Full Length Review Thread

[Splatterscribe]

Hatchet II
Directed by Adam Green
Unrated


I won't bore anyone with a recap of the horror show which was the all too brief theatrical exhibition of Adam Green's Hatchet II, except to point out that the combination of its being released  to first-run cinema's  unrated (the first horror film in twenty odd years to claim that designation) and AMC Theatres' seeming urgency in yanking it from said cinemas about  a week later  had me chomping at the bit to get my hands on a copy of the DVD to see what all of the fuss was about. 

Interesting creature, this flick ... I thought it was a better film overall than the original in that they fleshed out Victor Crowley's back story and there are some  nice little asides to other horror films (including a funny nod to Behind the Mask) strewn throughout for the film geek in all of us. Hatchet II also boasts  some solid performances and I felt the pacing was better this time around. Yet it cannot be denied that there are problems which arise in the third act that the jacked up violence can't really mask.

The film opens on the exact same note the original ended , with Marybeth (Danielle Harris replacing Tamera Feldman) coming face to face with Victor Crowley (Kane Hodder) deep  in the Louisiana swamp. She survives the encounter and meets up with the urine drinking fisherman we saw briefly at the beginning of the original film. He takes her to his cabin but, when he discovers who she is, he reacts poorly and tells her to leave, advising her to  find Rev. Zombie ( Tony Todd) , who it seems has a lot of information concerning Crowley's background and his surprising connection to Marybeth's family.

Zombie- hoping to rid the swamp of the monster once and for all so his tourist trade can finally flourish again -  puts together a  hunting party to retrieve the bodies of Marybeth's family and kill Crowley.  The group is assembled, everyone heads into the swamp and then things get...sticky..

To begin with, I had more fun with the core characters this time around. In a brilliant stroke, director Green elevated the awesome Tony Todd to a starring role as Rev.Zombie (rather than merely having a  cameo as in the original)  and placed Danielle Harris in the lead as the survivor from the original. Both were excellent in their respective roles and go a long way towards jacking up the entertainment value during those moments when nothing much is happening (which isn't often) .  Kane Hodder of course delivers while under the make up as the monstrous Victor , but he' s also given more to do as Thomas Crowley (Victor's dad)  in some well staged flashbacks.

In terms of the visual aspect, the film really does earn that unrated designation with some extreme gore. The violence reaches such ridiculously over the top levels right around the time old Vic' whips out what has to be the largest chainsaw ever seen in horror film history  that it stops being shocking and reaches that plateau of absurdity associated with the gorehound greats like the Evil Dead and Re-Animator.  The swamp setting is again used to good effect and there's enough creep factor to keep horror fans watching.

However  there's a downside to the flick and it becomes all too apparent in the final half hour or so.  To wit: The original Hatchet was an homage to the old school slasher flicks like Friday the 13th. As such , it was bound to include some of the cliches' associated with those types of films..that was sort of the point. It was a deliberate throwback.

The problem with Hatchet II is that it's a sequel to an homage to a type of film which went away because audiences grew weary of it  after a decade. By the third and uber-gory final act , this movie suffers essentially the same problem that eventually killed the original iconic slashers at the box office to begin with: It becomes something of a rehash, essentially reducing itself to a series of set pieces featuring people running around a swamp trying to not be violently dispatched by Victor Crowley.

This willingness to fall back on what is literally the same formula  places what has been up until this point a  fairly clever nod to a past era of American horror in danger of becoming that which it is saluting..an endless franchise of carbon copy sequels suffering a noticeable drop in originality and quality with each successive installment. Let's not kid ourselves: Neither Jason takes Manhattan nor Freddy's Dead did much to expand our appreciation of their respective series. Despite opening strong and cleverly embellishing on the mythos Green had established in the preceding film, Hatchet II's climactic inability to rise above the basic stalk and slash conventions suggest that the hinted-at Hatchet III won't do much for it's kindred either.

Eight out Ten  belt sander bloodbaths.

[Splatterscribe]

I realize that this isn't a horror film at all, but  Pegg and Frost were the stars of Shaun of the Dead, which Pegg also co-wrote. Besides, there are a lot of Sci-Fi fans on this site.

