User Reviews

It's not a surprise that "Criminally Insane 2" makes the original look better because face it, belated and unnecessary sequels to cult classics often fail to deliver. However, things go further than that: "Criminally Insane 2" actually manages to make the original look expensive! Part 1 only cost $30000 to make, but this one seems like it's literally made for nothing. To give you a rough idea about how much money and effort making this movie took: the opening credit sequence is just the "Criminally Insane" credits taped of a TV screen. Yikes. There wasn't even any money for actual film this time around either, so writer/director Nick Millard actually resorts to shooting the whole thing with a freaking camcorder. Well, the whole thing...that's not entirely true, given that about half of the movie is stock footage from the first one (cleverly disguised as Ethel's dreams). There's roughly 35 minutes worth of new stuff (presumably all filmed in one afternoon), and each second of it makes you want to burn something down. Your "new" story only lasts half an hour, how the hell can it be so mind-numbingly boring? It's truly unbelievable how much this movie drags, these boring, faceless characters take forever to die. And even when Ethel finally kills them all, she does it in aggravatingly lame ways. This isn't just a lackluster sequel, this is nothing more than a scam. It's sad something like this can be so widely distributed, let's just pretend it never happened.

There are some bad movies out there. Most of them are rather fun. "Criminally Insane 1" was one of those flicks. So bad that it was enjoyable and had re-watch value to it. "Criminally Insane 2" has to be one of the worst movies ever made and coming from me, that's saying a lot because I am not the type of person to say anything is the worst. But trust me, this was just completely awful and running just 1 hour is 1 hour too long.

The movie has a rather incoherent storyline, but who cares about story when all you want to see is a big fat woman running around killing people because she isn't being fed. Well, you don't see that in this movie, except for all of the flashback sequences that are from the first one. The new storyline could have been really funny with Ethel being sent to a halfway house and murdering everyone in there, but nothing happens until the last 20 minutes of the movie and at that point you are already falling asleep.

The camera work in this movie is just atrocious. This literally reminds me of something I shot with friends of mine back when I was 15. The sound quality is something else as you can't understand a word most of the characters are saying. To give an example of how bad it is, go into a New York Subway and try to understand what is being said over the loud speakers, that is what this movie sounds like. Not that it matters what they are talking about anyway because the actors are about as dry as a dead piece of wood.

Now I know that saying this is the worst movie out there is pretty harsh but words can't describe just how bad this movie is. If you don't believe me, see it for yourself. 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.

During the cheap filmed in video beginning of Crazy Fat Ethel II, I wondered if it was the same film that was on the cover. Unfortunately, it was. The story itself is mindlessly simple. Ethel, a homicidal maniac with an eating disorder, is released into a halfway house because of hospital overcrowding. She is by far the most sane resident watching while one man puts dead flies into another's soup. Ethel is then teased by one of the halfway house employees with a chocolate bar after he hits on the cost cutting measure of feeding the residents dog food. Ethel retaliates by strangling him with a wire noose on the stairs and then....well, you get the idea. If this all sounds like fun, it isn't. This film was poorly made with cheap effects and even worse acting. The characters are so wooden when delivering their lines that they should be standing out in front of a cigar store. To make matters worse, half of the film consists of flashbacks to the first Ethel movie, Criminally Insane, which is little better. A VERY poor effort.

Nick Millard aka Nick Phillips should have left well-enough alone when he made "Criminally Insane" 10 years before the release of this god-awful waste of time and effort. The fact that the original "Criminally Insane" was less than an hour in length should have clued him into the fact that he had probably milked this storyline for all he was going to get out of it...but instead he opts to use TONS of footage from the original in this one as well, even to the point of recycling the original opening credit sequence! Unfortunately, bringing back the rapidly aging Priscilla Alden did not save this one. What little bit of original footage there was in this flick looks as if it were filmed with a rented hand-held camcorder! If this film cost more than $100 to make I would be very surprised and I would be equally surprised if it made anything close to that amount! Avoid this one and watch the original instead!

The first movie is pretty good. This one is pretty bad.

Recycles a lot of footage (including the opening credits and end title) from Criminally Insane. The new footage, shot on video, really sticks out as poorly done. Scenes lack proper lighting, the sound is sometimes nearly inaudible, there's even video glitches like the picture rolling and so on.

