2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams

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.

What the hell, what is this piece of crap. I was looking forward to enjoy this but what a mistake it was. I wasn't a real fan of the first part, I guess that American based geeks better understand the history of north and south but the second movie. Really tedious. It really bored me and I don't know what to tell or write about it. There is a bit of gory parts but it's never convincing. Off camera mostly shot. The only thing that the movie delivers are boobs. I guess every girl in it will show their juggs. Except Campbell, sadly, okay, she wobbles them but never delivers. And see, it's all about the tits. Some shots made are all about showing the boobs. But again, I don't mind if it fits in the story but here it gratuitous. The most frightening thing is the face of Ogre, the singer of Skinny Puppy, he sometimes delivers a creepy face as we are used of him. Anyhow, forget this movie, I've watched it so you don't have to do it...

After watching the original 2001 Maniacs, with Robert Englund, and really enjoying it, I was quite excited about the sequel when I heard about it.

Lots of positive reviews, saying it was better than the first, and more gorier...my hopes were quite high.

...Now I have seen the sequel, and I'm not kidding here....it's one of the worst films I have seen in years, honestly, the acting is soooo bad it's as if they are just people who were randomly picked up off the street! I know you don't watch a film like this for the acting, but when it's this bad, there really is no excuse!

As for the gore, well frankly it does'nt come close to the first one. after 45 minutes only 2 folks have bitten the bullet, and neither one was gory at all!...Then you wait for it to kick off (that's if you haven't press eject on your DVD player by now), it just don't happen. The couple of so-so gory effects towards the end are so badly done, obviously dummy's, you could'nt care less.

Anyway, I don't want to waste any more time on this pile of dog turd. I must just say, all the 10/10 reviews MUST be people involved with this film, they have to be!

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!!!!

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.