Boogeyman II (1983) User Reviews

You know you're in trouble when the flashback scenes are the best part of the movie

[Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki · 1/10 · 3 November 2003]

Bizarre, pretentious, idiotic sequel starts off with 40 minutes of flashback footage of the first movie. So much footage is used from part one, that when the end credits roll, they actually credit both the cast of this movie AND the first one!

When the flashbacks mercifully end, the rest of this movie is pretty much Ulli Lommel poking the viewer in the eyes with this ridiculous story about filmmakers wanting to do a movie based on the events in part one, then a certain piece of broken mirror turns up and you can guess the rest. And if you can't then you have the iq of a carrot. Why did Lacey even bother to keep the piece of mirror? She had to know that it would cause more murder and mayhem. Then she misplaces it, and can't remember that she left it under her pillow! Perhaps she can't remember because of Lomell using a flashlight for lighting in many scenes, and the for-no-apparent-reason kaleidoscope vision some people have in the film?

We're then treated to see (or is that tricked into seeing?) some of the most idiotic killings ever filmed: death by electric toothbrush, death by shaving cream, death by salad tongs, death by sucking on a tailpipe after being slapped on the ass by a ladder(?!) etc.

No writer is credited (actually this was written by Bruce Starr, Ulli Lommel and Suzanna Love - she incidentally looks great in this movie, but you can watch the first movie to see her) and directed by Bruce Starr, Ulli Lommel and Paul Wilson (but both Ulli Lommel and Paul Wilson took their names off of this, and IMDb doesn't even list Wilson's name here) this was filmed in 1981 and not released until '83, and there is even a flashback sequence within a flashback sequence - what more can you ask for?

==========================

In most versions, the opening titles are in red, in a generic font against a plain black background. The British version, titled "Revenge of the Boogeyman" has a completely different set of titles: red lettering, like that found on a birthday cake, on plain white cards. When John Carradine's name appears, a hand is very clearly visible in the top right corner, holding the card up for the camera to film.

Now, about the so-called Director's Cut/ Redux:

The original Boogeyman II recycled tens of minutes of footage of the first film, and this version recycles even more, approximately eighty to ninety percent of the Director's Cut/ Redux is whole chunks of the first film repeated again and narrated by Ulli Lommell, in the guise of Lommell being questioned by off-screen police about the deaths which occurred in the original Boogeyman film, from 1980. All of the footage of him is taken from one stationary camera angle, while Lommell hides behind mirrored sunglasses, and is obviously looking down at the script on the table in front of him. (Who am I kidding, like there was really even a script for this)

Apparently this redux/ director's cut takes place 22 years later, and the police are just now getting around to questioning him! Lommell claims that he has no memory of the events in the first film, as he narrates the intimate details of the story of the first film, which was told to him 22 years ago? What? Ulli, do you even know what the bloody hell you are talking about here? Or was the dialogue just drunken, stream-of-consciousness ramblings? Ulli also claims that the second film's events are, in his memory, nothing more than "a series of slow motion still-photographs". Again, what the hell does that mean?

Ulli says of the butler, played by Shoto von Douglas: "He actually, ... uh, .... one day, came walking down the street, in the butler outfit, and rang the bell and asked me whether he could serve me". Yeah, Ulli, that happens a lot, I bet.

"Lacey claims that it was the boogeyman. Well, I don't believe in the boogeyman. But yeah, maybe, uh, maybe it was the boogeyman. I'll stand trial for these killings, no problem. I have nothing to hide, I'm innocent. The boogeyman did it." Heavy drinking Ulli, or just stupidity?

Original version of Boogeyman II gets a 2/ 10 from me, just for a couple of unintended laughs.

The Director's Cut/ Redux version gets a 1/ 10, and almost makes the original Boogeyman II look like a classic.

Really, REALLY bad!

[andybob-2 · 2/10 · 1 February 2000]

This is more flashbacks of the first "Boogeyman" movie than anything else (literally %75 of this film), and what it dosen't rip off is boring, cheap garbage. In fact the best thing I can say about it is that it isn't quite as bad as the next sequel, "Return of the Boogeyman", which is only surpassed by maybe "Plan 9 from Outer Space" or perhaps a test pattern. Rub your eyes real hard, its more entertaining than watching this one.

Redux version

[Michael_Elliott · 12 March 2008]

Boogeyman II(1983/2002)

* 1/2 (out of 4) Original Cut

BOMB (out of 4) Redux Version

Notorious follow up to the 1980 cult classic has that films only survivor (Suzanna Love) going to Hollywood to see a friend when several producers become interested in her story. The only problem is that part of the broken mirror from that original film is with her and soon the boogeyman is once again killing folks. If the story sounds mildly interesting then you can just forget that because sadly this film is made up of at least sixty-percent of footage from the original movie. I still remember the first time I watched this film and how confused and disappointed I was that it didn't feature more of a story. THE BOOGEYMAN was a surprise hit and an effective thriller but none of that eeriness made its way to this cheap sequel, which was made after Lommel turned down an offer from Paramount for a bigger budget. Once you try and get past the fact that the majority of this movie is from the original, you're left with a rather nutty film. We get some extremely bizarre and at times downright stupid death scenes including one with a tooth brush and another with a car muffler. How these death scenes are carried off are rather obvious and cheap. I hated this film with a passion when I first saw it and the "director's cut", released through Image, didn't do the film any justice as it just featured this film minus about twenty-minutes and then with new footage thrown back into the film making it more BOOGEYMAN 4 than anything else. I was rather shocked to see how much nostalgia this film carries and how much better it plays out today. You can just look at the thing and see, smell and taste the cheapness of those early 80's and on that level the film mildly works. The performances are all rather bland, especially Lommel as the director and it's a shame Love wasn't given more to do here. No matter how the movie struck me this time there's no denying that this is still a major disappointment considering how effective the first film was and how much more could have been done here. As it is, the film comes off as Lommel just throwing a fit about Hollywood as that's what takes up a lot of the new footage.

When THE BOOGEYMAN became a huge hit in 1980 every studio lined up hoping Ulli Lommel would do a sequel. For a while he refused but when he finally gave in he turned out one of the worst films ever made. Boogeyman 2 started with over forty-minutes worth of footage from the first film and then the second half had the director starring as a director being forced into making a sequel and the boogeyman shows up to kill the producer's. Then in 2002 for the DVD release, the director decided he didn't like this version so what's he do? He keeps all the footage from The Boogeyman but with the Boogeyman 2 footage he turns the color into B&W and has the scenes play in a fast forward mode. He then adds fifteen minutes of newly shot footage (of himself) and pretty much changes the entire film to where you should really be calling this Boogeyman 4. On the DVD interview the director says that parts 5-9 will be coming soon. Since there isn't a part 4 I'd say that's what this is suppose to be, although Image is still selling the DVD as a sequel to the original film, which is certainly false marketing. So in the end, Lommel made a hit film in 1980, kept the rights to that film and since then has made two sequels plus this thing with that original footage with newly added stuff on each one. Talk about milking a movie.

This "Redux" version actually adds more scenes from the original movie and takes away several scenes from the original part 2. Again, the original part 2 was a horrid film but it did feature some hilarious death scenes including one by a muffler and another by a toothbrush. This "Redux" version makes the film look even worse and it's a damn outrage that Image would release what's basically part 4 as the original part 2. I'm counting this as a new view.

The director has filled this sequel with footages from the first part to help us remember what happened in the first part.

[Fella_shibby · 1/10 · 2 June 2022]

How sweet of him.

And just to make sure that no one can blame him for running short of ideas, he included some very wtf innovative kills.

A woman gets killed by shaving foam.

A supernatural entity hits a woman's butt by a ladder causing her to swallow a car's exhaust pipe. The entity later turns on the car's engine and forces the woman to swallow the fumes.

Thank God I saw this for the first time recently since i just revisited part 1. This movie doesn't deserve a single viewing let aside revisiting.

Some info:

Jackie Chan's Fearless Hyena part 2 added flashbacks from part 1.

Wes Craven's Hills Have Eyes part 2 added flashbacks from part 1.

Video Nastie redux

[lastliberal · 2/10 · 3 November 2008]

Revenge of the Bogey Man or BoogeyMan II was initially one of the video nasties banned in Britain. It was released in 2003 after additional footage was added.

Revenge of the Bogey Man is a good title because Ulli Lommel takes his revenge on us by showing all of the original Boogeyman film within this and some additional footage that really adds nothing to the story.

Can you say ripoff? Don't bother to watch the original because the entire movie is here.

What the heck was he thinking? Does he play us for fools? I guess he gets his revenge as I watched it.

Beware of the Boogeyman!

[BA_Harrison · 1/10 · 4 January 2011]

Under interrogation from the police, art-house film-maker turned horror director Mickey Lombard (Ulli Lommel) gives his account of the events that have resulted in his arrest for a series of grisly murders.

In the mid 80s, UK horror fans were treated with utter contempt by the BBFC when the organisation saw fit to draw up a list of films they deemed unsuitable for public viewing due to their graphic nature—a list which included several films that are now recognised as classics of the genre. To make matters even worse, this 'video nasty' list also included certain titles that were indisputably complete and utter garbage. Years later, horror fans who actively seek out all of the official 'nasty' titles for the sake of completion can find themselves playing a game of horror movie Russian roulette.

One video nasty that is most definitely the movie equivalent of a loaded chamber is Ulli Lommell's Boogeyman II (AKA Revenge of the Boogeyman), an absolutely dire snooze-fest that almost makes taking a bullet to the brain seem like the preferable option (it would certainly involve a lot less suffering). Consisting primarily of regurgitated footage from the first film, plus a few additional scenes starring the director himself and some risible supernatural killings (including death by electric toothbrush!?!), Boogeyman II makes most of the other nasties look like classics in comparison (so perhaps it's not an entirely worthless flick after all).

So bad is the film, in fact, that it has been suggested by some (including Lommell himself, unsurprisingly) that the whole thing was a massive two fingers up to the film industry by a disgruntled director unable to receive funding for anything but horror films. If this was the case, then I guess Lommell succeeded: his film is a joyless experience from start to finish, one which must have had his investors seething with rage.

Incredibly, twenty years after its initial release, director Lommell issued a re-edited 'Redux' version intended to finally realise his original vision. If anything, this cut is even worse than the first one.

Awful

[susanwiseman68 · 1/10 · 29 August 2006]

It didn't make sense, so much that I restarted it a few times to make sure I wasn't watching "the making of Boogeyman II". The acting was TERRIBLE, the plot was ridiculous. It looked like the worst B movie I've ever seen. Totally LOW BUDGET and LOW SKILL. I don't remember ever seeing any of these actors in any other movie, and its no wonder. A bunch of garbled screen flashes of garbage that didn't really make any sense or fit into the movie other than the fact that they were random horror pics, at least it kept consistent with the genre. Most high school kids could do better at storyline, acting, filming, directing. A waste of time.

One of the Worst Films EVER Made

[ctindyfilm · 1/10 · 1 April 2009]

I purchased this on DVD and what did I get? A piece of useless garbage that you can't even give away for 1 cent on ebay. Trust me, I tried.

This is one of the worst films ever made. Here's why, the DVD of Boogeyman 2 isn't the VHS version from the 80's, it's a hack job from a hack director who went and took forty+ minutes worth of footage from the first film and the 'new' Boogeyman 2 footage is a bunch of scenes that play in a fast forward mode - what the ??????????? Also, the director shows himself speaking about the proceedings that is spread out through the film. This makes no sense and is so badly done that it leaves the viewer chucking the DVD in disgust.

The original part 2 was a decent horror film but this new DVD version is a worthless piece of garbage.

