A decent sequel, but does not pack the punch of the original. A murderous screenwriter(Judd Nelson)assumes new identities in order to direct his own novel CABIN BY THE LAKE. Still ruthless killing, but movie seems very tongue-in-cheek. Any humor is not of the funny kind. Total project seems to have the quality of a quickie and at times Nelson is way over the top. This movie is about a script being rewritten before going to the screen...this should have happened to this script.
43 Reviews
It's all underwater
sol121830 August 2006
**SPOILERS** Sequel to the previous "Cabin by the Lake" the movie is about the making of a movie of the psychotic but gifted mystery writer Stanley Caldwell,Judd Nelson, last an incomplete work before he disappeared under the waves of Lake Summit. It's no surprise at all that the murderous Cardwell survived when we see him in a number of very unconvincing disguises.Cardwell is seen early in the film killing a number of people who have to do with the making of the movie based on his unfinished masterpiece.
Meeting the co-director of the project CJ Reddick,JR Bourne,at the airport Cardwell disguised as the chauffeur sent by the movie studio. On the way to the set he murders CJ and takes over his identity. On the set as director's Mike Hetton, Brian Krause, assistant JC Reddick Cardwell continues his rampage that he stopped in the previous film "Cabin by the Lake". Cardwellgoes on murdering everyone on the set who tries to distorts or rewrite the script that only Cardwell can understand and put on the screen.
There's also a sub-plot in the movie with the brother of one of Cardwell's earlier victims, Kimberly, Paul Parsons (Andrew Moxham) trying to prevent the movie from being made at all. Since it capitalizes on his sisters death as well as Cardwell's other six victims in making a bundle off his crimes: At the end of the movie we see that the film made an astounding 36 million dollars in just the first weekend after it's release.
I couldn't understand, not having seen the original "Cabin by the Lake", why no one in the movie was able to recognize the crazed Stanley Cardwell. Since he wasn't at all hiding his identity and even acting out his earlier crimes in the movie he was directing with knowledge of those crimes that only the killer himself, Cardwell, would know!
For all his cleverness Cardwell for some strange and unexplained reason allows the script writer Alison Gaddis, Dahila Salem, to not only live after she found out who he is but even after imprisoning Alison in his cabin letting her go to see the final scene of the movie that she wrote.This ridicules act on Cardwell's part results in Alison coming to the rescue of the actors in that final scene who Cardwell wanted to die by drowning to give it, in his sick mind, total realism!
On the run and being cornered, at his cabin, by Alison Cardwell accidentally slips into a water filled bathtub and is then electrocuted by Alison with a plugged-in hair-dryer. The ending shows that you just can't keep a good psycho down with Cardwell, looking like he needs a shave and shower, back again reading in the "Daily Variety" the headline story "Cabin Drowns all Competition". With a gleam in his eyes and smirk on his face a light-bulb lights up in his sick brain with plans for the next sequel with him of course being the one to direct and write it.
Meeting the co-director of the project CJ Reddick,JR Bourne,at the airport Cardwell disguised as the chauffeur sent by the movie studio. On the way to the set he murders CJ and takes over his identity. On the set as director's Mike Hetton, Brian Krause, assistant JC Reddick Cardwell continues his rampage that he stopped in the previous film "Cabin by the Lake". Cardwellgoes on murdering everyone on the set who tries to distorts or rewrite the script that only Cardwell can understand and put on the screen.
There's also a sub-plot in the movie with the brother of one of Cardwell's earlier victims, Kimberly, Paul Parsons (Andrew Moxham) trying to prevent the movie from being made at all. Since it capitalizes on his sisters death as well as Cardwell's other six victims in making a bundle off his crimes: At the end of the movie we see that the film made an astounding 36 million dollars in just the first weekend after it's release.
I couldn't understand, not having seen the original "Cabin by the Lake", why no one in the movie was able to recognize the crazed Stanley Cardwell. Since he wasn't at all hiding his identity and even acting out his earlier crimes in the movie he was directing with knowledge of those crimes that only the killer himself, Cardwell, would know!
For all his cleverness Cardwell for some strange and unexplained reason allows the script writer Alison Gaddis, Dahila Salem, to not only live after she found out who he is but even after imprisoning Alison in his cabin letting her go to see the final scene of the movie that she wrote.This ridicules act on Cardwell's part results in Alison coming to the rescue of the actors in that final scene who Cardwell wanted to die by drowning to give it, in his sick mind, total realism!