Like all bad sequels, it basically just repeats the story of the first one. Ethel kills everybody who shares her living space, often for reasons having to do with them getting in the way of food she wants.

At least it is only an extra on the DVD for the first one, which also includes the same director's film Satan's Black Wedding. Too bad it doesn't include the Death Nurse movies though.

Criminally Insane was one of Nick's first horror films after he retired from his porno flicks I have not seen yet. The first was recommended for me. Pretty good effort, original story, fake blood but looks realistic and loads of suspense. This sequel... not so much.

This film is just the first criminally insane except it's mixed in with new footage that looks like something you can use for your home videos or school projects. What ever or not nobody uses those cameras anymore cause they're so old. Story? Pretty much the first film except it's dumbed down and the editing is non-existence. Scenes drag on for almost five minutes much. It might has its funny moments where the members have the "corn beef hash" is dog food and they act like they didn't eat anything at all. How Nick thought this was a good idea he must be on drugs or either high. I would give a zero but zero isn't an option so here's a one star rating. *coughs* You're welcome.

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

This is the most boring worthless piece of crap I've ever wasted an hour of my life on. All I can say is thank God it was only an hour. Over half of this 'movie' is footage from the original "Criminally Insane". At the very least, I was able to see the highlights from that rare exploitation classic, since for some reality-defying reason my video store only has "Criminally Insane II" (as it had it, "Crazy Fat Ethel II"). But the rest of this movie is some of the absolute worst home-video acting and backyard filmmaking you'll ever see. Why is it my video store has this and not the original? Why does stuff like this actually end up in video stores? Why do people rent it and not immediately burn the copy once they've seen its sheer horror? Why - AAUUGGHH - Why, God, why?

Unless you enjoy seeing annoying fruits eating an entire candy bar in an excruciatingly slow scene, or said fruit getting hung from the stair railing in an even slower scene, or a character getting stabbed sideways (don't ask) multiple times in the back, or brain cell-murdering monologues about giving poisoned tea to one's wife and then complaining that all the talk has made one's own tea go cold, or the mentally-retarded eating fly soup, or just simply want to see Crazy Fat Ethel dancing with a bloody knife in a garden: Don't watch this movie. Repeat: Do NOT watch this movie. Do not rent this movie. If at all possible, do not walk past a shelf in a video store that has a copy of this movie setting on it. You can still be saved, but it is too late for me now. . .

The first movie was one of the worst Z grade movies I have ever seen, but it is ridiculously funny because of how bad it was. And 12 years later, Nick Phillips thought a sequel of Criminally insane will be successful. And he was wrong.

First, why do Z grade movies have a million alternative titles? In the opening credits it is called Criminally Insane 2, wile everyone (exept for IMDb) called this movie Crazy fat Ethel II.

You see again that there is no spoiler warning for this review, because this movie has the same plot (I use the word loosely) of the first movie: A obese woman kills everyone who is standing between her and the fridge, but this time it is much more ridiculous.

Speaking of the first movie, The 60 minute running time of this movie contains over 40% of stock footage of the 1975 film. The line between the old film reel and the cheap 1980s VHR camera is as clear as day.

Don't waist your time watching this, it's the same as watching the first movie two times. If you are really curios about this film, watch the review by the Cinema Snob (even he didn't want to waist time with this movie).

In the words of the Cinema Snob: I radder be f***ed by Mr Greenfield, than watching this peace of sh***t again.