AVOID this film. (Note: I found a use for my DVD as I used it for a coaster)

cheesyman 2

[trashgang · 3/10 · 8 March 2009]

It was more then fifteen years ago that I watched the original Boge(e)yman. It was still the era of VHS. Now that most OOP's and other obscure movies are available on DVD I just watched the original Boogeyman 2. Original, cause a few years ago they made Boogeyman and Boogeyman 2. Back to the eighties it was for me. All I could remember from the first movie was that there wasn't a lot of killings and if they appear they weren't bloody after all. I also noticed in reviews that this version was a bit of a best off of the first part with some additional scene's. And it was, all the best parts of the first part are included in this part and sometimes they show the killing twice in different parts through the film. There are more bloodier killings in this one and a lot are seen from first person shots, but they are cheesy. The score is okay too. That's the reason that I gave it a 3 out of 10. The storyline is terrible, the movie isn't about anything and you can see things coming from miles away. Wait until the end at the graveyard...can you guess what will happen? So, my conclusion, if you haven't seen the first part watch this flick, you will have both movies in one.

Repeat of the original Bogey Man

[Stevieboy666 · 3/10 · 6 May 2018]

UK VHS title - Revenge of the Bogey Man. I acknowledge that The Bogey Man was no classic but I have a soft spot for it. So back in the 1980's when I saw it's sequel on the shelf in my local video store I was over the moon. Boy, was I in for a disappointment! At least half of Revenge's running time is footage from the original. John Carradine's name appears in the opening credits yet only delivers a few words (stock footage). The new footage consists mainly of a group of people chatting around a Hollywood home. When they do start getting bumped off we get such pathetic treats such as death by toothbrush, by car exhaust, etc. As for the promised "Carrie" style ending, what a load of rubbish. How this made the "Video Nasty" list in the UK I just don't know. Just shows what a farce the whole affair was.

Worst horror film ever made

[kennywest1 · 1/10 · 1 September 2001]

The worst horror film ever made I think is, Boogyman 2. There's almost no story at all except for scant spooky scenes involving a possesed piece of broken mirror. The film is so slow and dull even a very old John Carradine can't help it from stinking. There's always the stupidest film that can be entertaining in a great way, but this isn't one of them. Avoid this waste of your attention.

Recycled horror

[lor_ · 27 January 2023]

Made in 1982, "Boogeyman II" is an unsuccessful followup to Ulli Lommel's 1980 horror hit. Carrying sequelitis to a distressing extreme, about half the current picture's running time consists of flashback highlights from the earlier film, amounting to virtually a condensed version. Small wonder that, in common with many other marginal films of late, the pic had no theatrical release but has gone instead directly into the home video market.

Uncredited screenplay is built around the first film's heroine Lacey (Suzanna Love) moving from Maryland to L. A. six months after the supernatural murders recounted in part 1. Much of the pic's early reels consists of flashback material as she tells her story to friends and film director Mickey Lombard (Ulli Lommel).

Beyond recapitulation of already-released footage, "Boogeyman II" is a vehicle for expatriate German filmmaker Uli Lommel to express his misgivings about the Hollywood scene. Recalling (no doubt unintentionally) the theme of an unsung little film-about-films "The Other Woman" by the Czech actor-director Hugo Haas, the picture has Lommel (under protest) shooting some skin shots to spice up his current art film entitled "Nathalie and the Age of Diminishing Expectations". His producer has already retitled the epic "Kiss and Tell".

As Haas did 30 years ago, Lommel (in character) sounds off about the commercial vicissitudes of filmmaking. Thumbing through a copy of Kenneth Anger's "Hollywood Babylon", he spots a photo of Erich von Strohim and comments cynically about the "good old days when Hollywood destroyed real people instead of toys". Regarding spiralling costs and waste, once again the target is a familiar one, as Lommel's agent expresses the low-budget filmer's refrain: "Brian De Palma spent $18,000,000 on that bomb of his "Blow Out", you could make 50 movies for that".

