ÉVALUATION IMDb
3,1/10
2,7 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueThe 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.
- Réalisation
- Scénaristes
- Vedettes
Kevin 'ohGr' Ogilvie
- Harper Alexander
- (as Nivek Ogre)
Katy Johnson Evans
- Rome Sheraton
- (as Katy Marie Johnson)
3,12.7K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Avis en vedette
AWFUL sequel to a very decent movie
This review is for rated version of the movie because that's the one I watched.
I am a fan of 2005 Tim Sullivan's movie "2001 Maniacs". I have watched it with great pleasure both back in 2006 and today once again to prepare for the sequel. But I have to say now that the sequel is below any skeptical expectations.
Main characters don't make you care about their fates at all unlike the characters from the previous movie. Bill Moseley is no replace for Robert Englund, he tries hard but still isn't convincing and interesting enough.
Poor acting with a few exceptions (Lin Shaye) and very weak plot are what you're going to see in this movie. The movie looks cheap and reminds me of some C or even D class horror movies: not funny jokes (including toilet humor), excessive use of swearing (unnecessary in a lot of scenes), predictable plot and complete nonsense in many scenes. Some of the situations the script puts for example Granny Boone into are very frustrating to my mind. I don't want her to do what she had to do, it looked very unnecessary and out of character.
What I liked about the movie is lots of word play hinting - that was at least entertaining. The second highlight was a number of a really hot, handsome guys showing some private parts. That was a total guilty pleasure for me.
I don't recommend you watching this movie unless you want to ruin your good impressions based on the 2005 film. But if you're into hot looking guys or girls and just want to stare at them rent this movie.
I am a fan of 2005 Tim Sullivan's movie "2001 Maniacs". I have watched it with great pleasure both back in 2006 and today once again to prepare for the sequel. But I have to say now that the sequel is below any skeptical expectations.
Main characters don't make you care about their fates at all unlike the characters from the previous movie. Bill Moseley is no replace for Robert Englund, he tries hard but still isn't convincing and interesting enough.
Poor acting with a few exceptions (Lin Shaye) and very weak plot are what you're going to see in this movie. The movie looks cheap and reminds me of some C or even D class horror movies: not funny jokes (including toilet humor), excessive use of swearing (unnecessary in a lot of scenes), predictable plot and complete nonsense in many scenes. Some of the situations the script puts for example Granny Boone into are very frustrating to my mind. I don't want her to do what she had to do, it looked very unnecessary and out of character.
What I liked about the movie is lots of word play hinting - that was at least entertaining. The second highlight was a number of a really hot, handsome guys showing some private parts. That was a total guilty pleasure for me.
I don't recommend you watching this movie unless you want to ruin your good impressions based on the 2005 film. But if you're into hot looking guys or girls and just want to stare at them rent this movie.
The line betwixt "just for fun" and "wretchedly low-quality" is a thin one, indeed...
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.
Not A Patch On His Last Offering
As I really enjoyed Tim Sullivan's 2005 remake '2001 Maniacs', I foolishly thought this would have the same fun set pieces and wacky script.
However it is devoid of any real gore, the acting is wooden, and the script so poorly written. I was forced to hit the fast forward, which is something I rarely do.
The real shame is that does have actors like Lin Shaye and Bill Moseley going to waste. It's easy to maybe cite a reduced budget or external factors, but it's hard to make excuses for this turkey.
I'd avoid unless your a real masochist.
However it is devoid of any real gore, the acting is wooden, and the script so poorly written. I was forced to hit the fast forward, which is something I rarely do.
The real shame is that does have actors like Lin Shaye and Bill Moseley going to waste. It's easy to maybe cite a reduced budget or external factors, but it's hard to make excuses for this turkey.
I'd avoid unless your a real masochist.
So Bad...It's embarrassing!
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!!!!!!
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!!!!!!
Has its moments, but not a patch on the first
The Maniacs return, this time going on the road with Bill Mosely taking over from Bob Englund as Mayor Buckman, and subjecting a bunch of wannabe reality TV stars who are traveling through the boondocks in their camper van, to their particular brand of Southern hospitality.
The Maniacs sequel is nowhere near as good as the first one, which I really enjoyed. There were some issues with the sound, due to the sound technicians getting stoned constantly while on set, according to Tim Sullivan, and the film has the look of a work print. (Hopefully Anchor Bay will correct this for the DVD) However, it's also got some rather substandard performances from the cast, (The always watchable Bill Mosely aside and Ahmed Best, who played Jar-Jar Binks being surprisingly good as Crow) and some pretty hit and miss comedy.
That having said, it's got a ton of heart, some decidedly bawdy humor, plenty of nudity and some decent and cheerfully O.T.T. gore.
Overall, any fan of the first 2001 Maniacs should find some things to like here, provided they lower their expectations somewhat.
Ultimately disappointing, it definitely has its moments though.
I caught this at the IFI in Dublin and Tim Sullivan was there for the screening, and was an excellent guest and an extremely nice guy, a very pleasant individual who spent loads of time with the fans, so fair play to him there. Pity this kinda sucked, though.
The Maniacs sequel is nowhere near as good as the first one, which I really enjoyed. There were some issues with the sound, due to the sound technicians getting stoned constantly while on set, according to Tim Sullivan, and the film has the look of a work print. (Hopefully Anchor Bay will correct this for the DVD) However, it's also got some rather substandard performances from the cast, (The always watchable Bill Mosely aside and Ahmed Best, who played Jar-Jar Binks being surprisingly good as Crow) and some pretty hit and miss comedy.
That having said, it's got a ton of heart, some decidedly bawdy humor, plenty of nudity and some decent and cheerfully O.T.T. gore.
Overall, any fan of the first 2001 Maniacs should find some things to like here, provided they lower their expectations somewhat.
Ultimately disappointing, it definitely has its moments though.
I caught this at the IFI in Dublin and Tim Sullivan was there for the screening, and was an excellent guest and an extremely nice guy, a very pleasant individual who spent loads of time with the fans, so fair play to him there. Pity this kinda sucked, though.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesRobert 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.
- GaffesIn 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.
- Citations
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]
- Générique farfeluDuring the end credits there's a scene where Granny Boone gives birth to a black baby.
- ConnexionsEdited into 2001 Maniacs: Behind the Screams (2010)
- Bandes originalesKillers on the Highway
Written and Performed by Clifford Allen Wagner
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams
- Lieux de tournage
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
- Durée
- 1h 24m(84 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant






