Alicia I love this movie so much

TeenzTen An action-packed slog

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

InDaValley I hope you're reading this, Millard. And really--as the title states--that's the first question that comes to my mind: What were you thinking!?!? Seriously, the first Criminally insane was epic...almost a masterpiece of independent, sleazy film making. The original storyline, the blood that makes me LMAO every time I see it, the grainy REAL film that was actually used to shoot it on! Criminally Insane 1 was and is an amazing nostalgic gem that will live on in horror film history.Criminally Insane 2...not so much! So, what happened? Did you lose access to the camera that you shot Criminally Insane 1 on? Did it break sometime between that movie and this one? I understand your tight budget, but come on, did you really have to use the same camera that you filmed most of your family Christmases with? Also, were you suffering from writer's block? I mean, using scenes from the first film to fill in 40% of the film wasn't entirely a creative move. If I wanted to see Criminally Insane 1 again, I'd watch Criminally Insane 1 again!--Which I actually did want to see again after sitting through just 10 minutes of this waste of my time sequel! You messed up big time, Nick. Thanks for disappointing 100% of the fans of Criminally Insane 1. For that--1 star! And that's only because I can't give it zero!

alanmora Nick Millard aka Nick Phillips should have left well-enough alone when he made "Criminally Insane" 10 years before the release of this god-awful waste of time and effort. The fact that the original "Criminally Insane" was less than an hour in length should have clued him into the fact that he had probably milked this storyline for all he was going to get out of it...but instead he opts to use TONS of footage from the original in this one as well, even to the point of recycling the original opening credit sequence! Unfortunately, bringing back the rapidly aging Priscilla Alden did not save this one. What little bit of original footage there was in this flick looks as if it were filmed with a rented hand-held camcorder! If this film cost more than $100 to make I would be very surprised and I would be equally surprised if it made anything close to that amount! Avoid this one and watch the original instead!

CMRKeyboadist There are some bad movies out there. Most of them are rather fun. "Criminally Insane 1" was one of those flicks. So bad that it was enjoyable and had re-watch value to it. "Criminally Insane 2" has to be one of the worst movies ever made and coming from me, that's saying a lot because I am not the type of person to say anything is the worst. But trust me, this was just completely awful and running just 1 hour is 1 hour too long.The movie has a rather incoherent storyline, but who cares about story when all you want to see is a big fat woman running around killing people because she isn't being fed. Well, you don't see that in this movie, except for all of the flashback sequences that are from the first one. The new storyline could have been really funny with Ethel being sent to a halfway house and murdering everyone in there, but nothing happens until the last 20 minutes of the movie and at that point you are already falling asleep.The camera work in this movie is just atrocious. This literally reminds me of something I shot with friends of mine back when I was 15. The sound quality is something else as you can't understand a word most of the characters are saying. To give an example of how bad it is, go into a New York Subway and try to understand what is being said over the loud speakers, that is what this movie sounds like. Not that it matters what they are talking about anyway because the actors are about as dry as a dead piece of wood.Now I know that saying this is the worst movie out there is pretty harsh but words can't describe just how bad this movie is. If you don't believe me, see it for yourself. 1/10

xtrospawn Ah yes. Crazy fat Ethel is back...and she's still hungry. But did the world really need this sequel? Don't get me wrong, there's a soft spot in my heart for the original slice of movie cheese. How could you go wrong with a premise so...well...delicious. A fat woman dispenses with anyone who gets in the way of her and a refrigerator. And the movie will forever be on our guilty pleasure list of 70's drive-in sleaze that we must go back and view every couple of years. But along comes this sequel, shot entirely on camcorder with no music, no real edits, and no real point. Crazy fat Ethel (now minus a few pounds) is released from the mental ward into a halfway house where she begins killing anyone who gets in the way of her eating. Old habits die hard, I guess. However, all of that only takes up about ten minutes of screen time. The rest of the running time is padded with flashback footage from the original film. So we'll get new scenes of Ethel taking a nap, the camcorder zooms in to her face, and we cut to old scenes from part one. Repeated ad nauseum. So much footage from part one is used that, if you've never seen the original, you'll see it all here. And it looks like a masterpiece compared to the new footage. We get ridiculously long scenes of a character eating an entire candy bar, Ethel eating an entire bowl of pudding, Ethel dancing around out back with a bloody knife, etc. And since it's filmed on camcorder, there's crummy picture and sound to back it all up. Seeing this with the original footage only made me appreciate the original that much more. So, skip this and stick with the original.