Reviews

The first question that would come to mind would be whether Carol Kane could play a psycho successfully. And after seeing this film, I would have to say I still don't know because the very tame screenplay didn't allow her to be a well developed psychotic, nor did it allow any other sort of development for any other aspect of this film.

The storyline here is very typical. It involves Carol Kane (with very odd penciled in eyebrows) as an awkwardly mousy, hardworking magazine editor in a drab and depressing looking office building where she gets picked on daily. Then, without any time wasted, the inevitable psycho switch gets flipped and she starts killing off her coworkers.

I know that may sound to most like your typical fun slasher, but in fact, it can't even be considered a slasher. Actually, I really don't know what genre to categorize this film in because it dips it's toes in a couple different sub-genres without ever fully concentrating on any one area, therein lying the problem. The resulting film just doesn't quite work. At the start, it seemed to be heading into satire territory with office politics and such, but quickly falls flat because of a major lack of humor. As it went on, it then seemed I was in for a slasher, but all of the murders take place off screen, giving us no chase sequences, creative deaths or gore. Then I expected it to take a turn into suspense, but was left with no tension or any sort of character development whatsoever, so I never cared for anyone or anything enough to ever get involved in the storyline. The writers just didn't seem to know what they really wanted, which kind of left the final product in limbo. And it's pretty disappointing because the photographer turned director, Cindy Sherman, seemed to have talent and would have benefited greatly if it were a straight up thriller.

So what were we meant to feel during this film? It wasn't smart, funny, thrilling or even bloody. Were we supposed to hate and fear Kane? Or were we supposed to root for her? The whole film felt just as awkward as she looked and felt just as drab and boring as the office building looked, which leaves us with no reason to ever want to visit. I would compare this to later films, such as Love Object and the Willard remake, both of which used the same plot techniques, yet executed them in a much more entertaining fashion. Office Killer isn't a terrible film. I give the director and cast credit for trying. But it's just so lifeless that I can't recommend you wasting your time with it.

To start off, let me say that I'm a very big fan of the original. I think it did everything right; having a nice Gothic overtone, great characters, an original, intriguing and in-depth plot, fun action and an overall script that never once felt dull. Oh, and of course...it had Kate Beckinsale in tight leather, hehehe. Now does this sequel contain all these qualities that made the original so good? Personally, I'd have to say no, I don't think it did. Was the movie necessarily bad? Also no. It was highly entertaining but not that good of a movie overall.

STORYLINE: The story in this film was no where near as good or developed as the original. As it starts off with a war scene in the past, I found myself really enjoying it. We find out a little about the Corvinus family and the origins or Marcus, who was the very first vampire, and his brother, who was the very first Lycan. But after we witness these scenes and learn these few minor plot details, the story development pretty much comes to a dead stop. Honestly, nothing really happens in this movie. It's all just action and really nothing more.

CHARACTERS: The lead characters were good. Selene and Michael didn't exactly have any development but that's okay because they were developed enough in the first film. But what was slightly developed was their romance, which the first film seemed to be lacking. We really got to feel the connection between them and how much they really cared for each other. And it was great to see Michael show off his new hybrid abilities and kick some booty along the way. He was a lot cooler in this film than in the original. The new vampire leader, Marcus, was also pretty damn cool. He had a very sinister appearance, especially with the devil-like wings, and didn't seem to have any sympathy at all as he brutally disposed of anyone who got in his way. In the original, we had Lucian, who was a well developed bad-guy character and I actually found myself caring for him. Marcus, on the other hand, didn't strike a cord with me at all. He looked cool, sure, but besides that, he had absolutely nothing going for him and I really didn't care what happened to him. All the other characters in this film were also very undeveloped as well. We really knew nothing of them and as a result, felt unsure whether we should like them or hate them. So that's a major issue.

