Feast II: Sloppy Seconds (2008 Video) User Reviews (89)

I sure as shite seen everything now.

[lastliberal · 6/10 · 6 November 2009]

If you are looking for some kind of a coherent storyline, look elsewhere. This horror film is pure black comedy.

It is a continual "feast" of blood and mayhem. The monsters are back and they are hungry as someone says. At least the action takes place in daylight this time so we can see the ugly things - if you look fast because things move at lightning speed here.

Clu Gulager survives the first film only to be taken prison by a girl biker gang set on revenge for the death of their queen. In the process, he really does a number on Honey Pie (Jenny Wade) for leaving him in the first film. He goes all Mike Tyson on her! We have midget wrestlers, Thunder (Martin Klebba) and Lightning (Juan Longoria García), lots of biker chicks, and lots of monsters that may be interested in more than killing.

The autopsy performed by Greg (Tom Gulager) produced the most copious explosion of bodily fluids that I have ever seen. You might say the chance of you hurling while watching is better than even.

This was just one big gore-fest.

I'm Hungry

[mr_pivac1985 · 5/10 · 17 December 2010]

Shortly after the massacre at the inn one of the survivors Honey Pie travels to the nearest town. Closely following her is Biker Queen and her gang, who after picking up a severely wounded Bartender (previously believed dead), head to the same town in order to avenge the death of her sister (Harley Mom). For no apparent good reason she blames her death on Bozo (one of the survivors of the first part, but not appearing in the second). However it turns out that the monster manifestation was much larger in scale than just the roadside bar and that the whole town is infested with the man-munching buggers. The few survivors include a car dealer Slasher, his wife and her lover as well as two midget wrestlers named Thunder and Linhtning. Add to that Short Bus Gus, a meth addict, who manages to hole up in the local jail-house (the safest place in town). Naturally everyone wants into the jail-house, but Bus Gus isn't willing to comply...

The aptly titled sequel Sloppy Seconds is an extravaganza in bad taste and rule-breaking with a despicable act of killing an infant the highlight of the sheer audacity of the director and his crew. Naturally a part of you cries 'no!', but surprisingly this sequence is handled very well and probably is one of the two standout scenes in the sequel. The second involves an extremely stupid plan, which for some reason everyone else thinks is quite brill. If this was The A-Team the plan would have worked... since this is Feast II it failed spectacularly, because lets face it - whoever came up with the plan needs his head examined.

That would more or less resolve the issue of what's good about the movie. The script is forced and the characters feel much more farcical than in the original, which really takes away the capacity to become emotionally involved in the action. Additionally their motivations and actions are nonsensical (but in a bad way). A couple of odd twists and turns work out well, but none of the new characters really click in this part (except for Thunder and Lightning), while the old characters are much more bland and uninspiring. To add to insult all the likable characters are killed off by the end of this part leaving only irritable heroes for the third outing.

All in all a decent followup, but lacks the consistent and edgy script of the first part. It would also seem that the Feast is not going in any specific direction as far as building the back-story of the monsters.

Extremely Disappointed

[fabreeka · 4/10 · 10 October 2008]

First, let me say I loved Feast. It was stylish and was just a breath of fresh air. Feast II: Sloppy Seconds was indeed that - a sloppy second! I understand that this was an attempt at horror comedy as opposed to the first which focused more on scares but I didn't find anything funny in the sequel. Any movie that resorts to having almost every character gag or vomit at some point in the movie definitely loses its credibility as being a sequel to one of the better low-budget horror releases for the last few years. I had no connection to any of the characters and you saw way too much of the creature. In Feast, you didn't see as much and that is what made it so great. In Feast 2, the monsters look like men wearing rubber costumes. It even had a poor quality feel. The first one didn't feel that way even though it was low-budget. I'm really hoping that they salvage this series with the third film because the second one did not hold up to the parent film. Some want to call it slap-stick but I just found it stupid. One of the only enjoyable qualities of this film was Honey Pie but even then, I still didn't understand the point of her character because she did nothing but stumble around the film with no clear purpose. Definitely not worth what I spent on it.

Failsd miserably were the first succeeded

[horrorcritic72 · 1/10 · 13 October 2008]

I really liked the first feast and thought it showed a lot of promise for gulager but then I saw this sad excuse for a horror film and am going to have to take it back. I think he tried to get a little to ambitious and the film suffered ending up a sordid mess. From terrible dialog to ridiculous set pieces with out the well done gore payout, Feast had no impact and took way to long to get started.

Another major flaw is how the creatures were shot in the day making them look like some bad film school student footage. Maybe it was the director trying to be Tarantino with flash cuts and edits but the film tried harder to be a bad action movie than anything horrific.Someone else should take a swing at this franchise as its taken a turn for the worse and its too bad.

