jwvongoethe1800 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.

Sandcooler 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.

Tromafreak 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

kandjhorror 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