On the run and being cornered, at his cabin, by Alison Cardwell accidentally slips into a water filled bathtub and is then electrocuted by Alison with a plugged-in hair-dryer. The ending shows that you just can't keep a good psycho down with Cardwell, looking like he needs a shave and shower, back again reading in the "Daily Variety" the headline story "Cabin Drowns all Competition". With a gleam in his eyes and smirk on his face a light-bulb lights up in his sick brain with plans for the next sequel with him of course being the one to direct and write it.
Return to Cabin by the Lake
Scarecrow-885 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Preposterous sequel stretches credibility to a great degree as diabolical sociopath Stanley Kaldwell returns this time infiltrating the movie production of the novel he wrote for the garden drownings, assuming the identity of a second unit director he murdered.
Film pokes gleeful fun at Hollywood, with a tongue-in-cheek script taking shots at tyrannical directors who sleep with their actresses(..looking for a way up the ladder)and dislike anyone challenging them for complete spotlight. Brian Krause, who I thought was dreadful, overacting to the point where the satire felt incredibly forced, portrays the loud, temperamental director who doesn't like the fact that his second unit director and screenplay writer, Alison(..played by Dahlia Salem)seem to be taking over the production. Andrew Moxham is Paul Parsons, who is the brother of a victim from the first film. The film's dark humor this time takes the idea of a serial killer actually operating as director of a movie set and exploits it for all it's worth. Nelson again ably slides back into his psycho role without any difficulty, with Stanley as clever as ever, using his brains to commandeer a film production, killing whoever he has to in order to maintain full control of his work, letting no one stand in his way..that is until Alison realizes who Stanley really is. Alison is the type of ambitious writer who wants to capture the essence of her subject..what motivated Stanley to kill, why would he do such a thing, and what led such a man down this dark path? The humor of Alison actually working with that very man is also part of the satire at the heart of this dark comedy thriller. Of course, you get the inevitable showdown between Alison and Stanley, with a really ridiculous, unbelievable conclusion regarding the killer's fate(..quite a hard pill to swallow). Unlike the first film, which was photographed with sophisticated polish, director Po-Chih Leong uses unnecessary techniques which are not needed(..such as shooting an all kinds of weird angles, slow-motion in a sepia color, and several instances which are captured on video)and rather annoy instead of impress. This sequel, to me, just wasn't on target as much as the original, with a lot of the humor less effective and more obvious.
Film pokes gleeful fun at Hollywood, with a tongue-in-cheek script taking shots at tyrannical directors who sleep with their actresses(..looking for a way up the ladder)and dislike anyone challenging them for complete spotlight. Brian Krause, who I thought was dreadful, overacting to the point where the satire felt incredibly forced, portrays the loud, temperamental director who doesn't like the fact that his second unit director and screenplay writer, Alison(..played by Dahlia Salem)seem to be taking over the production. Andrew Moxham is Paul Parsons, who is the brother of a victim from the first film. The film's dark humor this time takes the idea of a serial killer actually operating as director of a movie set and exploits it for all it's worth. Nelson again ably slides back into his psycho role without any difficulty, with Stanley as clever as ever, using his brains to commandeer a film production, killing whoever he has to in order to maintain full control of his work, letting no one stand in his way..that is until Alison realizes who Stanley really is. Alison is the type of ambitious writer who wants to capture the essence of her subject..what motivated Stanley to kill, why would he do such a thing, and what led such a man down this dark path? The humor of Alison actually working with that very man is also part of the satire at the heart of this dark comedy thriller. Of course, you get the inevitable showdown between Alison and Stanley, with a really ridiculous, unbelievable conclusion regarding the killer's fate(..quite a hard pill to swallow). Unlike the first film, which was photographed with sophisticated polish, director Po-Chih Leong uses unnecessary techniques which are not needed(..such as shooting an all kinds of weird angles, slow-motion in a sepia color, and several instances which are captured on video)and rather annoy instead of impress. This sequel, to me, just wasn't on target as much as the original, with a lot of the humor less effective and more obvious.
Why Sequels Should Not Be Made
gebased14 October 2002
I watched Cabin By The Lake, and this sequel in a row. Whereas the first was fairly good, this was horrendously bad. Judd Nelson is an excellent actor. Unfortunately, the script, filming, other acting, etc. made this a bad follow up movie. Regardless of how long ago Stanley had killed those girls, someone in the town would remember what he looked like. Not to mention the fact that if they are making a movie ABOUT Stanley, someone doing the movie would know what he LOOKED like, as well. He too easily walked on the shoot and took over. Also, the storyline of the movie in the movie was not what actually happened in the first film. And, the filming, at times, looked like a video camera was used. All in all, the sequel was not a smidgeon close to as good as the first.
