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.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Under interrogation from the police, art-house film-maker turned horror director Mickey Lombard (Ulli Lommel) gives his account of the events that have resulted in his arrest for a series of grisly murders.In the mid 80s, UK horror fans were treated with utter contempt by the BBFC when the organisation saw fit to draw up a list of films they deemed unsuitable for public viewing due to their graphic nature—a list which included several films that are now recognised as classics of the genre. To make matters even worse, this 'video nasty' list also included certain titles that were indisputably complete and utter garbage. Years later, horror fans who actively seek out all of the official 'nasty' titles for the sake of completion can find themselves playing a game of horror movie Russian roulette.One video nasty that is most definitely the movie equivalent of a loaded chamber is Ulli Lommell's Boogeyman II (AKA Revenge of the Boogeyman), an absolutely dire snooze-fest that almost makes taking a bullet to the brain seem like the preferable option (it would certainly involve a lot less suffering). Consisting primarily of regurgitated footage from the first film, plus a few additional scenes starring the director himself and some risible supernatural killings (including death by electric toothbrush!?!), Boogeyman II makes most of the other nasties look like classics in comparison (so perhaps it's not an entirely worthless flick after all).So bad is the film, in fact, that it has been suggested by some (including Lommell himself, unsurprisingly) that the whole thing was a massive two fingers up to the film industry by a disgruntled director unable to receive funding for anything but horror films. If this was the case, then I guess Lommell succeeded: his film is a joyless experience from start to finish, one which must have had his investors seething with rage.Incredibly, twenty years after its initial release, director Lommell issued a re-edited 'Redux' version intended to finally realise his original vision. If anything, this cut is even worse than the first one.

If there was ever a film that didn't need a sequel, it was Ulli Lommel's The Bogey Man. This follow-up would have been more understandable if it were a personal project from the same director, but for some reason; someone called Bruce Starr has taken up the reigns (I neither know, or care, the reasons for this. Or if Bruce Starr is a Ulli Lommel pseudonym). Well...he sort of has, as this film is at least half a retread of the first film with direct 'flashback' scenes making up a large proportion of the runtime. The plot this time focuses on some people in Hollywood who want to make a film based on the events of the first Bogey Man film (groan), this gives Brucey Starr an opportunity to stick a load of scenes from the original together with the stuff he directed. The main problem with The Revenge of the Bogey Man is that it's mind numbingly boring! I have to admit that even though it was merely a couple of months ago when I saw the first film, I can't remember most of it - and even that didn't stop the film being completely boring. The idea of a killer coming out of a mirror is more silly than frightening anyway, and while it doesn't surprise me that this film ended up on the DPP Video Nasty list, as the first one did and this is essentially the same film; I for one wish it didn't because then I wouldn't have seen it. Recommended? Nope!

SpoilersEd Wood didn't die in 1978. He was alive and well in 1983 and directed BOOGEYMAN II. That would be the ONLY plausible explanation for the amazing ineptitude of this "horror" film. There are so many moments in this film that are the exact filmmaking techniques Ed Wood used in his films that it's unreal. Here's a list of examples:Ed Wood acted in his movies (like in GLEN OR GLENDA). In BOOGEYMAN II, Ulli Lommel, who was the director of THE BOOGEYMAN (and the "unofficial" director of this sequel) plays Mickey. Ulli Lommel is a TERRIBLE actor, just like Ed was. The blond woman, who plays Suzanna's friend, reminded me of Ed Wood's main blond squeeze in GLEN OR GLENDA, Dolores Fuller. The acting from both women are identically bad.Aside from the criminally long flashbacks, which show whole sequences from the first movie, BOOGEYMAN II is made up of other amazing cost saving ways, moments like when we only see filmed action with the voices of the actors added later in post-production. For example, the EXTREME long shots of people standing next to the pool and talking. But they're so far away that you can't really tell if they're talking or not but we hear a conversation going on between the two, even though the two actors probably just stood there with their mouths closed. So, from the looks of it, Lommel simply filmed two actors standing next to the pool and the content or the dialogue was written and added later in post-production. Cost saving techniques like this are very reminiscent of what Ed Wood did with his films.Another thing that reminded me of Ed Wood was the moralistic tone of the "story": should they make a movie about Suzanna's experience or not? We see a parade of faces, exemplifying every cliched Hollywood types. The scene of Suzanna being greeted by these unscrupulous folks is very poky but oddly effective in a very "Ed Woodian" way. This "reality vs Hollywood reality" is probably the ONLY clever aspect of the film but, like everything else in BOOGEYMAN II, it's totally mishandled and falls flat. When Lommel walks around his house, with corpses all around and thinking it's all a prank, well, it ends up being more embarrassing than funny.Then there are the absolutely ridiculous death scenes, which for some unexplained reason, always involve a man and a woman getting killed together. These deaths rank amongst the silliest ever put on celluloid. Death by electric toothbrush? Death by shaving cream? Death by CORKSCREW?!?! The death scenes in the bathroom reminded me a lot of the now famous close-up shots of the woman recording herself with the video camera in THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. But there's a death scene that's so ridiculous that you have to see it to believe it: inside a garage, two people are sitting in a car. The lights start flickering. The man stands up in his car, standing through the opened sunroof window. The guy is PULLED up and out from his car while the woman watches on. Even though this happens right before her eyes, she starts looking for her date inside the small and mostly empty garage. She even looks for him under the car (arf!)! As the woman crouches down, the evil spirit levitates a ladder behind her and hits her butt with it, forcing the woman, with her mouth open, to swallow car's exhaust pipe. The evil spirit then proceeds to turn on the car's engine and the woman, stuck there at the pipe, is forced to swallow the fumes. This is probably the funniest death scene ever conceived for a movie.BOOGEYMAN II is remarkably awful but it's so bad that, like Ed Wood movies, it's really entertaining in a "it's so bad it's good" way. I watched twice in a row! THE BOOGEYMAN, though not the greatest film in the world, was pretty good and looks like a masterpiece compared to this stupid sequel. Anyway, at least Suzanna Love is beautiful and the music is the one good thing to be found in this weird movie.It's obvious Ulli Lommel, who apparently hated making horror films and couldn't get funding for anything but horror films, did this movie out of spite. The film is a slap on the face, to fans of horror, to fans of the first movie, to anyone who rented this. I'm glad though that I have the video in my collection. It's a definite curio that has to be seen to be believed.

Awful sequel to chiller with the story relying too heavily on flashback to tell a story that never develops fully into something coherent or interesting.