While probably not the first shot-on-video made for the home video market (that award would probably go to Boardinghouse) this flick still has to have credit for helping mold that whole scene that would explode soon after in the late 1980's. The movie itself is a decent watch nothing mind blowing, it definitely has a lot of padding which is the main issue with a lot of SOV flicks. However the new Terror Vision blu-ray adds a lot of special features, even bringing back the director, his wife, and son all adding insight on a lot of things (particularity the urban legend that hundreds of snakes where actually murdered which was false). Overall there's nothing here that going to shock or bewilder first time watchers, but if your a big fan of underground film making and like to hear stories from the ones behind it, I would defiantly give this a watch.
6 Reviews
Taking amateur VCR movies nowhere, plus snakes.
leehrsn18 August 2000
So these fundamentalist gun fanatics move to an abandoned church in the woods. The fundie leader has a past as a homicidal maniac but you don't find out till late in the tape. There's almost no sex even though the women are good looking and you have the snakes all over the place, and most of the men have guns.
Sex wouldn't save this movie, but it would make it worth 79¢.
There's a funny scene where the fundie gunloon leader has a bag full of venomous snakes over his head. You have to wait a long time though.
The motivation for the fundie gunloon leader to hate the hippie nature artist never makes sense. Maybe if the hippie seduced the fundie's daughter or wife. But why would he do that, his own wife was much sexier. What if the fundies had a revival with loud gospel music and snake handling, & the hippie complains, and then they just shoot it out, and the snakes hide in the trees and when nobody's looking they jump down and bite everybody, and run off. That would be a more believable plot and they wouldn't have to kill any snakes.
I am not a fan of poisonous snakes, but they shouldn't have killed all those snakes just for the movie. They should have used the bullets to blow the video tape to little bits.
No excuse for being stupid and then vicious. Boo!
Sex wouldn't save this movie, but it would make it worth 79¢.
There's a funny scene where the fundie gunloon leader has a bag full of venomous snakes over his head. You have to wait a long time though.
The motivation for the fundie gunloon leader to hate the hippie nature artist never makes sense. Maybe if the hippie seduced the fundie's daughter or wife. But why would he do that, his own wife was much sexier. What if the fundies had a revival with loud gospel music and snake handling, & the hippie complains, and then they just shoot it out, and the snakes hide in the trees and when nobody's looking they jump down and bite everybody, and run off. That would be a more believable plot and they wouldn't have to kill any snakes.
I am not a fan of poisonous snakes, but they shouldn't have killed all those snakes just for the movie. They should have used the bullets to blow the video tape to little bits.
No excuse for being stupid and then vicious. Boo!
Memorably horrible
eysterfamily22 November 2018
My wife and I watched this movie in 1992. We remember it to this day. However, we remember it for all of the wrong reasons. This review is based on my recollections from watching this movie about 26 years ago.
Things we remember about this movie.... seems to have been filmed with a VHS camcorder - shaky and grainy, rubber snakes being thrown into the scenes, horrific acting, horrible storyline.
If you are looking for a movie that you won't soon forget, look no further. Now, if I could just find that memory eraser....
Hmmmmm
JHC314 August 2004
The Randalls quietly move into an abandoned church in the Ozark Mountains of Missouri. They turn it into a squalid residence and rudely turn away any would-be visitors. The family's leader, Howard (Renner), is an arrogant, paranoid, revolver-packing creep who lords over the group as a virtual dictator. Howard is accompanied by his loyal, fundamentalist Christian wife (Ratliff), daughter (Blaine), son-in-law (Schell), and teenage son (Booth). His powers of persuasion aren't the only thing holding them together. They possess a valuable treasure they smuggled out of Peru. Howard's paranoia has led them to change their identities and constantly remain on the move out of fear of shadowy pursuers who are never seen. These pursuers appear to be no more than a figment of Howard's fevered imagination. Adding to his numerous faults is his intense hatred of snakes.
The day they move in, their neighbor, a respected wildlife artist named Jerry Jerome (Fritts), visits and tries to welcome them. He is greeted with intimidation and threats. Howard's paranoia leads him to conclude that Jerry may be part of the nebulous conspiracy that is out to get him. When Jerry reports the incident to local law enforcement, Howard's conclusion is only reinforced.
The Randalls' situation gradually degrades as they are inexplicably assaulted by copperheads (a venomous snake indigenous to the area). Jerry is soon blamed and Howard resolves to murder this innocent artist, not knowing there is far more to the situation than the act of some unfriendly neighbor.
Copperhead appears to have been shot on video and was filmed on location in Missouri. By low budget film standards, the production values are rather good. Shooting locations, performances, and script are above par for the genre. On the down side, many viewers will be disturbed or angered by what appears to be the wholesale (and unnecessary) slaughter of an unknown number of snakes during the course of filming. The opening scene of a snake consuming a mouse is unneeded and out of place. Though one might argue that this is a necessary part of nature, there doesn't appear to be a need for this footage. The shooting of snakes later in the film cannot be justified by today's generally accepted standards. The filmmakers also characterize the copperhead as an aggressive and highly venomous snake. It reality, it is not aggressive and is only mildly poisonous. Only rarely do adults die of its bite. Though the producers place a disclaimer at the end of the film that points this out, comparatively few viewers are likely to see it. The main plot weakness concerns a secret villain (or hero depending on one's viewpoint) who is only hinted at during most of the film.
Animal abuse issues aside, Copperhead is worth seeing, particularly for those who like low budget horror and suspense films. Those who are especially concerned about animal rights should avoid it.
The day they move in, their neighbor, a respected wildlife artist named Jerry Jerome (Fritts), visits and tries to welcome them. He is greeted with intimidation and threats. Howard's paranoia leads him to conclude that Jerry may be part of the nebulous conspiracy that is out to get him. When Jerry reports the incident to local law enforcement, Howard's conclusion is only reinforced.
