|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|Index||19 reviews in total|
I won't waste a whole lot of time of this one because as far as I'm concerned it isn't really a movie to start with, just a careless mish-mash of borrowed footage and embarrassingly amateurish new footage made solely for the purpose of pasting the whole mess together and call it a "Boogeyman" sequel. Literally 80% of this film is stolen from its far superior predecessor "The Boogeyman", a film that the writers of this garbage apparently didn't even bother to watch because they couldn't even get actress Suzanna Love's original character's name (Lacy) right. And to add insult to injury the killer is invisible in the original footage and visible in the new footage, apparently they think their audience is as stupid as they are. 0 out of 10 and I wish IMDb's rating system went that low, the most callous and blatant attempt to rip off people's money I've even seen, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
this, is NOT one of those films it is one of the biggest pieces of tripe I have ever scene, the camera work is trying to be flashy but it really just crap the whole thing looks like the red shoe diaries, but without the sex, the only reason I bought this was I wanted to try out dvd and this was the cheapest one I could find, possibly the worst buy of my life and could have put you off dvd forever, the soundtrack is REALLY tacky and most of the movie is made up of endless repeats of clips from the first two films, why anyone would want to make a movie as awful as this is beyond me, if they had really attempted to make an original movie and failed I would be nicer in this review but they don't they just got the rights to reproduce stuff from the first two and then edit it and repeat it into this film with about maybe under 1 3rd original footage which is about up to the standards of film school students, DO NOT buy this movie. the only entertainment this dvd can offer is if you were to stick it in the microwave and watch the flashing lights! UTTER UTTER UTTER UTTTER unbelievable GARBAGE! 0/10 if only the voting system would allow that.
Don't waste your time on this one. This is one of the most boring horror films ever made. It looks like this wasn't even Low-Budget...IT WAS NO-BUDGET! The acting is just about as bad as you can get on celluloid. Pass on this atrocity because it's not even worth a penny.
The original Boogeyman was a silly but entertaining supernatural
slasher flick. It was by no means a great film but fun in the right
frame of mind. The third instalment in this series, Return of the
Boogeyman, on the other hand, is simply atrocious. It consists of two
things. Firstly, cheap and lifeless new footage. Secondly, LOADS of
recycled bits from the first movie. The new material is unbelievably
amateurish but not in an amusingly inept way, simply incredibly
tedious. This footage has clearly been knocked together quickly and
without any effort. It serves as a framing device for the endless clips
from the first (and possibly second) movies. And boy, do they milk
those clips from the earlier films; sometimes reusing sequences over
and over again. The only new addition to these parts is a voice over
that pointlessly describes exactly what we can see with our own eyes.
The whole experience of watching this is truly mind-numbing.
Return of the Boogeyman is an example of the very worst kind of exploitation flick; the kind that exploits the audience in a highly cynical way. I want to keep this review brief and to the point because this film deserves no more. There is nothing here of value at all. This is worthless.
This started like a low budget movie and only got worse. The acting was terrible, especially by the Dr. Everything about this total waste of my time makes me angry that anything this bad is sold to take up 2 hours of my life. I really think that Plan 9 From Outer Space was better than this. Any TV Movie would be a pleasure to watch after this turkey.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I found this at a store somewhere in town for $3 bucks, I discovered
that it was on EP mode when I looked at the tape, but that didn't
bother me, I mean if it's a good movie who cares? I had seen the first
BOOGEYMAN movie (which wasn't great but was better than most horror
films) & although I never seen Part 2, I heard it was kind of crappy,
when I sat down to watch this, I could not believe my eyes, this movie
was just down right awful! it runs for like 75 minutes, but it really
only has about 15 minutes of new footage the rest is clips of the first
movie. From what I can tell of the story, it's about a doctor & his
assistant who tries to help a girl who has psychic visions of the
killer from the first film & has visions of his killings from Part 1 &
well she has to get rid of those visions by I'm assuming, using her
mind & going back to the past to kill him during his first reign of
terror, now remember I said I'm assuming, it was really hard to tell
what the actual plot was I'm just going by my own instincts since I
could barely hear what they were saying in the film, in fact if you
ever have the misfortune of stumbling upon this, you may very well have
to press your ear to the screen to hear what they are saying, the
picture is so dark & utterly awful looking (Though I guess it could be
argued that I had stumbled upon a bootleg copy of the film) there's no
scares, no good acting & awful direction, the back of the video box
stated that & I quote, "RETURN OF THE BOOGEYMAN will make A NIGHTMARE
ON ELM STREET look like sweat dreams & sugar plums!" I wonder how much
money the film makers paid the guy who made the box to write this,
quiet a lot I'm assuming, considering the fact that if he saw this he
would not have wrote that. Dear Reader if you read this review please
take my warning, stay away from this! it's not a sequel to the
BOOGEYMAN, just the original film edited into fifteen minutes of new
footage & released! save your money otherwise you'll be just like me &
whomever else watched this, you'll be wasting 75 minutes of your life
that you cannot get back!. The ending leaves a set up for a BOOGEYMAN
4, if there is one I hope they ignore this all together & have the
decency to make a sequel that does not consist of 85% of the first
film. I'm really hoping that I was ripped off & that this was some
cheap 6th grade student film that accidentally found it's way in the
video box & distributed, I mean I cannot imagine anyone making
something as awful as this!
