IMDb > The Mangler Reborn (2005) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Mangler Reborn
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Mangler Reborn (V) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
Index 36 reviews in total 

15 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

A cyclic exercise in monotony

Author: jaywolfenstien from USA
16 August 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Imagine reading a book where Chapter One features a character named Rick trying to perform a task. Let's say he's trying to fix a computer. And in chapter one, Rick ultimately fails to get the job done. Now, imagine in Chapter Two a character named Mike tries to fix that exact same computer. Mike, too, fails. Then in Chapter Three the author introduces us to Jaimie who tackles the project, trying to correct what Mike screwed up, and solve the original problem ...

Now I ask, dear reader, what's the point? Ultimately, Mangler Reborn tells the story of three (technically four) characters one by one trying and failing to accomplish the exact same thing – escape from the house. This is a movie about futility, failure, and monotonous repetition. It spends most of its running time showing Rick trying and failing to pick practically every lock he comes across, exploring the seemingly abandoned house, hiding from the killer, trying to escape, and then dying. Then the film moves on to Mike who repeats the cycle, then the film continues on to Jaimie and her fellow prisoner.

Oh yeah, the ending of the film implies that the cycle continues indefinitely.

Mangler Reborn is a reality TV show for a possessed psychopath. The victims are not people, but rather chores for Hadley Watson to clean up. Loose screws that inconvenience him and wander around his domain for 15-30 minutes at a time before he finally breaks out the screw driver (or more literally: rubber mallet) and fixes the problem.

Over the last century of horror films, we've watched the villains go from tortured miserable yet strangely sympathetic souls to faceless killing machines who refuse to die. And then you reach the sad and depressing realization that not even the victims in this horror film, people destined to die terrible and bloody deaths, receive any sympathetic touches from the filmmakers.

I rooted for Rick purely for actor Reggie Bannister and his role in the Phantasm series. Mike? I didn't really care about him, especially after wasting my time trying and failing at the same things Rick failed at. Jamie? I hoped Jamie would survive solely because I was tired of watching failure after failure after failure to escape. I wanted Jamie to succeed just to break the monotony of the preceding 60 minutes. Nowhere did I root for a character because I liked the character or felt the character was competent, and nowhere did I get the sensation that any of these guys had enough screen time and development to carry the label "main character." Just fodder.

Thus, Mangler Reborn is a cold, mechanical, formulated, and emotionless journey. Perhaps that's satisfactory for the titular character, a cold, mechanical, emotionless machine; however, the horror genre is rooted in (dare I say "dependant upon") human emotional reaction and psychological manipulation. This film, unfortunately, treats its characters, its victims, like line items on the killer's grocery list and nothing more.

Then again, it's just as well. Even if Reborn did manage to muster the emotional investment to truly invoke horror, without a main character it lacks a focal point to channel it through.

As much as I want to be forgiving for the film's technical merits, because some of my favorite horror films were small independent and very limited productions, because I hate big-production studio PG13-ized remakes as much as the next horror fan and want to see the little guys succeed (Lord knows we need another John Carpenter) … I can't forgive Mangler Reborn. Like its (many) characters, the film tries but ultimately fails.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 33 people found the following review useful:

this movie sucks

Author: (digital_up)
5 December 2005

There was absolutely nothing else to rent at the video store so we ended up renting this movie thinking it would be alright. Boy, were we wrong! It was a total waste of time and money. The acting was amateur and the plot had no twists and was not thought out. The "machine" was pathetic. The whole movie basically took place in that house and there could not have been more then 10 people in the cast. It seems like a low budget movie and the special effects were terrible. Most of the movie did not have any music, but when there was, the music was annoying rather then adding suspense.

I would not recommend this movie to anyone.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Really low budgeted, but decent in it's own way.

Author: Prolox from Canada
14 January 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The best thing one could say about THE MANGLER REBORN is that it is (arguably) a better film than the first two MANGLER movies. Unlike MANGLER 2, THE MANGLER REBORN is a direct sequel to the first movie only, ignoring the second film entirely (which in turn ignored the first film).

