I have not seen the first one, so I am judging this movie solely on being an independent movie and not a sequel. The movie, as far as the boogeyman goes, isn't that bad. I'm not really familiar with the actually boogeyman story, but this was pretty interesting. The setting of the movie is somewhat your typical horror film (a hospital/clinic), but doesn't take back anything. It has a fair amount suspense, gore, character development, and eye candy. The acting was surprisingly above average, and actually really well done, especially from the main actress (who I've not seen before). Now, the movie isn't everything great either. Some of the scenes are somewhat over the top and corny, and there is some predictability. Overall, its not bad though, something to watch when you're bored. I rate it 6/10. Unrated (my rating): R for Strong horror violence and terror, language, some sexuality/nudity, and brief drug content
39 Reviews
The Makers Of This Movie Deceived Me. :(
Mr_Saxon25 December 2007
Have you seen the first "Boogeyman" movie? I have. It was one of those movies that you watch once and don't really ever think about again. However, I liked the idea behind it and I'm a big fan of supernatural horror movies so, when I heard there was a "Boogeyman 2" I thought I'd check it out.
This is not the movie I expected. In fact, I feel quite deceived. More on that later.
After a quite tense opening sequence where Laura (Renee O'Connor) first encounters the Boogeyman as a child, the movie moves onto the main storyline. Whereas the first movie was a man confronting his childhood demons in his family home, this movie is set in hospital where the main character also attempts to overcome her childhood fears. As well as finding herself in the worst staffed hospital of all time, one of Laura's doctors is none other than Jigsaw himself (the wonderful Tobin Bell, who is as creepy here as in the "Saw" movies). Things aren't looking good for her.
Once each of her fellow patients has revealed their fears in various non-too-subtle ways ("I'm not changing the light in your closet because I'M SCARED OF THE DARK!" "I'm not shaking your hand because I'M SCARED OF GERMS!" etc), they all begin to be killed by the evil Boogeyman who (surprise...surprise) uses their fears against them. I actually quite liked some of the deaths here which were suitably graphic and disturbing - I'm sure a lot of ketchup must have been used in the making of this movie.
However, I ultimately felt deceived by "Boogeyman 2".
The makers actually trick you in a very naughty way - kinda like going to watch a "Nightmare On Elm Street" sequel only to discover that Freddie is no longer the evil spirit of a child murderer but is now an evil robot from the future. You'd say "Huh? This isn't anything like the first movie. I wanted to see a supernatural horror movie, not another Terminator clone!". You'll see exactly what I mean if you've seen "Boogeyman" and then watch "Boogeyman 2" (unfortunately, I can't be any more specific as it would be a spoiler). In fact, "Boogeyman 2" has so little to do with the first "Boogeyman" that I'm surprised they even share the same name. It also features one completely unnecessary scene of graphic nudity - whether this is a good thing or not depends upon whether you're still in high school. I left high school a while ago and found myself wondering why the scene needed to exist at all. Oh well.
In summary then, this is a very average little horror movie. I can't say I was particularly scared by any of it but it was nicely acted and had some cool death scenes (some of which reminded me a little bit of "Saw" if truth be told - no wonder Tobin Bell turned up!).
If you like watching teens running around dark corridors before losing their vital organs (and your DVD collection consists of movies such as "Halloween: Resurrection" and "Jason X"), then it's probably worth a rental. However, if you really enjoyed the first movie and want more of the same (or, like me, you're just looking for a good supernatural horror movie), I'm willing to bet that you'll be disappointed with "Boogeyman 2".
This is not the movie I expected. In fact, I feel quite deceived. More on that later.
After a quite tense opening sequence where Laura (Renee O'Connor) first encounters the Boogeyman as a child, the movie moves onto the main storyline. Whereas the first movie was a man confronting his childhood demons in his family home, this movie is set in hospital where the main character also attempts to overcome her childhood fears. As well as finding herself in the worst staffed hospital of all time, one of Laura's doctors is none other than Jigsaw himself (the wonderful Tobin Bell, who is as creepy here as in the "Saw" movies). Things aren't looking good for her.
Once each of her fellow patients has revealed their fears in various non-too-subtle ways ("I'm not changing the light in your closet because I'M SCARED OF THE DARK!" "I'm not shaking your hand because I'M SCARED OF GERMS!" etc), they all begin to be killed by the evil Boogeyman who (surprise...surprise) uses their fears against them. I actually quite liked some of the deaths here which were suitably graphic and disturbing - I'm sure a lot of ketchup must have been used in the making of this movie.
However, I ultimately felt deceived by "Boogeyman 2".
The makers actually trick you in a very naughty way - kinda like going to watch a "Nightmare On Elm Street" sequel only to discover that Freddie is no longer the evil spirit of a child murderer but is now an evil robot from the future. You'd say "Huh? This isn't anything like the first movie. I wanted to see a supernatural horror movie, not another Terminator clone!". You'll see exactly what I mean if you've seen "Boogeyman" and then watch "Boogeyman 2" (unfortunately, I can't be any more specific as it would be a spoiler). In fact, "Boogeyman 2" has so little to do with the first "Boogeyman" that I'm surprised they even share the same name. It also features one completely unnecessary scene of graphic nudity - whether this is a good thing or not depends upon whether you're still in high school. I left high school a while ago and found myself wondering why the scene needed to exist at all. Oh well.
In summary then, this is a very average little horror movie. I can't say I was particularly scared by any of it but it was nicely acted and had some cool death scenes (some of which reminded me a little bit of "Saw" if truth be told - no wonder Tobin Bell turned up!).
If you like watching teens running around dark corridors before losing their vital organs (and your DVD collection consists of movies such as "Halloween: Resurrection" and "Jason X"), then it's probably worth a rental. However, if you really enjoyed the first movie and want more of the same (or, like me, you're just looking for a good supernatural horror movie), I'm willing to bet that you'll be disappointed with "Boogeyman 2".
Good one
Gunnar_Runar_Ingibjargarson18 June 2008
I was actually surprised at how much fun I had watching this flick. Some of these direct to DVD time killers are better than what's being thrown at us in the theaters. I'm still struggling with trying to watch the first bore-fest but this little gem got me hooked right away. This is a straight up slasher with some supernatural flavor used more as a decoy than for major thrills. If you like these films then get yourself a copy and you will definitely enjoy yourself. They spent less money this time but the addition of Tobin Bell (Today's Vincent Price) is perfect. I recommend this one for fans of the slasher genre, Mr. Bell, and cheesy little DVD. Check Tobin out in Buried Alive also.
the best one of the trilogy
trashgang31 August 2010
I guess that the producers really had learned their lesson with part 1, the use of CGI was a complete letdown in part 1 but here we have a real boogeyman. It is even so that the boogeyman is more a real killer which gives us the fact that we are in the era of the slashers. The start of the movie learns us that two children witness the killing of both parents. The boy was already afraid and guessed that it was the boogeyman due the fact that the killer was never captured. For that reason they watched the children closely in psychiatry. Next stop, 10 years later. The boy tells his sister that he has to go. His sister is back in therapy but suddenly one after one people in her neighborhood get killed. She suspect the boogeyman is back in business. Once the killings start it's old school slasher style. I have seen the 93 minutes version in stead of the European version and I can say that the unrated version isn't afraid by showing the killings. It's mostly done in a bloody way or sometimes even in a gory way. The fact that the effects used are without CGI makes it all worth watching. It is also funny to see Tobin Bell as Dr Mitchell. I guess the director made an ode to SAW by putting in a device to rip open a chest. Anyway, Bell is excellent as all others who are really believable. You can guess easily who's the killer but the plot change gives it all worth watching. And for the ones wandering if all elements are in it to say it's a slasher, yes, Chrissy Griffith does show her milky ways in close up a few times. Sadly, part 3 was back to the imagination of the boogeyman in CGI, but the red stuff made it second best.
boogeyman 2
rivertam264 January 2008
BOOGEYMAN 2 BOOGEYMAN 2: Sony/Ghost House 2007 color 93m Horror/Thriller Tobin Bell Daniell Savre, Matthew Cohen, David Gallagher, Mae Whitman and Renee 'O' Connor Written by Brain Sieve Directed by Jeff Betancourt N/R contains graphic violence, language, gore, sexuality, nudity and drug use.