Don't watch this
Punk1916 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is the worst sequel on the face of the world of movies. Once again it doesn't make since. The killer still kills for fun. But this time he is killing people that are making a movie about what happened in the first movie. Which means that it is the stupidest movie ever.
Don't watch this. If you value the one precious hour during this movie then don't watch it. You'll want to ask the director and the person beside you what made him make it. Because it just doesn't combine the original makes of horror, action, and crime.
Don't let your children watch this. Teenager, young child or young adult, this movie has that sorta impact upon people.
Don't watch this. If you value the one precious hour during this movie then don't watch it. You'll want to ask the director and the person beside you what made him make it. Because it just doesn't combine the original makes of horror, action, and crime.
Don't let your children watch this. Teenager, young child or young adult, this movie has that sorta impact upon people.
The bottom of the barrel...
insomniac_rod3 September 2006
Ah, Channel 5 of local Mexican t.v. Everyday, at 2:00 a.m. they air Horror movies from the 70's to early 2000's. It was "Return To Cabin By The Lake" the movie that aired yesterday. I regret for watching it.
The original "Cabin By The Lake" was a regularly popular low budgeter and it was good accepted. The problem is that this sequel is horrible, not even unintentionally funny and tries to imitate the original. Ugh. The plot is really stupid in all the sense of the word.
The movie at some points looks like a soap-opera because of it's absurd dialogs, cinematography, and direction.
My advice is : avoid this one at all costs. It's a movie that it shouldn't be watched by anyone. Not even for lovers of mediocre film-making.
You have been warned.
The original "Cabin By The Lake" was a regularly popular low budgeter and it was good accepted. The problem is that this sequel is horrible, not even unintentionally funny and tries to imitate the original. Ugh. The plot is really stupid in all the sense of the word.
The movie at some points looks like a soap-opera because of it's absurd dialogs, cinematography, and direction.
My advice is : avoid this one at all costs. It's a movie that it shouldn't be watched by anyone. Not even for lovers of mediocre film-making.
You have been warned.
Return to Cabin by the Lake
HorrorFan198413 October 2022
Obsessive script writer Stanley Caldwell returns to finish what he started in this made-for-TV sequel to 'Cabin By The Lake'.
Two years after being presumed dead, Stanley (as Alan) is even more deranged than he was in the original. We see that he's feeling all sorts of anger over his original script for "Cabin By The Lake" being changed by a new writer named Alison. Alan decides to infiltrate the set of the movie, pretending to be a second unit director. At the same time, we meet the brother of one of the victims from the first film (Paul Parsons). Paul is determined to shut the film down.
Late one night while at the studio, Alison is attacked by an unseen assailant, leading everyone to believe it was Paul Parsons trying to stop the film production in the honour of his dead sister. With Paul out of the way, Alan begins his devious plan to bring the film to life. He murders the director, taking over production himself with a sick scheme to actually murder the cast while it's being filmed. Not long after that, Alan begins to obsess over Alison the way he has over women in the past. Will it get in the way of his master plan?
'Return to Cabin By The Lake' was a marginally better film than the original. I enjoyed the dialogue in this one so much more than the first movie. It didn't take itself seriously at all, and the film was more fun for it. Judd Nelson led the way as the deranged Stanley/Alan, and he seemed to have a lot of fun in the role with a more comedic script than the original had. A standout was Dahlia Salem who played the final girl 'Alison'. She put in a very strong performance and was very root-able. The movie quality however and the way it looked was surprisingly worse than the original filmed a year prior.
Overall, 'Return to Cabin By The Lake' is a watchable made-for-TV thriller. The entire series as a whole never wowed me enough to recommend it. Some slow moving parts and frustrating decision making by the characters has always kept both films mediocre in my eyes.
5/10.
Two years after being presumed dead, Stanley (as Alan) is even more deranged than he was in the original. We see that he's feeling all sorts of anger over his original script for "Cabin By The Lake" being changed by a new writer named Alison. Alan decides to infiltrate the set of the movie, pretending to be a second unit director. At the same time, we meet the brother of one of the victims from the first film (Paul Parsons). Paul is determined to shut the film down.