Far worse than Feast I

[dschmeding · 4/10 · 7 October 2008]

I loved Feast... it was pure brainless fun, like Guy Ritchie directing a horror movie. Great one-liners, cool characters, gory and politically incorrect kills... and all this on an obvious tight budget. Anyway, they managed to make the movie work and not show too direct that there was not much money to spend.

Now with Feast II the whole opening sequence already put me off. It looks like a cheap road movie, the biker queen character is extremely annoying, so pretty much until all characters are introduced I hated this movie. Still I liked the black car salesman and the 2 midget Mexican wrestlers with their grandma got my hopes up... the scene where they flee naked out of their flat when their whore gets chomps is fun. But they don't manage to stick to these characters and rather go for some more over the top gore and shocks. In this movie you can see the monsters and they look cheap... but that didn't bother me. What bothered me most were the real fake blue screen effects and some of the bad CGI blood. Also the whole thing gets real disappointing when you got 2 midget wrestlers, a car salesman and his cheating wife + her lover, a gang of tough biker chicks getting naked and monsters impregnating cats and about anything that crosses their path... and they set for an autopsy that gets the whole staff covered in monster vomit, diarrhea and semen in an endless sequence. This is like the lamest fart joke I have ever seen.

Obviously they didn't know where to go with this movie... jumping from strange characters to horror clichés to extensive gore back to silly jokes and politically incorrect shocks. OK, chicks get beaten up and sacrificed to monsters, a baby gets chomped in a bad rescue attempt, a grandma is rotting alive because she was puked on and serves as a test object for a nice catapult... this is some of the fun highlights. But the story moves back and forth, neither Honey Pie in her hideout nor the Hobo in the jail everyone wants to reach from a roof (this was stolen from some other movie, I think Dawn of the dead?!?) make any sense. Come on, the movie just ends suddenly in a very cool credit roll and left me pretty disappointed ... even with the old cliché of someone considered dead waking up again before going to black (Hello... Feast III coming up soon!). This one works for a fun evening with some beers for the mentioned over-the-top scenes. But its by all means far worse than Feast I.

You have to be kidding me...

[J-Roo · 1/10 · 6 October 2008]

If I could give this movie a nothing I would. The only thing that kept me from turning this terrible piece of drivel off was the fact that I would not have a say in how ridiculous this movie truly is. If I had turned it off I would be unable to warn others not to waste valuable time when you could have been doing something more constructive like drinking paint or anything less painful then exposing yourself to this movie.

If you like bad makeup, bad costumes and character development BELOW the grade of bad pornography you need to see this movie. If you value your time and dislike $2 Halloween fake plastic vomit avoid this movie. If you like senseless idiocy for the sake of it, go for it. This movie is for you.

There is nothing unique or good about this movie. Well, there was the part where it ended. That was good. When the credits rolled it was like I could breath after hiding myself under a shirt because someone had passed gas. The acting is terrible, the affects (lol!) are terrible and the whole story is just pointless. I know this leaves little to mull over but my opinion and for that I am sorry. However, my opinion is all this movie deserves in the way of fair analysis. Garbage!

gore,guts n gross

[kairingler · 6/10 · 27 August 2009]

this is without a doubt one of the most gross,sick, and yet funny horror movies out there. it is supposed to be a sequel from the first, it picks up the morning after the attacks, this time it's in a different town. they show you a lot more of the creatures this time; a little too much if you ask me,, monster genitalia really not needed, let's get to the fun stuff, a monster giving it to the cat, a group of survivors tries to dissect the monster , all of a sudden fluids start spewing from the monsters body, all over the girls, i mean like in their mouths, and all of their bodies, you got a rotting, decomposing grandma, midgets being catapulted in the air, a baby thrown in the air and dropped, plus you got naked biker babes. movie is not much on plot, but makes up for it in gore, hot chicks, and oddities that you just don't see in other movies.

A so-bad-I-can't-even-be-disappointed sort of sequel

[mneiai · 3/10 · 11 October 2008]

While the original Feast movie was a funny, creative movie that could continue to entertain even after the first viewing, this sequel leaves much to be desired. It has all the aspects of a film that is trying too hard: the gore, violence, humor, and even sexuality are all forced and overdone.

For fans of the first movie, do not expect this to deliver anything similar. It is a good movie to mock, but it does not reach the careful balance of bad and ridiculous that makes some B and even lower quality movies "so bad they're good." For people who are fans of movies featuring: badly acting biker chicks, midgets, scantily dressed and not terribly intelligent blondes, and unrealistic dialogue, then this movie is a good choice.

Offensive, entertaining, and gory as hell. Fans of the first should enjoy.

[Shattered_Wake · 7/10 · 9 September 2010]

In a small desert town, the few survivors of a bar brawl with a few vicious monsters team up with some locals to, once again, survive the monstrous onslaught.

'Project Greenlight'-winner John Gulager returns to the director's chair with this straight-to-video sequel to his cult hit 'Feast'. The first gained notoriety due to its production on Bravo's film-making series Project Greenlight, which gave 'Feast' a nice run of credit names including Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, and Wes Craven. I very much loved the first one, and consider it a modern-day 'Evil Dead,' due to its cult fame and part of a future trilogy. That reputation, however, now relied on 'Feast II' also being a hit (cult or otherwise). In comparison to the first in general film-making, it pales. The acting, writing, and direction have all gone a bit downhill, though only some of the acting is terrible and the rest of it being at least acceptable. Another problem stood with the character introductions. They were changed up from the quickfire style in the first film, and now seemed like Monday Night Football player intros. Some of them were a bit long and really took the viewer out of the action. While the film doesn't live up to the first in general quality, it does maintain all of what the first was great at: over-the-top gore & violence, sex & nudity, foul language, rubber suited creatures, non-stop action, and hilariously one-dimensional characters. If those kind of things don't work for you, neither will this film. The gore was great and endless, and the violence was brutally gruesome (and often offensive). While it could've used another hot chick or two, the cast fit the roles well, even if some of their performances left quite a bit to be desired. Also, the ending will leave many (including me) somewhere between annoyed, frustrated, and simply wanting more. Luckily, none of the problems were enough to ruin the film and if you're a fan of the first or just looking for some mindlessly bloody entertainment chock-full of biker chicks, super-strength monsters, and wrestling midgets, I can definitely recommend 'Feast II: Sloppy Seconds.'

Final verdict: 6.5/10. I'll be impatiently awaiting 'Feast 3: The Happy Finish.'

-AP3-

What a piece of crap...

[j-soto416 · 1/10 · 11 October 2008]

Wow where do I start with this piece of junk... most of the users who gave this movie good reviews must either have been family or friends of the people who made this movie. O.k. I will admit it was funny as hell.. but I wasn't thinking that I paid 4 bucks to rent a comedy. This movie is not scary at all and the monsters look worse then the idiots who dress up as cartoon characters at Disney world. Story line ? none. Acting ? pitiful. Special affects ? think from Dusk till Dawn.. yes that bad.

The only thing this movie has is that it tries to shock the audience by doing some things that are pretty low.. even for horror movies. By low I don't mean " Wow this scene is so gross you have to go see it ". By low I mean think baby killing low (hint). These kind of shock moment scenes are not worth your time or money, and it does not change the fact that the movie was wack, stupid, and just plain sucked.

Bodily fluids

[mrguugelballer · 9/10 · 6 October 2008]

There is a whole lot a things going on in the "Town" and there is going to be bucket-loads of bodily fluids flying trough the air. Feast II is obviously made with love and with one thing only in mind - to offend anyone who is not accustomed to Braindead-type of horror. Because nothing is sacred in this movie. I mean, I can think only like two or three things "worse" than what is shown in F2 but it would have been illegal and thus they couldn't include those acts in the movie.

What comes to real cinematic values, like directing and so on... well don't expect intense horror and realistic reactions. Expect mediocre facial expressions and out-of-this-world situations. But hey, the cast and the crew really didn't even bother to try because you can't make this kind of movie with serious face. It's tons-of-fun and it's goooood. I say goood! If you like mad and incoherent movies with lots of corpses and you don't need solid plot because all you want is madness, then this movie is for YOU.

I give it 9 stars because of the fact that this movie is so politically incorrect and the fact that it is below 5 now. Without the mad scenes this would have been a 5 out of 10.

Have fun watching. And for the record, if you watch this with your girlfriend or boyfriend, tell them that you just picked it up without knowing what to expect :D

It's a sloppy sequel

[KineticSeoul · 6/10 · 21 October 2009]

This isn't a bad sequel, but it isn't better or even in the same level as the first not that I expected much out of Dimension Extreme or anything. If you thought the characters in the first movie was awkward and weird, the characters in this film is on another level. This film just tries too hard to be over the top and way more crude and messed up, but that necessarily isn't a good thing. The monsters aren't even intimidating as they were in the first film, cause they seem slower and more vulnerable although they are larger in number this time around. Some of the characters seem similar as well, like the character Greg Swank which is like a sleazy and stupider version of the Coach in the first film, while giving some random speech about team work and working together while trying to play the hero, but just ends up messing everything up which I think was intentional but not as funny this time around, except when he gets the monsters to puke on grandma and pee on the girls which was a bit amusing to watch. This one tries to add some crude humor but it's just not that funny and ends up just being repulsive. There are also more random stuff going on in this film compared to the first one in order to add some humor, but doesn't really work. Like the scene where they try to catapult a midget to another building, it was pointless attempt at some crude humor which takes up a lot of time but really isn't even that funny, well at least it led to seeing the Tat Girl and Tit Girl's bare breasts so I guess is somewhat forgivable for a film like this. Everything in the sequel makes the audience get numb after a while and doesn't add the shock value they seem to be trying to achieve with it's vomit and gagging jokes thrown in. Also you didn't get the see much of the monsters in the first film which I think is a good thing, cause in this one it looks like men wearing rubber suits. Also the quality of this film appear way less than the first film, although the first one was low budget as well. The Bartender and Honey Pie was the only characters that appear again after the first "Feast" and Honey Pie don't add anything to the film but get beaten up, stumble around trying to survive but it all amounts to nothing, just about every character in this movie just isn't noteworthy. I give this film some props for at least trying to be more crazy than the first film, while being gimmicky. This isn't a terrible spoof though. The cinematography is nicely done for a "B" movie and at least they tried to be somewhat original while showing 2 hot girls bare breasts while kicking ass, the ending will make you feel cheated but I guess it's to set the audience up for part 3. The death of idiots and prick characters in this film is satisfying to watch as well, I think I might be giving this sequel a 6.3 out of nostalgia cause of the first.

6.3/10

Sloppy indeed.

[DevastationBob-3 · 1/10 · 29 January 2009]

It's always crushingly disappointing when you bring back the same creative cast for a sequel and they totally drop the ball in regards to the rules they set up in the first movie. I bought Feast 2 on the strength of Feast 1, a gritty little old-school monster movie with it's own sense of dark humor. Feast 2 looks like somebody made a sequel on YouTube and Dimension said, "Hell, let's run with it." (The following is CHOCK FULL O' SPOILERS.) I should have known something was amiss when a dog gets shot to pieces in the opening scene (granted he was carrying the shooter's dead sister's hand, but still...Puppy!) Feast brings back a couple familiar faces that died in the first flick (but they're all related to the director, so it's no surprise) Biker Queen and the Bartender. The Bartender (Clu Gulager of Hobgoblins fame, heh) in particular looks a lot older, his hair much whiter and longer than we last saw him, but as we're about to see, continuity is not this film's strong point.

They leave the bar in search of Bozo (that was his REAL name??) since it was his doing that blew up Biker Queen's twin in the good movie. Unfortunately the nearest town is overrun with the suddenly incredibly visible monsters. While the first flick was dark and well filmed, most of the action here takes place in broad daylight. Dead bodies are all over the place, and it's here that I start having problems. When the movie is called Feast, why are the monsters leaving so many uneaten remains about? While certainly dismembered, all the corpses parts are accounted for. Don't they know there are starving monsters in India? Anyhoo, Biker Queen and her randomly naked friends drag the bartender to Bozo's apt. where lo and behold Honey Pie (from Feast I) is holed up with some other survivors. We'll use the term survivors loosely since they get killed all to hell by the bikers. Not to be outdone, Clu proceeds to beat the snot out of Honey Pie for abandoning them in an incredibly poorly acted scene by Miss Pie. Clu doesn't do too bad, but if you want to see good actin' by a blonde girl getting smacked around by a misogynistic old guy, rent True Romance, not Feast 2. Then he flings her out of a window.

In the midst of this we are introduced to some other survivors, Cockroach from the Cosby Show playing a used car lot owner, another Gulager playing his salesman, Cockroach's cheatin' Positive Affirmation spoutin' wife, a couple midget Mexican wrestlers and their abuela. The wrestlers (who are probably the closest you'll get to noble characters in this flick) offer their hideout to everyone while they wait for an armored convoy to show up and rescue survivors. This is promptly never mentioned again. Somehow they find out a methhead has locked himself inside the only truly secure building in town, the Jail. It's decided this is the place to be, and the wrestlers who also happen to be locksmiths volunteer to sneak out and make a key that will open the jail-house doors. With me so far? It is at this point that the movie really cuts ties with making sense. While the wrestlers sneak to their keymakin' equipment under cover of dark, the used car salesman decided a Monster Autopsy is the thing to do to better "know" their enemy. This is the best reason they could come up with so they can show extensive scenes of pointless vomiting, defecation, and monster spooging. Now i'm not condemning the gruesomeness, it's a horror flick, it's expected. What i'm condemning is that it's simply not funny, it don't advance the narrative, there's really no point for it at all.

While we're being treated to extensively pointless scenes of monster autopsy, we also get extensively pointless scenes of Honey Pie trapped in a convenience store. Seems after she was flung from the window, she made her way there looking for a phone. She gets in through a vent then falls through the ceiling. Sadly the phone no workie and she's trapped. Despite the fact that the ceiling still has a hole in it and there's a DAMN LADDER IN THE STORE.

It's at this point that I gave up on FEAST II, but sadly my eyes kept watching. So I got to see some boobies, but I also got to see them kill grandma and a baby. They don't even make it into the jail. The monsters get on the roof and kill everyone. Maybe Feast 3 will make Feast 2 sensible, but I doubt it, and i'm for damn sure not gonna spend another $14.99 to find out.

Avoid this one and watch the first one again.

I want my money back

[smith666 · 1/10 · 7 October 2008]

If it is bad this movie has it. Bad writing, bad acting, bad editing, bad CG... There are a couple of funny bit's (like the Dwarf with the foot long willy), and some good gore FX, but not enough to save this (should have been aborted) film. Lot's of pointless filler to make the movie longer, the story is all over the place, looking more like a film student project. Hard to believe the same writers, and director who brought us the original Feast (great movie) turned out this less than worthy sequel. It must have been slapped together over the weekend. Also hard to believe that Martin Klebba (Pirates of the Caribbean) would be in this thing after proving to be a good actor. And what is with all the penises and jizz, somebody has a fetish if you ask me. But if you like 80's B style low budget gore movies, then by all means, rent this puppy. But don't be surprised if you too end up saying "I want my money back".

Great Gory Romp

[drama59 · 14 August 2011]

What an irreverent romp of horror and camp! Loved it! Does it cross boundaries..YES! If you want a horror movie where you see the monster and not just flashes? If you want gore? If you want nudity? If you want scenes you have never seen from another horror film? This is the movie to watch! Keeps you wondering what is going to happen and the unexpected is what you get.There are some scenes that make you say..."Oh no you didn't!" WELL all I can say is "Cat" and "Baby". I haven't seen Feast III but would LOVE to. I want a horror movie that gives you blood and gore..and Feast II delivers. Thanks John for a fun romp with blood, gore and more! How many horror films have little people wrestlers?....hmmmmm

They aimed for Bad on Purpose. And they failed. . .

[Rabh17 · 5/10 · 31 January 2009]

I saw Feast I and laughed and laughed with the on-going freeze-frame commentary. It was fresh and new and intelligent. Oh- and it had buckets of blood!!

Feast II is Bad because they AIMED for Bad. They AIMED for Bad because they want this movie to become a Cult Item. Because they're AIMING for Cult Status, they should be denied.

They failed. It lacks the Backhanded intelligent humor of the First Movie and just went for raw Yuk-yuks. The Monsters are now in plain view-- without the cover of darkness, they lose aura of terror. They just became red, toothy and predictable.

The characters lacked the Staged Set-up tableau of the Lonely Desert Diner/Bar to now be placed in a two bit town-- with everyone else already dead. The one logical center Set piece they could have used was the County Jail-- but the script closed that spot off as a pointless aside with one character inside doing nothing. I mean, even the Sheriff died for nothing.

Oh don't get me wrong. . .there's plenty of Splat. But even the Baby toss was predictable and derivative.

If there's a Feast III, I won't be looking.

Different than the first one

[Gigantoscula · 5/10 · 24 December 2019]

I rated the first movie 7/10. I'm not giving this a lower score because they tried something new. The movie was balanced towards comedy instead of horror this time and there were a handful of funny moments. People giving this a bad review because it's sick or things of this sort should reconsider their movie watching strategy. It is what you expect, it delivers where it should. It feels cheaper than the first one and parts of it feel like their out of place, but hey, i'm a simple man, I see breasts, I boost the movie rating. Jokes aside, it's a decent movie if you like this genre (i'm not referring to horror here) 5.4/10

Not as good as the first one, still it had enough gore, violence and nudity to keep one entertained.

[Aaron1375 · 7/10 · 23 October 2008]

Yes, this movie is not quite up to par with the first one. My first complaint has to do with the way the characters were introduced. They replaced the whole words on the screen with a kind of video introduction that just is not as good as the "Animal House" type description of characters. The character's this time are not quite as appealing as the first either. I really liked the guy considered the jerk in the first movie and all the characters who had a large role were good. I really missed Rollins in this one, though I realize they could not really bring him back. Granted I did like that Clu was back as was Honey, and I rather liked the midget wrestler's too. Nobody else though was really all that special as the biker chick was a bit to serious for this movie. The story in this one is just a sort of a continuation of the first movie. Apparently, the monsters that attacked the bar were not alone as another group were attacking a small town at about the same time. We our introduced to some new characters and a biker chick who was the sister of the girl blown up in the first. She is out to get our hero from the last movie, last seen driving away in his car. The one gal is back in this film who left the people in the bar for dead too, granted it looks like the main reason she was brought back was so she could be tortured. So what can you expect from this movie. Lots of gore and kills that is to be sure. A monster autopsy that goes beyond the yuck factor, you just will shake your head at parts of that. A less than spectacular baby rescue. A rather stupid attempt at a catapult for flinging little people, though grandma gets to go first and lots of monsters tearing through the city and doing it with cats. Still, feels like a movie that is direct to video and has a cheapness about it the first movie did not. The ending to was a bit disappointing as it seemed right out of the very bad "Automaton Transfusion".

