2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams Reviews

Page 1 of 5
½ July 18, 2016
This is, in every conceivable way, a lot worse than the 2005 remake.
½ October 31, 2015
There are no redeeming qualities to this film. It looks cheap, its terribly acted. Gratuitous nudity did nothing for this. Simply terrible. Half a star only because Flixster won't let me rate it otherwise.
January 23, 2015
Just plain awful! I loved the HG Lewis original and the remake with Robert England was a very good film, but this is just awful! I really can't think of anything enjoyable with this film. They even managed to get the whole concept wrong (taking the vilage on tour?)

The whole cast is just plain rotten. Even Bill Moseley looks bored shitless through most of this film. The lighting is wrong, the sound levels are all over the place, the effects are poor...I could go on.

And as for the group of 'teenagers', the less said the better. Not a single one of them (bar the two blonds) are believable in their roles and if they really don't get along, then why go out on the road in a tiny camper van (9 kids in that small thing?)

Bar far one of the worst films I've ever seen. I can easily see why Robert England was 'busy' when this was filmed and couldn't be in it...he probably read the script lol!!!
June 16, 2014
England was missed and the movie took the original and idea and made it a bad joke instead of a tong in cheek slasher
Super Reviewer
November 25, 2013
2001 Maniacs may not have been a masterpiece. It was sloppy, cheap, below-average acting at best, a hackneyed premise, and all together just not that enthralling. But it was twice the film Field of Screams could ever be! It is the superior in every concievable way.

Well. All but one. Field of Screams did have the fine addition of Ogre (Above - Repo! The Genetic Opera and The Devil's Carnival) as "Doctor" Harper Alexander. He was enjoyed thoroughly. Everything else though! Throw it out! Go! Be gone! No more of you!

Bill Mosely is a personal favourite, and has been since I first saw him play Chop-Top over a decade ago. He's far from new to the horror game, having had roles in Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D, The Devil's Carnival, The Devil's Tomb, Repo! The Genetic Opera, House, Halloween, Werewolf Women of the SS (Grindhouse Teaser), Carnivale, House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, Army of Darkness, Night of the Living Dead (1990), Silent Night Deadly Night III, The Blob, Freddy's Nightmares, Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, Alone in the Dark II, The Alphabet Killer, Evil Bong, Blood Run, Corpse Killer and Evil Ed, as well as many more, and a great looking future in the industry ahead.

He replaces Robert Englund as Mayor George W. Buckman. But despite my praises for Bill, in 2001 Maniacs, he simply does not cut it. The biggest, and honestly most unforgivable thing that they fucked the character with was not the fact that they decided to change characters, but the fact that his mother fucking eyepatch changed from his left to his right eye for no fucking reason! Seriously! In 2001 Maniacs, Englund's injured eye is his left, in Field of Screams, Mosely's injured eye is his right. 'The fuck...

It was from the point about five seconds in when you first see this monumental cock up that I decided Field of Screams was probably not gonna be for me. It went downhill from there. Though the last film may have that cooky-so-bad-it's-good element every now and again, Field of Screams is just regular bad. Bad, bad, bad. I've physically seen worse movies in my day, but I try to avoid the likes of those.

20%

-Gimly
September 29, 2013
Director Tim Sullivan's Sequel To His Remake Of "Two Thousand Maniacs", Is A Total Disaster. This Film Contains The Pointless Nudity And Violent Scenes Seen In Most Films Of The Genre. But That's About It Without A Solid Story Or Even Decent Performances This Film Doesn't Work & Is One To Avoid.
½ August 24, 2013
Okay, so this sequel to the remake of H.G. Lewis classic is probably terrible on every level from plot to acting to cinematography., but I still loved it in all its craptastic glory. Filled with copious (and often original gore), unnecessary nudity, and absolutely insane comedy, 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams, for me, demonstrates exactly how crappy, B-level horror can achieve greatness.
July 16, 2013
Normally I like the sequels of modern horror movies better. Because they take themselves less serious. "2001 Maniacs" being a humorous movie, this sequel takes it a bit too far.
May 17, 2013
Just a quick word of warning, the film you are about to see is anything but 'poor'. With some poorly written movies, one can sit back and enjoy the film based upon it's silliness, in this case I cannot honestly state that this film is enjoyable and maintain any interest. My justification on these points is directly targeted towards the poor acting, the delivery of the dialogue and the poor direction. I must also add that the acting was way over the top in this movie causing annoyance and irritation than anything else. In fact, I could not wait until the victims were wiped out one-by-one. Having viewed the first movie, I thought that this may follow suite but has failed to deliver. The film may suit those who are more into 'eye candy' and less of the acting and storyline within a movie. It is evident that the creators were out to have fun more than making a reasonably good movie, but where do you draw the line? Viewable, I would say no, but that is my personal opinion. I think overall, the movie fits into the low quality, sub-standard of media and if one has time to waste then this is the movie for you. For me, one viewing is sufficient. Would I recommend this movie - put simply, I would say no but we each have different expectations within a film.
January 13, 2013
This film has many, many, MANY flaws with it's biggest problems being it's dreadful start, it's woeful conclusion and those annoying blond bimbo's. All the victims were unlikable, stupid and badly acted, however credit where credit is due some of the cannibals played their roles very well (Lin Share in particular). That does not contemplate for the fact that this was painful to watch and the only enjoyment i got out of it was watching the useless, badly acted characters meet their maker.
½ October 16, 2012
Not much plot, no really believable characters, not much in the way of subtext, subtlety, themes, or any of the things that movie viewers like.......worth seeing if you're not easily offended and have a strong stomach, and if you liked Braindead and the Evil Dead films.....
½ September 2, 2012
Poor follow up to a well made remake. A few gory moments and some juvenile laughs done Troma style but its poor audio, bad editing and unlikeable cast bury this one deep.
½ August 25, 2012
This doesn't even deserve half a star. This film was pants only got 15 minutes into it until we thought it was best this film was not worth watching. The acting was atrocious and the film was strange and slow. Avoid this at all costs!
June 13, 2012
Worst movie ever. I would have to be paid at least a thousand dollars to sit through the rest of it.
May 15, 2012
A bad sequel for me.
Super Reviewer
½ May 4, 2012
This time it's "The Simple Life Parody." The acting was just horrible, so much cheaper looking than the first one, without all the fun. This sequel is more focused on the comic side of the plot: Satirical hard-core "Hebrew" cameraman, "Black" bitchy boom operator Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie, closeted gay boyfriend, random punk ass boyfriend, Latino "Jokes" driver, blonde slut. The amount of the hillbillies were reduced to the point that I wanted to cry: Robert Englund was gone, Lin Shaye has to single handedly do everything with the new members: China Rose (All the asian jokes comes here) The soundtrack did not even show any effort, just randomly putting songs at places. The only thing good about this film was the amount of eye candies in the film, P.s. Half of the folks don't even have Southern accent anymore.
½ December 25, 2011
Not very happy with this film. It felt like the production was very rushed and from what I've read it was rushed, shot in 12 days. Bill Moseley usually a great actor was horrible in this movie. There was something odd about the audio throughout the whole movie. Blood and gore in the unrated version was decent, though that didn't save the movie. It took forever to get this movie made and this is what we got?? You'd think with all that time that they could have made a better film. I wish I hadn't bought it, but it wasn't too much money wasted.
December 14, 2011
68%

What a irresponsible piece of thrash!

So these southern ghosts run out of victims and decide to git on the bus (horrible racist joke) and head north to Alaska...no just north (who knows why a ghost would need a mode of transportation), where they run into those dumb bitches Richie, Hilton and some homos. Racism and gayness ensue. Lots and lots of gayness...I think ol' Sullie my be gay...and racist.
October 30, 2011
Two-thousand maniacs was somewhat of a cult film from the days of yore. Some time ago, it spawned a remake, which shifted focus more to the comedy side of slaughtering yankees, whilst still giving a couple of nice gross-out scare moments, and being terribly bad, but in that fun to watch way.

This is the sequel to that remake. Run. Now. Nothing that they do to the Yankees in this film will be as bad as having to actually watch it. RUN!
½ October 21, 2011
The first film was entertaining, had some decent acting and gore. This one?.....not so much.
Page 1 of 5