Late one night while at the studio, Alison is attacked by an unseen assailant, leading everyone to believe it was Paul Parsons trying to stop the film production in the honour of his dead sister. With Paul out of the way, Alan begins his devious plan to bring the film to life. He murders the director, taking over production himself with a sick scheme to actually murder the cast while it's being filmed. Not long after that, Alan begins to obsess over Alison the way he has over women in the past. Will it get in the way of his master plan?
'Return to Cabin By The Lake' was a marginally better film than the original. I enjoyed the dialogue in this one so much more than the first movie. It didn't take itself seriously at all, and the film was more fun for it. Judd Nelson led the way as the deranged Stanley/Alan, and he seemed to have a lot of fun in the role with a more comedic script than the original had. A standout was Dahlia Salem who played the final girl 'Alison'. She put in a very strong performance and was very root-able. The movie quality however and the way it looked was surprisingly worse than the original filmed a year prior.
Overall, 'Return to Cabin By The Lake' is a watchable made-for-TV thriller. The entire series as a whole never wowed me enough to recommend it. Some slow moving parts and frustrating decision making by the characters has always kept both films mediocre in my eyes.
5/10.
Not bad but I won't be returning myself.
RatedVforVinny8 December 2019
Not as good as the first one!
RodrigAndrisan15 February 2021
It has its moments, but per total it's just an unsuccessful attempt to make a second hit like the first. Film in film, interesting, but not as clever and inspiring. A new character, a screenwriter, Alison, actress Dahlia Salem looking a lot like Hedy Burress, the actress from the first film. All scenes are rushed, without the magical intensity of the original.
As good as the original, except...
jkizer12 September 2001
I thought the original Cabin by the Lake was pretty good for a TV movie; it was easy enough to get into the characters, and Judd Nelson played a psychopath very well. The change in the sequel that I liked the best was the strange interaction between Stanley and Alison, as the circumstances surrounding it make their mind games with each other seem more sensible than those between Stanley and Mallory in the original.
However, there is one little thing that nags at me throughout the whole movie: how in the world could someone on the set of a Hollywood movie not have recognized Stanley's face from somewhere? The extent of his disguise is a pair of glasses! Other than that annoyance, I was not disappointed by this sequel.
However, there is one little thing that nags at me throughout the whole movie: how in the world could someone on the set of a Hollywood movie not have recognized Stanley's face from somewhere? The extent of his disguise is a pair of glasses! Other than that annoyance, I was not disappointed by this sequel.
Not worth seeing twice.
llihilloh14 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
*Possible Spoiler*
'Return to Cabin by the Lake' is a useless movie. The acting was not good and the plot wasn't even remotely interesting.
'Cabin by the Lake' is a good TV movie. The sequel was not. Judd Nelson was very good in the first film and put a whole lot more into his character than in this. It seemed as if HE wasn't even interested in doing the sequel. His acting was good but it could have been better. I really don't want to comment on the rest of the cast because in my opinion, they're not even worth mentioning. But I'll do it. The character of Alison isn't even hardly shown in the first part of the film. All of a sudden she's the center of attention next to Stanley Caldwell. The role didn't make sense and it should have been thought out a little better. Dahlia Salem was absolutely terrible. Her acting was way below decent and the casting people should have looked for somebody else, anybody else. The director, Mike, was a confusing character. He seemed to have a purpose for being there but it didn't seem like his death was necessary. The acting for this role was good, nothing great but better than Salem's.
The plot was real lousy if you think about it. Stanley, who is presumed dead, makes his way onto the set of 'Cabin by the Lake', the movie based on his script. He stumbles upon the director and in a short time, the director is dead and Stanley is running the show. Yeah, out of nowhere the crew is just going to let this stranger come into the picture and finish the film not knowing anything about him. There's some killings, not a whole lot, and the one's that are shown are ridiculous. One of the actresses on the set gets electrocuted while filming a scene. Another character gets chewed up by a motorboat. And one gets tangled up in a plant before drowning. These writers must have been hard up for excitement.
I just have to say that I was not impressed with the filming of the movie. The way that it kept changing from looking low budget back to normal started to become irritating very fast. Also, the new cabin by the lake was poorly created. We aren't shown it but only in a few scenes, and the whole thing with the chain in the basement was useless. It worked in the first film only because we were shown the room a lot more, but it didn't work in this one.
