2001 Maniacs

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:56 pm

Caught this on TV a couple nights ago. Checked the info, it had Robert Englund (Freddy fucking Krueger), so I figured I'd give it a watch whilst inducing inebriation.

A rather standard direct-to-vid slasher w\ a couple slightly more disturbing than normal death scenes. It would appear that no one working on this film had any hint of playing shit straight, so while the flick itself may be formulaic & cliche, everyone appears to be having a relatively decent time making an extremely mediocre horror flick.

Verdict : 1 star. Check it if you got ninety minutes, a few beers to kill, & enjoy watching lackluster (yet copious & somewhat entertaining) gore overseen by Freddy.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:43 am

Do you mean Two Thousand Maniacs? I came across a list of the ten best ultra-violent films of all time and they mentioned it. It's the only film on the list I hadn't heard of.
By "best" I think they mean "significant to the genre."

Edited By Paul on 1181749542

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:41 pm

Paul wrote:Do you mean Two Thousand Maniacs? I came across a list of the ten best ultra-violent films of all time and they mentioned it. It's the only film on the list I hadn't heard of.
By "best" I think they mean "significant to the genre."

2001 Maniacs is a different film entirely. & that list sucks. Any list that includes "Hostel" & "Saw" as ultra-violent has to.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:45 pm

How can 2001 Maniacs NOT have nothing to do with Two Thousand Maniacs?
Sheesh!
Does the extra maniac make a difference? Because, really, percentage-wise, I don't think it matters.

And I agree that there's no way Saw was ultra violent. I haven't seen Hostel (but I did read the spoiler, and the spoiler for Hostel 2... shocking ending my ass.)

Edited By Paul on 1181767699