A colossal mis-fire, and a huge disappointment for horror fans

[Jim-D · 2/10 · 2 December 2008]

The first FEAST was a wonderfully over-the-top riot, which was disgusting and wild while still offering an engrossing plot, interesting characters, and enough thrills to become something more than just another gross-out monster movie. It was easily one of my favorite genre films of the past several years.

Sadly, FEAST II is the polar opposite from beginning to end - an embarrassing pile of unentertaining garbage from a crew that obviously had the potential to make something great.

I picture the pitch meeting for FEAST II going something like this:

STUDIO EXEC: So, you want to make a sequel to FEAST? What have you got?

GULAGER: Well, the monsters had huge penises in the first one, why don't we just go with that?

STUDIO EXEC: But... uh... that wasn't... the only plot point.

GULAGER: But if we put more penises in the sequel, it'll be... EXTREME!

STUDIO EXEC: I don't follow you.

GULAGER: ...And baby eating! And melting old people! And vomit! And naked midgets! And pee! And cat raping! Horror fans love that kind of crap!

STUDIO EXEC: But don't they generally like being scared?

GULAGER: Nah! If we throw in an all-girl biker gang and bring my dad back from the dead, it'll be cool.

STUDIO EXEC: My god. That's just insane enough to work.

But it isn't. At all.

The movie is a colossal mess on almost every level, from the ill-contrived jokes to the anti-ending, seemingly placed there to chide you for sitting through the entire film. The director's girlfriend returns for no reason other than to be on-set with him, they cleverly place a huge log in the toilet during a bathroom fight scene (Ooh! Edgy and funny!), and the movie's bluescreen effects are on-par with those of a middle-American meteorologist's weather panel. Why didn't they just film the movie on a REAL ROOFTOP?! Ugh!

The director has stated repeatedly that he wanted to make something even more over-the-top than the first FEAST, but now seems upset that nobody else finds his immature sense of humor even remotely entertaining. he showed such great potential in FEAST, and I rooted for him during all of Project Greenlight. Why is this where he went next?

As a lifelong horror fan, I've seen my fair share of shocks, and nothing in this mess is there for any reason but the cheapest of cheap shocks. Eating a baby and raping a cat? Come on, guys. That's the best gag you could come up with? Its not offensive or shocking. It just feels... cheap.

I expect FEAST III to go out of its way to break even more taboos, but I won't be along for the ride. In the running time of just one sequel, FEAST's makers somehow went from one of the most hilariously fun, daring horror films to a piece of Troma-grade trash.

Next time, get your heads out of the third-grade gutter. We want horror, not barf jokes.

Fun, but should have been better.

[BA_Harrison · 7/10 · 4 November 2008]

A simple premise (a group of people are attacked by several vicious monsters); a great collection of characters played by a dependable cast; a remote, claustrophobic setting (a roadside bar in the middle of the desert); a deliciously twisted sense of humour; and buckets of outrageous gore: these are the elements that went to make the first Feast such a tasty treat for horror hounds.

Feast II consists of the many of the same ingredients, only this time director John Gulager changes the recipe slightly (adding even more gross-out comedy) and tries to ladle out a much larger helping: more monsters attack a bigger target (a small town), causing greater chaos and carnage. Of course, bigger does not necessarily equal better: the result is a fun sequel, but one which, as the subtitle suggests, is also rather sloppy.

As in the first film, Gulager quickly introduces his audience to an eclectic cast of characters (including a second hand car salesman, his adulterous wife and her lover, a biker queen and her gang, and two micro-wrestlers) before bringing on the real stars of the show, the toothy critters with a hunger for human flesh, who spend the rest of the film making a mess out of pretty much everyone who crosses their path. Eventually, after a series of close encounters with the nasty creatures, a small group of survivors gather together on the roof of a building and attempt to stay alive long enough to figure a way out of their predicament.

It must've seemed like a logical progression to up the ante second time around, but in opting to take the action to a much larger playing field, Gulager seems to have bitten off a little more than he can chew: the story is less focused, the characters not so well defined, and the monsters too exposed (now they actually look like men in rubber suits!). In order to detract his audience from the film's obvious weaknesses, the director very wisely chooses to play the 'bad-taste' card: he presents his audience with so much revolting gore, grue and potentially offensive material, that he hopes they won't notice its flaws. It's a plan that very nearly succeeds.