There were too many characters in this sequel. All of them except for a few had no reason to be there. The acting of what little is showed was really bad and...they just didn't have a purpose in this movie.
All in all, 'Return to Cabin by the Lake' is a sequel picking up from where the first left off. 'Cabin by the Lake' I can take but this was just not impressive. Judd Nelson should have avoided this one and so should you. It's nothing like the first and it went entirely too slow. Nothing happened in the first hour and it continued to drag on for the second. Not to mention that the writing was horrible. Put this on only if you need some help getting to sleep.
So, we see that Stanley defies death and is still alive and well. By the way he talks, it sounds like there could be a possible third installment to a movie good just by itself. Quit throwing in sequels and we may be alright!
(Did the film makers not realize that they showed us how they filmed the lake scenes from the first one? They were all done in a tank. Never, never reveal the secrets of filming.)
'Return to Cabin by the Lake' is a useless movie. The acting was not good and the plot wasn't even remotely interesting.
'Cabin by the Lake' is a good TV movie. The sequel was not. Judd Nelson was very good in the first film and put a whole lot more into his character than in this. It seemed as if HE wasn't even interested in doing the sequel. His acting was good but it could have been better. I really don't want to comment on the rest of the cast because in my opinion, they're not even worth mentioning. But I'll do it. The character of Alison isn't even hardly shown in the first part of the film. All of a sudden she's the center of attention next to Stanley Caldwell. The role didn't make sense and it should have been thought out a little better. Dahlia Salem was absolutely terrible. Her acting was way below decent and the casting people should have looked for somebody else, anybody else. The director, Mike, was a confusing character. He seemed to have a purpose for being there but it didn't seem like his death was necessary. The acting for this role was good, nothing great but better than Salem's.
The plot was real lousy if you think about it. Stanley, who is presumed dead, makes his way onto the set of 'Cabin by the Lake', the movie based on his script. He stumbles upon the director and in a short time, the director is dead and Stanley is running the show. Yeah, out of nowhere the crew is just going to let this stranger come into the picture and finish the film not knowing anything about him. There's some killings, not a whole lot, and the one's that are shown are ridiculous. One of the actresses on the set gets electrocuted while filming a scene. Another character gets chewed up by a motorboat. And one gets tangled up in a plant before drowning. These writers must have been hard up for excitement.
I just have to say that I was not impressed with the filming of the movie. The way that it kept changing from looking low budget back to normal started to become irritating very fast. Also, the new cabin by the lake was poorly created. We aren't shown it but only in a few scenes, and the whole thing with the chain in the basement was useless. It worked in the first film only because we were shown the room a lot more, but it didn't work in this one.
There were too many characters in this sequel. All of them except for a few had no reason to be there. The acting of what little is showed was really bad and...they just didn't have a purpose in this movie.
All in all, 'Return to Cabin by the Lake' is a sequel picking up from where the first left off. 'Cabin by the Lake' I can take but this was just not impressive. Judd Nelson should have avoided this one and so should you. It's nothing like the first and it went entirely too slow. Nothing happened in the first hour and it continued to drag on for the second. Not to mention that the writing was horrible. Put this on only if you need some help getting to sleep.
So, we see that Stanley defies death and is still alive and well. By the way he talks, it sounds like there could be a possible third installment to a movie good just by itself. Quit throwing in sequels and we may be alright!
(Did the film makers not realize that they showed us how they filmed the lake scenes from the first one? They were all done in a tank. Never, never reveal the secrets of filming.)
I Loved This Movie!!
buffbabe232 February 2002
I don't know if I'm just weird, but I thoroughly enjoyed this film.