truly, this film amazes. how did this get made? who forked over the 2.50 for the video cassette to go in the camcorder? imagine a film made by your inbred relatives, the ones that find an evening at kentucky fried chicken to be the height of cuisine. then, make sure they're on drain-o when the camera light is on. scenes extend into the horizon. a man eats a candy bar for what seems to be hours. ethel experiences flashbacks to a higher-budgeted film. the film does, however, achieve a surreal, bbc science-fiction edge by intercutting between film and video. crazy fat ethel II is blessed, however, with one of those immediately fascinating titles. forgiveness comes easy to crazy fat ethel II. priscilla alden delivers a performance that is equal parts ham and thorazine-induced coma. the music for the "film" is fascinating...at first, i found it remarkable that nick phillips had managed to create such unique, throbbing gristle-esque vistas of sound...then i realized it's simply the ten-dollar mic trying desperately to capture every nuance of alden's vocal performance. when she bleats, "give me those pretzels, granny!" the film takes a colossal lunge toward greatness. in fact, i keep muttering it to myself, even though there's nary a pretzel or a grandmother in the house. one could extrapolate a fascinating political subtext in this film, as budget cuts in reagan's america force an obese, psychotic woman to kill again and again. can we see ethel janowski as our own bloated, selfish american ego? what? oh, you're right. it really is a piece of crap...but, mark my words, dub in it swedish, sell it as an art film about "the ugly american"...and you'd have a box-office bonanza.

Criminally Insane 2

Where the first Criminally Insane has developed into a sort-of cult horror classic, the second has garnered much attention for its inability to live up to its predecessor and its obvious lack of imagination.

The original Criminally Insane was truly an exercise in uncompromised creepiness, due partially to the director, Steve Millard, who seemed concentrated on delving into areas that were sure to offend mass audiences. The subject matter, a woman cannibalizing members of her family, and the alternate title, Crazy Fat Ethel, are enough in themselves to offend substantial groups of people. However, the merging of religious imagery, there's a statue of Jesus drenched in a victim's blood, alongside images of a deranged woman chopping to pieces members of her family, were sure to push fellows so inclined, over the edge, at the same time, garnering hordes of fans who enjoy that sort of thing. Personally, I loved the first picture, and consider it one of the truly great slasher films of the seventies. Sadly, my reaction to the sequel is something else altogether.

Priscilla Alden, a little older and a little grayer, is back as Ethel Janowski, still confined to the Nappa Mental Institute, and still reliving, in her dreams, the nightmare that is her past. Thirteen years later, Ethel Janowski, a dangerously obese young woman, murdered and cannibalized six members of her family before being caught and sentenced to a mental institute -- all of which is displayed in gory detail in the original film. Her descent into madness was strangely remedied by a deranged compulsion to eat. When part two commences, we realize that the years haven't been kind to poor Ethel. A heavy stream of sleep-inducing medication combined with extensive counseling, has done very little to cure her. Ethel seems unable, or unwilling, to grasp the sheer horrific magnitude of her past deeds, something that is completely lost on the Nappa doctors, who seem more concerned with the overcrowding problem at the institution. This, of course, sets up the next function of the story. Funding and capacity problems at the hospital force the trustees into making a radical decision about what to do with some of their patients. So, after some careful consideration, they decide to release some of their more non-violent patients to a moderately supervised halfway house. Deemed passive by at least one of the doctors, Ethel is quickly put on the list to be released. Big mistake.

The elderly owner of the rehabilitation house, Hope Bartholomew (Lisa Farros), who lives by the credo "There's always hope" quickly detects that her newest guest might be more dangerous than the doctors had specified, and grows even more weary when Ethel starts referring to her as granny -- the family member who set off Ethel's murderous rampage some thirteen years earlier. Ethel's mental condition starts to deteriorate rapidly in her new surroundings, as she spends more time alone in her thoughts, re-living her past murders, and dwelling on ways to partake in more. Her equally bizarre house mates, a fellow 'reformed' serial killer who likes to boast about the various ways he dispatched his ex-wives, and another fellow, who chases and eats bugs, only help to accelerate her descent into total madness. Ad to the mix the fact that Ethel's being deprived of her food and not taking her medication, and it's just a matter of time before she goes on another hack and slash campaign. When it starts, it's almost worth the wait, as Ethel puts much more thought into her second murderous gyration. One of her house guests, the wife killer, is somehow able to read Ethel like a book, slowly discerning each of her various plots to murder him, including a plan to get him to drink tea laced with rat poison. Strangely, it is the exchanges between these two slightly clichéd killers that provides some of the more interesting moments in the film.