Paul

Film review by D.S.Ullery

 One of the most difficult cinematic hat tricks to pull off is satirizing a genre. Parody is fairly less complicated- you simply replicate sequences from certain well known films and play them for comedic effect. The success or failure of such films depends on the strength behind the camera as well as the way the parody is utilized, which is why the Zucker Brothers are considered masters of the craft, with classics such as Airplane! and The Naked Gun under their belts ,whereas the people who gave us crap like Epic Movie and Meet the Spartans are (justifiably) not.

 Satire is a trickier beast . In a proper satire, the film in question has to take sly jabs at the genre it is presenting while simultaneously working as the same type of film . If a satirical film disrespects the subject matter, it slips into parody and fails at it's task.

 The new comedy-adventure Paul is a satire and an often brilliant one at that. It is also, by turns, a sweet natured buddy road movie, a romance and a fairly awe inspiring science fiction film. In the same breath this film will use to poke fun at Sci-Fi fanboys and the conventions of the genre they embrace, it also demonstrates its own devotion and respect for those same conventions via a rapid fire and on-the-mark series of in-jokes and references.

Artist Graeme (Simon Pegg) and writer Clive (Nick Frost)  are lifelong friends on their first holiday in America who begin their journey with a stop at the center of the comic book/ fantasy/horror/Sci-Fi/movie geek universe , San Diego's Comic Con. This event is the beginning of a trek across the states to visit all of the famous UFO related landmarks they have managed to research over the years. Naturally, no such journey would be complete without a visit to Area 51 and, while making this leg of their journey, the two friends have a close encounter with the very thing their dreams are made of- an extra terrestrial named Paul (voice of Seth Rogen).

 After quickly establishing that Paul is a bit more Howard the Duck than E.T. (he smokes pot, swears like a sailor and gets annoyed when anal probing is mentioned..the film carries an R rating), we get to the core premise fairly quickly: Paul is in danger of being killed, so he needs Graeme and Clive to help him get to a specific point on the map to meet his people and go home. Along the way they will pick up a potential love interest for Graeme and become the target of several overzealous government agents.

 The film is loaded to the hilt with references to some of the great moments in Sci-Fi cinema. It's clear that Pegg and co-writer Frost (who steps in for Pegg's usual collaborator Edgar Wright this time) designed this as an homage to Spielberg's E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind  first and foremost (with the director actually making a vocal cameo at one point), but it's really a love letter to fanboy culture in all of its forms , with an abundance of nods to Star Trek, Aliens, The X Files, Raiders of the Lost Ark and even The Blues Brothers
.
 
Pegg and Frost once again generate the amazing chemistry they shared in Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Joining them are a superb Jason Bateman as an agent whose full name provides one of the  funniest moments in the film and the always lovely, beyond talented Sigourney Weaver as The Big Guy- an individual who is the  antithesis of Weaver's more recognized genre roles. Yes, I'm gushing. Her presence (and performance) in the film warrants it.

 Despite this star power on display, the stand-out is Saturday Night Live alum Kristen Wiig, who turns in a startlingly funny performance  as a Christian who joins the group along the way. Finding her faith challenged by the existence of a non-human sentient being sends the character into a tailspin of carefree abandon, including an attempt to develop a knack for swearing  which develops into an increasingly funny running gag (while also serving as a tip of the hat to Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home). Of all of the people to graduate to features from SNL over the past decade, I'd say  - based on her work in Paul - that Wiig is the one who shows the most promise (I'd also guess that there are some writers on SNL who have no idea what to do with her, because it's clear that when she's given solid material to work with, this woman can really deliver).

 Then there's the titular character. Rogen really sells it as the voice of Paul (assisted by some marvellous CGI work- Paul has a tactile believability on par with Gollum in the Lord of the Rings films),  embodying this little creature with both a sharp, cynical edge and a disarmingly decent nature which make him very easy to like.

 And this last aspect of the film is perhaps the sweetest surprise contained within Paul's running time:  It works as an engaging genre film in it's own right. Underneath the comedy, the heart of a gentle, good natured film beats. There are a few moments -particularly one involving Paul healing a character's lifelong ailment-  which are played straight, not for laughs. These sentimental moments work to develop Paul as an awe inspiring creation. Yes he's quick witted, enjoys smoking weed and drops F-bombs as if they were punctuation, but he's also shown to be possessed of a great intelligence and a deep sense of compassion. Adding to this is the establishment of a believable friendship between Graeme and Clive, who turn out to be the kind of guys you'd want to spend a day just hanging out shopping for comic books with.

