» » Kirvis (2006)

Kirvis (2006) HD online

Kirvis (2006) HD online
Language: English
Category: Movie / Comedy / Horror
Original Title: Hatchet
Director: Adam Green
Writers: Adam Green
Released: 2006
Budget: $1,500,000
Duration: 1h 25min
Video type: Movie
A motley crew of tourists embark on a boat ride of the haunted Louisiana bayous where they learn the terrifying tale of local legend "Victor Crowley," a horribly disfigured man who was accidentally killed with a hatchet by the hands of his own father. But when the boat sinks and the ghost story turns out to be real, the group tries desperately to escape the swamp with their lives . . . and all of their pieces.


Cast overview, first billed only:
Joel David Moore Joel David Moore - Ben
Amara Zaragoza Amara Zaragoza - Marybeth Dunstan (as Tamara Feldman)
Deon Richmond Deon Richmond - Marcus
Kane Hodder Kane Hodder - Victor Crowley / Mr. Crowley
Mercedes McNab Mercedes McNab - Misty
Parry Shen Parry Shen - Shawn
Joel Murray Joel Murray - Doug Shapiro
Joleigh Fiore Joleigh Fiore - Jenna (as Joleigh Fioreavanti)
Richard Riehle Richard Riehle - Jim Permatteo
Patrika Darbo Patrika Darbo - Shannon Permatteo
Robert Englund Robert Englund - Sampson
Joshua Leonard Joshua Leonard - Ainsley
Tony Todd Tony Todd - Reverend Zombie
John Carl Buechler John Carl Buechler - Jack Cracker (as John Buechler)
Rileah Vanderbilt Rileah Vanderbilt - Young Victor Crowley

If you watch all three "Hatchet" movies in a row without opening and end credits, it would be one uninterupted storyline, revolving around a few days.

Writer and Director Adam Green created a "No CGI" rule for post-production. Only CGI was used to remove on-screen wires and camera set-ups.

Features cameos from Tony Todd (Candyman) and Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger).

When actor Joel David Moore vomits on-screen, it is real. Director Adam Green did not want the actors spitting out fake vomit, like most movies do. Though Moore managed to throw up on his own for the first take, he was supplied with a mixture of cold clam chowder and orange juice for the second take.

The horribly deformed Young Victor Crowley, is actually played by a beautiful young actress named Rileah Vanderbilt. When Make-up Effects Artist John Carl Buechler needed a model, on whom to test the latex prosthetic, Rileah was the volunteer. Since the make-up effects had already been molded to her face for the test shots, Rileah played the role in the film.

To keep the set hidden, the movie was called "Love Rodeo" during production.

During the cemetery scene, on the tombstones we see the names Sarah Elbert and Cory Neal (both producers of this film) and of Writer and Director Adam Green.

This movie was the last production to shoot in Lousiana before Hurricane Katrina hit. Parry Shen (Shawn), took part in all three Hatchet movies and Victor Crowley (2017), shot in Louisiana.

A hatchet, per definition, is a small axe with a single bit, or blade. Thus, the poster image axe is not, in fact, a hatchet.

The t-shirt with the odd-looking smiley face on it is the logo for Newbury Comics, a New England chain that sells CDs, DVDs, and comic books. Writer and Director Adam Green grew up in Massachusetts, and would buy his horror movies and action figures from there.

In all three of the Hatchet films, someone says the line, "You've got to be fucking kidding me." This time it's spoken by Ben (Joel David Moore).

The ringtone on Misty's cellphone is "I Don't Want To Wait", performed by by Paula Cole.

In the cemetery, there is a crypt with the name "GREEN" written over the entrance. This is a reference to director Adam Green.

Kane Hodder and Robert Englund appeared on Fear Clinic (2014).

Robert Englund and Tony Todd appeared on Chuck (2007).

Robert Englund and Joel David Moore appeared on Bones (2005).

Adam Green: One of the people in the group of friends at the start of the film.

Victor Crowley only kills one person (on-screen) with a Hatchet.

Body Count: eleven (Including Mr. Crowley).

