Return of the Boogeyman (Video 1994) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
17 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A cynical and worthless waste of time
Red-Barracuda16 December 2008
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.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Worse than garbage, a blatant rip off (0 out of 10)
andybob-316 December 2002
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!
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Sometimes there are films that while they look bad turn out to be great...
Sic Coyote11 December 1999
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.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
One of the worst horror movies ever
Katatonia21 September 2002
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.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
One of the worst.
TC-426 December 1998
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.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
How many times can we see the radio dropped into the tub?
MACREADY-38 October 1999
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.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The absolute worst... and not in a good way.
Briguy-1428 November 2005
The ENTIRE MOVIE is flashbacks from the first Boogeyman movie as well as, inexplicably, footage from another Uli Lommel / Suzanna Love film Brainwaves. It is framed with some more current (from the early 90's anyway) footage that is boring, poorly acted and cheaply shot. Not only is the film almost completely flashbacks, they REPEAT the same flashbacks throughout the film. So you see the recycled footage over and over again, as if you hadn't seen it already. As if the originals weren't bad enough. I've never seen a movie so padded.... Someone was milking the last dollar out of these films. Total ripoff. And talk about padding... why do I have to write 10 lines about this trash? If I can convey that it's garbage in 2 lines, that should be enough.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Terrible movie, not worth watching (even to laugh at)
kkhs197611 March 2010
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?
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
shameless,incoherent rehash of its predecessor,The Boogeyman.
disdressed1212 August 2009
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 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 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
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Terrible "Sequel"
pulpnicktion20 March 2008
Return of the Boogyman is a dreadful movie which doesn't play like a movie, it plays like an episode of a TV sitcom when they flashback to older episodes. Return of the Boogyman is just a clip show.

Mutch of the film is constant and annoying flashbacks from the first movie. Over and over again the same footage. How boring this is.

The movie really is about a psychic woman who has visions of the first movie.

I have seen the first movie I don't want to see the same scenes over and over again and I don't know who would. The whole movie looks like it was quickly made to make a few bucks and thats it.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Oh God
the_headless_cross4 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Let me just say I loved the original Boogeyman. Sure, it's a flawed clich├ęd 80s horror movie, but hey those types are fun to watch! And plus it gave us something a bit different. So I gladly bought it and to my surprise this movie came along with it (only copy they had actually) so I thought "Eh, what the hell" and bought it. Mistake #1. So that night I felt in the mood to watch a movie (I actually bought tons that day) and figured this was the shortest out of all the ones I bought so I'll just watch this and hit the sack. Mistake #2. Yes, I have heard how bad it was but I was willing to take a chance.

So a few minutes into the movie and there's the first flashback. I think nothing of it at first. Then the new footage with the prediction of the chick in the bathtub and I'm kinda liking the direction it's going in. Then the next flashback which is a bit longer and I'm sitting there thinking "Yes I've seen the first Boogeyman! I know what happens so move along!" Then the next one comes up and I figure screw it and fast forward through it. Then the final one (Maybe I fast forwarded through the explanation but why was she lying topless on the mirror? At least she could've shown them!) and I decide to fast forward through it and then the climax and the movie was over! WTF? What happened to the prediction stuff? What happened to the long hair dude (Did he tap that or what?)? And more importantly what kind of weed was the writer and director smoking when making this awful POS??!!! And what was the point? Was Annie just having flashbacks of what happened in the first movie? Or was the stuff from the first movie just happening at the same time as this? The latter could make sense because the stabbing of Pantyhose Face happened in 1978 according to the characters in this movie and it was 15 years later. Wait a minute, no it wouldn't! Because Lacey (who the movie questionably renamed Nancy! Is Uli too dumb to remember his movie characters' names?) would be 20 years old since she was 5 when that happened and not only is she married to someone who looks 30ish but also has a kid who looks around 7 and 10! Did she get around during middle school? And also why would Pantyhose be after Annie? What connection does she even have with the characters of the original movie? And a BIG HUGE MOVIE MISTAKE I found in this movie is that when the doctor is writing in his notebook does anyone notice that he's just SCRIBBLING? Wow, how professional, Doc! So, what is the explanation for all of the questions I asked above? IT'S A POINTLESS MOVIE WITH NO THOUGHT PUT INTO IT AT ALL! I will try to find a copy of the original movie that comes with just that movie and that's it (Maybe a couple of extra features, any Special Edition of it yet?). Then I will return this DVD and hopefully this review and all the others will prevent those who haven't seen it from seeing it thus making movie stores get rid of it and this movie may not exist anymore! Please let that be so! Sorry this review is so long. I'm just angry at this movie I had to vent somehow
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Garbage! Director needs a new hobby!
darill-2802719 August 2018
This movie is garbage and makes no sense all the way through. The writer or director needs a new hobby or find another job elsewhere! They purely turn Boogeyman into trash! The first one was scary and okay but this "so call return of the boogeyman is worthless!" It is not worth watching.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Michael_Elliott12 March 2008
Return of the Boogeyman (1994)