 I have to credit much of this to Superbad and Adventureland director Greg Mottola, who again demonstrates a sure hand. Mottola has a gift for populating laugh-out-loud comedies with three dimensional characters and here he paints the story with sure, deft strokes, never lingering too long on a scene or overplaying a single gag ,yet managing to not sell the plot developments short either.  Striking a proper tonal balance in a film like this can be difficult and Mottola makes it look easy. In a very real sense, Pegg, Frost and Mottola have not merely satirized E.T. , they've presented to us their own legitimate version of the tale.

 There is one aspect of Paul which I do have to criticize, though. While I enjoy the wit and don't mind when religious beliefs of any kind are challenged by those who have a different view (even my own),  there appears in the film a character who is a stereotypical backwoods Christian hick ..the type of person who brandishes a shotgun and refers to Paul as a demon while he pursues the alien and his human companions in a pick up.

With all due respect to screenwriters everywhere..it's time to drop this archaic, overplayed archetype already. It's been done to death and ,honestly, it doesn't even accurately represent 99.9% of the Christians any of the audience members are likely to meet in their lifetime. The stereotype is so passe' that I was surprised to see it used at all. It's right up there with the "it was only a dream" motif. Considering how sharp and insightful Pegg and his crew generally are in all other regards to this film, this was an unpleasantly surprising development.

 That's about the only grievance I have with the film, though. In every other respect this smart, intelligent and charming film works on every level and doesn't outstay its welcome. As was the case with  Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, with Paul Pegg and Frost remind us of why we love the films they are honoring in the first place. Being a full-on, unabashed Sci-Fi/fantasy/horror geek  myself, I'm also happy to report that, in this particular instance, they remind us that  being a fanboy at any age is in and of itself it's own kind of awesome, no matter what anyone else might think.

 

****1/2 out of *****

[Splatterscribe]

Scream 4 (aka Scre4m)


In 1996 Wes Craven teamed up with writer Kevin Wiliamson to deliver to horror audiences worldwide Scream..a slasher film about characters who are aware of the conventions of slasher films and use that knowledge both to commit murder and to survive murder. It was a meta-fiction/satiric approach combined with an eye for legitmate tension that resuurected the flagging genre and defined the course of horror for the remainder of the nineties. One excellent and one not so excellent sequel later and the saga of Ghostface , the middle American hamlet of Woodsboro and perpetual masked psycho target Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) seemed to be over. The trilogy concluded, horror underwent another shift in form and function and the fans moved on.

 

But, as any genre fan can tell you, slashers have a way of coming back.

 

Thus we have the  pleasant surprise that is Scream 4  ( aka Scre4m).  After an eleven year hiatus Craven, Williamson and Co. return to form with this clever, bloody, tense and lightning paced sequel. While I still feel that Scream 2 is the best installment of this series, Scream 4 is nevertheless a damned fine chapter that definitely brings the mojo back.

 

The low down: After a brilliantly conceived and executed opening sequence which manages to slyly skewer expectations while setting in motion a new killing spree, the film settles down on the fifteenth anniversary of the original Woodsboro murders, with Woodsboro native  Sidney Prescott -thrice survivor of the sinister machinations of the twisted masked killer Ghostface-  returning home for a special signing and meeet and greet for her recently published best seller about becoming a survivor, "Out of the Darkness".


Once home, she runs into old friends  Dwight Dewey (David Arquette) and his former flame ( now spouse) Gale Weathers-Dewey (Courtney Cox). Dewey has done quite well for himself, having been promoted to town Sheriff, but Gale finds herself bored and at odds, not having adjusted particularly well to small town domestic life.

We are quickly introduced to Sidney's cousin Jill (a marvellous Emma Stone) and her circle of teenage friends(including a scene stealing Rory Culkin as a fanboy/horror film expert), those creepy phone calls start up, Ghostface strikes again and both the older generation and the new blood find themselves combining their efforts to stay alive while attempting to unravel the mystery of who the killer is as the body count rises.


There are solid turns by the entire cast and Craven directs with a sure hand.Though this isn't quite at the level of his ground breaking pictures A Nightmare on Elm Street or The Hills Have Eyes, there are some set pieces and individual moments strewn throughout Scream 4   which rank among his  very best.    A sequence set inside of a barn loft is an excellent example, ditto a singularly creepy moment when a camera angle readjustment unexpectedly reveals the looming figure of Ghostface in a doorway. Plus there's both that brilliant opening scene and the last ten minutes, the latter giving reveal to the most brazenly foul tempered , cruel and sadistic villain to grace the silver  screen in some time . Craven repeatedly demonstrates throughout the film that he still has a brilliant eye for what creates tension and unnerves the viewer. Add Williamson's wry sense of irony-as potent as ever- and the result is an unexpectedly entertaining and higher calibre horror sequel.

