I hope you're reading this, Millard. And really--as the title states--that's the first question that comes to my mind: What were you thinking!?!? Seriously, the first Criminally insane was epic...almost a masterpiece of independent, sleazy film making. The original storyline, the blood that makes me LMAO every time I see it, the grainy REAL film that was actually used to shoot it on! Criminally Insane 1 was and is an amazing nostalgic gem that will live on in horror film history.Criminally Insane 2...not so much! So, what happened? Did you lose access to the camera that you shot Criminally Insane 1 on? Did it break sometime between that movie and this one? I understand your tight budget, but come on, did you really have to use the same camera that you filmed most of your family Christmases with? Also, were you suffering from writer's block? I mean, using scenes from the first film to fill in 40% of the film wasn't entirely a creative move. If I wanted to see Criminally Insane 1 again, I'd watch Criminally Insane 1 again!--Which I actually did want to see again after sitting through just 10 minutes of this waste of my time sequel! You messed up big time, Nick. Thanks for disappointing 100% of the fans of Criminally Insane 1. For that--1 star! And that's only because I can't give it zero!

I should have listened. I was warned, and still, I paid money for this, after reading all the reviews, after knowing the original is "so bad it's good", and that part 2 does not fit into that category at all, still, even then, I couldn't resist. Exactly what happened here? Part one was Hilarious, it had so much politically incorrectness, and other Crazy, Fat Entertainment, and this one, there just couldn't possibly be a worse sequel on God's green earth, not Basket Case 2, hell, not even Troll 2. This is truly the worst sequel in history and that's really saying something considering the groundbreaking, bottom of the barrel qualities of the original. Criminally Insane part 2 was just a completely different brand of bad. Shot on Video, zero score, zero entertainment value, 1/3 consists of flashbacks of the original, and on top of all that, crazy, fat Ethel has lost a portion of her girth. I mean, honestly, is this some kind of sick joke?!? Thank's a lot, Nick Milliard. 1/10

Due to budget cuts, Ethel Janowski (again played by Priscilla Alden) is released from a mental institution (even though she killed six people) and delivered to the Hope Bartholomew halfway house. Once there, she immediately relapses into her criminally insane ways and kills anyone who gets between her and her food.HOLY MOLY! Does this movie suck! You know you are in trouble when the open credits start up and they are just the credits from the first film, apparently filmed off a TV screen. Nick Millard (under his pseudonym Nick Phillips) decided to return to the world of Crazy Fat Ethel over ten years later and with a budget that probably covered the cost of a blank tape and a video camera rental for the weekend. Let's just say that Millard's unique style doesn't translate well to video. Seriously, I have made home movies with more production value than this. And Millard tries to pull a SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 2 by padding half the running time with footage from the first film (which looks like it was taken off a worn VHS copy). Alden is again good as Ethel but the film is so inept that you start to feel sorry for her for starring in this garbage. I mean, at least the first film tried. Here we have no music, weaker effects (if that is at all possible), shaky camera work, horrible audio and editing that looks like it was done with two VCRs hooked up. Avoid this at all costs!

Ah yes. Crazy fat Ethel is back...and she's still hungry. But did the world really need this sequel? Don't get me wrong, there's a soft spot in my heart for the original slice of movie cheese. How could you go wrong with a premise so...well...delicious. A fat woman dispenses with anyone who gets in the way of her and a refrigerator. And the movie will forever be on our guilty pleasure list of 70's drive-in sleaze that we must go back and view every couple of years. But along comes this sequel, shot entirely on camcorder with no music, no real edits, and no real point. Crazy fat Ethel (now minus a few pounds) is released from the mental ward into a halfway house where she begins killing anyone who gets in the way of her eating. Old habits die hard, I guess. However, all of that only takes up about ten minutes of screen time. The rest of the running time is padded with flashback footage from the original film. So we'll get new scenes of Ethel taking a nap, the camcorder zooms in to her face, and we cut to old scenes from part one. Repeated ad nauseum. So much footage from part one is used that, if you've never seen the original, you'll see it all here. And it looks like a masterpiece compared to the new footage. We get ridiculously long scenes of a character eating an entire candy bar, Ethel eating an entire bowl of pudding, Ethel dancing around out back with a bloody knife, etc. And since it's filmed on camcorder, there's crummy picture and sound to back it all up. Seeing this with the original footage only made me appreciate the original that much more. So, skip this and stick with the original.