Feast 2: Sloppy Seconds - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Feast 2: Sloppy Seconds Reviews

Page 1 of 20
Super Reviewer
May 25, 2011
Same as before with a group of folks now trapped in a small town as they get eaten one by one yet still manage to find time to kill each other and other innocent survivors they find along the way.

Following on from the first film with a couple surviving cast members and simply adding lots more blood and gore all over the show, yet losing any kind of quality in the process. This film is a pure B-movie...if that. The effects are very dodgy looking with terrible bluescreen shots, the creatures look even more rubbery than before as they run around in a dodgy manner and the cast are lacking at best. Some of the main characters don't even have a single word to say during the entire film!.

The title says it all really, lots of sloppy gooey gory seconds with added goo and gore on top. A purely outrageous monster mash with body parts galore, for the true monster horror comedy lovers and connoisseurs.
Super Reviewer
March 1, 2011
With Feast II: Sloppy Seconds, director John Gulager amped up his first effort with more blood and gore. The film is packed with disgusting elements that will most likely satisfy the diehard gore fans. Feast II is so off the wall that it cannot be taken seriously. Feast II can really be seen as a guilty pleasure. The over the top violence and gore will definitely not appeal to people who their horror at a minimalistic level. But for fans of say, Lucio Fulci who are used to having blood and guts in their films, then this film is for you. Sure Feast II is mediocre compared to the works of Fulci, but in a way it echoes Fulci because the film is downright disgusting. I understand why this film has been dismissed, and I agree with those who hate it. The way I see it, is Feast II is for a certain type of Horror fan, and like its predecessor, this second offering is a film that delivers on the gore, and gross out horror. As far the story is concerned, there isn't much to consider in that department. The plot is almost none existent and surrounds a group of survivors from the night before surviving yet another monster attack. The attack is B movie quality, but the gore is cool, if you have the stomach for it. The way that I look at the Feast trilogy is that they're films designed to be silly and grotesque. Sure there isn't truly any real cinematic value to be had in these films, but this series does manage to entertain. Not perfect, but decent enough to have a good time. There are a lot worst films than this, if you want truly bad, give Wes Craven's My Soul to Take a viewing. Now that's bad!
Super Reviewer
½ June 8, 2010
First thing that came out of my mind was "NO ONE SEEMS TO DIE!". Yes, no matter how many parts of someone's body comes out or half of it's gone or fat metal pipe stuck inside someone's head, people still looks alive! They are still moving and talking (By the way, are they cockroaches or something?). This was uberly disgusting. Matches with the name they have given to this. The first one was okay to watch. But this was totally pointless. They tried so many ways to make this movie look good (or horrible in my opinion). Throwing the baby up in the air in a slow motion, monster effing a cat, puking, half naked women, etc so many cheap scenes to point out. And the monsters in the first movie was very fast, how come they couldn't catch that guy running with the baby? Another thing that bothered me was when the grandma's hand came out, how can anyone laugh by seeing that? It was very pathetic. I highly advice you to avoid this to watch. If you're just being curious (like me) to add this movie in your "have seen" list, then digest all the gross scenes they could think of.
Super Reviewer
October 7, 2008
Well what can i say,it you like the first one you will like this.Not as good as the first but this as some nice gross out sences.Sfx are a little poorer than the first and feels more low budget than the first, that probly due to the two missing produers from the first being matt Demon and Ben Affect.Anyway still worth checking out.
Super Reviewer
September 17, 2009
It's like a retarded 2 year old behind the wheel of a Corvette. The first one was so genius, and this one banks on dick and fart jokes.
Super Reviewer
½ October 12, 2008
Oh my god, a film that surpasses it's original by far with even more outragious and disgusting moments that will make you scream in laughter and filled with shocks, jolts and adreniline. Busting out with extreame blood, gore and excitmnent. It's pure genious horror movie gold. An incrediably grusome and gut-wrechingly brilliant film that keeps you enteratained with lots of gore and comedy.
Super Reviewer
½ October 15, 2008
It was already pushing the limit but after that disgusting, tasteless baby scene that was it for me.
Feast II has the distinct displeasure of being the third film ever that I never finished. Not even on fast forward. Hell, even the equally shitty Murder-Set-Pieces got that.
Super Reviewer
½ October 8, 2008
Sloppy, unfunny. Throws everything at the wall hoping something will stick, but little does. A must for anyone who has ever wanted to see a midget with an enormous phallic prosthetic.
Super Reviewer
½ October 8, 2008
I'm not missing the point with Feast 2. I get it completely. John Gulager directed Feast 2 bad purposely, with plenty of outrageous raunchiness, loads of cheap gore, and silly little kid toilet humor. The fact is he failed at being stupid. There are many good horror films that don't take themselves seriously, most on a shoestring budget, but plenty of them still don't fail to entertain. The trick to a silly cheap B horror movie, in which nothing is taken seriously, is to actually be funny. If you're going to tell a joke, make sure it's a funny joke. Same with this, in terms of filmmaking, especially with cheap horror films. If the movie is meant to be a joke, than the movie should be fu*king funny. Nothing about Feast 2 was the least bit funny. It was like a 12 year old had written the script, and was the only one who was amused by his jokes. Now that I mentioned this, and also looking back on the film, that's exactly what it was like. The film seemed to be just one long "inside" joke, that was personal to the director, or maybe even some of his filming buddies. Too bad I wasn't hanging with them to laugh also, then maybe I would've enjoyed the film better. So I correct myself...I really didn't get the point of this film, because I just didn't get the joke.

It's to bad too, cause Feast 1 was a great little horror film. Feast 1 was also produced by some big names who are truly familiar with the horror genre, one being Wes Craven, who had nothing to do at all with Feast 2. It's starting to make me think how much pull Craven actually had the first time around. Think about it...Maybe him and a few other professionals stopped most from falling into John Gulager's hands, saving Feast 1 from becoming a complete disaster. Where are your buddies when you really need them, huh? Oh well...let's wait and see if his upcoming film Feast 3: The Happy Finish can tell a better joke. Perhaps John Gulager isn't such a hack after all...but highly doubt it.

On the plus side, the one good thing about this movie were the closing credits. Just skip to that part and save some time!

Feast 2: Sloppy Seconds...sloppy movie...sloppy everything.
Super Reviewer
June 23, 2011
A little weirder than the first...actually much weirder. The humor in it is very werid and non funny, and the characters just get even weirder from wrestling midgets to a tag team of mexicans. The baby scene could have gone cut out...becuase that had bad screening and was stupid\pointless. BUT, I like how you could actually see the creatures in this one and they show them more often. and the bloody scenes are great.
Super Reviewer
½ January 9, 2011
Dull, restless sequel featuring characters even more grotesque and hideous than the first instalment. The gross-out "humour" has been upped with a bizarre concentration on fluids: one protracted sequence involving the autopsy of one of the beasties resulting in it farting, spraying shit and finally having it's cock prodded resulting in it spewing seminal fluid over many of the characters. A huge amount of vomit is also spewed, legs are ripped from torsos and an elderly character has her face dissolved and limbs fall off as her body succumbs to a slow decay (whilst she is still alive). A scene designed to shock and presumably also get sick laughs, involving the death of a baby that is then eaten, simply failed to get any kind of response from me because the setup was so predictable and a similar scene had already been attempted in the first Feast film. The budget on this sequel looks considerably lower and the technical qualities are far less interesting this time around. The ending is also piss poor and designed to lead directly into the third film without offering any sort of resolution. Pointless, mean-spirited and unintelligible dreck.
Super Reviewer
October 26, 2008
Sloppy seconds indeed.
Super Reviewer
November 26, 2012
Tone was completely changed from the first film. This time with lots of Mexicans and all the same plot from the first film all over again. It's just not as exciting as the first film. The montage of flashbacks were poorly made. No wonder it's straight-to-video, because the plot was non-existant, and it's simply a gorefest. (And girl power)
Super Reviewer
½ November 13, 2008
Entertaining sequel to the superior first film. Though it's gory and fairly fast paced, it still seems as if it's only a rough cut without all the kinks worked out. Characters say the same line twice and some scenes play over twice as long as they should. Perhaps it was padding to make run time, but it really seems like you aren't watching the final cut.
However, the film is funny in a tasteless way (one scene really surprised me in it's brutalness, yet I found it darkly comic) and makes me look forward to a third entry in this seemingly high budget Troma production.
Super Reviewer
October 12, 2008
Well the story of Feast 2 takes off the morning after the first one and the few people that could escape did thats pretty much the opening scene right there then we are left to meet a whole new group of people except two old characters from the first one the set up is pretty much the same except now its daytime and we get to see the monsters really good everyone fights to survive as usual as they are stuck now in a small town overun by the monsters, Ok sequel to the first Feast but this one was lacking alot as it was more comedy then horror and the effects were kinda bad i just wish they took more time to make this as it seems rushed i just hope the third one fixes what they messed up here still worth taken a look at,
Super Reviewer
½ September 21, 2008
Whilst Feast had mindless gory scenes for the duration of the movie, Feast 2 slaps brainless script-writing all over the show.
June 1, 2009
Luchador's swinging trunk; Perpetual heart attack; dream/love/maggot sequences; Grandma liquidation; cat rape; Gallagher-esque autopsy; toddler splat; and breasts weren't enough to make me enjoy this movie
½ March 15, 2009
it's really bad when a gorehound like myself loses interest in a movie that sprays blood and guts all over the screen from top to bottom. it's just not fun when there are no likeable characters, no sense of dread at all and it comes off so comical. not my best pick. the first one is a keeper, this is not.
March 14, 2009
The second edition is not as great as the first, but it is still a horror film that is funny as well as gross.
February 17, 2009
Yikes, people either love or hate this film. For me, I was just so happy that John Gulager finally got a chance to make a film with his brother, father and wife. And any film with Clu Gulager can't be all that bad.
Page 1 of 20