That was an excellent one.

Just perfect...

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

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

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.

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.

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.