Return to Cabin by the Lake is of course the sequel to another one of my favorite films Cabin by the Lake. In fact, I think that I enjoyed this movie even more than the first one. I also thought that the cast in this movie was great, Judd Nelson is always the best! I also enjoyed the plot as a whole. I liked the fact that this second movie focused on the filming of Stanley's screenplay Cabin by the Lake- it wasn't a completely redundant film of Stanley grabbing other girls and drowning them. - If you're looking for some deep meaning, then this film is probably not the one for you. However, if you're looking for a fun way to spend two hours, then go ahead and watch it. I've probably already killed at least ten hours watching this film. :)
Return to Cabin by the Lake is of course the sequel to another one of my favorite films Cabin by the Lake. In fact, I think that I enjoyed this movie even more than the first one. I also thought that the cast in this movie was great, Judd Nelson is always the best! I also enjoyed the plot as a whole. I liked the fact that this second movie focused on the filming of Stanley's screenplay Cabin by the Lake- it wasn't a completely redundant film of Stanley grabbing other girls and drowning them. - If you're looking for some deep meaning, then this film is probably not the one for you. However, if you're looking for a fun way to spend two hours, then go ahead and watch it. I've probably already killed at least ten hours watching this film. :)
a bit better than the 1st one
disdressed1215 April 2007
as a sequel,this is not a bad movie.i actually liked it better than the 1st one.i found it more entertaining.it seemed like it was shot documentary style.at first this bothered me,as i thought it just looked too low budget.but it grew on me,and it made the movie seem more authentic.this movie has more dry one liners than the original,which is a good thing,in my opinion.i do think at times they went a bit over the top with some of the scenes and the characters.it almost becomes a parody of itself,which may be the point.this movie at least has some suspense,which the 1st one did not have,in my view.it has some of the same great music from the original,which is great.the acting again was pretty decent for the most part,though like i said,some of it seemed over the top.i also felt that the movie loses a lot of momentum towards the end and there are a few minutes which seem really slow and just don't seem to flow,like the rest of the movie.overall,though,i thought this was a pretty sequel.my rating for "Return to Cabin by the Lake" is 7/10*
It was decent in theory.
Rauck_Stah30 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this on the Sci-Fi channel. It came on right after the first one. For some reason this movie kept me interested. I don't know why, stop asking.
---SPOILERS--- Okay... It was cheesy how this guy got involved with the making of the movie. In the first movie, he had a "reason" to kill people, but in this sequal, half of the killings/attempted killings were basicly for no reason. Stanley killed the director due to creative differences, he captured the co-writer due to creative differences, but what was the deal with trying to kill off the cast? No cast, no movie. He wanted it to "look real when they died"? If this was supposed to be such a high budget movie, use the special effects, MAN. Of course like the first one, the captured girl gets away, and Stanley ends up getting messed up, and dissapears. Woooooow (sarcasm). This movie HAD potential. And the saddest thing of all... the really sad part... I would watch a "Cabin by the Lake 3". Only because I like Judd Nelson, and he's the only good part about this sequal.
---SPOILERS--- Okay... It was cheesy how this guy got involved with the making of the movie. In the first movie, he had a "reason" to kill people, but in this sequal, half of the killings/attempted killings were basicly for no reason. Stanley killed the director due to creative differences, he captured the co-writer due to creative differences, but what was the deal with trying to kill off the cast? No cast, no movie. He wanted it to "look real when they died"? If this was supposed to be such a high budget movie, use the special effects, MAN. Of course like the first one, the captured girl gets away, and Stanley ends up getting messed up, and dissapears. Woooooow (sarcasm). This movie HAD potential. And the saddest thing of all... the really sad part... I would watch a "Cabin by the Lake 3". Only because I like Judd Nelson, and he's the only good part about this sequal.
TV MOVIE QUALITY PLUS SERIALKILLING EQUALS GOOD TIMES!!!!
thefountainmenace15 August 2001
What a great bad movie! In this sequel to the story where a screenwriter enacts his own murderous screenplay (as he's writing it in the same mountain town where pre-production for the film is already going on), the now presumably dead and posthumously legendary writer-killer sneaks back on the set of the now-in-production movie (in 3 different clever disguises) and ever-so ironically discusses himself with everyone. Got it? The writing is sometimes fairly good, especially in the second half. The premise is interesting and despite loads of silliness, it's kinda kooky and fun. Judd Nelson just doesn't disturb me enough, though. I keep thinking of New Jack City and The Breakfast Club. Not to mention that damn Brooke Shields sitcom. However, one of the finest assets in the film is an incredibly overacted Brian Krause. Last time I saw him, he was the monster-hunk in Stephen King's "Sleepwalkers." That was around ten years ago, and it looks about 20. He plays the stereotypically abusive, ego-ridden, and sleazy director of the new picture who claims he was good friends with the killer/writer. Naturally Judd Nelson disabuses him of that notion.
Krause is pure B-movie dynamite. He acts like a starving bum eats..with incredible gusto and absolutely no attention to the results.