BOMB (out of 4)

Second sequel to 1980's cult film The Boogeyman is just as horrid as the second film, which used the same nature of film-making. This film runs a total of 72-minutes with at least 65-minutes of that using footage from the first film. As with Boogeyman 2 you're getting the original film with a few minutes worth of additional footage so that the producer's can milk this as some sort of sequel. In this "film", a woman starts having dreams (flashbacks from the first two films) so her shrink must figure out what's going on. The use of flashback footage from the first film isn't bad enough but the whole time they've got narration telling us what we're seeing. If you've seen the previous two films then you've seen this one already so don't even bother. Boogeyman 2 is one of the worst films ever made and that holds true with this one as well.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This film could actually disrupt the space/ time continuum
Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki24 August 2011
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!

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?"

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?

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.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Evil can happen in the universe - at random - just like life.
lastliberal29 October 2008
This is not the video nastie, but only because it came out in 1994 when they were presumably tired of the whole thing in Britain. It is 75% a rehash of The Boogeyman, and would have been banned for the same reason - whatever that was.

I was initially confused as I thought that Annie (Kelly Galindo) may have been a different Lacey, but she was someone trouble by psychic visions of a boogeyman similar to the one in the first film. Fans will immediately note that they are not the same person.

After seeing a murder in a bathroom, and also seeing the address as well, Annie, her psychiatrist and a para psychology student who greatly resembles the guy on the cheap romance novels and butter commercials, head to the house, and, sure enough, it's the same bathroom. 24 hours later a murder happens just as she described. Of course, we have no idea who this boobilicious woman is or why she was murdered.

Then the movie shift to a rerunning of The Boogeyman story with some extra footage that we did not see in the original. Notably, the boogeyman is shown unlike the original. Sadly, some of the good scenes were cut, but 90% of it is there. Why rerun this film? Did they find the footage in the trash? What was the purpose?

We'll never know and, despite the psychologist telling Annie she is cured, we all know the bogeyman will never die.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
You may think you've seen bad before, but prepare yourself...
krcunni1 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I was previously unaware that in the early 1990's Devry University (or was it ITT Tech?) added Film to its wonderful repertoire of technical degree programs. Well this movie must have been the product of the class valedictorian. My friend and I rented the original 1980 Boogeyman on my Netflix and this movie was on the flip side of the DVD. Do not waste your time with this movie. Awful awful awful.

The filmmaker adds 2 main character's, a woman and her therapist. The woman has been having dreams about the Boogeyman and his victim's from the first film. Over 50% of this film is stock from the original movie. The rest of the movie is the main character having the bad dreams while her therapist drones on a the narrator. These scenes are shot through a filter so thick the characters glow. They would make Angela Lansbury look 25 years old. So, to recap, awful. Don't watch this movie.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I can't believe
mainiacbob15 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I can't believe this film was allowed to be made. These people should be drug out and beat with blunt objects. They should be tortured. This film is an abomination.It's nothing but footage from the first film. Whatever is original is freaky and makes no sense whatsoever. It's like some sort of drug hallucination.Like, what's with the laying on a mirror naked therapy. Also, whatever moron patched together this turd didn't even bother to watch the first film, because they kept calling Suzanna Love's character Natalie, when it's Lacey. I felt like shouting that at the screen, "IT'S LACEY, IT'S LACEY!!!!". I give it a -50 out of 10. MY GOD!!!!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed