Customer Reviews

2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (Unrated)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(23)

 

 

There seems to be a lot of reviews written here that are a little suspect seeing as almost all of the people who gave it 5-stars have no other reviews. My review is nothing, but honest.

2001 MANIACS: FIELD OF SCREAMS

** Out of 5

Tagline- Guess Who's Coming for Dinner?

Release Date- July 20th, 2010

Running Time- 86-Minutes

Rating- NR

Screenplay- Chris Kobin, Tim Sullivan & Christopher Tuffin

Director- Tim Sullivan

Starring- Bill Moseley, Lin Shaye, Christa Campbell, Nivek Ogre, Ryan Fleming, Katie Marie Johnson, Asa Hope, Ahmed Best

Released on the festival scene in 2005 and DTV in 2006 Tim Sullivan's feature film debut 2001 Maniacs was a remake of the HG Lewis shocker 2000 Maniacs and while 2001 Maniacs may not go down as one of the all time greats it was a highly entertaining film that might offend some, but it's all done and good fun and I quite enjoyed the movie.

Now in 2010 the South Will Rise Again in Tim Sullivan's follow up 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams. The budget for the movie is a lot lower than the first and this does in some ways hurt the movie and I feared the movie would have that camcorder look and it doesn't quite have that look, but it is very cheap looking and while at times it does hurt the biggest problem was the audio. At times the audio is ok, but other times it sounds as if it was recorded on a tape recorder and played back. Tim Sullivan stated that he could have waited in hopes of getting more money or he could make the best movie he could and what we end up getting is a very mixed bag.

2001 Maniacs is what Tim Sullivan called "splat-stick" which is a mixture of a splatter flick and slapstick comedy and these elements worked very well and made for a nice modern exploitation flick that like I said could be highly offensive, but it's all done in such a way that I doubt anyone could get really offended by it. Field of Screams stays true to that, but what worked so well in the first at times comes across as poor filmmaking.

The screenplay was written by Chris Kobin, Tim Sullivan & Christopher Tuffin and unlike the first part the script here is a little bit of a mess at times and it seems as if the writers tried too hard and unlike the first part everything here at times seems forced; the characters are rather annoying aside from the Maniacs, but with that said there were some good ideas that spoof the culture we live in where anybody can somehow become famous even if devoid of any talent.

The characters are a spoof of Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie as well as Kevin Federline. The Paris Hilton character is named Rome Sheraton (Katie Marie Johnson), which I personally found rather hysterical and at one point Paris and Nicole had a reality show called The Simple Life and the two characters here have a reality show called Road Rascals. This idea was actually quite good and it does lead to some entertaining moments, but outside of that as a whole it just seems a bit forced; it's like ok how do we one up the first film? And that is what really hurts the script since in the first it felt natural, but here like I said forced.

As director Tim Sullivan delivers a very uneven film; some of the flaws like I said were due to the budget. The first film didn't exactly have a huge budget, but the movie looked good with strong production values, but here Sullivan's budget was far lower and it makes the movie look to fake; the pacing of the film was a bit slow despite the movie only running at 85-minutes. 2001 Maniacs was the feature film debut for Tim Sullivan and I really liked his style and he showed some great promise so what went wrong here?

Again I think the lack of budget did play a part, but it almost seems like a different director. The splat-stick style that worked so well in the original doesn't work nearly as well and at times it borders on poor filmmaking. There are moments where Sullivan shows what made 2001 Maniacs a well made and entertaining film, but in Field of Screams he's unable to sustain that and for the most part it just comes off as poor. I still think Sullivan has the potential to be a solid horror filmmaker and at times he does show that in Field of Screams, but again overall the film just comes out poor for the most part and some of this was clearly the low budget, but some of the blame is on Tim Sullivan, but I'm still interested in seeing what he can do in the future and hopefully it's better than this and more along the lines of 2001 Maniacs.

I think the problem is that Sullivan's style, which is a throwback to the splatter flicks of exploitation cinema is a style that can be hit or miss from film to film and while this splat-stick style worked well in 2001 Maniacs it doesn't work as well with Field of Screams and like I said this style can be hit or miss from film to film and sadly here it's a miss for the most part. The gore level here is alright; there was enough gore to please gore-hounds, it could have used some more.

The biggest change here is Robert Englund doesn't return as Mayor Buckman and Bill Moseley steps into the role. Like most horror fans I'm a fan of Robert Englund and I'd go as far to say that his performance in Wes Craven's A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the best in the horror genre up there with Karloff as the Monster, Lugosi as Dracula and Chaney, Jr as the Wolf-Man. But I also really love Bill Moseley and the guy is seriously under-rated. His take on Mayor Buckman isn't all that different than Robert Englund's, but Moseley doesn't have the material that Englund had. So far Moseley's performance has drawn mixed reviews, but I quite liked him in the role. This isn't Otis from Rejects or Chop-Top from Chainsaw 2, but Moseley again delivers a fin performance.

