IMDb RATING
5.0/10
4.3K
YOUR RATING
"ChromeSkull" is the sequel to the 2009 horror hit "Laid to Rest." It brings back ChromeSkull, who barely escaped death in the first movie and is hell-bent on continuing where he left off...... Read all"ChromeSkull" is the sequel to the 2009 horror hit "Laid to Rest." It brings back ChromeSkull, who barely escaped death in the first movie and is hell-bent on continuing where he left off... and forging a new path of terror and destruction."ChromeSkull" is the sequel to the 2009 horror hit "Laid to Rest." It brings back ChromeSkull, who barely escaped death in the first movie and is hell-bent on continuing where he left off... and forging a new path of terror and destruction.
- Awards
- 1 nomination
Christopher Allen Nelson
- Max
- (as Christopher Nelson)
Aimee-Lynn Chadwick
- Allie
- (as Aimee Lynn Chadwick)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaWhen Preston is getting his Chromeskull tattoo on his chest, it is actually a shot of Nick Principe (who plays Chromeskull) receiving the tattoo for real on his back.
- Crazy creditsThere's an additional scene after the credits where the FBI-agents interrogate a woman, probably the wife of Chromeskull.
- Alternate versionsGerman version was ridiculously edited for violence by 9 minutes in order to get a FSK-18 rating, pretty much every death scene is shortened to reduce the blood and gore. Uncut version is soft-banned (put on the BPjM Index B list which means medium chances of being confiscated down the road).
- SoundtracksLaid to Rest
Written by Kurt Meinicke, Steve Salama, Tillian Meier, Jolion Ridges
Performed by ShC
Featured review
Short and sweet, with no spoilers.
As noted in other reviews, the movie picks up where part one ended, but quickly goes another direction, as we find out Chromeskull has an entire team of people working for him. Again, as many reviews note, this is hard to believe, and a bit of a personal letdown, but I won't trash it like others. At the end of the day, I don't judge movies on whether they are realistic, as I take what I'm fed and go from there. Most serial killer/slasher flicks are unrealistic, so why wrestle with a plot over its "this could never happen" facets?
I put this movie in the "JUST O.K." boat. I came for the blood and gore, not superb storyline or acting, and in this respect it was fine. Due to working on intercharacter relationships, however, some of the intensity was lost, as well as the consistency of "kills," if that makes sense.
***NOTE: So I like blood and guts horror. Sue me.
But I digress.
Personally, I feel like the storyline tried to do too much for a formulaic slasher flick. I liked the original, as it wasn't about notable actors or personal relationships other than the people involved. With Brian Austin Green's inclusion, part 2 felt a bit contrived, as if attempting to find validation for the script. Besides the fact that he doesn't play a convincing maniacal killer, the beauty of part 1 is that the story doesn't rely on anything but sheer slashing. BAG was completely unnecessary and could have been played by any old chump and it wouldn't have mattered to me. Though, any time I see Danielle Harris, I'm happy.
Anyway...beyond this bit of beef, it was ok. The pace is different, since we already know what Chromeface does, and the story takes precedent over kills. At the end of the day, there just wasn't enough "meat" to take it from "just ok" to "good."
The production was on par with part 1. Shot on professional equipment, decent acting (but for BAG), editing, etc...all about the same as the original. Special fx remained decent as well.
All in all, if you watched the first one and enjoyed it, you'll be ok with the sequel (I hear there's another one in development...with BAG. Ugh), just don't expect quite as much. Not a total let down, but I think the writer just tried to do too much.
Notes on Parental Contact:
For those who call this a terrible movie because the story is fake or the acting isn't Oscar worthy, why would you expect this to begin with? It's a straight-up slasher flick for the modern horror buff. Yes...they tried to add some "Saw"-like elements, but come on...what movie doesn't borrow from another these days.
So, if you watched the first, then you should see the second. Just know it's lost a bit of umph. Still worth the watch, just take what you're fed and go with it.
As noted in other reviews, the movie picks up where part one ended, but quickly goes another direction, as we find out Chromeskull has an entire team of people working for him. Again, as many reviews note, this is hard to believe, and a bit of a personal letdown, but I won't trash it like others. At the end of the day, I don't judge movies on whether they are realistic, as I take what I'm fed and go from there. Most serial killer/slasher flicks are unrealistic, so why wrestle with a plot over its "this could never happen" facets?
I put this movie in the "JUST O.K." boat. I came for the blood and gore, not superb storyline or acting, and in this respect it was fine. Due to working on intercharacter relationships, however, some of the intensity was lost, as well as the consistency of "kills," if that makes sense.
***NOTE: So I like blood and guts horror. Sue me.
But I digress.
Personally, I feel like the storyline tried to do too much for a formulaic slasher flick. I liked the original, as it wasn't about notable actors or personal relationships other than the people involved. With Brian Austin Green's inclusion, part 2 felt a bit contrived, as if attempting to find validation for the script. Besides the fact that he doesn't play a convincing maniacal killer, the beauty of part 1 is that the story doesn't rely on anything but sheer slashing. BAG was completely unnecessary and could have been played by any old chump and it wouldn't have mattered to me. Though, any time I see Danielle Harris, I'm happy.
Anyway...beyond this bit of beef, it was ok. The pace is different, since we already know what Chromeface does, and the story takes precedent over kills. At the end of the day, there just wasn't enough "meat" to take it from "just ok" to "good."
The production was on par with part 1. Shot on professional equipment, decent acting (but for BAG), editing, etc...all about the same as the original. Special fx remained decent as well.
All in all, if you watched the first one and enjoyed it, you'll be ok with the sequel (I hear there's another one in development...with BAG. Ugh), just don't expect quite as much. Not a total let down, but I think the writer just tried to do too much.
Notes on Parental Contact:
- There is a fair amount of profanity. At least as much as part 1, if not more.
- I would not call this a scary movie, but there are several scenes that could be described as "intense."
- Brief partial nudity but sex and sexual content is not a prevailing theme.
- Violence and gore is what most people would call "severe." As noted above, there are fewer killings in part 2 but the ones we do see are no less gory than the first. If you're a gorehound like me, it's fine. Lots of blood & violence with a smattering of gore for good measure.
For those who call this a terrible movie because the story is fake or the acting isn't Oscar worthy, why would you expect this to begin with? It's a straight-up slasher flick for the modern horror buff. Yes...they tried to add some "Saw"-like elements, but come on...what movie doesn't borrow from another these days.
So, if you watched the first, then you should see the second. Just know it's lost a bit of umph. Still worth the watch, just take what you're fed and go with it.
- Mike_T-Little_Mtn_Sound_Archive
- Mar 24, 2019
- Permalink
Details
- Runtime1 hour 33 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content