UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Horror >

2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams

2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010)

July. 20,2010
|
3.1
|
R
| Horror Comedy

When this year's round of unsuspecting Northerners fail to show up for their annual Guts N' Glory Jamboree, the residents of Pleasant Valley take their cannibalistic carnival on the road and head to Iowa where they encounter spoiled heiresses Rome & Tina Sheraton and the cast and crew of their "Road Rascals" reality show. Performing "The Bloodiest Show on Earth", our Southern Maniacs prove more than ratings killers in what John Landis has called "one of the rare sequels that surpasses the original".

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Leofwine_draca
2010/07/20

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.

More
Bill Shroyer
2010/07/21

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.

More
privatebleeding
2010/07/22

The previous 2001 Maniacs was pretty good. I was surprised that the parts between the murders were just as fun the deaths themselves (unlike HG Lewis's original). This sequel to the remake, however, is an absolute travesty where NOTHING works.I'm all for a bad movie, but this one made me angry. The characters are the definition of cliché, the dialog is miserable, and the actors do nothing to even slightly improve upon the crap they're given to work with. Everyone puts on an accent or persona they simply can't pull off. Even Bill Moseley stinks. Every one of his lines comes off as something you'd find on the gag reel. He laughs through each line as though he no longer wants to laugh.The worst part of this wreck is the merciless attempt at comedy. Trust me, there is nothing funny about this movie! When one joke fails, the viewer moves on. When every joke fails, the viewer gets enraged, especially when each stone aged joke relies too heavily upon multicultural racism and flamboyant homosexuality.This movie is worse than bad. This movie is, by and large, a sheer waste of time and energy.

More
m-cline-829-890967
2010/07/23

Now, I've seen all three of these films, from the 1960s Two Thousand Maniacs up to Field of Screams. The first was a product of its times, the gore-less, sex-less 1960s horror movies in the US. After waiting for decades, I finally got to see the sequel, 2001 Maniacs, though it was a little late (after 2001).Hands down, 2001 Maniacs gutted the original and hung it out to dry.Sadly, when I saw 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams, I thought that someone had made another film that would be close, even if it lacked the talent of the 2005 film, and would be worth a rental. By the time I was halfway through it, I wished I was the one getting killed, to end my suffering.Some of the death scenes were almost remakes of the original film, like the barrel roll. Depressing. I mean, come on! We have 1860s types in a modern world, full of Yanks, and they can't work up something better than a cheap 1960s death? When it came to "Granny Boone" getting it on with the "Mayor," I was really seeing too much. I guess, were I as old fashioned as they think Southerners are, I would have found the interracial sex between her and the long Black man sickening, but since that really went on back then, it wasn't even a shock. Well, OK, that's not 100% correct. The shock was that ANY man could do that with her, really. Of the rest of the cast, living and dead, he could have had his pick of beauties, but get real. She actually looked worse in this film than the original, and it was just five years ago. Did she fall in the pickle barrel? I cannot spoil this flick, simply because I couldn't get that far. Thus, I can leave the ending up to stronger stomachs than mine. I wouldn't be surprised if this movie was the death of a lot of real careers. I know they have more talent than this, and looked better regardless of role. My question is, what happened to the writer of the 2005 movie? Please, lower the flag on this series, fast, and play Taps. Leave the South some dignity.

More