Paramount Pictures wanted to produce a bigger budget sequel to the hit movie The Boogey Man (1980), but director/producer Ulli Lommel didn't want to work for a big studio and decided to make the film (which he later had pulled from circulation) as independent production. See more »
Where I come from, we don't have boogeymens, we only have goblins.
See more »
Under interrogation from the police, art-house film-maker turned horror director Mickey Lombard (Ulli Lommel) gives his account of the events that have resulted in his arrest for a series of grisly murders.
In the mid 80s, UK horror fans were treated with utter contempt by the BBFC when the organisation saw fit to draw up a list of films they deemed unsuitable for public viewing due to their graphic naturea list which included several films that are now recognised as classics of the genre. To make matters even worse, this 'video nasty' list also included certain titles that were indisputably complete and utter garbage. Years later, horror fans who actively seek out all of the official 'nasty' titles for the sake of completion can find themselves playing a game of horror movie Russian roulette.
One video nasty that is most definitely the movie equivalent of a loaded chamber is Ulli Lommell's Boogeyman II (AKA Revenge of the Boogeyman), an absolutely dire snooze-fest that almost makes taking a bullet to the brain seem like the preferable option (it would certainly involve a lot less suffering). Consisting primarily of regurgitated footage from the first film, plus a few additional scenes starring the director himself and some risible supernatural killings (including death by electric toothbrush!?!), Boogeyman II makes most of the other nasties look like classics in comparison (so perhaps it's not an entirely worthless flick after all).
So bad is the film, in fact, that it has been suggested by some (including Lommell himself, unsurprisingly) that the whole thing was a massive two fingers up to the film industry by a disgruntled director unable to receive funding for anything but horror films. If this was the case, then I guess Lommell succeeded: his film is a joyless experience from start to finish, one which must have had his investors seething with rage.
Incredibly, twenty years after its initial release, director Lommell issued a re-edited 'Redux' version intended to finally realise his original vision. If anything, this cut is even worse than the first one.
1 of 2 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?