Bottom line: Quick, winking quips courtesy of Williamson's particular brand of genius, buckets of blood, a capable and game cast and Wes Craven back in excellent form all effectively demonstrate that Ghostface still has some edge to his blade. This late sequel is a welcome reminder that slasher films need not be self serious, hardcore slogs through misery like Rob Zombie's Halloween movies. They can be fun and still have a scary bite. Although I'm not sure this can (or even should) spin off into an entirely new trilogy, as a capper to the franchise, Scream 4 is a respectable way to go out.

 

Eight out of Ten "Stab-a-thon" shootouts. Highly recommended for fans. You know who you are.

[GeneralCinema]

Rest Stop: Dead Ahead

The movie begins with Nicole sneaking out of her house and packing her belongings into her boyfriend Jesse’s car.  They are driving to California to break into the movie industry.  Not wanting her parents to worry, Nicole contemplates calling her parents, but Jesse stops her saying that she needs to stop being a baby. 

Along the way to California, they almost get run off the road by a truck driving the wrong way down the highway.  Not long after that, Nicole needs to relieve herself and, refusing to go in the dirt, demands that Jesse find a rest stop.  He pulls over at the next rest stop and after she goes, she finds Jesse and his car have disappeared.  Thus begins her night of terror.

Yeah, that’s about it for the plot.  Not much to see here folks.  If I had to sum this up in one word, that word would be: UNEVEN.  John Shiban wrote and directed what could have been an absolutely terrifying movie about one girl’s struggle to keep her sanity while fighting off a crazy stalker that may or may not be human.  Sadly, we get a movie that has sporadic tense moments, some gory scenes that only leave you wanting more, and no explanation for most of it.

Jaimie Alexander plays Nicole.  We get a nice topless scene from her and she makes for a decent scream queen.  The movie centered around her, so saying that she did the “best” job is a bit redundant.  I did, however, like the family on the RV.  They had a very Texas Chainsaw Massacre/American Gothic feel going about them.  The sequel is apparently focused on them and that review will come in time.

The tension, as I said, was very sporadic.  There were scenes that were tense, but the tension wasn’t enough to really scare anyone.  There was also a good amount of predictability throughout the movie.

The saddest part of this is the gore.  The killer apparently has an abandoned School Bus that he uses as his torture chamber.  I feel that this should have been the star in a movie that was “too shocking for theaters”.  Unfortunately, this is the red-headed stepchild of the movie.  It’s even neglected in the special features on the DVD.

There could have been so much more done to make this movie truly terrifying.  When you see how everything begins, this movie has serious potential to keep you up at night, but leaves you really disappointed.

Hopefully Rest Stop: Don’t Look Back does what this one doesn’t.  I don’t have high hopes though.

4 out of 10 reasons to piss in the dirt.

[GeneralCinema]

A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010)

This is really hard for me to write since I don’t really know where to start.  I’m going to start with a bit of history - trust me, it’s relevant. 

I’ve been watching the Nightmare On Elm Street series since I was eight years old.  Freddy Krueger had become one of my favorite horror staples.  Absolutely terrifying at first, he became less of a villain and more of an anti-hero.  He began trading brutal kills for stupid one liners.

As I got older the movies got worse, and I started to write them off a bit.  Effectively ending the series completely, Wes Craven (who created Freddy Krueger based on a childhood bully) gave us the movie A New Nightmare.  It was an honorable send-off to a once noble (if that’s possible) horror icon.

After Freddy was finally put to rest, New Line Cinema acquired the Friday the Thirteenth franchise which allowed the fans to finally get a match that was promised to them fifteen years earlier (yes, that’s accurate) - Freddy vs. Jason.  I wasn’t a fan of this one, but I’m not reviewing that right now.

In 2010, Warner Brothers wanted to revamp the NOES series.  This is NOT something I was excited about because the first thing I thought was “are they going to get Robert Englund back as Freddy?”  I was a bit disappointed to find that they didn’t and cast Jackie Earl Haley in his place.  Upon watching Watchmen and seeing Haley as Rorschach, I was okay with they choice - not happy, but satisfied.