The film opens up with an interesting opening credit sequence that is set against newspaper clippings, detailing the Mangler laundry Press being dismantled & the Blue Ribbon Foundry being shut down, due to a series of horrible accidents & the parts then sold at auction from which the repairman (the lead villain in the movie) has paid an enormous sum for them. Taking them home, he reconstructs the machine after he winds up being possessed & falling under the influence of the evil spirit, that inhabits it's pieces, this causes him to cement in all the windows of his home & re-enforce his front & back doors to prevent any kind of escape. This is unfortunate for those whom he kidnaps & keeps locked away & two robbers who make the mistake of breaking into his home, all of whom he feeds to the machine, whose hunger for human flesh is never satisfied.

The good news regarding THE MANGLER REBORN that while the film has many flaws, for the most part it works well enough to be a watchable (if slow moving at times) horror item. The film has nothing to do with the machine really, since it's mostly about a demoniacally possessed repairman, who kidnaps his customers to feed to the machine. Directors ERIK GARDNER & MATT CUNNINGHAM stage quiet a few effective moments of suspense & tension & manage to deliver several cool shots & there are a few gory bits along with the requisite nudity to help make it worth a look for most horror fans & the films plot is certainly more engaging than the previous entries, plus the acting is better than it was in the first two films, so for the most part, at least the film has that working in it's favour & any film weather good or bad, that has PHANTASM star REGGIE BANNISTER in it's cast, is always a good thing & it was fun seeing CRITTERS 3 star AIMEE BROOKS as the terrified heroine of the piece.

On the downside, the film's main story really has nothing to do with the Mangler laundry machine, in fact it's not a laundry machine anymore! it's now been refashioned by the repairman as some kind of warped, twisted machine, equipped with a large conveyor belt with a series of knives attached to moving gadgets that plunges into it's victims, grinds them up & then spews their innards through a large hose, that then spill's them into the basement. THE MANGLER REBORN also has many faults, mostly due to trying to do some pretty ambitious things on such a small budget & the ending is a major let down & leaves itself as a set up for a potential fourth instalment, that will most likely never come. And while the directors (as already mentioned) manage to deliver a few effective moments, many scenes that could have had a few moments of suspense & tension are shot from the wrong angles & not handled properly. Plus the film's low budget is clearly obvious, since the film is set at one location (the killer's house) looks cheap & sports a really poor score (oddly there is not score playing during the end credits).

STEPHEN KING, JEFF BURR (PUMPKINHEAD 2) & SUSAN E CUNNINGHAM (Wife of Friday The 13th creator SEAN S. CUNNINGHAM & who also edited the first two films of the classic franchise) are given special thanks at the end of the film.

All in all, while far from a classic in the genre, THE MANGLER REBORN manages to be a decent entry in the horror genre, it's made with heart & it shows & the film for the most part has many interesting idea's & themes that would make for an interesting future scenario for the series. But strictly for those who watched & liked the first two.

*** stars

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

The Mangler Re-Bored

Author: ghoulieguru from The Movie Crypt
31 January 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Reggie Bannister from the Phantasm movies makes his move away from Don Coscarelli in this pitiful would-be sequel to the Mangler. The original, which was based partially on a Stephen King short story, was about a laundry machine that ate people. Robert Englund played the psychotic owner of the laundry who fed people to the machine. It was basically Little Shop of Horrors with a laundry machine instead of a plant.

This one jettisoned the supernatural laundry machine and went for a more straightforward serial killer tale. The story is about a repairman who buys the old Mangler on eBay and starts restoring it in his basement. Once the machine nears completion, it possesses him and turns him into its minion. The rest of the movie is about this repairman going around and getting meat for his machine. There's a lot of screaming done by women as he hits them repeatedly with a hammer. I have to wonder about the two guys that wrote and directed this movie, and where this misogynistic streak is coming from.

