Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Console best movie i've ever seen.

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

fedor8 This isn't so much a sex-romp as it is a fanciful fantasy along the lines of "Alice in Wonderland" or "Peter Pan". To say this dumb movie was based on shaky foundations would be a major understatement.Premise 1: a bunch of sex-starved, braindead teens (played by adults) actually give three craps about a school production of a Shakespeare play. These 30 year-old teens invest all of their energies into saving it. Because this premise rings just as true as L. Ron Hubbard's theories about ancient aliens, it is impossible to follow the flimsy "plot" of P2 with any amount of interest. The writer of this turkey actually thought that the comedy genre allows you to break all laws of logic and common sense. Far from it: comedy only works when it is rooted in some basic, obvious truths; cut it off from reality and the gags suffer. Even so-called absurdist comedy (ZAZ films, for example) have to have some connection to the real world, otherwise they don't work i.e. can't be funny. "Meat" joins the play, as a transvestite no less, and this isn't funny for a whole number of reasons, the main one being that it is never explained why he'd agree to do something like that. At first he is adamant he won't do it, but then he inexplicably does – which isn't how comedy works. He simply shows up in drag, and we the tortured viewers are supposed to fall about in earthquakes of laughter. Well, some tards might.Premise 2: a Christian activist group actually tries to prevent the staging of a Shakespeare play on the basis that it is lewd. In the 50s. Whether this was possible even in much more puritanical 19th century America is highly questionable. The last straw that disintegrates this weak premise into invisible molecules is the group's leader, who is played by an Elmer Fudd impersonator. This means that P2 is stuck with a major problem: its appeal is essentially to 5 year-olds, but the persistent sex themes are more suitable for (younger) teens (who don't laugh at Elmer Fudd nearly as much as they used to). One of the many reasons why this comedy is such a flop. Or am I underestimating the number of teens with an IQ lower than 60? Premise 3: viewers will laugh at jokes that are essentially embarrassing to watch and listen to. A major miscalculation, as it turns out. 90% of these bargain-basement gags are awful, the other 10% merely pathetic. All the actors playing bad guys – plus "Pee-Wee" - overact their butts off, rendering the anyway very low comedic potential of this piece of garbage useless. P2 falls squarely into the bottom of the cinematic pit, into the "Police Academy 5" movie category. It's as low-brow as it gets, but without any of the (limited) appeal that low-brow comedy occasionally offers.Not to mention the renewed desperate attempts at politically-correct "social commentary". In the first movie, Jews were the focus, i.e. one Jewish character. This time it's American Indians. I suppose that could only mean one thing: "Porky's 3" (which I haven't yet seen) must be championing blacks' rights. Right? Which brings me to why there was no "Porky's 4": perhaps they ran out of minorities? Latinos and Koreans weren't nearly as interesting to the American Left during the 80s as the three above-mentioned groups/races. Or perhaps P4 never saw the light of day because the first 3 sucked so much? Something for trash-comedy historians to sink their teeth into.For MST3K fans, check out the actress playing the prostitute. It's none other than the scantily-dressed daft bimbo from the mega-classic "Space Mutiny". Her topless scenes are the only highlight in this 80s garbage.

punishmentpark Well, it's a sympathetic sequel in a way, addressing rotten politics and racism for instance. But, uhm... where's Porky? And more importantly, where's the fun? Some of it feels like a mediocre rehash of the first Porky (graveyard). Some of it is just NOT funny (restaurant, snake). BUT... some of it is pretty good (mohel, rally, broken off sword).Again, the acting looks like they had a good time, but I didn't enjoy it that much. The fore-mentioned themes are admirable qualities in a film like this, don't get me wrong, but the ratio is off; there's too little fun and too much seriousness.Very mediocre stuff, all in all; 4 out of 10.

nostradumbass03 I actually came here to this page after I cracked a joke on the internet about this being the worst sequel of all time! And I was 16 when it came out, didn't even know what a "leftist agenda" was, and I still hated the film. Seriously? A bunch of white teenagers from Florida in 1954 with left-wing political leanings? The original is awesome, awesome. Who doesn't like shower scenes, and spending the rest of your time trying to get laid, and playing practical jokes on your friends? I suppose the cemetery scene was OK, but the rest of the film is a total bore. Fortunately for Mr. Clark (and I didn't know about his untimely passing a few years ago until I read these reviews), he came back pretty strong writing Porky's Revenge.

MARIO GAUCI As often happens, this sequel to PORKY'S (1982) is inferior to the original - but, then, neither is it as bad as Leonard Maltin claims in his esteemed Film Guide! It does cheat by forsaking the titular establishment entirely, though the formula is pretty much the same as before - except that here some of the characters from the original disappear and are replaced by new ones, while the girl who was involved with the protagonist in the first film gets a bigger part this time around. Again, the film pits a certain minority - in this case, American Indians - against a bigoted community.While the film's major asset has to be the over-the-top characterization of the hypocritical Reverend, there are almost as many belly laughs here as in the original. Scenes that particularly stand out are the 'Shakespeare v. Bible' quoting duel (even if it's kind of silly and out-of-character to have the boys involved in putting on a show of the Bard's work in the first place) and the individual come-uppance of the gang's various antagonists - the KKK (in the school gymnasium), the duplicitous board member (humiliated in a restaurant prior to re-election) and the aforementioned evangelist and his flock (at their own rally).P.S. Interestingly, co-writer Alan Ormsby had previously collaborated with Clark on his first two horror outings - CHILDREN SHOULDN'T PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS (1972; which I've never watched) and DEATHDREAM (1972)!