Viewers are treated to so many delightfully demented moments, that it is easy for degenerates like me to be a little too forgiving about the film's less effective qualities. With dwarf sex, mass vomiting, cat-rape, an OAP launched by catapult, and a particularly gratuitous baby death, Gulager enures that the sick and twisted stuff comes thick and fast (particularly in one scene involving an ejaculating monster corpse!), and these moments undoubtedly make Feast II an enjoyably daft romp. When in comparison with the excellent first film, however, it should definitely be considered something of a disappointment.

6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb.

Was as bad as I expected.

[BrandonLonehart · 1/10 · 30 July 2009]

Yeah, I watch bad movies. It's fun. These people who have hopes, dreams..ya know, people who are really passionate about what to do. And they're really bad at it. You just know that they're ashamed of themselves. It's gotta be really embarrassing to put in your best effort, everything you've got, and come out with this.

That being said, if you like to see people fail, this is where to go. Acting, plot, story, pacing..it's like the people involved weren't even trying. But that's the best part: You know they were. You know that everyone involved was trying their hardest, and what you get is something akin to a retarded first grader's trapper keeper. Failure has never been so fun to watch.

Lots of gimmicks but lacks story.

[TdSmth5 · 8/10 · 13 October 2008]

A whole lot is thrown at the screen here, but there is no cohesive or interesting story. In the special features, the director says that he told he writer "biker chicks, little people, a catapult" and had him write a story on that. And it shows. While Feast I was fresh, original, funny, with characters to root for, here they've just turned everything up a couple of notches, just for the sake of it: so we have the shooting of a dog, a baby's death, all sorts of bodily functions and liquids thrown at people's faces, sacrificing of a grandmother. Nothing is sacred, except a good script. The result is not funny, or all that involving.

The story starts with a biker chick finding the hand of her dead sister and swearing revenge on whoever is responsible. She drags along the bartender from part I and has her fellow gang members join her. She is the main character and is rather unattractive. No Krista Allen to be seen here, unfortunately. There are some cute fellow biker chicks but they don't get to do anything or say anything. At least near the end two of them get topless.

They end up in a town and meet up with: 2 Mexican little people wrestlers and their grandmother, a sleazy used car lot owner, his woman who is cheating on him with an even sleazier car salesman, some other survivor from part I whose involvement is pointless. For no reason whatsoever, all of these people agree to take part in the gang leaders quest to avenge her sister's death. This involves getting into to town jail where the killer and his relative are. The jail is also the safest place in town.

Meanwhile, the monsters are killing, eating, and reproducing with anything that is alive and in sight. But the sense of dread is not there at all. For a long time the monsters pose no threat to our group. Eventually they kill a monster and dissect it. During the dissection we get the over-the-top gross-out moments that involve all bodily fluids and then some. The plot is to make a key to get into the jail since the guy there won't let them in. That plan doesn't work. So the group gets on the roof of a building across the jail. The idea now is to catapult the little people onto the jails roof using a motorcycle's power to launch the catapult. How the bike got on the roof is anyone guess, but the movie doesn't care about details. It just wants to show us gimmicks. That plan doesn't work too well either. While all this is going on, a survivor girl from part I locked herself up in a store. Monsters are getting in, and she escapes.

This movie is somewhat of a letdown given that Feast I was so excellent. It suffers from a reverse sequel curse. Rather than running out of ideas, they overdid it completely. Out of the 15 or so character we have in this movie and who survive for most of the movie, none of them is noteworthy. Perhaps that's the point. What we should take note of is all the disgusting and offensive stuff. I can tolerate and accept all those scenes if there were a story and development to go with it, otherwise it's just the filmmakers bragging about what they were able to get away with. That said, the movie is nicely filmed. Unlike horror movies that keep the lame tradition of shooting everything in the dark, here it's all nicely lit. The cinematography is very good. There's a beautifully shot dream/nightmare scene. These guys know how to make a movie but they let their guard down and decided to just have fun with things rather than do the hard part and work at a script. It still recommended for horror fans, especially now that horror has become so sanitized. This is heavy dose of insanity and disgusting stuff to make up for that. But it's no Feast I nor particularly funny nor horrific.

not for the more sensitive bleeding-hearts out there

[movieman_kev · 7/10 · 17 December 2008]

