Just not with good results. This is a remake of the Gordon Herschell Lewis splatter film, 2000 Maniacs. And it's not an improvement.The 1964 version had some plausibility. This one the characters should have run screaming almost immediately, but I guess it's because we've had so many "Killer Rural People" movies since 1964, the Cliché hadn't been worn out yet.So the kills and the sex are more graphic, so that's something. Also, they outright say the ghosts are cannibals, something they only hinted at in the other movie.There's also a point where one of the victims is crushed just like the gal in the 1964 version. Except in this one, she supposed to be Chinese and the make a racist joke about eating her remains. Except the girl didn't even look remotely Asian. She was just some loser from a reality show trying to be an actress and failing. I mean, if you are going to insert a racist joke in your movie, at least get the casting right. (Or you could just avoid the racist joke, because it just wasn't funny. Neither were repeated bestiality jokes.) Okay, then we get to Robert Englund. Got to feel sorry for Robert, Freddie Krueger ruined his life. People forgot he could act. Here he's making a maudlin effort with bad material.

It really bugs me when a movie like this comes out that is obviously not trying to be "scary" or use state-of-the-art effects and someone HAS to comment on how bad it was with remarks like "This movie was not scary at all" or "the effects were so cheap and fake". That's exactly what this movie was going for, it's a horror movie, it's supposed to be horrible! The plot, I will admit was clichéd, preppy city kids headed to the beach get caught up with a bunch of Confederate cannibal hicks. Heard that or a variation of it before. But the movie has tons of gore and some good nudity thrown in to keep things interesting as well. It slows down a bit towards the end but it was still able to keep my attention. Did I mention that it is REALLY gory? I think the only reason this movie managed to avoid being "unrated" (which sometimes means nothing nowadays) was because the gore was so ridiculous and over the top. Watch Cabin Fever, Waxwork 2, or Slither, you'll see what I'm talking about. Quartering, impalement, acid-drinking, pressurized eye-popping, blood spurting and such. Come on. When's the last time you saw someone get drawn and quartered in a horror film? The make-up effects department gets really creative on this one. Watch this alone or with someone who "gets" it. Watch it with someone who enjoys movies like the re-make of "The Hills Have Eyes" or "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and more than likely you will hear one of the comments mentioned above.

Well, at least everyone was killed. This is a pretty crazy zany movie. Uh, but yes of course it is also a bad movie. If you like bad horror movies like me then yes, you'll probably see this. If not, then you should pretty much avoid at all costs. This ridiclious plot involves a few cars happening upon some small town in the middle of nowhere that wants to kill them. Eventually that happens. The acting and plot, as usual in these movies, are really horrible. The production and everything else is OK. I would not pay to see this movie - its free on fearnet right now. Each character is so highly annoying, I said to myself at the beginning of this "film": "Self, I hope every single one of these people gets killed." And lo and behold myself was correct!

2001 Maniacs the remake isn't a movie. It is a post-movie. It is as developed as an 88 minute Capitol One commercial, and the only thing it sells is the theoretical algorithm of what defines a good time to a certain consumer demographic.The overall structure, plot, pacing, dialog, and format of 2001 Maniacs could have been inputed by a machine based on the specific formulas of similar movies (Bordello of Blood, Dusk Till Dawn). 2001 Maniacs then reflects the camp aspect of slasher/gore movies, yet some integral part is missing. It isn't that 2001 Maniacs has no heart or soul, it simply wasn't programmed to have heart or soul in the first place. 2001 Maniacs follows the sad trend of most genre (and mainstream) films these days, of trying to imitate the nature of a narrative film. The structure is then reinforced through nothing but shear will of the audience, who has consumed the same tired formula so many times before they now can essentially beg for the same old bone on command.Yet 2001 Maniacs is more than just this: it is not simply a bad movie that is neither funny or scary. It is nothing. It is a black hole, so mediocre it produces no emotions in its watcher. Or rather it produces in the watcher the vacant gaze of catatonic enjoyment one simulates when watching a commercial, this movie imitation's closest relative.A scary thing indeed.