IMDb > 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
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
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]
Index 60 reviews in total 

40 out of 46 people found the following review useful:

Embarrassingly Terrible

1/10
Author: terrencepatrix from United States
16 July 2010

This movie is just inexplicably awful. I watched the first one. I thoroughly enjoyed the first one. I absolutely LOVE campy "B" movie horror films, with whacky over the top acting and violence. This movie had none of that. Zero. Ziltch. Nada.

I'm not some "fanboy" speaking out against a sequel that didn't match his preconceived notions of what a proper sequel should be. I'm speaking out against a terrible terrible movie, that has 20 something positive reviews which are obvious plants by people involved in the production. There's no possible way anyone, no matter how die hard a horror/camp fan could rate this a 10. It's a mockery.

Starting off, this entire movie takes place in a field with tents. That's the entire set...an empty field with tents. There's no old southern feeling town, there's no old southern people. No, it's tent's set up in a field. That's the ENTIRE MOVIE SET.

Secondly, almost all of the sound is dubbed in. They apparently didn't have the budget for an actual sound crew, so all spoken bits and sound effects are dubbed over the video. This doesn't come off as cheeky, campy, original, funny, etc. It comes off as cheap and irritating. The dialogue, volume, and emotion doesn't match the physical acting. It's pathetic.

Third, the plot. There is no plot. They took the fantastic premise of the original movie, and meshed it with some ridiculous mockumentary of "A simple life", that Paris Hilton reality show from 5 years ago. They took an RV of horrible actors pretending to be this reality show, and they crashed into a random field, and happened to meet 10 or so southern weirdos. With tents. There were maybe 3 or so returning actors, which was somewhat amusing, but overall the horrible dubbing ruined it all. Scenes just randomly lead into the next with no lead up. There is NO direction whatsoever.

Fourth. The so called "gore". The budget is so shoe-string that almost all of the gore is actually shown off-camera. That's right, a horror movie, with a terrible plot and budget, terrible acting, no set budget, absolutely nothing to offer but that "shock value" gore...DOESN'T HAVE GORE.

Fifth and last. Boobs. Yes there are some boobs. But they're not the boobs that you want. Some are very nice, yes. I love boobs. They make bad movies watchable at times. Not this time. A few of the boobs are bad boob jobs. The especially nice boobs don't get near enough time to shine.

Finally, this movie is an insult. I don't mind low budget horror. I personally try to find those "B" and "C" movie gems that are out there. This movie takes a solid dump on anyone who would ever pony up the money to purchase it. I can't believe that they got a couple of established actors to work in this crap. There is literally no redeeming point in this movie. It didn't deliver on any point. The humor, while attempting to be "shocking" is shoved down your throat, it's obvious and tedious. Avoid at all costs.

This movie is terrible. Nothing like the first. If you haven't seen either...watch the first, and avoid, NEVER NEVER WATCH THIS ONE. I want to say more terrible things about this movie, but I'll just be wasting space. Just please believe me that I love this genre of movies, and that this one does not deserve a viewing.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Not A Patch On His Last Offering

3/10
Author: drumdrum77 from Bristol
20 July 2010

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

So Bad...It's embarrassing!

2/10
Author: Nightmare-Maker (evilashshotgun@yahoo.co.uk) from United Kingdom, Colchester.
24 July 2010

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!!!!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Doesn't live up to the first

5/10
Author: House_of_Gonzo
16 July 2010

Well, I just watched this last night and let me preface this by saying I love the first one. The first had original deaths, was funny and the production value was wonderful as is the acting. Well, the new one doesn't hit on any of these.

The acting--Bill Moesley, as always, did a wonderful job. He made Mayor Buckman his own and you could almost forget that Robert Englund played him previously (scheduling conflicts wouldn't allow him to reprise the role). Lin Shaye was also very funny. The rest of the Maniacs did a decent job but where the acting lacked was the actors that get killed off. Not good at all.

Deaths--As I said, the previous film had some great kills, and, as weird as it is to say, they were fun. The ones in this film, not so much. I can't say much more about them as I don't want to give anything way but I think you may be disappointed. Now, I did see the rated version so that may have something to do w/it. However, in order to see the unrated I'd have to buy it and I'm not sure I want to do that.

Production value--I know they only spent 2 weeks shooting this and First Look is on board as apposed to Lions Gate who did the first so I have a feeling that they didn't have much money to work with. That being said, the audio for the entire film sounded as if it was ADR. The voices didn't seem natural and in one scene in particular it sounded as if the actor did his lines over the phone. It was very distracting.

All in all, I was pretty let down. I try not to get to excited about films because I set the bar high but I did w/this anyway and it certainly didn't meet expectations. I'd say 2.5 stars out of 5.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

Appalling

1/10
Author: robert haynes from South Africa
1 August 2010

Train wreck of a film and before the hate mail starts - no budget is no excuse - I could have done a hell of a lot more with 400 grand (any takers :) The film looked like it was shot on video (HD is fine but needs to be graded properly) thrown together in about a week or so and featured some truly diabolical performances.

The only saving grace and giggle this crap got out of me was from the fabulous Lin Shaye (who was slumming here) and Bill Mosely please get your agents to read the scripts before doing the films - YOU deserve so much better than this - sheesh - and I enjoyed the first one. It's independent efforts like this one that are going to sink the indie horror scene not re-invigorate it. Unfortunately due to the offensive nature of most scenes it'll probably make a good return on investment and there'll probably be a third but for God's sake at least work with a script that doesn't seem like it was written on the back of a piece of toilet paper, and hire an editor who can grade your picture properly.

A wasted opportunity.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Bad, Bulk Rate Direct to Video Horror

4/10
Author: TheExpatriate700 from United States
21 August 2010

2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is bad. Very bad. It lacks the originality of its source material, the 1960s Herschell Gordon Lewis film 2000 Maniacs, and is crippled by largely poor production values.

This sequel takes the maniacs out of the South, as a lack of victims forces them to go on the road to Iowa. There, they encounter a pair of Paris Hilton / Nicole Richie clones and their reality TV entourage. Carnage follows.

Perhaps the most glaring problem of the film is its death scenes. Although they shed plenty of blood, at least in the unrated edition, they are not particularly creative. Only one of the killings is at all original or entertaining. In a franchise that prides itself on outlandish deaths, this is a fatal flaw.

Furthermore, due to the extremely low budget, the movie lacks in some of the basic areas of film making. The sound quality is terrible, so that I had to turn my television up to top volume just to make out the dialogue, some of which is clearly dubbed. Aside from Bill Moseley and Lin Shaye, the acting is bargain basement variety. Even more damning for an unrated horror film, one of the deaths-a hanging-occurs off screen, one suspects because the filmmakers could not afford the safety equipment or stunt person to safely simulate it.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Even the blood, boobs, & violence can't save this one

4/10
Author: Anthony Pittore III (Shattered_Wake) from Los Angeles, CA
17 July 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Five years ago, Robert Englund starred in one of the most entertaining of the modern remakes, '2001 Maniacs.' That film did what I believe most remakes should do: It took a somewhat forgotten film, Herschell Gordon Lewis's 'Two Thousand Maniacs!,' and did something a bit different with it. It was a change from other remakes like that take already great & well known films and ruin them.

Now in 2010, the Maniacs of Pleasant Valley, Georgia, return for '2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams.' In this installment, the undead Southerners head out on the road and meet up with a spoof version of the brainless duo Paris Hilton & Nicole Ritchie's show 'The Simple Life.' The crew of the show is lured into the town's centennial celebration where they, like many other Yanks before them, become the revenge sacrifices of the town's evil leaders.