Amidst this griping, the lethal mirror shard brought along from ""Boogeyman" by Lacey goes on the rampage again, possessing the butler Joseph (Sholto von Douglass). With extremely cheap blood and gore effects, various household objects are supernaturally levitaged and used to kill off the greepy guests at a Hollywood party. Besides a garden hose, hedge-clipper, corkscrew and barbecue tongs, the appliances employed in this weak spoof of the "Power tools of death" horror genre extend to an electric toothbrush and even a girl smothered by shaving cream. It's a feeble exercise in black humor, right up through the inevitable graveside ending (ripped off from De Palma's "Carrie").

My review was written in July 1983 after watching the movie on videocassette.

Bogey Man gets revenge in boring first film retread!

[The_Void · 2/10 · 15 December 2006]

If there was ever a film that didn't need a sequel, it was Ulli Lommel's The Bogey Man. This follow-up would have been more understandable if it were a personal project from the same director, but for some reason; someone called Bruce Starr has taken up the reigns (I neither know, or care, the reasons for this. Or if Bruce Starr is a Ulli Lommel pseudonym). Well...he sort of has, as this film is at least half a retread of the first film with direct 'flashback' scenes making up a large proportion of the runtime. The plot this time focuses on some people in Hollywood who want to make a film based on the events of the first Bogey Man film (groan), this gives Brucey Starr an opportunity to stick a load of scenes from the original together with the stuff he directed. The main problem with The Revenge of the Bogey Man is that it's mind numbingly boring! I have to admit that even though it was merely a couple of months ago when I saw the first film, I can't remember most of it - and even that didn't stop the film being completely boring. The idea of a killer coming out of a mirror is more silly than frightening anyway, and while it doesn't surprise me that this film ended up on the DPP Video Nasty list, as the first one did and this is essentially the same film; I for one wish it didn't because then I wouldn't have seen it. Recommended? Nope!

Death by Electric Toothbrush!

[Coventry · 4/10 · 24 December 2010]

Writer/director Ulli Lommel is nowadays a very notorious and even quite hated individual because he unleashes multiple downright insufferable straight-to-video horror stinkers on the market every single year, but there once was a time when he was a promising filmmaker. In the very earliest phase of his career he made the near-brilliant "The Tenderness of Wolves" and throughout the early eighties he made a handful of inferior but highly amusing horror movies, like "Brain Waves", "The Devonsville Terror" and "The Boogeyman". That last one is definitely a minor 80's classic. The story is pure hokum, but the film is full of absurdly grotesque murder sequences and extreme gore. Ulli Lommel and his buddies must have been so proud on their accomplishment that they decided to re-use all the best footage to fill up almost three quarters of the sequel. Yes, you read that right: "Boogeyman II" is stuffed like a Christmas turkey with key footage of the original, and that's the main reason why it receives so many negative reviews around here. Personally I didn't mind all that much, because it's been a couple of years since I watched it. This way, I get to re-watch all the fun parts (like that awesome mouth-to-mouth impalement sequence) without having to sit through the dull parts. Part two takes place in Hollywood, where survivor Lacey is staying with friends to recover from her trauma. Through long and extremely detailed flashbacks, Lacey tells the story about the murderous spirit in the little piece of mirror to befriended actress and her husband director (played by Ulli Lommel himself, with his atrocious German accent). Naturally they want to exploit Lacey's bizarre thriller story and turn it into a horror movie, but then the Boogeyman returns to kill them all during a typical Hollywood pool party. "Boogeyman II" is 50 minutes of stock footage and 25 minutes of non-stop new murders. The new massacres are very lame in comparison with those of the original, though. Death by electric toothbrush and suffocation in shaving gel, for example. The film still got included in the infamous list of video nasties, but only because of the stock footage of the original and not because of the ridiculous new murder set pieces.

A Terrible Terrible Movie!!!

