Acampamento Sinistro, o Retorno

Return to Sleepaway Camp is a huge treat for the fans of the original trilogy, Felissa Rose, Jonathan Tiersten and Paul DeAngelo all return in their respective roles. Tiersten and DeAngelo aren't the best actors but Tiersten absolutely gives it his all.

The plot is terrible, and apart from the one twist at the end held few surprises. However, I have huge praise for the amount of bloody and exciting kills we get, and they're actually all really creative, being killed in different ways. The main character is a loner and a creep towards women and is simultaneously bullied and feared. The music is not great and the dialogue is simplistic and unimaginative.

4/10: A lot of fun, with a surprisingly high amount of creativity put into the kills.

The first three Sleepaway's weren't exactly great but this is just sad. The best thing about this movie is Isaac Hayes playing the chef, just like he did on South Park before he got all the wacky Scientology crap in his head. I could have done without the Sopranos "jokes". For a series that took pride in the silly ways that people got killed, they really dropped the ball in this one. The first death is an exact copy of the first death in the first movie. Weak. The rest just didn't seem like they would kill a person.What really sucked is that it was immediately obvious that the sheriff was either Jamie Kennedy or a woman, it was the worst disguise ever. Did I mention all the bad acting and things that don't make sense? Several times one of the guys says "Angela's back!". How can she be back if she was never at this camp? Just like any other part four, the only reason to watch this is if you have seen the first three.

"Return To Sleepaway Camp" isn't as much a real movie as it is a joke that got a bit out of hand. Apparently there's a website entirely devoted to 80s slasher gem "Sleepaway Camp", and they moved heaven and Earth to get some of its cast and crew back together for a sequel. They even got Robert Hiltzik back in the director chair, even though he retired from filmmaking decades prior. Sadly though, that totally shows. Hiltzik has forgotten pretty much everything that made his first movie such an underground classic. The first one thrived on its inventive kills and compelling mystery (with an amazing conclusion). In this one, the kills just make no goddamn sense (the bed of spikes!?) and you've figured out the twist well before halfway. Even worse though is the handling of the characters. When someone teased cute innocent kids in the original, you were glad they died minutes later. In this one the protagonist is a teen that picks on little kids in the cruelest ways possible, and then gets picked on by adolescents in the cruelest ways possible. You just can't sympathize with anyone in this movie, which makes you indifferent to all the deaths. The biggest difference is in the acting though. Why is everyone acting so tongue-in-cheek all of a sudden, why the sudden shift in tone? I don't remember wanting to punch Jonathan Tiersten in the face any time he opened his mouth in the original, what happened? This movie was released four years after completion: that's rarely a good sign.

This is a terrible movie. It just sluggishly plods along, subjecting us to annoying characters, until it reaches its ridiculous end.

The story is insipid and the editing atrocious. (The scene with the Jeep and tree goes on far too long, extinguishing any tension or morbid humour the scene might have had otherwise.) There is an amusing bit, involving a hole in a floor; that scene, with the wonderful stupidity of the characters involved, is the closest the film ever gets to matching the original in terms of gore and humor.

Isaac Hayes seems to be cast only for the joke of being billed as "The Chef," and then disappears after three short scenes. His character serves no other function (unless we needed a black guy to say "motherf*cker" to liven things up a bit.) There is no mystery as to the killer's identity once all of the main characters are established. Alan, who for some unfathomable reason is the film's lead character, is so irritating that his quick death would have perhaps made the film tolerable. However, there he is, in scene after scene, in filthy clothing, telling people that their ass stinks, and then throwing himself pity parties because the other kids don't like him. (Think of Shelly from "Friday the 13th: Part III" but with none of his sympathetic aspects, only the annoying ones, multiplied by ten, and with body odor and a mean streak, and there is your Alan.) (I thought that at least his "your ass stinks" line would serve some purpose, some foreshadowing regarding his or another character's death - death by stinky ass! - but no, it's just his cringe-inducing recurring line, as lacking in purpose as Isaac Hayes' role.) Any fan of the original is going to want - to HAVE - to see this. Just don't blow $20 of your own money on it.

I am a huge fan of the original "Sleepaway Camp" film and its two original sequels.

Like most fans of the series, I was ultra-excited when I heard that the original director was going to make his own sequel to his film. Though I do like the "Unhappy Campers" and "Teenage Wasteland," they are tad to thick on the humor than I would have preferred. So, I waited and waited and waited patiently for this film to finally be released. Well, it was, and while I appreciate the nostalgic feel to the film, and the fact that is a slasher film through and through and knows its origins, the film, for me, was a huge let down for ONE reason alone: the character that we are suppose to sympathize with the most and who is by all accounts the main character of the film (Alan) has to be one of the most annoying characters in film history. He is rude, disgusting, nasty to everyone, and not likable in the least. When campers pick on him, we root them on and I really wanted him to be the first to die.

What made the first film effective was that Angela, who got picked on the very same ways Alan does in this film, doesn't deserve it. She is quiet, sweet, and introverted. She doesn't cause any problems for anyone, so when the people who harass her the most begin to meet their deaths, the audience can silently cheer. Having a unlikable main character can ruin any film, and this is a prime example.

If you can get past the annoying Alan, "Return to Sleepaway Camp" follows virtually the same plot as the original, but with less originality and more clichés. Ronnie, the counselor from the original, now owns his own camp. Typical teenage behavior is shown, and when the campers begin picking on Alan (who again, DESERVES IT!), they begin to meet grisly deaths. Ronnie quickly blames Angela, even going as far as to accusing another counselor who is OBVIOUSLY much to young to be her, of being Angela. Unfortunately, due to a pretty lame disguise, the killer's identity is not hard to figure out. The "Angela" aspect of the film is also played down quite a bit, so much so that this really could have been any typical camp slasher unrelated to the "Sleepaway Camp" series. Yes, Angela is mentioned, but she is hardly a crucial component to the plot, and even the ending is abrupt and explains very little and certainly isn't the return to glory that one of the most interesting slasher film killers in history deserved.

There are some creative kills, but I honestly thing the original sequels are better and more brutal in this department. The acting is atrocious by most involved and the script is just really bad. In the end, I wanted more from this film and expected the original director to really bring it. Unfortunately, he didn't and the film pales in comparison to the original and even to the original sequels.

I only hope that if "Sleepaway Camp: Reunion" DOES happen, it is much better than this. The series deserves it.

My Grade: D