Mercedes McNab appeared in Addams Family Values (1993). As a teen girl at camp, her quote "I'll be the victim," to which Wednesday Addams (Christina Ricci) responds "All your life," plays true in this movie as she becomes Hatchet's victim.

Reviews: [25]

  • avatar

    Rocky Basilisk

    I don't know why I'm surprised. Hollywood just can't make a scary movie anymore. My wife and I are big New Orleans fans so when we heard a movie was shot on location there, we jumped at the chance to see it. This wasn't even B movie bad. I don't know why you would spend all of that money to make a bad movie. How hard could it have been to make a scary movie about a "Jason -like " character in the Louisianna swamp? The cast was do able, the plot was do able, even the humor was there, it just wasn't scary. The first ten minutes of the film are OK.Its Mardi Gras in the French quarter, so there's lots of bare breasts(which is nice)and some semi funny dialouge. After that, its downhill all the way to corny ville
  • avatar


    The tag-line "Old School American Horror" is a little misleading. While it's true that "Hatchet" recalls the mad gore of the 1980s, the "horror" factor is actually absent. Watching the film feels more like viewing a condensed reel of slasher kills with a few drunk and fun-loving friends - certainly not a bad thing, but not exactly a horror movie either. That being said, it's obvious that the people involved in the production have a real love for the genre. Kane Hodder's monster antics are always a delight, and Adam Green will definitely be a name to watch in the future.

    In summary, I'd certainly recommend the film for anyone who gets a kick out of the slasher craze of the 80s, but be sure you're in the mood for goofy fun and not an actual horror flick.
  • avatar


    Writing a review for Hatchet is almost pointless. Devotees of the horror genre will see this no matter what is written. In fact, a certain rhetorically named fan-boy website that prides itself on cool news has already lauded the movie's villain as the next horror icon. While I wouldn't be too sure about that, Hatchet does make one thing clear at least, and that's that writer/director Adam Green has undeniable talent.

    Structured largely as a parody of the Friday the 13th films, Hatchet casts legendary Jason Voorhees stand-in Kane Hodder as Victor Crowley, the deformed son of a backwoods Louisiana bayou fisherman (also played by Hodder), who was presumed killed years earlier in a house fire started by a bunch of tormenting local kids.

    Green follows the stock formula for such movies: take a bunch of folks, find an excuse to strand them in monster country, and let the audience revel in watching them get picked off one-by-one.

    Where Green excels, however, is in his smartly written, comically-paced script that is chalk full of genuinely funny inside jokes that are blatant winks at the audience and along the way establish more of a bond with Sean of the Dead than Halloween.

    In terms of horror movies, there's nothing going on here that is particularly inventive or even scary, but Green clearly isn't out to achieve that. Rather, he's paying homage to a genre that he grew up with, as is clear by the cameos he's given to icons Robert Englund (Nightmare on Elm Street) and Tony Todd (Candyman and numerous others).

    Bolstered by good acting, top notch production values, and intentionally rubbery costume effects, Hatchet panders to the fan-boy crowd in glorious revelry. Clearly Green knows his audience likes to sit back, kick the Fangoria magazines off the couch, and watch somebody take a belt sander in their kisser.

    While I think labeling Victor Crowley as the next horror icon in the same vein as Jason, Michael Myers, and Freddy is complete preposterousness, saying Adam Green is someone to keep an eye on is a more realistic, and complimentary laurel.
  • avatar


    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.
  • avatar


    A bunch of the usual idiots are in a boat going through a swamp in New Orleans. Naturally the swamp supposedly has the ghost of a deformed maniacal man. Naturally the boat hits a rock and everybody has to get ashore. And naturally the maniac is alive and well (somehow) and goes after all of them.

    As you can see this is totally by the numbers. There's no explanation of how this thing is still alive after so many years and he seems to be able to teleport to exactly where the victims are--there are at least five instances where he appears someplace that it was impossible for him to get to. Hasn't this insulting cliché been played out already? And nothing kills him (of course). All the passengers are the same clichés we've seen before--there's the slutty girls, the horny older guy, the nice guy, the nice girl, the elderly couple... I was actually getting pretty annoyed that these were trotted out again in a movie.

