This girl is on a beach, ever so mildly surprised by a bald fat guy with a stocking on his head, she runs to the water to get away from him, but then she's afraid to get her wittle footsies wet, so she starts to turn around. Fat guy in a wife-beater tank top and a stocking over his head chases her until she runs near a couple of other people, then he gives up the chase. Not a very determined man. Apparently she begins having nightmares about this "man with no face" killing people on a small farm (the events of the original film) This so-called "man with no face" clearly does have a face, it's just slightly obscured by the stocking over his head, you moron! Her shrink comments: "Annie continues to have nightmares, terrifying daydreams" - a bit of a contradiction here, doc. Shrink mutters "Annie and I have gone back in time" - no, she's just narrating numerous flashbacks to the first film, you bloody idiot. Shrink: "For the first time, Annie clearly identifies the time and space of the murder" Wait, I thought you said that the two of you had gone back in time? Shrink: "I'm not sure whether Annie fantasized, or whether the murder really took place" - but you just said you think she's gone back in time!
A takes-forever scene of a radio being dropped into the tub is flashed-back to several times throughout the film, so we get to see flashbacks of scenes that took place during the course of this film, coupled with endless quick-cutting, and (much like the second film) inaudible sound and dialogue, and completely random and unnecessary tinting.
The radio-in-the-bathtub scene played again. The flashback to part one followed by the bathtub scene again. A dream of a flashback within a flashback. A flashback within a flashback to a previously flashed-back to scene from the film! Again, what the bloody hell is going on here? These M. C. Escher-like angles of logic and interspersed flashbacks could disrupt the space/ time continuum.
Annie: "They walk inside, they are now entering the living room. There's another girl. They are talking, still in the living room. Natalie (actually Lacey) and her husband decide to walk upstairs. They continue walking upstairs." They've edited the killings shown in flashback to the first film, but they show spellbinding scenes like that, and scenes of people eating apples and folding laundry and cleaning up the bedroom in their entireties, complete with a narration telling us what we're watching for the fourth time.
Annie: "The mirror glows red. Red. A piece flies into Natalie's (again, it's Lacey's) eye", while laying nude on a mirror. Guy: "How old were you when discovered you had this special gift?"
But then at the end of this film, we are supposed to believe that this film (from 1994) and the original (from 1980) ran concurrently. What in the hell is going on here?
If my comments make little sense to you, how the hell do you think the viewers of this film feel? This could be one of the ultimate so-bad-it's-good films of all time, or it could just suck like hell, depending on one's perspective.
A takes-forever scene of a radio being dropped into the tub is flashed-back to several times throughout the film, so we get to see flashbacks of scenes that took place during the course of this film, coupled with endless quick-cutting, and (much like the second film) inaudible sound and dialogue, and completely random and unnecessary tinting.
The radio-in-the-bathtub scene played again. The flashback to part one followed by the bathtub scene again. A dream of a flashback within a flashback. A flashback within a flashback to a previously flashed-back to scene from the film! Again, what the bloody hell is going on here? These M. C. Escher-like angles of logic and interspersed flashbacks could disrupt the space/ time continuum.
Annie: "They walk inside, they are now entering the living room. There's another girl. They are talking, still in the living room. Natalie (actually Lacey) and her husband decide to walk upstairs. They continue walking upstairs." They've edited the killings shown in flashback to the first film, but they show spellbinding scenes like that, and scenes of people eating apples and folding laundry and cleaning up the bedroom in their entireties, complete with a narration telling us what we're watching for the fourth time.
Annie: "The mirror glows red. Red. A piece flies into Natalie's (again, it's Lacey's) eye", while laying nude on a mirror. Guy: "How old were you when discovered you had this special gift?"
But then at the end of this film, we are supposed to believe that this film (from 1994) and the original (from 1980) ran concurrently. What in the hell is going on here?
If my comments make little sense to you, how the hell do you think the viewers of this film feel? This could be one of the ultimate so-bad-it's-good films of all time, or it could just suck like hell, depending on one's perspective.