[stickdoc2005 · 1/10 · 4 July 2009]

I'm an expert on vintage & modern horror movies or most of them!!! With that having said...I want to tell everyone here on IMDb that this horror movie tops the top 3 worst horror movies in history!!! I bought this movie on Amazon.Com simply because I thought this was the same version as on the VHS tape,WRONG!!!! Take my word for it don't waste your hard earned money!!! Go figure!!! Think about it!!! And I thought "Cheepshow 3" was bad, HUH!!! This movie buries "Creepshow 3"!!! I think what this director needs to do is release the original version of this film otherwise sooner or later he will go out of the business!!! Face It!!! Who wants to buy A lousy horror film!!!

The Revenge of Ulli Lommel

[Red-Barracuda · 1/10 · 13 November 2012]

Well folks, if you ever wondered what the absolute worst video nasty was then you need look no further. Revenge of the Boogeyman is quite simply an awful film. I don't mind poorly executed horror films or absolute trash-fests – far from it. But I do mind films that exploit the viewer with little or no pay back. Luckily I was well aware of this bad boy's reputation in advance of seeing it so I was prepared. I had also seen the third film in this franchise Return of the Boogeyman which was truly an even worse excuse for a film. But that doesn't change the fact that this is a terrible movie from an abysmal franchise. Don't get me entirely wrong here; I actually like the original Boogeyman. It's no great shakes but it's entertaining and does the job. Unfortunately it clearly should have ended there as the sequels seem to purely be an excuse of regurgitating the material of that first movie. And this film is a good example of this. The first half is simply made up of flash-backs of scenes taken from part one. This is barely film-making to be honest and director Ulli Lommel should really hang his head in shame but seeing as his franchise has repeated the exact same trick a further two times I suspect he isn't strictly too bothered.

Once we get beyond forty minutes of flash-backs we kick into a new story where Lommel himself plays a director who has been asked to make a film about events depicted in the first movie. Lommel spends a great deal of time railing against Hollywood and how the ungrateful swine there ignore him unfairly. Well to be honest Ulli, on the strength of this movie you can't really say they don't have a bit of a point. The rest of the movie involves the Boogeyman returning and killing various people in what has to be a series of the most stupid death scenes ever conceived for a motion picture. These killings include seminal moments such as death by toothbrush. To be fair, it's the sheer idiocy of these murder scenes that makes this feature even vaguely bearable. They are so stupid they are sort of worth watching. But all things considered, I don't think Revenge of the Boogeyman as a whole is in the least bit worth seeking out. The only reason I can conceivably think you should watch this is if you are attempting to complete the video nasty list. Otherwise please stay away

An insult to film and filmmakers

[tomgillespie2002 · 2/10 · 25 April 2019]

If there was ever a horror film that didn't require a sequel, Ulli Lommel's cult 1980 hit The Boogeyman is it. Telling the story of two siblings who accidentally release the spirit of their mother's dead boyfriend via a magical mirror, The Boogeyman is a hokey, stupid, and instantly forgettable film, although I can understand why certain fans of the genre may hold it in higher esteem. Following its surprisingly successful limited run, Paramount Pictures were keen to hand Lommel, a bad-boy German arthouse director, a substantially larger budget for the follow-up, but the filmmaker became annoyed at their refusal to allow him to work on other projects outside the realm of horror.

Lommel eventually made Revenge of the Boogeyman, or simply Boogeyman II, out of sheer frustration, and the result was one of the most notoriously terrible movies ever made. You get the sense that the sequel is one giant middle-finger to all those pesky studio heads who were only interested in squeezing some quick cash out of a mediocre horror film that proved an unexpected hit with the horror crowd. Lommel even casts himself as a movie director tasked with adapting the events of the first film for the big screen, who also questions Hollywood's opportunistic, closed-minded approach. You could almost admire Lommel's arrogance if Revenge of the Boogeyman didn't also feel like a huge middle-finger to the audience, who are not only forced to sit through some of the most laughable and badly-constructed set-pieces ever committed to screen, but also over forty minutes of flashbacks which consist of recycled footage from the previous film.