The wonderful thing I love about S2DVD sequels of craptacular movies is that you are always so surprised. Wheather it be for the good in which its unintentionally laughable or the other good in which its actually good and your not sure why this film ended up here or the bad in which you just shut it off. Well I must say I found Boogeyman 2 plesantly surprising. Although the first one was not a good movie at all I have to admit that it pretty much scared the crap out of me. So although I can't really recommend that film because most of those scares were due to sound FX I have to say i was a little siked going into this film. one 'o'clock in the a.m. just me and my boy watching with the lights off. And I must say it was pretty darn good. This time around it tells the story of two young kids who see there parents murdered in a hugely grotesque fashion. The brother overcomes his fear of the dark ten years later and leaves the lil sis in a mental institution where all the inmates start dying in relaly brutal ways depending on what there fears are. I won't give anything away but some gimmicks include, roaches, maggots, acid and just crazy buckets of goo. This film is so successful in its execution because it acknowledges its plot and dives headfirst into it. It's gory as hell and offers up everything and hungry horror fan could hope for. There are crazy ass death sequences, gore by the gallon, some T&A plus you get to watch the kid from 7th heaven smoke a joint. And it's actually pretty scary and has...wait for it....wait for it...A pretty good screenplay although it's slightly predictable the performances are pretty good and the twists are quite effective. So conclusion equals crazy gore, lots of scares, hot guys, kick ass heroine, pretty good plot. Kick ass sequel. I can see why it wasn't released in theatres as it would have been trimmed down and not nearly as effective and also because it lacks the professionalism in it's look that even most the bad horror flicks have. But what it lacks for in professionalism it makes up for in sheer spunk. This movie is so friggin fun!
***.5/5
The wonderful thing I love about S2DVD sequels of craptacular movies is that you are always so surprised. Wheather it be for the good in which its unintentionally laughable or the other good in which its actually good and your not sure why this film ended up here or the bad in which you just shut it off. Well I must say I found Boogeyman 2 plesantly surprising. Although the first one was not a good movie at all I have to admit that it pretty much scared the crap out of me. So although I can't really recommend that film because most of those scares were due to sound FX I have to say i was a little siked going into this film. one 'o'clock in the a.m. just me and my boy watching with the lights off. And I must say it was pretty darn good. This time around it tells the story of two young kids who see there parents murdered in a hugely grotesque fashion. The brother overcomes his fear of the dark ten years later and leaves the lil sis in a mental institution where all the inmates start dying in relaly brutal ways depending on what there fears are. I won't give anything away but some gimmicks include, roaches, maggots, acid and just crazy buckets of goo. This film is so successful in its execution because it acknowledges its plot and dives headfirst into it. It's gory as hell and offers up everything and hungry horror fan could hope for. There are crazy ass death sequences, gore by the gallon, some T&A plus you get to watch the kid from 7th heaven smoke a joint. And it's actually pretty scary and has...wait for it....wait for it...A pretty good screenplay although it's slightly predictable the performances are pretty good and the twists are quite effective. So conclusion equals crazy gore, lots of scares, hot guys, kick ass heroine, pretty good plot. Kick ass sequel. I can see why it wasn't released in theatres as it would have been trimmed down and not nearly as effective and also because it lacks the professionalism in it's look that even most the bad horror flicks have. But what it lacks for in professionalism it makes up for in sheer spunk. This movie is so friggin fun!
***.5/5
Pretty Good!
amgee-8955124 February 2019
Pretty Good Sequel. Its more enjoyable than the first one. It's always fun to see Tobin Bell in a horror film. Some of the kills was very creative. It had it all for a slasher flick gd kills,sex scene & a nice plot twist. The acting was terrible. The blood & gore make up effects was pretty good especially for a low budget slasher flick. 5/10
more of the first movie?? yeah right!
rikslick8129 July 2008
All those who wanted more of the first movie are weird!!! I'm glad they did a new take on Boogeyman, it kicked ass,creepy,gory great effects............ pretty predictable twist but hey, there's only so many ways a horror can end right? The acting was good, as were the effects, cool imagination on the kill scenes, I even enjoyed the ending which can let down most halfway decent movies. If all sequels were as good as this, I'd never bother with the first movies! This flick even had my horror freak of a wife hiding behind her hands at one point!! I recommend this movie to anyone that wants a good old gore infested creep show!!!!!
HUGE improvement
atinder29 December 2007
This movie is nothing like the first and everyone knows that a good thing.
They did what they need to do after the failure of Boogeyman in 2005!
The story is about a young Woman named Laura Porter with a life-long phobia of a supernatural boogeyman, in this case a demon that lives in her closet and springs out at night to attack her.
Trying to face up to her terror and get some help, she voluntarily checks herself into a mental health facility under the care of Dr.
Jessica Ryan (Renée O'Connor) with the hope of conquering her overwhelming fears.
Then she soon find out that everyone in the a mental health facility as see the bogeyman! She want to talk to them, they don't want to talk about it, they are all acting little strange as they are afraid of the boogeyman.
Soon they are being killed off one by one by the boogeyman
The deaths scene is this movie are really creative also they are a bit like Saw deaths scene.
They have added some Nudity scene, here and there wss Some really good Twist and Turns in this movie,
Acting was really good for a sequel! This movie a HUGE improvement of first boogeyman man movie! I give this movie 7/10
They did what they need to do after the failure of Boogeyman in 2005!
The story is about a young Woman named Laura Porter with a life-long phobia of a supernatural boogeyman, in this case a demon that lives in her closet and springs out at night to attack her.
Trying to face up to her terror and get some help, she voluntarily checks herself into a mental health facility under the care of Dr.
Jessica Ryan (Renée O'Connor) with the hope of conquering her overwhelming fears.
Then she soon find out that everyone in the a mental health facility as see the bogeyman! She want to talk to them, they don't want to talk about it, they are all acting little strange as they are afraid of the boogeyman.
Soon they are being killed off one by one by the boogeyman
The deaths scene is this movie are really creative also they are a bit like Saw deaths scene.
They have added some Nudity scene, here and there wss Some really good Twist and Turns in this movie,
Acting was really good for a sequel! This movie a HUGE improvement of first boogeyman man movie! I give this movie 7/10
The boogeyman is real.
lastliberal26 October 2008
There are so many movies that feature the boogeyman, and there are several with Boogeyman as the title. There are even duplicates of Boogeyman 2, and Boogeyman 3. How to keep track of all if them? This is not the video nastie titled Boogeyman II or Revenge of the Boogeyman as an alternate title. This is the "hot young stars of the WB" version.
It stars Danielle Savre of such shows as "Grounded for Life" and "Summerland." She did her first real movie the same time as this where she was "Teenage Girl #2." She did a good job here and I was really impressed with her potential in the genre.
The other characters come from such shows as "South of Nowhere," "State of Grace," "American Dragon: Jake Long", or "Xena: Warrior Princess" I only mention all these shows as I have not seen one of them. This was a characterless movie with the exception of Tobin Bell, who did this in between Saw II and IV. His character played a small, but important role, and he did a good job.
The movie's rating is based upon the action. The use of fears to torture is reminiscent of 1984, and worked effectively. I really was watching for what came next and overlooked many of the flaws the movie had as they really didn't detract from the action. I was especially taken with the ending. Good job there.
Worth seeing even if these "stars" are unfamiliar.
It stars Danielle Savre of such shows as "Grounded for Life" and "Summerland." She did her first real movie the same time as this where she was "Teenage Girl #2." She did a good job here and I was really impressed with her potential in the genre.
The other characters come from such shows as "South of Nowhere," "State of Grace," "American Dragon: Jake Long", or "Xena: Warrior Princess" I only mention all these shows as I have not seen one of them. This was a characterless movie with the exception of Tobin Bell, who did this in between Saw II and IV. His character played a small, but important role, and he did a good job.
The movie's rating is based upon the action. The use of fears to torture is reminiscent of 1984, and worked effectively. I really was watching for what came next and overlooked many of the flaws the movie had as they really didn't detract from the action. I was especially taken with the ending. Good job there.
Worth seeing even if these "stars" are unfamiliar.
Crazy
kosmasp8 March 2013
The filmmakers really wanted to tell a story with this one. And to a degree they succeeded. Casting Tobin Bell in a mysterious role is always a good catch too. Unfortunately most of the other actors do not completely live up to the task. Not to mention that the story is pretty weak if you think about it.
The death scenes are nicely shot and you'll also have a sex scene inter-cut with a horror scene (which seems to be a favorite for many horror fans). So there are a few nice bits and pieces here and there (make-up is good too, for a small budget movie like that. You can have fun with this, because they did put a lot of effort into it, to make it look good too. Depending on your expectations, you'll either like it or hate it. Especially towards the end, it'll be splitting people/viewers
The death scenes are nicely shot and you'll also have a sex scene inter-cut with a horror scene (which seems to be a favorite for many horror fans). So there are a few nice bits and pieces here and there (make-up is good too, for a small budget movie like that. You can have fun with this, because they did put a lot of effort into it, to make it look good too. Depending on your expectations, you'll either like it or hate it. Especially towards the end, it'll be splitting people/viewers
OK..but nothing more
gialli29 December 2007
Just been watching this movie Boogeyman 2 and for me it was not anything I will watch again.Alltough I must say the good looking cast was OK and some of the gore scenes fine.Much more gore than I expected as the first Boogeyman from 2005 is pretty dry.Plot is OK..but nothing more.Starts with two children watching the Boogeyman killing their parents and then go forwards 10 years and they both at a clinic to overcome their fears for the Boogeyman.Some scenes really bloody and not for the sensitive ones.Maybe worth a rental but not a film I will buy to my DVD collection.If you like your film bloody and a movie not any different than many other horror films coming out these days maybe this is a film for you.I give this film 3/10.
pointless waste of my time
cortic18 December 2008
I can not believe they called this boogeyman '2', did the director even bother to watch the first Boogeyman? This film has absolutely nothing to do with the first one, its a different reality entirely.
The first one was deep and twisted and really made you think about the world and colliding realities, it was such an inspiring film and it still gives me a cold shiver thinking about that little girl saying 'you can't save me, you can only save yourself'..
But this one is just cheap and boring, a steaming pile of wannabe 'slasher' movie with no plot that makes any sense, no surprises, just really dull. what a magnificent waste of time, can I have my money back now?
The first one was deep and twisted and really made you think about the world and colliding realities, it was such an inspiring film and it still gives me a cold shiver thinking about that little girl saying 'you can't save me, you can only save yourself'..
But this one is just cheap and boring, a steaming pile of wannabe 'slasher' movie with no plot that makes any sense, no surprises, just really dull. what a magnificent waste of time, can I have my money back now?
Surprisingly effective asylum-set slasher
Leofwine_draca12 December 2015
I absolutely hated the original BOOGEYMAN, which I still consider to be one of the very worst movies I've ever sat through, so it was with some reluctance that I sat down to watch this sequel when I saw it was on television. Thankfully, it's an unconnected sequel and an entirely different kind of movie. It's not a brilliant film by any means, but it works as a solid low budget horror and is a lot more effective than a lot of dross out there.
To be honest, this film doesn't have to do a lot to succeed. It's set in an asylum, and history has shown us that asylum-set horror films are usually very effective at conjuring up a spooky atmosphere. It's a slasher film, quickly adopting the usual template – about ten minutes waiting around until a gruesome death, then a face-off between sole survivor and killer at the climax – but as I haven't watched any slashers in a while I didn't mind that at all. Sure, the cast are a bunch of unknowns and their acting is only moderately effective, but it could be a lot worse.
Director Jeff Betancourt cut his teeth as an editor on the likes of THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE, so he knows his stuff and does a good job. Plus, the film provides work for two veteran actors – Tobin Bell, best known as Jigsaw in the SAW franchise, and Renee O'Connor, best known for her portrayal of Gabrielle in '90s TV series XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS. The mention of SAW brings me to another point: this film's deaths. They're as gruesome as anything you'll witness in those bloody horror films, and actually seem to have been modelled on the type of nasty, in-your-face torture found in the SAWs. Bodily dismemberment, self harm, and explosion are the order of the day. Okay, so this film does have one of the most obvious 'twist' endings ever – one of those ones you'll guess right at the very beginning – but don't let that put you off. BOOGEYMAN 2 is a horror effort that offers chills and gore in equal amount.
To be honest, this film doesn't have to do a lot to succeed. It's set in an asylum, and history has shown us that asylum-set horror films are usually very effective at conjuring up a spooky atmosphere. It's a slasher film, quickly adopting the usual template – about ten minutes waiting around until a gruesome death, then a face-off between sole survivor and killer at the climax – but as I haven't watched any slashers in a while I didn't mind that at all. Sure, the cast are a bunch of unknowns and their acting is only moderately effective, but it could be a lot worse.
Director Jeff Betancourt cut his teeth as an editor on the likes of THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE, so he knows his stuff and does a good job. Plus, the film provides work for two veteran actors – Tobin Bell, best known as Jigsaw in the SAW franchise, and Renee O'Connor, best known for her portrayal of Gabrielle in '90s TV series XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS. The mention of SAW brings me to another point: this film's deaths. They're as gruesome as anything you'll witness in those bloody horror films, and actually seem to have been modelled on the type of nasty, in-your-face torture found in the SAWs. Bodily dismemberment, self harm, and explosion are the order of the day. Okay, so this film does have one of the most obvious 'twist' endings ever – one of those ones you'll guess right at the very beginning – but don't let that put you off. BOOGEYMAN 2 is a horror effort that offers chills and gore in equal amount.
So unremarkable as to become forgettable
dbborroughs28 December 2007
Direct to video sequel to the Boogeyman about a brother and sister traumatized by the killing of their parents by the boogeyman. The sister finds herself in a psyche ward and well...you can figure out the rest.
Unremarkable but okay horror story is okay if you find nothing else to watch but if you've seen one of these films before for you've seen them all. The problem is that the film, while well made simply doesn't have anything in it that makes it stand out. This is probably as middle of the pile as you can go and has had the life crushed out of it from the stuff above and below it. I can't recommend it but can't say not to see it ether.
Unremarkable but okay horror story is okay if you find nothing else to watch but if you've seen one of these films before for you've seen them all. The problem is that the film, while well made simply doesn't have anything in it that makes it stand out. This is probably as middle of the pile as you can go and has had the life crushed out of it from the stuff above and below it. I can't recommend it but can't say not to see it ether.
Bad sequel is better than the awful original, but is still bad
a_chinn2 January 2018
The first Boogeyman film was pretty awful, but it must have made enough money to warrant a direct-to-video sequel. Although this horror film is not very good, it is better than the original, but not by much. The story here has a young woman checking herself into a mental institution to deal with her fear of the Boogeyman. A major change from the first film is that the Boogeyman is much more flesh and blood and much less supernatural, which is an odd choice for a supernatural thriller. One smart choice by the filmmakers was to forego the PG13 rating and go for a hard R rating, filling their film with loads of gory practical special effects instead of the much overused computer generate gory special effects (i.e. "Ghost Ship" or "The House on Haunted Hill"). This sequel also has a better cast than the first film, with Renée O'Connor and Tobin Bell Tobin as doctors at the institution. Overall, the story isn't that good and it's not all that scary, but for a low budget horror film, it does boast some excellent gory (PRACTICAL) special effects, which was enough to hold my interest.
better than you'd expect
whatsoevernevernever-125 December 2007
well guys, i don't want to spoil anything for you -
so i'm just saying this after watching the movie -
if you like a nice thrill and or like
the saw movies - give this movie a chance.
this movie has nothing to do with the original one nor the remake of 2005...
watch this movie as a "Saw the Boogeyman" - kind of movie...
this is really way better than you'd expect by a straight to DVD release-
watch the movie and you should know what i am talking about! have fun
so i'm just saying this after watching the movie -
if you like a nice thrill and or like
the saw movies - give this movie a chance.
this movie has nothing to do with the original one nor the remake of 2005...
watch this movie as a "Saw the Boogeyman" - kind of movie...
this is really way better than you'd expect by a straight to DVD release-
watch the movie and you should know what i am talking about! have fun
What a big Surprise!!!!!!!!!!
Sham3328 January 2008
When I started watching this movie I expected another crappy PG-13 movie with stupid CGI, like the first Boogeyman. But, this was a surprise to me. This movie was incredibly better than the original. OK, you don't need too much to be better than that horrible movie but I guess this is the only sequel to a bad movie that is actually great. The acting is good, the gore effects are great and Tobin Bell was great. He made me remember Dr. Loomis. So if you want a good gore slasher with a twist in the end, you should check this out. It's like "Halloween II" meets "A Nightmare on Elm Street 3". Forget this is Boogeyman 2. It has nothing to do with the original and that's a great thing!
Waste, waste waste
kels-errific5 February 2008
The only reason I am giving a 2 is because some of the actors managed to pull through the script.How they managed half of these scenes without bursting into hysterical laughter is beyond me. They at least held up on their end of the bargain.So, where to start. I wasn't expecting much on a direct-to-DVD movie, but holy sh*t was I in for a crap storm tonight. The first boogeyman sucked, no denying. So, to remedy the problem, looks like cues were taken from other horror films * cough cough SAW, and infused with a special spoonful of terrible. Seeing people die in the most disgusting ways was a reminder about what crap costs these days. $5.34 at your local blockbuster. PASS!!!
Not a true sequel
ctomvelu122 May 2010
A sequel to "Boogeyman," a supernatural horror flick from two or three years earlier, was hardly needed, and this so-called sequel in fact is not a true sequel. The killer in this outing is no demonic force that lurks in closets. It is a flesh and blood killer, and so this is in reality a slasher movie, pure and simple. Don't get me wrong: It is a decent slasher movie, with some fine and gory kills and lots of jump scenes, but it is simply a slasher movie. Basic plot: a girl who witnessed her parents' deaths years before confines herself to an asylum to deal with her ongoing fears of a boogeyman. We get to meet her fellow inmates, and soon enough they are getting knocked off one by one. The ending is a bit of a cheat if you have been paying close attention. Tobin Bell of SAW fame is on board as a creepy psychiatrist. The cast otherwise is all young people and may remind some of the third ELM STREET flick.
When will people learn that a sequel is more than a shared name?
jaiden29 January 2008
I give this movie a 2 out of 10 - but only for the cast.
When I sat down to watch this movie, I expected there to be, at the very least, the real Boogeyman from the first movie making a comeback. But, to my dismay, no such luck.
Instead, I was treated to a half-baked, poor excuse of a film that I will be glad to get out of my house.
The acting was fair, the overall plot could have used some work, and the gore should have been toned way down. With only a passing reference to Tim, the main character in the first Boogeyman, this film should not be classified as a sequel because when a second (or third) film in a series is made, there should be something there to make a positive connection. I didn't even catch that the Tim in #2 was the same Tim from #1 until I read about it here on IMDb.
If you like gore reminiscent of SAW or HOSTEL, feel free to peruse this title as well. But if you're looking for a continuation of the original, leave this DVD on the store shelf.
When I sat down to watch this movie, I expected there to be, at the very least, the real Boogeyman from the first movie making a comeback. But, to my dismay, no such luck.
Instead, I was treated to a half-baked, poor excuse of a film that I will be glad to get out of my house.
The acting was fair, the overall plot could have used some work, and the gore should have been toned way down. With only a passing reference to Tim, the main character in the first Boogeyman, this film should not be classified as a sequel because when a second (or third) film in a series is made, there should be something there to make a positive connection. I didn't even catch that the Tim in #2 was the same Tim from #1 until I read about it here on IMDb.
If you like gore reminiscent of SAW or HOSTEL, feel free to peruse this title as well. But if you're looking for a continuation of the original, leave this DVD on the store shelf.
This is very stinky
jacobjohntaylor17 June 2017
This first movie of Boogeyman is very scary. And this is just crappy pooh. Why did it get a 5.2. It is not scary. Boogeyman 3 is a better movie and that was awful. This movie has an awful story line. It has awful editing. It has an awful ending. Do not wast your time. Do not wast your money. Do not see this awful movie. It is just awful. Boogeyman is one of the best horror movies ever. And this is one of the worst horror movies ever. This is not a 5.2. This is a 1. 5.2 is just overrating it. This is the a pile of stink pooh pooh ca ca. Do not see it. I do not know why people like it. It is just pooh pooh and pee pee on top of it.
Where is the real Boogeyman???
zurakimt24 October 2008
This movie is boring than I thought. Well I have to say the first one was great & the sound effects were superb comparing with this one. Boogeyman 2 has nothing to do with the first movie. no proper storyline, most of the cast are new. the first movie was with a real boogeyman, and this one a human trapped inside a mask trying to be boogeyman. funny to me. I don't know how other viewer think about this movie. it's up to them. Horror movies in the 80's & 90's are with real fear. Horror movies that are releasing now is only with gore, violence, sex & bloody scenes. A real horror movie is about special effects like evil dead, omen, exorcist, sleepy hollow. ghost ship, etc. I am afraid whether all other movies about to releas is just like Boogeyman 2!!!
Good movie if you like a hot girl with blood all over her
JDioon15 January 2011
I saw this film with a friend of mine last night. He's a fan of nighttime horrorflicks that just scare the crap out of you. Well, 20 minutes into this film we had the plot all figured out. We even made a bet: it's either the professor or the brother. Aaaand ... yeah, it sucked. If you want to be cared shitless, go rent/buy/download another movie. This movie is just a waste of time and anticipation.
UNLESS you really like a hot girl with other people's blood all over her face and clothes. If that's your kind of thing... watch this! Twice! That lead actress is really nice. I'd prefer to see her running around in a bikini or something. Just two hours of her running around in a bikini. Slow-Mo'ed. Oh yes.
UNLESS you really like a hot girl with other people's blood all over her face and clothes. If that's your kind of thing... watch this! Twice! That lead actress is really nice. I'd prefer to see her running around in a bikini or something. Just two hours of her running around in a bikini. Slow-Mo'ed. Oh yes.
Different but definitely not better than the first.
Boba_Fett11389 July 2012
This movie is quite different from the first one but not much better I'm afraid. It seems that this was one of those movie of which the script had been lying around for years until someone picked it up and decided to put "Boogeyman 2" on it because horror sequels sell.
It's funny how this movie is being different from the first one but is still suffering from some of the same weaknesses. Biggest flaw is that it tries to combine some typical horror with drama. Problem is though that the drama really isn't anything all that interesting or involving. I still don't know who was who in this movie and also simply couldn't have cared less about anyone who was in it. I only knew who the Tobin Bell character was, since he is simply being the only recognizable actor in this movie.
The movie is stuck somewhere between being a "Scream" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street" (especially "A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors") knockoff. And not a very good one unfortunately. Guess that if they had gone for just one type of approach the movie could had still worked out. The Boogeyman definitely had some Freddy Krueger type of potential to him, since he was using people's fears to get to them. But they never really explored this concept well enough and simply just dropped it after a short while.
It mostly is being a very boring lackluster movie. The pace feels too slow, simply because the story and characters just aren't all that interesting to follow around. Some more excitement and gore would had turned this into a more typical genre movie but it at least would had made things more fun. This was also a problem I had with the first movie by the way.
Oh well, one more sequel to go. Lets hope it's a better one but somehow I sincerely doubt it.
4/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
It's funny how this movie is being different from the first one but is still suffering from some of the same weaknesses. Biggest flaw is that it tries to combine some typical horror with drama. Problem is though that the drama really isn't anything all that interesting or involving. I still don't know who was who in this movie and also simply couldn't have cared less about anyone who was in it. I only knew who the Tobin Bell character was, since he is simply being the only recognizable actor in this movie.
The movie is stuck somewhere between being a "Scream" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street" (especially "A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors") knockoff. And not a very good one unfortunately. Guess that if they had gone for just one type of approach the movie could had still worked out. The Boogeyman definitely had some Freddy Krueger type of potential to him, since he was using people's fears to get to them. But they never really explored this concept well enough and simply just dropped it after a short while.
It mostly is being a very boring lackluster movie. The pace feels too slow, simply because the story and characters just aren't all that interesting to follow around. Some more excitement and gore would had turned this into a more typical genre movie but it at least would had made things more fun. This was also a problem I had with the first movie by the way.
Oh well, one more sequel to go. Lets hope it's a better one but somehow I sincerely doubt it.
4/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
suitably gory,but the ending is stupid and illogical
disdressed1212 April 2008
this movie has nothing to do with the first one.it's gorier than the first,though it's not the goriest movie i have seen,by a long shot.i liked it as much for the most part.gore hounds should be satisfied enough to keep watching.it certainly borrows from other movies,but i didn't mind that much.the acting was OK,though nothing spectacular.the movies hums right along,and it's not boring.but the one thing that drags this movie down is the ending,which i thought was stupid and illogical and almost a blatant rip off form another horror movie.normally,i would have rated this movie higher,but,because of the ending,i would give it a 6/10
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews