2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010)

best movie i've ever seen.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

The 2005 remake of H.G. Lewis's 2001 MANIACS, which starred Robert Englund, was an acceptable horror comedy. One of those films that's worth a single watch before being quickly forgotten. However, this low rent sequel - incredibly by the same director - makes the first movie look like an absolute masterpiece. Yes, this really is that bad.Everything about FIELD OF SCREAMS is horrendous, from the hackneyed, non-existent storyline to the unrestrained performances and the completely unfunny lowbrow comedy. This is a film that strives to be offensive at all costs, and it succeeds, or at least it would if you could take it seriously, which you can't. As a sequel, the film I can best liken it to is PIRANHA 3DD, which was equally appalling; as a standalone film, this feels like a Troma movie, nothing more.The overacting Bill Moseley is a poor replacement for Robert Englund, but here's one of the only two familiar faces in the cast list. The other is Lin Shaye, who returns from the first film, and I felt frankly embarrassed for her, seeing her in this. The whole film is a pointless mess of bad music, nudity from cheap-looking girls, and rubber gore effects. The blood looks like red water. It's actually too stupid to be offensive, so FIELD OF SCREAMS is just a waste of time, nothing more.

While I liked the 2005 remake, 2001 Maniacs mainly because of Robert Englund. This one should have never been made.Acting: The acting was terrible and not even a good actress like Lin Shaye could save it. Perhaps if Robert Englund had returned it would have been watchable. The writing: It was badly written and how did they get a school bus and where did they learn to drive? Overall: I hated it and I'd advise anyone wanting to watch it to skip it and find something to watch. Other things wrong with it: The nudity was too much and at times unnecessary, the plot was predictable and ended basically the same way the first one did and it was boring

Just finished watching 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams on netflix...I hate to say it, but while I was a big fan of both the HGL original and the remake, this sequel to the remake was nowhere near as good as those. A few things I didn't like about this one, the few northern characters I liked died early on, leaving two characters to battle at the end that I despised. I felt no emotional connect with them, unlike the surviving two characters in the original 2001 Maniacs. Secondly, the sound editing was just atrocious. Third, I didn't care for the actor they got to play Harper. I'm not going to comment one way or the other on the basic story, as it did feel like (at least to me) that this film was a bridge to another part of the saga.The only thing I really did truly like about this film was the ending after the credits. I must admit I got a good chuckle out of it.

First off, the viewer should be aware that the movie they are about to watch is not going to be anything even remotely resembling a "good" horror flick. It's more or less a "just for fun" piece, the bulk of its appeal being in all the hot young skin (of either gender) being shown all over the place. Lots of yummy eye candy if you're up for that sort of thing, but there's no real quality to it. This is a film that you can tell was thrown together by people who were more interested in having fun making a movie than they were in making a high-quality movie.That might sound like a criticism to some, but it isn't. There's nothing wrong with getting a crew together to throw something like this together once in awhile - I'd love to have been on the crew of this flick, in fact. :-) But the fun they surely must have had making it doesn't quite entirely translate into an equally enjoyable viewing experience. It is fun, that's for sure, and if you have time to waste and are not in the mood for serious or deep, "meaningful" horror, this is a good flick to watch. So little attention is paid to the actual plot & dialog, that it's really more the type of flick to have playing on background TVs in dance clubs and the like - what appeal is present is almost entirely visual.The 5 stars are only because I don't honestly think they were trying to make a great movie - and they didn't. It's a good thing, though - that means they didn't take themselves too seriously, which you can tell when you watch it, which is why the silliness and craziness isn't as annoying as it is when more "serious" movie makers try similar tactics. It's a trashy, low-budget, low-quality "just for fun" eye candy flick. Nothing wrong with that, so long as you know what you're getting. I enjoyed it, might even watch it again sometime.