    In some ways it'll give the undiscriminating horror fan what he wants--blood and boobs. Before the opening credits two people are literally torn apart (one is amusingly played by Robert Englund) and there's at least 10 pairs of nude breast shots in the first 15 minutes alone! This gets a 5 because it wasn't unwatchable. It moves fairly swiftly and the cast were actually pretty good. They're not going to win any awards but they pulled off their roles. The script has some purposely funny lines and I did laugh a few times. Also the gore was pretty explicit. I'm not surprised that it was cut for an R rating.

    So, if you're a horror fan, you've seen this before. But if there's nothing else at the video store or on TV this is an OK time waster.
  • avatar


    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.
  • avatar


    Over-the-Top Gory and Violent Louisiana Swamp Slasher Comedy.

    Good: The cast and acting works. Well above average for the genre. The violence and gore is mostly kept on-screen and in focus. No CGI, just good old special effects. Extra points for real vomiting. While this is a pretty gory movie, it is actually a comedy, with varying degrees of success. The violence serves as a comedic aspect parallel to the jokes. And it works, for the most part.

    The killings, that is.

    Bad: The verbal humor is admittedly also better than average for the genre, but it gets too much for my taste. This movie doesn't even try to be scary, and the cast are yapping on, sit-com style, throughout the movie. Luckily they haven't screwed it up as much as they could have, and the verbal humor does serve as a build-up to hysterical bursts of laughter during the killing scenes. It works and is funny at times, but it's just too much overall.

    The villain's back story is thin, goofy and uninteresting. Crowley himself works sometimes, but sometimes not. He's certainly no new Jason or Michael in my opinion.

    However, despite all its flaws, I felt entertained. While there are much fewer and "shorter" killings in this film, I can't remember seeing something this in-your-face gory since Braindead. The over-the-top gore and the sickly hilarious ways in which it's presented are this movie's strong points, while the plot and (partially) the humor are its weak points.
  • avatar


    This review is after I saw a viewing of the uncut/unrated DVD version at the Horror Hound convention in Indianapolis on Nov. 16, 2007.

    The movie to me, is pretty much a variation of "The Burning" in my opinion. There are a lot of things similar in the plot department. The basic story is some people want to go on a haunted tour in the New Orleans swamps, and they get their wish along with a story about the spirit of a Victor Crowley who was hideously deformed at birth, and accidentally hit in the head with a hatchet by his Father when their house caught fire, the Father was trying to save him. So the Father has long since died from grief, but old disfigured hatchet in the face Victor is supposed to still be around there in spirit. The boat the people are taking the tour on hits some rocks and starts to sink, so they have to go to land, and that's when they come up on Victor's former house. It's not long until Victor shows up, and he's portrayed by Kane Hodder with some pretty fair makeup. It's slicing and dicing time with plenty of blood and some excellent gore, that I'm afraid people going to see the theatrical version will miss. There's nothing original and all that great about this movie, it's basically just another slasher film with some obvious humor, and excellent gore effects. The main thing myself and what I heard from other people after it was over, is the ending really sucks. I won't say anymore, because I know many out there haven't seen it yet, but this first "Hatchet" almost seems like an introduction to the sequel, which is already in the works. Now get this, "Hatchet" is being released next month on both DVD and in the theaters, and all ready, the sequel is pretty much ready to start. So I guess, Victor is supposed to be the new Jason, Freddy, and Michael, all rolled up into one. All I have to say about that, is bullshit. Don't end a frigging movie like they did, totally setting up a sequel. For that reason, I came away with a rather negative feeling, even though I loved all the blood and gore. I think "Hatchet" is being over-hyped, in fact, WAY over-hyped, and a lot of horror/gore fans are going to be a little let down, especially with the awful ending.
  • avatar


    OK, I'm not wasting my time with details and length.

    I'll simply put it, this Movie is horrible and boring, avoid it unless you enjoy brainless low-budget splatter-films with no heart.

