First off, I am a huge horror film fan who has a special soft spot for slasher films. Nothing can beat the early works of Argento, Carpenter or Hooper in my opinion, especially the horror films, by and large, over the past 10 years. Recently, we've had a few decent throwbacks to the genre which have revitalized my interest in these cheap, schlock filled movies.
When you see the cover of this film, you immediately see a familiar face, Robert Englund of A Nightmare On Elm Street fame. Seeing him dressed up as a Civil War era character, donning a huge Confederate battle flag as an eye patch, I simply had to see this, hoping for crazed, over the top goodness.
Let me start off with the good points of 2001 Maniacs, bc though there aren't many, they do really deliver. The violence in this film will satisfy any gore hound. I thought they did a spectacular job on the violence, making it bloody, but not sickening...over the top, but not way over the top...shockingly brutal, but not disgusting. The fates that the victims of the towns folk meet are all ultra violent, but presented with a collective wink of the eye from everyone involved. And of course, Englund steals the show as a crazed Southern mayor who goes as pleasingly far over the top without hamming it up too much. And also, I won't say who, but one of the group who I thought would be the main character was one of the first ones to bite the dust! I thought this aspect was awesome, as to me it was mildly surprising, but it was probably accidental as a product of bad editing. And of course, blink if you miss him, Kane Hodder (aka Jason of Friday the 13th Parts 7-10) pokes up literally for half a second just for the hell of it. Cheap a trick as it is, I just love it when movies throw us horror film buffs a bone by giving us 'a no one else in the room will understand why the hell we are pointing at the TV and yelling some random actor's name that they've never heard of while spilling our beer on the floor' moment that reminds us that we are who we are. Sadly, Hodder just grimaces for the camera in a quick shot, and does not get to go all Jason on anyone this time around, but hey, I enjoyed it.
However, the rest of the movie is kind of hard to sit through. I am talking of course, about the acting. Oh man, was this a misfire! Now, I know that slashers are not known for their Oscar caliber acting...in fact, some of the best ones have some of the kids acting so bad, it makes the movie good. Now, there are some out there that actually have good, believable acting that 20 somethings would actually act like. The worst slashers, in my opinion, are the ones that have actors who act painfully bad, but are trying their best to be serious. This film starts off with line after line, of horrendously bad dialogue delivered by impossibly unbelievable actors you won't give a damn about when they meet their demise. I mean seriously, how hard is it to find someone who can act like a normal human being? The acting in this film ruins any type of feelings you would ever have for someone in this situation. I hated Cabin Fever (which Eli Roth, who I think is incredibly overrated, is a producer of this film, and has a cameo early on), but at least that film had some somewhat believable acting.
Speaking of Roth, his fingerprints are all over this film. You can see a lot of parallels between Cabin Fever and 2001 Maniacs if you have a sharp eye (especially a few of the actors who are in both movies). Both films have a situation that could have been...should have been great, but fail miserably to millions of plot holes, a razor thin plot and acting that would make Ed Wood frown at. Since this movie never makes you care about anyone, or establishes any sort of hero, you are left with whoever is left at the end, in an ending that makes little sense, nor is fully explained (though, the final minute was a welcome change of pace).
One thing I didn't get was, if these people were supposed to be what was explained at the end, why in the hell did Englund duck from a flying axe, and cower at the threat of impalement? Why would I even care to ask such a question after watching a cheap horror film? Exactly my point...the reason I did ask this, and many more questions after watching this movie was because the story never brought any type of mystique to the townsfolk...we merely see that they are all crazy, most of whom do a horrible job of projecting it. You never really get entranced into the situation which means this movie will never scare you. A movie like this should be dripping with atmosphere (a la Texas Chainsaw Massacre)...not do nothing but deliver cheap jokes about Southerners and then show the occasional scene of carnage.
