Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Leofwine_draca As a straight-to-DVD sequel made some 13 years after everyone had long forgotten about the original movie, SINGLE WHITE FEMALE 2: THE PSYCHO (what a useless sub-title!) doesn't disappoint. By that, I mean it's as defunct as you imagine it's going to be, a slightly cheesy follow-up to the first film featuring none of the same actors and an all-too-familiar script.As DVD bargain bin fodder goes, SINGLE WHITE FEMALE 2 is far from the worst I've seen. The most interesting thing about it is the story, which avoids cliché for the first half and sets up an interesting situation in a love triangle that centres around a PR agency in New York. You're left guessing as to who the titular psycho is. Things gradually become more predictable towards the ending, and the climax is just as you'd expect, but for the most part it's not too bad and it held my interest.One interesting thing about the production is TV director Keith Samples, who directs this film like it's a softcore erotic thriller, such as the ones Shannon Tweed starred in (endlessly) during the 1990s. Every actress is required to do at least one underwear or semi-nude scene, all the women wear low-cut, loose fitting clothing, and Samples spends an inordinate amount of time ogling female flesh.While the cast is nothing to write home about, I quite enjoyed the performance from the unfamiliar actors. Kristen Miller headlines and makes Holly a tough, sympathetic lead for the most part, while Allison Lange does well to play it understated for much of the running time. Todd Babcock and Brooke Burns are less effective, but certainly passable enough for this genre.So, in summation, SINGLE WHITE FEMALE 2 is just about par for the course for this sort of film. It's certainly fast-paced and held my attention for the running time. Given that I didn't like the original movie at all, I found this a step up despite the obvious flaws.

LydiaBianca Single White Female 2: The Psycho, should be renamed : The Fiasco.It began with some promise, and it was nice to see the sequel wasn't a carbon copy of the original.However, my view of the film quickly changed. Never in my whole life have I witnessed such a terrible performance and production of a film. I'm aware it was a low budget film, but that is no excuse. Paranormal activity was a strong testament of how a low budget film can do well.There was no sense of direction, every scene felt like it could've been removed - (because it didn't help develop the storyline) and there were enough plot holes to keep you buried in confusion.None of the characters were explored in depth, and I didn't feel that the 'pyscho' showed any indication of being mental. The flashbacks were as puzzling as a pink zebra; they didn't relate to the film at all.This is anything but a thriller, and I'm so disappointed because the 1992 film was great! This film is not worthy to have the title it has.

MBunge Single White Female 2: The Psycho is yet another entry into one of the more unfortunate genres of modern filmmaking - The Fraudulent Sequel. When you're in the video store and you find a movie on the shelf that proclaims itself as the sequel to a movie you have heard of but you say to yourself "I never knew they made another one of these"…odds are you're looking at a Fraudulent Sequel. These sort of movies are almost invariably horrible and this one is NOT an exception to that rule.If you've seen the original Single White Female then you know what this story is about because it's exactly the same, just a very crappy version of it. Two women move in together and one of them turns out to be violently insane. I'm not going to bother going into the plot any more than that because I'm not joking, this is virtually a carbon copy of the first film, so if you've already seen it there's no need for me to repeat what you already know. If you haven't seen Single White Female, I don't want to ruin it for you by putting any of this movie's stink on it. Single White Female is a decent flick that's worth seeing. Single White Female 2: The Psycho is not.I suppose I could heap abuse on the pitiful acting, writing and direction that went into this cinematic sinkhole, but I think there is something good that can come out of film this bad. Let's take this as an opportunity to examine the two distinct varieties of the fraudulent sequel.One variety is the "bait-and-switch" sequel. That's where a studio finds an original script, makes a few very minor changes to it and then slaps a another movie's title on it. American Psycho 2 and White Noise 2 are examples of the "bait-and-switch" sequel. When watching those films it is nakedly apparent that they were not created to be sequels, but someone thought they could make a little more money by pretending otherwise. The "bait-and-switch" sequel usually makes a few references to the first film at the start, then goes on to tell a tale that has essentially nothing in common with the original. While these movies will be disappointing to viewers expecting an actual sequel, beyond that it's a crap shoot. Sometimes the "bait-and-switch" movie is actually okay and would have been better standing on its own. White Noise 2 is like that. But sometimes the "bait-and-switch" flick is awful and desperately needs to exploit the name of another movie or no one would ever watch it. American Psycho 2 is like that.Single White Female 2: The Psycho is the other variety of fraudulent sequel. You could call it a "forced remake". That's when a studio takes an original screenplay, or at least the essential structure of an original screenplay, cuts out 90% of it and then splices whatever is left into a nearly point-by-point duplicate of another story. It's the same characters doing the same things in the same situations as the first film, they just have different names and there are one or two new wrinkles left over from the initial script. "Forced remakes" uniformly suck because people with talent and skill won't make them. Just like in school, only gigantic losers blatantly copy other people's work. That means you end up watching the same story you've seen before, just told poorly.The only marginally entertaining thing about "forced remakes" is that, because there's usually multiple writers involved, you can try and pick out where one writer's work ends and another begins. For example, the first half of this film starts out by obviously trying to keep us guessing as to which of the female roommates is the crazy one. The second half of the film totally abandons that approach for no particular reason at all. It's clear that the person who wrote the first half was trying to be clever and the person who wrote the second half wasn't. Then there's a moment when the crazy woman is suddenly revealed to be one of those "angel of mercy" serial killers that murder sick old people. It's a revelation straight out of the blue that doesn't fit in with anything else in the story. That's clearly a remnant of the original script that survived when it was gutted and turned into a "forced remake".Single White Female 2: The Psycho is lamely written, acted and directed. It's level of violence is corny and the only women who get naked in it are generic extras. Don't be defrauded by this movie.

movieman_kev What the hell is up with that title? Was Hedy in the first film the epitome of sanity?? Getting past the redundant title and the title sequence which look like they were written using post-it notes, you find a movie exactly like the first one. Wait no strike that, that one has Skinamax caliber acting, a surprising total lack of nudity (save for one body double and a few extras in a S&M club), and a disjointed and uninvolving plot (hey it IS like the original in that way). This movie (and I use that term loosely) was so bad that I half expected Mark Blankfield to show up in a role. OK, maybe not THAT bad, but very awful none the less.My Grade: D-