Before the release of 'Field of Screams,' many wondered why Robert Englund decided to drop out for this sequel. However, after viewing the film, the only wonder I had was why horror legend Bill Moseley decided to replace him in the film. The first film, while it was far from perfect, had a certain charm about it that made some of the flaws of the film easy to look past. However, 'Field of Screams' loses that charm, making the absolutely unbearable writing and acting just about impossible to watch. There is plenty of great gore, crazy kills, and over-the-top humour to make the film watchable, and that will please plenty of horror fans. However, the script and actors, even for a film like this, are just too awful to look past.

Final Verdict: 4/10, boosted a bit due to Bill Moseley & Lin Shaye.

-AP3-

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

AWFUL sequel to a very decent movie

2/10
Author: Redfield from Russia
22 July 2010

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

This is the WORST MOVIE EVER MADE. EVER. Thank goodness for movie piracy.

1/10
Author: Movie Review Guy from CA
16 July 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I watched this film because I am know one of the actors and wanted to see their work. I saw the first 2001 Maniacs and at least that was somewhat entertaining. However, this one was NOT. AT ALL. This is why people pirate movies, so they don't have to waste their hard earned money on garbage like this. This movie isn't even a download. Save your bandwidth. Seriously.

"terrencepatrix" has is explained specifically on why this movie is HORRIBLE. Without rehashing what he said, I will give you the reasons why I am writing a bad review WHILE I'm watching this movie... it's so bad, I would rather surf the internet and do something productive with the time I am losing off my LIFE seeing this. In fact, I won't even call my review a review. I'll call it a point by point NEED TO KNOW about this movie. I'm at a point of not giving a damn if I am using bad grammar or syntax writing this. This is a rant about how this movie made me feel while seeing it. It's worse than sitting in an emergency room waiting your turn. At least then, there is a point.

- The plot is the worst thing ever. They just try to mash a bunch of "jokes" (many of them racist), a bunch of boobs and naked guys (Tim Sullivan is apparently homosexual, thus to satisfy his requirements of making this film homo-friendly). It's like watching a really bad episode of some late night show having skits trying to be funny.

- The girls aren't even that hot. Looks like the it's back to the pole for them.

- If you're Jewish, you would find this highly offensive. One of the characters is supposedly Jewish. They say "Jews run Hollywood"--- well, not this time. The fact this movie was even made boggles the mind. STRAIGHT TO DVD (or in this case online)...

- The acting .. O M F G... the "acting"... Don't quit your day jobs guys. Seriously. Don't.

- Tim Sullivan should be ashamed of himself for writing such a horrible storyline. I know you gotta pay the bills dude, but really? - Last time I checked we don't give a damn about Paris Hilton and "The Simple Life"... you're only in the wrong DECADE trying to exploit this. Unless you live in a distant far away country away from North America where the show is new.

- The racial stereotypes. Blacks, Asians, Jewish people, and any ethnicity I have seen in this film should AVOID and BOYCOTT this movie. We get it, the characters are rednecks, but you're only doing a disservice towards America, the South (the Civil War was over ages ago, let it go) and the fact they got an Asian girl and a black girl to do this movie is an ABSOLUTE SHAME. If your parents saw this movie, they would give you the beats for selling out your culture.

- Imagine going to a carnival in a small town. Now imagine no rides, no cotton candy, no stuffed animals. Now add some blood, some really bad accents, a lot of half naked (or completely naked) women and men from Hollywood's D list. Now combine that with a bad plot, overacting, and an overwhelming sense of bitterness. I hope you don't live in Cleveland and watched this movie... July will give you a really really bitter taste in your mouth, especially after watching this movie.

"Chicken so fresh it's painful" The sign should have said "a movie so bad, it's painful" People who gave this movie anything higher than a 4 has REALLY poor taste in movies. Any SANE adult knows this movie isn't even that funny (if at all), the gore scenes are so poor budget, and this is 1 hour and 23 minutes I want back.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Awful sequel (some spoilers)

2/10
Author: cinemascribe-3 from United States
18 August 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

2001 Maniacs : Field of Screams

In 2006, some people got together and decided to update H.G. Lewis's gorehound cult classic 2000 Maniacs for the modern era.

