Quality is almost as good as "Terror Toons."
The voices don't match the location. Sounds like people talking on a microphone behind a computer, instead of on location in the field, in a tent, or wherever they are.
Oh God the acting....
Just terrible for those reasons alone.^^
BTW, I loved the first... and I'm a big Moseley fan.
It is infantile garbage produced by marginally talented filmmakers
sharei ,ust agree this movie was thrown toghther last minute and it showed
shareDespite what I said in another post I just rewatched it via the unrated version and found it to be cheap but gory fun.
shareAnd just to think that the filmmakers want us to pay for this crap. Hell, the original H.G. Lewis movie 2000 Maniacs was more bearable than this and I had to take a break from the boring exposition and inexplicit gore (I mean, it's H.G. Lewis but there is very little gore in that one) every 5 minutes. The acting alone made this movie worth at least one watch as you think to yourself how the actors probably felt as they watched it at a screening, hunkering down in their seats to their own embarrassment. This is the first movie I've ever said that Bill Moseley's acting was downright terrible. Did he realize during production that no one else could act and he felt bad for them so he didn't wanna out stage them by being a better actor?
sharetim sullivan owes us an apology and a better sequel and needs to bring back all the original maniacs mostly robert englund
shareTim Sullivan doesn't owe any of you an apology. first off.
Secondly, on a tight budget, less money, little sources, VERY LITTLE TIME and what they were able to work with this was what they were able to rally up. and You guys call yourselfs "horror fans"? its people like you that owes an apology for taking up that title, because it takes a real person, to watch a movie, NOTICE all of these things and say, "Great effort, and you know what? It was made for fans, BY FANS of this genre." So while jack-offs like you where jerking off to Christa Campbell in some other movie, Other fans where rallying in that short-time, to help get this movie done.
Tim only proved that within time, no special CGI effects where needed, nor was an un-original idea, unlike the Michael Bay stuff that is coming out now- but no, you guys just stick to that stuff, and bitch about how horror is un-original anymore, aswhile Tim is entertaining with his form of horror called "Splat-stick". Hypocrites you guys are.
Oh and if you guys wanna shut me up or prove me wrong, Why don't you get off your asses, off your computers and go out and set up a deadline ( not pass Oct this year ) and Why don't you make your own film, with little resources, little money, short time, and see how easy it is. You guys talk a big game, say how someone else sucks, YOU TRY IT THEN
The Bridge is Crossed, so stand & Watch it BURN... You've passed The Point of No Return
Screw that, a bad movie is a bad movie. You're stupid, your argument is now invalid.
I don't think people (including myself) would be bothering to trash this movie so bad, if all you numnuts who were part of the production didn't try and falsely bump up the rating. Flat out lying and trying to falsify IMDB ratings is irritating at minimum, and makes it difficult to judge a film's merits. Personally I always go straight to the worst of the worst reviews, and read upwards to gauge people's real reactions. It's much easier to weed out the hate mongers who hate just because they love to hate, than the losers like you who flat out lie, or rate movies positively because "OMG, people tried really hard and I love the director, so this movie is a 10/10 and everyone who doesn't agree with me is a fat loser who sits on their computer all day!".
Who cares how awesome you think the director is, or how bad other movies are. I don't care how difficult or time consuming it is to make a movie. Fact is, if people want my money, then they have to create a product I'm willing to spend it on. If I had paid for this movie, I would have felt extremely cheated. Bad is bad, and good is good. You want people to stop trashing this movie? Then it should have been a better movie.
You sir, are a retard. Now call Tim Sullivan and get us that apology you poop tit.
[deleted]
No. Where does it say that this board is for people who LOVE Tim Sullivan. This is a board for this movie. Claiming to LOVE a movie because it's so INDEPENDENT is asinine. I realize you think you're some off-beat, original, unique little flower who's expressing herself by being a little fan-whore for a director she's obviously obsessing over...but guess what, that doesn't make your opinion more relevant about this movie whatsoever. It makes you a fan. Grats. You are now one of the MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people who enjoy movies. Everyone is a fan of their own favorite movies for their own reasons. Yours would be...that you're a psycho. And possibly retarded.
