CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
3.1/10
2.7 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Agrega una trama en tu idiomaThe barbecue party continues. Mayor Buckman and his Confederate cannibals are on the prowl again. Now don't take a wrong turn.The barbecue party continues. Mayor Buckman and his Confederate cannibals are on the prowl again. Now don't take a wrong turn.The barbecue party continues. Mayor Buckman and his Confederate cannibals are on the prowl again. Now don't take a wrong turn.
Kevin 'ohGr' Ogilvie
- Harper Alexander
- (as Nivek Ogre)
Katy Johnson Evans
- Rome Sheraton
- (as Katy Marie Johnson)
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Argumento
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaRobert Englund was meant to reprise his role as Mayor Buckman, but was kept being re-scheduled due to lack of budget. The filmmakers decided to make the film using the budget they had, and cast Bill Moseley, all without Robert's knowledge.
- ErroresIn one scene, China Rose is seen having her dress unbuttoned revealing her large breasts, however in the next scene, her dress is buttoned up again. There is no part of the scene showing China Rose buttoning up her dress to cover up her breasts and nipples.
- Citas
China Rose: Do you want us to slip in something more comfortable?
[China Rose, Milk Maiden, and Scarlet proceed to to disrobe their clothing, man proceeds to take turns groping each one's breasts, China Rose, Milk Maiden, and Scarlet then take turns performing fellatio on man]
- Créditos curiososDuring the end credits there's a scene where Granny Boone gives birth to a black baby.
- ConexionesEdited into 2001 Maniacs: Behind the Screams (2010)
- Bandas sonorasKillers on the Highway
Written and Performed by Clifford Allen Wagner
Opinión destacada
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.
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.
- shroyerw-1
- 18 nov 2010
- Enlace permanente
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- 2001 Maniacs: The Sequel
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 24 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
What is the Spanish language plot outline for 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010)?
Responda