Cloverfield: Movie Review - Part One

Behold, the long belated Cloverfield full movie review is upon you. Sorta. The review, turns out, is running rather long given the length of my discussion prior to even talking about the movie proper. As such, I'm posting this which is essentially a pre-review article. Or think of it as the Cloverfield Movie Review - Part One.

For those of you living under a rock, Cloverfield was the event movie of 2008. Ever since the trailer premiered in front of Transformers the summer before, the internet was abuzz about this untitled project due out on 1-18-08. Rumors ran rampant that the next American Godzilla movie was coming, while others swore that Voltron was finally getting the modern treatment it deserved. Still others thought that a character in the trailer had exclaimed "It's a lion!" and appropriate giant animal theories were abound. My personal hope was that a Cthulu movie was finally upon us.

Turns out everyone was wrong.

Clover was what we got. And just what is Clover? Outside of the best damn original monster design to come along in fifteen years, damned if I know. It's not a mutated fish or a giant bird. It's not a dinosaur and its certainly not some overgrown iguana (looking at you, GINO). Clover is simply amazing.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. What about Cloverfield, the film? Most of you are probably aware of the film in some way or another, even if you have no interest in the kaiju genre. If nothing else, you're probably aware that the film was recorded on home video cameras and is presented in a first person perspective. This is a technique that can be quite divisive, usually you either love it or you hate it. If you are especially prone to motion sickness, this movie might not be best viewed on a full stomach. I myself have no objections to the use of the perspective, although it does lead to a few logic errors I'll discuss more later on.

For this review I'm going to do my best to separate out Cloverfield the movie from Cloverfield the experience. You have to understand that Cloverfield was no doubt an event picture. The lead up to the movie had astronomical levels of hype attached to it. Amazing in the modern internet age, the monster design was kept a secret all the way up to opening weekend screenings. I myself was sucked into the hype machine, attended opening weekend, and was blown away by the roller coaster ride that followed. Now, four months later, I'm curious to see if my extreme positive reaction was a result of viewing a phenomenal movie or if I was just buying into the hype.

Stay tuned for Cloverfield: Movie Review- Part 2!

30 Days of Night - Movie Review

Tonight on the chopping block is the relatively recent big-Hollywood DVD release of 30 Days of Night. The flick is one of the better mainstream offerings to come down the pipeline in awhile and is a flick that any horror fan should probably check out.

The movie covers a fantastic premise: A small group of bestial vampires descend upon a small town in Alaska where the sun sets, not rising again for 30 days. The vampires have the free run of the small town population, able to feed at will without the need to worry or hide from the sun. The movie follows a group of survivors trying to outlast the night.


For a Hollywood movie the level of brutality on display here is simply amazing. These aren't your grandmother's Bela Lugosi vampires. These are bestial, ravenous, guttural beasts of the night. They're not going to just drink your blood, they're going to rip you limb from limb and leave you screaming. Over the course of the film we see several beheading, the slaughtering of dogs, and a brutal ax-delivered death of a little girl turned vampire. The level of gore isn't going to impress hardcore indy gore-hounds, but for a wide release movie, you couldn't possibly expect anymore.

The next thing I noticed watching the film was the cinematography, which at times was simply gorgeous. Some of the scenery looks like a living painting, a look no doubt intentional due to the comic book origins of the material. The use of CGI enhancement gives an otherworldly quality to the material, making it jump off the celluloid. I've included an example of this below, but you really need to see the pictures in motion to get the full effect.


Okay, so enough praising. The movie isn't perfect and I don't want you to read this thinking it is. The acting can be a bit rough at times, especially from lead male Josh Hartnett. I understand they were trying to portray a multidimensional lead character but he just comes across as effeminate. The film definitely would have benefited from an actor capable of injecting a bit of testosterone into the proceedings from time to time, especially during the climatic fight scene. As is, the climatic battle between Josh Hartnett and the leader of the vampire pack comes off as sad and pathetic, a far cry from the epic battle you can tell the filmmakers were going for. Having the worst piece of laugh-inducing special effects in the movie cap off this fight didn't help much either.


There's also a serious problem with time progression in this film. At times, they simply throw a subtitle up on the screen indicating how many days are left before the sun rises. The movie skips from Day 1 to Day 9 to Day 29, or something like that. When this happens the scene breaks feel forced. They don't flow naturally, and they decrease suspense.