The 'story' follows lone survivor Lacey (Suzanna Love) as she travels to Hollywood to stay with friends and recuperate after the trauma she suffered at the hands of the 'boogeyman'. After recapping her tale, she is quickly pounced on by a bunch of Hollywood types who are keen to profit on her misery. God knows why, but Lacey carries a piece of the cursed broken mirror with her wherever she goes, so it isn't long until the party guests start turning up dead. And how spectacularly they die. There's death by toothbrush, death by exhaust pipe through the mouth after being hit on the backside by a ladder, and worst of all, death by that most terrifying of household items, shaving foam. Looking as though it was shot over a weekend and patched together without any resemblance of a script, Revenge of the Boogeyman is an insult to film and filmmakers, and anyone seeking to find the most reprehensible of all the 'video nasties' need look no further. To make matters worse, Lommel went back to try and salvage the film, releasing a 'Redux' version in 2003. Apparently, somehow, it's even worse.

Strangely brilliant

[polysicsarebest · 8/10 · 8 October 2008]

If you haven't seen part 1 of this film, skip it and just watch this one. As other reviewers have already commented, this film is half scenes from part 1 and half new, ridiculous, hilarious killings. I can understand someone being upset with this film if they've already seen the original film.

However, I hadn't seen the original when I watched this, so I found the constant, fast-paced kill scenes to be amazingly entertaining. After viewing part 1, I found this film to actually be superior; you have all the best scenes from the first film with some of the craziest deaths ever filmed for the second half! Completely bizarre and ridiculous, very atmospheric, great music, good acting, extremely fast-moving, great death scenes, etc. What more could you want? Again, if you're a fan of the first film, this movie is probably unnecessary. However, if you haven't seen either one, this is definitely one of the most bizarre and amazing films you'll ever see...

Low budget horror movie from the 1980's

[jordondave-28085 · 4/10 · 9 May 2023]

(1983) Boogeyman II HORROR

Without seeing the first "Boogeyman" this is still common stuff, for theirs no consistency which regards people telling stories involving a piece of a cursed mirror, making people doing horrible acts as well making inanimate objects such as scissors, and barbecue utensils floating by themselves killing people similar to the "Final Destination" movies or "The Exorcist". This is yet another another horror movie with no logic. Actually, to tell you the truth, I had absolutely had no clue what this movie was about until I read the back of this video case. The reason is that the production values are so bad that I barely couldn't make out what some of the characters were saying and doing.

Too much review, too little sequel

[Elvis-Del-Valle · 4/10 · 5 June 2023]

While the previous movie wasn't an excellent slasher, it was still an entertaining and enjoyable movie. This sequel offers little and falls far too short to be considered a sequel. Much of the film consists of summarizing what was seen in the previous film through some flashbacks that end up occupying half of this film. That and the narration of the survivor while her Hollywood peers discuss to plan to make a movie based on said events. It could be said that the true plot of this sequel does not begin until the last half hour of the film remains. That makes the movie feel like an overly long prologue and the flashbacks end up being pure filler. The plot is too short and barely existent. This movie used the same formula as "Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2" but in a bad way making there almost no plot for a sequel. It is noticeable that here the budget is much more limited than that of the previous film. The death scenes are mostly absurd and that they are few. Boogeyman 2 ends up being an unnecessary sequel that can't be taken seriously and a waste of trying to continue an already cult movie. My final rating for this movie is 4/10.

Boogeyman II

[Coxer99 · 13 July 1999]

Awful sequel to chiller with the story relying too heavily on flashback to tell a story that never develops fully into something coherent or interesting.

The Bogeyman's Revenge Was Making Me Watch This Snot. 1-2-Miss

[P3n-E-W1s3 · 2/10 · 7 May 2022]

Greetings And Salutations, and welcome to my review of Bogeyman II; here's the breakdown of my ratings:

Story: 0.25 Direction: 0.25 Pace: 0.25 Acting: 1.00 Enjoyment: 0.25

TOTAL: 2 out of 10

To say this film is horrendous is an understatement. It is the apotheosis of how not to make a movie sequel. I was left wondering why I didn't hit the off switch, and the answer is simple - I watched this crap, so you don't have to.

