First of all I have to say considering this was made three years after the first movie it is impressive that it follows on directly from the previous's finale and includes the original cast. That kind of stuff makes all the difference and this franchise deserves a hat tip for that but that alone.Pitchfork returns and continues his killing spree with the previous movies survivors trying to stop him and as with the first you'll see nothing even remotely original and wall to wall clichés.Again it's not entirely terrible it's just poorly thought out.Richard Tyson returns again but only in a flashbacks capacity.There are worse horror franchises than Hayride and truth be told though they aren't good you can do worse. Combined this is a 3hr slasher epic which badly falls short but does have a couple of things going for it.The Good: Follows straight on from the first complete with cast The Bad: Unforgivably boring in parts Defies logic and reason Things I learnt from this movie: Heroes can wear wifebeaters to A dozen stabs in the back can be easily walked off

If you haven't seen the terrible first part from 2012, don't worry. In the beginning you will see a summary so you can enter the hayride. The positive fact is that the horror is better than in part 1. The killings are done on-camera and we do have red stuff here and there but as in the first part it's a long ride throughout all the talking going on.I saw this immediately after the 2012 version and I had the stop button in my hand but people who knew me do know I sit throughout every flick I see. It's not the worst flick I came across but it wasn't a nice flick. Still, it do deliver a few bloody shots. Only for the geeks of low budget slashers.Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 1,5/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5

I'm a horror movie fan, all genres, this was bad. The gore is the only redeemable aspect of this film. The acting is god awful. It seemed like the actors were doing separate monologues and were unaware of the other person's performance. The worst part was the awkward pow-wow between the nurse and the main character that just seemed to last f.o.r.e.v.e.r. Way too long to just say "if you ever need someone to talk to..." It's so bad I'm in complete shock. How do any of these people have jobs? The filter they used on the film is absolutely wretched. One of the guys at the hospital looked like he had orange skin! The camera angles didn't make sense either. It seemed like they were trying to mimic artsy style horror films with odd close ups (at certain times) and failed badly. I do not want to know what Hayride (1) is like. I'm sure it does not deserve a sequel. Please save your money, time and brain cells. Do not watch.

This film is incredibly slow and directionless. The folklore about a mystical, seemingly invincible farmer-serial killer is hardly developed at all, and the way people throughout the film go through trauma only to reconvene and have a slow conversation about childhood and fairy-tales is bizarre. Even fans of horror films will find this movie a waste of time. How did this thing get funded anyway?I guess one could try to make a drinking game out some of the annoying aspects of the film (drink every time someone dies, or every time cops stand around doing nothing), but even then alcohol is not likely to make any of this funny or entertaining.And why would we expect the bumbling hick protagonists to prevail over this invincible farmer? And why did I feel the need to waste more time by writing a really bad movie review about this really bad movie? Dilemmas...