ACTION: The action, most the time, was very enjoyable. And I stress MOST of the time, not ALL of the time. There was some really fun action and fight sequences and a nice amount of blood and gore thrown into the mix. So it definitely does manage to entertain the action buffs. But then, at times, the action began to feel annoying as it got extremely repetitive. It was like they just kept replaying the same action scene over and over and just tweaked it a little in order to pass it off as a different scene. This was a problem because the whole movie seemed to base itself on action, rather than story, and the action wasn't even all that good.

ATMOSPHERE: Another good thing about this movie would have to be the scenery. Yeah, I know that's not really important in the movie, but it really did help with the overall experience. There were beautiful mountain landscapes, snowy woods, old style castles in ruins and gorgeous red colored twilight skies. So I think it actually helped a lot in setting the atmosphere and gets points for great eye candy.

OVERALL: The first film was an action-horror movie with a great original storyline. This sequel, on the other hand, felt more like a series of left over action scenes that were taken out of the first film. I think watching the two films back to back will make a great overall experience. But as a stand-alone, it doesn't quite work. It's fun for sure, but that's about it. It's not even remotely close to being as good or better than the original in any way.

Everybody's favorite transvestite serial killer is back…with her tongue firmly placed in her cheek… and a little something missing from between her legs. This time around, quirky Angela Baker (now being played by Pamela Springsteen) daringly returns to camp once again with a completely different persona; that of an overly blithesome camp counselor with good intentions for her naughty little campers. But her sinister past fails to stay buried as each one of the troublemaking kiddies begin to show their true colors and quickly secure a place on Angela's bad side.

Since the beginning of the slasher craze, the moral being sent out to teenagers wasn't something you'd consider subtle. Getting involved with drugs, alcohol and premarital sex wasn't just a sin in these movies, it was a first class ticket straight to hell by means of brutal slaughter. Failed attempts to instill values in these unlikable little drug-addled fornicating sinners (a.k.a. campers) leaves Angela with no choice but to follow this slasher trend and "weed out the bad". The ongoing mistake of most filmmakers, however, was allowing this sort of teen behavior to seem funny and hip instead of shunned. But in Unhappy Campers, we're given a much needed satirical take as we find ourselves rooting for the crazed killer instead of the victims, which is quite a welcomed departure.

As the campers quickly begin dropping like flies, Angela smoothly covers up her tracks by disguising all the disappearances as nothing more than kids who were sent home for unacceptable behavior. But good girl Molly (played by Renée Estevez) realizes that something isn't quite right. Even though she's the typical virginal sweetheart we're meant to root for, I was very much in favor of Angela's motive and couldn't care less if she murdered a few innocents along the way. That, my friends, is the power of Pamela Springsteen. She somehow manages to put a hold over her audience, allowing her to get away with anything and still be lovable. She made me feel free to point and laugh at the mangled corpses of these idiots and not feel guilty about it. Sure, that's an awful thing to do, but hey… these kids really had it coming, especially when they're named after members of the 80's Brat Pack and sport mullets among other things.

Although the death sequences don't have much gore and weren't executed to their full potential (as a result of budget limits I'm sure), they still came off creatively funny and deliciously mean spirited. Using silly one-liners just before brutally disposing her victims, Angela makes sure to get her point across of how uncompromisingly stupid teenagers can be, leaving us laughing and anxiously anticipating her next move. Adding to the satire, there happens to be plenty of girls who love to flash their wobbly bits just about every two seconds for no apparent reason. With acting that could barely pass as decent, there are also plenty of horribly delivered lines of dialogue peppered throughout. Don't be surprised if you're brought to laughter by the unintentional humor more than anything. But as long as you're laughing, who really cares, right? While most horror movie sequels tend to be nothing more than boring and unneeded retreads, writer Fritz Gordon thankfully brought us into new territory with his cheesy yet utterly lovable sense of cruel humor. Although Unhappy Campers isn't exactly a masterpiece and doesn't quite compare to it's predecessor, it still works nonetheless as a fun little guilty pleasure for us die hard slasher fans. After all, the world is a better place with killer Angela on the loose, ain't it?