“Victor Crowley” was this year’s surprise movie – but didn’t really come as a big surprise for me, since it was one of the three films (the others being “Leatherface” and “Raw”) that I had on my shortlist. To recap: I really liked the first one, was extremely disappointed with the second, and thought that the third one was ok. “Victor Crowley”, though, is definitely the weakest of the bunch. I was quite irritated that this was rather a reboot than a sequel (even though one scene during the credits suggest otherwise – and doesn’t really make a lot of sense in relation to the rest of the movie), but then again, that was the least of its problems. What’s way worse are the completely uninteresting characters, and the C-list-cast who don’t exactly give Academy Awards-worthy performances, to put it mildly (with the possible exception of Laura Ortiz, who did quite well, actually). In that way alone, “Victor Crowley” is a huge step down from what came before, and overall, it seemed to me like this time, they had a budget about the size of what the catering cost on the first one. The entire look of the film is extremely cheap (even though Adam Green throws in a couple of nicely lit, colorful images here and there). There’s no tension at all (since we don’t give a fuck about any of the characters), and even most of the gags fell flat for me. It’s also strange that it, while being mostly a fun-slasher, offers a couple of serious, emotional scenes which didn’t fit the tone of the movie. Granted, it wasn’t helped by the projection in the theatre (who played the sound far too loud for my taste), but I highly doubt that I would have liked it any better at home. At least it was short. Other than that, it didn’t have a lot going for it. Then again, I’m not the biggest slasher-fan to start with, so who knows, you might like it better than I did. As for me, however, I’ll continue to regard the first one as a standalone-film.