How many times can we see the radio dropped into the tub?
Painful to watch.
Felt like I was being punched in the face.
Not worth the $5 for the DVD.
This girl is on a beach, ever so mildly surprised by a bald fat guy
with a stocking on his head, she runs to the water to get away from
him, but then she's afraid to get her wittle footsies wet, so she
starts to turn around. Fat guy in a wife-beater tank top and a stocking
over his head chases her until she runs near a couple of other people,
then he gives up the chase. Not a very determined man. Apparently she
begins having nightmares about this "man with no face" killing people
on a small farm (the events of the original film) This so-called "man
with no face" clearly does have a face, it's just slightly obscured by
the stocking over his head, you moron! Her shrink comments: "Annie
continues to have nightmares, terrifying daydreams" - a bit of a
contradiction here, doc. Shrink mutters "Annie and I have gone back in
time" - no, she's just narrating numerous flashbacks to the first film,
you bloody idiot. Shrink: "For the first time, Annie clearly identifies
the time and space of the murder" Wait, I thought you said that the two
of you had gone back in time? Shrink: "I'm not sure whether Annie
fantasized, or whether the murder really took place" - but you just
said you think she's gone back in time!
But then at the end of this film, we are supposed to believe that this film (from 1994) and the original (from 1980) ran concurrently. What in the hell is going on here?
A takes-forever scene of a radio being dropped into the tub is flashed-back to several times throughout the film, so we get to see flashbacks of scenes that took place during the course of this film, coupled with endless quick-cutting, and (much like the second film) inaudible sound and dialogue, and completely random and unnecessary tinting.
The radio-in-the-bathtub scene played again. The flashback to part one followed by the bathtub scene again. A dream of a flashback within a flashback. A flashback within a flashback to a previously flashed-back to scene from the film! Again, what the bloody hell is going on here?! These M. C. Escher-like angles of logic and interspersed flashbacks could disrupt the space/ time continuum.
Annie: "They walk inside, they are now entering the living room. There's another girl. They are talking, still in the living room. Natalie (actually Lacey) and her husband decide to walk upstairs. They continue walking upstairs." They've edited the killings shown in flashback to the first film, but they show spellbinding scenes like that, and scenes of people eating apples and folding laundry and cleaning up the bedroom in their entireties, complete with a narration telling us what we're watching for the fourth time.
Annie: "The mirror glows red. Red. A piece flies into Natalie's (again, it's Lacey's) eye", while laying nude on a mirror. Guy: "How old were you when discovered you had this special gift?" That's dialogue gold, I tell you.
If my comments make little sense to you, how the hell do you think the viewers of this film feel? This could be one of the ultimate so-bad-it's-good films of all time, or it could just suck like hell, depending on one's perspective.
This movie was terrible! I am a huge horror film fan and really enjoyed the first movie. Suzanna Love should be embarrassed to even be associated with this film! The entire movie consists of flashbacks from the first movie with voice over narration giving a play by play of what we are seeing! They didn't even get the facts from the first movie correct. Her name wasn't "Natalie" it was "Lacey"! It wasn't 15 years ago, it was 20! They weren't "Natalie's mom and dad" they were "Lacey's aunt and uncle"! Come on!!! And, even though they keep calling her "Natalie" they didn't bother to edit out the part (in a flashback from the first film) where her brother Willie screams out "Lacey!". I also seem to remember the narrator "Annie" stating that the boy was going to harm the mother. Seriously, did they even bother watching the first film?
in fact,it's basically the same movie.and they couldn't even get the time line of events correct.maybe that was intentional due to laziness or not caring.either way,this thing is a real woofer.it doesn't even deserved to be called a movie.i viewed this as a so called second feature on the disc containing the original The Boogeyman.i thought my head would explode,and i urge you to run as far in the opposite direction of this thing,if you should be cursed with the misfortune of combing across it's path.it should come with a warning label like:Warning-may cause your i.q to drop several points if you are within it's vicinity.for me,there's no doubt this thing is a 0/10
|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|Plot summary||Ratings||External reviews|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|