The result was 2001 Maniacs, an often genuinely funny, gleefully gruesome exercise in horror comedy that featured a terrific leading performance from Robert Englund as George W. Buckman, undead mayor of Pleasant Valley. The basic premise behind this is that -back during the civil war- some errant union soldiers who were part of Sherman's march wandered into the unsuspecting town and murdered every living thing within its borders. So now the restless dead arise every year to exact their cannibalistic revenge on anyone hailing from the north until the number of their victims matches the number killed in Pleasant Valley- 2001.

Now fast forward to 2010 and Sullivan and Kobin (assisted by producer Christopher Tuffin) have brought us a sequel , bearing the nifty little title 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams . Eli Roth, however, did not choose to return for producing duties on this one. I have to wonder how much of the magic the first time around was due to his behind the scenes influence, because - despite having the same writers and director- this sequel sucks.

What's really heartbreaking is that the premise is a good one. The ghouls of Pleasant Valley, having once again made preparations for another year of slaughter, realize that this time they have no takers. After a promising opening sequence where they deal with the local sheriff, Mayor Buckman (a scene stealing Bill Moseley, who proves he's a horror superstar by making the role entirely his own) decides that they will gather en masse' on the town bus and take their festival on the road.

At this point the film introduces us to to a group of travellers cruising in an RV as part of a reality TV show along the lines of MTV's Real World.

The RV comes across a detour sign and is re-routed right into the newly christened Pleasant Valley Travelling Jamboree. From there the film slips into essentially the same territory as the first, as the northerners are picked off in a variety of extremely gory ways .

The acting sucks. I've seen Troma flicks with performances that put the ones in this movie to shame. Moseley is terrific, as are Lynn Shaye and Ryan Fleming (both of whom return from the original as , respectively, Granny and Hucklebilly) - but in all other regards this is strictly amateur hour.

Since there are some good gore set pieces, I might have tended to overlook the acting- after all, this isn't great art. But Field of Screams also manages to commit the unforgivable sin of cult gore cinema- it's boring.

We spend scene after scene watching the idiots from the RV wander around and behave in a manner suggesting that they actually died at birth and -though their brains are inoperative- their nerves have been firing for twenty odd years since, giving the appearance of life. Nothing they do is particularly funny (which is really annoying in the instance of a pair of Paris and Nicole clones, since Hilton and Ritchie are so out of the spotlight at this point culturally that the inclusion of their personality types is lame to begin with) and so many moments unfold with only these people on screen (minus any sign of the Pleasant Valley folk) that they begin to feel like torture.

Then there's the pacing. I kid you not..at times it's as if the people in this film are sleepwalking through a river of molasses.

Case in point: there's a moment inside of one of the festival tents where Buckman informs several of the surviving northerners (who have all been bound together) that they have a chance to live if they search for and find various weapons hidden around the jamboree site while the ghouls hunt them. If they arm themselves and can fight their way out before being killed, they're free to go. So what happens? We get a shot of these people walking -not running, mind you, but walking -away from the tent after being sent out to locate the weapons while two banjo players idly stroll behind them . Now, personally, if a town full of cannibalistic shades had just untied me and told me that all I had to do to avoid ending up on the menu was find the gun hidden somewhere close by, walking wouldn't enter into it. I'd be rocketing into the night looking for something to whack a hillbilly with.

Throw in some second rate, racially charged attempts at comedy, a horrendous and ill considered Flashdance parody and a character who can apparently shrug off being impaled on a pitchfork as if it were a paper cut and you end up with a film that misses the mark disastrously. Excellent splatter effects and a top notch turn by genre great Moseley are not enough to cover the multitude of pacing and performance issues prevalent in this sequel. A definite disappointment.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history