    Everything happens so random, and isn't even exciting, nor does it have suspense. It starts off with a bunch of guys in some town celebrating something, I don't know what though and there's naked women everywhere (oh yeah, thats probably why it has fans... They had to throw in topless women to sell this piece of junk). One of the mates gets sick of this place and wants to leave, and his mate follows him for a reason I forgot. They decide to take a cruise on some boat, accompanied by a bunch of other people (2 being porno-stars who think their on their way to stardom, but the guy who's taking the video is just a sick pervert). Well they start traveling through some swampy place and the boat ends up breaking down I think, I can't remember. So they have to get on land, and one of the guy gets bitten by a Crocodile (oh really? how sad...) After awhile they realize the land they are on is were a deranged and deformed psychopath lives (which was a "made up legend"). He slowly kills them in the most stupidest of ways, it looks very fake (for how new it is) so you wont cringe.

    Thing is, they are all so STUPID! they start yelling and shouting over bullshit when hes after them, and don't even shoot when hes attacking someone... Oh, don't add any realism why don't ya...

    I really can't remember this Movie and I don't care, it's was pathetic. If you enjoy brainless splatters as I've said, you may enjoy this (small budget so don't expect much). If you're like me and prefer Movies with soul and character, that build up on their characters and have an actual plot etc... You'll spew on this worthless garbage. I didn't even care when they died at the end, they p***** me off with their stupidity.
  • avatar


    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.
  • avatar


    Let me just give you guys some advice, if your going to watch this movie just to see a bunch of unlikable characters get slaughtered in a dozen different ways then you are going to love this movie because everyone dies a horrible death, beyond the gore however there is not much else.

    where should i start: -the characters do not appeal to the audience as there are no back stories for any of them, there for i didn't feel connected to any of them, in fact i didn't like any of them, and i was so sick of them that by the end of the movie i was rooting for the disfigured creep to kill them all.(which he did by the way)

    -bad acting; i mean i didn't get it, take the Asian tour guide for example, first he spoke perfect English then after their little tour boat thing sunk he somehow got an accent out of the blue, then later on went to speaking normal English.

    -one of the worst endings for a horror:(if you can call it that)after the monster/human mutant thing kills almost everyone, he is killed by the last two remaining idiots, or so they thought! the monster/human thing is finally killed when the beauty and the geek stick a pole through its heart/nick(it was hard to tell)and presumably it died right in front of them(within arms reach) but later on it comes back and kills them(wtf) i mean why didn't it just kill them when he was right next to them. Arghhhh! i mean it was just way too retarded,it was like the writer didn't know where he wanted the story to go.(or he was a few minutes short of 80 min so he added some more retarded twists to the movie so people can get 80min worth of crap instead of 75min.

    what i didn't get was why didn't they just kill the damned thing while it was unconscious, instead they just walked away from it like idiots and left it so it could come back and kill them. the only reason i gave it a 4 was because of the gore which was actually the only thing that i watched this movie to the end for, that and to watch them all get killed.(no, i'm serious)
  • avatar


    Hatchet (2006) is another of those modern horror movies that tries to copy the magic of 80's horror's, although it did have some sort of 80's feel, it just didn't have much else.

    The storyline was boring and predictable, and i didn't really care for any of the characters either, and some people have "TRIED" to claim that Victor Crowley, is the next horror icon......... Don't MAKE ME LAUGH!!!!! Anyway, the story is about a group of people who decide to go on a haunted swamp tour and they get hunted down and killed off one by one by a disfigured killer. It's all rather boring and predictable and just average to be honest, it's only saving grace is the gory death scenes, of which some were very good. So all in all, i give Hatchet 5/10.
  • avatar


    Some of the reviewers of this film were extremely "generous" with praise. I personally was disappointed, because due to those reviews, I was optimistic as the opening credits began to roll.

    The all-too familiar story line goes like this: Deformed boy and his father live out in Louisiana swamp. Local boys ridicule and torment him. Local boys start Gruesome's, oh sorry, I mean Victor Crowley's cabin on fire with him in it. Dad attempts to rescue his son, formerly known as Eddie Munster meets the Elephant Man, but accidentally puts a hatchet through the kid's head instead. Victor becomes a murderous ghost who hunts down unfortunates who enter his domain. Oooo... scary.

