I downloaded this because it looked great and the reviewer said "Greater than Saw!"
Needles to say it was the biggest heap of *beep* I've ever seen. NOT RECOMMENDED.
www.jastewart.co.uk - David Cross & Patton Oswalt Bootlegs
This is probably the worst film I have ever seen. And it simply doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. They travel around killing people, and never get caught, even though they make the most basic blunders known to man: if you are going to murder someone, don't make it a friend whom is over for the night! But then they don't get caught, or even questioned (well, one does, but briefly). Point is, with their limited intellect, they wouldn't be available to star in the film in the first place: they'd all have got caught ages ago! This film is so low-grade it made me doubt how on earth it ever made it onto video.
share'Lenny' has to be the most predictable, but similarly dissapointing let down since George Bush was re-elected.
www.jastewart.co.uk - David Cross & Patton Oswalt Bootlegs
It's definately one of the worst horror movies I've ever seen. And there is no way its greater than Saw. Saw is much more graphic, and the story is so much better.
Ignorance is toxic.
I don't think it is even compareable to saw. It looks like the director tried to make an arty film, but even looking at it from an arty point of view, it is still very bad.
www.jastewart.co.uk - David Cross & Patton Oswalt Bootlegs
OK, you people are all !@#$%^ idiots. Hamiltons was an amazing horror movie, because it focused more on actual creepy atmosphere as opposed to a ton of blood and gore. BLOOD AND GORE = SLASHER!!!!! Hamiltons was an amazing movie with an awesome twist at the end. THEY WERE NOT WEREWOLVES THEY ARE VAMPIRES!!!!!!!!!! It had good writing, a great cast, and hoping for a sequal. It was not the scariest, but definately one of the better horror movies I've seen in a LONG time. Maybe you kiddies should stick to Scream, and other slashers.
shareThere was no atmosphere. I didn't feel suspense, mystery or fear. I actually didn't even care aboot Lenny.
Whoever thought that they were werewolves? Even the acting was ropey in the movie.
If you're thinking that they didn't want to make a film with a 'ton of blood' in it, why is the dvd cover the dead girl in a bath COVERED in blood?
www.jastewart.co.uk - David Cross & Patton Oswalt Bootlegs
This movefully was painfully slow. I would have enjoyed it at maybe 45 minutes long. But I found myself fastforwarding a lot because it was showing them walking around and going places constantly in real time. I knew the payout at the end of the movie would not be worth all the time watching if I hadn't fastforwarded it.
The main characters acting was atrocious!
The social services guy was an idiot. Could that household have been any more disfunctional?
Also, there's an old similar version of this movie that was a "Monsters" episode I believe. But it was funny and had werewolves instead. It stars Jerry Stiller as the Father werewolf. THAT was a hell of a lot more entertaining than this movie.
And why is the kid a vampire and yet it took the other brother til he was like 16 or something to become one?
Thanks for ruining the ending, jackass.
share
haha, someone actually defending this heap of crap! Thats too funny, stick to scream??? What the hell are you talking about?! Im a veteran horror movie fan okay i know horror, and this movie was a waste of my time. I was LAUGHING because the actors sucked so bad. No gore, horrible acting, slow pace. I guess if your into making out w/ your sister, its a good film. *beep* stupid hick.
"Never rat on your friends, and always keep your mouth shut"
JZwetz87 (and others that mentioned it in this thread) thanks for the SPOILER ALERT there!
Was just about to sit down and watch this, came on a thread with no SPOILER ALERT in the thread title to see what people's opinions were to get a vague idea of what I was letting myself in for, so thanks for spoiling the ending.
Put a SPOILER WARNING in next time yeah :(
"I'm gonna punch you in the ovary...straight shot, right in the baby maker!" - Anchorman
@JZwetz87:
Thanks a lot, idiot, for spoiling the ending. Not that it matters, because this "film" spoiled itself more than anybody could have.
It seems these days, now that HD camcorders are so cheap, that all sorts of wannabe Spielbergs are coming out of the woodwork and making inept trash like this. That's bad enough, but then it's marketed as if it were a real film, and there are enough suckers out there who don't know the difference that they manage to get it into some sort of limited release. You are obviously one of the suckers.
The acting was pathetic; the production has CAMCORDER written all over it; the script has holes you could drive a Hummer through; all in all it's the biggest let-down since the re-election of Dubya. (to steal a lovely phrase from another poster)
Nuff said. Awful movie. Actually a really awful movie.
I dunno, maybe I've seen alot more horror movies than you have, but this is definitely NOT the worst horror movie I've ever seen. Not even close. This one had me guessing as to what exactly what was wrong with these people. I thought they were some kind of weird cannibals, but the unknown entity banging around in the boarded up room had me thinking Werewolf, too. Yeah, it moved a little slow, but I thought is was pretty good as far as low budget horror movies go.
Yes, Saw is better because it's more graphic.
*headdesk*
Please, explain to me the the reasoning behind this argument.
