Low production values and minimal input from King and Romero doomed this sequel.
Oct 17, 2009
Creepshow 2 was a follow up to the Romero and King classic. The tight budget and the lack of input from the two creators of the first film doomed the project from the start. The problem was that it wasn't a total failure but it's just not that entertaining (especially when compared to the first film). It had potential but the uninspired acting, the mediocre writing and the tight budget kept this one from being a classic. The only tale that was fun and entertaining was the last story "The Hitch Hiker". The first tale "Chief Wooden Head" was mildly interesting and "The Raft" had it's moments but the low budget handicapped it's effectiveness.
I had high hopes for this movie and I was absolutely stoked when I heard it was being made. But I was extremely disappointed when I saw the finished product. Too bad because the movie has potential. A shame that they couldn't produce a fourth or fifth story (like The Cat From Hell). Don't skimp on the budget next time people. A movie like this needed a couple of more stories and a bigger production to be effective. Michael Gornick is a good cinematographer but a boring director. A seasoned filmmaker could have made the material work. Maybe the next film in the series could improve on this flat sequel.
*1/2 out of **** "Creepshow 2" is absolute laziness stemmed from an absolutely inspired idea. The first "Creepshow" was an utterly fantastic anthology horror film that told three simultaneously silly, scary, and surreal tales of terror. It was collaboration between Stephen King and George Romero, and I really dug it overall. So I can understand why a studio would want to produce a follow-up; a continuation of the three-stories-at-a-time legacy. "Creepshow 2" would have been … more