No I don't know Tim Sullivan, why should I? He's directed, what, a whole...2 movies thus far. One being 2001 maniacs, which was pretty enjoyable, and then...2001 maniacs 2...which sucked. I'm not gonna go psycho *beep* like you because of 2 movies. I also don't care how how hard people worked on the film. It's called a job, I don't have people sucking my nuts because I work for a living. Although that would be pretty sweet. Working hard doesn't equal praise. That's why it's called work. If you do bad work, you get criticized. In the real world you don't get hugs and kisses for failing.
I'll hate this movie, and keep on hating it. Because I can, because it's my prerogative, because all opinions are valid. As long as there's morons like you who think just because in your little world of puppy dogs and rainbows, that the rest of the world is icecream farts...there'll be people like me throwing feces at you to help you realize what a dumb *beep* you really are.
Agreed truly an awful awful infantile asinine appalling waste of time and true embarrassment for all involved. I was watching through my hands at many stages during this train wreck and not in a good "I'm terrified" kind of way either. I really enjoyed the first one (about a six our of ten) but this felt rushed cheap and downright dreadful. No budget is no excuse for making a bad movie - I'm in this industry and when I make crap I fess up and admit it!
shareLove it, and I couldn't agree more, sir...
sharePh uck all that crap it's just a *beep* movie, time constraints etc are no excuse for *beep* acting, quite simply this film was a load of old bollocks.
your opinion is the wrong one!
Why spend so much time talking about something you despise, Terrence? I'm curious.
shareEveryday when I get home for work I like to see what movies are released and available to watch. If it looks interesting, I check some reviews and see if it's worth my time. If at some point I've commented on a movie, and it's warranted a response, I check on it until the responses stop. I wouldn't really say it's "so much time", it only takes about 5-10 minutes. Really I don't harass movies this much generally, feel free to check my activity...it's not all that active until this movie.
Simply put, this movie was so bad, and the reviews so inflated that it kind of offended me. Sure it's fine to make a terrible film and put it out there for people to purchase, but all these glorifying reviews and remarks are plain and simple *beep* and you know it. I watch lots of bad movies, but at least those reviews are honest about how bad it is, and the people involved in them aren't typically falsifying information about it.
Satiate your curiosity?
Lemme guess, you saw it in Dublin, right?
Read the reviews, because they are very similar all across the board.
Over and over again, the posters are saying that they liked the first one a lot, that they like Bill Moseley, that they came into this with good will and optimism, and that they were surprised at how awful the movie is.
When a film maker has this kind of good will extended to him, he owes it to the viewers to at least try a little. And this movie shows no effort at all on the part of the filmmakers. Your feeble suggestions about low budget and time constraints are meaningless. We've all seen amazing movies that were done on a shoestring budget, and time constraints are not our problem.
If you can't do something well, do not do it at all. If you didn't have time to do this movie right, you shouldn't have done it. The problem is, it is clear that lack of time was not the problem, so much as lack of ideas. No body likes having their time wasted by an unentertaining failure, which this film exemplifies.
So, yes, Tim Sullivan, and whoever wrote this movie, and whoever produced this movie, and who ever "financed" this movie, ALL of these people owe apologies to everyone who watched it, and they owe apologies to Bill Moseley and Lynn Shaye for giving them such crap roles in such a waste of film.
