Better then the first movie
Added 10/6/2009
This is another movie i bought with caution seeing as how i thought the first boogyman wasnt that good.but when i watched it i was quickly shown this would be alot different.first off its NOT rated PG-13 which is a BIG plus as i hate PG-13 horror movies.this one had blood,gore and creative kills.the story was better then the last movie and it dosent really connect the first two films except to talk about the main character from the first one and show his picture.this story also made slightly more sense then the frist and the setting(basically an insane asylum)is also better.if you find it $10 or less or come acroos it on cable(without commercials)then watch it and its not a bad way to pass the time.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Coulda Been Worse?
Added 9/10/2009
Boogeyman 2 was actually a pretty decent film and a reasonably admirable effort by first-time director Betancourt but I think fans of the first Boogeyman, if there are any, may be a bit disappointed. For starters, this isn't a supernatural horror flick but rather a slasher film in disguise. Now, I'm sure slasher fans will be overjoyed to hear this but I was hoping for a real deal spook, not a psycho in a mask. I was also a bit put off by Tobin Bell's presence, which I felt was an obvious red herring cameo. Tobin Bell, kids trapped, people being murdered according to the corresponding phobia and a psycho in a mask and long-hooded robe...hmmm...sound familiar?
The acting, cinematography, score and FX were all solid but I found it hard to really care about any of the characters. Apparently, "patients" is interchangeable with "a-holes" because this movie was full of them. Even the lead actress, the one you're typically supposed to care about, came off a bit rude and uninteresting. I don't know, the performances were all good just not connecting for me.
I admit, I was initially pissed that this film didn't turn out to be supernatural but after I calmed down I realized it wasn't all bad; it just wasn't my cup of tea. I'd say it's definitely worth checking out for some decent kills and "edge of your seat" twists but I wouldn't recommend purchasing this until you've rented first. I'd say this was a bit better than the first film, though I'm not sure how comforting that is. Boogeyman 2 came off, on occasion, like a mix between A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors and Saw 2.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Blah Blah
Added 4/14/2009
Boring, and not even a compelling rental. The gory parts were a bit too gratuitous w/o adding value to the story. Average acting. Overall, average story without any real visual engagement.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Not what I expected
Added 2/15/2009
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.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
A basic slasher film, but not bad
Added 1/29/2009
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...
1 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
Better then the first movie
Added 10/6/2009
This is another movie i bought with caution seeing as how i thought the first boogyman wasnt that good.but when i watched it i was quickly shown this would be alot different.first off its NOT rated PG-13 which is a BIG plus as i hate PG-13 horror movies.this one had blood,gore and creative kills.the story was better then the last movie and it dosent really connect the first two films except to talk about the main character from the first one and show his picture.this story also made slightly more sense then the frist and the setting(basically an insane asylum)is also better.if you find it $10 or less or come acroos it on cable(without commercials)then watch it and its not a bad way to pass the time.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Coulda Been Worse?
Added 9/10/2009
Boogeyman 2 was actually a pretty decent film and a reasonably admirable effort by first-time director Betancourt but I think fans of the first Boogeyman, if there are any, may be a bit disappointed. For starters, this isn't a supernatural horror flick but rather a slasher film in disguise. Now, I'm sure slasher fans will be overjoyed to hear this but I was hoping for a real deal spook, not a psycho in a mask. I was also a bit put off by Tobin Bell's presence, which I felt was an obvious red herring cameo. Tobin Bell, kids trapped, people being murdered according to the corresponding phobia and a psycho in a mask and long-hooded robe...hmmm...sound familiar?
The acting, cinematography, score and FX were all solid but I found it hard to really care about any of the characters. Apparently, "patients" is interchangeable with "a-holes" because this movie was full of them. Even the lead actress, the one you're typically supposed to care about, came off a bit rude and uninteresting. I don't know, the performances were all good just not connecting for me.
I admit, I was initially pissed that this film didn't turn out to be supernatural but after I calmed down I realized it wasn't all bad; it just wasn't my cup of tea. I'd say it's definitely worth checking out for some decent kills and "edge of your seat" twists but I wouldn't recommend purchasing this until you've rented first. I'd say this was a bit better than the first film, though I'm not sure how comforting that is. Boogeyman 2 came off, on occasion, like a mix between A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors and Saw 2.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Blah Blah
Added 4/14/2009
Boring, and not even a compelling rental. The gory parts were a bit too gratuitous w/o adding value to the story. Average acting. Overall, average story without any real visual engagement.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