The story of Ethel Janowski comes full-circle at the end of the film when she wanders outside into the backyard and begins dancing about in the sunlight. Clad in a raggedy dress and holding a bloody knife, Ethel skips about gleefully, basking in her own madness. The macabre outdoor dance, which feels almost like a symbolic reclaiming of virtue by the main character, brings to mind images of the first film, where the younger Ethel had dreamed of dancing about in the sunlight just before she was arrested. This time, her dream is fulfilled.

Regarding the technical aspects of the film, it is a mess. The 1975 original was shot on film, while the sequel was shot on video. The two formats are merged together in the dream sequences, and it just doesn't work. If anything, it helps to provide a visual confirmation of the superiority of film over video. Also, the acting is stiff, even by Alden, who has made quite a career working alongside such Hollywood heavyweights as Hugh Grant and Nicholas Cage. Here she isn't given much room to play character-wise, which probably accounts for her uninspired, dreary performance. The other actors, which include mostly amateurs and at least one former porn star, are just as rigid in their roles. The writer-director, Steve Millard, who started out making hardcore porn films in the late sixties, would pretty much finish his career with Criminally Insane 2. He would make only one other film before retiring in 1988. It doesn't so much matter I guess, as it became abundantly obvious while watching this sequel, that he was no longer the spirited director he once was.

The Millard family, Nick, Frances, S.S. and, of course, Steve, are essentially legends in the exploitation-movie universe and their films, including the Criminally Insane franchise, have become rare treasures sought after by everyone from die-hard collectors to b-movie archivists. I'm optimistic that someday we'll witness a resurgence of their films on DVD. Like Ms. Bartholomew was so fond of saying, there's always hope.

First movie is a cult classic but this sequel fails in every way. Most is flashbacks and your movie is barely an hour long. How lazy is this director? Revenge Of The Boogeyman had bizarre death scenes which made the flashbacks worth sitting through. The death scenes here are bland and boring.

The flashbacks kinda just happen randomly throughout. Cutting in at already boring parts. The flashbacks to the first movie are the only good part because I would rather see the original than this thing. By the way your movie needs to be 45 minutes to be a movie but if you took out the flashbacks this is like 40 minutes so it doesn't even qualify as a movie.

This movie is trash. It makes Oasis Of The Zombies look like a Oscar winner. Watch it if you want to cure your insomnia.

This film was made only because of the first films success. It features the same fat killer but she's a lot older now. Not nearly as fat either. It shows a lot of the first films highlights, basically living off the gore in the first film. Because, this film has little to no money to spend on special effects. Later, "J" w KandJHorror.com

Criminally Insane 2 (1987)

BOMB (out of 4)

Incredibly horror film that ranks as one of the worst ever made. Like many "sequels" of the 80s, this here takes about forty-minutes worth of footage from the first film and adds 20-minutes worth of new footage, which was all shot on a camcorder. Even the opening and closing credits were lifted from the first film!!!

Criminally Insane (1975)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

The title pretty much sums up this incredibly bizarre, politically incorrect exploitation film that fans should really eat up. 300 pound plus Ethyl gets out of an insane asylum but she's outraged that people want her to go on a diet so she starts killing anyone who gets between her and food. Running just over 60-minutes this film is technically pretty bad but the outrageous subject matter makes for a very fun movie in the same vein of a John Waters film. There's plenty of violence and fake blood to make you giggle, although the "joke" of an obese person killing gets old after the thirty-minute mark.

I found this movie for sale a couple of years ago for about $5.00 and never regreted a penny of it. It is a good movie to watch with a group of friends, but not necessarily a good movie. Film location is listed here as US of A, but as I recall it was filmed in Ajax, Ontario Canada.

For those who believe that the movie CRIMINALLY INSANE is a tacky, poorly-made mess, you simply must see this! Was the original movie an extremely low-budget production? Yes, but at least it resembled an actual movie!

Here, Director Nick Millard seems to have thought up the idea for this, seconds before filming began. As sequels go, this one can't truly be classified. Shot on VHS tape in the late 1980's, it's reminiscent of a poorly-shot wedding video. As for editing... um, nope.

To discuss the "acting" it's best to describe it as nonexistent, since it all appears to be filmed on the fly, with no rehearsals or any script to worry about.

Still, the worst part about it is just how bloody boring it all is! My God, this will boil your brain right out of your skull!

Don't do this to yourself...