Of more amusement yet is the wacky directing and cinematography. The director like to emulate Oliver Stone in the worst possible way.switching film stock all over the place. I'm no film student, but I know 8mm film and hand -held video camera results when I see them. So a lot of the crucial scenes look like they were filmed in part by the camera crew from COPS. And it's totally inappropriate to the 'scary' feel. There is a scene that has got to be Sam Raimi homage, with the camera spiraling up from Judd Nelson's face after he wakes up. At least he got that right. So check this out on USA. I was lucky (?) enough to catch the first one for the 1rst time the night before, so of course I just had to watch this premiere. And what a super experience it was.
Krause is pure B-movie dynamite. He acts like a starving bum eats..with incredible gusto and absolutely no attention to the results.
Of more amusement yet is the wacky directing and cinematography. The director like to emulate Oliver Stone in the worst possible way.switching film stock all over the place. I'm no film student, but I know 8mm film and hand -held video camera results when I see them. So a lot of the crucial scenes look like they were filmed in part by the camera crew from COPS. And it's totally inappropriate to the 'scary' feel. There is a scene that has got to be Sam Raimi homage, with the camera spiraling up from Judd Nelson's face after he wakes up. At least he got that right. So check this out on USA. I was lucky (?) enough to catch the first one for the 1rst time the night before, so of course I just had to watch this premiere. And what a super experience it was.
Waste of my life
joebagodoe16 July 2005
IF you are planning to see this movie, please reconsider. I don't usually post my comments about something I've seen on television, but this one was such a waste of my life that I needed to do something productive to get that bad taste out of my mouth. Critiquing this movie would take far too long as there are so many things wrong with it. I will just simply say, please do not ever see this movie. It was a complete waste of my time and it WILL be a waste of yours. Anyone that wrote a positive review of this movie is one of two things; utterly inept, or working for the company that produced it. Again, I guarantee that you will indeed regret seeing this movie!
The Type of Sequal That Distracts Greatly From The Original, Don't Even Bother Watching It
amiee2715 August 2001
Return to Cabin by the Lake does not, in any way, stand up to the original. With only one main character (Stanley) returning for the sequal, the film is not even worth the 2 hours of your time. I am a huge fan of the first film, the story line and acting was really good, but this is one movie that I will never again watch. It is basically equal to what the sequals to Urban Legends and Blair Witch were like, but with much worse acting. I've personally seen better acting in soap operas, it is so pitiful that you just have to laugh. I, in no way, recommend this movie to anyone, watching it will just detract from the first.
Cheesy...just cheesy
it72764 August 2005
This movie was made-for-TV, so taking that into account, I'm not going to rip into it as hard as I would a feature film. The script is sub-par, but it does succeed in being mildly humorous in spots, whether it means to be or not. The acting is mostly over-the-top, but that is true for many lower-budget movies.
The aspect of this movie that I really hated, though, was that 90-95% of it is shot on film, but in random places, there will be 5-10 seconds where the footage is shot on video. You can tell because there is less contrast, the colors are less vivid, and the footage is clearly 30 frames per second instead of film's 24 frames per second. I'm not sure if maybe these scenes had to be shot later and at that time they didn't have the money to shoot on film (I assume this is why, anyway), but it is disorienting and really makes the film look shoddier than it had to look.
Anyway, I've definitely seen worse movies, but I definitely wouldn't say that I enjoyed this movie and I can't recommend that anyone see it.
The aspect of this movie that I really hated, though, was that 90-95% of it is shot on film, but in random places, there will be 5-10 seconds where the footage is shot on video. You can tell because there is less contrast, the colors are less vivid, and the footage is clearly 30 frames per second instead of film's 24 frames per second. I'm not sure if maybe these scenes had to be shot later and at that time they didn't have the money to shoot on film (I assume this is why, anyway), but it is disorienting and really makes the film look shoddier than it had to look.
Anyway, I've definitely seen worse movies, but I definitely wouldn't say that I enjoyed this movie and I can't recommend that anyone see it.
...
mctigger9916 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
I watched Cabin by the Lake this afternoon on USA. Considering this movie was made for TV is was interesting enough to watch the sequel. So, I tune in for the airing this evening and was extremely disappointed. I knew I wouldn't like the movie, but I was not expecting to be perplexed by the use of DV (digital video). The movie would have been tolerable if it wasn't for these juxtaposed digital shots that seemed to come from nowhere. I expected the plot line to be tied in with these shots, but there seemed to be no logical explanation. (WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAYBE A SPOILER!!!!) The open ending in Cabin by the Lake was acceptable, but the open ending on the sequel is ridiculous. I can only foresee Return of Return to The Cabin by the Lake being watch able is if the movie was shown up against nothing, but infomercials at 4 o'clock in the morning.