I don't see noone oweing anybody a apologie for making this film....i just watch it.....and yes i hated it!....part 1 which involved Robert Englund was way better....I don't go by reviews on any movie.....everyone as opinions...however i do look it up on here (imdb)too see peoples opinions....i go for the actors/actress who's playing in the films....if they have sucess in thier past films in my opinion i give them another shot and watch thier film......i watch this one because of Lynn Shaye.....Iv'e seen most of her films that she been in.....she seems to do her part/role well....far as this movie goes...low budgit?....deadlines?....im not in an big/huge movie industry.....i have had some experience with writing scripts, deadlines, setting up location/props...Filming ...which is quiet difficult if you have a tight budgit and deadlines....Don't know what happen in this case.....this movie was......watch it and see for yourself horror/comedy fans!
share Did anyone bother to watch the original, which was 2000 maniacs.. not the sequel 2001 maniacs? The town and it's inhabitants show up every hundred years to enact vengeance.. sure there couldv'e been a couple things changed where "they did so good that they do it every 20 years".. but to pack up GHOSTS on a *beep* bus and go on the road is so goddamned stupid it beggars belief.. and that "he only had a few days to film" .. it's a sequel of a film he did 5 years earlier.. he should know the "backstory" and the basic plot.. not like he had to learn Greek.. I OWN thousands.. and i do mean 1000's of films on vhs and dvd.. primarily horror and sci-fi.. so I went into this RIGHT AFTER WATCHING THE FIRST SEQUEL.. ready to see if it was up to snuff.. (oh.. I thought the 2005 film was a 5 1/2 or 6.. not bad )..sad to say.. I had to turn it off after seeing such douchebag characters.. they didn't make me want to see them killed just made me not want to see the bastards at all.. so i turned it off.. *beep* that *beep* *beep* stupid *beep* actors that seem to *beep* only know two or three *beep* words that aren't *beep* or *beep* see how stupid that looks written out.. tired of hearing *beep* asses that think saying *beep* covers for a bad script.. Lenny Bruce's day was in the early 60's.. OH LOOK it's making fun of "The Simple Life" which was probably canceled before this travesty was ever released.
Perhaps in the future all involved in making this turd can make porno.. on 2nd thought.. there are probably better actors in porn than this.. pathetic..
"Why don't you get a camera a make a movie?" why don't you go *beep* yourself.. I'm not the one making *beep* like this and pushing it on the public..
one of the worst movies we have ever seen, just terrible, it had so many continuity errors and bad dialogue and bad sex and truly bad bad bad everything
shareI agree this movie was so crappy that it was hard to watch it in one sitting. It was one of the worst and least entertaining movies that I have ever seen.
shareMy husband and I saw 2001 Maniacs a good few years ago. He liked it, I hated it (2 out of 10 for me). Hubby sat down tonight to watch this sequel. I was doing a crossword, then came to check my Facebook, so I was paying very little attention. However, I could hear the lines being delivered and I thought it was really wooden. I looked up a couple of times to see if I was imagining things and the actors and actresses all looked bored to me! My husband, who is a fan of horror films no matter what the budget, fell asleep for part of this and actually fast forwarded most of it! The "Custers Last Chicken Stand" the corn cob, "I'd love to die in a horror film" and the end did raise a giggle, I'll admit to that. At least in the first one, the cast looked hyped and interested, plus Robert Englund can actually act! Every time I see Bill Moseley in anything, to me, he looks like he couldn't act if his very life depended on it.
Before anyone says anything about "Well you don't make movies. You try making one", my answer is that I very much doubt I could. Therefore I don't churn out any old bollocks and expect people to pay for it! If you can't do a job well, you shouldn't be doing it. I once had a work trial being a sorter in a factory, I wasn't quick enough, so they didn't keep me and I wouldn't have expected them to because I wasn't up to it and didn't deserve to get paid for doing a poor job.
And all this talk of time/budget restraints. Of course that can be an issue and I appreciate that. But look at something like The Evil Dead (original). In my opinion, one of the best straight horror films. Next to no budget but highly atmospheric and capable acting. Bigger budget doesn't always equate to good film making anyway, in my opinion Transformers (Michael Bay) is a prime example of this. I think film making is about heart, a decent (not necessarily realistic) story and a cast that suits the roles given to them.
If you enjoyed this film, I have no issue with you and I certainly would not insult you. Your opinion is as valid as mine. I can only speak for me and would never state my above rantings as fact. I'm glad some people got enjoyment from this. Art is subjective.