth the watch, just take what you're fed and go with it.
I enjoyed the first, I didn't think, I would like, I really did but can't say the same about this sequel
This movie started of where last movie left off, which I liked and then movie went down hill as the movies goes on.
I just didn't like where they took the story at all, as I didn't like the plot, it was hard to enjoy it, however the kills in this movie are really creative some really good gory death scenes.
The acting in this movie was hit and miss from some of the cast members
Not as good or as fun as the first movie but decent kills makes this good slasher movie. 5 out of 10
This movie started of where last movie left off, which I liked and then movie went down hill as the movies goes on.
I just didn't like where they took the story at all, as I didn't like the plot, it was hard to enjoy it, however the kills in this movie are really creative some really good gory death scenes.
The acting in this movie was hit and miss from some of the cast members
Not as good or as fun as the first movie but decent kills makes this good slasher movie. 5 out of 10
I know that I enjoyed the original Laid to Rest for its sheer enthusiasm and spectacularly OTT gore, but I can recall very little about the actual plot, despite having only seen it a year ago; perhaps that's because there wasn't much of a story to remember in the first place (the lack of strong narrative clearly didn't matter too much to me: I gave the first film a rating of 7.5/10).
Chromeskull: Laid to Rest 2 is just as eager to please in terms of bloody mayhem, and does so brilliantly with oodles of really mean-spirited and excellently executed gore, but this time around the film-makers also try to build on Chromeskull's character, and it is here that the film comes apart quicker than one of the killer's victims. While a bit of back-story mightn't have been so bad, what we are presented with here is so overblown, convoluted, and incomprehensible that it only serves to confuse and irritate in the extreme.
The film opens abruptly with no recap of previous events, immediately launching into the unnecessarily complex nonsense that passes for a plot, in which a secret organisation is revealed to be behind the work of our metal mask-wearing maniac. With a script even messier than one of Chromeskull's kills, the viewer is simply left with too many unanswered questions—Who are these characters? What is the nefarious organisation hoping to achieve? Why are the police so fing inept? Who the hell thought it would be a good idea to hire Danielle Harris (she was in the extremely disappointing sequel to Hatchet too!)? It all adds up to a very frustrating and frankly rather tedious experience.
If director Robert Hall proceeds with his intended third and final Laid to Rest film, I really hope that he succeeds in explaining matters in a satisfying manner; simply drenching proceedings with buckets of really nasty knife action just won't cut it next time.
I rate Chromeskull: Laid to Rest 2 a 9/10 for the sterling work of the effects guys, but 1/10 for everything else (resulting in a disappointing average of 5/10).
Chromeskull: Laid to Rest 2 is just as eager to please in terms of bloody mayhem, and does so brilliantly with oodles of really mean-spirited and excellently executed gore, but this time around the film-makers also try to build on Chromeskull's character, and it is here that the film comes apart quicker than one of the killer's victims. While a bit of back-story mightn't have been so bad, what we are presented with here is so overblown, convoluted, and incomprehensible that it only serves to confuse and irritate in the extreme.
The film opens abruptly with no recap of previous events, immediately launching into the unnecessarily complex nonsense that passes for a plot, in which a secret organisation is revealed to be behind the work of our metal mask-wearing maniac. With a script even messier than one of Chromeskull's kills, the viewer is simply left with too many unanswered questions—Who are these characters? What is the nefarious organisation hoping to achieve? Why are the police so fing inept? Who the hell thought it would be a good idea to hire Danielle Harris (she was in the extremely disappointing sequel to Hatchet too!)? It all adds up to a very frustrating and frankly rather tedious experience.
If director Robert Hall proceeds with his intended third and final Laid to Rest film, I really hope that he succeeds in explaining matters in a satisfying manner; simply drenching proceedings with buckets of really nasty knife action just won't cut it next time.
I rate Chromeskull: Laid to Rest 2 a 9/10 for the sterling work of the effects guys, but 1/10 for everything else (resulting in a disappointing average of 5/10).
When Laid To Rest came out, I thought I was in slasher heaven. The movie was no BS when it came to what it was about and solidly delivered the goods with gore. A few years later I revisited the film and realized a problem. I was too intoxicated with the gore when younger that I failed to see the horrendous acting. watching it again, I found myself cringing at almost every piece of dialogue. However I still liked the gore.
So here comes the sequel, which promised to be better and gorier, like all slasher sequels should. But I wanted to keep the expectations in check in case everyone stunk again.WRONG! Main girl Jess is very nice to look at and is a great scream queen, unlike the gratingly annoying girl from the first. Thomas Dekkar reprises his role and performs fine, but Jess is the main focus. Brian Austin Green steals the show when featured, I won't say his role but its massively entertaining.
With Chromeskull though, the main attraction is the gore. I write this review after viewing it on demand so I cannot tell if I saw the unrated, but WOAH, I'm more than sure I did. The body count reaches double digits, and every death is more elaborate than the next. not like Saw elaborate, but I've never seen blades used in so many shockingly graphic ways in one film. Director Robert Hall outdid himself here, it's just bloody beyond belief, really, and the energy keeps the film chugging along. There are also some legitimate scares and tension which Laid to Rest sorely lacked.
Did I have any problems with the film, sure, but they're too small to mention. See this if your a horror fan, and be prepared to see so much blood you'll be knocked back. Also, be sure to stay after the credits!
So here comes the sequel, which promised to be better and gorier, like all slasher sequels should. But I wanted to keep the expectations in check in case everyone stunk again.WRONG! Main girl Jess is very nice to look at and is a great scream queen, unlike the gratingly annoying girl from the first. Thomas Dekkar reprises his role and performs fine, but Jess is the main focus. Brian Austin Green steals the show when featured, I won't say his role but its massively entertaining.
With Chromeskull though, the main attraction is the gore. I write this review after viewing it on demand so I cannot tell if I saw the unrated, but WOAH, I'm more than sure I did. The body count reaches double digits, and every death is more elaborate than the next. not like Saw elaborate, but I've never seen blades used in so many shockingly graphic ways in one film. Director Robert Hall outdid himself here, it's just bloody beyond belief, really, and the energy keeps the film chugging along. There are also some legitimate scares and tension which Laid to Rest sorely lacked.
Did I have any problems with the film, sure, but they're too small to mention. See this if your a horror fan, and be prepared to see so much blood you'll be knocked back. Also, be sure to stay after the credits!
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाWhen Preston is getting his Chromeskull tattoo on his chest, it is actually a shot of Nick Principe (who plays Chromeskull) receiving the tattoo for real on his back.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटThere's an additional scene after the credits where the FBI-agents interrogate a woman, probably the wife of Chromeskull.
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनGerman version was ridiculously edited for violence by 9 minutes in order to get a FSK-18 rating, pretty much every death scene is shortened to reduce the blood and gore. Uncut version is soft-banned (put on the BPjM Index B list which means medium chances of being confiscated down the road).
- साउंडट्रैकLaid to Rest
Written by Kurt Meinicke, Steve Salama, Tillian Meier, Jolion Ridges
Performed by ShC
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Chromeskull: Laid to Rest 2?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
- What does the MPAA have against the film?
- What happens to Tommy?
- What are the differences between the R-Rated and Unrated Version?
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइटें
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Chrome Skull
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनी
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 33 मिनट
- रंग
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें