But that's what I got. Literally. Look, I don't mean that Boogeyman II is another of those films that directly ape their prequels, giving you more of a remake than another chapter. No, I mean, quite literally, the film is almost half-way made up of footage from The Boogeyman, nearly scene for scene and set by set. There's more separation between The Bronx Executioner and The Final Executioner! I've heard of Recaps, but... damn!
A mere six months after the events of the first film, Lacey (Suzanna Love, who is also, again, credited as co-writer) decides to get away from it all and visit a friend in Los Angeles. Bonnie (Shannah Hall) and her husband, film director Mickey Lombard (film director, and co-writer of this film Ulli Lommel) are happy to have her there, especially when she starts to tell her creepy story.
And tell it she does. After a long credit sequence (primarily consisting of the back of Lacey's head as she's chauffered through Hollywood), the first 25 minutes of the film are almost entirely made up of scenes from the first... in order. Within the first 15 minutes we get the exact same flashback twice, once as Lacey tells her friends about it, once as she tells her friends about how she told her doctor about it. Thanks, great! I guess the second time around was necessary in order to feature some footage of John Carradine's Dr. Warren. Carradine is given top billing on almost all the DVD releases (and third billing in the actual credits) in spite of the fact that his scenes consist entirely of archival footage.
Bonnie and Mickey like the story so damned much that they throw a party for her, inviting all their Douchey mover and shaker Hollywood friends so that she can tell the story... again! Little does she realize that the first time around the Lombards' Douchey butler Joseph (Shoto von Douglas) was listening perfectly clearly, thank you very much, and he's been all too happy to help himself to the one remaining shard of glass that Lacey keeps with her all the time (for no intelligent reason).
Naturally, Joe gets possessed and people at the party start to die in various clichÚd and uninteresting ways. And it goes on like that. Flashback, lame murder scene, flashback, lame murder scene.
Bruce Starr (no relation to Ringo) is credited as the director of this film, though his contributions amount to the comparative inclusions of Richard Lester's work in Superman II! Presumably, this was to give the young assistant director a shot and to free ol' Ulli up to do some acting (which he barely does). It's widely known that Ulli Lommel co-directed this film, whether this is within the new footage or the archival footage that comprises so very much of the finished product. If this were merely derivative and was only guilty of making itself up of its predecessor, this might still have been salvaged as a movie. Sadly, all of the new scenes are terrible. Even the acting is atrocious and Starr's experiments with sound, lighting and film speed are incredibly irritating. The biggest problem in reviewing this is deciding who to blame, Starr or Lommel.
Ulli's main contribution here is his ego. The main plot of this flick surrounds what a wonderful idea for a movie Lacey's experience would make. Ulli Lommel directed and co-wrote (with Love and a here-uncredited David Herschel) The Boogeyman! Let's pay a bunch of actors to remind us all of what great ideas Ulli has. Frequently other characters refer to Ulli's Mickey as some kind of European Auteur with a filmic integrity that exceeds the budgets he's given. He's also described as being "artsy-fartsy" and resists "Exploitation", giving into it only because he's making an "American" film. There is also a lot of dialogue that insults other (and much better) films made in Hollywood, that Ulli must have considered peers of his own flicks. Even Blow Out, which features a poster for The Boogeyman, is singled out as a "Bomb". Yeah, American films and American directors and American slasher films suck. Ulli Lommel and his flicks are golden because he's got "Integrity".
Um, excuse me, aren't we talking about the director of The Devonsville Terror? Hello? Or maybe that non-exploitation thing is an excuse for how prudish Boogeyman II comes across. The frank discussion surrounding the inclusion of nudity in the film Mickey is making results in an actress taking off her swimsuit top invisibly underwater... and the camera moves away. There are brief yet strong and repeated hints that one of the characters might be a Lesbian (Rhonda Aldrich's Cynthia), but Lommel, Starr and Love seem to quickly forget this (or didn't have time to explore it) later on as the film finds the three of the lovely ladies (Cynthia, Lacey and Bonnie) alone in a bedroom, sitting around discussing this "great idea". Hey, here's an idea, make the film worth watching with something that warrants watching this retread! Alas, alack, the only nudity we get is the same flash we saw in the first film, shown again here, verbatim, fake blood and all.
And that's the key to one of the more interesting points here. Revenge of the Bogeyman (as it was known as [and banned as] in the UK) is one of only two examples of a sequel showing up on the Video Nasty List along with its prequel, The Bogey Man! However, after watching this flick it's easy to see just why. Every single vaguely extreme scene from the first film (and a buttload of the boring scenes), including the two shots that landed the first one on the DPP's infamous list of 74. The same naked, brief, breast piercing scene, the same bra-and-panties bondage scene. Yeah, big surprise.
For those who could use an interesting diversion with some fun and friction that only somewhat rips off other films in the genre, may I recommend The Boogeyman. For those of you who are so interested in The Boogeyman that you just have to see its sequel, trust me, don't bother. No gratuities, no scares, no excitement, nothing new... hell, think about it, "THE BUTLER DID IT!!!" Fuck! I haven't been this let down since I followed up Highlander with Highlander II! This one is worse than Highlander II, so it's a no-brainer that it gets a Dog! Here's an idea... somebody make a movie in which they briefly show a clip of this movie that features the hypnosis scene... then credit your film as "STARRING JOHN CARRADINE!" Yeah, apparently you can do that now. See you in the next nasty reel.
Click HERE for more reviews...
Some of them (besides this one) are actually John Carradine flicks!