The Bottomline: 30 Days of Night is an impressive first offering from Ghost House Productions. This level of horror should be consistently seen in theaters across America. The film isn't perfect, but it's a lot of fun and, hey, it beats watching another J-horror remake (looking at you, Shutter).

Automaton Transfusion - Movie Review

Automaton Transfusion is an independent, extremely low-budget massive-scale zombie flick recently released on DVD. The hype over this film has been massive, as Bloody-Disgusting raves that "[Automaton Transfusion is] the holy grail of true independent horror films." On the flip side of the hype is a review from Dread Central that states "My brain can’t manage another moment of this Hot Topic Horror film." So which is it? Is Automaton Transfusion the greatest independent horror flick since Blair Witch or is it a steaming pile?

Unsurprisingly, the answer is somewhere in between. Much like the aforementioned Blair Witch, there is a lot of hard work and love evident in this film. The director has done a commendable job making a Hollywood worthy film on a $30,000 dollar budget. The majority of the acting is well done and the the makeup effects beat anything I saw in the theater in the last twelves months (Rambo excluded). Also much like the aforementioned Blair Witch, the movie has a million-some-odd flaws that critics will pick up on, harp upon, and tear the movie a new one over. And to be honest, the critics won't be wrong.

Automaton Transfusion is likely to suffer most from the hype surrounding it. Hard to please independent fans may judge it harshly for its perceived mainstream acceptance. This aside, Automaton Transfusion is truly one of the better independent horror films of recent memory, but that fact doesn't mean your average, theater-going, six pack Joe is going to appreciate it. The film quality is below digital, there aren't any explosions, and Jessica Alba or Sarah Michelle Gellar aren't in it. Most people are going to look at it and not see what the big deal is about. The movie is fantastic considering it was made for $30,000, but most people aren't going to know that factoid or, let's face it, care.


With all of that out in the open, I'd like to say that I found Automaton Tranfusion wickedly entertaining for the majority of its runtime. The story follows a three high school students, portrayed by actors who actually looks like they could be in high school!!!! They head out to the nearby city to see a rock concert, but when they arrive they find the city is deserted. The proverbial shit quickly hits the proverbial fan and they find themselves on the run from a massive throng of fast, intelligent zombies that have the unique ability to sniff out us living warm-bloods no matter where we hide.


The zombies, if you can call them that, were the biggest disappointment I had with the film. It's not that they aren't well realized. They are, and the majority of them have some pretty decent make up to boot. They're certainly vicious enough, rapidly descending on survivors and quickly tearing them into pieces. Mostly I'm just nostalgic for old fashioned slow-moving, overwhelm you with sheer numbers and inevitability-type zombies. I suppose I can't hold that against the film though. I did, however, have these thoughts as I watched the movie:

• How the hell are they sniffing out where people are? Humans have a terrible sense of smell
• Why do zombies travel in packs? Why is there never just one, wandering around by his/her lonesome self. (Side note to self: Lonesome zombies, tales of the forlorn undead. This is gold. Sell script idea immediately.)
• How are there so many of these zombies? Everyone they kill they tear to pieces- as such, none of the victims should be getting up and joining their ranks.
• If they're supposed to be 'intelligent zombies' why do they give up so easily? At one point, when a door comes between the zombies and the main characters, the zombies try to get in for about ten seconds before giving up and wandering back into the night. The main characters leave the house through that door no less than ten seconds later.

And so on.

With the exception of one scene of exposition near the end of the film, its pretty much wall to wall action for the 75 minute runtime. The blood runs freely although never in ways that are all that surprising or memorable. When the movie comes to a screeching halt with the words "To Be Continued" splashed up on the screen, you're likely to find yourself wanting to see more. I know I did.


The bottomline: Automaton Transufsion is not without its plot holes and technical mishaps. It is a compentantly made film that is worth a rental for gore hounds looking for a fix. Writer/Director Steven C. Miller could be one to watch for if he ever gets his hands on a real budget. I'm definitely looking forward to the sequel (which, unlike Dread Central, I'm sure will eventually be made).

P.S. I'm vaguely disappointed that the torn in half, crawling zombie on the uncensored DVD box cover is nowhere to be found in the film itself. Oh well.

The Burning: Movie Review

Today we mark our first foray into the wide wilderness that is old school horror. On the chopping block is the oft whispered about slasher flick, The Burning. There is a lot of history tied to this film, and was one of many films banned by the British Board of Film Classification in the mid-1980's. It was the first film produced by Harvey Weinstein whom would go on to create Miramax and The Weinstein Company. It starred then unknown talent Jason Alexander, Fisher Stevens, and Holly Hunter. The special effects were done by industry great Tom Savini, just following his work on the original Friday the 13th.

The film has garnered a bit of notoriety over the years, thanks to an especially brutal raft massacre scene that takes place in broad daylight. The notoriety has no doubt doubled for the simple reason that the movie has long been out of print, rarely even playing on late night TV horror fests. As such, although I've heard great things about this film, I'd never been able to view it for myself. However, thanks to Anchor Bay and the glorious technological advances afforded us by DVD, The Burning is available for consumption once more.

The film takes place at a common 80's slasher setting, a summer camp in the middle of the woods. We meet a group of young boys that wish to seek revenge against the crusty old camp caretaker, Cropsy. Okay, so the caretaker isn't that old or crusty, but I like the ring of it. At any rate, the revenge prank goes severely south and old Cropsy ends up severely burned, hence the title of the flick.

Cut to 5 years later and the horribly disfigured, shadow dwelling, trench coat wearing Cropsy is released from the hospital. We're not exactly sure why the hospital is releasing this particular patient as there appear to be some unresolved psychotic tendencies. In fact, the doctors can clearly be heard saying via voice-over "We know you still resent those kids for what happened, but try not to think about tracking them down one by one and murdering the little bastards." Okay, so that's not the line word for word, but it might as well be. At any rate, Cropsy gets out of the hospital and kills a hooker. Not exactly sure why, but hey, that's show business for ya.

Next we jump to the summer camp and get acquainted with a new group of kids, one of which is Jason Alexander (with HAIR!). Also, one of the kids responsible for burning the caretaker five years before is now a counselor at the camp. More importantly, the camp is apparently now co-ed because there is a lot of old fashioned 80's T&A on display. Cropsy quickly find his way to the camp and gets with the dispatching of these wicked, sex crazed young folk. The first set of boobs (Not the prostitute's. Go figure) make their entrance around twenty minutes into the film, concurring with the film's first red herring.

From there, we have approximatey forty more red herrings in a row. Seriously. The first death (not counting the prostitute) occurs about 45 minutes in. In this scene, we're treated to several sequences of full frontal nudity as teenage girl wanders the forest looking for her clothes which were stolen while she was skinny dipping. Whew. Do not try such long and convoluted sentences at home, kids. This sequence deserves some recognition as it contains more nudity than most other films from this era. Props.

The next thing of interest that occurs is the aforementioned raft massacre scene. A group of 6 or so kids attempting to escape via raft are cut to ribbons by the shear-wielding maniac. Again, some recognition is deserved as no other 80's slasher with a scene containing this level of unflinching brutality comes to mind. Also, the fact that this attack happens in broad daylight, with a group of character that hasn't done something stupid like split up, shows smart, inventive writing on the part of the screenwriter.

The third defining moment of this film is the climax, which consists of a fairly boring, overly-prolonged chase sequence. The reason this is a defining moment is because the character is peril is not your slasher standard teenage girl. No, there are two characters in peril and they are both male. I'm not sure if the writer was consciously avoiding genre cliches or not, as I'm not sure a strong genre formula had been established at the time this film was made. Either way, again, props.


That's not to say the movie is above criticism. The film takes too long to get to the killing. There's an abundance of day-for-night shots so you can never tell what time of day it's supposed to be in the film. Some of the kills could be call repetitive (not by me though). None of the characters are particularly likable. You only see the horribly burned caretaker for a grand total of 30 seconds. The climactic chase is boring. Etc.

All that said, if you're a gore hound or a slasher junkie, it's worth checking out. There's a lot of history, some real smart scripting, and the raft scene is something no horror fan should go without seeing (although, in retrospect, it's not all that gory). Anchor Bay has done good in resurrecting this film. I can only hope some other wayside fallen gems can get the same treatment in the future.

The Bottomline: If you're a genre fan, consider this film mandatory viewing. For casuals, you might be better served rewatching Friday the 13th. Either way, recommended.

The Tripper: Movie Review

The Tripper is the directorial debut of David Arquette, husband of Courtney Cox, star of several fun horror b-movies movies including the Scream Trilogy and Eight Legged Freaks, and former WCW Heavy Weight Champion (really). Considering his involvement in the independent film scene I figured he'd have a good handle on how to make a fun, low budget slasher flick.

Boy was I wrong.

The movie is pretty much a train wreck from start to finish. The biggest problem turns out to be Arquette himself. I don't have many complaints about his direction. Arquette seems to do a passable job, keeping the camera moving and composing interesting shots and angles. My biggest issue is the writing.

The story surely sounds interesting. A young boy, Gus, growing up in the late 1960's has the Reagan pro-war rhetoric bombarded into his little brain until an incident involving a pack of (literally) tree hugging hippies ends with bloodshed. Cut to 40 years later and a group of drugged up hippies are heading out into the middle of nowhere to attend a Woodstock-like music festival. The young boy has grown into mentally disturbed man and the presence of all these hippies drives him over the egde. Donning a nice, pressed suit and casting a striking resemblance to the late former President, Gus takes to the woods to make those hippy bastards pay, spouting clever Reagan-esque quips along the way.


Like I said, it sounds good. I, for one, love a little socio-politcal commentary in my horror flicks from time to time. George Romero was a genius at this game. David Arquette, not so much. The first problem? None of the characters are likable. The drugged up hippies are one dimensional stereotypes in the worst possible way. They literally have no purpose in the film other than show up, do drugs, and die. All of the non-hippy characters are portrayed as deep south red neck hicks who do nothing but make life miserable for the hippies. Even the sheriff assigned to provide protection at the event doesn't believe the hippies when the shit hits the fan because he dismisses them as drugged up idiots. Simply put, there isn't a single intelligent, likable character in the movie.


The other problem I have is that the killer's motives just don't make any sense. He's clearly supposed to be a caricature of Ronald Reagan. This being the case, you would expect the character to carry some heavy ideological ideals. You know, kill with a purpose. Myself, I expected that the killer would focus on killing hippies and he'd make a point of leaving the conservatives alone. Not so. The killer is surrounded by the liberal hippies and the conservative red necks and kills each indiscriminately. In fact, he kills a rather large number of red necks around the midpoint of the film, without any rhyme or reason. Later in the film, the sheriff is asked "What do you think [the killer] is after?" The reply, delivered with what I suppose was supposed to be stylized action bravado, is, "Hippies." Apparently David Arquette didn't watch the movie he was writing because, for this line to make any sense, the killer would have to of followed a basic rule set up to this point in the movie, which he hasn't.


So as not to sound all negative, the movie does have a pretty massive massacre scene towards the end where old Reagan goes postal on a huge crowd of hippies. The body count throughout the entire movie is pretty high too, although almost all are dispatched via an ax. The massacre would be more impressive if the special effects weren't so plain jane. I've seen better gore in movies shot by a bunch of teenagers on 16mm celluloid.

Tie all of this together and you're left with a real yawner of a film. The kills are repetitive, there's no suspense, and the characters are all annoying. To top it all off, despite the premise, there's not even a cohesive socio-political message delivered by the film other than "Reagan was the bad." Sorry Dave, you're just going to have to try harder next time.

The Bottomline: David Arquette has crafted a pretty average slasher flick. The sheer novelty of watching a Ronald Reagan look-alike dispatch hippies is all it's got going for it. The Tripper isn't unwatchable, it's just not very good.

Black Sheep: Movie Review

This is not the Black Sheep from 1996 starring Chris Farley and David Spade. No, this is the Black Sheep from 2006, made in New Zealand, with special effects by Peter Jackson's WETA powerhouse, and starring no one you've ever heard of. Rather than explain to you what kind of movie you're in for, I think I'd be just as well off letting the poster do the talking.

And what a poster it is. I'm especially fond of the tagline, which reads "There are 40 million sheep in New Zealand... And they're PISSED OFF!" If this poster doesn't clue you in to the fact that this film is going to be walking the fine line between comedy and horror, nothing short of a blow to the head will.

The plot of the film is extraneous really, but here it is: Henry, our boring hero who grew up on a cattle farm before moving to the big city, is returning home. It seems Henry has developed a bit of a phobia against our fluffy white mammal friends, ever since a tragic farming accident left his father with a serious case of being dead. Henry has returned home to sell his half of the farm to his evil prick brother, Angus. With a name like Angus was their any chance he'd be anything but the movie's main villian? At any rate, it seems old Angus wants the full ownership rights to the farm because he's running a diabolical genetic engineering laboratory out of one of the barns. Oh yeah, and a couple of hippy tree huggers show up and spend a lot of time complaining about the meat industry and other such things that hippies like to complain about.