If you want to see some good gore scenes and have an ability to filter out painfully bad acting and a razor thin plot, then give 2001 Maniacs a try. It is definitely not the worst film you will ever see, but if you are a horror buff, whom I presume this film was made for, you will be severely disappointed.
When you see the cover of this film, you immediately see a familiar face, Robert Englund of A Nightmare On Elm Street fame. Seeing him dressed up as a Civil War era character, donning a huge Confederate battle flag as an eye patch, I simply had to see this, hoping for crazed, over the top goodness.
Let me start off with the good points of 2001 Maniacs, bc though there aren't many, they do really deliver. The violence in this film will satisfy any gore hound. I thought they did a spectacular job on the violence, making it bloody, but not sickening...over the top, but not way over the top...shockingly brutal, but not disgusting. The fates that the victims of the towns folk meet are all ultra violent, but presented with a collective wink of the eye from everyone involved. And of course, Englund steals the show as a crazed Southern mayor who goes as pleasingly far over the top without hamming it up too much. And also, I won't say who, but one of the group who I thought would be the main character was one of the first ones to bite the dust! I thought this aspect was awesome, as to me it was mildly surprising, but it was probably accidental as a product of bad editing. And of course, blink if you miss him, Kane Hodder (aka Jason of Friday the 13th Parts 7-10) pokes up literally for half a second just for the hell of it. Cheap a trick as it is, I just love it when movies throw us horror film buffs a bone by giving us 'a no one else in the room will understand why the hell we are pointing at the TV and yelling some random actor's name that they've never heard of while spilling our beer on the floor' moment that reminds us that we are who we are. Sadly, Hodder just grimaces for the camera in a quick shot, and does not get to go all Jason on anyone this time around, but hey, I enjoyed it.
However, the rest of the movie is kind of hard to sit through. I am talking of course, about the acting. Oh man, was this a misfire! Now, I know that slashers are not known for their Oscar caliber acting...in fact, some of the best ones have some of the kids acting so bad, it makes the movie good. Now, there are some out there that actually have good, believable acting that 20 somethings would actually act like. The worst slashers, in my opinion, are the ones that have actors who act painfully bad, but are trying their best to be serious. This film starts off with line after line, of horrendously bad dialogue delivered by impossibly unbelievable actors you won't give a damn about when they meet their demise. I mean seriously, how hard is it to find someone who can act like a normal human being? The acting in this film ruins any type of feelings you would ever have for someone in this situation. I hated Cabin Fever (which Eli Roth, who I think is incredibly overrated, is a producer of this film, and has a cameo early on), but at least that film had some somewhat believable acting.
Speaking of Roth, his fingerprints are all over this film. You can see a lot of parallels between Cabin Fever and 2001 Maniacs if you have a sharp eye (especially a few of the actors who are in both movies). Both films have a situation that could have been...should have been great, but fail miserably to millions of plot holes, a razor thin plot and acting that would make Ed Wood frown at. Since this movie never makes you care about anyone, or establishes any sort of hero, you are left with whoever is left at the end, in an ending that makes little sense, nor is fully explained (though, the final minute was a welcome change of pace).
One thing I didn't get was, if these people were supposed to be what was explained at the end, why in the hell did Englund duck from a flying axe, and cower at the threat of impalement? Why would I even care to ask such a question after watching a cheap horror film? Exactly my point...the reason I did ask this, and many more questions after watching this movie was because the story never brought any type of mystique to the townsfolk...we merely see that they are all crazy, most of whom do a horrible job of projecting it. You never really get entranced into the situation which means this movie will never scare you. A movie like this should be dripping with atmosphere (a la Texas Chainsaw Massacre)...not do nothing but deliver cheap jokes about Southerners and then show the occasional scene of carnage.
If you want to see some good gore scenes and have an ability to filter out painfully bad acting and a razor thin plot, then give 2001 Maniacs a try. It is definitely not the worst film you will ever see, but if you are a horror buff, whom I presume this film was made for, you will be severely disappointed.