It seems like the writers/directors were going for that unrelenting Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Haute Tension, Saw, Hostel kind of vibe that seems to be all the rage these days. But the Mangler Reborn wound up being unrelenting only in its capacity to bore me.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

We Like Aimee Brooks

Author: aimless-46 from Kentucky
26 March 2006

While "The Mangler Reborn" is certainly not a masterpiece, it is better than what is reflected in most comments about the film. It is a rare example of a low budget horror film that is played totally straight, no humor and very little self-parody.

With a budget of just $85,000 they had to be very inventive so don't expect elaborate production design or special effects. The title character looks like a cafeteria dishwasher being operated by "Edward Scissorhands". They try to pass the thing off as sinister by always showing it in shadows. When a victim is fed to the thing they change to very tight shots of knives and clippers, trying to make it seem like they are part of the machine rather than being held by crew members off-camera. Obviously the film would benefit from a more elaborate and diabolical device, or at least one with some credibility.

But the Stephen King inspired premise is a good one and the first two thirds of the film set it all up very nicely. It is almost captivating for a while but finally runs out of gas and plods through the final 30 minutes.

An appliance repairman (Weston Blakesley) has acquired the cursed parts from the original "Mangler" (named for the old-style washing machine with external rollers to squeeze the water out of clothes) and is obsessively working to reinvent the lethal thing. Eventually he becomes possessed by the machine and more zombie than human. He must feed it humans because he needs to drink their "squeezins" to keep his zombie body from decaying.

Blakesley is quite credible as the slack jawed zombie who takes a rubber mallet on his repair calls and acquires his victims from among his customers. His life is complicated when a father and son burglar team (Reggie Bannister and Scott Speiser) attempt to rob his house and when his daughter comes for a visit.

Aimee Brooks gets a whole bunch of standard scream queen moments and is extremely attractive.

The main problem is that not enough happens to sustain an eighty-minute feature. Had a parallel story periodically cut in and built up a bit of suspense, "The Mangler Reborn" could have been a engaging little film.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Makes no sense

Author: Kjartan Einarsson ( from Iceland
8 March 2006

First Mangler movie is not all bad, typical b horror flick nothing special but not that bad. Second movie was bad but one could tolerate it cause you kind of know what to espect from this sort of films. The Mangler Reborn makes no sense, the plot is rubbish and reminds me of a cheap Saw ripoff. Horror films are scary and suppose to be this one is not the least bit scary in anyway, there are few gruesome scenes that are more of bad taste than anything else. I get the feeling that the whole crew of this movie just went through the motions of making it and put minimum effort into it, there is truly nothing good about this film at all. Evil Dead,Bad Taste and the likes of them are great films that i really enjoy, made with a small budget but Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson made them with there heart and soul. Stay clear of this movie and i have learn my lesson and will stay clear if they make another one.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

B-Movie done bad

Author: ooosanteooo from United Kingdom
20 July 2006

This is one crazy and bad bad movie. I usually like B Horror movies, but this one is just over the top. The only thing, I repeat the ONLY thing worth to watch is the split second shower scene of Aimee, and thats only 1 sec long so really - there is nothing interesting in this film. The acting is over the top bad. You can notice that the conversations are not synced properly, i.e. the one stops after a pause the other resumes .. i mean its so bad, its ridiculous. I think I would have done a better job. Especially the scene where the two thugs are in the car an the father smokes one cigarette after the other, everything is so lame and; ridiculous, what more can I say. The gore is practically inexistent, the so-called horror scenes are very badly done. Only one scene was good, where Hadley takes something out of his eye or similar. However I must say there was something compelling about the film which made me watch it until the end. Its just so bad that it will make you watch it. I pity my 2€ for renting this garbage, not even the shower scene can make up to this starring the very beautiful Aimee Brooks. Good things will come!

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

This movie can be summed up in one word..

Author: flawfan1 from Louisville
15 January 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

HORRIBLE! OK, I usually don't take the time to write movie reviews on these sites but this movie was so bad that I actually felt like I wasted 2 hours of my life on it.. and if I can just convince one other person NOT to watch it then I will feel a little better.

Let me just start with the positive. A hot chick got naked. And that's it. The story was horrible. The acting was horrible. The plot was horrible. The "machine" was horrible. The dialog was horrible. Me and my girlfriend both actually busted out laughing several times at how stupid the characters were... and she couldn't sleep after watching "Army of Darkness" (a comedy horror) so that should tell you something.

Now, on to the movie. If anyone has ever been frustrated by a movie where a girl is getting chased by a killer and trips and falls and takes ten minutes to get up then don't even put this movie in your DVD players because that's how the entire movie felt for me. Just when you thought something stupid and unrealistic happens.. something even more stupid and unrealistic happens 10 seconds later. FOR INSTANCE... the "burglars" pick the killer's deadbolt on his back door in like 2 seconds but when it shuts behind them they are like "OH MY GOD, WE ARE LOCKED IN!" What, does picking a lock only work from the outside? Or how about that when they are outside of the house they can see in the windows and he actually goes and looks into one of the windows before he breaks in but when they are getting chased all of the sudden the windows are all bricked up. Or when the guy looks up at the ceiling and sees a n access to the attic then the next shot he is in it... how the hell someone gets into the attic from 10 feet below in 2 seconds without a ladder or chair baffles me. Or when he is in the attic looking at the killer putting a wallet into a drawer he whispers "he's going to bed"... how in the hell you can tell someone is going to bed just by putting something in a drawer makes no sense to me. Or maybe it's that the killers uses a stupid rubber mallet the whole movie and not a single victim in the movie ever thinks, "Hey, he's just an old, fat man with a rubber mallet... I think we can take him." Or when the killer falls asleep in a chair (isn't it convenient that he falls asleep in the middle of the day even tho he knows people are running around his house?) And while he is asleep the younger robber sneaks up and takes his keys... why didn't he just bash him over the head with that wonderfully effective rubber mallet? I could go on and on but I think I've wasted enough of my time already.


Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Good movie but pretty cheap

Author: aries01 from UK
5 August 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I watched this film a few years back, while I was very bored; I was told it was very bad (I had the tape wedged under my TV up to that point, now its in the tape collection!). This film is about a demon/devilish laundry machine which was found in pieces at a junk shop and reconstructed by a repair man, as his new home washing/ironing machine (possibly because he needed a cheap one and wanted a nostalgic appliance). Little did he know it was possessed (or the parts where; they where from the original machine in the mangler 1995). As he builds they machine it comes to life and the repair man is forced to fuse with it and is made to do its bidding. He now has to find victims, mainly customers to feed to the machine, so he can drink the by-products; this makes him live as the fusing had turned him into a zombie and he would now decay without feeding on it. The music really went with the film and made the atmosphere feel like the machine was going to jump out at any given moment (but it does not, as it hides in the shadows all the time). It was a fairly low budget film and I believe it went straight to tape, its about as scary as an over rated hair drier

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

It's a terrible movie, but I loved every second of it

Author: thetrueisyo from United States
15 January 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First let me say that, yes, this movie is quite awful and will go down as one of the worst movies I've seen. Thankfully though, this is one of those awful horror movies that's funnier than many comedies I've seen. The first big laugh came during the opening credits, where the camera pans across newspaper clippings that give some back story, saying things like "Machine considered 'cursed'". However, most of the clippings are just things the director printed from Word and cut out (ie, they're clearly not from the newspaper). The second big laugh came when the main girl is dumped by her boyfriend and goes to cry while taking a shower. During the shower, the camera moves directly from her face to her chest and stays there for a good 10 seconds. There is not any attempt to make her nudity seem subtle. There's a series of laughs from the bad guy's tool to subdue his victims, that being a small rubber mallet. See, I grew up around tools like these, and I can tell you that what he used is not threatening in the least. However, every time he hits someone with it (approximately 51 times) the camera focuses on the mallet and plays foreboding music (the best part is at the end when he's waiting at another victim's door). No character does anything to avoid the mallet of doom (or Frank, as we named it), specifically the bad guy's daughter, who says "Daddy?" and stands, waiting to be hit in the head. Much more can be said about this "film," but you really should see for yourself. Ed Wood Reborn

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Ratings Awards External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history