Picking up shortly after the first film, Biker Queen finds out that her twin sister, Harley Mom met an 'untimely demise' by the monsters and sets out on a crusade of vengeance to find those responsible she meets up with a few of the survivors from Feast 1, as well as a black car salesman, two Mexican midgets, and others. The story is as simplistic as the first, yet focuses on more of the twisted comedy of it which apparently consists of dick, fart, vomit, and semen gags.Infantile humor, sure, but I got a kick out of it. The film as a whole is awash in tastelessness, but I love politically incorrect films so I found it right up my alley, at least it was better then the stuff that Troma's been putting out lately. Besides if there's a place in the world for horror as art like "Let the Right One In" (rightfully so as that film's brilliant & puts crap like "twilight" to shame) then there should be room for the flip side of that: Mindless drunken fun horror films (this one being of course firmly in the latter category) So sit down with a six-pack or two (or 5), some like-minded friends & just sit back & enjoy. Although I still maintain that a better name for the film would have been "Feast 2: the Second Cumming"

Eye Candy: Diane Goldner shows her right tit; Amy McGee shows her ass; Chelsea Richards and Melissa Reed both go topless (there's also nudity in the Making-of featurette on the DVD)

My Grade: B+

DVD Extras: Commentary by Director John Gulager, Writers Patrick Melton & Marcus Dunstan, Producer Michael Leahy, and Actors Diane Ayala Goldner, Tom Gulager & Clu Gulager; a 12 & a half Making of featurette; a 5 & a half minute 'Meet the Gulagers' featurette; and trailers for "Hell Ride," "Mother of Tears," "The Zombie Diaries," & "Diary of the Dead."

Obvious rubbish right from the off set, but it could have been more fun

[wellthatswhatithinkanyway · 2/10 · 9 June 2010]

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

I first came across this curious looking little horror flick from an advert in the paper. It was obviously something of a B movie, not something that was going to win any renowned awards, but it had it's charms and I decided to give it a go. It comes over as a trashy Grindhouse sort of movie, with cheap, low budget, sub par Alien effects that are affectionate enough. Somehow, none of it's any fun and it's the kind of thing done much better by the likes of Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez. It has exactly the kind of effect a title like Feast II: Sloppy Seconds could be expected to have. Maybe I'd have liked it more if I saw the original first. Or maybe not.*

Different from the original but almost just as good.

[jack_face · 15 December 2011]

Feast II: Sloppy Seconds starts out totally different from the first part. The tone is much more comedic and even more absurd. And gore? You better have a strong stomach to peep this! And I ain't kidding you, either! When the hardcore stuff started, I had to stop eating. There was no way for me to continue watching this movie and eat at the same time. It's just not possible. It picks up where the second part left off. Some characters survived the assault from the creatures in the previous movie and the main plot point here is a female biker gang leader is looking for one of them who killed a gang member in the first part. Her acting wasn't great but her dialogue was.

I honestly didn't think Gulager had anything to do with this because the tone was so different. I didn't know what to expect. When things picked up, they stayed up. There's more gore to the point of it being gross. Like in the very beginning with the midgets. The sex scene is funny but when the monsters start attacking, the sight gags just make you start crying laughing. This movie does have nudity, just so you know. Best line of the movie? When one of the midgets said, "Monsters don't eat where they (rhymes with hit, starts with the letter 's')." Best scene of the movie? Without giving too much away, a very tense scene is when a baby starts crying. You don't know if it's a monster baby or not. You don't know what'll happen when it's rescued. You don't know what'll happen during the scene when it's tossed into the air. I won't say anything else to ruin that moment.

Yes, it is a moment. One of those movie moments that you'll never forget because it's never, ever been done in any movie before it. You WILL remember it, I can guarantee that. Nothing is immune to abuse in this movie. Children, animals, people, it don't matter. There's one other scene that tops all the others. The baby scene is unforgettable. When they dissect one of the creatures, I'm telling you right now, DO NOT eat before you see this movie unless you have a VERY strong stomach! It's one of the grossest scenes I have ever seen in any movie, ever! I even made a comment to my friend that it reminds me of German puke porn. So that right there gives you an indication of what to expect. You have been warned! The only surprise face here is Carl Anthony Payne II's appearance as a used car salesman. I love the Martin TV show and he was a huge part of that so it was good to see him again. I'd say the biggest challenge for this movie was that it occurs mostly in the daytime. Kinda hard to scare people like that but this is much more comedic than scary. Honey Pie, a holdover character from the first part, is important to the ending of the movie. You'd think this was the end of the Feast series the way it ended but it's not. Can't give anything away but the previously mentioned disappointment comes from the fate of Honey Pie's character. Sometimes, you gotta let people live, you know? I give this movie 7 out of 10 stars. There's just so many humorous scenes, and a lot of them are absolutely ridiculous, but all appropriate and well placed. Like the dialogue from the grandmother whose body was liquefying. You'll see. It only gets one point less than the first part because, hey, the first part is the benchmark. Kinda hard to top a movie like that but this one is almost equally highly recommended. It's a totally different style but it stands on its own as unique and original with stuff happening that's never happened before in any movie before it.