The Randalls' situation gradually degrades as they are inexplicably assaulted by copperheads (a venomous snake indigenous to the area). Jerry is soon blamed and Howard resolves to murder this innocent artist, not knowing there is far more to the situation than the act of some unfriendly neighbor.
Copperhead appears to have been shot on video and was filmed on location in Missouri. By low budget film standards, the production values are rather good. Shooting locations, performances, and script are above par for the genre. On the down side, many viewers will be disturbed or angered by what appears to be the wholesale (and unnecessary) slaughter of an unknown number of snakes during the course of filming. The opening scene of a snake consuming a mouse is unneeded and out of place. Though one might argue that this is a necessary part of nature, there doesn't appear to be a need for this footage. The shooting of snakes later in the film cannot be justified by today's generally accepted standards. The filmmakers also characterize the copperhead as an aggressive and highly venomous snake. It reality, it is not aggressive and is only mildly poisonous. Only rarely do adults die of its bite. Though the producers place a disclaimer at the end of the film that points this out, comparatively few viewers are likely to see it. The main plot weakness concerns a secret villain (or hero depending on one's viewpoint) who is only hinted at during most of the film.
Animal abuse issues aside, Copperhead is worth seeing, particularly for those who like low budget horror and suspense films. Those who are especially concerned about animal rights should avoid it.
To say something good about this movie, it was filmed well. Nice use of camera angles.
jue464s29 June 2003
I've got to admit, this isn't the kind of fun action packed film that you usually see at the box office. Those kinds of films usually have at the end of the titles `No animals we're harmed in the making of this film'. And please note; this isn't a sequel to 'Copperhead (1920)' with Lionel Barrymore.
Now I know they said to not spoil the true horror and frightening ending of Copperhead, but after so many years, you have probably all seen it by now, or guessed that everyone who you like dies. Ether being shot while painting, or made to wear snakes on their face. As the crazy woman tries to make sense of her meaningless killings, as revenge (how she knows, I don't know), for her family that died mysteriously to us. So...these people are bad because she thinks they are killers, so she kills them?
Sadly enough...this is better than most horror movies out there, but it is still appalling. I wished they had used fake snakes, and if not, that they at least ate the snake meat. It reminds me of when the Indians found the dead Buffalo in `Dances with Wolves'.
Now I know they said to not spoil the true horror and frightening ending of Copperhead, but after so many years, you have probably all seen it by now, or guessed that everyone who you like dies. Ether being shot while painting, or made to wear snakes on their face. As the crazy woman tries to make sense of her meaningless killings, as revenge (how she knows, I don't know), for her family that died mysteriously to us. So...these people are bad because she thinks they are killers, so she kills them?
Sadly enough...this is better than most horror movies out there, but it is still appalling. I wished they had used fake snakes, and if not, that they at least ate the snake meat. It reminds me of when the Indians found the dead Buffalo in `Dances with Wolves'.
Toothless crap video
lor_13 February 2023
My review was written in October 1984 after watching the program on VCI video cassette.
As a home video release, "Copperhead" is something of an anomaly. Though packaged as a feature film (even labeled "The Snake Movie" as a subtitle), picture was made last year in Missouri with video cameras, giving it that "live" look rather than the traditional shot-on-film style.
Unfortunately, this feature-left program has the hallmarks of an amateurish backyard production, with variable direct-sound recordings and very bright lighting, creating none of the required horror picture atmosphere.
Although prefaced by a gruesome teaser of a snake slowly ingesting a mouse, "Copperhead" does not bring on its unscary title creatures until nearly an hour into the story, which concerns a nutty, gun-toting patriarch who is on the run with his family after killing a man in Peru and stealing a rare necklace. Plot concerns his tyrannical behavior towards his wife and children and frequent run-ins with local authorities and a neighbor who is a wildlife artist.
Snakes are involved as an instrument of revenge in the program's unconvincing last-reel plot twist, as well as symbols of evil from the point-of-view of the ultra -religious wife, while conversely, the artist is interested in protecting the creatures. Video makers Leland and Crystal Payton are ambivalent, having several snakes realistically blown away on screen by gunfire but seemingly siding with these "misunderstood" reptiles.
Tech credits are weak and likely to disappoint horror picture fans. Acting is in the rustic school of wilderness-family adventures.
As a home video release, "Copperhead" is something of an anomaly. Though packaged as a feature film (even labeled "The Snake Movie" as a subtitle), picture was made last year in Missouri with video cameras, giving it that "live" look rather than the traditional shot-on-film style.
Unfortunately, this feature-left program has the hallmarks of an amateurish backyard production, with variable direct-sound recordings and very bright lighting, creating none of the required horror picture atmosphere.
Although prefaced by a gruesome teaser of a snake slowly ingesting a mouse, "Copperhead" does not bring on its unscary title creatures until nearly an hour into the story, which concerns a nutty, gun-toting patriarch who is on the run with his family after killing a man in Peru and stealing a rare necklace. Plot concerns his tyrannical behavior towards his wife and children and frequent run-ins with local authorities and a neighbor who is a wildlife artist.
Snakes are involved as an instrument of revenge in the program's unconvincing last-reel plot twist, as well as symbols of evil from the point-of-view of the ultra -religious wife, while conversely, the artist is interested in protecting the creatures. Video makers Leland and Crystal Payton are ambivalent, having several snakes realistically blown away on screen by gunfire but seemingly siding with these "misunderstood" reptiles.
Tech credits are weak and likely to disappoint horror picture fans. Acting is in the rustic school of wilderness-family adventures.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