I struggled to stay awake
Stevieboy66628 March 2020
A supposedly dead psycho called Stanley starts killing people on the set of a movie sequel about him. Or something like that! This starts off as a horror/"comedy" but about midway through drops the attempts at humour in favour of trying to be scary. Well let me tell you that this film is dire, I couldn't wait for the end credits and several times felt my eyes beginning to close. The attempts at comedy are pitiful, the murders are mainly Stanley drowning his victims (I don't recall seeing a single drop of blood) and the acting is generally terrible. To its credit it does boast some nice Canadian mountain scenery and there are some eerie looking underwater scenes. I don't believe that I have seen the first movie but in a weird way I feel compelled to seek it out, surely it can't be any worse!? At one point the madman spouts "There's a little bit of Stanley in all of us!", err no!
A completely inept film
If you've seen number 1, it's worth seeing. If not.... don't.
khaca24 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Return to Cabin by the Lake just.... was lacking. It must have had a very low budget because a fair amount of the movie must have been filmed with a regular video camera. So, within the same scene - you'll have some movie-quality camera shots AND simple video camera shots. It makes for a very odd blend! I think they should have found SOME way to not do the "home video" type effect!
I think it's worthwhile to see it IF you have seen the original CBTL because then you can compare and see the differences. But if you haven't seen the original CBTL.... you'll never want to see it if you see this one first! It will probably seem way too cheesy and turn you off from even caring about the original one.
I think it's worthwhile to see it IF you have seen the original CBTL because then you can compare and see the differences. But if you haven't seen the original CBTL.... you'll never want to see it if you see this one first! It will probably seem way too cheesy and turn you off from even caring about the original one.
I loved it!
VmpyrChild15 August 2001
I thought it was one of the best sequels I have seen in a while. Sometimes I felt as though I would just want someone to die, Stanley's killing off of the annoying characters was brilliant. It was such a well done movie that you were happy when so and so died. My only problem was in some scenes it looked like someone with a home camera was filming it and it was weird. Judd Nelson is cute, at least in my opinion and he was excellent in the role as Stanley Caldwell. Brilliant movie.
Garbage...
BHorrorWriter15 August 2001
Well, even for a Made-for-TV movie, this was just junk! Judd Nelson reprises his role as demented Stanley Caldwell; Badly! This just goes to show that sequels suck, for the most part. Ridiculous, absurd and trite. The plot offered nothing new, or original. The whole, Movie about the events from the first film, thing was just inane, and has been done to death. The killings were formulaic and dull. The beginning sequence with the first female victim. Come on; Who leaves a potted "fake" plant like that on a boat. In a pot that, looked to wieght a hundred pounds. And, what did it crawl its way up to that lady. That is what they made it appear. Then the cocaine addict. COCAINE DOESN'T MAKE YOU GIDDY!!! IT IS A DOWNER! That guy acted, overacted, like he was on laughing gas, instead. Overall a very disappointing effort, and of course a useless, open-ended ending that will hopefully not breed another Cabin by the Lake. What would they call it: The Return of the Return of the Cabin by the Lake! Or "Hell, you apparently liked the first and the 2nd, so let's do it again"
0 out of 10
0 out of 10
Perhaps One of the Best Sequels
The Creeper30 December 2001
Return to Cabin by the Lake is Perhaps one of The Few Sequels that Can Live up to The Original. It Had Black Humor, Good Suspense, Nice Looking Girls, and Of Course, a Psycho Killer. What are We Missing? I Think Nothing. Except we Are Left with a Small Amount of Gore and Nudity because It Was Made for Television. Besides Being one Of The Best Sequels, it is one of The Best Thrillers to Watch as a Family. Recommended for Everyone.
better than the original
darkenchantment-12 November 2006
actually... that "video camera" effect, is just that, it's an effect, a rather good one.. (u don't know much about directing a film do you?) this film is in fact BETTER than the original, it's great fun to watch, made for TV, doesn't need to follow any rules. I find it hard to watch number 1 because of how he kills the first girl, its disturbing. and all the time we are routing for Judd Nelson to get away with it, we as the viewers are on his side. i hope one day we will see a 3rd cabin by the lake but i doubt it. Watching this film you can understand how real movies are made, as this is sort of like a film within a film. Judd is one of the scariest villains ever, and he's more realistic, he doesn't just mindlessly chop people up like in other horrors.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