I don't think it's comparable to Saw, but I still think that this movie is a good one. You can't trust reviews that'll compare a Horror thriller (Saw, where the action starts at the very beginning, creating conflict for the main charecters' metal, physical, and emotional states) to a (probably) supernatural thriller (like Carrie, and that film seemed restrained and slow for most of the first half-3/4. The real action happens at the end. Sound familiar?)
Seriously guys, if you wanted a lot of blood and gore, go to a slasher (like JZwetz said). Sure it's artsy and all but it's honestly good. I thought they were cannibals, not vampires.
They are messy and make a lot of mistakes, but thats why they move around a lot. If you actually watch the movie, everything makes sense. Like,
Why did they kill Darlene and Wendell kill Kitty when they'd obviously would be suspects? Kitty cut her finger and they smelled the blood, which put them into "kill drive", like when Francis killed Sam.
-or-
What the hell was up with Lenny? If you payed attention to the home videos, their mom was pregnant with another kid. Francis said that only his mom and dad died, plus with the constant references about bringing him out of the cage early like they did Francis, it'd be kinda obvious (if you thought about it) that Lenny was the youngest brother. It would make sense if they locked him up when he couldn't control himself as well as the others (after all he's younger and doesn't know what the hell was going on.).
-or-
Why is there a bloody girl in a tub on the cover? Because they drunk her blood, plain and simple. They showed that scene in the movie. Plus truly gory movies would have something more trivial on the front, for example, the Saw logo or the Pumpkin on the Halloween covers. They wouldn't give away such a good graphic for a cover, then some people will just stray away from it (as opposed to when they put a less graphic cover on). The thing that predicts what kind of movie it will be is the trailer, and the trailer for The Hamiltons wasn't gory. I mean, a kid with a camera walking down a road? If you don't like artsy films, you'd stop right there?
Plus, if you thought the movie sucked, why are you in it's forum? I mean, if Saw was so much better to you guys, why not go to THAT forum?
[deleted]
I agree with blazikengirl29
:I don't think it's comparable to Saw, but I still think that this movie is a good one. You can't trust reviews that'll compare a Horror thriller (Saw, where the action starts at the very beginning, creating conflict for the main charecters' metal, physical, and emotional states) to a (probably) supernatural thriller (like Carrie, and that film seemed restrained and slow for most of the first half-3/4. The real action happens at the end. Sound familiar?)
Seriously guys, if you wanted a lot of blood and gore, go to a slasher (like JZwetz said). Sure it's artsy and all but it's honestly good. I thought they were cannibals, not vampires.
They are messy and make a lot of mistakes, but thats why they move around a lot. If you actually watch the movie, everything makes sense. Like,
Why did they kill Darlene and Wendell kill Kitty when they'd obviously would be suspects? Kitty cut her finger and they smelled the blood, which put them into "kill drive", like when Francis killed Sam.
-or-
What the hell was up with Lenny? If you payed attention to the home videos, their mom was pregnant with another kid. Francis said that only his mom and dad died, plus with the constant references about bringing him out of the cage early like they did Francis, it'd be kinda obvious (if you thought about it) that Lenny was the youngest brother. It would make sense if they locked him up when he couldn't control himself as well as the others (after all he's younger and doesn't know what the hell was going on.).
-or-
Why is there a bloody girl in a tub on the cover? Because they drunk her blood, plain and simple. They showed that scene in the movie. Plus truly gory movies would have something more trivial on the front, for example, the Saw logo or the Pumpkin on the Halloween covers. They wouldn't give away such a good graphic for a cover, then some people will just stray away from it (as opposed to when they put a less graphic cover on). The thing that predicts what kind of movie it will be is the trailer, and the trailer for The Hamiltons wasn't gory. I mean, a kid with a camera walking down a road? If you don't like artsy films, you'd stop right there? '
I think the review above was accurate
anyway
I liked this movie - it was way better than id hoped - sure the acting was at times a little ropey (the only similarity to saw)
but its different enough and interesting
I'm of the opinion that anyone someone refers to a movie to express how good the movie they just saw is...then it usually is setup for a letdown.
However, this is an entertaining movie. If I said, "its decent, watch it", you'd come out saying it was alright and not a waste of time, but not great. I tell you "hey, this thing could have been directed by Scorcese!" then of course you'd think this thing sucked.
Bottom line, on its own merits, its a decent flick.
This movie was boring and was not better than saw.
shareI agree. I thought this movie was the WORST piece of trash I seen in a long time.
It was the bottom two or three of the Horrorfest.
Truly awful and terribly made..
I could not believe that this is even classified as horror.
It's some kind of sibling drama, and horribly terrible as that too.
Ive seen my fare share of ropey horror movies, this is way up on the crappy pile..... So dissapointed, as some of the other Horrorfest movies were pretty good fair. Oh well, you wn some, you lose some I guess!!!!
shareThat makes it hard to compare, for those of us who thought SAW sucked the big one. Unless one is about thirteen years old, or so emotionally stunted that only extreme slasher gore will float their boat ... SAW was a waste of film.
share