Finally getting the chance to watch it, I must say that it wasn’t as bad as I was expecting.  In fact, there were some things that I liked better in the remake than the original.

For instance, the origin of Freddy in the remake gave him much more character than the original.  We’re told a very brief story of a local child killer that was killed through parental vigilantism.  Not a whole lot going on there.  It’s creepy, but we’re not given a reason to hate Freddy other than he kills kids in their sleep. 

In the remake, Freddy is made into a much more sadistic bastard.  Not much of what he does is seen but a lot is implied, which lets you take what he did however you want.  Kudos to the filmmakers for this.  We still get the parental vigilantism but we see what happens in what would be an origin story (as opposed to having to get six movies deep into a franchise).

While there was MUCH more blood in the original, the blood flowed pretty regularly in this.  The kills were all pretty brutal and held nothing back.  It seems that on some fronts, the franchise went back to its roots.  I could have done without so much CGI, but such is the era we live in.

The acting was on par with the series.  I think everybody did a really good job with the roles they were given.

This leads me to Jackie Earl Haley.  As far as many Freddy fans go, Robert Englund is Freddy.  Period.  I was the same way - still am to a degree - but Jackie completely made the role his own.  He’s a fantastic actor who was able to make Freddy very believable and scary.  He’s contracted for three films, so I’d really like to see where he takes the character.

The original movie is, in this day and age, considered a classic.  It holds its own against ANY slasher movie that’s out there - past or present.  I can’t say anything about it that hasn’t already been said.  Not surprisingly, this movie is not as good as the original but it’s absolutely worth watching.

7.5 out of 10

[BadKitty]

The Nanny
She had been in the family for years. Then, two died mysteriously and two lived in terror!

OK, maybe the worst tag line ever.  However, in most ways this bit of domestic suspense is much better than it should be. 

First, the casting.  Bette Davis, fresh off of “Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte” and not long after “What Ever Happened to Baby Jane” continued her mid career foray into horror with this little Hammer gem in 1965.  She is Nanny (she has no other name) and she is about to welcome back Joey, the 10 year old son of her former charge Virginia, who can’t quite seem to cope.  You see, Joey has spent the last 2 years in a “school” for disturbed young boys following the drowning of his sister.  He certainly seems to have a sick sense of humor, at least where older ladies are concerned, and bad things start happening again once he comes home.

Well, as you can surmise from the tag line (and the fact that his Nanny is, well, Bette Davis), Joey is not actually the problem.  But how many others will die before anyone believes him? (Umm ... will someone fire whoever wrote that tag line?)
 
I have to admit, for what to our jaded eyes seems a pretty staid set up, this little bit is darn well constructed.  The tag line is a really, really annoyingly bad spoiler, because the first half of the film quite effectively sets up young Joey as a psycho.  The first real give away isn’t even anything Nanny does that is mean –it is the increasingly creepy co-dependent relationship she has with Ginny, Joey’s mother.  And Bette Davis was pretty awesome with being just a bit … off.  You don’t the scenery chewing that marked her earlier, better known horror forays. 

I won’t get into the subtext of the movie (bad things happen when women don’t stay at home raising their own children!) since it’s too obvious, but the movie has pleasures far beyond that.  Bette Davis towers above the rest of the cast, but there is some nice work from James Villiers as the imperious, distant father, and Pamela Franklin as the girl upstairs is very charming and snappy.  Even Wendy Craig isn’t too cloying (though it is close). 

Also, I have to say that I really like how the English used to deal with children in movies.  Even when they’re innocent, or the heros of the piece, they’re selfish, petulant and unpleasant.  Basically like real kids.  Even the “sweet” ones are vain annoying little egos.  It’s such a welcome contrast to the treacle that has since crossed the Atlantic from here. 
I’ve gotta give this one an 8 out of 10.  And a PG rating. 

Bette Davis – Nanny
Wendy Craig – Virginia Fane
Jill Bennett – Aunt Penelope
James Villiers – Bill Fane
William Dix – Joey Fane
Pamela Franklin – Bobbie Medman
Jack Watling - Dr. Medman

[GeneralCinema]

Three teenagers agree to have an orgy with a woman that one of them met online.  On the way up to her trailer they have a minor hit-and-run with what happens to be the Sheriff’s car.  Upon arriving to the trailer, the woman gives the boys beers and knocks them out while they’re undressed.

One of the boys wakes up in a covered cage and finds himself in a church that belongs to a cult that pickets homosexual funerals.  Thus begins their night from hell.

Red State is Kevin Smith’s entry into horror.  During an interview, he mentioned that he wasn’t into traditional horror.  He was more horrified at the actions of Pastor Fred Phelps and people like that.  Movies about crazy church cults aren’t new and I find them to be hit or miss.  Kevin Smith delivers a hit with this one.

Knowing what I know about the Bible and Christianity, I can honestly say that the sermon that was given was really hard to watch for me.  The pastor in this is a bit more bat-shit crazy than Mr. Phelps is.  This showcases how cults use propaganda and fear to control their members.  It’s remarkable frightening, just because stuff like this ACTUALLY HAPPENS - maybe not to this degree, but it happens regardless.

John Goodman portrays the ATF agent in charge of the investigation against the church.  He’s terrific in any role that he’s had and this is no different.  I though everyone else did a really good job, but the stand-out for me was Michael Parks who played Pastor Abin Cooper.  People like that make me want to vomit.  He played a fantastic villain because he drips with hatred and makes you want to hate him as well.

Aside from blood, there’s not too much in the area of special effects.  It’s made to look realistic and it accomplished this.  There’s a firefight that carries most of this and it’s done well.

Watching this changes my view of Kevin Smith as a filmmaker.  This movie is his maturing point.  The appearance of Stephen Root, Kevin Pollack, and John Goodman would make you think that there’s going to be a comic scene in this.  If you go into this expecting comedy, you’ll be really upset, though the ending is the most light-hearted part of the movie...sorry, no spoilers.  This movie is dark, visceral, and unforgiving.  I gladly welcome it into the horror family and applaud Kevin Smith for what is easily his best effort.

8 out of 10 reasons to not trust online dating sites

[GiveMeGore]

Watching this changes my view of Kevin Smith as a filmmaker.  This movie is his maturing point.  The appearance of Stephen Root, Kevin Pollack, and John Goodman would make you think that there’s going to be a comic scene in this.  If you go into this expecting comedy, you’ll be really upset, though the ending is the most light-hearted part of the movie...sorry, no spoilers.  This movie is dark, visceral, and unforgiving.  I gladly welcome it into the horror family and applaud Kevin Smith for what is easily his best effort.

I watched Red State saturday night.

GC......are you serious, man? Maturing point for Kevin Smith? May I ask what is mature about 35 minutes of gun fire exchange, between local cops and a handful of Jesus freaks who really hate fags? One of the most ridiciulous sequences I've ever seen.

The first act is pretty solid. Really funny. Really cool stuff overall. I thought the preacher was awesome. This opening rant (although a little slow) was pretty creepy in the end as well as being pretty funny in a macabre sorta way. Then from there on in, the movie is a joke. AK47 blazing.....it was like Saving Private Ryan at Church. Fucking stupid. No style. Very little horror aspects at all. Barely worth mentioning on a horror site. Once again GC, couldnt disagree with you more.

[GeneralCinema]

Watching this changes my view of Kevin Smith as a filmmaker.  This movie is his maturing point.  The appearance of Stephen Root, Kevin Pollack, and John Goodman would make you think that there’s going to be a comic scene in this.  If you go into this expecting comedy, you’ll be really upset, though the ending is the most light-hearted part of the movie...sorry, no spoilers.  This movie is dark, visceral, and unforgiving.  I gladly welcome it into the horror family and applaud Kevin Smith for what is easily his best effort.

I watched Red State saturday night.

GC......are you serious, man? Maturing point for Kevin Smith? May I ask what is mature about 35 minutes of gun fire exchange, between local cops and a handful of Jesus freaks who really hate fags? One of the most ridiciulous sequences I've ever seen.

The first act is pretty solid. Really funny. Really cool stuff overall. I thought the preacher was awesome. This opening rant (although a little slow) was pretty creepy in the end as well as being pretty funny in a macabre sorta way. Then from there on in, the movie is a joke. AK47 blazing.....it was like Saving Private Ryan at Church. Fucking stupid. No style. Very little horror aspects at all. Barely worth mentioning on a horror site. Once again GC, couldnt disagree with you more.

GMG, yes I'm serious.  Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one and yours stinks.

[GiveMeGore]

The funny thing is GC.......those bat-shit-crazy assholes sitting in that church in Red State pretty much have the same opinion you do     

The last half of this movie is just a joke though, in all honesty. It was like a poor mans attempt at the opening sequence of The Devils Rejects.....except with no style.

2 outa 10 reasons not to go on Craigslist, looking to tag team some slut with your boys. *Not a dating website*

"Dark, visceral, and unforgiving"    PLEASE someone watch this flick so I don't have to laugh alone.

[GeneralCinema]

The funny thing is GC.......those bat-shit-crazy assholes sitting in that church in Red State pretty much have the same opinion you do     

The last half of this movie is just a joke though, in all honesty. It was like a poor mans attempt at the opening sequence of The Devils Rejects.....except with no style.

2 outa 10 reasons not to go on Craigslist, looking to tag team some slut with your boys. *Not a dating website*

"Dark, visceral, and unforgiving"    PLEASE someone watch this flick so I don't have to laugh alone.

No, they don't have the same opinion as me.  Poor attempt at humor on your part.  Those assholes hide behind religion.  I'm against religion since it's used to control the poor and superstitious.

[Splatterscribe]

The funny thing is GC.......those bat-shit-crazy assholes sitting in that church in Red State pretty much have the same opinion you do     

I haven't seen Red State yet so  can't offer an opinion, though I have noticed elsewhere that opinions are as divided about the film as both of yours are here. 
I'm not taking sides in what is yet another spat between the two of you in any way shape or form, but I can confirm from the many times GC and I have spoken elsewhere online outside o f HW, your statement quoted above is inaccurate. He and I are a lot alike in that regard..we've discussed it at length before and both of us think Fred Phelps and his ilk (the inspiration for the preacher in Red State according to Smith )are  hateful idiots. There's an epic difference between faith-which is relating to God on a personal level in a working , living relationship- and religion, which is a series of rules and regulations created by human beings to try and provide a structure for faith to operate inside of. Sometimes religion can accentuate and help strengthen faith..I gotta tell you, the Christmas Eve services are always a highlight of my year and they are always very spiritual occasions- but when religion replaces faith entirely and the will of the people behind the religion overwhelms and eventually supplants the will of God, then you have zealots and fanatics like the people apparently depicted in this film..and GC is nothing at all like them. 

[GiveMeGore]

The funny thing is GC.......those bat-shit-crazy assholes sitting in that church in Red State pretty much have the same opinion you do     

I haven't seen Red State yet so  can't offer an opinion, though I have noticed elsewhere that opinions are as divided about the film as both of yours are here. 
I'm not taking sides in what is yet another spat between the two of you in any way shape or form, but I can confirm from the many times GC and I have spoken elsewhere online outside o f HW, your statement quoted above is inaccurate. He and I are a lot alike in that regard..we've discussed it at length before and both of us think Fred Phelps and his ilk (the inspiration for the preacher in Red State according to Smith )are  hateful idiots. There's an epic difference between faith-which is relating to God on a personal level in a working , living relationship- and religion, which is a series of rules and regulations created by human beings to try and provide a structure for faith to operate inside of. Sometimes religion can accentuate and help strengthen faith..I gotta tell you, the Christmas Eve services are always a highlight of my year and they are always very spiritual occasions- but when religion replaces faith entirely and the will of the people behind the religion overwhelms and eventually supplants the will of God, then you have zealots and fanatics like the people apparently depicted in this film..and GC is nothing at all like them. 

jesus fucking christ......  it was a joke, god damn it.     see how I quoted his "bat-shit crazy" line. Thought the pun was blatant. I'm quite aware you and GC don't spend your Sunday mornings wrapping teenagers up in saran wrap and shooting them in the domepiece......right after your Saturday afternoons pickit'n the funeral of a 24 year old townie who happened to enjoy the taste of butt pubes and nut sac residue on the weekend, with signs saying "Anal Penetration equals Eternal Damnnation". Yeah man, again, quite aware that's not your thang.

[Splatterscribe]

I'm quite aware you and GC don't spend your Sunday mornings wrapping teenagers up in saran wrap and shooting them in the domepiece......right after your Saturday afternoons pickit'n the funeral of a 24 year old townie who happened to enjoy the taste of butt pubes and nut sac residue on the weekend, with signs saying "Anal Penetration equals Eternal Damnnation". Yeah man, again, quite aware that's not your thang.

     For some reason this strikes me as extremely funny.

[Marshal Earp]

"Anal Penetration equals Eternal Damnnation"


Found my new signature.