The dreadful thing is the original film wasn't too bad and contained some entertaining scenes and concepts. Sadly that can't be said of Bogeyman Junior. The story is straightforward. The heroine of The Bogey Man visits a friend in Hollywood whose husband is a director. Upon hearing her harrowing tale of the occult, his producer decides her story could make millions and resolves to put its filming into motion. But they don't get the chance.

Sounds okay so far; lots of possibilities, which is fine until you start watching. You suddenly realise that complete segments of the original are shown as flashbacks to envision her recitations. I estimate that eighty-five percent of the first movie is replayed. There are only around twenty minutes in the new feature, and none of these is as creative as the old flick.

So it gets a tad difficult to critique the direction as those twenty minutes are interspersed here and there. However, when the killings begin, I can say these aren't as inventive or well shot.

Worst of all is the acting; because the movie appears quickly thought out, everybody had to do extra jobs. Therefore the writers and directors are also the stars. Let me tell you - they are as skilled at performing as they are in their other fields.

There's nothing of note in this trash, and I cannot recommend strongly enough for everybody to steer clear of The Bogeyman II.

Please feel free to visit my Absolute Horror list to see where I ranked Bogeyman II.

Take Care & Stay Well.

They made this sequel to cash in on the original and nothing more

[ronnievanrijswijk · 5/10 · 2 May 2019]

Like i sayd above... It's just a thin story about the sole survivor from the original who's getting some attention from a few big time producers, but the evil forces are still stalking her. This combined with all the death scenes you already saw in the original plus a few new crappy death scenes, this sequel is just fun to have in your collection if you just want to have everything related to Uwe Lommel's Boogeyman franchise. But this second part is just plain bad, there are a few decent scenes but still... Mr Lommel just should've stayed with the original movie.

Boogeyman II

[HorrorFan1984 · 2/10 · 1 June 2020]

A Hollywood director wants to make a movie out of the horror Lacey endured from the first movie. The evil presence of the mirror will stop at nothing to kill everyone involved.

We see Lacey from the first film travelling to Hollywood to visit an old friend from high school named Bonnie. Lacey is looking forward to some sun and relaxation away from Maryland. Bonnie is an actress and we see her filming some scenes for an exploitation movie when Lacey arrives. After that, Lacey tells Bonnie and her director/lover Mickey the events of the first film. He decides that he wants to make a movie out of her story and invites a bunch of producers and wannabe actresses over to the house for a pool party to discuss the possibility of making a film. They start dying one by one thanks to the shard of glass from the mirror. Will anyone survive?

Boogeyman II is a bad film, let's be real. It's pretty much a group of Hollywood producer and agent types along with aspiring young actresses meet up at some director's house for a party when they all start getting knocked off thanks to the piece of mirror Lacey brought with her. Other than that, 40% of the film is actual flashback footage from the original movie which tells me that Lommel had run out of fresh ideas and couldn't come up with a full length movie. Some of the party stuff and deaths were ok, but there was only 40 minutes of that new material.

I wouldn't recommend Boogeyman II to even horror fans. It is pretty much stock footage of the first movie mixed in with a Hollywood party of aspiring actresses getting killed by the mirror.

2/10

Unrelenting Horror At Its Most Intensely Powerful

[jlthornb51 · 9/10 · 13 May 2015]

Truly frightening horror film that grabs the viewer by the throat and never lets go for the length of the movie. Superbly directed, this is a film of torrential terror. Highly underrated by those who do not appreciate the epitome of nightmare experiences, this is indeed a magnificent piece of cinema triumph that has not reached the audience it deserves. Few motion pictures are of such quality and so inspired that they become touchstones of genres. This is one of them. The insanely intense scares come fast and furiously and this is an out and out assault upon our senses. The audience I saw this with were completely overwhelmed and fled from the theater after the shattering climax.