User Reviews

Most popular web sites covering the horror genre are embarrassing. You probably know exactly which ones I'm talking about. There are a handful of them, and they're always the ones being quoted on DVD covers and in commercials. What burns my goat is that these sites frequently lead horror fans astray by shamelessly gushing over the most cliché-ridden and mediocre crap being released these days. Why do they do this? The majority simply aren't impartial. Many of those in charge of these websites kiss so much director, producer and actor ass that they are no longer capable of writing an unbiased or less-than-flattering review. They fear that by speaking the truth they will risk the opportunity to get into advance screenings and may no longer receive free film merchandise, DVDs, early screener copies or chances to network and get themselves small movie roles, as well as possibly forfeiting bragging rights that "so-and-so" is a close personal friend of theirs. They know that throwing out excellent reviews to average (or in many cases awful) films equals free advertisement. These people aren't in this for their genre love as much as they are in it for themselves and thus everyone should really take most reviews from any of these online sites with a grain of salt. Incessant brown-nosing is an epidemic around those places.

How do I know? You're looking at a former writer for one of the most popular (if not THE most popular) horror sites on the web. And before you hand me a bowl to put my sour grapes in, let me make it clear that I threw up my hands and willingly and quietly walked away on my own accord because I was disgusting by the unprofessional and unethical practices conducted by the site I used to write for. I could no longer, with a good conscience, continue to write for them. My time is much better spent writing freely here on this website as opposed to having my reviews tinkered with behind my back or having the head honchos refuse to publish a review because (in their words) it would anger or hurt the feelings of a "friend." If you recall a few years back when HOSTEL was released, a web site or two gushed about it being "the most scary, most disturbing, most bad ass experience of the past 500 years!" The same kind of overly-warm, suspiciously-glowing reception was given to HATCHET, but it doesn't really deserve that kind of acclaim. It's pretty ordinary. Some of the gore is decent, but that's about it.

As a spoof/parody/satire/"loving tribute"/whatever of slasher flicks, as I see some people claiming... well it wasn't particularly clever. Not as clever as, say, BEHIND THE MASK: THE RISE OF LESLIE VERNON, which is far superior to this one in my humble opinion. I think the humor missed the mark more often than not. As far as the supposed "old school feel..." Well, I'm completely sick of hearing that excuse for movies that are basically lacking. Bad acting? It's supposed to be bad! Bad dialogue? It's supposed to be bad! Bad movie? It's supposed to be bad! Try as some directors might, if your film looks extremely glossy and completely lacks grit, as well as incorporates CGI effects and a cast whose dialogue is little more than a constant stream of smarmy witticisms (apparently todays writers OD'd on Tarantino movies), then the "retro" novelty goes right out the window. This feels more like I KNOW WHAT YOU DID... than anything out in the early 80s. Just saying. T&A? Yep, there's some of that here. Unfortunately, the shower/sex scenes of yesterday have been replaced by the "Girls Gone Wild" camera flashing/pseudo-lez make-out sessions of today, which are about as sexy as a root canal.

Then we have the obligatory "name" cameos with Kane Hodder, Tony Todd and Robert Englund's names adorning the DVD box. They were obviously hired to sell the movie and at least two of them appear in roles that are basically pointless. Joshua (THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT) Leonard and John Carl (makeup fx maestro) Buechler also have small roles for what it's worth. As for the ending... Well, it kind of just ended. I'll give it that. A little abrupt for my tastes, but whatever. It was over. I guess we can now expect a sequel.

It's important to check your expectations when you see HATCHET. The *buzz that has been generated on this site far surpasses the real impact of the movie. What may help someone about to see the movie is to realize that it is --not supposed to be scary--. It is pure camp and an attempt at fun. It is not --funny--, just campy. Don't expect something like SHAUN OF THE DEAD; nor something like Friday THE 13TH (Part II through infinity).

HATCHET does possess passable actors. The cinematography is straight Ed Wood. Creature effects and make-up are silly - probably on purpose. Gore and blood is something between Romero and DEAD ALIVE. HATCHET is a movie of betweenness. It's between SHAUN OF THE DEAD and LESLIE VERNON. It's between campy and comedy (there's a difference). It's between ultra violent and violent comic book.

Instead of "capturing the essence of American Horror," or whatever other silly jargon that has been used to describe the movie, it tries to capture something between seminal --American-- Horror like Friday THE 13TH and new Horror like SHAUN. It thankfully stays away from Torture Horror.

In the end HATCHET is between a bad movie and a decent movie.

*I think it is happening more and more that people involved in movies are flocking to sites like IMDb to rate and comment on the movies that they are involved with. At very least there is campaigning going on for people associated with the associates to leave positive feedback and ratings. There is no other reason for this movie to have stared out in the high 7s with 600 votes and quickly fall after wide release. This movie is on just better than the HorrorFest releases and should not be so bloated.

Hatchet is billed as 'a return to old school American horror', which should surely mean the Gothic works of Edgar Allan Poe, but since it often seems that American teenagers (this film's target audience) regard anything that happened before they were born as being ancient history, in this context it means the slasher films of the Seventies and Eighties. So Hatchet has a group of teenagers, young twentysomethings and an elderly married couple stranded in a swamp and being hunted by a hulking, musclebound, deformed and seemingly unkillable psychopath. Unsurprisingly the elderly couple are first to go, because who wants to look at stupid icky old people - I mean, they're all wrinkly and gross, right kids? And even more unsurprisingly, amongst the imperilled group are two shapely airheaded bimbos (one played by Buffy and Angel's Mercedes McNab) who bare their breasts at every opportunity because they're making a softcore gonzo porn flick. Incidentally, to publicise Hatchet McNab posed for a photoshoot that appeared in Playboy in late 2006 to coincide with the movie's release – but this nifty piece of cross-promotion was derailed by Hatchet's release being delayed by almost a year (it finally crept into American cinemas in the Autumn of 2007).

Although well made, Hatchet is just too knowing, too post-modern, and too tongue-in-cheek to be effective. The blood and gore is ludicrously overdone, with repeated shots of severed limbs and internal organs flying through the air and splattering against tree trunks. I don't have a problem with gory films, but here there's a laziness and cynicism to the bloodletting, as though the producers believe that body parts waved often enough at the camera are all that's needed to keep the audience happy. In summary, Hatchet is a huge disappointment.

Well, this is a cheesy little low budget movie that surprisingly.........isn't all that bad.

When they say old school horror, it's not that old school, but follows the guidelines of the book "How to survive a horror movie". With the classic characters, The fat guy/horny a hole, the nerd, the nice guy with the monosyllabic first name, the dumb girls, the naive couple, the weird quiet chick with a "secret" and last but definitely not least the token black guy, who doesn't bite it 20 minutes in for once. While it followed all the horror movie rules, don't go towards the house, the killer cant die no matter what the hell you do, and the killer is one step ahead, it also had some let downs, the characters you did want to see die don't get it bad enough or you don't see them die period, while the characters you like and want to live DIE.

It starts out with Krueger (thats right Robert friggin Englund) and that other dude, (I forgot his name), hunting in a swamp at night, does anything else say opening kill here? You know that when Krueger bites it, ALL BETS ARE OFF. Cut to post Katrina New Orleans during Mardi Gras, introducing you to the token black guy, and the nice guy with the monosyllabic first name, throw in a Candyman cameo, then head over to the "voodoo" store where you meat the dumb chicks and fat guy/a hole. You also get to meet the naive tourist couple, and the quiet girl who has a secret.

Cut to the swamp, where the whole crew is on the HAUNTED SWAMP TOUR, where you catch your first glance of the killer along with hearing that classic violin scratch. And then uh oh, The boat starts to sink, who didn't see that coming, and guess what, right in front of the "dead" killers house! Who definitely didn't see that coming, one of the naive couple hurts his leg so him and the wife go towards the house, EVEN AFTER HEARING THE GHOST STORY FROM THE QUIET GIRL WHO HAS A SECRET AND A GUN. Needless to say, guess who are the first to die? Followed by the quiet chick shooting the killer, the fat guy gets separated and looses his head! they spend a long time running before, the quiet girls secret is revealed, and one of the sluts bites it in the most, sorry but for lack of a better word, retarded way by, was that a sander? I don't know what the hell it was, followed by the nerd. Run around some more and they realize they can ACTUALLY HURT the "DEAD" killer, they fight back, while the last alive dumb chick is keeping lookout the token black guy and quiet girl are used as distractions and when the dumb chick bites it (which that ain't a spoiler, you knew she would) you don't even SEE IT. You just see the nice guy having her head thrown at him while he got some gas to torch the ugly b@$t3rd killer, they torch him, but guess what now, it rains on their parade, literally, they spend some more time running in what has to be the dumbest scene in cinema history through an above ground cemetery, before the token black guy bites it! (WAY more then 20 minutes in). So finally you have the big climax, where the nice guy is crippled and they impale the killer, and just leave him there, NOW SERIOUSLY, you shot him, torched him and stabbed him, do you really think a poke through the shoulder or neck is gonna kill him! Im not going to ruin the ending for you though cause it is a nice little twist, even thought it could come close to scene stealing.

Even though it was totally predictable, and not to well thought out, IT WAS PRETTY DAMN GOOD. It's one of those horror films where your walking through the video store, you see it and go hmmmmmmm. Very nice story, great characters, OKAY acting. Good directing and weird kills. Throw in some comedy, and Friday the thirteenth minus the woods, plus a swamp, and you have this movie.

eh, what the hell, I LIKED IT! I gotta say though, you really should give it a chance.

This is one of the worst films I've seen for years. The storyline has potential that is never realized. The actors are a poor choice, but considering the screen writing, their talent isn't wasted. I really wanted everyone dead as quickly as possible so I could get out and watch something else. Unfortunately, I did stay to the end and had a laugh at the murmurs of people moaning about how crappy this is. There wasn't booing, after all, this is England, just gentle moans about how crap that was. Then, I look on IMDb and see 288 people have given it 10 out of 10. I really just cannot see how those people are able to give that score. They must be a PR company working with the distributor. There's a hilarious set problem towards the end of the film, when in the graveyard and the hick attacks, look out for the dodgy scenery that rocks when touched (supposed to be a brick wall) - the blood effects are waaaay OTT - the film feels like everyone is making a spoof horror except the Director.

Wow! Hatchet premiered at the Tribecca Film Festival in NYC and it more than lived up to my expectations. Victor Crowley is a juggernaut! I've never seen a horror film with such gruesome kills; many done with his bare hands!!! He'd pull Jason Voorhees limb from limb without even breaking a sweat. Someone taught the secrets of a fine Scotch whisky to Kane Hodder because this man just gets better with age.

I'm not easily sold on high-speed character development, but within five minutes of meeting each, Marcus (Deon Richmond) and Marybeth (Tamara Feldman) could virtually leap from the screen with hardly a protest from the audience. Deon absolutely steals every scene he's in. Except, of course, the scenes he shares with Tamara. As the affable yet socially inept Ben (Joel Moore) chips away at the chinks in her armor, the palpably discernible barrier between "the local" and the "tourists" continues to fall away throughout the length of the film.

The elimination of cut-aways prior to many of the kills is an amazing feat of cinematography. Director Adam Green's concepts are executed flawlessly by Director of Photography Will Barrett. Whoever thought of teaming these two up with effects master John Carl Buechler is a genius.

Horror is back folks; a gleaming beacon shaped like a bloody hatchet. I, for one, will heed the warning and stay out of the swamp...

Well. . .

I'm watching Hatchet.

And. . .

Eh.

The opening scene is funny. Robert Englund & Josh Leonard are a good cameo combo for horror fans. I've been a fan of Leonard since Blair Witch. . . but my respect for him grew after Madhouse (one of the best S2V horror flicks I've seen in a long, long time).

Cliché alert #1: The gay-bashing father of the somewhat cowardly son is a bit overdone. And eventually it grows old. After the 500th time we see it in a film.

Though we don't see Englund's death, we can assume it's pretty grisly due to the rather serious. . . gutting. . . that he's received. But we don't hear it? Not sure why. I'm pretty sure if I was being split open from neck to groin, I'd be making some sounds, even if it was just "splat splat gurgle." Now, we're on Bourbon Street. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand boobs. Some more boobs. There's some boobs. Couple more boobs. Big boobs, small boobs, fat chicks' boobs.

Cliché Alert #2: The male lead recovering from a break-up. Could he possibly be meeting a rather cute, but mysterious, girl? I'll take the bet that it's a damn good possibility.

I like this guy (Joel Moore) though. He made me laugh in Grandma's Boy, Dodgeball, etc., as the pathetically ugly loser.

And here's the plot: midnight tour of the bayou. C'mon. You're just asking for trouble! Sounds like fun though.

Another nice cameo: Tony Todd, made famous in Candyman.

Little bit of humour from him.

New shop.

More boobs.

Cliché Alert #3: Hot dumb blonde! Well. . . somewhat attractive in that dumb-blonde kinda way.

And we have our cast: The annoying tour guide. The perverted. . . director, I guess? The dumb blonde. The somewhat intelligent, failing actress. . . too hot to be taken seriously as an actress. The old guy (aka Tom Smykowski from Office Space ("It's a jump-to-conclusions mat!")). His wife. Our two main characters (the shy, heartbroken guy and the token black guy). Aaaaaaand: Cliché Alert #4: It's the beautiful, but mysterious, possible love interest for our shy, heartbroken main character! Gotta love the 1930s stagecoach music.

Ohhh, the older woman is from Madhouse as well. Cool.

Heyyy, more boobs. Can't complain.

Cliché Alert #4: Gotta have the non-starting vehicle. This time, it's boat.

Cliché Alert #5: Crazy old man! I started a threat to vote for the favourite in horror history. This guy might take the cake just for drinking his own urine.

Ah, the legend: Victor Crowley, murdered by his father, was a deformed mutant who apparently lived on the bayou.

The tribe has now been stranded in the bayou, boatless, phoneless. . . hatless. The Croc attack was pretty well done. Enough suspense and pace actually got a jock.

Cliché Alert #6: Damn cell phones! The door was on fire? And that's why he couldn't kick it in? Does that not make sense to anyone else? Does fire turn rotting wood into like. . . steel or something? At least the flashback tale is a good story for revenge. But wouldn't the father be the one looking for revenge? Not the kid? But it makes sense. . . Kane Hodder just loves to play the disfigured youth hellbent on vengeance by murdering the locals (Jason Voorhees, anyone?) Couple grisly deaths but the fX were a little hokey. Still sick though.

Cliché Alert #7: Killer can't be killed. Surprise! Question: What modern cell phones don't have emergency 911 service without reception? I've had four cell phones over the past few years and, even if I had 0 service, emergency calls were still possible. *sigh* Wow. . . mysterious girl is a good crier. Impressed.

This bush-staring scene might just be the worst scene I've ever seen in a movie. Ever.

But. . . HELL YES. Paid off with a couple extreme murders. Nice. Very nice.

Another cool death, but not all that original. Poor Token.

Cliché Alert #8: Final survivors. Enough said.

Cliché Alert #9: Taken directly from Friday the 13th. . . the boat scene.

• - - It's over. Finally. I'm aware that the film was made as an homage to the 80s-style slashers. But it didn't need to steal directly from them.

The deaths were good. . . which is what you look for in a film like this.

The acting wasn't bad. There were actually the few recognizable faces which is always a good move for a movie like this. Give a reason for us to actually sit through it.

The movie held my attention to the end. That says a lot for a movie like this. A whole lot.

But It's nothing special.

5/10. But it's not going to be the almighty influence on the slasher genre like so many people have been saying.

I don't even wanna give a vote for this movie.. so damn hate it! i'm a thriller-fan movie. I like this kind of movie (killing and blood). But when i saw this movie, i felt so damn disappointed and furious..!

The story is OK. But the killing is so not real. The monster should be strong. But, it is so easily got hurt and so easily killed. And it can't even hold one person firmly. And i don't know how the hell it get it's life back when he died, but it just so boring..

Also, i don't feel the character so much. Nonsense..! They don't really scared. Urgghh... my precious time! I already delete this movie (soon after i finished watching it).. *Satisfied*