    One thing I appreciated about Hatchet was that it never took itself seriously and some of the gags even made me laugh. The thing is, I've grown tired of the Hollywood-polished, B-horror slap-sticks. I like to laugh and I enjoy a good scare, but this film didn't deliver a solid dose of either. As for Crowley being the next Michael, Jason, or Freddy... Pumpkinhead has a better chance.
  • avatar


    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.
  • avatar


    Any horror film that casts Robert Englund (Freddie Kruger!) then kills him in the opening 5 minutes before the opening credits have even run should be instantly viewed with nothing but suspicion.

    Tony Todd (Candyman!) as a swamp tour guide (his James Earl Jones voice impression is hysterical by the way, I don't know or care if he was trying to be funny but I was laughing at it). Sadly his role was all of 5 minutes long as well. More reasons for suspicion and quite rightly so.

    Mercedes McNab (AKA Harmony from Buffy & Angel, I had to look her up to see what I remembered her from but she gets semi-naked!), Marcus the token black guy (Not Another Teen Movie) is filling a comedy role that really isn't required in a horror movie unless it's intended as a spoof.

    Joel Murray (Bill Murray's brother & Pete from Dharma & Greg) plays Shapiro, the guy shooting the gonzo video with the 2 cute girls. As they take a "Spooky Swap Ghost Tour" the 2 lead male characters meet up with some other folks and get run aground on rocks and have to leave the boat. So their now all isolated in the swamp at night in the rain.

    Once the real story of Victor Crowley has been told (his make-up looked like Sloth from The Goonies) we have established he is dead (well you aren't coming back from being hit in the skull by an Axe!) Once the old guy is attacked, despite pulling her gun and having a very clear shot it takes Marybeth more than 30 seconds to actually start firing at a guy who is hacking an old man apart with a hatchet. Is she stupid? Thats 29 second too long! In terms of plot there really isn't one (I don't class undead psycho as a plot, sorry) and the pacing is really bad as well. You have a killing, some running away, some light relief then some slow dialogue before beginning the cycle again.

    After an extremely long scene investigating a wobbly bush with a raccoon in it Victor appears again (with some sort of power tool) and kills the dark haired porno girl, he also manages to slice the tour guide in half with a Shovel? Once Misty is left on her own to keep lookout for Ben I felt it was pretty obvious she was going to be the next to die (I was right but you don't get to see it).

    Film makers? Rain will NOT extinguish burning gasoline, OK? Idiots! Obviously after the 2 near misses in the cemetery Marcus was next to die and Ben was hurt in the foot with the spike but they managed to find a boat after impaling Victor on the spike.

    She's pulled into the water by something unseen, he's trying to save her then she's suddenly pulled into the boat by Victor and is screaming and the movie abruptly ends.

    Yeah, just like that. No clue if Ben was dead (he seemed to be missing an arm) and no clue if Marybeth was going to survive and what happened with Victor.

    It's an awful ending and no doubt my verbal attack at the film makers got the last review deleted. So much for free speech, eh?
  • avatar


    I recently went to see the debut of Hatchet in NYC, and it was great: a perfect mix of graphic violence and comedy that had me screaming, cheering, cringing and laughing out loud from beginning to end. Writer/director Adam Green is the real deal, not trying to make a quick buck by following the latest box office trends. This movie pays homage to the classic horror movies (Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Candyman, etc.), and Green does it with class and wit. The actors play their parts well - they are convincing in the horror scenes and hysterical in between. Be warned: the violence is very graphic, and there is a lot of topless nudity. If you can stomach it, and if you like this genre of film, then this is the movie for you. Hatchet is pure entertainment!
  • avatar

