Watch Boogeyman II For Free

I love this movie so much

Pretty Good

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

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.

Boogeyman II(1983/2002) * 1/2 (out of 4) Original Cut BOMB (out of 4) Redux VersionNotorious 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.

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.

SpoilersEd Wood didn't die in 1978. He was alive and well in 1983 and directed BOOGEYMAN II. That would be the ONLY plausible explanation for the amazing ineptitude of this "horror" film. There are so many moments in this film that are the exact filmmaking techniques Ed Wood used in his films that it's unreal. Here's a list of examples:Ed Wood acted in his movies (like in GLEN OR GLENDA). In BOOGEYMAN II, Ulli Lommel, who was the director of THE BOOGEYMAN (and the "unofficial" director of this sequel) plays Mickey. Ulli Lommel is a TERRIBLE actor, just like Ed was. The blond woman, who plays Suzanna's friend, reminded me of Ed Wood's main blond squeeze in GLEN OR GLENDA, Dolores Fuller. The acting from both women are identically bad.Aside from the criminally long flashbacks, which show whole sequences from the first movie, BOOGEYMAN II is made up of other amazing cost saving ways, moments like when we only see filmed action with the voices of the actors added later in post-production. For example, the EXTREME long shots of people standing next to the pool and talking. But they're so far away that you can't really tell if they're talking or not but we hear a conversation going on between the two, even though the two actors probably just stood there with their mouths closed. So, from the looks of it, Lommel simply filmed two actors standing next to the pool and the content or the dialogue was written and added later in post-production. Cost saving techniques like this are very reminiscent of what Ed Wood did with his films.Another thing that reminded me of Ed Wood was the moralistic tone of the "story": should they make a movie about Suzanna's experience or not? We see a parade of faces, exemplifying every cliched Hollywood types. The scene of Suzanna being greeted by these unscrupulous folks is very poky but oddly effective in a very "Ed Woodian" way. This "reality vs Hollywood reality" is probably the ONLY clever aspect of the film but, like everything else in BOOGEYMAN II, it's totally mishandled and falls flat. When Lommel walks around his house, with corpses all around and thinking it's all a prank, well, it ends up being more embarrassing than funny.Then there are the absolutely ridiculous death scenes, which for some unexplained reason, always involve a man and a woman getting killed together. These deaths rank amongst the silliest ever put on celluloid. Death by electric toothbrush? Death by shaving cream? Death by CORKSCREW?!?! The death scenes in the bathroom reminded me a lot of the now famous close-up shots of the woman recording herself with the video camera in THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. But there's a death scene that's so ridiculous that you have to see it to believe it: inside a garage, two people are sitting in a car. The lights start flickering. The man stands up in his car, standing through the opened sunroof window. The guy is PULLED up and out from his car while the woman watches on. Even though this happens right before her eyes, she starts looking for her date inside the small and mostly empty garage. She even looks for him under the car (arf!)! As the woman crouches down, the evil spirit levitates a ladder behind her and hits her butt with it, forcing the woman, with her mouth open, to swallow car's exhaust pipe. The evil spirit then proceeds to turn on the car's engine and the woman, stuck there at the pipe, is forced to swallow the fumes. This is probably the funniest death scene ever conceived for a movie.BOOGEYMAN II is remarkably awful but it's so bad that, like Ed Wood movies, it's really entertaining in a "it's so bad it's good" way. I watched twice in a row! THE BOOGEYMAN, though not the greatest film in the world, was pretty good and looks like a masterpiece compared to this stupid sequel. Anyway, at least Suzanna Love is beautiful and the music is the one good thing to be found in this weird movie.It's obvious Ulli Lommel, who apparently hated making horror films and couldn't get funding for anything but horror films, did this movie out of spite. The film is a slap on the face, to fans of horror, to fans of the first movie, to anyone who rented this. I'm glad though that I have the video in my collection. It's a definite curio that has to be seen to be believed.