So, being as this is a tale of science run amok, it's time for the science to run amok. Those aformentioned hippies steal some highly biohazardous material which turns out to be a mutant, killer sheep fetus. One of the hippies gets bit by the thing before it escapes into the pastures where all the other sheep are doing their lazy, grazing thing. A few bites later and we have acres and acres of woolly, crazed, flesh eating, mutant beasties.

This is the part where the movie picks up. Our unlucky heroes, consisting of Henry, Experience (the waifish hippy chick), and a farm hand named Tucker, have to travel across the open pastures, make it back to town, and raise the alarm. Angus, of course, will do anything he can to stop them. You may recall that I said there were a pair of hippies, not just one. Turns out that the bite of these creatures results in some serious cellular regeneration, creating MUTANT SHEEP MEN!

Yeah, that's right. Weresheep.

I'll let you bask in stunned silence now.

The final part of the film plays out a little like the Dead Alive with a mix of Night of the Living Dead thrown in. I wouldn't want to spoil anything, but the movie ends in a whirl wind of excitement. Black Sheep is one of those rare films that delivers exactly what the poster promises; Lots of fun and lots of sheep.

The movie has its share of scares but is played largely for laughs. The film would no doubt be at home in a late night film festival rotation, surrounded by your slightly inebriated friends. There's a lot to love here and little to dislike. The special effects are cheesy but great, and all the acting is worthy of a Hollywood theatrical release. Fans of early Peter Jackson will be delighted to see a lot of similarities.

That said, the movie still isn't perfect. Americans may be put off by slang-filled New Zealand dialogue. The pacing is a bit off as well, although I never found myself waiting impatiently for the next development to occur. The climax, while indeed climatic, didn't have the build up that lets you know that this is the big final moment in the film. It just sort of happens.

The Bottomline: Black Sheep is a fun-filled film. It's not perfect, but horror-comedy fans will feel right at home. The film would play well at parties or social gatherings as the comedy/cheese quotient is high enough to keep horror casuals entertained. Recommended.

Evil Aliens - Movie Review

Let's be up front about this. Some of you aren't going to like this movie. More to the point, there's a good number of you that won't understand this movie. At all. Not one iota. Evil Aliens was shot on video, has questionable acting, and, at times, is just plain over the top ridiculous. To enjoy this movie you will need to be one of three things:

1. A connoisseur of low-budget cinema (or, as I call it, a B-movie geek)
2. At a party, prepared to go MST3K on this movie's ass
3. Hammered. Really, really hammered.

That said, let's get to the flick.

The film opens with a couple having sex near some old English ruins. The opening scene ends with the couple getting captured by the titular evil aliens and the guy buys it via way of a large, cumbersome anal probe/drill. Ouch. And it only gets better (worse?) from there.

I don't think I can appropriately convey the awesomeness of this movie with words, so I won't even try. I'll let the film speak for itself.

Yeah, that's right. A female alien strips down and engages in rough, freaky, intergalactic, interspecies sex with one of the male leads. Folks, I've seen a lot of movies, but this one was new to me. Oh yeah, you know how in bad horror movies blood just seems to spray everywhere? This scene caps off like that, but the fluid in question definitely isn't blood.

If you're a fan of Peter Jackson's early work, you're well aware of a little movie called Dead Alive (or Brain Dead, if you're from the UK). At the climax of that film, the main character fights off a horde of zombies with an upturned, gas-engine lawnmower. Do you remember the giddy excitement you felt the first time you saw that scene? That one moment where he was about to hit that first zombie with that lawnmower and you thought to yourself, "There's no way they're actually going to- OH GOD! They're actually showing it!" Yeah. The wheat thresher scene is kind of like that.

Finally, we have the obligatory, hand-held, motorized power tool. Ash has his chainsaw. Lionel has his lawnmower. Candy has her hand-held soil tiller. Copious homage to other genre films is paid during the setup and execution of this scene. A simple shot of an over head light bulb getting splashed with blood will have Deadite fans grinning from ear to ear.

Evil Aliens is what the recent blockbuster Grindhouse aspired, and failed, to be- a return to old school, no-nonsense, trash cinema. Whereas Grindhouse felt forced and manufactured, Evil Aliens is genuine and satisfying. Evil Aliens is sick and twisted but possesses a wicked sense of humor. The filmmakers clearly didn't have a lot of money, but the money they did have was used well. The special effects and makeup in the film are well done, although some of the CGI could look better. The script is smart, with many nods to other genre films, including The Evil Dead, Dead Alive, Night of the Living Dead, Bad Taste, and Freak Out. The movie is FULL of fun moments like the three detailed above. The director/writer, Jake West, clearly loves the genre and his film plays out like a wish list any horror fanboy might have written. Evil Aliens is a labor of love, and I loved it right back.

Bottomline: Evil Aliens is definitely not for the uninitiated or those without a sense of humor. For those true B-Movie fans out there, do not miss this one. It's an exercise of excess and one hell of a ride. It's out on DVD already, so check out your regular haunts and get a copy ASAP.

Movie Review: Hatchet

My inner geek has been appeased.

For too long the Hollywood machine has churned out crappy horror movie after crappy horror movie, with sequels and remakes being the theme of the day. The last few years have seen more PG-13, pointless, blood and nudity-free, soft horror films than ever before. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake and subsequent sequel were terrible. The remake of The Fog was a bore. Hostel and Hostel 2, while R-rated, were plot-less, derivative drivel lacking any remotely likable characters. The Eye, The Grudge, The Ring- all Americanized, spiritless, lesser versions of the original imports.

We need Old-School American Horror.

Enter Hatchet.

Let me get one thing out of the way right now: I was wrong. This is not a retread of Friday the 13th, even if the villain looks like Jason, sounds like Jason, and is played by the greatest actor to ever fill the shoes of Jason. Victor Crowley is an entirely different blood-crazed freak.

The biggest complaint I have with the film is that the real star, Victor Crowley, is essentially a complete non-entity until the final thirty minutes. It's "The Jaws Effect" where the director tries to build suspense by keeping the monster off screen until the big, dramatic reveal. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work for Hatchet. We get one, maybe two, half glimpses of Victor but there isn't any suspense or dread leading into the reveal. I see what the director was trying to do, but it kind of just falls flat. When the big reveal finally does come, Crowley pretty much just jumps out of his shack, yells "Ta-Da!" then proceeds to hack a man in half in one of the most ridiculous kills in cinema history. No build up, no anticipation. And from then on, it's just all Victor Crowley, all the time.

And that is the moment when the movie gets good. Victor Crowley is one damn cool creation. He's a sick freak, both in his looks and his actions. Kane Hodder does a fantastic job in his portrayal, producing a horror icon that behaves like none that have come before. Where Jason was slow and deliberate, Victor is quick and spontaneous. He's constantly moving and thrashing his arms, more like a rabid wolverine on speed than a man. Victor is Kane Hodder's raged-out Jason, taken to the next level, ALL THE TIME. Really, it's quite glorious. In addition, I challenge anyone to find a kill in any of the Friday movies that can even hold a candle to the death of Mrs. Permatteo. The creativity on display from the writer/director Adam Green is remarkable. His finger is really on the pulse of what old school horror hounds crave.

Hatchet is one hell of a violent movie. The blood runs free and there's plenty of mean-spirited, nasty deaths. The nice thing about the film is that the violence knows it's over the top. While there's no cute audience winking (Thank God), the movie knows it's supposed to be delivering a good time and never takes itself too seriously.

I mentioned earlier that the movie takes too long setting itself up. It does, it really, really does. The good news is those early 45 minutes are still righteously entertaining. The movie has a real sense of humor and the jokes are legitimately funny. The tempo is still excellent as the humor comes at frequent bursts, helping the action stay lively.

Now for my biggest complaint, which isn't even really about the movie itself: The fact that this movie did not receive a wide theatrical release is a travesty. This movie is a blood-soaked, over-the-top thrill ride that DEMANDS to be viewed in a sold out movie theater. The humor and violence need to be seen with a rowdy crowd, one where everyone knows the right time to scream, to yell, and to throw popcorn at the screen. Shame on you for denying my that experience, Hollywood. Shame on you.

The Final Verdict: If you're a horror fan, check this movie out. preferably with a large group of friends. Pop corn is a must. Writer/Director Adam Green will go places in this genre if he wants to, and I hope he will. I'd love to see a Hatchet 2, especially in the theaters.