Tuchergson Truly the worst movie I've ever seen in a theater

Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

jlthornb51 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.

Red-Barracuda 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

Michael_Elliott 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.

Paul Andrews The version of Boogeyman II I will be commenting on is the 'Director's Cut' entitled Boogeyman Redux on screen & released on DVD which has newly shot on video footage inserted into a an absolute mess of clips form the first two Boogeyman films. Boogeyman Redux starts with some footage from Boogeyman (1980) & then cuts to Mickey Lombard (Ulli Lommel) in shades & a baseball cap sitting at a table being filmed presumably by the police as he is read his rights after being charged with murder. Art film director Lombard begins to tell his story, a story that began 22 years ago when a woman came to him & told him a strange story about some killing committed by the boogeyman & that he should make a film about them. Boogeyman Redux is then just sequence after sequence of footage from the original Boogeyman, huge chunks of it are used & probably account for 90% of Boogeyman Redux's running time. The remaining 10% is interview footage with Lombard as he bridges the chunks together & annoyingly there is footage taken from Boogeyman II (1983) which for some reason Lommel has decided to speed up & replace the soundtrack with an awful electronic score, once all the good scenes from the original Boogeyman are used Boogeyman Redux ends. Directed by Ulli Lommel this has to be one of the worst films ever, please bear in mind that I'm referring to the 'Director's Cut' DVD version & NOT the Boogeyman II I thought I was getting. In fact I have seen the original cut of Boogeyman II years ago & I would be interested in comparing the two. Basically just about the entire film is footage from Boogeyman with a few sections cut out, it's like it was cut down for an hour TV time-slot with some of the more boring exposition scenes cut out & the Lombard interview scenes in place of the commercials as they're about as entertaining & useful. The sped up footage from Boogeman II is worthless & the bits with Lommel as Lombard being interrogated by the police are obviously shot on video & look out of place & as tacked on as they surely were. The abomination I just finished watching is an absolute travesty that I still can't quite believe. Why didn't they just keep Boogeyman II as it was & release that? It's been a long time since I watched it last but I remember it being a hell of a lot better than this pile of donkey crap. There really isn't much else to say except just watch the original Boogeyman instead, it's virtually the same as this just without the annoying Lommel popping up every 10 or 15 minutes & doesn't have the frustrating sped up footage from Boogeyman II, this is a complete mess of a film & I hated it. Definitely one to avoid, trust me you'll be glad you did. In fact Boogeyman Redux is so bad I'd walk out on it on an aeroplane.