    Tori Texer

    I read the recent comments and couldn't wait to see the movie. however, after sitting through 80 minutes of predictable "suprises" that didn't even make me jump and unrealistic villain, i was left hugely disappointed. I thought cartoons were the only movies that were still only 80 minutes long. I thought this might be because of the edits to make it 'R' rated, but the original only contained ten more minutes of "Kill Bill" type blood. When blood sprays out like hoses, reality loses appeal. Add in the killer who's supposed to be a "ghost" but can rip someones head off from the jaw (ala King Kong with the T-Rex), lives through everything and has an ending similar to that of the sopranos finale and you quite possibly have the most over-hyped movie in the last year. After watching the movie i felt like i had seen countless movies with the same plot and method and also felt largely unsatisfied. I dunno what everyone else saw in it, but if you want a good horror movie this weekend, see Halloween, it's definitely worth the $10. When it comes to Hatchet, let's hope the next one IS based on the Book.
  • avatar


    is it just me or have all "horror" movies become nothing more than titties, slapstick, and an over the top villain who cannot be killed. this movie had no point. whatever happened to the days of a person being able to escape from the killer as in hostel. and at least make the killer a little more realistic. victor crowley was the worst killer i have ever seen. he reminded me of a demon spawn between quasimodo and leatherface. it was over the top that while victor was lying there on fire no one thought to finish the job. and the ending was the biggest disappointment of all reminiscent of the soprano's finale. i had to agree with the fella behind me when he blurted... WHAT THE F***! if i could give the movie a negative score i would have taken care of it.
  • avatar


    I went to see this film in part due to praise heaped on it by previous reviewers who had described it as clever and a fresh addition to the genre.

    And it was .. for at least the first ~45 minutes or so.

    I was immediately drawn in, the dialogue was notably above par for the genre, full of witty quips and more subtle bits of humor that reference horror classics. In the opening scenes we see notable cameos from Robert Englund ("Nightmare On Elm Street" series) and Tony Todd (of "Candyman" series fame). A respectable flashback sequence is included to introduce the "Hatchet" back story.

    And so the movie takes off running, seemingly quite well. Fresh and unique, forging a new path through the wastleland of redundant slasher flicks as "Sean of the Dead" and "Scream" had done in previous years.

    Unfortunately about half way through, this movie does a complete about-face. The witty banter is replaced with idiotic dribble more reminiscent of "I Know What You Did Last Summer" than the first half of the film. It's almost as if they fired an adept writer halfway through the script and replaced him with the proverbial thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters.

    At this point the dam breaks, and the tired clichés pour through in droves. We are treated to a prolonged scene of foliage inspection and other such nonsense to fill the reel between death scenes. The characters repeatedly wait to flee screaming in panic until *after* they have disabled or incapacitated the title baddie. The only dread anticipation built in the second half is whether this film will be the schoolbus that was hit by the train, or the one that managed to avoid it.

    Once the gore fest begins, it is eerily reminiscent of early "Troma" titles, over the top and fatuous. The "Hatchet" character even seems like it might have been modeled from the "Toxic Avenger". I can appreciate the merits of a lawn sprinkler arterial spray or projectile vomiting, on occasion, but modern film gore effects really have no excuse to still be of that "BrainDead" visual quality.

    Despite the dual personalities of this film, I think it still manages to hack out a few good parts.

    • 5/10 -
  • avatar


    Saying this movie is worse than asphyxiating on your own diarrhea is a generous understatement. The only thing more pathetic than this reprehensible piece of garbage of a movie is the shmuck getting paid by the producers to register a bunch of accounts to post fake appraise.

    If watching a poorly-acted, suspenseless, snoozer of a movie about Sloth from the Goonies kill people in a fashion that completely ignores every law of physics (pulling on an unrestrained person's legs, causing them to be ripped from the torso) is your idea of a good movie, then knock yourself out.

    No carbon-based lifeform with a functioning occipital lobe would consider in a million eons that this movie is scary or entertaining.
  • avatar


    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...
  • avatar


    If this stupid movie is supposedly refreshing and old school, how far back are they talking about? It was nothing like the ones I loved in the 70's & 80's. I thought Rob Zombie's Halloween remake was the worst movie i've seen this year until I saw this garbage! I walked out after the first hour it was so bad and I never do that. Even Robert Englund and Tony Todd were not enough to keep it interesting.They must have either been desperate for a paycheck or paid a lot of money for their small roles.I am shocked at all the praise and positive comments about this movie.It is pretty sad that anyone found this retarded movie good. Adam Green your movie sucks!There is nothing creepy or impressive about it. You should just direct porn since you are so obsessed with womens breasts.Some of the women in the audience looked uncomfortable.I lost count how many times I saw tities! You have no talent as a writer or directer. From the embarrassingly bad 1st scene, I new the rest was gonna be just as bad.The homophobic dialog wasn't really necessary either,but then Adam Green also wrote the script. The cast of this horrible movie were ugly as hell and couldn't act worth sh*t.The desperate to get laid black guy "Marcus" trying to be funny was painful to watch, and the annoying Chinese tour guide "Shawn" with the fake Southern accent was enough to make you wanna slit your wrists it was so bad. Some idiot described this trash as the next icon of horror and actually had the nerve to say it was scary.What is scary and truly frightening is how many people liked it. There is just not any good American horror movies anymore.Once in awhile something good and decent does comes along though,but movies like Hatchet have turned the genre in to a joke.
  • avatar


    Trying to get over his girlfriend leaving him, Ben (Joel David Moore) joins his friends in New Orleans for Mardi Gras, where there are plenty of women to go around. But Ben doesn't want women, he wants adventure, so he goes off on a haunted swamp tour... but as luck would have it, one of the haunted tales has a grain of truth to it: Victor Crowley is prowling the swamps!

    Is Moore the new go-to guy for horror? While he's more memorable in "Dodgeball", he seems to be making more appearances in horror ("The Dead One"), and I welcome it. Writer-Director Adam Green picked a good leading man. I also love that Tony Todd and Robert Englund appear as minor characters and Kane Hodder appears out of makeup or without a mask (at least part of the time). Between this film and "Leslie Vernon", it seems like there's an effort to move the main horror veterans of this era (the 1980s-1990s) to the background and bring in new faces. And if these two films are any example, it's working.

    This film is working in the 1980s style: it's just plain fun. Some level of plot development is here, but not really any more than is needed -- the focus is strictly on the slashing of the heroes and on showing excessive blood spray. We have a hero (actually a heroine) who sort of knows what is going on and henchmen who just die (think "Evil Dead II"). And for the beginning of the film, we have humor and nudity. Hooray! (Actually, there's nudity here and there throughout the film.)

    The best part of this film -- the blood -- is also the worst part. If you want something more than brainless slasher, you have the wrong film. There's no deep thinking here, and the background of the monster doesn't make a lot of sense. How does he survive attacks and fire? Who knows? And even as the film progresses, there's no shift to moving the plot forward... don't expect some big revelation or anything, because you won't find it in this film. Just kids running in the woods.

    Listening to the commentary is a great way to learn how to make a film with no budget and how to set it in New Orleans when there is no New Orleans -- reuse extras as much as possible, shoot scenes with doors in other cities so the actors don't have to travel... and many other little tricks. Adam Green may be a genius in this regard, pushing low budget to its most beautiful extreme.

    This film was given to horror fans as the answer to the drought in horror goodness, and I think they may have over-hyped it. I know it won a variety of awards at film festivals, and I'm not going to say it didn't deserve them. But this also isn't going to be the best film you'll see all year, so if you've been holding out for a hero, this won't be the film, probably. Sorry, Bonnie Tyler. But it is good... very good, for what it is.
  • avatar


    When it made the rounds in various film festivals in 2006 and 2007, Hatchet was met with a degree of warmth from the genre press. Directed by Adam Green, it was hailed as a successful throwback to the slasher film era of the 1980s, albeit with its tongue planted in its cheek. It garnered enough success to even spawn a sequel which was infamously released into AMC theaters nationwide unrated and then yanked only a day later after complaints of the violence and gore. With all this hullaballoo, Hatchet piqued my interest as something that I would be willing to give a spin to. Unfortunately, I was very mistaken in my belief that it was worth the 1 hour and a half of my life that was consumed to watch Hatchet. Repetitive, silly, and completely lacking in suspense are what comes to my mind when I think of Hatchet, and that is being relatively kind to it.

    I was a horror film fan in the 1980s, and readily watched various entries in the Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre series, among others. While I would not consider any of them exemplary films by my current standards of quality, they still hold a special place in my memory as films that I enjoyed in my youth, perhaps for questionable reasons, but we are all adolescents at one point in our life. As I remember this period of filmmaking well, I can certainly recognize where Adam Green drew inspiration for Hatchet, but, frankly, he has assembled a film that is far more inept and valueless than even some of the worst 80s slasher films.

    The plot, of which there is little, goes as follows: Ben (Joel David Moore) and his friend Marcus (Deon Richmond) are visiting Mardi Gras in New Orleans to help Ben take his mind off a recent bad breakup. Ben grows weary of the endless stream of booze and topless women that the French Quarter has to offer up and convinces Marcus to join him on a "Haunted Swamp" tour. The tour is run by shady guide Shawn (Parry Shen), and includes an older couple (Richard Riehle, Patricia Darbo), a porn movie director (Joel Murray), his two "actresses" (Mercedes McNabb, Joleigh Fioravanti) who are often sans shirts, and one quiet withdrawn young woman, Marybeth (Tamara Feldman). They all pile in a boat on the edge of the swamp, venture in, the boat wrecks on some rocks and then when they have to evacuate, Marybeth reveals that the swamp is the hunting ground of Victor Crowley, the ghost of a young deformed boy who was accidentally killed by his loving father when he was a child. Shockingly, Victor Crowley (or his ghost) is not exactly child sized any more, and possesses enough brute strength to off anyone who enters his woods in various gruesome ways. It becomes a race against time for the various shipwrecked individuals to make their way back to civilization with all body parts intact.

    If you are interested in watching a film put forth a great deal of effort to create some of the goriest, most over the top, no holds barred violent death scenes in recent memory, then pop Hatchet in the DVD player, sit back and enjoy. Hatchet is a gorehound's wet dream, with each death more outrageous than the last, often intercut with shots of blood and viscera splashing onto nearby trees. However, if you like suspense, tension, vaguely interesting characters or most of the other elements that make up a good movie, then keep on moving, nothing to see here. Hatchet accomplishes the quite amazing feat of becoming monotonous within the first 20 minutes, as we are treated to the film's shoddy attempts to set up the characters with some jokey humor, and while there are a few chuckles here and there, most of it falls flat on its face. Once the film reaches the swamp, you can be forgiven for at least thinking there would be lip service paid to providing a few scares to go along with the copious bloodletting, but aside from one or two "Boo" moments, Hatchet manages to completely fail in that department as well.

    What's worse is that even when Hatchet is aping some of the cornerstone elements of slasher films, what ends up on the screen is amateurish at best. The token flashback scene to Victor's youth and tragic accident comes off as if it was filmed by some teenagers making their own horror film in their backyard, and once Victor Crowley is revealed, he more or less just repeatedly jumps out of bushes and eviscerates the nearest victim. No buildup, no sense of dread, just a big guy in a bunch of latex making fast work of the cast one by one. There is no moment of concern for any of the characters, they are more or less types, and nothing about them proves interesting or endearing in the slightest. They exist to provide raw material for the film's violence, nothing more.

    The actors are generally competent, there are a few cameos that will make horror film aficionados chuckle to themselves, the special makeup effects are impressive at times and the camera work doesn't descend into the shaky cam trend that has become the norm in some horror films, but that is about all I can say positive about Hatchet. Unless you are there to see the buckets of gore, it provides nothing of value to the audience, except for the realization at the end that perhaps you might not see a movie as bad as Hatchet again any time soon.
  • avatar


    Simple: A s*** review for a even worse of a movie.

    I'll sum it up quickly.

    If you enjoy over-the-top gore, pointless & bland scripts with terrible acting and a low-budget. Than this will satisfy you (I doubt it though.) I can barely even remember this Movie, thank-god, it was that terrible. I only remember a boring and thoughtless plot with horrific actors. I didn't give two-s**** who died, it wasn't even disgusting to compensate for how horrid it was. And what the f**** up with hookers flashing their tits every 5 seconds? they even started yelling and screaming with a "psycho killer" closing in on them, w******. This is as fun as spewing up your mind on the concrete.