Genres

Visitors Review

Lajos Andrejkovics 2012-05-21 16:23:46

Low budget sequel to the worst-ever horror movie

This movie is a waste of material and precious time... avoid it ifpossible. All parts are trivial, no real horrors... The plot is plainas it can get, you know how it will end before it begins. The beginningis the opening to your trials: guts cut out, woman pinned to the wallwith a knife. Donr by who? A guy in a hoodie. Dear mother of God youcould score with it in 1984 but not in 2007!! Then all psycho wrecksare killed by facing their own fears... Again, who's the psychiatrist?The Saw guy... Who's the second doctor? Gabrielle from Xena... likewhat?! The almost-closing scene with those gardening tools is reallygross and loosy.

2012-05-21 02:01:24

Probably the worst direct-to-DVD sequel you'll see this year, which is saying a lot

The original Boogeyman was, well, it was bad. Boogeyman 2 though makes the first film look close to Shakespeare though, completely disregarding any kind of supernatural thrills for a tried and true, formulaic, slasher flick that isn't only predictable, it's downright boring. What is good to note about Boogeyman 2 is that the film doesn't pull any punches with blood and gore, but the film as a whole is so atrociously bad that you'll wonder why you even bothered with it in the first place. The direction is tired and trite, the acting is godawful (genre stalwart Tobin "Jigsaw" Bell and Xena: Warrior Princess veteran Renee O'Connor have done much, much better than this), and the effects are almost laughable. In an era of direct-to-DVD horror sequels that have been flooding the marketplace lately, Boogeyman 2 just may be the worst of the bunch, which in itself is saying quite a lot. Avoid.

collipal-1 2012-05-16 08:47:58

Better than the first part...but still,a pathetic crap

Boogeyman 2 is the sequel to one of the worst horror films I have seenduring the last 10 years.This sequel is better than the firstpart...but it also is a pathetic crap.Besides of the adequateperformances from Tobin Bell and Reneé O' Connor,there is nothing torecommend in Boogeyman 2.The screenplay is horribly bad,the charactersare completely generic and the movie is tremendously tedious from itsfirst scene to its last one.Jeff Betancourt,who was the editor of somevery competent movies (like The Good Girl or The Ruins),made his firstwork as a director in this movie,and it would be better if he goes backto editing movies,because the direction from Boogeyman 2 is patheticfor many reasons,but mainly,because it never finds a good tone and itis very chaotic.Boogeyman 2 belongs to the worst kind of horror cinemaand I suggest you to avoid this big piece of crap.As I said,it's better(or,more properly,less bad) than the first part,but it's stillunbearable and painful to watch.

jaiden 2012-05-15 23:52:19

When will people learn that a sequel is more than a shared name?

I give this movie a 2 out of 10 - but only for the cast.When I sat down to watch this movie, I expected there to be, at thevery least, the real Boogeyman from the first movie making a comeback.But, to my dismay, no such luck.Instead, I was treated to a half-baked, poor excuse of a film that Iwill be glad to get out of my house.The acting was fair, the overall plot could have used some work, andthe gore should have been toned way down. With only a passing referenceto Tim, the main character in the first Boogeyman, this film should notbe classified as a sequel because when a second (or third) film in aseries is made, there should be something there to make a positiveconnection. I didn't even catch that the Tim in #2 was the same Timfrom #1 until I read about it here on IMDb.If you like gore reminiscent of SAW or HOSTEL, feel free to peruse thistitle as well. But if you're looking for a continuation of theoriginal, leave this DVD on the store shelf.

2012-05-11 13:00:46

this was by far beter then the first

the first was one of the worst movie ive ever seen so i rented this with hope of it being at least a little entertaining. It was pretty well written and had alot of shock and awe. it was done by the people who have done the saw franchise so all i'll really say is if you liked saw you will enjoy this. It is nothin like the first bogeyman beleive me

moviewizguy 2012-05-11 08:49:45

Another Direct to DVD Sequel!

The movie centers on a young woman with a long-term phobia of theBoogeyman, who voluntarily checks herself into a mental health facilitywith the hope of conquering her overwhelming fears. However, much toher horror, she discovers that some things are terrifying on purpose,and confronting her demons was not the best course of action.Through last year (2007), you might have noticed many direct-to-DVDsequels coming out. There was The Butterfly Effect 2, Open Water 2,Wrong Turn 2, Return to House on Haunted Hill, and now this. I prettymuch found the others very bad to decent but I found this just verystupid.This so called "sequel" to the first film have nothing related to it.There's probably one idiotic scene that tries to connect them together.I found it just very stupid, like I said, on how they tried to connectthe two films. First of all, Boogeyman ended. It ENDED. There was notan opened ending. I found it really decent if not good.Now this film is completely different. It's more of a serial killerfilm than a supernatural thriller like the first (probably because theydidn't have enough money for visual effects). First, Boogeyman is asupernatural force. In this film, he's just another serial killer in amask. Might as well make a generic serial killer movie not related tothe first film.One could wonder why this isn't a sequel to the "Saw" movies,especially since it resembles much with them, including Tobin Bell (nowonder he decided to be in the movie!). There's also the dialog fromTobin Bell, the deaths from this film, taking place in a "hospital"(get it?), etc.The filmmakers of this film also had enough guts to make one of themost idiotic twist in a film. It seems like they just added in therefor "effect." And if you're worried about violence and gore, you shouldbe because it's just very nasty, disgusting, and mean-spirited ratherthan scary. There's also some very funny moments in the film includingthe word for "fear of the Boogeyman": Which is called "boogeyphobia."There's a reason why this film is released direct-to-DVD. It's just avery bad movie. However, I will say the character development is quitenice at one point but all got smothered in the next scene. How nice isthat? And as you know with most horror movies, there's an openedending! Should we expect a third "Boogeyman" movie? I hope not.Instead, watch "Jeepers Creepers" (the first or the second), which is afar better, far creepier horror movie.

slayrrr666 2012-05-10 10:44:37

Highly creepy sequel

"Boogeyman 2" is an interesting and highly enjoyable slasher with a lotof good parts.**SPOILERS**Years after a horrible accident, Laura Porter, (Danielle Savre) isstill terrified of the Boogeyman, and with the suggestion of herbrother Henry, (Matt Cohen) checks into the Hillridge Mental Facility.Meeting up with other patients Mark, (David Gallagher) Darren, (MichaelGraziadei) Paul, (Johnny Simmons) Nicky, (Chrissy Griffith) and Alison,(Mae Whitman) as well as the resident staff Dr. Mitchell Allen, (TobinBell) and Dr. Jessica Ryan, (Renee O'Connor) they diagnose her with afear of the darkness, which the others laugh off. When it starts todawn on them that someone is killing off the residents of the hospital,she tries to get them to believe it's the Boogeyman, but no one elsedoes. Realizing it's here to prey on her fears, she tries to overcomethem in hopes of dealing with the demon that has tormented her.The Good News: This was a highly enjoyable and entertaining slasher.One of the best aspects is the rather great premise that it has. Thefact that it uses the clichéd facing-fears gimmick is a turn-off, butthis one actually uses it to an advantage. There's plenty of time inthe set-ups to maker it work, which is especially true of the mainones. Each has a segment devoted to a therapeutical exercise to try andovercome their fear, and there's some greatness to this when it goesonto bigger ones, especially the kill set-ups. These here are thebiggest example of this, as they're fully encompassing of the fears andactually have the added plus of being expertly designed scenes as well.The kills are perfectly in place to make them really fun, from thecockroaches in the food for the germaphobe to the dark basement to theone with the fear of the dark, they're all quite fun and really goodkills as a result. There's a really brutal knife in the throat, arib-spreader stabbed into the chest and pulled open while still alive,being electrocuted while standing in a pool of water, a body explodingoutward from being force-fed food, having a chest ripped to shreds fromnumerous stabbing and the film's two big, huge kills, the first one inthe asylum and the final one, which is just all sorts of awesome, witha brutal and insanely bloody climax that is really great. It's allapart of one of the greatest parts of the film, the really great finalchase through the basement of the building. This is the highlight ofthe film, which is a long, ultra-creepy showdown that gets a lot right.There's several really nice stalking scenes in here, including somewonderful scenes amongst the stacks in the darkened basement andanother one amongst the hallways works just as well, making it feelenormously creepy. This goes on for a good amount of time and centersmostly on the ending, and the length easily makes it work. The killer'smask is really cool-looking as well, going from a really well-hiddencloak to a spectacular-looking demon-mask that stands out. There's evensome nice nudity supplied by a well-done sex scene. Overall, this was agreatly entertaining slasher.The Bad News: This one here didn't have all that many flaws. The mainone here is the lame ending this one has. The resolution with thekiller and the first few parts with the police are good enough, butthen the film decides to tack on the ending from another film verbatimthat was completely loathed, and while unexpected and a nice twist,doesn't make much sense and isn't really needed. The last part is thatthere's a really unnecessary element in the beginning to make itunclear what's going on. There's flashbacks, dreams and more thrown inwhich make it hard to understand what's going. These here are thefilm's only real flaws.The Final Verdict: With a lot of really great and interesting things tolike about it, this one is a simply great slasher. Give this one a shotif you're into the more modern slashers, love a solid, creepy gore-festor a fan of the creative cast, while those who aren't that big on thoseshould heed caution.Rated R: Graphic Violence, Nudity, some Language and a mild sex scene

2012-05-09 22:16:25

Not What I Expected

First and foremost, this movie was not a continuation of Boogeyman. In some ways, I feel that it should have had it's own unique title to make this distinction more clear. If you liked the first movie, do not go to this movie, expecting it to be more of the same. No aspect of Boogeyman 2 bore resemblance to the first. What I found to be curious were the slight similarities between Boogeyman 2 and some of the Saw movie traits. Individuals were forced to face their fears in a fashion that ultimately threatened to destroy them. In one instance, a tape recording is used to indicate the type of "therapy" that one man needed to conquer his phobia. While the action taken to facilitate this so-called healing was a stretch, it did make a gory point. How did this not have similarities to the Saw movies? The individuals were not actually being tested or given a chance to save themselves. They were simply placed in a situation and motivated to kill themselves with no hope of surviving. I did not anticipate the plot twist in the end. I think that, perhaps, what causes many people to be upset with this movie is the fact that the viewer is led to believe their assumptions are correct, only to then be shown that they were wrong. It brings a sense of insecurity and almost insults the intelligence of the viewer. Nevertheless, as an audience, we have already consented to be subject to these twists and turns. Instead of being offended that we were fooled, it should instead be a delightful present to be surprised with the unexpected. If you like gore, I encourage you to watch. If you have a light stomach, find something else.

Miller Pitman 2012-05-09 13:47:32

One of my favs.

This was an AWESOME movie. Mainly, I would not like this kind of moviebecause it is supernatural (suggestively in this movie)... But It hadAWESOME plot twists, sick effects, and a good story. Scared the crapout of me and my friend. I watched it alone in the middle of the nightand I couldn't turn the lights off after it was over! If you likehorror movies, THIS is a one for you. If you liked Jeepers Creepers,this is your kind of movie. I suggest this to all horror fans. However,I did not like the ending. (no spoilers) It was just... ratherdepressing but it added a lot to the scariness of the movie.This is my favorite horror movie. Not to say that will be the same toall of you, but I have seen TONS of horror movies and.. this beats themall. In my opinion, this is the ultimate scariest movie of all time.

2012-05-08 23:41:17

Close to the worse film I have ever seen!

This film is so bad it defies the English language, but I'm not blind that this is solely my opinion and some, maybe even many, will disagree.If I were to lay this film out in my "The Hits" and "The Misses" format, it would be incredibly lopsided, so I don't think I'll go that route this time.For starters, this film IS NOT a real sequel other than a passing reference to the first film, which contradicts everything in the first film by the way, and while I can appreciate a sequel that attempts to go off in it's own direction like White Noise 2 did, this one goes so far afield from the first that it really ticked me off to even use the dreaded number 2 in its title since I was among the few that actually got a mild kick out of the original.This story has nothing to do with an actual "boogeyman", like the first film did, but with a serial killer. Anyone that knows me from my reviews knows how little regard I hold for slasher films as there is simply little more that can be added to that genre of horror film. Boogeyman was a clever monster film with ghost story elements thrown in. This film is strictly a slasher film and a terrible mystery tale to boot. I Saw (pun intended) the ending coming very early on in this film (joke directed at Tobin Bell's presence in the film). We are asked to constantly believe in the totally unbelievable in this film. It was way beyond the "suspension of disbelief" I can typically muster up for these kinds of films. The acting is cartoonish and overwrought, the direction is clumsy and lacks any real suspense, the death knell for any so-called thriller, and the storyline is just preposterous which I guess I have run down here to be fair.The story opens with a young brother and sister witnessing the slaying of their parent in a VERY unnecessarily graphic manner and totally out of sync with the spirit of the first film. The kids are then sent off to an asylum to help them cope with what they saw. The brother gets released, but the sister who got over things sooner re-enters when she realizes her brother doesn't seem to need her anymore as he once did and she begins seeing the images of the crazed killer again who was never caught and she believes is a real boogeyman. The rest plays out like any poor slasher sequel with phone lines cut, the teenagers trapped, all adults gone, and one lone survivor trying to tell her story, but no one believes her. Did I forget to mention the "slasher" flick requirement? These teenager still find time for some sex even though people are dropping like flies around them.This is just awful film making and all connected to this film should be embarrassed. I can't imagine even the hardcore slasher film buffs enjoying this film, but I know some will. To each his own, but this is definitely a thumbs down for me.

2012-05-07 20:39:20

Not what I expected

First off, it is best to note that this movie is not a continuation of the original Boogeyman. In fact, the only thing the two movies share in common is the title.The best way to describe the film is: dress a man up in a boogeyman costume, mix it with any of the Saw films, and viola, Boogeyman 2.Hope this helps in your decision.

2012-05-07 02:18:00

SUPERIOR TO THE ORIGINAL

Boogeyman 2 is one of those rare sequels that is better than the original film. Granted, that's not saying much. The original Boogeyman was a rather bland spook-fest about a supernatural Boogeyman that lived in children's closets. Boogeyman 2 is as different from the original as Halloween 3: Season of the Witch was different from the other entries in that series. Now I'm going to do something that I've never done before in one of my DVD reviews and give readers a spoiler alert. I'm doing so because I think it's necessary to totally separate Boogeyman 2 from its predecessor.Two children, Henry and younger sister Laura, are traumatized when they see their parents murdered. Ten years later, Henry is leaving a mental hospital, apparently cured of his phobia of the dark and ready to move on with his life. However, his sister is still terrified of the Boogeyman and decides to voluntarily check into the same facility that treated her brother. There she meets a group of patients, all coping with various phobias such as bulimic Nicky who fears gaining weight, germophobe Paul, agoraphobic Darren, and Alison whose condition causes her to cut herself. The group is all under the care of Dr. Allen, played by Saw veteran Tobin Bell, and his assistant Dr. Jessica Ryan. Ryan is played by Renee O' Connor who is best known for her role As Gabrielle in Xena: Warrior Princess.Soon after Laura arrives, patients start to die. Laura is convinced that the Boogeyman has followed her to the hospital but Dr. Allen insists it's there is no Boogeyman and it's just her fear that she has to face. Boogeyman 2 has only the most tenuous tie to the first film as we learn that the main character was also treated by Dr. Allen. Now, here's the little spoiler alert and I think astute horror fans will figure this out very early on...This is not a supernatural tale like the first one but a good ol' fashioned slasher that is far more effective in its execution than the recent, over-hyped Hatchet. Director Jeff Betancourt has succeeded in giving fans an 80's-style slasher film with a young, good looking cast, trapped in a creepy hospital, and stalked by a killer. The kills are gory, yet stylishly conceived and original. Each of the patients meets their end in a way that befits their particular fears.Danielle Savre is quite good in her performance as Laura. She's the requisite horror film heroine, terrified yet resourceful enough to stay alive. Tobin Bell only seems to have one expression no matter what role he's playing but he does bring a certain sinister quality to the film.The effects and gore are very well done, far better than one would expect from a direct-to-DVD sequel. While his was Betancourt's first directorial effort, he's not stranger to horror films, having worked as editor on The Grudge, The Grudge 2, When a Stranger Calls, and The Exorcism of Emily Rose. He's learned his craft well. The scenery was dark, but not so dark that you could not see what was happening onscreen. Now, it's not all perfect. The film stretches the limits of logic quite a bit. We are to believe that this large facility is staffed by only two doctors and one nurse. There's no security, no maintenance, and the only orderly is fired near the beginning of the film. The doors are controlled through the phone system and when the phones go down, everyone is trapped inside. Somehow I'm thinking that a lack of emergency exits would not be up to building and fire safety codes. So yes, the film does ask the viewer to suspend a bit of belief. If you can do that, this turns out to be one gem of a slasher!

marinescu_c 2012-05-07 10:35:07

Weak

This is not what you would expect when you see the front cover of theDVD. Actually, it's not even close. It's just a "Scream" kind of filmwhere a masked guy chases some frightened teenagers through an isolatedmental hospital.From my point of view the first film was way better than this one. Thefirst puts the accent on the horror part, this one emphasizes thebloody, cruel and disgustful part.As for the plot, it's a little bit incoherent because you actuallydon't know who killed the children's parents in the beginning of themovie.Anyway, "Boogeyman 2" is definitely not a horror fan's movie and I am alittle disappointed in it's shallow approach of the Boogeyman subject.

DoNotRunUpTheFvckingStairs 2012-05-06 19:12:11

It was actually pretty good

I wasn't actually a fan of the first Boogeyman movie. In fact Idownright hated it. When I first heard that there was a sequel I was alittle hesitant at first, especially considering it was direct to DVD -not normally a good sign. I caught it late on cable one night and I wasintrigued at first. The plot made it sound promising of some sort. I'vebeen fooled by that before but I decided I'd still give it a chance.I'm surprised to say that I actually really enjoyed this movie.Considering this was the writer, Brian Sieve's, first screen writingcredit he does a good enough job on the script. This is one of the fewcases where I can say a sequel to a bad movie was satisfactory enough.Man, this is one of the few cases where I can say a sequel has outdonethe original on pretty much every level. With the exception of theending, which was cleared up in the next sequel, this was a good movie.The tone was a little darker and it becomes a lot more bloodier thistime, but for me it works. I'm not a gore fan but I could handle it inthis movie.For a DTV movie I'm impressed. This is nothing groundbreaking oranything new, it's just fun. It's not really scary, it's just fun. It'sworth checking out just for the sake of it.

2012-05-01 19:03:44

A basic slasher film, but not bad

Okay, this was an impulse buy I must admit. I have a loyalty to filmmakers I like and Ghost House is headed up by two of my favs, Rob Tapert and Sam Raimi, so without saying I give them a tiny bit more slack. Which unfortunately lead me to theatrical viewing of the first Boogeyman and The Messengers, two totally underwhelming, unscary, unoriginal and just plain ineffective horror films, in The Messengers case it was all of the above until the conclusion where I got the added bonus of it being completely idiotic and predicatable. Anyway, I had seen the trailers for this flick and saw that it was in a different tone and that it was direct to DVD, which usually means it could be more risky and not really be close to what the original was. Low and behold I got a slasher movie. A real one. Old fashioned, not jokey, no self-references and filled with some brutal violence. Some of the violence is brutal just for the sake of gore but some of it works in getting under you skin(literally in one scene involving maggots). This is no great film, mind you. I can only slightly recommend it to folks who already like slasher films and will enjoy any slasher on some level(Yes, I'm talking to you, all you Happy Birthday To Me fans). This film is good enough for what it intended to do. I commend it for not having too many redicules jump scares involving cats, birds, or friends creeping in from the left or right of the frame. The director holds back on certain early scenes and makes the ultra violence towards the end more effective. Also, I must commend the acting. It's pretty good and the young and older actors give the characters some depth that probably wasn't on the page. I was shocked. These direct to video/sequel/teen-slice 'em ups rarely ever have competent acting, let alone a group of unknowns. No problems there, for once. My main gripes with the flick are of two schools: some of the gore was just showy and ineffective, and the reveal of the killer is totally predictable within the first fifteen minutes, though they do throw in some red herrings here and there, one of which was the great and now cult famous Tobin Bell. *SPOILERS* Slasher films are famous for having surprise guest killers under their chosen masks and this one is no different. The problem is the second you meet the main character's brother and he's being released from the fear clinic you know that most likely he is the new Boogeyman, as it were, and he is one because his childhood fear of the Boogeyman made him that way. On the plus side, the actor playing the brother is so good, and he has no corny grandiose 'the cat's outta the bag' killer speeches at the end when he's revealed. A little predictable, but done well. Finally, I'm no prude when it comes to gore, but I'm also aware of how gore can be used effectively and how it can't. This film has a couple real squirmers in the gore department, but then it overdoes it and it's less effective in the film, and more of a show case for some good and gross effects. The opening scene is a good example of this. When the two main characters witness their father's death we see him being stabbed through a dollhouse window, but then we see his actual intestines fall out. Not necessary and takes some of the impact out of the scene. More mood and sound effects and utter shock coming from the little girl would've been better. There's one more scene like this involving a heart. It all just feels like good effects and not-so-good story telling. Check it out, but if you actually liked the original Boogeyman(until I looked on this site I had no clue such people existed) you might not like this one. It's in a different genre. It's not supernatural and it's fairly brutal. The main difference between the films is that Boogeyman failed its supernatural genre, and Boogeyman 2 lives up to it's slasher genre's bretheren. Just wish it has a pinch more originality...

2012-05-01 06:44:05

Ooga Boogey

This review is from: Boogeyman 2 (Unrated Director's Cut) (DVD) I am not sure what to make of the so called sequel to the more supernatural based original. On a first viewing, there is some scope for seeing the film as having a degree of the supernatural.However, the producers still go with the reductionist view, even to the point of linking the sequel with the character in the first film, as having been treated by Tobin Bell's character.The treatment of the story line has been extended with some great FX shots done on the cheap. This is a so-called low budget film, and yet it manages to make some high end production values. Ghost House Production has once again made a film work well on a low budget, just as it makes film work on higher budgets.The DVD is very well done, with great sound, and some good commentary on the Producer/writer track; Its a pity that the Supernatural element was lost.

cortic 2012-04-28 06:54:09

pointless waste of my time

I can not believe they called this boogeyman '2', did the director evenbother to watch the first Boogeyman? This film has absolutely nothingto do with the first one, its a different reality entirely. The first one was deep and twisted and really made you think about theworld and colliding realities, it was such an inspiring film and itstill gives me a cold shiver thinking about that little girl saying'you can't save me, you can only save yourself'..But this one is just cheap and boring, a steaming pile of wannabe'slasher' movie with no plot that makes any sense, no surprises, justreally dull. what a magnificent waste of time, can I have my money backnow?

kels-errific 2012-04-28 03:17:14

Waste, waste waste

The only reason I am giving a 2 is because some of the actors managedto pull through the script.How they managed half of these sceneswithout bursting into hysterical laughter is beyond me. They at leastheld up on their end of the bargain.So, where to start. I wasn'texpecting much on a direct-to-DVD movie, but holy sh*t was I in for acrap storm tonight. The first boogeyman sucked, no denying. So, toremedy the problem, looks like cues were taken from other horror films* cough cough SAW, and infused with a special spoonful of terrible.Seeing people die in the most disgusting ways was a reminder about whatcrap costs these days. $5.34 at your local blockbuster. PASS!!!

zurakimt 2012-04-24 06:59:16

Where is the real Boogeyman???

This movie is boring than I thought. Well I have to say the first onewas great & the sound effects were superb comparing with this one.Boogeyman 2 has nothing to do with the first movie. no properstoryline, most of the cast are new. the first movie was with a realboogeyman, and this one a human trapped inside a mask trying to beboogeyman. funny to me. I don't know how other viewer think about thismovie. it's up to them. Horror movies in the 80's & 90's are with realfear. Horror movies that are releasing now is only with gore, violence,sex & bloody scenes. A real horror movie is about special effects likeevil dead, omen, exorcist, sleepy hollow. ghost ship, etc. I am afraidwhether all other movies about to releas is just like Boogeyman 2!!!

2012-04-23 16:50:34

Pretty good flick!........

I really liked this movie even more than the original. Kept me entertained without dragging on or being too corny (which is the problem with a lot of horror movies nowadays). The acting was pretty decent; for once there weren't any annoying corny side characters that have no real purpose other than adding to the body count. The plot was interesting and unique I think-- centered on a group of kids in a psychiatry clinic whose fears ultimately lead them to their demise. The ending wasn't a complete shocker but I wouldn't call it predictable necessarily... Guess it depends on the person.... Overall I say it's definitely a good DVD to pick up and enjoy on a quiet weekend in with the lights off. Enjoy!