Lin Shaye returns as Granny and once again is solid, but as I stated earlier the material isn't as strong, but Shaye provides another winning performance and along with Moseley helps keep Field of Screams from totally sinking. The rest of the cast was ok; the Maniacs were the strongest of the movie, but the rest the performances were a bit weak, but hey it's a horror flick and the actors are earlier in their careers so I can easily overlook it.

Overall 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is far inferior to the first film and one has to wonder what went wrong here? The film is what it is and there are some fairly decent moments, but overall Field of Screams is rather poor, but I still think Tim Sullivan can end up being a decent horror filmmaker despite the train wreck here.

I was a big fan of the movie "2001 Maniacs" with Robert Englund, I found it to be an amusing mix of gore, comedy, and horror. While based on an older movie, I think the supernatural elements of the story made it far better than the stereotypical "Deliverance" inspired killer redneck horror movie.

The problem with this movie is not just the incredibly low production values, but that they turned this movie into a complete farce rather than trying to make any pretensions of it having any horror in it at all, even in a tertiary manner.

While a sequel to "2001 Maniacs" it doesn't even keep the mythology intact. We go from a group of ghosts haunting a cemetery full of people slaughtered during "The Civil War", who can manifest around the time of their deaths each year to claim victims, with each death bringing them closer to being able to pass on, to the ridiculous concept of these same ghosts somehow manifesting permanantly and driving around, pitching tents, and looking for victims.

Add to this ridiculous sequences like faux-music videos being performed (complete with song and record text in the corner), and it's just not all that entertaining. If you liked the original "2001 Maniacs" this is not "more of the same" this is just plain out silly... and in a bad way.

In short, I recommend avoiding this movie like the plague. "2001 Maniacs" had some potential to be turned into a decent genere-hybrid franchise, one that could have obtained a decent cult following. This atrocity has pretty much murdered any hopes of that happening.

When will I learn? I was gullible enough to order this when all the 5 star reviews appeared. I feel pretty stupid now, it's perfectly obvious that the good reviews are planted by folks involved with the film. What do these people do in their spare time? Go round old ladies' houses and con them out of their savings? They conned me out of my $11 for sure.

This film absolutely reeks. It stinks to high heaven. Even as a fan of bad movies, this had no redeeming qualities.

I feel robbed.

Before everyone rushes out and pre-orders this dvd, I want to do a service to all the horror movie fans here on AMAZON. If you check all the five star reviews, five of the six have left only one review, and of course it was for this movie. The other reviewer left a total of two. It's been my experience that when people associated with the movie try to flood the site with b.s. reviews before the movie actually releases that it's a bad sign. I'm not saying that this is going to be a bad movie, the first one was actually pretty good. I gave this one three stars just so I could get this out to let people know they might want to wait until the dvd is actually released and read the real reviews before they buy. Peace.

the first 2001 maniacs wasn't so bad. it was an amusing comic-horror flick about rednecks gone wild, but, really, what other kinds of rednecks are there? as typical with sequels, this movie took everything from the first and cranked up the ridiculousness. as a male, i have a deep appreciation for nudity, but incessant nudity for nudity's sake in a movie that only offers nudity is annoying. there are other better options for nudity and beyond if that's your thing, but it should be used with some purpose in a non-porn film. not so here. perhaps its hard to articulate, but there was just something grating about this film. the characters were more annoying than amusing, the jokes more puerile than the predecessor, and a far less interesting story than the first. in the first, there is actually some character and plot development before the red necks go nuts. in this one, its immediate; just a bunch of yanks run into a traveling group of rednecks and the killing starts. this movie was much more about disconnected shots of brutal, seemingly creative, yet painfully pedestrian killings. no story, boring.

I've written a slew of reviews on this site and I must admit this flick is one of the worst in recent history. It's the kind of DVD you may get a free copy of in a box of year-old dogfood at the local swap meet near the swamp. AVOID! This is awful...and I agree...there are some shills out there pawning this off as a real movie...about as real as they are! What an embarrassment to the film industry.

Wow...this was just bad. Bad writing, bad production, bad sound...just bad. The characters just weren't as much fun as the ones in the first one. Other than the very brief HuckleBilly rap song, this was horrible. Even though I like Bill Moseley, this movie is really missing Robert Englund. This feels like a movie that someone threw together in a weekend. Hopefully it'll be the end of the series.

This movie was low budget, campy and stupid as all Hell. The actors were unknowns for the most part and the script was trying to be funny but was plain dumb. I was so disappointed. Don't spend any money renting/buying this piece or crap.

Ok first off I am a big fan of the first one. It obviously wasn't the biggest budget or best acting I've ever seen. That was the point though. The second one on the other hand I wouldn't recommend watching for free. It barely has any gore the acting is some of the worst I've ever seen and I usually don't mind it. There is nothing good about this movie at all. Watch the first one.

The movie absolutly made no sense, and had no story line, and thhe two Nicole Ritchie and Paris Hilton ripoffs were extremely annooying, and the acting ...god the acting was horrible