LoginFeast II: Sloppy Seconds
Posted : 15 years, 6 months ago on 1 November 2008 07:09
this sequel to an awesome first movie is definitely not as good as the original, but at least it's done with the same humour, a couple of the same actors from the first, and with a story that is written in exactly the same mannercas the first, with all the gruesome action, bad jokes and lots of gory deaths. And, just like in the first movie, each character gets an intro...and it looks like there might be a third movie in the works, based on how this one ends. Feast II is good B-movie bad fun and worth watching if you enjoyed the first movie. Tons of blood, with bare breasts for no good reason...and even a fart joke thrown in with alien and human penises as well...who can resist?
0 comments, Reply to this entry
-
Posted : 15 years, 7 months ago on 10 October 2008 02:43
The first "Feast" is a prime example of cult horror film-making done right. No less crude and outlandish than the movies it culls inspiration from, but it bent and ultimately re-wrote the rules of contemporary horror in the way it saw fit... whether you liked it or not.
A few years later comes its sequel, "Feast II: Sloppy Seconds" and sloppy it is. No less gory than its predecessor and much more over-the-top (any film that has an infant getting thrown into the air and splatting onto the hard pavement beneath it MUST be), "Feast II" takes something of a new approach to the flourishing franchise. Where the original was claustrophobic (maybe too much so) and more reliant on comedy than horror, "Sloppy Seconds" feels much more like a '70s horror throwback with just enough of the original's smart genre jabs thrown in for good measure.
I've read quite a few negative reviews on "Feast II" thus far and I can certainly understand the criticism. Whereas the original was generally fast-paced and very "Alien-like" in that in remained in one general location with a group of soon-to-be victims, this sequel moves a bit slower and is so far removed from "confined" that it would do the picture a disservice to even compare its few claustrophobic moments with those found in the original. Not to mention Wes Craven, Matt Damon, and Ben Affleck are no longer producing and it had no Project Greenlight backing whatsoever. As should be expected, the sets look a little cheap, there is more off-screen gore thanks to a drop in budget, and the FX aren't always up to snuff.
But with a sharp grindhouse feel and body parts, arterial spray, bodily fluids, and shredded babies to spare, "Feast II" manages to be more than the sum of its parts. It was great to see director John Gulager's wife, Diane Goldner, return as the twin sister of Harley Mom from the first film, Biker Queen. She gets to display her acting chops far beyond anything given to her in the first and I found her quite likeable as an anti-hero of sorts. Other stand-outs include Carl "Anthony" Payne ("Cockroach" from "The Cosby Show") and a reprisal from Jenny Wade as Honey Pie.
Of course, it goes without saying that if you found the first film upsetting in any shape, way or form - in particular the "face-rape" sequence involving Harley Mom - the entirety of "Sloppy Seconds" is something you will want to steer clear of altogether. We're talking beasty urine, creature vomit/human vomit, feces, and, of course, the quintessential gore needed to make a film of this ilk complete.
Perhaps a little too concerned with shocking instead of delivering on the goods the first promised, this is still a swift one-two punch that contemporary horror needs. Not quite as good as the original, but just as ridiculous (if not more so) and much broader, “Feast II” won’t please everyone, and probably no one but those who have their roots firmly planted in early grindhouse cinema. All in all, however, “Feast II” is an admirable sequel.
A few years later comes its sequel, "Feast II: Sloppy Seconds" and sloppy it is. No less gory than its predecessor and much more over-the-top (any film that has an infant getting thrown into the air and splatting onto the hard pavement beneath it MUST be), "Feast II" takes something of a new approach to the flourishing franchise. Where the original was claustrophobic (maybe too much so) and more reliant on comedy than horror, "Sloppy Seconds" feels much more like a '70s horror throwback with just enough of the original's smart genre jabs thrown in for good measure.
I've read quite a few negative reviews on "Feast II" thus far and I can certainly understand the criticism. Whereas the original was generally fast-paced and very "Alien-like" in that in remained in one general location with a group of soon-to-be victims, this sequel moves a bit slower and is so far removed from "confined" that it would do the picture a disservice to even compare its few claustrophobic moments with those found in the original. Not to mention Wes Craven, Matt Damon, and Ben Affleck are no longer producing and it had no Project Greenlight backing whatsoever. As should be expected, the sets look a little cheap, there is more off-screen gore thanks to a drop in budget, and the FX aren't always up to snuff.
But with a sharp grindhouse feel and body parts, arterial spray, bodily fluids, and shredded babies to spare, "Feast II" manages to be more than the sum of its parts. It was great to see director John Gulager's wife, Diane Goldner, return as the twin sister of Harley Mom from the first film, Biker Queen. She gets to display her acting chops far beyond anything given to her in the first and I found her quite likeable as an anti-hero of sorts. Other stand-outs include Carl "Anthony" Payne ("Cockroach" from "The Cosby Show") and a reprisal from Jenny Wade as Honey Pie.
Of course, it goes without saying that if you found the first film upsetting in any shape, way or form - in particular the "face-rape" sequence involving Harley Mom - the entirety of "Sloppy Seconds" is something you will want to steer clear of altogether. We're talking beasty urine, creature vomit/human vomit, feces, and, of course, the quintessential gore needed to make a film of this ilk complete.
Perhaps a little too concerned with shocking instead of delivering on the goods the first promised, this is still a swift one-two punch that contemporary horror needs. Not quite as good as the original, but just as ridiculous (if not more so) and much broader, “Feast II” won’t please everyone, and probably no one but those who have their roots firmly planted in early grindhouse cinema. All in all, however, “Feast II” is an admirable sequel.
0 comments, Reply to this entry